In Search of Truth :: View topic - Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?

"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17)

In Search Of Truth

FAQ

Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?
Goto page 1, 2 Next

In Search of Truth Forum Index -> Morality

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:04 pm Post subject: Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?

**Moderated - Dec. 6, 2005: Split off from the following thread **

qualification of deacons - "husband of one wife"
______________________________________________________

m273p15c wrote:

"How can a husband of 2 wives be the 'husband of one wife'? He is the husband of 2, not 1. By stating the exact number of wives, Paul ruled out any number above or below the specified number - one. Please see the top of the thread for more discussion.

Moreover, is polygamy condemned elsewhere in Scripture? If so, then how can a polygamist be considered 'blameless'?"

What I was pointing out is that being a man is on the list. Thus if the list is considered a list of things that are "blameless" then being a woman is considered to be substandard. There are two sorts of people that are excluded from being a deacon on the list. Neither sort of person is "substandard" for what they are, they are simply inelligible to be deacons. Women may not be deacons, polygynous men may not be deacons, neither are "blamed" for being what they are, nor are they blameless by virtue of being in the other condition, namely a monogamous man or a man as opposed to being a woman.

Some items on the list consitute blameless behavior, it is true, but some are simply items on the list and are not equated with righteousness, they're simply conditions to be satisfied by the prospective office holder.

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

m273p15c

Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 500

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:37 pm Post subject: Re: It's not a list of things that are "Blameless"

Hugh McBryde wrote:

My apologies, Hugh. It appears that I completely misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that case #5 from an earlier post (polygamy) would satisfy the condition of "husband of one wife". However, as I read and reread your posts, it seems you are agreeing that the polygamist could not be a deacon, but his multiple wives would be acceptable to the Lord!? Are you saying that polygamy is not a sin? Am I understanding you correctly? Do you believe polygamy is permitted in general? Or, do I still not understand you? Let me offer my apologies if I am being dense here....

Hugh McBryde wrote:

... Thus brings up another point as well. A deacon is to be husband to one wife. This means that men who are husband to more, are not necessarily by this passage condemned either. ... Women may not be deacons, polygynous men may not be deacons, neither are "blamed" for being what they are, nor are they blameless by virtue of being in the other condition, namely a monogamous man or a man as opposed to being a woman.

Some items on the list consitute blameless behavior, it is true, but some are simply items on the list and are not equated with righteousness, they're simply conditions to be satisfied by the prospective office holder.

I agree with your observation: The qualifications for deacons are more stringent than the "requirements" for Christians. Therefore, a person may actually be a good Christian, even though he or she may not qualify as being a deacon. Consequently, if polygamy is a sin, this passage should not be used to condemn it. I Timothy 3 can only be used to eliminate polygamists from being deacons. We must look elsewhere to understand God's will on polygamy for Christians, in general.

Please kindly correct me, if I am still misinterpreting your posts.

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:36 pm Post subject: First, a minor clarification...

I take all your references to "Polygamy" or "Polygamists" to be a reference in fact to Polygyny and Polygynists. There is a difference. Polygamy includes the practice of several forms of marriage not even mentioned in scripture, if in fact you can call those sorts of relationships "marriages". Polyandry for instance is a form of Polygamy, but is not described or condoned in scripture.

m273p15c wrote:

"...it seems you are agreeing that the polygamist could not be a deacon, but his multiple wives would be acceptable to the Lord!? Are you saying that polygamy is not a sin? Am I understanding you correctly? Do you believe polygamy is permitted in general? Or, do I still not understand you? Let me offer my apologies if I am being dense here...."

No apologies necessary, but with the above clarification in mind, yes, I believe it is permitted without qualification or reservation. It's not a sin and there is no scriptural reference that supports that notion.

m273p15c wrote:

"Consequently, if polygamy is a sin, this passage should not be used to condemn it. I Timothy 3 can only be used to eliminate polygamists from being deacons. We must look elsewhere to understand God's will on polygamy for Christians, in general."

That's it exactly.

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

m273p15c

Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 500

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: First, a minor clarification...

Hugh McBryde wrote:

Ok - now I am really confused. To me, "polygamy", is the simultaneous marriage to multiple people - for example, a man married to two wives. Please define the words you have used and list any Scriptures that might be relevant examples or commentary.

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:45 pm Post subject: Per the dictionary.

m273p15c wrote:

"Ok - now I am really confused. To me, 'polygamy' is the simultaneous marriage to multiple people - for example, a man married to two wives. Please define the words you have used and list any Scriptures that might be relevant examples or commentary."

I can find no references to "Polygamy" or "Polyandry" or "Polygyny" in the scriptures, the simple fact of the matter being that the Hebrews didn't have a word for any of those practices, including monogamy.

As defined in our language in our dictionaries of the English Language, "Polygamy" is a broad term including many men married to many women at the same time, communal marriage or many men married to one woman, which would be a "Polyandry" or many women married to one man which would be a "Polygyny". Communal marriage or Polyandries or Polygynies all fall into the broad category of Polygamy.

Though there is no word for it, it is the last form of Polygamy, a Polygyny, is the only form of Polygamy practiced in scripture. Never once do we see a Polyandry or Communal marriage. Only Polygynies and Mongamies though again I repeat there is no concept of either in the scriptures, only that of marriage which it broadly defines (by our terms) to include Polygyny. If we do see a situation that might be roughly described even remotely close to a communal marriage or a Polyandry, they are always classified as sin or wickedness, never as a marriage form.

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

m273p15c

Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 500

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:35 pm Post subject: Re: Per the dictionary.

Hugh McBryde wrote:

Though there is no word for it, it is the last form of Polygamy, a Polygyny, is the only form of Polygamy practiced in scripture. ... Only Polygynies and Mongamies though again I repeat there is no concept of either in the scriptures, only that of marriage which it broadly defines (by our terms) to include Polygyny.

Ok - I appreciate the definitions. That really helps me understand what you are saying. However, I still have one question. I am not sure what you think about "polygyny". Can a man Scripturally have more than one wife in the New Testament?

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject: Short answer?

m273p15c wrote:

"Can a man Scripturally have more than one wife in the New Testament?"

Short answer? Yes. In fact Paul's restriction of Deacons and Elders (Overseers) to one wife virtually screams that such practices did continue.

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

sledford

Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?

Hugh McBryde wrote:

Some items on the list consitute blameless behavior, it is true, but some are simply items on the list and are not equated with righteousness, they're simply conditions to be satisfied by the prospective office holder.

Hugh

The context is qualifications for the person to serve as a deacon. You cannot establish the basis of a condition or act on what the passage does NOT say but on what the entire Bible says on a given subject. In practical terms applying your logic would lead to the following FALSE conclusion:

One of the qualifications is "not greedy for money", therefore it is ok for the non-deacon Christian to be greedy?

That flies in the face of other scripture such as Mark 7:20-22

Mark 7:20-22 wrote:

20 And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.
21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deciet, lewdness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
23 "All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

The word covetousness in v22 is rendered "greedy desire" in some versions, which is a similar idea to what is written in 1 Tim 3:8 in the qualifications listed. The behavior of greed itself is wrong as stated by Jesus. I can have a weakness in which I struggle with being and acting greedily. If I show a pattern of this, I could not serve as a deacon. I could repent and be forgiven each time I act greedily as a Christian but it would still disqualify me to serve as a deacon though I am not currently acting greedily.

You simply cannot reason backwards from a list of qualifications and establish the "negative qualification" is ok in the face of other clear scripture. On marriage this is expressed by Jesus in Matt 19:4-5

Matt 19:4-5 wrote:

4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'
5 "and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

It doesn't say 'made them male and females', plural. The subjects are singular in the context. Likewise, Jesus continues by stating the "two shall become one flesh." That's a very exclusionary quantity of 2 becoming 1, not 3 becoming 1 (2 wives and 1 husband), etc.

Do some people mess the exlusionary principle of one husband and one wife up either in divorce, polygyny, etc? Yes. Does that make it right? No, and it is clear instruction like this that must be used to shed further light on what is NOT stated in passages such as 1 Tim 3:8.

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject: One Flesh does NOT say ANYTHING about Monogamy.

sledford wrote:

"The context is qualifications for the person to serve as a deacon. You cannot establish the basis of a condition or act on what the passage does NOT say but on what the entire Bible says on a given subject."

I thought that was my point. If indeed all things on the list for qualification to office of deacon (or elder) are IDEALS of behavior, then they would in fact be found illustrated as such elsewhere in scripture, may I ask you where it is found that Monogamy is upheld as an Ideal?

sledford wrote:

"One of the qualifications is 'not greedy for money', therefore it is ok for the non-deacon Christian to be greedy?"

No, of course not, and you go on to reinforce my point by showing in Mark 7 that greed for money is a generally undesireable or to be more to the point, sinful state to be in. The point is here that a deacon or Elder (overseer) is to be a man, and a man APT to teach. By insisting that all the items on the list are ideals of behavior, then you condemn women for merely being women, or the severely brain damaged as cursed of God as they are not apt to teach.

sledford wrote:

"You simply cannot reason backwards from a list of qualifications and establish the 'negative qualification' is ok in the face of other clear scripture. On marriage this is expressed by Jesus:

Matt 19:4-5 wrote:

'And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,"and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"?'

It doesn't say 'made them male and females', plural. The subjects are singular in the context. Likewise, Jesus continues by stating the 'two shall become one flesh.' That's a very exclusionary quantity of 2 becoming 1, not 3 becoming 1 (2 wives and 1 husband), etc."

First, this passage is taken out of context. Jesus is being questioned as to whether or not it is lawful to divorce your wife for any reason, not whether or not it is lawful or even a good or bad idea to have more than one wife.

I can give you an example of many things in which one item is one with another, and still another, but those things with which it is one, are not part of each other. In a cell, the various parts are one with the cell, but the cell nucleus is not part of the mitochondria. In a wheel, the spokes are one with the hub, but not with each other, they are one with the rim, but the hub and rim are not part of each other. It's tempting to see the "becoming one" as one=mono=monogamy but thoughtful examination forces us to admit that is not true, it's just an attractive thought.

Furthermore Jesus quotes Moses who wrote Genesis ands the word for wife used in Genesis 2:24 has no singular or plural form. It's the same word used by Moses later in a law given to him BY GOD when he says "if a man has two " 'ishshah" (wife or wives). This is then becomes part of a proof that one flesh is not in any way an argument against polygyny because 1.) You are ONE FLESH with your 'ishshah. 2.) You can clearly have more than one 'ishshah, therefore you MUST be one flesh with all the 'ishshah you have at any given moment. THUS if you have TWO 'ishshah you are one flesh with both of them at the same time. It's not an exclusionary concept. You would then have to go on to prove that while it's possible, it's not right, and for that you need another passage describing Polygyny as wrong. There isn't one. Just as there is no word for "wives" as opposed to "wife" there is no word for monogamy or polygyny in the Hebrew language. There is just marriage, and arguably that word only applies to what happens when you take a wife and that family is the result.

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

sledford

Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:17 pm Post subject: Re: One Flesh does NOT say ANYTHING about Monogamy.

Hugh McBryde wrote:

I will be clearer. No, they are not IDEALS of behavior, they are simply qualifications. There is a big difference and not at all equivalent.

Hugh McBryde wrote:

may I ask you where it is found that Monogamy is upheld as an Ideal?

I gave you one with Matt 19 but you have chosen to reject it as out of context. Let's re-establish again what the context is in full:

Matt 19:3-9 wrote:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

A few observations:

1) Jesus doesn't answer their first question directly. He asks a question by asking if they "had not read".
2) They ask the question again but with further specificness, connecting it with Moses. Jesus response this next time answers the direct question and note his introduction in v8 "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts".

In examinng the responses of Jesus, you will observe a pattern of responding to a question with a question. The question Jesus asks in response always points to a higher principle, a principle above and beyond what the original question was asking. Even in the same chapter, Matt 19:16, Jesus is asked a question and in v17 responds at first again with a question, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." I point this out to demonstrate the pattern.

Therefore, Jesus' response with the nature of marriage in it's design from the beginning is the higher principle, arching above and beyond the first direct question concerning divorce. His response applies to divorce but is not limited to just divorce. It establishes the principle of marriage between one man and one woman. This is by virtue of the enumerations used of 2 becoming 1. Further, the word used to describe the "oneness" is at first stated as a "leaving and cleaving". The word cleave in the original language means "to glue to". There is not room to understand this as anything other than a true oneness. The oneness described here is very different from the figures you provided.

You are right about one thing: you will not find an explicit verse saying polygyny is wrong. But if you're seeking to justify yourself or the action based on this, you would be wrong in doing so. The written word of God is not just a list of "thou shalt nots", and I think we both know that. Otherwise, this debate is useless because you would already have your proof with no need to rationalize it in the face of rather plain scripture of what marriage is.

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject: Plain?

sledford wrote:

"I will be clearer. No, they are not IDEALS of behavior, they are simply qualifications. There is a big difference and not at all equivalent."

Thank you, few people admit that on the Monogamy side of the argument. This means we have to look to some other passage to establish monogamy as an Ideal. Thus the qualifications for office of Deacon or Elder are utterly irrelevant to the Polygyny debate. They are on the list and are ideals only if demonstrated to be such elsewhere in scripture, we agree. Then you refer to this statement of mine:

I wrote:

"May I ask you where it is found that Monogamy is upheld as an Ideal?"

And reply;

sledford wrote:

"I gave you one with Matt 19 but you have chosen to reject it as out of context."

Of course I did, because it's out of context. Granted Jesus refers to the first marriage which coincidently is a monogamy, but he says nothing at all about the monogamy of Adam and Eve in the reference, he only refers to the fact that the first marriage was not to be broken and neither was God's intent for subsequent marriages to be broken either.

sledford wrote:

"1) Jesus doesn't answer their first question directly. He asks a question by asking if they 'had not read'."

Ok. Not a problem, he often answered questions with questions. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Polygyny issue.

sledford wrote:

"2) They ask the question again but with further specificness, connecting it with Moses. Jesus response this next time answers the direct question and note his introduction in v8 'Moses because of the hardness of your hearts'."

I have great difficulty with this tactic because that is what it is. First it is asserted that this passage speaks about monogamy, and quickly before that assumption is challenged, the "Hardness of Heart" phrase is brought up. We have to stop before we get to that phrase and ask "Is this passage about monogamy" and if the answer is not "yes" then nothing that follows is of relevance. The hardness of heart is with regard to DIVORCE and nothing else, the passage is about DIVORCE, not about the marital state God chose for Adam and Eve.

sledford wrote:

"Jesus' response with the nature of marriage in it's design from the beginning is the higher principle, arching above and beyond the first direct question concerning divorce. His response applies to divorce but is not limited to just divorce. It establishes the principle of marriage between one man and one woman."

False, I know nothing other in the way of a response. This is a leap on your part. He never once mentions that it is to be "Between one man and one woman" as you imply exclusively. It could be said to be between one man and one woman only in the sense that the state of marriage exists only between me and my wife, but clearly as later pointed out in the Law of God given to Moses (For that is it's proper title) that marriage can exist between a man and a woman and that same man and another woman, this is utterly undeniable. So unless Christ says "Between this man and this woman AND NO MORE" there is no assertion that marriage exists only between one man and one woman and it is clearly not impossible for this to occur.

sledford wrote:

"This is by virtue of the enumerations used of 2 becoming 1. Further, the word used to describe the 'oneness' is at first stated as a 'leaving and cleaving'. The word cleave in the original language means 'to glue to'. There is not room to understand this as anything other than a true oneness. The oneness described here is very different from the figures you provided."

I'm sorry, but this is all western romantic imagery. If you are married to this imagery, I can't do much to shake you from it, I can only continue to point out that it's not found in the text. Christ is one with the Father and one with the Holy Spirit. Disproof of the notion is found there. Granted God could make a special case of oneness in marriage between a man and a woman and say that only those two are to be one with one another, and no more, but it's simply never said.

sledford wrote:

"You are right about one thing: you will not find an explicit verse saying polygyny is wrong. But if you're seeking to justify yourself or the action based on this, you would be wrong in doing so."

This is not like saying God never says "Don't smoke Pot". Pot smoking, to our knowledge, was not practiced in Israel, however being drunk was spoken against. I think the two issues are vastly different. Polygyny went on right in front of God's face for thousands of years. He never speaks against it, he doesn't so much as clear his throat on the subject. He tells David through Nathan that he gave him wives and would have given him more as part of the reason that the Murder of Uriah and the theft of Bathsheba was so heinous. God's high Priest Jehoiada gives two wives to Joash, and the benediction "and he did right all the days of Jehoiada the Priest" is immediately passed on Joash's actions during that time. I always wonder about this one. A man who is God's appointed high priest, who saves the Godly line through which the Messiah comes, who is possessed of the Law in the ORIGINAL langauge, who could look in the ark and see the ORIGINAL writing of God in stone, clearly a man who "get's it" who GIVES the KING of JUDAH two wives, and the writer of SCRIPTURE says "And he did RIGHT all the days of Jehoiada the Priest", and we DARE, WE DARE to say we see it more clearly. I simply cannot fathom that. Futhermore we would have our God be a DUMB GOD who has countless opportunities to denounce the practice, and never EVER does. He even mandates it twice in his law as a coincidental side effect of obeying those laws.

sledford wrote:

"The written word of God is not just a list of "thou shalt nots", and I think we both know that. Otherwise, this debate is useless because you would already have your proof with no need to rationalize it in the face of rather plain scripture of what marriage is."

I contend the scripture is plain and you refuse to see it. My signature line is from scripture and clearly states, along with many similar scriptures that adding is a grave wrong, yet you do it, fearlessly. You say it is plain that scripture advocates monogamy, yet there is no word for it. You say it is plain, yet in response to "Levirate Law" many men of Israel had to become polygynous. You say it is plain, yet when a man had an affair with an unbetrothed virgin, he was compelled without choice to marry her, and you can count on him being married in most cases already. You say it is plain, yet Polygynies were regulated in the law without negative comment, that being the LAW of GOD as GIVEN to Moses. What is plain to me is that you grew up in a culture, and understandably you see things through that lens.

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

sledford

Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:09 pm Post subject:

As you all begin to understand my style you will learn that I generally strive to be succinct. It keeps a thought focused. There are two decriptions given of the same event of marriage given by Jesus in Matt 19: 1) "Leave and cleave" and as alreaqdy pointed out in the original Greek the word cleave means "to glue to". 2) This is followed by an enumeration of 2 becoming 1. That is not me reading anything into the context but simply observing what the context says. With that I leave with a question. Why the extreme amount of effort in words to rationalize away what these two statement by our Lord succintcly say? In two sentences Jesus defines the marriage relationship as given in design and purpose by God from the beginning. It takes volumes to try to explain it any differently.

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:25 am Post subject: We're going to have to call in Chubby Checker

sledford wrote:

"1) 'Leave and cleave' and as alreaqdy pointed out in the original Greek the word cleave means 'to glue to'."

I don't know what to tell you sled, so it means "to glue to". Are you telling me we can only glue one thing to another? If you are a trinity adherant, obviously not. I can conceive of no closer relationship than that in the Godhead, but it is between three, not two. I would remind you that context dictates usage in the case of any word. Cleave can mean to stick to or to violently cut apart (usually with something sharp).

sledford wrote:

"2) This is followed by an enumeration of 2 becoming 1.

That is not me reading anything into the context but simply observing what the context says. With that I leave with a question. Why the extreme amount of effort in words to rationalize away what these two statement by our Lord succintcly say?"

Unless it is stated that this is the purpose of the remark you're mistaking the coincidental construction of the remark to mean something. It doesn't. It means the two become one, you then impose an outside concept on the passage to say that it means "only two should become one". I don't know how to explain to you that it's not a rationalization or a contortion or a lawyering of the passage to say that it just doesn't say that. The two become one. Then the man goes on in the case of a Polygyny to do that again. Are you trying to tell me that operation is impossible or prevented? I can use the law, written by the same author that writes the passage Jesus quotes, to prove otherwise.

sledford wrote:

"In two sentences Jesus defines the marriage relationship as given in design and purpose by God from the beginning. It takes volumes to try to explain it any differently."

Sorry, in two sentences Jesus explains how two seperate entities are now one with one another, again, an operation I can prove from the law and from the New Testament can and did occur more than once in some cases. Jesus' point is that the two, having become one, should not be seperated from one another. That's it, that's the whole point.

At no place in scripture anywhere is there a passage that even breathes a hint of specific displeasure on Polygyny, yet I am rationalizing when I point out this one doesn't either. I am rationalizing when I point out the topic is divorce, but you are reading the plain simple meaning. The plain simple meaning of this passage is that once two have become one (as it was in the beginning), it was not God's intent that they be seperated by divorce. End of story. Simple, Plain, in context, on topic. Jesus was not talking about Polygyny, he was talking about divorce, yet you want to make this a monogamy-only rant and he says nothing about that.

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

sledford

Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:45 pm Post subject:

I perceive somewhere along the way that my responses are viewed as being angrily attacking (definition of a rant as stated in the conclusion of the last post). I can say in all honesty before God that I have not once written an angry word on this subject or towards you. I am indeed single-mindedly focused in expounding God’s Word, which is my responsibility as a disciple of Jesus. (2 Timothy 4:2) But, I cannot help if that is being taken incorrectly as a personal attack, that is certainly NOT my intent.

As I have already stated, I strive to be succinct. I have remained on the context of Matt 19 for a reason: it addresses the core of truth on this subject. I don’t normally deal with all of the extra ideas along the way so as to avoid distraction from the core thought. However, there are some appeals to Old Testament events that warrant examination. But first, I will address again the core context of Matt 19.

1) Matt 19 provides a foundational definition of marriage as between one man and one woman

A simple linguistic proof that what Jesus states in Matt 19:4-6 is a foundational principle defining and governing marriage is found in one simple word: therefore

Matt 19:4-6 wrote:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The word "therefore" is a connective adverb establishing a conclusion from a fact stated before it. "Therefore" establishes consequence of the first statement to the second statement. Jesus' observation of "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" is a consequence of the previous statement in v4-5. Consequence can only occur if the statement before it is a basic principle to draw consequence and conclusion from. That is following simple language construction. It is a foundational concept by virtue of the period in time identified: "made them at the beginning". You cannot get any earlier in establishment than the beginning creation. Thus, the statement made by Jesus' in v4-5 is indeed a foundational definition of marriage. You stated earlier: “Granted Jesus refers to the first marriage which coincidently is a monogamy”. Quite frankly, no, it is not coincidental, it is simply the way it was in the beginning returning us again to the foundational truth and thought expressed by Jesus in Matt 19.

Let us examine again the enumeration of 2 becoming 1 flesh. First, I ask myself, what does it mean to become "one flesh"? That is why I pointed to the language used first as "leaving and cleaving". The "cleaving" is a parallel of the "one flesh". The "gluing together" defines the closeness, unity, single mindedness, and purpose with respect to the bond of marriage and the new relationship created, the "one flesh". Now, if a man marries a woman and they are now one flesh, and that man decides to marry another woman, how is that a "oneness", or a single mindedness towards the marriage as represented in the basic figure of "one flesh"? The action of a man deciding to marry another woman would be analogous to a "one flesh" acting with half a brain, or half his will, or half his purpose, in which case the "one flesh" would not be acting as "one flesh" but as half flesh. “One flesh” that is “cleaved” together being one man and one woman is the only view that is consistent with the figure being drawn by Jesus and any other would be a distortion of that figure.

The reassertion of the definition of marriage in Matt 19:4-5 provides a basis to then draw consequence and conclusion to things relating to marriage. Just as you reasoned earlier:

Hugh McBryde wrote:

This is not like saying God never says "Don't smoke Pot". Pot smoking, to our knowledge, was not practiced in Israel, however being drunk was spoken against.

You reasoned well from the definition of drunkenness and sobriety and established that “pot smoking” is a consistent consequence (conclusion) of those definitions. You have established that while scripture speaks specifically of wine causing drunkenness, it is not the ONLY substance that can cause drunkenness. Why then is it so difficult to acknowledge that Jesus’ followed the same logical process in establishing marriage principles and it’s definition from the beginning in Matt 19?

2) Jesus is the greater authority over Moses and the prophets.

You have stated several times with phrases such as

Hugh McBryde wrote:

He never speaks against it, he doesn't so much as clear his throat on the subject.

along with appeals to other men such as Jehoida and Nathan and what they did relating to multiple wives. I perceive this type of reasoning is given as a defense that Old Testament times past govern our present and that they are unchangeable by any one after.

In the same context of Matt 19 the conversation with Jesus continues:

Matt 19:7-9 wrote:

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

We can only understand the mind of God based on what is revealed for us in His word. Jesus in v8, exposes the mind of God for us to see why Moses allowed certain things to continue as stated: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you.” How many other things do you think were “suffered”, or endured, with the Old Testament characters and the people of Israel but were not written about? I will address this question by way of asking another question:

Who is greater: Jesus or Moses? Jesus or Jehoida? Jesus or Nathan?

First, of the three names given, Jehoida and Nathan are two you identified earlier and no other particular reason. Let’s first ask, who of these three is greater: Moses, Jehoida, or Nathan? Moses is the one that is repeatedly identified throughout the New Testament as the giver of the law and the basis of their action and faith. The Jews referred to the Old Law as the Law of Moses.

Who then is greater: Jesus or Moses? In this, the New Testament writers are clear:

John 1:17-18 wrote:

17 For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him.

Heb 3:1-3 wrote:

1 For this reason, holy brothers, called to be partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus,
2 "being faithful" to Him who appointed Him, as also "Moses" was "in all his house."
3 For He was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by so much as the one having built the house has more honor than the house.

and we cannot deny the very words of God the Father as uttered during the transfiguration event on the mount affirming the superiority of Jesus over Moses and Elijah:

Matt 17:1-5 wrote:

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

In conclusion, Jesus being the greater authority can indeed re-assert the definition of marriage to that of what was intended and established from the beginning of creation and patterned in Adam and Eve. By using His authority he renders the intervening years from the beginning to the time Jesus speaks these words in Matt 19 to be of no effect and irrelevant. But, He does provide a glimpse into why certain things were allowed to continue and deviate from the pattern with His statement: “because of the hardness of your hearts.” It would be wise to avoid the same issue where Jesus, the Son of God, has spoken.

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:10 am Post subject: I wouldn't do that if I were you.

sledford wrote:

"I cannot help if that is being taken incorrectly as a personal attack, that is certainly NOT my intent."

I do not see what you are writing as an attack and am not responding to you in that way. What I am rejecting is Christ's remarks in Matthew 19 as being an "anti-Polygyny Rant". Christ certainly became angry at sin as evidenced by his driving of the money changers from the temple. Matthew 19 becomes in the "Monogamy Only" mindset, an opposing tract or statement against Polygyny, but in my view that is because there isn't anything else out there so an anti Polygyny stance is imported into this passage because there aren't really any better ones out there if you're looking for a Pro Monogamy only position in scripture.

sledford wrote:

"A simple linguistic proof that what Jesus states in Matt 19:4-6 is a foundational principle defining and governing marriage is found in one simple word: therefore

Matt 19:4-6 wrote:

You have to understand my use of the term "coincidental". I'm saying that it is a "Co-Incident". Certainly the first marriage being a monogamy was not an accident, it was God's intent. My point about it's coincidence is that we don't know why God made the first marriage a monogamy because he does not say why he did. I have a signature line for a specific reason, that signature line is an oft repeated scriptural principle that we not add to what God said. I in fact found more instances of God speaking out against adding to his word, than I found instances of God speaking out against subtracting from it.

sledford wrote:

"Let us examine again the enumeration of 2 becoming 1 flesh. First, I ask myself, what does it mean to become 'one flesh'? That is why I pointed to the language used first as 'leaving and cleaving'. The 'cleaving' is a parallel of the 'one flesh'. The 'gluing together' defines the closeness, unity, single mindedness, and purpose with respect to the bond of marriage and the new relationship created, the 'one flesh'. Now, if a man marries a woman and they are now one flesh, and that man decides to marry another woman, how is that a 'oneness', or a single mindedness towards the marriage as represented in the basic figure of 'one flesh'? The action of a man deciding to marry another woman would be analogous to a 'one flesh' acting with half a brain, or half his will, or half his purpose, in which case the "one flesh" would not be acting as 'flesh' but as half flesh. 'One flesh' that is “cleaved' together being one man and one woman is the only view that is consistent with the figure being drawn by Jesus and any other would be a distortion of that figure."

This is not the diplomatic way to put it, but I am sorry, you are wrong. You are defining one flesh as a near romantic concept but it is a condition that is described in scripture and it has a definition that truly does not spend much of it's time in the romantic arena. What we can conclude about the concept is that it is not what you say it is. The "one flesh" relationship is what makes "Levirate Law" work. How is it that my brother can take my wife and produce my heir? Because I was one flesh with my wife. How do we know you can be "one flesh" with more than one woman at a time which is a concept that explodes your claim of a one on one private relationship? By combining this passage that Jesus quotes in Genesis 2 with other passages in scripture that Moses also wrote. You are ONE FLESH with your 'ISHSHAH (wife) per this passage. You can have TWO 'ISHSHAH at once and of course must be one flesh with both at the same time. The Hebrews had no word for "wife", they had a word that was interchangable between wife and wives. The Hebrews had no word for Monogamy, they had no word for Polygyny. There was a man and his family which consisted of 'ISHSHAH and children and him. Adultery is never defined anywhere in scripture as an act that a man commits against his wife. The closest scripture ever comes to doing that is stating that a man who unjustly divorces his wife and replaces her through another marriage, is guilty of adultery against his ex. This is in fact the only place in scripture that it is even said that the sin can be commited by a man against a woman.

sledford wrote:

"2) Jesus is the greater authority over Moses and the prophets."

Which forgets entirely that as a member of the Godhead, Jesus was there on the mountain, where Moses got all this law, dictating it to Moses. The law was written litterly in stone by the finger of God and/or taken down in the form of dictation by Moses from God. The proper name of the law as found in scripture is this "The Law of God given to Moses", and I can establish this by direct quote if you would like. I do not construct a name, this is the name given to that Law. God himself (Jesus) states several times in the law how it is his Law and he is most emphatic about it.

sledford wrote:

"You have stated several times with phrases such as

I wrote:

"He never speaks against it, he doesn't so much as clear his throat on the subject."

along with appeals to other men such as Jehoiada and Nathan and what they did relating to multiple wives. I perceive this type of reasoning is given as a defense that Old Testament times past govern our present and that they are unchangeable by any one after."

I fully agree that God could elect to suspend a practice that was legitimate before, such as the practice of marrying your sister. You can't marry your sister now. That practice is clearly suspended, but you appeal to murky interpretation to suspend what was undeniably a legitimate practice. Sorry, it's going to have to be clearly stated, and it never is. What was once good to do needs a clear statement of suspense, or it simply hasn't been suspended.

sledford wrote:

"In the same context of Matt 19 the conversation with Jesus continues:

Matt 19:7-9 wrote:

7 "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

"We can only understand the mind of God based on what is revealed for us in His word. Jesus in v8, exposes the mind of God for us to see why Moses allowed certain things to continue as stated: 'Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you.' How many other things do you think were 'suffered', or endured, with the Old Testament characters and the people of Israel but were not written about?"

Great, it doesn't apply, again you try to import langauge that laments divorce, a practice by the way God depicts himself as doing in Jeremiah 3 to tar Polygyny. Yet once again, THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE OVERT STATEMENT AGAINST POLYGYNY HERE OR ELSEWHERE. You start with the presupposition that it is wrong, and you fill in all the interpretational blanks from that point onward. Try starting with the absense of a supposition. You position me as if I am defending divorce, and then substitute the word Polygyny. Your arguments only work if I am defending divorce as a God instituted practice "from the beginning", however, I am not. Even if you are correct, that all of your "one flesh" musings do apply, it's still not what Jesus is talking about when he cites hardness of heart and admonitions against divorce. Fine. For a moment we will accept that he's also talking about Monogamy, but he never applies the "reluctant permission" statement to Polygyny, he never ascribes his reluctant permission as being given to Polygynists for their "hardness of heart". There is no construction of Christ's remarks that can import those concepts into the discussion of Polygyny and Monogamy.

sledford wrote:

"I will address this question by way of asking another question:

Who is greater: Jesus or Moses? Jesus or Jehoida? Jesus or Nathan?"

Christ, of course. But Jesus is in fact a Prophet in the form and prefiguring given by Moses, and this is stated in scripture, Nathan is not a false prophet, he is God's prophet and he is speaking at the time I cite, for God, as a prophet of God. This is a subtle evil. You set up a situation in which the rest of God's word is skewed, a bit off, prejudiced, a little bit wrong, in error (however minor) because it is sometimes not directly spoken by God. That Nathan in his prophetic role, speaking as he claims, the word of God directly, messes it up a bit. That Moses wrote down laws of his own making, or nuanced them a bit so that they didn't really seem to say what God meant to say. This I reject entirely and you cannot even broach the subject of "who is Greater" with any relevance unless that is your intent; to imply subtle error on the part of Moses or Nathan. Jehoiada alone could have been wrong as he is not said to act in a prophetic role, except God's word pronounces the benediction of "And he did right, all the days of Jehoiada the Priest" on Joash's actions. One of those actions was to accept two wives at the specific direction of Jehoiada.

sledford wrote:

"The Jews referred to the Old Law as the Law of Moses."

Yes, but meant this, which is scripture by the way, Nehemiah 10:29:

Quote:

"They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes."

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

sledford

Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:51 pm Post subject:

I see that you have chosen to ignore what language requires by Jesus' use of the word therefore in the Matt 19 context and that the statement preceding that simple word establishes a basic definition and pattern for marriage to a time from the beginning creation, pre-dating the Old Law, or anything for that matter. You ignore that a "leaving and cleaving" followed by another "cleaving" would violate the "one flesh" relationship. The man is acting out of his own will in marrying another, not out of the "one flesh" that he and his wife have formed. But, yet you ignore that.

Your reasoning denies the establishment of authority based upon a pattern, establishing what a thing IS, and then testing all things against that pattern. In so doing, the recorded event of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1-2 and the offering of "strange fire" and the resulting death by fire from God would make no sense to you. They were not expressly prohibited from using that other fire. They violated God's pattern of how the offering of incense IS. They violated no "thou shalt not". There was no further instruction on the fire to be used other than the stating of what fire TO use. And yet God kills them for what? Violation of a pattern. And that is not the only example of a pattern being violated with dire consequences of the violation. I would encorage you to read this:

http://insearchoftruth.org/articles/pattern.html

Also, you have twisted what I said with regards to the superiority of Jesus. I stated this quite intentionally:

sledford wrote:

Jesus in v8, exposes the mind of God for us to see why Moses allowed certain things to continue as stated: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you.”

That statement was intentionally worded the way that it was in acknowledgement that Moses, by definition of a prophet, was a mouth piece of God. Make no mistake, Moses revealed what God gave him and now Jesus provides the reason why God gave that to Moses, "hardness of your hearts". Until that statement no one ever knew why God through Moses allowed that, a deviation from the beginning pattern. This is not the only place where there is the idea of "allowance" by God, and then changing it is expressed. We have this written of Paul speaking to the Athenians revealing to us again the mind of God:

acts 17:30 wrote:

30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,"

Jesus, by His authority of who He is, the very Word that became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), the very one by whom all things are created (John 1:1,2), then re-asserts the definition, the pattern, from the beginning and nulls what was given them and provides a reason why

You stated:

Hugh McBryde wrote:

Sorry, it's going to have to be clearly stated, and it never is. What was once good to do needs a clear statement of suspense, or it simply hasn't been suspended.

And this then I will be most clear. Jesus words concerning the hardness of their hearts rings in my ears when I read such things. God makes the rules of patterns and following them (Lev 10:1-2) and to ignore that basic truth will be to your own ruin.

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:08 pm Post subject: One more time, into the breach....

sledford wrote:

"You ignore that a 'leaving and cleaving' followed by another 'cleaving' would violate the 'one flesh' relationship. The man is acting out of his own will in marrying another, not out of the 'one flesh' that he and his wife have formed. But, yet you ignore that."

Clearly this law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, compells a brother by the Law which you acknowledge is God's, married or not, to take another wife, not by that man's will, or his lust, but by God's decree.

Quote:

"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed."

There is no sin, no overreaching of the man with two wives, no lust. He simply obey's God's command, and get's two wives as a result. Since again, we know that you are "one flesh" with your wife, a word having no singular or plural form in the Hebrew, if God commands you to take two, even if it is the "co-incident" of obeying another command, you are, by God's intent and design, "one flesh" with two women at the same time. Thus your conclusion, while understandable is shown to be false. You are falling back on the notion that someone can be "one flesh" concurrently with more than one woman, but saying that doesn't prove he ought to be. Yet here I have shown how God would command a man to do just that, through no fault of the man or his existing wife. All I need is to prove that "one flesh" can exist between a man and two or more women at the same time and exists as the righteous result of following God's command, and I have eliminated all possibility that "one flesh" necessarily refers to only one possible or even prefered union of a man with someone else.

sledford wrote:

"Your reasoning denies the establishment of authority based upon a pattern, establishing what a thing IS, and then testing all things against that pattern. In so doing, the recorded event of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1-2 and the offering of "strange fire" and the resulting death by fire from God would make no sense to you."

Funny, I've read that passage countless times together with the laws that precede it and I've always understood what they did. There was no "Thou shalt not" but there was a "Thou Shall". Leviticus 1:7,

Quote:

"And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire."

Leviticus 6:13,

Quote:

"The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out."

Leviticus 10:1,

Quote:

"And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not."

God can do what he likes, The pattern was clearly outlined in the law, at least the way I've always read it, and a violation of the sacred was usually pretty deadly, in this case, it was. I've always understood from the text what it was that Nadab and Abihu did, and I clearly understood their danger out the outset of the story, having read the law that preceded it.

sledford wrote:

"Jesus words concerning the hardness of their hearts rings in my ears when I read such things. God makes the rules of patterns and following them (Lev 10:1-2) and to ignore that basic truth will be to your own ruin."

My ruin will not be according to your declarative statements or your confidence in them. You still have to find the words "hardness of heart" applied to the practice of Polygyny, and you cannot, and you do not, and you still have to find a "reluctant permission" provision applied to Polygyny and you cannot and you have not. Even if you did, if I were a Polygynist, you would have to admit I should stay that way, and if I was became a Polygynist I should stay that way, and if you cast me out of fellowship for my Polygyny, you would have to broom all divorced persons out of fellowship for the same reason. Are you advocating that?

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

Last edited by Hugh McBryde on Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

sledford

Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:06 pm Post subject:

I leave with these simple questions:

When did the statment in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, chronologically occur in time?

When was the pattern of Adam and Eve that Jesus quotes established?

Matt 19:4-5 wrote:

Which came first: the pattern of Adam and Eve or the instruction of Deut 25:5-10?

Chronologically in time when does Jesus re-assert the pattern of Adam and Eve? Before or After the writing of Deut 25:5-10?

As an aside, I find it noteworthy that the phrase "one flesh" is never used in Deut 25:5-10. So, frankly, you have no specific revelation about whether this is "one flesh" or not.

Hugh McBryde

Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:36 pm Post subject: Syllogisms.

sledford wrote:

"When did the statment in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, chronologically occur in time?"

AFTER Genesis 2:24, but written by the same author, Moses, probably at the same time, roughly. For all we know he wrote Genesis after Deuteronomy. In any case the same understandings are in place.

sledford wrote:

"When was the pattern of Adam and Eve that Jesus quotes established?"

Before Deuteronomy.

sledford wrote:

"Matt 19:4-5,

Quote:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh."

So, are you essentially taking a "found meaning" approach, not unlike the discovered meanings that people find in the Constitution of the United States. Sled, it's simple, you conclude that Jesus is talking about monogamy because of the language of Genesis 2:24, which he quotes. I go back and show how that language was used, you reject it and say because Jesus is advocating Monogamy in quoting Genesis 2:24, that is what Genesis 2:24 is about, but he's not talking about monogamy, you depend on the language of Genesis 2:24 to conjur up that imagery. It meant what it meant then, and now. Your argument is entirely circular, and without foundation. If you are in fact "one flesh" with your wife. If you can in fact be commanded through no fault of your own, by God, to take another wife, then because you are "one flesh" with your wife, because you have two, then you are "one flesh" with both. It destroys entirely the notion that "one flesh" in someway implies monogamy and exclusivity on the part of both parties in the marriage, it simply does not and I have proved it.

Jesus quotes language about "one flesh" which you say dictates monogamy, you use this assertion to prove that Jesus is talking about monogamy, and then go back to change the meaning of the passage. Why? Because Jesus is talking about monogamy which you use your interpretation to prove. It's CIRCULAR.

sledford wrote:

"I find it noteworthy that the phrase 'one flesh' is never used in Deut 25:5-10. So, frankly, you have no specific revelation about whether this is 'one flesh' or not."

Are you are not "one flesh" with your wife sled? Does not Genesis 2:24 tell us we are? If God commands you, isn't it legitimate? Thus it's a syllogism. You are one flesh with your wife. You can and are on some occasions commanded to have more than one wife. Thus you are one flesh with both.

Another syllogism follows. You can be one flesh with two different people at the same time. Thus one flesh implies no single exclusive relationship.

Yet another follows. Unless God can command you in his law to do an unrighteous thing, having two wives and being one flesh with both at the same time is in no way wrong or substandard.

Hugh
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."