Page 1 of 2

Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:04 pm
by Hugh McBryde
**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

Re: It's not a list of things that are "Blameless"

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:37 pm
by m273p15c
Hugh McBryde wrote: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.
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.

First, a minor clarification...

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:36 pm
by Hugh McBryde
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

Re: First, a minor clarification...

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:49 pm
by m273p15c
Hugh McBryde wrote: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.
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.

Per the dictionary.

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:45 pm
by Hugh McBryde
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

Re: Per the dictionary.

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:35 pm
by m273p15c
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?

Short answer?

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:43 pm
by Hugh McBryde
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

Re: Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:23 pm
by sledford
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.

One Flesh does NOT say ANYTHING about Monogamy.

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:55 pm
by Hugh McBryde
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

Re: One Flesh does NOT say ANYTHING about Monogamy.

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:17 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote: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?
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.

Plain?

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:03 pm
by Hugh McBryde
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

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:09 pm
by sledford
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.

We're going to have to call in Chubby Checker

Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:25 am
by Hugh McBryde
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

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:45 pm
by sledford
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.

I wouldn't do that if I were you.

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:10 am
by Hugh McBryde
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: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."
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:
"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

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:51 pm
by sledford
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.

One more time, into the breach....

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:08 pm
by Hugh McBryde
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.
"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,
"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,
"The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out."
Leviticus 10:1,
"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

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:06 pm
by sledford
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: 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
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.

Syllogisms.

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:36 pm
by Hugh McBryde
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,
"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

what about divorce?

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:13 pm
by m273p15c
If marrying an additional wife is acceptable in the New Testament, then why did Jesus say that divorce followed by a second marriage was "adultery" or "fornication?
Jesus, according to Matthew the apostle, wrote:"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9)
If a man can have more than one wife, how can he ever possibly commit adultery or fornication? He may commit abandonment or covenant-breaking by divorcing his first wife, but he can never commit adultery by marrying a second, because if polygyny be acceptable, he can marry as many women as he wants without committing any sexual immorality.

Furthermore, if as Hugh as suggested, man's "oneness" with one wife has no interference or dependence upon his "oneness" with a second wife, then how can marriage to one woman ever prevent marriage to a second? According to Hugh, they have an independent oneness to their husband with no relation to each other. So, how can a second marriage ever constitute a sexual transgression, regardless of preceding events?

....

In ancticipation of response, please note the context is indeed sexual: Sexual immorality is the only basis for a Scriptural divorce, and subsequent marriage produces adultery, which is a sexual sin.

Also, please note the broad coverage of the applicable subject, "whoever". To what man does this statement not apply when Jesus applies it to "whoever"?

Divorce is not related to Polygyny in this way.

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:26 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"If marrying an additional wife is acceptable in the New Testament, then why did Jesus say that divorce followed by a second marriage was 'adultery' or 'fornication?'
Because he does not say that, and you note that here:
Jesus, according to Matthew the apostle, wrote:"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9)
Jesus says a divorce preceeds the event he calls adultery. What if there is no divorce? Then it's POLYGYNY and not adultery. This depends on a circular argument in which Adultery is defined as more than one sex partner for a man, and then proved by using the fact that he acquires another wife. Well, scripture never defines adultery as a man having more than one concurrent sex partner. With the exception of the disloyal husband divorcing his wife for no just cause in Matthew, adultery is always defined as requiring a married woman. Namely if the woman in the sexual liason is someone else's wife, then you have adultery. All other laws make the man liable to marry the woman with whom he has sex, it doesn't define him as an adulterer.
m273p15c wrote:"If a man can have more than one wife, how can he ever possibly commit adultery or fornication?"
By doing what David did, taking another man's wife.
m273p15c wrote:"He may commit abandonment or covenant-breaking by divorcing his first wife, but he can never commit adultery by marrying a second, because if polygyny be acceptable, he can marry as many women as he wants without committing any sexual immorality."
Agreed. Not merely by marrying a second, only if the divorce of his other wife (not necessarily his first one, for she is never called his first or only wife) was for unjust cause and he marries again.
m273p15c wrote:"Furthermore, if as Hugh as suggested, man's 'oneness' with one wife has no interference or dependence upon his 'oneness' with a second wife, then how can marriage to one woman ever prevent marriage to a second? According to Hugh, they have an independent oneness to their husband with no relation to each other. So, how can a second marriage ever constitute a sexual transgression, regardless of preceding events?"
Read Exodus 21, he has deprived his wife, wrongfully. She commited no wrong and he divorced her and replaced her with another, his duty to that wife is to KEEP HER ALWAYS.

Hugh

look more closely...

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:00 pm
by m273p15c
Hugh, you missed the point. In fact, you surrendered your position.
Hugh McBryde wrote:
m273p15c wrote:"Furthermore, if as Hugh as suggested, man's 'oneness' with one wife has no interference or dependence upon his 'oneness' with a second wife, then how can marriage to one woman ever prevent marriage to a second? According to Hugh, they have an independent oneness to their husband with no relation to each other. So, how can a second marriage ever constitute a sexual transgression, regardless of preceding events?"
Read Exodus 21, he has deprived his wife, wrongfully. She commited no wrong and he divorced her and replaced her with another, his duty to that wife is to KEEP HER ALWAYS.
Even in your own explanation, you are inconsistent. If a man may marry multiple wives, it is impossible for him to ever replace his wife.

Where did Jesus say, "marry another man’s wife"? Jesus just said, “whoever ... marries another”. You are inserting words that are not there. Why are you restricting what the Lord left generally applicable?

You failed to answer my question. If the sin is abandonment, as you suggest in referencing Exodus 21, then what does "marrying another" have to do with the problem? If you are correct, really there are two sins involved, and the text should reflect it. If you are correct, the text should read:
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, commits abandonment. Whoever marries another man’s wife, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9)
But, that’s not how the text reads. It reads as follows:
Matthew, recording Jesus’ words wrote:"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9)
The sin does not occur until he marries the next woman. Why does Jesus describe this as one sin, if it is really two, as you suggested?

How many sins?

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:53 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"In fact, you surrendered your position."
I always give special consideration to posts with this expansive a claim.
m273p15c wrote:"Where did Jesus say, 'marry another man’s wife'? Jesus just said,'whoever ... marries another'. You are inserting words that are not there. Why are you restricting what the Lord left generally applicable?"
I insert no words here. Christ does not redefine adultery, Christ 14 chapters earlier affirms that he upholds the law. Adultery, in the Law of God as Given to and by Moses is the encroachment on the sexual territory of another man. Jesus does put an interesting new twist on the whole subject claiming that a man either commits or as some others say, makes his wife commit adultery by divorcing her unjustly. I still have a little trouble with the phrase and prefer to interpret in light of Exodus 21 and see it as the abandonment of one spouse in favor of gaining another.
m273p15c wrote:"You failed to answer my question. If the sin is abandonment, as you suggest in referencing Exodus 21, then what does 'marrying another' have to do with the problem? If you are correct, really there are two sins involved, and the text should reflect it."
I say the passage deals with one sin and one sin only. The way it is structured is this. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality..."(Divorces of wives, with the exception of those undertaken because of her sexual sin)"...and marries another, commits adultery;"(if the divorce is not for sexual immoralilty, and the man marries another after divorcing his wife unjustly, namely NOT for her sexual sin, that man commits adultery against her).

Examining the converse of this statement is what yields this understanding. I will illustrate. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife BECAUSE of sexual immorality and marries another DOES NOT commit adultery". The remainder of the statement stands. Because of Exodus 21 I see that the man has deprived all at once the woman he puts out of his home of all three things he is obligated to give her. Food, Clothing and Sex. According to that passage, she is free without obligation. I would therefore (personally) not hold her as a divorced woman, but an unbound woman. I don't wish to confuse the two issues though as the first part of the statement stands regardless. The converse of that statement is that all men who do divorce their wives for their sexual immorality sin not by marrying again.
m273p15c wrote:"The sin does not occur until he marries the next woman. Why does Jesus describe this as one sin, if it is really two, as you suggested?"
Well, as I said, it's one sin. And the sin is conditional. It would be like saying "Anyone who eats his neighbor's bread without getting permission is a thief". That would mean all bread that is yours is OK to eat, all bread that is your neighbors that he gives you permission to eat, is ok to eat, it is only the bread he does not give you that belongs to him, that you may not eat. These are not two sins described m27, unless you count the second half of the verse in which Christ says those marrying divorced women commit the sin of adultery by marrying the divorced woman. By that count you are saying there are three sins in this passage, and I say there are only two.

As far as replacement goes, that is what I am claiming the man seeks to do. He doesn't want his old wife around, but he isn't getting rid of wives, because he marries again. One out, one in. He replaces her and displaces her from her rightful place. That is a grave wrong IMHO. That mirrors the passage in Exodus 21 where a man takes another wife and in the process, deprives an existing one. He overreaches.

Hugh

one sin - and that's my point

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:54 pm
by m273p15c
Hugh, you are missing the point. Exodus 21 offers no condemnation of taking another wife. It only regulates the practice by demanding that the first wife not be deprived of her due. For easy reference, here's the passage:
Moses wrote:If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money. (Exodus 21:10-11)
The only sin described here is neglect, deprivation, or abandonment. This is a sin of omission. It is a failure to do something right. However, that is not what adultery is. Is it? Paraphrasing your definition, adultery is the encroachment on the sexual rights of another. Therefore, adultery is a sin of commission. It is a failure to avoid that which it is wrong. Therefore, Exodus 21 offers no light on this subject, because it is describing a completely different sin!

Furthermore, where does Jesus mention "overreaching" in the Matthew 19:9? Again, you are inserting words and meaning that is simply not there? Where does Jesus mention "overreaching" in the context of Matthew 19?

Ok. You are simply not being consistent with yourself or the passage, as seen here:
Hugh McBryde wrote:
m273p15c wrote:"Where did Jesus say, 'marry another man’s wife'? Jesus just said,'whoever ... marries another'. You are inserting words that are not there. Why are you restricting what the Lord left generally applicable?"
I insert no words here. Christ does not redefine adultery, Christ 14 chapters earlier affirms that he upholds the law. Adultery, in the Law of God as Given to and by Moses is the encroachment on the sexual territory of another man. Jesus does put an interesting new twist on the whole subject claiming that a man either commits or as some others say, makes his wife commit adultery by divorcing her unjustly. I still have a little trouble with the phrase and prefer to interpret in light of Exodus 21 and see it as the abandonment of one spouse in favor of gaining another. ... if the divorce is not for sexual immoralilty, and the man marries another after divorcing his wife unjustly, namely NOT for her sexual sin, that man commits adultery against her
Earlier, you implied that the adultery was not committed against the first wife, rather it was committed by having sexual relations with another man's wife, like David:
Hugh McBryde wrote:... adultery is always defined as requiring a married woman. Namely if the woman in the sexual liason is someone else's wife, then you have adultery. All other laws make the man liable to marry the woman with whom he has sex, it doesn't define him as an adulterer.
m273p15c wrote:"If a man can have more than one wife, how can he ever possibly commit adultery or fornication?"
By doing what David did, taking another man's wife.
Now, which is it? Does adultery in Matthew 19:9 refer to a man marrying another man's wife, or does it refer to a man being married to someone else other than his wife? Which is it?

If it is case #1 (marrying another man's wife), then my accusation still stands: You are inserting words in the text.

If it is case #2 (marrying someone not your wife), then the original point still stands: If a man may commit adultery against his first wife by taking a second wife after divorcing the first, then does he not commit an even more heinous adultery, if he takes a second wife while still married to the first!?

The fact that Jesus labels this as adultery, not abandonment, neglect, or deprivation, necessitates a restrictive sexual relationship between husband and wife.

In regard to some of your secondary arguments:
Hugh McBryde wrote:
m273p15c wrote:"You failed to answer my question. If the sin is abandonment, as you suggest in referencing Exodus 21, then what does 'marrying another' have to do with the problem? If you are correct, really there are two sins involved, and the text should reflect it."
I say the passage deals with one sin and one sin only. ...
Yes, but that is not consistent with the text and your introduction of Exodus 21. Exodus 21 states the sin occurs as soon as he deprives (divorces) the first wife. Anything else that follows would constitute a second action and second sin, if you are correct about applying Exodus 21:10 to explain the adultery of Matthew 19:9.
Hugh McBryde wrote:Examining the converse of this statement is what yields this understanding. ...
This yields nothing, because the converse of a statement has no necessarily logical connection to the original statement. For example:
  • "An animal that is a duck is a bird". (true statement)
  • "An animal that is not a duck is not a bird" (converse - but, not true!)
Any argument or illustration built on a converse may be true, but not necessarily; therefore, it is useless to prove anything necessarily or absolutely.
Hugh McBryde wrote:That mirrors the passage in Exodus 21 where a man takes another wife and in the process, deprives an existing one. He overreaches.
You need to reexamine Exodus 21. The command is to not deprive the first wife after marrying a second, which implies the man has the means by chooses otherwise. Where do you see "overreaching" in Exodus 21? Again, it seems you are inserting meaning and words into the passage.

I am very much concerned about these statements you made:
Hugh McBryde wrote:Christ does not redefine adultery, Christ 14 chapters earlier affirms that he upholds the law. Adultery, in the Law of God as Given to and by Moses is the encroachment on the sexual territory of another man. I still have a little trouble with the phrase and prefer to interpret in light of Exodus 21 ... That mirrors the passage in Exodus 21 where a ...
Maybe I am too suspicious, but do you believe that the Old Testament is still authoritative today? In other words, if the Old Testament condones something, is it acceptable, regardless of the New Testament? We should spin this off into a new thread, unless you agree that the Old Testament was done away at the cross (Romans 7:1-ff). Why are you preferring to use Exodus 21 instead of what Jesus clearly taught?
Hugh McBryde wrote:I still have a little trouble with the phrase and prefer to interpret in light of Exodus 21 and see it as ...
I recognize your trouble with the phrase, and I appreciate you admitting so. However, I would like to encourage you to remember that Jesus often answered very difficult problems on a single verse (Matthew 19:4-6; 22:23-33, 41-46). Therefore, I will back off and leave you ample room to "chew" on this passage. I hope you will see that your teaching is inconsistent with the New Testament.

This is partly a matter of perspective on scripture.

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:09 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"Hugh, you are missing the point. Exodus 21 offers no condemnation of taking another wife. It only regulates the practice by demanding that the first wife not be deprived of her due."
Precisely. In this passage, which is immediately next door to the "10 Commandments" where it says "thou shalt not commit adultery" we have the rule governing the addition of more wives. Is it said to be wrong? It is not. My point about Matthew 19 is that in UNJUSTLY divorcing a wife, or an only wife, a man does exactly this. He deprives her. There was no public assistance, no child support, she couldn't get a job at the Mahtzah Ball Drive Through, she could only go back to her father's household. Then the man goes out and gets another wife. See the parallel?
m273p15c wrote:"The only sin described here is neglect, deprivation, or abandonment. This is a sin of omission. It is a failure to do something right."
Not JUST a sin of ommision, for if a man has taken another wife and as a result deprives his existing wife or wives or concubines of Food, Clothing or Consort, then she may leave for nothing and go out unbound, I believe this is also what Paul is thinking of in 1st Corinthians 7. Though that passage is not a parallel, the concept of being "not bound" is.
m273p15c wrote:"However, that is not what adultery is. Is it? Paraphrasing your definition, adultery is the encroachment on the sexual rights of another. Therefore, adultery is a sin of commission."
Actually, a breach of faithfulness. And it is not my definition for I defy you to find any other concept of what adultery is in the Old Testament, the ONLY place where it is defined with the possible exception of what Christ says. I believe (my opinion) that Jesus says Adultery is a breaking of Faith. For a woman the breaking of faith is defined already in the Old Testament Law. It is having sexual relations with someone who is not her husband or her betrothed. For a man his faith duty is adequate clothing, adequate food and adequate sexual attention. Any of these things he could fail in because of famine, economic hardship or physical injury, he is not said to break faith by that alone, but by the addition of another spouse that causes the result of him depriving an existing one.
m273p15c wrote:"Furthermore, where does Jesus mention 'overreaching' in the Matthew 19:9? Again, you are inserting words and meaning that is simply not there? Where does Jesus mention "overreaching" in the context of Matthew 19?"
Once again, I insert no words as I cite where it is that I get this analysis. Christ does not say that the man overreaches, I do. I do not say so in a vacuum, for I have cited where it is that I get that analysis. If divorce can be done by a man, but only SHOULD be done by a man for specific reason, whenever he executes a writ of divorce for improper cause, he, being master of his wife CAN do it, but OUGHT not. Christ is saying, IMHO that this is faithlessness. It would seem that the man has an avenue to return to his wife after his error but as adultery is the only acceptable cause for divorce, since he executed one, since there was no fault on the part of his wife, since adultery (my opinion) is faithlessness, since faithfulness is a different duty for a man that it is a woman, he, by taking another wife, and depriving her through divorce, neglects her in all ways and Jesus says this is ADULTERY. This goes along with Jesus saying that all sins are originally heart attitude. Murder is hatred, Adultery is lust and so on. Certainly a man dumping one wife and acquiring another when his first wife has commited no wrong is lustful and faithless. You may not agree, but this is the way I see it based on scripture. Please stop saying I put words into the passage as I have twice now explained that I am not.
m273p15c wrote:"Now, which is it? Does adultery in Matthew 19:9 refer to a man marrying another man's wife, or does it refer to a man being married to someone else other than his wife? Which is it?"
Adultery is marrying another man's wife, in which a vow to that man supplants the vow made to the other man, it is assumed they will probably have sex, or having sex with another man's wife. Keep this passage in mind. Romans 7:2:
"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."
These are the same things in God's eyes.
m273p15c wrote:"The fact that Jesus labels this as adultery, not abandonment, neglect, or deprivation, necessitates a restrictive sexual relationship between husband and wife."
Why do you suppose he does not act in accordance with the laws he upholds in Matthew 5? I introduce nothing when I refer to the Law, as Christ was there with Moses and the Father when it was given and he affirms it later.
m273p15c wrote:" 'An animal that is not a duck is not a bird' (converse - but, not true!) Any argument or illustration built on a converse may be true, but not necessarily; therefore, it is useless to prove anything necessarily or absolutely."
Nor did I claim it, but it is useful to see the converse, it helps understand what was said. What you are saying is that the converse is NOT true. If that is not what you are saying, what are you saying?
m273p15c wrote:"Maybe I am too suspicious, but do you believe that the Old Testament is still authoritative today?"
Paul did.
m273p15c wrote:"In other words, if the Old Testament condones something, is it acceptable, regardless of the New Testament?"
Complex question, or at least the prelude to one. I do not say that anything in the New contradicts the Old. I was not, nor have I ever been a Hebrew or a convert to Judaism, a proselyte. I am not in the nation of Israel, in it's borders. There is no temple, there is no earthly King of David's line on the throne in Jerusalem. If you don't understand what I am saying here, then I would say you haven't thoroughly examined the Law and Prophets. Paul is not a radical when he says to the gentiles to refrain from becoming religious Jews, he's part of an existing doctrine. There IS NO CONFLICT.
m273p15c wrote:"We should spin this off into a new thread, unless you agree that the Old Testament was done away at the cross (Romans 7:1-ff). Why are you preferring to use Exodus 21 instead of what Jesus clearly taught?"
Start a new thread, link me to it, I will join the discussion. But first, why not examine Acts 15? In the letter gentiles are told to refrain from sexual immorality. What is the sexual immorality they are told to refrain from? Keep in mind that the people writing this letter are Christ's brother, Paul, Peter and other of the apostles in Jerusalem. Keep in mind they were almost certainly all PHARISEES. Paul at least was and continued to claim he was long after conversion. In asking the gentile church to participate in those things sexually moral and to refrain from sexual IMMORALITY, just who's values are they using? Theirs? The Culture they were writing to? Why is it a New Testament instruction to read the Old? Isn't that what "Study to show thyself approved" is all about? "All scripture is inspired and profitable for reproof" and so on? Aren't these men defining sexual morality and immorality from the OLD TESTAMENT LAW?

I have said all that I can say

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:09 pm
by m273p15c
Hugh, you are all over the place. Introducing things that are only confusing the point. (I appreciate your opinions, especially clearly marking them as such, but I am focused on 1) the truth 2) salvation (mine and yours) and 3) unity.)
Hugh McBryde wrote:Actually, a breach of faithfulness. And it is not my definition for I defy you to find any other concept of what adultery is in the Old Testament, the ONLY place where it is defined with the possible exception of what Christ says. I believe (my opinion) that Jesus says Adultery is a breaking of Faith.
You are reasoning by substituting the specific with the general, follwed by substituting back do a different specific. In other words, adultery is a form of unfaithfulness, but just because adultery is unfaithfulness, one cannot necessarily equate it to all other forms of unfaithfulness. Abandonment != Adultery. (Again, you are more or less reasoning from the "converse".)

Essentially, you are redefining adultery to be abandonment. Chronologically, abandonment would strictly occur at divorce (begins to omit provision). However, Jesus says the adultery occurs after the divorce and when he marries another (begins to comit fornication involving married person). Not only are you redefining the word adultery to equal divorce (abandonment), but your definition does not match the context, because according to Jesus, the adultery only occurs after the divorce, as you already noted.

It has already been granted that abandonment does indeed happen at divorce. I see your parallel, but my point is that there is sin beyond that. Adultery occurs after the abandonment (divorce). What is that sin, and how is it sin, if he always had a right to marry someone else?

Again, keep in mind, please note the broad address of this verse ("whoever"). Jesus is establishing a rule, not an exception, as you have interpreted and suggested ("marry multiple people, except when overreaching, which is adultery").
Hugh McBryde wrote:For a woman the breaking of faith is defined already in the Old Testament Law. It is having sexual relations with someone who is not her husband or her betrothed. For a man his faith duty is adequate clothing, adequate food and adequate sexual attention.
Incidentally, what passage or dictionary defines adultery to be a double standard for the genders?

Hugh, you are clearly set in your opinion, at least for now. I am currently unable to state the implications of this verse any more clearly. Therefore, I leave my words to stand as they are.

Thank you for your earnest discussion.

Incidentally, I reall do not understand your position on the differences between the OT and NT, especially how they relate to us today. Would you mind starting a thread explaining your understanding of the OT's relation to us?

My views are similar to those found here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ents2.html

And I am still astounded.

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:47 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"Hugh, you are all over the place. Introducing things that are only confusing the point."
Let's be polite, shall we? I think my points are organized and to the point. This is mere gainsaying. I won't engage in a discussion where it is simply a more erudite version of "your mother wears army boots".
m273p15c wrote:"Essentially, you are redefining adultery to be abandonment."
Emphaticly no. In both cases a wife is seriously deprived. In Exodus 21 it is because of the addition of another wife, in Matthew 19 the husband employs the cruelty of throwing his wife out literally and she is deprived in all ways, when she is gone, he gets another. In both cases there is another wife and the material abandonment of both. Christ is saying the little legal trickery of divorcing prior does nothing to mitigate what the man has done. He also deprives men of their pet interpretation of divorce law that allows them essentially to divorce for any cause. He essentially says they can but if they do it for any reason other than their wives adultery, they are sinning.
m273p15c wrote:"Chronologically, abandonment would strictly occur at divorce (begins to omit provision). However, Jesus says the adultery occurs after the divorce and when he marries another (begins to comit fornication involving married person). Not only are you redefining the word adultery to equal divorce (abandonment), but your definition does not match the context, because according to Jesus, the adultery only occurs after the divorce, as you already noted."
Both elements are there. In the first case, Exodus 21, the wife is added, the deprivation results from it, she goes free. In the second case the man does a great evil, perhaps to legalisticly avoid what happens in Exodus 21, he dumps her first, then he gets another. In both cases there is an additional wife, and in both the wife is deprived. In one she can leave on her own, because the event of deprivation occurs while she is a wife, in the second she's not given the option. The net effect in both cases is her place is taken by another. Hence "Replacement".
m273p15c wrote:"I see your parallel, but my point is that there is sin beyond that. Adultery occurs after the abandonment (divorce). What is that sin, and how is it sin, if he always had a right to marry someone else?"
I don't see your point, of course he always has the right to marry someone else, but not if he deprives someone else in the process. Exodus 21 says you can marry as often as you like, but you have to keep up with your current obligations. If you don't, you lose something. Who cares if he wanted to lose that something, you still lose something, it's a penalty, a loss of property. The sophistry of employing a divorce first is just that.
m273p15c wrote:"Again, keep in mind, please note the broad address of this verse ('whoever'). Jesus is establishing a rule, not an exception, as you have interpreted and suggested ('marry multiple people, except when overreaching, which is adultery')."
First of all you ask me to view this through today's cultural lens, which may very well not be a good one. You assume monogamy on the part of the man in Matthew 19. What if he is not? When precisely prior to this did someone come along and say "Be Thou Monogamous Only"! When did Christ ever say "When I refer to marriage, assume me to only refer to Monogamous Marraige". m27, they did not even have a WORD for monogamy. So we don't know how many wives the man in Matthew 19's rule has. The form of Christ's general rule fits completely with polgynous men, he never discusses the number of wives he has, he simply says, "Get rid of a wife by divorce (excepting cases that are for her sexual sin) and add another later and you're an adulterer". You say this means ADDING a wife is the adultery, where do you get that from? That's an assumption not found in the text. You take a classic General Rule with and Exception and ignore the exception. What about a man who doesn't divorce a wife at all? This verse doesn't apply. What about a man who divorces for his wife's sexual sin? This verse doesn't apply. This verse is NOT ABOUT AUTOMATIC SIN because you ADD ANOTHER WIFE. This verse is about what is an UNJUST DIVORCE and the converse is left wide open as possibly true. You have no other place in scripture to suggest the converse is not true.

Hugh

Re: I have said all that I can say

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:23 pm
by sprky777
m273p15c wrote: Incidentally, what passage or dictionary defines adultery to be a double standard for the genders?
Romans 7

1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

1 Corinthians 7

39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

These verses specifically prohibit a woman from having two husbands. There are no equivalent verses prohibiting a man from having two wives.
Oddly, these verses are from the NT. Was this a problem then? Were women in the NT trying to emulate the rights of men by having additional husbands? Some type of equal rights movement? :)

it does indeed depend on perspective...

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:35 am
by m273p15c
sprky777 wrote:These verses specifically prohibit a woman from having two husbands. There are no equivalent verses prohibiting a man from having two wives.
Oddly, these verses are from the NT. Was this a problem then? Were women in the NT trying to emulate the rights of men by having additional husbands? Some type of equal rights movement? :)
This only works if you assume something is acceptable unless prohibited, and if you ignore all the passages thus cited. Where is the passage in the NT that shows multiple wives are acceptable for a husband? Keep in mind, this is an incidental point.

To both Hugh and sprky777: Are you Mormons? I am unaware of any other belief system that would label itself as "Christianity" and profess polygamy (polygny).

Re: it does indeed depend on perspective...

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:38 pm
by sprky777
m273p15c wrote:To both Hugh and sprky777: Are you Mormons? I am unaware of any other belief system that would label itself as "Christianity" and profess polygamy (polygny).
I'm not a Mormon. Never been, never will be. I became a Christian when I was 20. Being an engineer and somewhat new to religion, I studied the Bible from a literal perspective. I approached Gods word with an open mind and accepted what it said to me without prejudice. I raised questions about the issue of the patriarchs having multiple wives and was not satisfied with the excuses made for them. Logically to me Gods word and examples only fit properly if men were allowed to have more than one wife and women we not allowed to have more than one husband. With this acceptance then everything seemed to be consistant. My views of polygyny have been rejected and ridiculed by most friends, family and clergy. Fortunately for me and my family such seemingly hypocritical criticisms have not had a negative effect on my faith.

There are many thousands of people that live polygynously that are not Mormon. The majority of the worlds cultures also accept polygyny and they are not Mormon. The Mormons have only been around for a short period in history whereas polygyny has existed from nearly the beginning.

Conservative and REFORMED.

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:43 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"To both Hugh and sprky777: Are you Mormons? I am unaware of any other belief system that would label itself as "Christianity" and profess polygamy (polygny)."
Emphaticly NO. I am PCA http://www.pcanet.org/. The LDS or any variation thereof if sincere believers in what their "churches" teach, are lost. Damned.

You gotta keep it seperated....

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:05 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"May I kindly suggest that arguments regarding isha and 'one flesh' be resumed on the first thread on polygamy? Maybe that will help keep things better organized?"
In part, I had given up on keeping them seperated. Many people join disscussions and pick at a secondary issue in that discussion, and bring it to the forefront. This is in fact the appropriate thread for the "Ishshah" discussion. It should be done here.

The argument is quite simple. First there are the givens (those givens are being debated in yet ANOTHER thread) that Scripture is God's word and is contructed precisely as he intended and to the extent that we are able to understand it, the meanings of words and phrases used by God have always been and ARE perfect. In other words, we may not "GET" God, but it wasn't that he said something OTHER than what he meant. When Christ comes and refers to what he (being God) said in the first place, he isn't saying, "Oh yeah, but I made a mistake there..." or "I've decided to change the meaning of that word now".

So we go to look at how the word or phrase was originally used. I'm assuming as nearly every conservative Biblical Scholar does, that Moses wrote Genesis. I don't say he was an eyewitness to the events, he couldn't have been, but he wrote the book. If there is any human "spin" or "nuance" on the words there they are from Moses because he wrote Genesis. Similarly he wrote Deuteronomy and Exodus, though he experienced all the events in those books except for the tail end or post script in Deuteronomy, because by that time, he was dead.

So, we have ONE GOD, speaking through ONE PROPHET who cannot FAIL to record God's words accurately, or he is by his own writings, no prophet at all. IN THAT CONTEXT, because the words may have been literally written in the VERY SAME MONTH or WEEK in both Genesis and Deuteronomy by the SAME MAN listenting to the SAME GOD, we've got as tight a context as you could possibly hope to EVER have. Moses says "Ishshah" in Genesis 2:24, quoting what GOD told him about that event, and "Ishshah" is a word in Hebrew without a plural or singlular form, like sheep can mean one animal, or a herd, so "Ishshah" can mean one woman/wife or several.

Moses then reports on God's laws as they are declared to be and has God saying in Deuteronomy this interesting phrase "If a man has TWO WIVES". Obviously, you can have two, obviously from Genesis 2:24 if you have a WIFE you ARE "ONE FLESH" with her. That means you are "One Flesh with woman "A", and at the VERY SAME TIME you CAN BE "One Flesh" with woman "B". This then GOVERNS for all time the possible meanings of the phrase "One Flesh". The attempt to define it as a description ONLY OF a monogamous heterosexual union in Matthew 19:6 fails completely. There is NO historical basis whatsoever for the conclusion that it DOES describe a Monogamy only in that passage.

Here is another realization to digest. Hebrew had no word for "monogamy". It had no word for "polygamy" or "polygyny" or "polyandry". In fact the notion that a man described as having several wives was even in a marriage with all of them doesn't exist until an obscure reference ONCE in the New Testament. Marriage is in fact the act of becoming or realizing a betrothal and is only once, in Hebrews, described as a state in which people are said to exist. There was the concept of a family, that family included a wife or wives numbering anywhere from one upwards. That family if blessed had children. The man was the head of that family as a "Lord". The women (wives) were subject to their husbands as a slaves were to their MASTERS.

I am by the way, offended at the faintest of suggestions that I am in any way affiliated with the LDS (Mormons).

we have more fundamental differences that need addressing 1s

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:44 pm
by m273p15c
I accept that the Pentateuch was indeed written by Moses, and he was inspired. I believe he recorded exactly what God wanted him to record (Number 12:7; Hebrews 3:2, 5; II Peter 1:20-21). Neither the accuracy, authorship, or source of those words are being challenged.

However, the scope of those words are being challenged in another thread; therefore, I will not respond to them here. I do not recognize the Old Covenant's definition of marriage any more than I honor its requirements for circumcision, incense, animal sacrifice, instrumental music, stoning, feast days, requirement to kill neighboring idolatrous nations, etc. Until it is proved that the Old Testament's pattern for marriage is authoritative, it will not matter how many verses from the Old Testament are produced to show that God accepted polygony in the Old Testament. ... I accept every word as true and accurate, but I do not consider it applicable to me any more than Noah's instruction to build the ark. If you disagree, let's take it up in the appropriate thread, so we may have some hope of facing our true differences.

The significance of the Hebrew language not having words for certain ideas proves nothing. For example, the New Testament never uses a word for "wife". It is always the word, "woman" (Gr. gune - Compare I Timothy 2:9 with Ephesians 5:25). Does that mean there is no such idea of "wives" in the New Testament? Of course not. One has to examine the context to determine the meaning. It is not uncommon for any language to have some ambiguities that require evaluation of the context. So, what is your point?

In my analysis, you have only made 2 arguments that remotely resonate with me: 1) The Old Testament approved and authorized polygynous marriages. 2) The New Testament nowhere explicitly condemns polygynous marriages.

The first argument has been spun off, as you noted. The second is being discussed in the other thread. ... Although I do not accept that the Mosaical law proves that 1 man can be 1 flesh with 2 women simultaneously, I believe it does little good to banter, if we do not agree on the authority of the Mosaical law. True? I will focus my attention on the other two threads...

You should not get offended so easily (I Corinthians 13:4-7). If you leave room for the benefit of doubt, you should see no offense was intended. ... Given what you have said about me in other posts, you are the last person who should be taking offense so easily. :-)

Good.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:17 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"I accept that the Pentateuch was indeed written by Moses, and he was inspired. I believe he recorded exactly what God wanted him to record (Number 12:7; Hebrews 3:2, 5; II Peter 1:20-21). Neither the accuracy, authorship, or source of those words are being challenged."
Good, and this means the fruit of that forsaken tree is forever barred. I will remind you if you get close to it. Probably using this quote.
m273p15c wrote:"I do not recognize the Old Covenant's definition of marriage any more than I honor its requirements for circumcision, incense, animal sacrifice, instrumental music, stoning, feast days, requirement to kill neighboring idolatrous nations, etc."
Ok, we'll go with that, for now at least. Where DO you find marriage defined? I'd say for now Matthew 19 is a lousy place to cite, since I've pretty much shown (so far) without refutation that Christ refers to a definition of marriage found in the Old Testament. He does not seperately define marriage in that passage. Granted he could incorporate a concept or two from the Old in defining or redefining marriage, but that would mean we'd have to incorporate those passages as they were originally intended, because that's what they mean. In refering to them Christ validates them, if only them.
m273p15c wrote:"The significance of the Hebrew language not having words for certain ideas proves nothing. For example, the New Testament never uses a word for 'wife'. It is always the word, 'woman' (Gr. gune - Compare I Timothy 2:9 with Ephesians 5:25). Does that mean there is no such idea of 'wives' in the New Testament? Of course not. One has to examine the context to determine the meaning. It is not uncommon for any language to have some ambiguities that require evaluation of the context. So, what is your point?"
That God would have created a concept of Monogamy, if he wanted to hold it up. He simply doesn't. There is precident for this, there is a concept of "wickedness" (zimmah) that does not occur until God uses the word in his law. If there was a concept of Monogamy that God wanted to introduce, he certainly could have done so and created language to describe it. There is no such language, nor is there a phrase or an attempt to describe a situation or relationship. We have named them monogamies, God didn't even care to do so. Why? If he cared to do so, he would have.
m273p15c wrote:"In my analysis, you have only made 2 arguments that remotely resonate with me: 1) The Old Testament approved and authorized polygynous marriages. 2) The New Testament nowhere explicitly condemns polygynous marriages."
Good. That's sorta important since at one time what we now refer to as incest wasn't wrong, but clearly is now. I allow for the possibility that God would condemn the practice of Polygyny, like incest, except we both say he hasn't. Now it would seem that the necessity to exclude Polygyny depends on the definition of marriage.
m273p15c wrote:"The first argument has been spun off, as you noted. The second is being discussed in the other thread. ... Although I do not accept that the Mosaical law proves that 1 man can be 1 flesh with 2 women simultaneously, I believe it does little good to banter, if we do not agree on the authority of the Mosaical law."
Since you set it aside, I suppose there is no harm in conceding that my point is correct, however, you do not. But you're GAINSAYING, you're not engaging the argument. This is wrong. You don't really get to say in a debate "We just disagree", you have to bolster your position, or concede the point (at least for the time being).
m273p15c wrote:"You should not get offended so easily (I Corinthians 13:4-7). If you leave room for the benefit of doubt, you should see no offense was intended. ... Given what you have said about me in other posts, you are the last person who should be taking offense so easily." :-)
This is a small forum and I have made my affiliations abundantly clear. I regard the LDS as Non Christian and Unbelievers.

Re: Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:32 pm
by foc
Hugh McBryde wrote: Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?

Hugh
A man 'can' have more than one wife and not be committing 'sin', yes.
But the manner in which God created the marriage covenant and the limitations placed on those in leadership in the church of not having more than a single wife show us that, while it is tolerated, polygany is not Gods will for marriage and is to be avoided by believers if they arent already in polygamous marriages.

Bald Faced.

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:40 pm
by Hugh McBryde
foc wrote:"But the manner in which God created the marriage covenant and the limitations placed on those in leadership in the church of not having more than a single wife show us that, while it is tolerated, polygany is not Gods will for marriage and is to be avoided by believers if they arent already in polygamous marriages."
This is simply an unvarnished lie.

Hugh McBryde

Re: Bald Faced.

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:45 pm
by foc
Hugh McBryde wrote:
foc wrote:"But the manner in which God created the marriage covenant and the limitations placed on those in leadership in the church of not having more than a single wife show us that, while it is tolerated, polygany is not Gods will for marriage and is to be avoided by believers if they arent already in polygamous marriages."
This is simply an unvarnished lie.

Hugh McBryde
Youre entitled to your opinion, brother, as are the rest of us. :)

It's still a lie.

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:47 pm
by Hugh McBryde
No, it's a lie. I am easily proven the liar by you quoting a verse or two, but you cannot, because there aren't any so you lie.

Re: It's still a lie.

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:55 pm
by foc
Hugh McBryde wrote:No, it's a lie. I am easily proven the liar by you quoting a verse or two, but you cannot, because there aren't any so you lie.
If it were a lie, then there would be no need to limit a deacon or elder to one wife, would there? ;)

I take it you are the neighborhood problem here at this forum?
How about you stop with the "liar" nonsense and present something to show that there is some reason why a bishop would be prohibited from having more than a single wife and please make it a LOGICAL argument and not something we're just supposed to believe because you said so.

If you havent anything, please understand why I dont post any more in response to you as Im not having a repeat of the crosswalk incident with you here.

Re: Polygyny: Can a man Scripturally have multiple wives?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:58 pm
by foc
Until someone proves that Im incorrect to MY satisfaction, Hugh, THIS is what I will continue to believe.
foc wrote: A man 'can' have more than one wife and not be committing 'sin', yes.
But the manner in which God created the marriage covenant and the limitations placed on those in leadership in the church of not having more than a single wife show us that, while it is tolerated, polygany is not Gods will for marriage and is to be avoided by believers if they arent already in polygamous marriages.

foc, you follow me around.

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:58 pm
by Hugh McBryde
Periodicly you show up and post almost exclusively to topics I post at, in other forums. My remark still stands. The elder monogamy requirement never says the state is ideal. That God intended monogamy, that Polygyny is somehow substandard. I know you interpret it that way, but it doesn't say that and therefore, you lie. Furthermore, since we have had this discussion before you alreadly know this and you have in the past not been able to produce your scriptures. Just like this time.

Re: foc, you follow me around.

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:05 pm
by foc
Hugh McBryde wrote:........irrelevance deleted....................
The elder monogamy requirement never says the state is ideal. That God intended monogamy, that Polygyny is somehow substandard. I know you interpret it that way, but it doesn't say that and therefore, you lie. Furthermore, since we have had this discussion before you alreadly know this and you have in the past not been able to produce your scriptures. Just like this time.
There is no lie in trying to determine the 'spirit' of something in Gods word.
The 'spirit' of marriage from the very start is one man for one woman for life.
That 'spirit' is reflected in the requirement of the bishop and the deacons in His church.

I hardly need to produce the scriptures we are discussing because apparently you already know them.

You know factually that the deacon and elder are prohibited from taking more than a single wife and you know factually that God created one woman for one man in the garden.
I know factually that God tolerated the taking of more than one wife.

And so I conclude that while it was Gods design for one man to have one woman, I concede that God tolerated taking of multiple wives and at this point still does, barring a breach in laws of the land by doing so.

Now, unless you are going to somehow cause me to believe otherwise, I believe our discourse is concluded. :)

Oh, I know, NOWHERE.

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:18 pm
by Hugh McBryde
Where is it stated that there is this "spirit"?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:35 pm
by Hugh McBryde
No, I just don't accept private interpretation foc, 2nd Peter.

There is no command to take just ONE wife either.

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:18 pm
by Hugh McBryde
There is no command to marry AT ALL, unless of course you look at the Levirate Law command, the command in which a brother is compelled to take his brother's wife.

That command, is every bit as much a command to be Polygynous, as a necessary consequence of following the command, as it is to be monogamous. After Adam and Eve, ON ONE is commanded specificly to be married, but we know they can be.

Let us suppose, hypotheticly, you are the third brother of a total of three brothers. Two brothers go off to war, neither having produced children in their marriages. You are their unmarried brother. They are both killed. You go from single, to married as a command of the law, and not only that, you go from single to polygynously married.

FOC, or anybody, I'd like you to show me ANY command to marry at all. It will be interesting to see you apply that to anyone as a general law, instead of as a specific command for that person.

No MAN is commanded to marry, outside Levirate Law.

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:33 pm
by Hugh McBryde
foc wrote:
Hugh McBryde wrote:"There is no command to marry AT ALL, unless of course you look at the Levirate Law command, the command in which a brother is compelled to take his brother's wife."
"And?"
Well, you did say this earlier:
foc wrote:"can you show me the scripture that says 'thou shalt mulitply wives unto thyself'....or something to that effect ?"
I think that what I'm asking you is, is there ANY command to marry? This is something of a false dilemna, I am faced with the request to come up with a command to do something I consider normal, because you don't think it's normal. But you think marrying monogamously is normal, yet there is no command for that either. It goes back to how marriage is defined. If marriage is defined as essentially open ended from the man's perspective, then Polygyny is totally acceptable and that is in fact what I propose. Marriage has a definition. Part of that definition is "A man with however many women" and "A woman with only one man". That approach encompasses both monogamy and polygyny which are words that didn't even exist at the time marriage was defined.
foc wrote:"Agreed, IN ODD cases such as a childless widow in a culture such as ancient Isreal, yes, I agree, a man ought to become a polygamist to give his dead brothers widow a child.
And what is your point ?"
That no matter how odd, or how infrequent that occurance was, I don't believe in "indulgences" and I don't think you do either. Thus if God regularly COMMANDS a man to marry Polygynously, even if it is as a side effect to another command, we cannot say it is immoral to have more than one wife. You're trying to make monogamy a "general rule" in the sense that because polygyny is exceptional as a result of the Levirate Law command, it can be discounted. As has been said many times before, humorously, they are not the "Ten Suggestions". Polygyny as a result of this law, now stands as an entirely moral choice. Then the only question remains, is there a point at which God says "No More" as he did with the completely moral choice of marrying your sister. In the first generation after Adam, I could marry my sister, and indeed to fulfill the command "be fruitful and multiply" someone had to. Later, we are forbidden to marry our sisters.
foc wrote:"This does NOT show that Gods DESIRE for ALL marriages is polygamy...only that it was tolerated and in this one case may be commanded."
Subtle liar. God does not TOLLERATE the necessary consequence of his RIGHTEOUS COMMAND. He EMBRACES them. This is an entirely moral command. There is no sin on anyone's part. Nevertheless, a man, and at least two women are compelled through no overt act or ommision on their part to enter a polygyny and you DARE to besmirch the resulting estate with the epithet TOLLERATE? Shame on you.
foc wrote:"I see nothing here that says 'Gods WILL for marriage is polygamy'."
False dichotomy. You set up an additional lie, that I propose marriage's best estate is Polygyny, I do not. This is not a question of "Monogamy or Polygyny, which is best?", this is a case of "Does God want Monogamy Only or Monogamy and Polygyny."
foc wrote:"But I DO see 'husband of ONE wife' listed quite plainly in the NT."
Yeah, for elders and deacons. We've done this before. Many times. Elders are also to be teachers, which is a gift, not a choice, and men as opposed to women, also, not a choice. You characterize the qualifications of office for elder or deacon as all being ideals of behavior. They aren't. Unless you show me where monogamy is held up as an ideal (and these passages simply do not), then it's just an item on the list. Just as being a teacher is an item on the list.
foc wrote:
Hugh McBryde wrote:"FOC, or anybody, I'd like you to show me ANY command to marry at all."
"What is this? building some strawman, hugh ? I dont remember making any claims that anyone was COMMANDED to marry."
Once again, you asked me where it was there was a command to take more than one wife. The point is, you lack commands to marry just as I do. This is a red herring. It is not the command to marry we are looking for, it is the defintion of marriage we are looking for. By the way, who do your younger women marry? Men are not commanded to marry are they?

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:47 pm
by grand_puba
Hugh,

You miss my point. I am not blaming anyone. I am asking both of you, "Get to the point".

My plan is tolerate the "shoving" temporarily in this thread, if that is what it takes for the two of you to get down to business, because I realize you two have a history.

If you two do not want to discuss this topic any further with foc, or if you cannot discuss this any further with him, that is fine. Whenever you are done, I will delete the nonsense and lock the thread, but I will only lock it once the debate is concluded.

My intention is not to police anybody's spiritual character - that is a task too big for me. The best I can do is moderate the content, and that is what I am trying to do here - nothing more.

Finally, when someone insults you and you return in like kind, you are playing into their hands - regardless of what I do. "What is the chaff to the wheat?" (Jeremiah 23:28). In other words, present what you believe to be the truth, ignore the insults, respond to the real arguments, and leave the rest in the hands of the authorities. That would be my advice to everyone on this board.

Thanks,

The Moderator

Our story so far.

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:08 pm
by Hugh McBryde
foc quite naturally believes he has defeated the argument I presented before. This means he has at least one powerful argument that conclusively proves his point, at least he thinks he does.

I suggest that foc present that argument again. One argument. We will debate it to the conclusion. For example, if foc regards the example of "elder monogamy" to be instructive to the laity, and that represents a conclusive argument, and his best, we shall debate that.

Should this not prove to be a conclusive argument in his favor, we will move on to one of the many other arguments for monogamy only and deal with that one until it reaches impass or conclusion and so on.

If I am defeated once, my whole argument collapses. If there are 20 major arguments for "monogamy only" and foc is defeated 19 times, he does not lose. I must run the table, he need sink only one ball. I am willing.

I will address only the points that touch on the debate.

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:34 am
by Hugh McBryde
foc wrote:"He asserts that Gods will for marriage is polygamy, shows a few cases where it happened, assumes that means it is Gods WILL for marriage."
False. A common debate tactic is the "strawman". That is the characterization of your opponents argument in a way that resembles their argument, but is in fact not their argument. I do not assert that God's will for marriage is Polygamy. I am not in favor of Polygamy. Polygamy is a secular concept and is defined as the having of multiple spouses. I have never advocated Polygamy and cannot ever conceive of doing so. I am an advocate of the occasional Polygyny. Polygyny being the having of more than one wife concurrently.

By saying occasional I do not say that "Polygyny is God's will for marriage" which is also, like using the term Polygamy, too broad a statement. Polygyny is God's will for some men, and clearly can only be God's will for only some men unless there is a sudden dramatic change in the ratios of men to women. Polygyny is neither better than, or worse than Monogamy. In fact, I contend that by not having words to distinguish one form of family relationship from the other, that God in fact describes family life as a continuum of relationships that can range from a man with one wife to a man with any number of wives.
foc wrote:"I show that God didnt create a harem for Adam but ONE woman and then show a few areas were polygamy was nothing short than a problem for men who did take more than one wife."
Your two statements here, are that there is an inflexible archetype of what marriage is, and it is depicted by Adam and Eve, and that Polygyny is trouble, inherently.

In dealing with the first claim, that Adam and Eve are an archetype in all ways for us to follow in the arena of marriage, you lack a statement, anywhere in scripture, that this is so. You have statements that hold up the permanence of marriage such as in Matthew 19, where Christ decries divorce, but Jesus is focusing on one aspect of marriage and stating that the original intent for marriage with regard to permanence, is expressed by their marriage, and that the original intent for all of us, as well as Adam and Eve IS permanence. Christ does not extend this archetype status to other areas of the relationship of Adam and Eve and due to the fact that it is impossible to do so, it is clear that Adam and Eve's marriage CANNOT be archetypal and instructive in all ways. We do not marry what amounts to our own clone, as Adam does. In the first generation after Adam, the archetype of his marriage is discarded since we are in fact compelled to marry differently than he did, and marry our own sisters and brothers. This also was not substandard or wrong. It was though, different. It also sets up a possible pattern for the end of Polygyny. Namely, sibling marriage was once compelled by God to fulfill his righteous command, and later, sibling marriage was expressly forbidden. This proves that what God once saw as perfectly righteous, in fact absolutely necessary, might also later be put aside. This COULD be the case with Polygyny.

As far as Polygyny being trouble? This is impossible to prove. There is no statement in scripture that Polygyny alone is causative of strife. There is the clear statement that the taking of "strange" or "foreign" or "unbelieving" brides is trouble. There is the clear evaluation at the end of Nehemiah that this in fact WAS the trouble that Solomon got into. There is no unvarnished claim anywhere in scripture that the mere presence of multiple wives led to evil or trouble.

There are no marriages we can point to that were entirely righteous. All are touched by sin. Thus the experiment is not controlled and the only examples that can be cited in scripture are never pointed to elsewhere in scripture as proof of the evil, however subtle, of Polygyny.
foc wrote:"How God laid out rules for the provision of the first wife if a man did take a second making it VERY easy for the first wife to walk out of the marriage, and also very clear instruction for leaders in the church, who are men who set the example for the rest, who are to be of ONE wife in order to take these positions."
I won't touch on what I think is a manifestly false assertion, but I will point out that making a marriage easy to walk out on, isn't the same thing as condemning the form of marriage.
foc wrote:"Hugh disagrees and keeps insisting that its ok if we dont follow the rules for the elders that they are meaningless to the flock they lead."
The rules for marriage of priests would have prevented Ruth from ever gaining Boaz as a husband, and would have interrupted the line of the Messiah. So would they have prevented the man who took Rahab, from taking her, also breaking that chain. A priest could only marry a "virgin of Israel", neither of these women qualified. The point? Requirements of office do not constitute a condemnation of those who do not fit those requirements.

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:07 am
by foc
Dear READER

You will have to go thru the scriptures yourself and decide what YOU believe in this matter, not allowing anyone here to push you into believing anything one way or the other.

Since scripture as a WHOLE neither encourages nor outright prohibits polygamy, you will have to decide whether you believe that taking of multiple wives was mere 'tolerated' and permitted by God.
OR, if it was literally encouraged for men, even just 'some' men, to take as many wives as they could find.

My guess is that if you go thru ALL of Gods words that most of you will conclude the former, not the latter, but go and see for yourselves which is right in this matter.