Western notions surrounding the legitimacy of offspring are among the cruelest misapplications of God's standards of righteousness that have ever been visited upon humankind. Indeed, those notions were made more onerous by virtue of the fact that the suffering which they inflicted fell heaviest on the most vulnerable part of that population: children.
Christians reasoned that because monogamous, heterosexual marriage was God's standard (as defined by the Judeo-Christian Scriptures*) that only those children who were born of such a union should be considered legitimate in the eyes of society (especially with regard to the church and the law). Over time, the notion developed that only children who were products of such a marriage could be considered as eligible to inherit their father's name, title(s), land(s) and/or wealth.
Any children born outside of that standard were regarded as illegitimate and given the moniker of "bastard." In other words, the onus for the illicit union was placed squarely on the shoulders of the completely innocent byproducts of those unions, not on the actual sinners.
This, however, clearly contradicts the principle laid down in the book of Ezekiel that "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:20) In other words, any negative consequences for the wicked behavior should be borne by the person who engaged in that behavior, not by his/her innocent children!
Indeed, if we appeal to the Old Testament for our standard, we must come to the conclusion that Western notions regarding the legitimacy of children were NOT derived from that book. After all, Abraham clearly regarded Ishmael (the son of his wife's servant Hagar, who also happened to be his secondary wife) as his son, and God blessed the boy because he was Abraham's son. Likewise, Jacob's sons by his secondary wives (Bilhah and Zilpah) were regarded as his sons and went on to become patriarchs of Israelite tribes - just like the sons of his primary wives (Rachel and Leah) - see Genesis 30. In similar fashion, the children of Judah's dalliance with his daughter-in-law were clearly regarded as his legitimate heirs - see Genesis 38. Also, Gideon's "illegitimate" son (Abimelech) was clearly regarded by the Israelites as a potential successor to his father - see Judges 9.
In fact, the term "bastard" only appears two times in the King James Version of the Bible. In Deuteronomy 23:2, we read: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." And, in Zechariah 9:6, we read: "And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines."
The Hebrew word which appears in both of these verses is mamzer - see Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. According to Chabad.ORG, "Unlike the English word, 'bastard,' the Hebrew term mamzer does not refer to the child of two unmarried individuals who could theoretically marry (i.e. born out of wedlock). Rather, it refers only to the offspring of people whose relationship would be punishable with karet (excision). This includes many close-blood relatives or a woman who was concurrently married to someone other than the child’s father." --https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4007896/jewish/What-Is-a-Mamzer.htm
Moreover, if we appeal to the New Testament for our standard, we find even less material to support Western notions about legitimacy. Indeed, we are informed there in two gospel accounts (Matthew and Luke) that Jesus Christ's mother was unmarried at the time of his birth. By traditional Western standards, that would make Jesus a bastard and ineligible to inherit his ancestor King David's throne!
It should also be noted that in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians that the apostle doesn't make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. For Paul, it is simply the parents duty to refrain from provoking their children and to raise them in the Lord.
While we may be able to understand the feelings of jealousy, resentment and anger which probably engendered Western notions about legitimacy, those notions are certainly not consistent with the principles laid down in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. For the Christian God, there is no such thing as an illegitimate child - there are only children and the parents who are responsible for their nurture and welfare. And we can all thank God that the stigma which was historically assigned to these children has gradually receded into the mists of an ignorant and inhumane past.
*This is the verdict of Traditional Christianity and does not reflect the view of the author of this post.
Christians reasoned that because monogamous, heterosexual marriage was God's standard (as defined by the Judeo-Christian Scriptures*) that only those children who were born of such a union should be considered legitimate in the eyes of society (especially with regard to the church and the law). Over time, the notion developed that only children who were products of such a marriage could be considered as eligible to inherit their father's name, title(s), land(s) and/or wealth.
Any children born outside of that standard were regarded as illegitimate and given the moniker of "bastard." In other words, the onus for the illicit union was placed squarely on the shoulders of the completely innocent byproducts of those unions, not on the actual sinners.
This, however, clearly contradicts the principle laid down in the book of Ezekiel that "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:20) In other words, any negative consequences for the wicked behavior should be borne by the person who engaged in that behavior, not by his/her innocent children!
Indeed, if we appeal to the Old Testament for our standard, we must come to the conclusion that Western notions regarding the legitimacy of children were NOT derived from that book. After all, Abraham clearly regarded Ishmael (the son of his wife's servant Hagar, who also happened to be his secondary wife) as his son, and God blessed the boy because he was Abraham's son. Likewise, Jacob's sons by his secondary wives (Bilhah and Zilpah) were regarded as his sons and went on to become patriarchs of Israelite tribes - just like the sons of his primary wives (Rachel and Leah) - see Genesis 30. In similar fashion, the children of Judah's dalliance with his daughter-in-law were clearly regarded as his legitimate heirs - see Genesis 38. Also, Gideon's "illegitimate" son (Abimelech) was clearly regarded by the Israelites as a potential successor to his father - see Judges 9.
In fact, the term "bastard" only appears two times in the King James Version of the Bible. In Deuteronomy 23:2, we read: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." And, in Zechariah 9:6, we read: "And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines."
The Hebrew word which appears in both of these verses is mamzer - see Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. According to Chabad.ORG, "Unlike the English word, 'bastard,' the Hebrew term mamzer does not refer to the child of two unmarried individuals who could theoretically marry (i.e. born out of wedlock). Rather, it refers only to the offspring of people whose relationship would be punishable with karet (excision). This includes many close-blood relatives or a woman who was concurrently married to someone other than the child’s father." --https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4007896/jewish/What-Is-a-Mamzer.htm
Moreover, if we appeal to the New Testament for our standard, we find even less material to support Western notions about legitimacy. Indeed, we are informed there in two gospel accounts (Matthew and Luke) that Jesus Christ's mother was unmarried at the time of his birth. By traditional Western standards, that would make Jesus a bastard and ineligible to inherit his ancestor King David's throne!
It should also be noted that in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians that the apostle doesn't make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. For Paul, it is simply the parents duty to refrain from provoking their children and to raise them in the Lord.
While we may be able to understand the feelings of jealousy, resentment and anger which probably engendered Western notions about legitimacy, those notions are certainly not consistent with the principles laid down in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. For the Christian God, there is no such thing as an illegitimate child - there are only children and the parents who are responsible for their nurture and welfare. And we can all thank God that the stigma which was historically assigned to these children has gradually receded into the mists of an ignorant and inhumane past.
*This is the verdict of Traditional Christianity and does not reflect the view of the author of this post.
I believe there is no such thing as an illegitimate child. Parents, who are adults and responsible for their actions, can be illegitimate.
ReplyDeleteIt almost seems to be a perverse human need to have someone to look down upon.
Most people do not realize that double standards in the way people treat outsiders and insiders to their own group create the potential to write off and mistreat all people, not just the outsiders. The proof of this is evident amongst racists. When there are no minorities around to treat insensitively, racists often turn on and mistreat one another.
BB
Good point - the Armstrong Church of God culture is a good case in point, and the Trump team is another. Look at how quickly and viciously they turn on each other when they are forced into a defensive position. There is only internal harmony when they are on the offensive!
DeleteMiller Jones.
ReplyDeleteAs a freshman at law I spend 2 terms at Roman Law.
Only after completing that I understood the wcg NT teaching that we were supposed to be co heirs with christ and "sons of god" in the spirit of "ADOPTION". Every Roman citizen could explain that doctrine about legitimacy and inheritance and carrying a family name.
Only few Roman emperors were not adoptive sons and heirs.
Nck