Polygamy and levirate marriage

[ZackMartin]

Hi

This follows on from some discussions in another thread about polygamy in the Bible. I am posting it here due to its obvious relevance to LDS (given their historical practice of polygamy), but of course it is not exclusively relevant to them.

Deut 25:5-6 (NIV):

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

Basically, this passage starts off by saying, that if a man's married brother dies without a son, then the surviving brother must marry the dead brother's wife. How is this relevant to polygamy? There is no requirement that the surviving brother not already be married.

So, how could polygamy be a sin, if God here commands it?

Now, a few more points. Firstly, the phrase "brothers are living together" - possibly, this refers to some kind of extended family living arrangement. If that interpretation is correct, then this may not be a universal rule, but rather one applicable to a particular type of family arrangement (which may no longer exist in most societies). Yet, even if it is only an obligation in certain limited circumstances, the fact remains - how could it be a sin if God commands it?

Secondly, it is not clear if there are multiple brothers, which one has the obligation. According to the Talmud, the older brother is expected to do so, but if he refuses and a younger brother consents, the law is nonetheless obeyed.

Thirdly, what is the penalty for not obeying this command? The penalty is limited to a public shaming (Deut 25:6-10):

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

Now, I think in the day, even if this is only a shaming, it would have been rather severe. The way the practice has developed since (it is retained in contemporary Judaism), the element of shame has been lost (since in practice very rarely do either the brother or the sister-in-law actually want to get married, and this is a way convenient to both of them to get out of it, and it has turned into a formalistic ceremony with a very different meaning from the original). But I think it is clear that in the original, it is a rather severe shaming.

I think it makes the most sense to understand this as a commandment, with public shaming as a penalty for violation.

So we are left with the conclusion - that God commanded polygamy, at least in certain specific circumstances. If God commands polygamy, how can it be a sin to do what God commands?

I think that is the strongest pro-polygamy argument based on the Pentateuch. But here are some more:

1] Exodus 21:10 (NIV): "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." If polygamy was prohibited as sinful, there would be no need for this regulation. The Bible generally doesn't contain statements of the gentle murder paradox ("If you are going to murder, then murder gently"). The fact that it is regulated implies that it is permitted and not prohibited, and therefore not sinful.

2] Deut 17:17 (NIV) says of the King: "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Note that it clearly says "many wives", rather than "more than one". Another point, which the NIV obscures, but the KJV makes rather clear "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." "multiply" does not mean having more than one, it means no having too much. The King is not allowed to multiply silver and gold, but he is nonetheless allowed more than one piece of each. In the same way, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many. Both occurrences of the word "multiply" are the same word in Hebrew.

If God wanted to say that the King could have only one wife, surely the Bible would have said that. Instead, it is clear, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many wives.

Another argument that is made, is that the biblical accounts of the kings condemn them for breaking this violation. But note, it is not for polygamy that they are condemned, but for excessive polygamy. Excessive polygamy is a violation of the Torah, and king Solomon is condemned for violating this prohibition, and the Bible reports the negative consequences from his sin. If instead he had stuck to moderate polygamy (two or three wives, say), then he would not have sinned against the Torah, and many of the negative consequences would not have occurred.

One final point - Judaism has always taught that polygamy is permissible according to the Torah and Tanach. Among the Ashkenazi it is prohibited, but that is due to a rabbinical decision in the 11th century, not due to the Bible, and they agree that polygamy was permissible prior to then (and even today, it is arguably still permissible from the Ashkenazi perspective among Jews not subject to Ashkenazi customs). Among Sephardi Jews, polygamy is considered religiously acceptable, albeit rarely practised (and especially not in Western countries.) Say what you like about Judaism, but when the plain reading of the Torah/Tanach says something, and furthermore Jews have always agreed it says that, I take that as a pretty convincing argument that that is what it says.

Zack

[lilpixieofterror]

Hi

This follows on from some discussions in another thread about polygamy in the Bible. I am posting it here due to its obvious relevance to LDS (given their historical practice of polygamy), but of course it is not exclusively relevant to them.

Deut 25:5-6 (NIV):


Basically, this passage starts off by saying, that if a man's married brother dies without a son, then the surviving brother must marry the dead brother's wife. How is this relevant to polygamy? There is no requirement that the surviving brother not already be married.

Huh? So the Bible has to specifically explain every situation to you in order for it to specifically forbid something? How does that work? You are aware that the Bible was written to a 'high context' society right? There's many things implied to be known to be the people of the day that it doesn't say specifically because if it listed out everything, who would want to read it? Plus you'll find most men in history did not take multiple wives. It tended to be something reserved for the rich or for the powerful who could afford such things.

So, how could polygamy be a sin, if God here commands it?

Sorry, it doesn't command it at all, you are reading it into the passage as, "It doesn't say it, so it must be fine!" The Bible doesn't specifically say not to stick your fingers into wall outlets, so are you going to go do it because the Bible doesn't specifically say not to do it? This is an argument from silence that is a fallacy by most people.

Now, a few more points. Firstly, the phrase "brothers are living together" - possibly, this refers to some kind of extended family living arrangement. If that interpretation is correct, then this may not be a universal rule, but rather one applicable to a particular type of family arrangement (which may no longer exist in most societies). Yet, even if it is only an obligation in certain limited circumstances, the fact remains - how could it be a sin if God commands it?

Many families of that time tended to live together, but sorry, that is an argument from silence. Does the Bible need to specifically forbid you jumping out a 10 story window for you not to jump out a 10 story window?

Secondly, it is not clear if there are multiple brothers, which one has the obligation. According to the Talmud, the older brother is expected to do so, but if he refuses and a younger brother consents, the law is nonetheless obeyed.

Which has nothing to do with this.

Thirdly, what is the penalty for not obeying this command? The penalty is limited to a public shaming (Deut 25:6-10):

Now, I think in the day, even if this is only a shaming, it would have been rather severe. The way the practice has developed since (it is retained in contemporary Judaism), the element of shame has been lost (since in practice very rarely do either the brother or the sister-in-law actually want to get married, and this is a way convenient to both of them to get out of it, and it has turned into a formalistic ceremony with a very different meaning from the original). But I think it is clear that in the original, it is a rather severe shaming.

Your ignorance of the honor/shame society is quite telling. Anyway, I'm sorry, why does the Bible need to specifically say everything you should or shouldn't do in order for it to be forbidding an action? Plus, you've been given verses where it specifically states that marriage is between one man and one women, but you seem to be ignoring it because it doesn't help your argument out at all... quite revealing...

I think it makes the most sense to understand this as a commandment, with public shaming as a penalty for violation.

So? You are aware of high context societies right? You are aware of how honor/shame societies work, right? High context, primary oral societies did not make long and detailed list of laws like we do today because we are a written, low context society. Anthropology, I suggest you go read up on it.

So we are left with the conclusion - that God commanded polygamy, at least in certain specific circumstances. If God commands polygamy, how can it be a sin to do what God commands?

No, we are left with the conclusion that you do not understand the culture that the Bible was written in and thus just assume your values and beliefs on the text. Plus, God putting laws into place and God condoning an action is two different things. Also, I think you're forgetting that Christians are under the new testament, not the old testament and the new testament is pretty specific about God's plan for marriage, one man and one women, you can deny it all you want, but it is in there..

I think that is the strongest pro-polygamy argument based on the Pentateuch. But here are some more:

1] Exodus 21:10 (NIV): "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." If polygamy was prohibited as sinful, there would be no need for this regulation. The Bible generally doesn't contain statements of the gentle murder paradox ("If you are going to murder, then murder gently"). The fact that it is regulated implies that it is permitted and not prohibited, and therefore not sinful.

Yawn, God's plan and what people do is two different things. How does God making a law automatically mean it must be approved? Does making laws about drinking mean all law makers agree with such laws or condone these legal actions?

2] Deut 17:17 (NIV) says of the King: "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Note that it clearly says "many wives", rather than "more than one". Another point, which the NIV obscures, but the KJV makes rather clear "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." "multiply" does not mean having more than one, it means no having too much. The King is not allowed to multiply silver and gold, but he is nonetheless allowed more than one piece of each. In the same way, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many. Both occurrences of the word "multiply" are the same word in Hebrew.

If God wanted to say that the King could have only one wife, surely the Bible would have said that. Instead, it is clear, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many wives.

Again, sorry, God dealing with reality is not the same as specifically condoning an action. You do understand there's a difference between dealing with the reality of the day and condoning such behavior, right?

Another argument that is made, is that the biblical accounts of the kings condemn them for breaking this violation. But note, it is not for polygamy that they are condemned, but for excessive polygamy. Excessive polygamy is a violation of the Torah, and king Solomon is condemned for violating this prohibition, and the Bible reports the negative consequences from his sin. If instead he had stuck to moderate polygamy (two or three wives, say), then he would not have sinned against the Torah, and many of the negative consequences would not have occurred.

It's too bad Christians are under the new testament, eh?

One final point - Judaism has always taught that polygamy is permissible according to the Torah and Tanach. Among the Ashkenazi it is prohibited, but that is due to a rabbinical decision in the 11th century, not due to the Bible, and they agree that polygamy was permissible prior to then (and even today, it is arguably still permissible from the Ashkenazi perspective among Jews not subject to Ashkenazi customs). Among Sephardi Jews, polygamy is considered religiously acceptable, albeit rarely practised (and especially not in Western countries.) Say what you like about Judaism, but when the plain reading of the Torah/Tanach says something, and furthermore Jews have always agreed it says that, I take that as a pretty convincing argument that that is what it says.

Too bad Christians are under the new testament that specifically forbids polygamy, eh?

[ZackMartin]

Huh? So the Bible has to specifically explain every situation to you in order for it to specifically forbid something? How does that work? You are aware that the Bible was written to a 'high context' society right? There's many things implied to be known to be the people of the day that it doesn't say specifically because if it listed out everything, who would want to read it? Plus you'll find most men in history did not take multiple wives. It tended to be something reserved for the rich or for the powerful who could afford such things

If you don't agree with my interpretation of the laws of Levirate marriage, could you please explain what they mean in your opinion? How does the obligation apply in the case of two brothers, both already married, one of whom dies without children? If I'm not interpreting it correctly, please share the correct interpretation.

Your ignorance of the honor/shame society is quite telling. Anyway, I'm sorry, why does the Bible need to specifically say everything you should or shouldn't do in order for it to be forbidding an action?

If I'm ignorant of it, please explain in detail how I am wrong, and what is the correct interpretation of the passage?

Plus, you've been given verses where it specifically states that marriage is between one man and one women, but you seem to be ignoring it because it doesn't help your argument out at all... quite revealing...

I don't agree there are such passages. But in any case, we can't discuss every passage at once; to have an actual discussion about a topic, it needs to be broken up into manageable chunks.

So? You are aware of high context societies right? You are aware of how honor/shame societies work, right? High context, primary oral societies did not make long and detailed list of laws like we do today because we are a written, low context society. Anthropology, I suggest you go read up on it.

Of course not everything is going to be written down - but you can tell a lot about things from what is. For example, if you find written down regulations about HOW to do X, it is a reasonable conclusion that X is not prohibited; if X was prohibited, such regulations would not be needed.

No, we are left with the conclusion that you do not understand the culture that the Bible was written in and thus just assume your values and beliefs on the text.

Do you understand that culture? So far you've just been asserting that I don't understand it. You haven't provided any evidence that you do.

Plus, God putting laws into place and God condoning an action is two different things.

What is the purpose of the law according to Romans 3:20? "through the law we become conscious of our sin" - regulating how to sin doesn't serve the purpose of the law; explaining how not to sin does. So, the fact that something is regulated, implies it is not a sin.

Also, I think you're forgetting that Christians are under the new testament, not the old testament and the new testament is pretty specific about God's plan for marriage, one man and one women, you can deny it all you want, but it is in there..

As I said, to discuss matters you have to break them down into manageable chunks. Certainly one can argue that some things permitted in the OT are prohibited in the NT - e.g. Moses permitted divorce; Jesus prohibited it. But even if you are right that the NT prohibits it, that doesn't make the question of whether the OT does or not irrelevant. Neither is it is true that if the NT prohibits something, that it is automatically prohibited in the OT also.

Yawn, God's plan and what people do is two different things. How does God making a law automatically mean it must be approved? Does making laws about drinking mean all law makers agree with such laws or condone these legal actions?

Well, given the fact that Jesus drank wine, it is pretty clear that the Bible does condone drinking alcohol in moderation. The Bible frequently condemns excessive drinking, but never does it condemn moderate drinking - rather similar to how the Law of Moses prohibits excessive royal polygamy, but does not prohibit moderate royal polygamy.

Zack

[humbled4444]

Hi

This follows on from some discussions in another thread about polygamy in the Bible. I am posting it here due to its obvious relevance to LDS (given their historical practice of polygamy), but of course it is not exclusively relevant to them.

Deut 25:5-6 (NIV):


Basically, this passage starts off by saying, that if a man's married brother dies without a son, then the surviving brother must marry the dead brother's wife. How is this relevant to polygamy? There is no requirement that the surviving brother not already be married.

So, how could polygamy be a sin, if God here commands it?

Now, a few more points. Firstly, the phrase "brothers are living together" - possibly, this refers to some kind of extended family living arrangement. If that interpretation is correct, then this may not be a universal rule, but rather one applicable to a particular type of family arrangement (which may no longer exist in most societies). Yet, even if it is only an obligation in certain limited circumstances, the fact remains - how could it be a sin if God commands it?

Secondly, it is not clear if there are multiple brothers, which one has the obligation. According to the Talmud, the older brother is expected to do so, but if he refuses and a younger brother consents, the law is nonetheless obeyed.

Thirdly, what is the penalty for not obeying this command? The penalty is limited to a public shaming (Deut 25:6-10):

Now, I think in the day, even if this is only a shaming, it would have been rather severe. The way the practice has developed since (it is retained in contemporary Judaism), the element of shame has been lost (since in practice very rarely do either the brother or the sister-in-law actually want to get married, and this is a way convenient to both of them to get out of it, and it has turned into a formalistic ceremony with a very different meaning from the original). But I think it is clear that in the original, it is a rather severe shaming.

I think it makes the most sense to understand this as a commandment, with public shaming as a penalty for violation.

So we are left with the conclusion - that God commanded polygamy, at least in certain specific circumstances. If God commands polygamy, how can it be a sin to do what God commands?

I think that is the strongest pro-polygamy argument based on the Pentateuch. But here are some more:

1] Exodus 21:10 (NIV): "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." If polygamy was prohibited as sinful, there would be no need for this regulation. The Bible generally doesn't contain statements of the gentle murder paradox ("If you are going to murder, then murder gently"). The fact that it is regulated implies that it is permitted and not prohibited, and therefore not sinful.

2] Deut 17:17 (NIV) says of the King: "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Note that it clearly says "many wives", rather than "more than one". Another point, which the NIV obscures, but the KJV makes rather clear "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." "multiply" does not mean having more than one, it means no having too much. The King is not allowed to multiply silver and gold, but he is nonetheless allowed more than one piece of each. In the same way, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many. Both occurrences of the word "multiply" are the same word in Hebrew.

If God wanted to say that the King could have only one wife, surely the Bible would have said that. Instead, it is clear, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many wives.

Another argument that is made, is that the biblical accounts of the kings condemn them for breaking this violation. But note, it is not for polygamy that they are condemned, but for excessive polygamy. Excessive polygamy is a violation of the Torah, and king Solomon is condemned for violating this prohibition, and the Bible reports the negative consequences from his sin. If instead he had stuck to moderate polygamy (two or three wives, say), then he would not have sinned against the Torah, and many of the negative consequences would not have occurred.

One final point - Judaism has always taught that polygamy is permissible according to the Torah and Tanach. Among the Ashkenazi it is prohibited, but that is due to a rabbinical decision in the 11th century, not due to the Bible, and they agree that polygamy was permissible prior to then (and even today, it is arguably still permissible from the Ashkenazi perspective among Jews not subject to Ashkenazi customs). Among Sephardi Jews, polygamy is considered religiously acceptable, albeit rarely practised (and especially not in Western countries.) Say what you like about Judaism, but when the plain reading of the Torah/Tanach says something, and furthermore Jews have always agreed it says that, I take that as a pretty convincing argument that that is what it says.

Zack

Some interesting comments thank you Zack.

[Sparko]

The context shows that the other brother was unmarried. Because if he was married he would not have been living under the same roof as his brother. He would have had his own place with his wife.

also, it may only be referring to a kinsmen, not an actual brother because in Lev 20 it says:

Lev 20:21 21 If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

[Cow Poke]

I'm sure there's an obvious Mormon response, but what about the New Testament "husband of one wife" reference?

[lilpixieofterror]

If you don't agree with my interpretation of the laws of Levirate marriage, could you please explain what they mean in your opinion? How does the obligation apply in the case of two brothers, both already married, one of whom dies without children? If I'm not interpreting it correctly, please share the correct interpretation.

Beyond your interpretation is little more then an argument from silence? Beyond the fact that in that era, those that got married tended to move out on their own, so the brother living with another brother would most likely be unmarried? Beyond the fact that the Bible is a 'high context' society that has many things not said in the text?

If I'm ignorant of it, please explain in detail how I am wrong, and what is the correct interpretation of the passage?

Did married men live with their brothers in that era?

I don't agree there are such passages. But in any case, we can't discuss every passage at once; to have an actual discussion about a topic, it needs to be broken up into manageable chunks.

Nonsense, the passages have been shown and quoted, in full. Two become one flesh, not 3,4,5 etc.

Of course not everything is going to be written down - but you can tell a lot about things from what is. For example, if you find written down regulations about HOW to do X, it is a reasonable conclusion that X is not prohibited; if X was prohibited, such regulations would not be needed.

You mean like where Jesus says that marriage is about two becoming one flesh? Just because the Bible has rules dealing with X, doesn't mean that is the optimal way to live. After all, the military allows people to get stupid drunk and allows them to smoke, does that therefore mean the military condones such actions or believes it is the optimal way to live?

Do you understand that culture? So far you've just been asserting that I don't understand it. You haven't provided any evidence that you do.

I know better then to read the 'plain reading of the text' and to read things into it. For example, did you know that once somebody got married in that era, they tended to move out from their immediate families? Did you know they were a 'high context' culture that often didn't include many of the details into their writings that we tend to do today? These are all things you can confirm though anthropology, if you so desire.

What is the purpose of the law according to Romans 3:20? "through the law we become conscious of our sin" - regulating how to sin doesn't serve the purpose of the law; explaining how not to sin does. So, the fact that something is regulated, implies it is not a sin.

There is a difference between regulation and condoning, you do know that, right? Also, it is amazing how you ignore the problems that it caused Sarah and Hagar, you are ignoring the problems between Rachael and Leah, you are ignoring the problems that David and Solomon had between their wives. You also seem to ignore Jesus' instructions about two become becoming one flesh. He says nothing about 3 or 4 becoming one, does he? Nope. Finally, Paul also mentioned in 1 Timothy about men who having multiple wives makes then unqualifed for leadership doesn't seem to detour you either. Seriously, what more do you need?

As I said, to discuss matters you have to break them down into manageable chunks. Certainly one can argue that some things permitted in the OT are prohibited in the NT - e.g. Moses permitted divorce; Jesus prohibited it. But even if you are right that the NT prohibits it, that doesn't make the question of whether the OT does or not irrelevant. Neither is it is true that if the NT prohibits something, that it is automatically prohibited in the OT also.

Are Christians under the OT or the NT? We are under the new, not the old.

Well, given the fact that Jesus drank wine, it is pretty clear that the Bible does condone drinking alcohol in moderation. The Bible frequently condemns excessive drinking, but never does it condemn moderate drinking - rather similar to how the Law of Moses prohibits excessive royal polygamy, but does not prohibit moderate royal polygamy.

You missed the point (what a surprise). Just cause the military doesn't go out of it's way to prevent people from drinking in excess does not mean it condones excessive drinking. Likewise, Rachael and Leah are two women, correct? That would be moderate polygamy in your view, but you seem to ignore all the problems it caused. Likewise, the same is said with Sarah and Hagar, but guess what... it still caused problems. While on the other hand, what problems did moderate drinking cause people in the OT and NT? None, but moderate polygamy caused lots of problems. Well, looks like your argument here is down the tubes... got another one?

[OtherCheek]

I'm sure there's an obvious Mormon response, but what about the New Testament "husband of one wife" reference?

Zack already gave a pretty good response, IMO.

[Cow Poke]

Zack already gave a pretty good response, IMO.

Zack, bless his heart, tends to be a bit....
Please spare me the reading of long blocks of text and summarize it in your words for me, please.

[OtherCheek]

Zack, bless his heart, tends to be a bit....
Please spare me the reading of long blocks of text and summarize it in your words for me, please.

Titus 1:6 is speaking about the calling of "Bishop", as I read it. See verse 7. Otherwise, why would Paul speak about the office of "Bishop" in conjunction with plural marriage?

[Cow Poke]

Titus 1:6 is speaking about the calling of "Bishop", as I read it. See verse 7.

Well, don't forget vs. 5 where it says ELDERS, then continues... context, remember?

Otherwise, why would Paul speak about the office of "Bishop" in conjunction with plural marriage?

Well, he didn't mention Union Membership, either.

Here's Bishop....

(1 Tim 3:2 KJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

AND DEACONS....

(1 Tim 3:12 KJV) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

And here's vs. 5 which, oddly enough, comes before vs. 6, and mentions elders the phrase followed by a colon...

(Titus 1:6 KJV) 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

It's about Church Leadership, OC.

BISHOP - 1985. episkopos, ep-is'-kop-os; from G1909 and G4649 (in the sense of G1983); a superintendent, i.e. Chr. officer in gen. charge of a (or the) church (lit. or fig.):--bishop, overseer.

DEACONS - 1249. diakonos, dee-ak'-on-os; prob. from an obs. diako (to run on errands; comp. G1377); an attendant, i.e. (gen.) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); spec. a Chr. teacher and pastor (techn. a deacon or deaconess):--deacon, minister, servant.

ELDERS - 4245. presbuteros, pres-boo'-ter-os; compar. of presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; spec. an Isr. Sanhedrist (also fig. member of the celestial council) or Chr. "presbyter":--elder (-est), old.

[ZackMartin]

Zack, bless his heart, tends to be a bit....
Please spare me the reading of long blocks of text and summarize it in your words for me, please.

These are complex issues. They can't be reduced to soundbites. I'm not sure how one is meant to do certain topics justice without being lengthy, because they are just by nature complex topics.

Zack

[Cow Poke]

These are complex issues. They can't be reduced to soundbites. I'm not sure how one is meant to do certain topics justice without being lengthy, because they are just by nature complex topics.

Zack

Oh noes.... FALSE DICHOTOMIES EVERYWHERE!!!!! (drama )

Zack, there's no reason it has to be EITHER verbosity OR "soundbites" --- and you're free to type just as much as you want, but I'm an OLD guy and I like the Reader's Digest version.

It's just a choice I've made cause I don't have that much longer to live.

Oh, and "concise" is good.. but it takes talent.

[RussianWolfe]

It must be remembered that both the OT and NT are culturals where multiple wives were the norm. When Paul tell Timothy the qualifications of Bishop, Elder, Deacon, etc, and explicitly states that they must be the husband of one wife, this is a commandment to have only one wife in a culture where multiple wives were considered normal.

In our culture, one wife is considered normal and multiple wives is considered a felony (bigamy). So in our culture, God would have to comand us to take multiple wives. But not in the culture of the OT and NT.

Marvin

[Cow Poke]

It must be remembered that both the OT and NT are culturals

Culturals? Please provide evidence that multiple wives were "the norm" in the NT.

where multiple wives were the norm. When Paul tell Timothy the qualifications of Bishop, Elder, Deacon, etc, and explicitly states that they must be the husband of one wife, this is a commandment to have only one wife in a culture where multiple wives were considered normal.

Prove it, please.

In our culture, one wife is considered normal and multiple wives is considered a felony (bigamy). So in our culture, God would have to comand us to take multiple wives. But not in the culture of the OT and NT.

Marvin

The New Testament clearly refers to "the husband of one wife", “Mias gunaikos andra”, which actually translates more to something like "a one woman kind of man" or a "man of one woman".