Debbie Maken, Descriptive, and Delay of Marriage
I have decided to take a break from my responses to the courtship movement to, again, address the "issue" of delay of marriage. As most of you probably know, Debbie Maken has come out with a book recently advocating the position of Candace Watters in a previous post. It is endorced by Albert Mohler, so, some people, will just blindly say that it is acceptable, just as they will with Candace Watters' article. I have obtained her book Getting Serious About Getting Married, Rethinking the Gift of Singleness, and am currently working on a review of the book in full. However, it seems that some developments have taken place with this book, as it has been criticized by folks such as Dr. Andreas Kostenberger who had a short blog "debate" with here. You can read his sections here, here, and here.
Of course, Mrs. Maken has not stopped there. She has posted an article on here blog here, which I will be reviewing on this post.
With most of the beginning post on Homosexuality I agree. I will begin the section on which we disagree here:
And in order for these component pieces to carry out the objectives of a biblical marriage, God through the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth and maintain the marriage covenant faithfully. (Mal. 2:14-15). In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture. For God to mention it once is enough, five times ought to get our attention.
Mrs. Maken is going after a somewhat obscure text to prove her point here. Note the differing translations here between the ESV and the NASB:
Malachi 2:14-15 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. [ESV]
Malachi 2:14-15 "Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 "But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. [NASB]
Now, I will have to slow down a bit here and explain things. In Hebrew, adjectives can be uses substantively or predicatively. An example of the substantive use of the adjective would be "blessed are the meek." While the word "meek" is an adjective, it is here used as a noun meaning "the ones who are meek." An example of the predicative use of the adjective is "The girl is beautiful." Here, the adjective "beautiful" is describing the girl, but it follows the verb "is" which means it is predicative. This all very important in understanding this text.
In Malachi 2:15, you have the adjective ’ehād [one] (sorry for all the Hebrew majors out there. The fonts on blogger are not cooperating). The problem is knowing what the subject of the verb ‛āśâ [to do or make] is. Is it the yəhwâ [Lord] in verse 14? If this is the case, then it would yield to the translation of the ESV, of "did he [the Lord] not make [them] one?" In this case, the adjective "one" is being used predicativly. Also, this would mean that God is the subject of the next sentence, and hence, is the one seeking Godly offspring.
However, what if it is the substantival usage of the adjective "one" that is the subject of the verb ‛āśâ? In this case, it would agree with the NASB, and read something like "But not one has done [so]." In this case, the adjective "one" is functioning substantivly, and is the subject of the verb "to do."
Hence, the issue is what is the subject of verse 15. Is it "the one," or is it the Lord? Translations are clearly divided over this issue, and some do not even come close to either the NASB or the ESV, as they take other options. The point is that Debbie Maken is under obligation to prove that yəhwâ is the subject of ‛āśâ. She cannot just assume that. Of course, even if it is correct, she still has a whole host of other interpretations from other translations to deal with. However, Debbie Maken acts as if it is not even an issue, when here interpretation of "seeking Godly seed" is relying upon that specific interpretation.
Secondly, I don't know where this text in Malachi says that we are to "become one flesh." She says that "the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth..." There is just no command in the text.
Debbie Maken writes:
And in order for these component pieces to carry out the objectives of a biblical marriage, God through the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth and maintain the marriage covenant faithfully. (Mal. 2:14-15). In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture. For God to mention it once is enough, five times ought to get our attention. Some of my critics have suggested that I draw too much from this phrase, and that it was meant to be “descriptive,” not prescriptive. Why stop there? What if the Bible is merely “descriptive” as to which sex to marry? What if the story of Adam and Eve was merely “descriptive”? Is there even a yardstick by which to judge what portion of Scripture is authoritative versus God’s “take it or leave it” opinion (if indeed there ever were such a section of Scripture)? The primeval story of Adam and Even forms the underlying narrative of all of our origins. If it was just “descriptive”—a nice story that tells us about them but not us, then we are left free to choose what we want to be in spite of the story of our first father and first mother. This approach is foreign to the Apostle Paul’s logic in I Timothy 2:13, where even the order of their creation in the beginning is the normative for how we live together as man and woman. Unfortunately, the “descriptive-prescriptive” chasm is a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously.
Really? So, that must mean that because the Bible tells us in 1 Chronicles 26:2 that Meshelemiah had sons, that any couple that has only daughters is sinning? That must mean that because the Bible tells us that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, we must have 700 wives and 300 concubines or we are sinning. Apparently, if you deny these things, and use the "descriptive-prescriptive chasm," then you are, apparently, using "a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously." You cannot read the scriptures the way Debbie Maken does and come up with any viable morality.
Let us go through and take the rest of this apart.
In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture.
In error. I assume that, since she leaves the word "spouse" out of the quotes, she is referring to any word that could be taken as spouse such as ’iššâ, ba‛al, and ’allûp. If this is the case, then it is found six times: Proverbs 2:17, 5:18, Isaiah 54:6, Joel 1:8, Malachi 2:14, and 2:15.
Some of my critics have suggested that I draw too much from this phrase, and that it was meant to be “descriptive,” not prescriptive. Why stop there? What if the Bible is merely “descriptive” as to which sex to marry? What if the story of Adam and Eve was merely “descriptive”? Is there even a yardstick by which to judge what portion of Scripture is authoritative versus God’s “take it or leave it” opinion (if indeed there ever were such a section of Scripture)?
I would say that, since Debbie Maken has assumed that these phrases are prescriptive, she bears the burden of proof. Debbie Maken is correct in that someone cannot just claim that this phrase is descriptive, they must prove that these phrases are descriptive in character. However, she is also making a positive assertion, and that is that these passages are prescriptive.
However, I will take up the proof of the fact that these passages are descriptive. The standard must be the intent of the author. Did the author intend to make it prescriptive, or didn't he? In the case of the phrase spouse "of your youth," the answer is an obvious "no." The reason is because in each of these passages there is either a reference a specific person who has a wife of their youth [in which case, it is describing what they have], or a comparison to someone who has a wife of their youth [in which case, it is also descriptive because it is describing them in terms of something else]. In Proverbs 2:17 it is a reference to the adulterious woman from whom Solomon is trying to protect his "son" that has a husband of her youth. In Proverbs 5:18, it is Solomon's son who has a wife of his youth. In Malachi 2:14-15, it is the priests of 2:1.
In Joel 1:8, there is a comparison and a description being made. The people of Judah are to wail like a specific kind of virgin. They are to wail like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the wife of her youth. In other words, the phrase "girded with sackcloth for the wife of her youth" is discribing the virgin whom the people are to wail like. Here, it is very clearly "descriptive" in character.
In Isaiah 54:6, the phrase is simply describing the status of his people when he called them by comparing it to that of a wife of one's youth when they are forsaken.
So, in other words, in every instance of this phrase in the Old Testament, it is describing something- something the adulterious woman from whom Solomon is trying to protect his "son" has, something Solomon's "son" has, something the Priests of Malachi 2 have, something a virgin the people are to mourn like has, and the status of God's people when he found them. Hence, I think we can say that we have clearly established that this phrase is indeed descriptive in all of its usages, and not prescriptive.
Hence, Debbie Maken must show where my exegesis is wrong in saying that all of these usages are descriptive. If she believes they are prescriptive in character, then she bares the burden of proof to refute my exegesis, and to show that they are.
This approach is foreign to the Apostle Paul’s logic in I Timothy 2:13, where even the order of their creation in the beginning is the normative for how we live together as man and woman. Unfortunately, the “descriptive-prescriptive” chasm is a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously.
Of course, Debbie Maken is engaging in the fallacy of hasty generalization, that is, assuming that one instance of a descriptive phrase being made norminative means that it is true that all descriptive phrases are to be made norminative. That means, of course, that the absurdities that we noted earlier of having only girls being a sin, and not having seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines being a sin are true. However, if Ms. Maken denies these things, then Ms. Maken now bears the burden of proof to tell us how she knows what descriptive phrases are norminative, and what descriptive phrases are not.
The answer is fairly simple. If the Bible specifically mentions that a particular descriptive phrase is norminative, then it is, indeed, norminative. If the Bible does not state that a particular descriptive phrase is norminative, then it is not norminative. However, you will look in vain to find where the phrase "spouse 'of your youth'" is norminalized in scripture. Such is simply pure eisegesis.
Ultimately, in order for Christians to execute the “be fruitful and multiply” command, and in order for men to have the helper needed to prosper, people have to marry in their youth for the above outlined purposes. That is the marital normative prescribed by Scripture, even if we as a people are uneasy with such norms.
Let us look at the context of this passage:
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Notice two things about this text. First of all, the command is given to Adam and Eve, not to everyone. You have to deal with that, and show how it is that, even though these specific people are referred to, it happens by extension to all people. However, it is worse than that. Because there is a specific connection to this. That is we are told that this is to fill the earth and subdue it. Augustine wrote that:
This reason for creation and union of male and female, as well as this blessing, was not abrogated after the sin and banishment of man. It is by virtue of this blessing that the earth is now filled with human beings who subdue it. [On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 9.3.5-6]
As a side note, I want to post some church fathers from here on in as Debbie Maken claims that "...virtually all of our Christian forefathers regarded perotracted singleness as unbiblical and believed that young adults were under a divine duty to marry without undue delay of marriage" [Getting Serious About Getting Married, Rethinking the Gift of Singleness p.16]. I hope to disprove this and answer her claims on her post at the same time.
Here Augustine does not agree with Debbie Maken, and others such as John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria also rejected her views. However, here we find Augustine saying that the blessing has already been fulfilled. Not only that, he doesn't call it a command, but a blessing. The reason why Debbie Maken's interpretation is spurious is because she is assuming a particular syntactical function of the imperative. She is assuming that the imperative is being used here to express commands. However, that is entirely questionable. W. Gesenius suggests the following sytactical function for Genesis 1:28:
(c) To express a distinct assurance (like our expression, thou shalt have it)2 or promise, e.g. Is 65:18 but be ye glad, &c. (i.e. ye will have continually occasion to be glad); and Is 37:30, y Ps 110:2; in a threat, Jer 2:19. So especially in commands, the fulfilment of which is altogether out of the power of the person addressed, e.g. Is 54:14 be far from anxiety (meaning, thou needst not fear any more); Gn 1:28, &c. (for other examples, such as 1 K 22:12, 2 K 5:13, see below, f). Most clearly in the case of the imperative NiphÇal with a passive meaning, e.g. Gn 42:16 Wrs.a†'he ~T,a;w> and ye shall be bound; Dt 32:50, Is 49:9 (Is 45:22, see below, f). [Hebrew Grammar §110c]
So, we we that the Hebrew imperative is slightly more flexable in nuance then Mrs. Maken would like to admit. In fact, Bruce Waltke and M. O'Connor in talking about this kind of an imperative write that:
The imperative, like the jussive, has uses in which its ordinary force is lost. The figure of heterosis involves the exchange of one grammatical form for another; with the imperative, heterosis creates a promise or prediction to be fulfilled in the future, made more emphatic and vivid than would be the case were the prefix conjugation used (## 18–20). [Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax §34.4c]
In other words, if Gesenius is correct, there is no foundation for saying that this is a command everyone must follow. Even John Gill noticed problems with this interpretation writing:
if this is not an express command, as the Jews understand it, for marriage and procreation of children, it seems to be more than a bare permission; at least it is a direction and an advice to what was proper and convenient for the increase of mankind, and for the filling of the earth with inhabitants, which was the end of its being made, (Isaiah 45:18) . This shows that marriage is an ordinance of God, instituted in paradise, and is honourable; and that procreation is a natural action, and might have been, and may be performed without sin, [from http://bible.heartlight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=1&verse=28]
We begin to see that one of the weaknesses of Debbie Maken’s writings is her inability to do sound exegesis. To my knowledge, she has no training in Greek or Hebrew, and that is really dangerous. This is how legalistic movements that bind upon the hearts of God’s people commands not found in the Bible get their start. This is why we as people who study God’s word must me careful to rightly interpret it, because if we do not, we end up putting our own commands into God’s mouth instead of proclaiming the commands he has given us. This is why those of us who want to write books instructing young people should first get the study necessary to be able to handle the word of God with care.
I have decided to take a break from my responses to the courtship movement to, again, address the "issue" of delay of marriage. As most of you probably know, Debbie Maken has come out with a book recently advocating the position of Candace Watters in a previous post. It is endorced by Albert Mohler, so, some people, will just blindly say that it is acceptable, just as they will with Candace Watters' article. I have obtained her book Getting Serious About Getting Married, Rethinking the Gift of Singleness, and am currently working on a review of the book in full. However, it seems that some developments have taken place with this book, as it has been criticized by folks such as Dr. Andreas Kostenberger who had a short blog "debate" with here. You can read his sections here, here, and here.
Of course, Mrs. Maken has not stopped there. She has posted an article on here blog here, which I will be reviewing on this post.
With most of the beginning post on Homosexuality I agree. I will begin the section on which we disagree here:
And in order for these component pieces to carry out the objectives of a biblical marriage, God through the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth and maintain the marriage covenant faithfully. (Mal. 2:14-15). In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture. For God to mention it once is enough, five times ought to get our attention.
Mrs. Maken is going after a somewhat obscure text to prove her point here. Note the differing translations here between the ESV and the NASB:
Malachi 2:14-15 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. [ESV]
Malachi 2:14-15 "Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 "But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. [NASB]
Now, I will have to slow down a bit here and explain things. In Hebrew, adjectives can be uses substantively or predicatively. An example of the substantive use of the adjective would be "blessed are the meek." While the word "meek" is an adjective, it is here used as a noun meaning "the ones who are meek." An example of the predicative use of the adjective is "The girl is beautiful." Here, the adjective "beautiful" is describing the girl, but it follows the verb "is" which means it is predicative. This all very important in understanding this text.
In Malachi 2:15, you have the adjective ’ehād [one] (sorry for all the Hebrew majors out there. The fonts on blogger are not cooperating). The problem is knowing what the subject of the verb ‛āśâ [to do or make] is. Is it the yəhwâ [Lord] in verse 14? If this is the case, then it would yield to the translation of the ESV, of "did he [the Lord] not make [them] one?" In this case, the adjective "one" is being used predicativly. Also, this would mean that God is the subject of the next sentence, and hence, is the one seeking Godly offspring.
However, what if it is the substantival usage of the adjective "one" that is the subject of the verb ‛āśâ? In this case, it would agree with the NASB, and read something like "But not one has done [so]." In this case, the adjective "one" is functioning substantivly, and is the subject of the verb "to do."
Hence, the issue is what is the subject of verse 15. Is it "the one," or is it the Lord? Translations are clearly divided over this issue, and some do not even come close to either the NASB or the ESV, as they take other options. The point is that Debbie Maken is under obligation to prove that yəhwâ is the subject of ‛āśâ. She cannot just assume that. Of course, even if it is correct, she still has a whole host of other interpretations from other translations to deal with. However, Debbie Maken acts as if it is not even an issue, when here interpretation of "seeking Godly seed" is relying upon that specific interpretation.
Secondly, I don't know where this text in Malachi says that we are to "become one flesh." She says that "the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth..." There is just no command in the text.
Debbie Maken writes:
And in order for these component pieces to carry out the objectives of a biblical marriage, God through the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth and maintain the marriage covenant faithfully. (Mal. 2:14-15). In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture. For God to mention it once is enough, five times ought to get our attention. Some of my critics have suggested that I draw too much from this phrase, and that it was meant to be “descriptive,” not prescriptive. Why stop there? What if the Bible is merely “descriptive” as to which sex to marry? What if the story of Adam and Eve was merely “descriptive”? Is there even a yardstick by which to judge what portion of Scripture is authoritative versus God’s “take it or leave it” opinion (if indeed there ever were such a section of Scripture)? The primeval story of Adam and Even forms the underlying narrative of all of our origins. If it was just “descriptive”—a nice story that tells us about them but not us, then we are left free to choose what we want to be in spite of the story of our first father and first mother. This approach is foreign to the Apostle Paul’s logic in I Timothy 2:13, where even the order of their creation in the beginning is the normative for how we live together as man and woman. Unfortunately, the “descriptive-prescriptive” chasm is a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously.
Really? So, that must mean that because the Bible tells us in 1 Chronicles 26:2 that Meshelemiah had sons, that any couple that has only daughters is sinning? That must mean that because the Bible tells us that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, we must have 700 wives and 300 concubines or we are sinning. Apparently, if you deny these things, and use the "descriptive-prescriptive chasm," then you are, apparently, using "a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously." You cannot read the scriptures the way Debbie Maken does and come up with any viable morality.
Let us go through and take the rest of this apart.
In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture.
In error. I assume that, since she leaves the word "spouse" out of the quotes, she is referring to any word that could be taken as spouse such as ’iššâ, ba‛al, and ’allûp. If this is the case, then it is found six times: Proverbs 2:17, 5:18, Isaiah 54:6, Joel 1:8, Malachi 2:14, and 2:15.
Some of my critics have suggested that I draw too much from this phrase, and that it was meant to be “descriptive,” not prescriptive. Why stop there? What if the Bible is merely “descriptive” as to which sex to marry? What if the story of Adam and Eve was merely “descriptive”? Is there even a yardstick by which to judge what portion of Scripture is authoritative versus God’s “take it or leave it” opinion (if indeed there ever were such a section of Scripture)?
I would say that, since Debbie Maken has assumed that these phrases are prescriptive, she bears the burden of proof. Debbie Maken is correct in that someone cannot just claim that this phrase is descriptive, they must prove that these phrases are descriptive in character. However, she is also making a positive assertion, and that is that these passages are prescriptive.
However, I will take up the proof of the fact that these passages are descriptive. The standard must be the intent of the author. Did the author intend to make it prescriptive, or didn't he? In the case of the phrase spouse "of your youth," the answer is an obvious "no." The reason is because in each of these passages there is either a reference a specific person who has a wife of their youth [in which case, it is describing what they have], or a comparison to someone who has a wife of their youth [in which case, it is also descriptive because it is describing them in terms of something else]. In Proverbs 2:17 it is a reference to the adulterious woman from whom Solomon is trying to protect his "son" that has a husband of her youth. In Proverbs 5:18, it is Solomon's son who has a wife of his youth. In Malachi 2:14-15, it is the priests of 2:1.
In Joel 1:8, there is a comparison and a description being made. The people of Judah are to wail like a specific kind of virgin. They are to wail like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the wife of her youth. In other words, the phrase "girded with sackcloth for the wife of her youth" is discribing the virgin whom the people are to wail like. Here, it is very clearly "descriptive" in character.
In Isaiah 54:6, the phrase is simply describing the status of his people when he called them by comparing it to that of a wife of one's youth when they are forsaken.
So, in other words, in every instance of this phrase in the Old Testament, it is describing something- something the adulterious woman from whom Solomon is trying to protect his "son" has, something Solomon's "son" has, something the Priests of Malachi 2 have, something a virgin the people are to mourn like has, and the status of God's people when he found them. Hence, I think we can say that we have clearly established that this phrase is indeed descriptive in all of its usages, and not prescriptive.
Hence, Debbie Maken must show where my exegesis is wrong in saying that all of these usages are descriptive. If she believes they are prescriptive in character, then she bares the burden of proof to refute my exegesis, and to show that they are.
This approach is foreign to the Apostle Paul’s logic in I Timothy 2:13, where even the order of their creation in the beginning is the normative for how we live together as man and woman. Unfortunately, the “descriptive-prescriptive” chasm is a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously.
Of course, Debbie Maken is engaging in the fallacy of hasty generalization, that is, assuming that one instance of a descriptive phrase being made norminative means that it is true that all descriptive phrases are to be made norminative. That means, of course, that the absurdities that we noted earlier of having only girls being a sin, and not having seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines being a sin are true. However, if Ms. Maken denies these things, then Ms. Maken now bears the burden of proof to tell us how she knows what descriptive phrases are norminative, and what descriptive phrases are not.
The answer is fairly simple. If the Bible specifically mentions that a particular descriptive phrase is norminative, then it is, indeed, norminative. If the Bible does not state that a particular descriptive phrase is norminative, then it is not norminative. However, you will look in vain to find where the phrase "spouse 'of your youth'" is norminalized in scripture. Such is simply pure eisegesis.
Ultimately, in order for Christians to execute the “be fruitful and multiply” command, and in order for men to have the helper needed to prosper, people have to marry in their youth for the above outlined purposes. That is the marital normative prescribed by Scripture, even if we as a people are uneasy with such norms.
Let us look at the context of this passage:
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Notice two things about this text. First of all, the command is given to Adam and Eve, not to everyone. You have to deal with that, and show how it is that, even though these specific people are referred to, it happens by extension to all people. However, it is worse than that. Because there is a specific connection to this. That is we are told that this is to fill the earth and subdue it. Augustine wrote that:
This reason for creation and union of male and female, as well as this blessing, was not abrogated after the sin and banishment of man. It is by virtue of this blessing that the earth is now filled with human beings who subdue it. [On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 9.3.5-6]
As a side note, I want to post some church fathers from here on in as Debbie Maken claims that "...virtually all of our Christian forefathers regarded perotracted singleness as unbiblical and believed that young adults were under a divine duty to marry without undue delay of marriage" [Getting Serious About Getting Married, Rethinking the Gift of Singleness p.16]. I hope to disprove this and answer her claims on her post at the same time.
Here Augustine does not agree with Debbie Maken, and others such as John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria also rejected her views. However, here we find Augustine saying that the blessing has already been fulfilled. Not only that, he doesn't call it a command, but a blessing. The reason why Debbie Maken's interpretation is spurious is because she is assuming a particular syntactical function of the imperative. She is assuming that the imperative is being used here to express commands. However, that is entirely questionable. W. Gesenius suggests the following sytactical function for Genesis 1:28:
(c) To express a distinct assurance (like our expression, thou shalt have it)2 or promise, e.g. Is 65:18 but be ye glad, &c. (i.e. ye will have continually occasion to be glad); and Is 37:30, y Ps 110:2; in a threat, Jer 2:19. So especially in commands, the fulfilment of which is altogether out of the power of the person addressed, e.g. Is 54:14 be far from anxiety (meaning, thou needst not fear any more); Gn 1:28, &c. (for other examples, such as 1 K 22:12, 2 K 5:13, see below, f). Most clearly in the case of the imperative NiphÇal with a passive meaning, e.g. Gn 42:16 Wrs.a†'he ~T,a;w> and ye shall be bound; Dt 32:50, Is 49:9 (Is 45:22, see below, f). [Hebrew Grammar §110c]
So, we we that the Hebrew imperative is slightly more flexable in nuance then Mrs. Maken would like to admit. In fact, Bruce Waltke and M. O'Connor in talking about this kind of an imperative write that:
The imperative, like the jussive, has uses in which its ordinary force is lost. The figure of heterosis involves the exchange of one grammatical form for another; with the imperative, heterosis creates a promise or prediction to be fulfilled in the future, made more emphatic and vivid than would be the case were the prefix conjugation used (## 18–20). [Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax §34.4c]
In other words, if Gesenius is correct, there is no foundation for saying that this is a command everyone must follow. Even John Gill noticed problems with this interpretation writing:
if this is not an express command, as the Jews understand it, for marriage and procreation of children, it seems to be more than a bare permission; at least it is a direction and an advice to what was proper and convenient for the increase of mankind, and for the filling of the earth with inhabitants, which was the end of its being made, (Isaiah 45:18) . This shows that marriage is an ordinance of God, instituted in paradise, and is honourable; and that procreation is a natural action, and might have been, and may be performed without sin, [from http://bible.heartlight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=1&verse=28]
We begin to see that one of the weaknesses of Debbie Maken’s writings is her inability to do sound exegesis. To my knowledge, she has no training in Greek or Hebrew, and that is really dangerous. This is how legalistic movements that bind upon the hearts of God’s people commands not found in the Bible get their start. This is why we as people who study God’s word must me careful to rightly interpret it, because if we do not, we end up putting our own commands into God’s mouth instead of proclaiming the commands he has given us. This is why those of us who want to write books instructing young people should first get the study necessary to be able to handle the word of God with care.
No comments:
Post a Comment