As is his custom, Barton makes himself available only to friendly interviewers who provide a forum for his ministry and will not challenge any of his statements. Huckabee identifies himself as a fan and a friend of Barton. Huckabee then shares his reaction that first time he watched a video of one of Barton’s presentations. Huckabee describes how he felt “stunned” because Barton was telling him things he was “never taught in school.” Later I will provide a simple answer why Huckabee’s teachers never told him the things he heard on Barton’s tape.

Huckabee provides the agreed to set up for Barton with his allusion to the Declaration of Independence and the men who signed it. Barton directs the viewer’s attention to a painting of the signing of the Declaration and notes the prominent position of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Implying the existence of an academic conspiracy against Christian founders, Barton explains that “we have been trained to recognized the two least religious guys.” Barton then introduces the viewers to signers Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman (who Barton fails to actually identify by name), Charles Thompson, Robert Treat Paine, and Stephen Hopkins.

May I suggest a few reasons--other than a secular, academic conspiracy-- why Franklin and Jefferson stand out.

Benjamin Franklin was the most well known American of the colonial and early national era. He enjoyed success as a writer, a scientist (for which he became a member of the Royal Society of London), and a diplomat. Until the formation of the new government and the election of George Washington, Franklin was the face of America to the rest of the world. His skills as a writer earned him the initial assignment to draft the Declaration of Independence. He refused because he did not like the idea of the other members of the drafting committee revising anything he might write. The committee turned to Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson, too, was an accomplished writer. He already earned a reputation for his A Summary View of the Rights of British America. He, of course, wrote the text of the Declaration of Independence. (Ironically, Franklin could not resist revising. He suggested changing Jefferson’s phrase (“We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” to “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”) Later Jefferson became governor of Virginia and served the new national government as Secretary of State, Vice-President, and President for two terms. Later he established the University of Virginia.

Now compare Franklin’s and Jefferson’s accomplishments with those cited by Barton for Charles Thompson: “he is responsible for a famous American edition of the bible;“ for Robert Treat Pain “ a chaplain;” and for Stephen Hopkins, “a Quaker--very outspoken--he used the Christian religion as the basis for why we should separate from Great Britain . . . ”

It should be obvious, even to Huckabee, why his teachers never taught him the things shared by Barton: his teachers had better historical sense than Barton. They know what is important and what is not.

As the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. But never more so than when politics is in the sack with religion.

The Jews emerged from antiquity as a group of desert savages who laid waste to much of Canaan, “devoting to destruction” the inhabitants of the land, with their children, their livestock, and their property. Over several centuries, they aspired to become a great state. A couple of @ss kickings by the Romans and their subsequent dispersion dispelled them of that notion. But their unique monotheism and the teachings of a rabbi named Yeshua spread to Europe through a Hellenized Jew named Paul and transformed that civilization. Unfortunately, the Gentile heirs of the Christian branch of Judaism lost regard for their roots. Anti-Semitism became a European tradition.

The Jewish people have found America much more welcoming. Although anti-Semitic slights and some violence have been part of their American experience,, the ghettos, pogroms, expulsions, and death camps remain a tragic story of the Old World. And now that the Jews have reconstituted themselves as an independent nation, they enjoy military and financial support from the world’s most powerful nation.

The Christian evangelical/fundamentalist community in the United States remain their strongest supporters. This support largely rests on their theological views of the future. Hal Lindsey, in his The Late, Great Planet Earth and subsequent volumes detailing the dispensationalist interpretation of prophetic scriptures, popularized among non-dispensationalists and even among non-believers the scenario of events involving Israel and the end of history. The political implications are that the United States needs to be on the same page as Jesus when it comes to Israel. Lindsay has suggested that some branches of reformed Christianity that do not concur with his dispensationalist views are not only wrong, but also are setting Israel up for another holocaust.

More recently, John Hagee has emerged at the leading Christian spokesman on behalf of Israel. He, too, has written books on Israel and prophesy, including Jerusalem Countdown and In Defense of Israel. In addition, he formed Christians United for Israel to support Israel through lobbying efforts with the U.S. Congress.

This is all very interesting because Israel is a modern, secular, socialist state. Israelis enjoy the same freedoms as citizens of other European-style democracies. And Israelis also enjoy the less savory aspects of freedom: alcohol, drugs, and pornography. Their abortion rate is only slightly lower than that of the United States. They even have the dreaded national health care, in which every Israeli must enroll. And sadly, in their fight for survival against their Arab neighbors, Israel makes no distinction between Christian and Muslim Arabs. Palestinian Christians undergo intense suffering at the hands of both Israelis and the Muslim Palestinians. The American evangelical community turns it head.

(For a appeal regarding their plight, see here)

In two previous posts, the Secular Square examined some general views of David Barton on history as expressed in his essay, God Missing in Action from American History. Barton accuses modern professional historians of deliberately removing God from any role in history and secularizing their accounts of the American past. They do this, according to Barton, in order to support their secular social and political agenda.

He really opposes professional academic history itself. Instead, he prefers older accounts that try to explain history in terms God’s Providential working of his purposes in history. (Implicit is the notion that all history is moving to the second coming of Jesus Christ. This, of course, it not history at all. It is historicism, where history is swallowed up by eschatology). He seems unaware of analytical historical accounts of Christian history that try explain the ways in which religious faith informs American culture. Instead, if his “recommended reading” page is any indication, his interest in history does not go beyond anecdotal collections he finds useful in promoting his brand of conservatism. Barton shares the conservative concern about the direction of our country. He believes it has lost its moral and spiritual bearings. Barton utilizes his largely anecdotal sources to demonstrate that the federal courts negotiated a series of wrong turns in their constitutional interpretation and severed religion from public institutions in ways unintended by our founders. Most Conservatives agree. He seeks to restore original intent. Most conservatives agree. And as evidenced in other essays posted on the Wallbuilders web page, he seems convinced that if Americans can legally display nativity scenes in town squares, erect Ten Commandment monuments in parks, reintroduce prayer at the start of each school day, replace evolution with creationism in science classes, and teach American history as “His story,” America will regain sound and steady course established by our country‘s founders. And this program sets the narrow parameters of Barton’s historical interest. Beyond his utilitarian aimsfor history, Barton seems singularly incurious.

The rich historical tradition of writings about Christianity in America is too expansive to give it complete due. For those readers who possess more inquiring minds, below is a brief "Greatest Hits" list of the Christian history Barton missed. Many of these are evangelical accounts and evangelical “friendly;” all are by professional academic historians.

Surveys:

Sydney Ahlstrom    A Religious History of the American People

Edwin Gaustad          Religious History of America

Mark Noll                   History of Christianity in the US and Canada

Mark Noll                   The Rise of Evangelicalism

Nathan Hatch             The Democratization of American Christianity

The Puritans:

Perry Miller                Orthodoxy in Massachusetts

Perry Miller                    The New England Mind (two volumes)

Edmund Morgan         The Puritan Family

Edmund Morgan          Visible Saints

Edmund Morgan          The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop

Robert Middlekauff    The Mathers

Michael Zuckerman    Peaceable Kingdoms: New England Towns in the 17^th century

Philip Gura                   A Glimpse of Sion’s Glory

Harry Stout                The New England Soul

Great Awakening:

Alan Heimert             Religion and the American Mind

Edwin Gaustad          The Great Awakening in New England

Wesley Gewehr         The Great Awakening in Virginia

Charles Maxson       The Great Awakening in the Middle Colonies

Rhys Isaac                Transformation of Virginia

Janet Lindman          Bodies of Belief: Baptist Community in Early America

William Lumpkin       Baptist Foundations in the South

Christine Heyrman    Southern Cross: The Beginning of the Bible Belt

Monica Najar             Evangelizing the South

David Barton accuses modern historians of America with turning history into a “dreary academic subject” and of deliberately misrepresenting the past in order to promote secular public policies. As he develops his charge in an essay titled “God Missing in Action from American History,” two things become clear. First, what he really opposes is not modern academic history’s alleged dreariness, but modern academic history itself. Second, he knows very little about modern academic history.

David Barton’s assertion that history should focus on biography and express a discernment of God’s Providence superintending over it all reveals the kind of history he prefers: that written before the advent of professional academic history. Barton apparently finds appeal in the sermons and journals of colonial ministers and patrician-historians of the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

The most well-known journal was that of William Bradford, the perennial governor of Plymouth colony. Later published as On Plymouth Plantation, Bradford narrates the story of the Pilgrims using biblical motifs and attributing the direction of their affairs to the providence of God. In this type of history, the Pilgrims are cast in the role of a New World Children of Israel, as God’s chosen people arriving in their own New Canaan. Through their triumphs and their tragedies, God’s hand sustains and strengthens them.

The patrician-historians were men of leisure who produced historical narratives as quality literature for a growing reading public. Some of the earliest examples include Robert Beverley‘s History and Present State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson‘s Notes on Virginia , and Thomas Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay. Perhaps the best known work of this kind was George Bancroft’s History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, published in 12 volumes between 1834 and 1882. Bancroft saw in American history not as an especially religious enterprise, but as the unfolding of God’s plan for establishing freedom and democracy in the world.

During Bancroft’s work on his last volumes, Johns Hopkins University laid the foundation for modern academic history beginning in 1876. Johns Hopkins graduate school pioneered the training of professional historians in research, analysis, and interpretation. The American Historical Association was organized in 1884. The American Historical Review began publishing in 1895. Since that time, professionally trained historians have produced the bulk of historical writing. It is their ideas that reach the classroom.

The advent of professional history did not mean an end to popular history. Freelance writers, journalists, and even some professional historians continue to publish histories for the general public. But the hard work of original research and writing for professional journals that makes these books possible is done by academically trained historians. And this is what Barton does not understand.

History is more than biography. If Barton laments the narrow focus of works on economics, or politics, or whatever, he must learn that historical research must take place within established parameters. No man or woman has enough years in lifetime to research, analyze and, write the “grand theory” of everything. (Texts for survey courses attempt this and are usually the product of several authors.) Consequently, historians narrow their research in time or a place. They may focus on economics, ideas and ideology, politics, organizational theory, demographics, ethnicity, gender, or even religion. (Barton is apparently even unaware of the rich tradition of historical writing on Christianity). It is the study of change over time that provides historical context for the era in which we live, something that biographies, however interesting, really cannot do.

And that fact has Barton stumped. He loves this country and is troubled by its crime, its vice, and its secular outlook in which Christianity plays a diminishing role. It is very different from the colonial and early national period in which he directs most of his interest. Because he lacks even basic familiarity with the conclusions of American historical writing,however,  he does not understand the era in which he lives and how our nation came to be this way. Consequently, he reaches for the latest Christian conspiracy theory -- America is more secular because historians have failed to include God in their explanatory models and that God is missing in action from American history. Modern American remains a riddle for him.

It is the contention of the Secular Square that debate in the public square should be secular in tone. This is not to suggest that religious people, particularly Christians in our western culture, have no right to engage in policy debate. No litmus test, religious or otherwise, should restrict public debate. Anyone should be able to weigh in on defense policy , economic and monetary policy , health care and health insurance, marriage licensing, abortion, or any other topic. Neither does this view suggest that Christians should not base their views on their scriptures. All insight should be welcome in the discussion of policies to enhance the happiness and prosperity of Americans. But when someone prefaces an argument with the phrase, “God says that . . . ,” it creates a whole set of problems.

First, how are Americans who do not accept the premise of the argument supposed to respond? If someone objects to that premise of that argument, important public debate can be sidetracked into a philosophical and theological discussion of the merits of the claim that the bible is God’s word to man. Such a debate is not likely to reach a satisfactory conclusion in the near future. Christians have been working to establish the truth of that claim for 2000 years and will be continuing to do so for the next 2000. Second, if everyone concedes to that claim, can meaningful debate continue? How are unbelievers supposed to contribute to debate if they are arguing against the word of God to man? Non-Christians become sort of a dhimmitude while Christians argue among themselves about appropriate policy decisions. A third option is possible but unlikely. Non-believers could assert that they, too, agree that the bible is God’s word but that they owe their allegiance to the Prince of Darkness and must to fight on. Meaningful debate can continue under that scenario, but debate is likely to be even less civil than it is already.

Second, as implied in the second point above, Christians themselves disagree on social issues. Liberal Christians and conservative Christians have disagreed on a host of public policy issues in the past and continue to do so today: alcohol, drugs, capital punishment, integration, marriage, divorce, reproductive rights, abortion, education, and religious displays and monuments on government property. Both sides claim the sanction of God’s word.

Finally, basing arguments on scriptures does not facilitate political compromise that is often necessary for government action. How can one compromise God’s revealed will? Christians could assert that compromise on personal obedience to scripture is sin and concede  that compromise on public policy is permissible. But will Christians disagree about that as well? Of course, lack of compromise is not a problem particular to Christians. Ideologues of all political persuasions are out there unwilling to compromise their views in order to reach some policy resolution. But it is debatable how much if anything they contribute to meaningful resolutions in our democracy.

“God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” It may sooth the minds of Christians and insulate them from being troubled by the perplexing questions we face as citizens. It does nothing to clarify discussion or to provide answers to those questions.

A previous post surveyed bible texts from the Old Testament writings dealing with marriage and family. I organized these texts around patriarchy, the concept that a father rules over his household through providing for and protecting members in return for their deference or obedience. Let’s take a look at similar texts from the New Testament writings dealing with marriage and family.

The historical context of the New Testament scriptures differs from that of the Old Testament scriptures. Some eight to twelve hundred years had passed. Conquest of Israel by Alexander brought in over three hundred years of Hellenistic culture. After a brief period of independence, conquest by Pompey made Israel a province of the Roman Empire. And writers of the New Testament scriptures obviously believed that through Jesus God had made a change in his dealings with his people. Nevertheless, one thing that had not changed was the belief fin the patriarchal family. Consequently, the concept of patriarchy will again serve as a good organizing principle around which these scriptures can be examined.

All New Testament scriptures assume the natural marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage seems beyond their comprehension. Jesus defined marriage as a union between man and woman. (Matt. 19:4-5). Moreover, Paul condemned. homosexuality itself in no uncertain terms (Rom. 1:24-32). Manifesting his ethical continuity with the Old Testament writings of Moses, he concluded they are worthy of death. Modern liberal theologians may not agree with Jesus and Paul. When they teach otherwise, however, they delude themselves and the congregations they allegedly serve.

Paul did not question that fathers should rule over their households. When providing guidelines about identifying potential leaders in the church, he asked the rhetorical question “if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1Ti. 3:5).

Paul believed fathers should work to provide for their family. He exhorted Christians to work. (1 Th. 4:11). He instructed the church that a man who does not provide for his own family “has denied the faith” and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). Moreover, he warned the church against giving financial assistance to those who refuse to work (2 The. 3:10). Provision probably included the Semitic tradition of multiple wives. Identifying the characteristics of church leaders, Paul confined church offices to husbands of one wife (1 Tim. 3.2; 1 Tim. 3:12; Ti. 1:6). This implies that general acceptance of polygamy. In contrast, Greeks had long before outlawed polygamy; Rome discouraged it.

Paul directed that men provide spiritual leadership in the church and at home. He reserved all church offices for men. ( 1 Tim. 2:12-14; 1Tim. 3:2, 3:12; Ti. 1:5-6; Christian women could not speak in church, but Paul admonished them to inquire about religious questions from their husbands at home ( I Tim. 2:11; 1 Co. 14:34). Fathers were obligated to rear their children in their religious faith (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21).

Paul summed up the duty of a man to provide for his own and to direct their religious life in the commands for husbands to love their wives. (Eph. 5:25; Col. 3:19).This particular word for love is not erotic love, but more like divine love. It meant to love without regard to the worthiness of the object of one’s love or to any benefit that might come from the object of one’s love. It was to love for the good of the other.

New Testament scriptures all agree in the obedience of women. Peter pointed to the example of Abraham’s wife, Sarah, who called her husband “Lord” (1 Pet. 3:6). Paul, too, directed women to show obedience (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; Ti. 2:4). Interesting, Paul never specifically commanded wives to love their husbands. Children, too, were expected to obey their fathers (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:21).

New Testament scriptures seem more restrictive that those of the Old Testament on the question of divorce. Moses permitted a man to divorce a women who is “unclean.” A woman divorced on such grounds could remarry (Deut. 24:1-4). Jesus seemed to affirm Moses when he permitted divorce for “fornication,” or “sexual immorality,” in newer translations (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:8-9). No one is really sure what this term means). The question of remarriage is perplexing. On the one hand, Jesus seemed to say that if a man divorced his wife for something other than “sexual immorality” and a remarriage of either party took place, the new marriage constituted adultery. On the other hand, Jesus seemed to imply that if a man divorced his wife for the legal reason of “sexual immorality,” they both could remarry. It seems unfair that a woman justly divorced could remarry but a woman unjustly divorced could not.

Paul, too, condemned divorce. In an extensive passage in 1 Corinthians 7, he commanded Christians to stay with unbelieving partners if the unbelieving partners were willing to do so. (Like many of Paul’s ethical teachings, this one he based on the mistaken belief that Jesus was coming soon. He urged believers to stay in bad marriages, single believers to not marry at all, and believing slaves to remain content in their status because the end of the age neared.) But if the marriage dissolved, he directed the Christian to remain single. (Another clear teaching of scripture routinely ignored by churches of all theological persuasions). Paul condemned adultery; but under Roman law, it was not punishable by death.

So again what do we make of all this? These New Testament passages, like the Old Testament passages, seem rooted in the time and culture from which they came rather that revealed wisdom of the eternal deity. As such, they contain general common sense observations about marriage and family on which most people can agree. Marriage is a union between man and woman for the propagation of the species. Of course, along with that biological purpose comes companionship and the formation of kinship networks based on consanguinity. A father is obligated to provide for his household, even in this modern era when so many women work outside the home. Biological necessary requires a woman to carry a child for several months. This will interrupt her income capacity. Men live under a different kind of necessity--to work. Children being children, parents need to direct them and children need to obey.

But many scriptures seem hopelessly out of date for modern Western societies. They lend support to a patriarchal model in which women are subjects rather than partners. The acceptance of polygamy (which no scriptures specifically condemns), the command that women are to obey their husbands in every thing, and the outlawing of divorce and remarriage resemble the tenants of that other Semitic religion Islam more closely than they do our modern concept of marriage. As such, they offer little helpful for modern American marriages.

Old Testament marriage and family law governs parental relationships as well. A survey of some texts on a father’s duties to his children and their duties to him provides additional insight into marriage and family under Old Testament law. Fathers were expected to provide for their young. The law required them to teach the law to their children. (Deut. 6:7; 11:19). Proverbs is filled with sayings directed to fathers and their children.

Fathers could sell their children out as servants or buy their neighbors children as servants.. If a male servant married a female servant, he had to leave her behind once his time of service ended (Ex. 21:1-11). Laws regarding service took precedent over laws regarding marriage. Holy matrimony apparently did not inspire sentiments as strong as holy servitude.

Fathers arranged the marriages of their children. Genesis details the transaction of Abraham, Laban, and others as they arranged the marriages of their children. Custom permitted parents to inquire into the wishes of their children. The arrangements usually included a bride price (Gen. 24:53; Ex. 22:17). Neighboring pagan peoples shared the same customs ( Gen. 34:6-12). Usually the fathers arranged marriages within the clan. Again, Genesis details consanguineous marriage of the Jewish patriarchs.

Children’s duties included obedience to parents. Children being children, this is only common sense. One of the “Ten Commandments” required that child honor their parents (Ex. 20:12). Failure to do so became a source of shame. Proverbs, again, contains several sayings about foolish and rebellious children. Old Testament law dealt severely with children whose rebellion crossed certain lines. It required the execution of children who cursed or physically assaulted parents. (Ex. 21:15,17). This might wipe out entire teen departments in many churches.

So what are we to make of this? On the one hand, the Old Testament description of marriage and case law about marriage suggests a traditional patriarchal family structure that differed little from surrounding peoples of that era. Most other peoples had similar family structures and relationships. The little evidence we have about marriage in ancient Greece suggests a similar pattern: rule by the father over the wives who had no property rights or rights to divorce and rule over children, including arranging of marriages. Aristotle suggested that the husband’s rule over the wife was constitutional and his rule over the children was royal. With the paucity of historical evidence, it is impossible to discern how this distinction played out in day to day affairs. We do not even know if Aristotle’s passage described how marriages ought to be conceived or how they actually were conceived.

On the other hand, compared to Roman practice Old Testament law seems very harsh. Roman women enjoyed much more autonomy. They could own property. They enjoyed more freedom in arrangement of marriages. They could initiate divorce. Adultery was a civil issue at least until the reforms of Augustus. It did not constitute a criminal offense which required the death penalty. In many respects Old Testament descriptions of marriage and case law about marriage resembles traditional Semitic culture that persists today in Islamic countries. In those lands one finds patriarchy with total domination by the fathers over the lives of their wives and children. The Old Testament and Islamic concept of patriarchal marriage differs dramatically from today’s concept of marriage as a partnership .

Aside from some common sense or natural elements that include marriage between a man and woman, parents providing for their children, and parental direction of children, Old Testament law has little insight to offer about modern Western marriage. Today we do not arrange marriages with relatives. We do not expect bride prices and dowries. We do not typically “Lord” authority over wives and expect them to call us “Lord.“ We do not deny women the legal right to divorce husbands. And except maybe in Texas, we cannot legally kill them for adultery. And we do not force rape victims to wed their assailants.

Old Testament case law might be useful to the Christian minorities in traditional societies like those in Pakistan; but is has little to say to us in the modern West.

The first time I heard someone say “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, “ it struck me as a very funny and a very common sense view. The statement does not provide much analysis of homosexuality, but its brevity is part of its strength. Everyone knows, however, that it never convinced anyone who did not believe already that homosexuality is unnatural. Thirty years later people still repeat it. After so much time it is no longer very funny, but it still strikes me as a very common sense view. The fact that after thirty years the question of homosexuality itself has evolved in the question of homosexual marriage, however, confirms that as an argument “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” lacks persuasiveness.

Yet Christians continue to repeat it, like they do the Scriptures themselves, as if it settles all arguments. In their minds, a paraphrase or direct quotation from the Word of God provides closure for every moral and public policy dispute. But does it? Is the Bible correct about homosexuality and the question of homosexual marriage? Is the Bible a sound guide to marriage to general? Let’s have a bible “sword” drill and see.

The major challenge in seeking answers to marital questions or any ohter question is the matter of interpretation. First, Christians organized the Scriptures around the idea of two covenants, commonly called the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament writings primarily concern the Mosaic Covenant (although they describe additional covenants as well.) The New Testament writings concern the Covenant of Jesus Christ. Theologians--and whole Christian denominations for that matter--disagree about the relationship between the covenants and their application for today. Second, the authors wrote the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Aramaic. Later scribes translated them into Greek. Finally, the writings emerged from cultures very different from our own. All these factors present problems for interpretation. Let’s start with the writings of the Old Covenant. On this post, I first will look at texts describing duties of husbands and wives. In a second post, I will look at texts describing duties between parents and children. Then I will make some comments.

The first thing to note is marriage in the bible is confined to a man and a woman. This is natural in that it allows the continuation of the species--"be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28).  Old Covenant Law required that everyone engaging in homosexual activity be executed (Lev. 18:22). When liberal Christian denominations try to legitimize homosexual relationships, they are completely dishonest. In America, they can ordain anything they want; just don’t call it Christianity.

 The second thing to note is that biblical families are patriarchal in organization. This means rule by the man. Theologians trace rule of the man to the creation ordinance. Woman was created as a helper for man. After the fall, he was “to rule” over the woman (Gen. 3:16).

On the most basic level, patriarchy means that the man provided economic sustenance and physical security for family members in return for deference and obedience on their part. Theologians see the origins of work in the creation ordinance. God placed Adam in a garden and commanded him to care for it (Gen. 2:15). It was the easy life, but not labor free. Man’s labors became much more intense after the fall. God cast man from the garden and cursed the ground (Gen. 3:17-19). Man forfeited a life of gathering fruit to one of tilling the ground. (Gen. 3:23). The Old Testament Scriptures provide little direct commands about work. They contain repeated directions about confining work to six days with a day of rest on the seventh, but not much else. Numerous proverbs , however, exhort men to diligence in their work (Pro. 10:4-5. 12:11, 13:4, etc.)

In this patriarchal arrangement, a man could have multiple wives. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had more than one wife. Although the Old Testament law forbids polygamy to kings (Deut. 17:17), it does not forbid it outright to all people livng under Old Testament law. (Ex. 21:10; Deut. 21:15-17).

Men controlled Jewish religious life. They directed both the teaching of the law and the Temple sacrifices. Religious life of Jewish women fell under the direction of their husbands. For example, Jewish wives could not make a vow to God without their husbands approval (Num. 30:6-8).

According this patriarchal ideal, women were to obey their husbands. Old Testament Scriptures provide few direct commands on this question. It seems implicit in accounts of biblical couples. One New Testament observation makes it clear. Peter points to the example of Abraham’s wife, Sarah, who called her husband “Lord” (1 Pet. 3:6). Scriptures also make it more clear in the account of Esther and other Jews living in exile in Persia. The Persian queen Vashti refused a summons of her king. This created a royal uproar. “For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands.” The king reacted with a decree that “all the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both great and small” and that “every man should bear rule in his own hous.” (Est. 1:17,22). Later the king acquired a submissive Jewish bride in Esther. According to the story, she intervened with the king to save the Jews from slaughter. Human nature being what it is, however, patriarchy did not necessarily lead to domestic bliss. The book of Proverbs contains several observations about living with an insubordinate woman (Pro. 21: 9, 21:19, 25:26, 27:15).