• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

A question from Deut. 21:15

frederick

frederick

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
One of my wives came across notes in a commentary on Deut. 21:15 that I've not encountered in any translation before. I can't find any support for what is written in the notes, but I'm wondering if anyone has dealt with the passage and can shed some light for me(?)

The writer is a respected teacher, John Macarthur (recently deceased), so I expect others would read his notes.

Below is a screenshot of the notes.
signal-2026-01-13-12-05-31-948.jpg
 
frederick said:
One of my wives came across notes in a commentary on Deut. 21:15 that I've not encountered in any translation before. I can't find any support for what is written in the notes, but I'm wondering if anyone has dealt with the passage and can shed some light for me(?)

The writer is a respected teacher, John Macarthur (recently deceased), so I expect others would read his notes.

Below is a screenshot of the notes.
View attachment 11875
Click to expand...
I tried to figure out how he could claim that it was originally rendered as " has had two wives" . I could not figure out how to torture the words into that kind of a translation.

If I believed in MO, I would then like to believe that Moses was saying what John Macarthur claimed but..... I just don't see it.
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
I tried to figure out how he could claim that it was originally rendered as " has had two wives" . I could not figure out how to torture the words into that kind of a translation.

If I believed in MO, I would then like to believe that Moses was saying what John Macarthur claimed but..... I just don't see it.
Click to expand...
Same. I looked at a lot of different English translations, including multiple literal translations, and I couldn't find any support for his claim. He is very highly regarded in conservative evangelical circles, so I'm picking his explanation would be "helpful" in solving the issues we raise from this passage. My knowledge of Hebrew isn't good enough to analyze the verse to the degree I'd like, so I'm hoping some of those with a better understanding might assist.
 
He makes an unmerited assumption, that "of course! - the first wife must be dead." That is the 'translation bias' error.

Note that "has two wives" - currently - is a subset of the claim "has HAD two wives." Indeed, he has, and does.
 
PS> And looking specifically and only at the Hebrew, note that the original 'scroll' text does NOT have vowel pointers - they were added in the Masoretic text. Much of the verb tense information is from them.

"If a man has," is certainly as reasonable English rendering.

But it looks to me like at least as good of a rendering can include a 'future tense' to the effect that "IF a man later or ever or ultimately has two wives..." The condition is general. And it does not preclude them being sequential, or simultaneous.
 
Most here won't be surprised to hear that I generally liked, appreciated, and respected MacArthur. In fact, I have his study Bible, and many of his Bible commentaries.

That said, the way he dealt with certain polygamy related Biblical passages was just horribly bad.

I remember reading him say that Abraham "committed adultery" with Hagar. That isn't merely wrong, it is absurdly wrong. In my book, MacArthur lost a lot of credibility with that comment.

I think MacArthur is totally off base with his comment on Deuteronomy 21:15.

This passage clearly deals with both scenarios (polygamy, and sequential wives).

Here is a pretty good little video from MacArthur on the authority of pastors. Hopefully it will help wash the bad taste out of your mouth. 😉
 
It just occurred to me that even the Legacy Standard Bible doesn't give the translation as he suggests. It reads, “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,

The Lockman Foundation asked John, with the Masters Seminary, to update the NASB and the Legacy Standard Bible is the result. I was at Grace Community Church when John announced it and remember his comments about how he said he'd told them he wanted free reign on the changes they'd make. He said the Lockman Foundation agreed, so I'm somewhat surprised at the translation here in the LSB.
 
frederick said:
It just occurred to me that even the Legacy Standard Bible doesn't give the translation as he suggests. It reads, “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,

The Lockman Foundation asked John, with the Masters Seminary, to update the NASB and the Legacy Standard Bible is the result. I was at Grace Community Church when John announced it and remember his comments about how he said he'd told them he wanted free reign on the changes they'd make. He said the Lockman Foundation agreed, so I'm somewhat surprised at the translation here in the LSB.
Click to expand...
That is a good point. 👍

I think his comment on Deuteronomy 21:15 reflects what he felt and/or wanted to be true. I'm not a Hebrew expert, but English translations don't render it the way he suggests, Interlinear translations don't, and neither do the Hebrew study tools I can access.

By the way, we see some translation bias in every translation. For example both the NASB and LSB (which I generally like very much) mistranslate the word "bosom" in 2nd Samuel 12:8. They render the passage "your master's wives into your care" when it should read "into your bosom". This is inconsistent with their translation of the same phrase just a few verses earlier in 2nd Samuel 12:3, where the correct translation is given "in his bosom".

That incorrect translation is apparently due to a bias towards "monogamy only" on the part of the translators.

The ESV is more consistent rendering both verses the same way "in his arms" in verse 3 and "into your arms" in verse 8.
 
Mr. MacArthur and his entire ministry is highly regarded in our household. But, he wasn’t infallible. My wife and I listened to one of his sermons once regarding Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah. When he began to list the sins of Sodom, he somehow weaved polygamy into it.

Wait, what?!? That is nowhere to be found anywhere in the text. It just sounds good and gives one standing in conservative/fundamental circles. My wife actually sent the video to me first to point out the error. A bit disappointing coming from a man we regard highly, but understandable, given church culture.

I had an opportunity to visit the Masters University campus once for an event. It’s definitely a great school. I refuse to throw him out with the bath water over this one issue.
 
Thats a mere case of itching ears that dont want to listen to the truth. Truth is not as tasty to the pharisee tongue as the traditions of men. As written by the prophet Hosea:


¹² I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.

Hosea 8:12
 
You also have to be very careful when using new translation Bibles because some of them has changed words completely opposite of their true meaning, I came to the knowledge of this after using different Bibles to help me understand the kjv Bible so now I use only the kjv and ask the Holly spirit to give me the understand of God words.
 
Mojo said:
Mr. MacArthur and his entire ministry is highly regarded in our household. But, he wasn’t infallible.
Click to expand...
Same. We even had to throw out some of the tapes (remember those!), CD's and videos of his because they were not sound biblically. I didn't want people to think I believed and accepted what was in them if they borrowed them.

Mojo said:
I had an opportunity to visit the Masters University campus once for an event. It’s definitely a great school. I refuse to throw him out with the bath water over this one issue.
Click to expand...
The Masters University, Masters Seminary, and the GCC campus are all quite amazing. If you ever get the opportunity to look through the Seminary library, take it. I would think the resources available there would rate among the best in the world.

John had more than this one issue which I disagreed with him on, but I'm with you, we don't throw him under the bus.
 
frederick said:
Commentaries are men's opinions.
Click to expand...
That is true. Translations are to an extent too because they are often done by committee. This is why the word Mia in Acts is translated one way and then in Timothy translated completely differently to fit the party line of the monogamy only crowd. It’s still a man made opinion and interpretation of the Word.
 
Tally said:
You also have to be very careful when using new translation Bibles because some of them has changed words completely opposite of their true meaning, I came to the knowledge of this after using different Bibles to help me understand the kjv Bible so now I use only the kjv and ask the Holly spirit to give me the understand of God words.
Click to expand...
The KJV isn't perfect either.
I like to compare several translations, including the NASB, NKJV, ESV, and occasionally KJV, LSB, LSV, CSB, RSV, NIV, NLT, etc.
 
Speaking of translations, one thing I appreciate about the NASB/LSB and NKJV is their practice of italicizing filler words that are included for clarification, but aren't translated from the original text.
 
frederick said:
Word for word translations are the nearest to the original, but dynamic equivalence translations begin to step away and get worse and worse the more they deviate from original meanings of the words. Some of the recent so-called translations are nothing more than vague commentaries.
Click to expand...
That is why the NIV and NLT are towards the bottom of my list.👍 They are more paraphrased than I am comfortable using. As a child, and young man, I was largely raised on the NIV. Moving to the more "word for word" NASB and ESV was very helpful.
 
frederick said:
The Masters University, Masters Seminary, and the GCC campus are all quite amazing. If you ever get the opportunity to look through the Seminary library, take it. I would think the resources available there would rate among the best in the world.

John had more than this one issue which I disagreed with him on, but I'm with you, we don't throw him under the bus.
Click to expand...
It hurts knowing that these brothers would likely throw us under the bus over the issue of polygamy, but I still won't do it to them.

Speaking of Masters Seminary, my church (a Southern Baptist congregation) recently hired an associate pastor who trained at Masters Seminary. Overall, I trust Master's seminary more than I trust the Southern Baptist seminaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top