Home » Academics » Prof's Office » Ask Theophilus

Ask Theophilus: O.T. Stumpers

IF THEY DIDN'T NEED HIM, WHY DO WE?

In an earlier column you explained how Christ's death could be substitutionary atonement for all mankind.¹ I thought that was the most cogent and inspired explanation I have ever read. But I still don't understand why Christ came when He did, rather than earlier (if at all). If the Old Testament believers didn't "need" the historical death and resurrection of Christ, why do we?

Reply

They did need Christ. But let me answer your other question first: Why didn't He come earlier?

It's not for nothing that we call the sin of our first parents the Fall. They fell hard, and all sorts of things inside them broke. Because we're made in God's image, when we became alienated from God, we also came to be out of joint men with our own nature. The consequences of this catastrophe rippled outward. Men were alienated from women, brother from brother, family from family, nation from nation, and the human race from the rest of the creation — which had its own troubles.

It takes a long time to fix that kind of damage. God worked patiently, over ages. Since He knew what He was doing, presumably none of the steps could have been shortened or skipped. So many things had been forgotten, so many habits had to be unlearned. He gave to His people His law, He sent them His prophets, He increased in them the longing for Himself, and He promised that He would send the Messiah, the Christ, who would be a light not just to them but to all nations. Though we don't know all the reasons, we must assume that Jesus came as soon as He could, and at precisely the right moment.

But then what about those who received the salvation of God before Christ came — didn't they need Him? As I said at the beginning, they did need Him. When they trusted in God to save them, they were trusting implicitly in the savior whom God would send, whether or not they understood the form that their salvation was to take. Through the eternity of the Father, through the timeless portal of the Godhead, their faith reached forward to the Atonement. In one sense they were not yet saved, because the death and resurrection of Christ had not yet taken place. Yet in another sense they were being saved, because God was drawing them to Himself. And, in still another sense, they were already saved, because they were safe in Him. Even we, who come after Christ, must speak of our salvation in three tenses. We have been saved, because the victory is won;² we are being saved, because God is at work in us;³ and we will be saved, when at last our sanctification is complete and at last we are home with Christ.⁴

Peace be with you,

PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

BIG LOVE (OR MAYBE BIG LUST)

Dear Professor Theophilus:

Why is polygamy wrong? And what am I supposed to think about David and the other Old Testament characters who engaged in it?

Reply

It wasn't just the Old Testament characters who engaged in it. Their version of the sin was simultaneous polygamy, having more than one wife at a time. Ours is successive polygamy, having one wife after another. Both versions are damaging and displeasing to God, but you're asking about the simultaneous kind, so I'll stick to that.

What's wrong with it? Marriage serves two purposes: the nurture of children in the love and fear of God, and the loving gift of self between the husband and wife. For believers, a third purpose comes in too: The consecrated union of the spouses serves as a living emblem of the intimate bond between Christ and His bride, which is the Church.⁵ The problem with polygamy is that it interferes with each of these three purposes. How can the first be well served when the father has multiple, competing sets of children by different women, and his affections are diluted among them? How can the second, when the wives are jealous of each other? How can the third, when the asymmetry between the one husband and his many wives encourages him to lord it over them instead of giving himself to his spouse as Christ gives Himself to the Church?

Besides, how could a man truly give himself to more than one wife? The self is indivisible; therefore the gift of self must be total, and if it is total then it must be to only one person. If you give part of yourself to this woman, part to that one, and part to still another, you really haven't given yourself to anyone. Christ can give Himself to all of us because we make up one body in the Church. But a man's many wives don't make up one body.

Besides, consider what polygamy does to society as a whole. The numbers of men and women are roughly equal, so if some men have many wives, others — especially among the poor — will have none. It's not difficult to see that polygamy promotes injustice, social tension and a much steeper inequality among the classes.

Then what are you supposed to think about David, Solomon and the other Old Testament characters who engaged in polygamy? You are supposed to think that they sinned — and that they suffered for it. I don't know whether you've noticed, but the polygamous households of David, Solomon and the other Hebrew kings were hardly schools of loving intimacy. The husband commits adultery, despite all his many wives and concubines; the wives lead their husband into idolatry; the son schemes against his father and commits incest with his father's wives; brother schemes against brother; wife schemes against husband; half-brother rapes half-sister — shall I go on?

Why then did God OK polygamy in those days? He didn't. "From the beginning" — as Jesus said — the Father's plan for human sexual love was one man with one woman.⁶As to the royal household, Deuteronomy 17:17 expressly commands that the king is "not to multiply wives for himself."⁷ But as I told the writer of the previous letter, it takes a long time to fix the damage of the Fall. The Lord weaned His people from their sins and vices little by little, and in the meantime, He put up with a lot. Thank God, we don't have that excuse. At first He only limited revenge; when Christ came, it was abolished.⁸ At first He only regulated divorce; when Christ came, it was swept away.⁹ At first He overlooked polygamy; when Christ came, He scoured away the stain and tarnish of the ages, and revealed what the Father had intended all along.

Peace be with you,

PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

OY VEY

Dear Professor Theophilus:

In the book of Genesis,¹⁰ after Adam and Eve had sinned, God pronounced a twofold curse on Eve (and her descendents):

1. Pain in childbirth
2. Desire for your husband

I am a single woman, so how does this apply to me? I don't see how I am cursed if I am not having children and don't have a husband. True, my body is preparing for children, but that's not such a curse for me. It might be bad for some women, but for me it's a breeze, most of the time. And it's definitely not the same as childbirth itself. So I don't get it — how am I equally cursed? And what about Paul's references to women called to consecrated singleness? They don't seem cursed.

Reply

Oy vey,¹¹ have I got a lot to explain! Tell you what. You like numbers, so I'll number my points too. We've got five things to clear up.

1. How to read the story.
2. What a curse is.
3. Why the curse happened.
4. What the curse doesn't mean.
5. What it does mean.

How to read the story: The story is about something that really happened — our first parents really were made for each other and for God, they really did rebel against Him, and they really did suffer grave consequences, which ripple all the way down to the present. But although all of the language is true, not all of it is literal; to figure out what truth is being expressed, you have to read with the Church. In the story, for example, the temptation is presented to Eve by a talking snake. Although this figure could be intended literally (who am I to say that it couldn't have been?), I take it as a symbol for the Adversary. When God tells the serpent that from now on he will go on his belly and eat dust, I take it as a way of expressing the humiliation and debasement that result from his challenge to God.

What a curse is: A curse is the declaration of a consequence, a result, something that happens because of something else. Some consequences are adventitious: In the nature of things, they don't have to happen, but someone makes them happen. "Don't try to take that job, or I'll get even with you." Others are natural: They happen because of how reality is put together. "Don't jump off the cliff, or you'll fall."

Why the curse happened. I think God was declaring to Adam and Eve the natural consequences of their rebellion against Him. A natural consequence of tearing off your hand is that you won't be able to hold onto things; a natural consequence of tearing yourself away from God is that other things in your life will tear apart too. The language of the story makes the consequence sound adventitious — God speaks to Eve as though He will multiply her pain in childbirth — but the Old Testament doesn't always distinguish between the natural and adventitious kinds of consequence. (You can see why, can't you? Since God is the Creator, He is the one who decided how reality would be put together in the first place.)

What the curse doesn't mean. Here is what Eve is told: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." It's not that God wants childbirth to hurt. Children are His gift, and surely the giving of the gift shouldn't hurt. But something has gone wrong, and it usually does. As to the other part of the curse, it's not that God wants husbands to play the tyrant. If you're in any doubt about that, read Ephesians 5:25-30. But something has gone wrong; many men do, and many women seem to want them to. Finally, the curse is not a command. It isn't instructing you to have pain, to let your husband tyrannize you, or for that matter, even to get married.

What it does mean. I said above that God doesn't want childbirth to hurt — but it does. Why? Because our bodies as well as our souls depend on Him, so, predictably, when our intimacy with Him was broken, not only our souls but our bodies went awry. I said above that He doesn't want husbands to act the tyrant — but many do, and many women go along. Why? Because man and woman together are the image of God,¹² so, predictably, when our relationship with Him was twisted, the relationship between men and women was twisted too.

These are statements of what actually does tend to happen under circumstances of the Fall. None of it changes what should happen, which is altogether different. Yes, it is OK to seek ways to ease the pain of childbirth. Yes, some are called to holy marriage, but some are called to holy celibacy too, and both are gifts. Finally, the rule for the exercise of a husband's authority (which is real) isn't that he should push his wife around, but that he should sacrifice for her as Christ sacrificed for the Church — "even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve."¹³

Peace be with you,

PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

THIS LETTER DOESN'T FIT. YOU GONNA MAKE SOMETHING OUTTA THAT?

Dear Professor Theophilus:

If "Budziszewski" is your last name, then what in the world is your first name?

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What do you think of the professor's interpretation of Eve's curse?

Join the discussion!

You seem to have me mixed up with my friend, who sometimes pretends that he's me (but at other times insists that he's not — go figure). My last name is "Theophilus," my initials are "M.E.," and if you want to know what they stand for, look up Luke 1:3. When I was born, that was my father's little joke. Ha ha, Dad.

Peace be with you,

PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

If you have a question you'd like Professor Theophilus to consider for this column, please send it to asktheo@trueu.org. Please note, all questions selected for "Ask Theophilus" may be edited for clarity and privacy, and become the property of Focus on the Family.