Multiple Wives in the OT

[Vladimir]

Deut. 21:15 If a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, and they both bear him children, 21:16 in the day he divides his inheritance he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the other wife’s son who is actually the firstborn. ...

This is the question. Why did God allow a man to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, yet, Jesus makes a point that a man is to have only ONE wife in the New Testament?

The reason one could say God allowed multiple wives for one man is that God specifically made a rule on how one should treat his children in the even one has multiple wives....

If my reasoing is false, what am I not understandig properly?

Thanks,
Vladimir

[mickiel]

Today @ 07:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99480#post99480)
Vladimir:

Deut. 21:15 If a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, and they both bear him children, 21:16 in the day he divides his inheritance he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the other wife’s son who is actually the firstborn. ...

This is the question. Why did God allow a man to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, yet, Jesus makes a point that a man is to have only ONE wife in the New Testament?

The reason one could say God allowed multiple wives for one man is that God specifically made a rule on how one should treat his children in the even one has multiple wives....

If my reasoing is false, what am I not understandig properly?

Thanks,
Vladimir

Multipule wives, slaves, women in submission to men, animal sacrifice, women being silent, all this was allowed , now none of it is pertinant, but modern day men want to keep these dead issues alive.

[NSMinistries]

More than one wife...:eek: I have enough trouble keeping up with one...:bonk:

[Vladimir]

with the Scripture I quoted is that it appears that God does not have the same Standard, that God is not 'unchanging', but does indeed change.

Again, this is not my personal belief, but it appears that God changed His requirements in the New Testament.

This is a difficult question I'm wrestling with and appreciate any help with this matter.

In Christ,
Vladimir

[wienerdog]

I think it is totally consistent for the Bible to allow particular marital conditions in one society, and then argue against them when the particularities of that culture are no longer pertinent. For example, Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and Jacob married two sisters (Genesis 29:13-30). Both of these are later forbidden by Moses (Leviticus 18:18).

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 11:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99713#post99713)
wienerdog:

I think it is totally consistent for the Bible to allow particular marital conditions in one society, and then argue against them when the particularities of that culture are no longer pertinent. For example, Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and Jacob married two sisters (Genesis 29:13-30). Both of these are later forbidden by Moses (Leviticus 18:18).

The above is a well written example Vladimir, i agree with this post. Still, bear in mind that when the bible speaks of God not changeing, it is speaking of his inner morals, his fruit of his own Spirit, his characther, or his nature, these never change about him. However God does lift curses, he spares what he may previously intended to destroy, this shows that God is flexible, even though he is absolute. If God is flexible, then so is Christ, the living word, if the living word is flexible, then so is the written word. The bible must be simular to God also, it must span the decades of time and still remain relevant.

It must be able to be cross-cultured, bi-racial , reasonable, factual and peer relevant, or apealing to youth. One interesting example is the issue of slavery. When the bible was written, slavery was legal, now it is illegal, so we must disguard the verses that pertain to slavery. As you have mentioned, marriage to multiple wives was legal then, and in some areas of the world-- still is. If a man becomes a christian after he has already taken on multiple wives in his native land, and that be legal, should he divorce the others to adhere to the one wife standard.

Thats a very difficult situation to be in. He could reason either way and be correct, he could argue that he can only have one now, or he could argue that divorce is forbidden, keep them all and still be correct. My imagination envys such a man. I think reason must be used in each situation, common sense, respect for culture and prejudice must be disguarded, or the "fear of different cultures". Times zones in the world changes, but not cultures. A man with ten wifes can fly from his native land into a different country with different laws, but no country can legally take away his wives. Interesting though, if a person is a pastor and has this situation thrust on them, what would they advise or counsel? Do you split the family up, or leave them together, or let them decide for themselves? I tend to think in terms of not interfering. Although many people may not understand this statement; you just have to use common sense when navigateing spiritual matters that mix with fleshly matters. People have just got to learn to think for themselves.

[wienerdog]

In Africa, some missionaries have tried to convince new Christians that they have to divorce their "extra" wives. But in context, it turns out that the reason men married more than one woman is because they were widowed, and needed someone to take care of them. This is precisely the biblical mandate to care for widows and orphans!

[mickiel]

Today @ 09:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100629#post100629)
wienerdog:

In Africa, some missionaries have tried to convince new Christians that they have to divorce their "extra" wives. But in context, it turns out that the reason men married more than one woman is because they were widowed, and needed someone to take care of them. This is precisely the biblical mandate to care for widows and orphans!

This is a good example of reality. In this situation, you cannot place a overzealous hard core righteous spirit into this atmosphere, and start piously judgeing the matter as if everyone is a sinner, or an adulterer. As in this example, the man is helping the women, adding them to his household. They probally wouldnot survive without him. I can just picture the selfrighteous mind telling the widow to starve and die "in the Lord".

[Socrates]

The biblical teaching on polygamy has already been addressed in a TWe thread www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=44982#post44982 which has links to other articles.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Interestingly, I seem to remember that Luther advised Philip of Hesse to take a second wife rather than to divorce --- he also wanted this solution kept quiet, but it instead became a bit of a scandal....





(edited to add that, in case anybody gets the wrong idea, Luther's advice here is no doubt something better left alone)
:jade:

[mickiel]

Today @ 05:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100849#post100849)
pereynol:

Interestingly, I seem to remember that Luther advised Philip of Hesse to take a second wife rather than to divorce --- he also wanted this solution kept quiet, but it instead became a bit of a scandal....





(edited to add that, in case anybody gets the wrong idea, Luther's advice here is no doubt something better left alone)
:jade:

I would like to know a little more of this, Luther seems to have been an egnimatic man.

[GrayPilgrim]

Luther was very enigmatic. Oberman's Lutehr: Man Between God and the Devil is a good study of his thought.

On this subject. I would recomend anyone advocating polygammy to look at the outcome of polygammy in the Bible. Let me preface my remarks with how I came to study this issue. Five years ago I created a web site for the church I was attending at that time. I received an e-mail from someone who wanted me to explain what was wrong with teh argumetnation of a particular web stie, which advocated "Christian polygammy". After reading through the site I came to teh following method of discussing it.

Think of what Jesus said about divorce. In the OT God allowed it because of their hardened hearts. I think polygammy falls in hte same category. I ask you to look at the lives of those who engaged in polygammy in the OT. (I will summarize here but then I walked through each case listed in the OT) You had jealous wives (in all cases). You had sibling rivalries (often leading to fratricide). You had animsity towards the parents (often leading to attempted or actual patricide). You had wives leading their husbands into idolatry...

All to say they made their own beds and were miserable so whatever perceived benefeits you may see in this the familial strife will negate all of htem in the long run, and watch your back when some of you children start gunning for you after they have killed some of you other children.

GP

[Solly]

God allowed polygamy, because that is what people did, so he regulated it, without moving from his command to monogamy. Why did he allow it? Well, he allowed divorce for the harndess of men's hearts, perhaps he allowed polygamy for similar reasons (I see GP has just voiced this view as well)
What is interesting is that his regulation of it was in the way of preserving equity and justice in the family relationship, since a man might have taken another wife to gain an heir, or to oust a preferred heir, or whatever. In other words, he didn't let them get away with it.

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101121#post101121)
Solly:

God allowed polygamy, because that is what people did, so he regulated it, without moving from his command to monogamy. Why did he allow it? Well, he allowed divorce for the harndess of men's hearts, perhaps he allowed polygamy for similar reasons (I see GP has just voiced this view as well)
What is interesting is that his regulation of it was in the way of preserving equity and justice in the family relationship, since a man might have taken another wife to gain an heir, or to oust a preferred heir, or whatever. In other words, he didn't let them get away with it.

It is very reasonable to assume God allowed polygamy for the same reasoning he allowed divorce, men have a heart to do certain things that God could really careless about. But the bible has spanned through some 2000 years since it was writtened, there are bound to be issues that will be ingulfed within this time, that will change, slavery being a definite example. Some things will fall into personal choice( hair styles, mixed racial marriages, ), but others things that are still personal choice will face stiff debate( speaking in tounges, ages of baptism, danceing in the spirit) mutiple wives is one of those things that is perhaps like slavery, just plain outdated, old fashion, culturely ended. But as some will not release women being silent or covering their heads, some men want to keep the old ways of many wives. If one could justify any one of these, then none of them are sin, they all came from the same era.

[Patroclus]

Well, I suppose I have to get busy. So many women to subjugate as sexual slaves, so little time.

[mickiel]

Today @ 09:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101934#post101934)
Patroclus:

Well, I suppose I have to get busy. So many women to subjugate as sexual slaves, so little time.

And i understand the tendecy to use scripture as a shoe, believing only that which fits our lives. The subjugation of women as sex slaves, is the same as subjugating them to remain silent, wear head conerings, be submissive in marriage, stay bearfoot pregnant and in the kitchen. If you accept any one of these, in my view of scripture you are quilty of them all, and may as well honestly live them in your life. If you accept the curse of thithing, you must accept animal sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, they are from the same law. If yopu accept the ten commandments as still being relevant, you must accept all 206 laws of Moses, you cannot pick and choose law, either you reject them all, or accept them all, there is no inbetween. If you accept one law governing women, you must take them all to be true and valid. Kind of what we humans call having your cake and eating it to. Christians cannot disect the bible according to their pleasure.

[Swordman]

Vladimir said:

Deut. 21:15 If a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, and they both bear him children, 21:16 in the day he divides his inheritance he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the other wife’s son who is actually the firstborn. ...

This is the question. Why did God allow a man to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, yet, Jesus makes a point that a man is to have only ONE wife in the New Testament?

The reason one could say God allowed multiple wives for one man is that God specifically made a rule on how one should treat his children in the even one has multiple wives....

If my reasoing is false, what am I not understandig properly?

Thanks,
Vladimir



The Lord did not only make governing provision in His Law for a man to have more than one wife, but He also gave king David plural wives, AND He directly involved Himself in the imagry of polygyny when referring to Israel and Judah as His "wives" (plural). Now, if the Lord were ever against a man having more than one wife (polygyny), then He would NEVER have given David plural wives, and He CERTAINLY would not have involved Himself in its imagry in reference to His Person.

Now, when we engage in pointing at our English translation's rendering of Jesus' words in the singular, words like "wife" as opposed to "wives," as some sort of additional meaning within a context that does not at all address polygyny, we get into serious trouble. This suggests a rule of interpretation to which the abuser will be forced to back-pedal from when this rule is applied to other similar scripture passages. If this were actually a legitimate rule of interpretation, then the abuser, for instance, would be forced into admitting that each man is therefore limited to having only one son, and only one grandson.

Any time we add to the context what is not there, especially without prequalification from other areas of scripture, we end up elevating ourselves as an authority over the words of other speakers as to what they meant by their own words. Only God can do that, not man.

One cannot help but to recognize that if it were truly God's ideal that all men be limited to having only one wife, then Abraham would have been one of the LAST men on this earth to have several wives, which he did have. Genesis 26:5 does not at all suggest to us that Abraham did anything that was opposed to God's alleged "ideal" when we read, "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." That does not mean that God wanted all men to have more than one wife. Only a few in comparison to the overall world population ever had more than one wife that we know of, although that number included many of the Patriarchs, and possibly even some of the apostles (which we really do not know for sure either way).

A socially engineered theology against polygyny is not necessarily rooted in a solid foundation of scripture simply because it carries such strong emotion in the minds of those raised within a dogmatically monogamous culture.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean (Th.D.)

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160483#post160483)
Swordman:

......Now, when we engage in pointing at our English translation's rendering of Jesus' words in the singular, words like "wife" as opposed to "wives," as some sort of additional meaning within a context that does not at all address polygyny, we get into serious trouble. ......

Dr. Don Dean (Th.D.)

What, pray tell, is in the Greek text, that is lost in the English renderings of "wife" in the Gospels?

:huh:

[Swordman]

Today @ 12:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160500#post160500)
John Reece:



What, pray tell, is in the Greek text, that is lost in the English renderings of "wife" in the Gospels?

:huh:

I do not recall saying that anything was lost. However, I will elaborate on this point since you did ask. There are many instances within the Hebrew and Greek languages where numerical specifics, such as singular versus plural, are not an issue in those languages, but that are an issue within the English language. Of course, Greek is more specific by far than the Hebrew in this regard. In such cases, the translators are left with having to choose what best suits our own language that does not end up causing confusion. I agree that the singular "wife" was apporpriate in our translations. I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is when people observe the singular "wife" as an alleged indicator of an additional thrust of Jesus' words. This is nothing but adding to the context something that clearly is not there. Ok, so we see the singular "wife" mentioned. If the number of wives to which a man is limited were at all the subject of Jesus' discourse, or even anywhere within the vicinity of the context, then magnifying the singular "wife" in accordance with the context would then have an established validity. However, this is not the case within the passages pointed out in the above post.

Dr. Don Dean

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

The Patriarchs and other great men in the Tanakh were polygamous, although our Sages tell us that they were exceptions to the general rule and that, until it was banned, polygamy was very uncommon. (The Hebrew word invariably translated as "concubine" in the Tanakh is pilegesh. A pilegesh had a status akin to that of a common law wife. Originally, Judaism permitted a man to have as many wives, "concubines" included, as he could support financially.) Of all the myriad Sages mentioned in the Talmud, ferinstance, none is mentioned as having more than one wife. Jewish law did permit a man to take more than one wife as long as he could support them all equally. But around 1000 CE (what we say instead of "AD"), leading European rabbis pronounced a ban on polygamy, which, as I've said, was never very widespread anyway. This ban was eventually adopted by rabbis in Islamic countries as well, except for Yemen. Polygamy, as rare as it was, was not unknown among the now, all-but-vanished Yemenite Jewish community. Most Yemenite Jews have moved to Israel. While the Israeli Chief Rabbinate has confirmed & reissued the ban on polygamy for all Jews (which is now part of normative, i.e. orthodox, Jewish law worldwide), those Yemenite Jews who came to Israel with more than one wife were not required to divorce all but one. There still are a few elderly polygamous Yemenite Jews still living but as they pass on, the institution will die with them.

There is an exception to the ban on polygamy. A man who can get the approval in writing of 100 (orthodox) rabbis may take a second wife. However, this is very, very, exceedingly rare in the most extreme, extreme (to put it mildly). I have heard that a husband whose wife, say, is in an irreversible coma or whose wife is assumed to be dead but whose body has never been found and a rabbinical court does not have enough evidence to rule conclusively that she is dead, might be able to obtain such permission, particularly if they have no children. But I know of no instance where such permission has been given.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Swordman]

The Patriarchs and other great men in the Tanakh were polygamous, although our Sages tell us that they were exceptions to the general rule and that, until it was banned, polygamy was very uncommon. (The Hebrew word invariably translated as "concubine" in the Tanakh is pilegesh. SNIP

Thanks, but no thanks.....:thumbd:

Yes, I have read some of the material this all came from. However, the customs and laws of some of the sects of the Jews did not alter the Torah. The clear language contained within the Torah, regardless of sectarian custom and tradition, is what interests Christendom. Setting aside the various bans of rabbis down through the centuries, we are still left with the question as to if YAHWEH is the One who was against it. His teaching does not at all reflect His being against a plurality of wives, especially when His action of giving to king David a plurality of wives seems to indicate the opposite. Sectarian tradition is not at all an indicator of the approval or disapproval of the Most High.

Besides, the Jews are breaking their own customs and traditions to this very day by not offering up sacrifices for their sins, and they have been breaking this for many centuries now. :dunce: So you see, the extra-Biblical writings of various Jewish sects concerning custom and tradition really is of no consequence except to those who are scratching around for any and all leverage they can gain, even from non-authoritative sources in order to win for the sake of winning.

Socially engineered theologies, especially those that transcend national borders and time itself, are perhaps the most formidable foes I have ever found myself battling when teaching systematic theology to my students. The power that emotion carries within the human psyche is formidable indeed, and drives many to the extreme of denying the most obvious facts. (Human pride also plays a part in this.)

Historic Christianity has never based its faith upon that which is outside the known and accepted authority of the Torah, the Pentateuch, various other historically verifiable works of prophets contained in the Hebrew writings, and the writings of Jews otherwise known as apostles of Christ Jesus. We certainly study all the other works such as what you have mentioned, but those are only a passing interest to us for the sake of cultural and social study rather than a doctrinal indicator of what we should believe.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

[Swordman]

Yesterday @ 12:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160500#post160500)
John Reece:



What, pray tell, is in the Greek text, that is lost in the English renderings of "wife" in the Gospels?

:huh:

Oh, I forgot to mention one other thing, John: The Greek word "goo' nay" translated as "wife" or "wives" in our English translations can generally be rendered in the singular or the plural without doing any violence to the rules of Greek grammar. The translators were therefore left with the task of providing the least confusing numeric wording they could, with which I have no problem. This is the wind storm that blows away the air castles of those who point at the singular "wife" as opposed to the plural "wives" in key verses within our English translations as being some alleged additional doctrine taught by Christ concerning the number of wives to which a man is limited. If those folks could read Greek, they would know better than to uphold this falacy.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Swordman, your post & the opinions you expressed therein were very interesting even if I do not share those opinions (I don't). I suppose that we'll have to amicably log this one under the heading of "agree-to-disagree." We interpret the Torah as we see fit and you interpret it as you see fit.

Besides, the Jews are breaking their own customs and traditions to this very day by not offering up sacrifices for their sins, and they have been breaking this for many centuries now.

Not so; we believe otherwise. We believe that God Himself, by destroying the Temple, has temporarily taken the possibility of bringing the order of Temple offerings away from us (see Deuteronomy 32:20, "'I will hide My face from them'") but we eagerly anticipate the day when we can once again bring the order of offerings in the rebuilt Temple (may this be very soon!), and pray for this every day (literally; it's in the order of thrice daily prayers).

:dunce: So you see, the extra-Biblical writings of various Jewish sects concerning custom and tradition really is of no consequence except to those who are scratching around for any and all leverage they can gain, even from non-authoritative sources in order to win for the sake of winning.

I'm not going to take any offense at what might appear to be an insolent and intolerant reference to the sacred writings and beliefs of another faith (i.e. mine), because I know that you didn't mean it that way. Say that our beliefs differ but let us respect each other's beliefs. I acknowledge that your beliefs have meaning for you; please accord me a similar courtesy and acknowledge that my beliefs have as much meaning for me as yours do to you.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160936#post160936)
Swordman:



Oh, I forgot to mention one other thing, John: The Greek word "goo' nay" translated as "wife" or "wives" in our English translations can generally be rendered in the singular or the plural without doing any violence to the rules of Greek grammar. The translators were therefore left with the task of providing the least confusing numeric wording they could, with which I have no problem. This is the wind storm that blows away the air castles of those who point at the singular "wife" as opposed to the plural "wives" in key verses within our English translations as being some alleged additional doctrine taught by Christ concerning the number of wives to which a man is limited. If those folks could read Greek, they would know better than to uphold this falacy.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

Don,

How about citing a verse in which gunh occurs in the Gospels in a context in which the number (i.e., singular or plural) of the word is ambiguous.

Blessings,

John

[The Curtmudgeon]

07-27-2003 @ 10:36 AM
Swordman:
...He also gave king David plural wives, ...

The first problem with your post is blaming God for man's mistakes. Point out one single verse in 1 or 2 Samuel where God gives David any wife. Rather, David is quite straight-forward in taking what he wants.

You seem to be making the common mistake of thinking that just because David was called "the man after God's heart" that must mean that everything he did was right in the sight of God. Yet the Bible shows that this was never the case, and that David was just as much a sinner who did things against God's will as the next person.

:bonk:


...He directly involved Himself in the imagry of polygyny when referring to Israel and Judah as His "wives" (plural)....


Likewise, show one passage where God refers to both Israel and Judah separately as plural wives, or show a passage where He refers to Israel as separate from Judah as His wife. Rather, He regards Israel as His sole wife, using that name to apply to the whole people, or using the name Judah after the split of the kingdom and the apostasy of Northern Israel, but in both cases the same people are being referenced. There is no passage in Scripture where God speaks of having two wives.

:bonk: :bonk:

The (reading your own desires into Scripture is certainly not new, but long custom doesn't make it right) Curtmudgeon

[Swordman]

07-28-2003 @ 08:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160940#post160940)
stillsmallvoice:

I'm not going to take any offense at what might appear to be an insolent and intolerant reference to the sacred writings and beliefs of another faith (i.e. mine), because I know that you didn't mean it that way. Say that our beliefs differ but let us respect each other's beliefs. I acknowledge that your beliefs have meaning for you; please accord me a similar courtesy and acknowledge that my beliefs have as much meaning for me as yours do to you.

You are correct. I was never trying to be insolent. Tolerance is another matter entirely. The reason I say this is because we both hold radically different views, which logically means that we both cannot possibly be right. One or both of us is wrong. That is why I have settled upon authoritative writings from the prophets rather than custom, tradition, and edicts. Roman Catholics also look to their traditions as being on equal footing with what is written, which I see to be a grave problem. The Messiah clearly told His fellow Jews that they had rendered to none effect by their traditions the word of Yahweh brought to them by the great porphets of old. Observing how far adrift they had gone from the authority of the Torah, I have since determined that orthodox Jews have indeed fallen into grave error.

Is that intolerant? Not at all. You have a right to believe what you hold to be true, but that does not mean that I have to agree with you. Intolerance means that I say to you that you have no right to believe what you think to be true, and then attempt to change your mind by brute force. :saywhat: I am doing nothing of the kind. I think you are wrong. I will not ignore or deny the obvious, as many today think they can dance around. We disagree, and we both have that right.

Suffice it to say that if you are right and I am wrong, then neither of us has anything to lose since I would simply cease to exist (depending on your belief concerning the unconverted), but if I am right and you are wrong, then you have everything to lose.

Dr. Don Dean

[Swordman]

07-30-2003 @ 12:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162858#post162858)
The Curtmudgeon:

The first problem with your post is blaming God for man's mistakes.

Is that right?

Point out one single verse in 1 or 2 Samuel where God gives David any wife. Rather, David is quite straight-forward in taking what he wants.

My, but you have a very dim view of David. I am not sure what slant of "Christendom" you are from, but I will honor your question with a quote:

2Sa 12:8 "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

You seem to be making the common mistake of thinking that just because David was called "the man after God's heart" that must mean that everything he did was right in the sight of God.

You are mistaken. I never made any such assumption.

Yet the Bible shows that this was never the case, and that David was just as much a sinner who did things against God's will as the next person.

So, are you saying that David was not, after all, a man after God's own heart? Tell me, has the Lord told YOU that YOU are a man after His heart? Has the Lord offered ANY praise of your moral stature and your works? Who are you? How are you of the same stature of David, or better than David? After all, if you are qualified to criticize David, then surely you are an authority above any other man I have ever met. What nation are you a king over? After all, since God knew us all before the world existed, then surely He knew to make something of you than merely just another "belierver." Surely you are a cut above all the rest to be allowed to sit upon the throne of Christ in judgment over a man's character whom you have never met. I am not saying that David did not make mistakes, or that he did not need a Savior like all the rest of mankind, but you must really be something to stand in judgment over a man who was made king of an entire nation — David was God's anointed king, after all. What prophet anointed you? Have you ever met a prophet? Did one of those prophets from the Toronto Blessing movement anoint you? (You know, the ones who like to roll around on the floor while barking like dogs and oinking like pigs.) What calibre of man are you to criticize David?

Likewise, show one passage where God refers to both Israel and Judah separately as plural wives, or show a passage where He refers to Israel as separate from Judah as His wife. Rather, He regards Israel as His sole wife, using that name to apply to the whole people, or using the name Judah after the split of the kingdom and the apostasy of Northern Israel, but in both cases the same people are being referenced. There is no passage in Scripture where God speaks of having two wives.

Well, you can ignore the clear language and the clear implications of the two kingdoms being distinct, and therefore wives (plural), but then you are only ignoring the obvious. I agree that they are all one people under God, but He also spoke in the plural sense as well.

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Dr. Don Dean

[Swordman]

07-28-2003 @ 08:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160943#post160943)
John Reece:

How about citing a verse in which gunh occurs in the Gospels in a context in which the number (i.e., singular or plural) of the word is ambiguous.

Blessings,

John

Hello, John. I did some further study on "gune'", and I found out that I had made a basic blunder with the use of Strong's numbering system rather than taking into account the numerous articles with which Strong's does not specifically deal. I found that there are deffinite articles that do in fact determine singular verses plural with "gune'". There is gunaikos, gunaika, gunaiki for the singular, and then there is gunaikas, gunaixi, and gunaikes for the plural, etc. You were right to ask me about this. Being human does have its setbacks.

However, having said that, I still challenge those who believe that the use of the singular mention of "wife" somehow legitimately establishes a definite doctrine of monogamy for all men. No other legitimate doctrine I can think of is established on such a shabby foundation, so why monogamy-only? When one addresses a culture that is predominantly monogamous, then it naturally follows that the language will reflect what is most common.....unless we are talking about a politically correct culture like ours, where the minority, some even perverse, are then elevated to a plateau of the greatest importance and focus in language.

I have already pointed out that building such a doctrine upon the simgular use of words creates problems. Such a practice renders the Lord as being ambiguous in His dealing with His absolutes. He made specific mention of adultery, fornication, murder, etc., therefore leaving no room for ambiguity, so why "beat around the bush" about polygyny? It simply does not stand to reason when one takes into account other equally important doctrines.

Sorry, but no reasonable, thinking individual would ever give such nonsense a second thought. Anything that is legitimately adultery or fornication today was adultery or fornication then, and vice versa. The Lord did not redefine His moral absolutes with the coming of Christ. Our redemption was fulfilled with His coming, yes, but He did not suddenly become fickle, like a man, by changing His mind about morality.

Then we have the argument of the "ideal". Well, before the fall, everything was "ideal," where after the fall it was not, even today. Before the fall they ran around naked, after the fall they did not. Belaboring the point will never make it go away, nor will it make historical facts change simply because of a present-day social bias that has such a deep-seated dislike of, in this case, polygyny. We do not live in an ideal world even after the coming of Christ, so pretending that we can simply mimick what we think is God's ideal without any specific injunction from the Lord is pharasaical at best. Our system of law is not infallible. Therefore our system of law trying to define marriage apart from God's authority is equally riddled with difficulty.

Dr. Don Dean

[dizzle]

I of course have dealt with almost the entirely of Swordman's arguments on another thread, which he has left unrefuted. I will when I can go through this thread and systematically refute them again. The advocating of gross immorality in Christ's church cannot go unrefuted. The same previously refuted arguments are being trotted out again. Thank you John for refuting the "wife" issue which I lacked the Greek to do so in that other thread. Arguments on Greek based solely on Strong's are horribly reckless to begin with.

I am even more interested in this as I am going to write a systematic article refuting this immorality to be published at Tekton. I see this issue as becoming vital to the church. John I will beg your assistance with some issues of Greek as well as Jaltus.

[Swordman]

Husband of "one" wife?

There are four verses have long been the primary Scriptural proof for the notion of monogyny to the exclusion of polygyny in Christendom for many generations:

* A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach... (1Ti 3:2, KJV)

* Let the deacons be the HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE, ruling their children and their own houses well. (1Ti 3:12, KJV)

* 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: If any be blameless, the HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless... (Ti 1:5-7, KJV)

* Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the WIFE OF ONE MAN... (1Ti 5:9, KJV)

Please note that there is no definite article used before words "husband" (anêr), "man" (anêr) or "wife" (gunê) in the Greek text for any of these verses. Although some translations insert them, we should also note that the Greek words for "but," "only," "true" and "faithful" are not found in these "husband of one wife" phrases. This may have some bearing on how we understand them. So let's look at them again without the "the" before these words:

"A bishop then must be blameless, HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach..." (1Ti 3:2, KJV)

HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE = mias gunaikos andra [UBSGNT]

"Let the deacons be HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE, ruling their children and their own houses well." (1Ti 3:12, KJV)

HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE = mias gunaikos andres [UBSGNT]

"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: If any be blameless, HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless..." (Ti 1:5-7, KJV)

HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE = mias gunaikos anêr [UBSGNT]

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been WIFE OF ONE MAN..." (1Ti 5:9, KJV)

WIFE OF ONE MAN = henos andros gunê [UBSGNT]

Some Questions

Why would Paul have specified "one wife" if there weren't believers in the churches who had more than one wife? It seems to me that his instructions point in this direction. Moreover, if Paul was fundamentally opposed to polygyny, why didn't he forbid polygyny? I would think, given the direct and straightforward character of his writings, that he would have specifically forbidden it if he had anything in his spirit against it. What about the implications involved in taking the verses in the letter of the word? (2Cor. 3:6) The problem is, if they are 'law', that is, taken in the letter, then no one who is still single can enter the work of the ministry, nor can the man who has 2 or more wives. If mia meant 'first', then we would also have to disqualify people who were divorced (no matter what the cause was). That could even be extended toward a disqualification of men who had only one wife (since 'first' implies the existence of a second). Who am I to judge the will of God for another? The Scriptures present Paul and Jesus both as single and celibate, so Paul would have to be contradicting himself if he meant these qualifications to be taken in the letter of the word, as 'law'. Ultimately, my question became: What translation of mia would make these verses fit with the rest of the Scriptures' teaching about having more than one wife without overstretching the primary meaning of mia?

the heis/mia confusion

Some have mistakenly assumed, based on the definitions given in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, that heis and mia, while being related words, have different usage in the Scriptures. This is not so. In looking at the words in Greek text, what you are actually seeing is gender and case agreement. Old Greek had three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter (as does Latin and German). Because the word for man/husband anêr is masculine in gender, any adjective modifying the word must be in the masculine gender as is the word heis. Likewise, the same is true for the word for wife/woman gunê; it must take the feminine gender and cannot take the masculine in order to be grammatically correct. The only real difference between heis and mia is gender, not emphasis or usage. Note that the neuter gender form is hen and must follow the same grammatical rule.

With regard to mia, I don't know how Greek developed this albeit unusual feminine form, but I can say that it is not because mia meant 'first' rather than 'one' (heis and hen can also mean 'first'). Paul could have used the more specific word prôtos, which specifically means 'first' if that is what he wanted to emphasize. Thus, the usage of heis and mia in the 'one wife' and 'one husband' verses does not necessarily prove anything with regard to polygyny.

Mia, as meaning 'first', does not really work here, for heis would also mean 'first' when Paul mentions the widow having been the wife of one man (1 Tim. 5:9, KJV), and that would create a problem. We would then have these literal renderings following the Greek word order:

first wife's husband (1Ti 3:2)
first wife's husbands (1Ti 3:12)
first husband's wife (1Ti 5:9)
first wife's husband (Ti 1:6)

In each of these four examples, the syntax is exactly the same:

genetive numeral à genetive noun à accusative/nominative noun

henos/mias à andros/gunaikos à andra/andres/anêr/gynê

Thus, to interpret the verses in which the wife is in the genetive case (gunaikos) as the first wife in a polygynous marriage, we would be compelled by the grammar to interpret the husband (andros) in 1Ti 5:9 as the first husband in a polyandrous marriage. Thus, the 'first wife' scenario collapses because while polygyny is consistent with the Old Testament (Paul's Bible) testimony, polyandry is not.

Grammatical Gender

As I have been saying, heis/mia/hen mean exactly the same thing. Other than spelling and pronunciation, the only difference is grammatical gender. When this numeral is used with nouns, to denote '1' thing or 'a' thing, the gender of the numeral must agree with the gender of the noun with which it used. We can see an excellent example of this, which also demonstrates well that heis/mia/hen all mean exactly the same thing, in Ephesians 4:4-6:

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:4-6, KJV)

one body = hen sôma, neuter gender.
one Spirit = hen pneuma, neuter gender.
one hope = mia elpidi, feminine gender.
one lord = heis kurios, masculine gender.
one faith = mia pistis, feminine gender.
one baptism = hen baptisma, neuter gender.
one God and Father of all = heis theos kai patêr pantôn, masculine gender.

I doubt very much that anyone would assume that mia meant 'first' in this passage, nor do we have any reason to render it here as 'a', because it is quite obvious that each occurence of heis/mia/hen in this Scripture passage really does mean literally 'one'.

echâd and heis/mia/hen

It is worthy of note that heis/mia/hen is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word 'echâd in Genesis 2:24 they shall be one (mia) flesh and in the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one (heis) Lord. In both instances, 'echâd denotes unity, the unity of the man and the woman in sexual intercourse, and the unity of Elohim. 'echâd is also used in some instances to denote the numeral 1 as in Genesis 2:21 where it reads he took one (mia) of his ribs. According to Gesenius, in addition to its other meanings such as 'one', 'first', 'some one', 'once', 'suddenly', 'the same', 'united', etc., 'echâd also "acts the part of an indefinite article". Since Paul and the other New Testament authors were Hebrews, we might expect them to carry this usage into their writing in the Greek language.

The Indefinite Article

In Old Greek (Classical or Koine), there are no indefinite articles like 'a' or 'an' in English. However, the general pattern in Indoeuropean languages is that the words for 'one' over time also do duty as the indefinite article, e.g. Lat. 'unus' becomes 'un' in French and Spanish, 'ein' is used as both the number 1 and the indefinite article in German. Since Greek is an Indoeuropean language, the usage in Paul's writings (one husband, one wife) may in fact be moving in this direction. It is true that the Greek numeral one did in fact come to be used as the indefinite in modern Greek as henas, mia and hena (with heis being replaced by the form henas). This would change our modified KJV text further:

A bishop then must be blameless, HUSBAND OF A WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach... (1Ti 3:2, KJV)

Let the deacons be HUSBANDS OF A WIFE, ruling their children and their own houses well. (1Ti 3:12, KJV)

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: If any be blameless, HUSBAND OF A WIFE, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless... (Ti 1:5-7, KJV)

Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been WIFE OF A MAN... (1Ti 5:9, KJV)

If heis/mia/hen is being used as an indefinite article in these verses, then there is absolutely no possibility of these verses being usable for any argument in favor of monogyny to the exclusion or banning of polygyny. It would also then mean that Paul was essentially requiring that bishops, deacons and elders be married men with no further qualification (as it pertains to marital status) being necessary. It would like mean that bishops, deacons and elders could be men having more than one wife. Thus, the essential question is this: Was heis/mia/hen being used as an indefinite article in these verses? Are there other instances in the Scriptures where heis/mia/hen was used as an indefinite article?

On page 25 of Grammar Of Septuagint Greek by F.C.Conybeare and St. George Stock, we find a discussion called Heis as Article. (Please note that I have transliterated all of the Greek words.) I will quote this in its entirety.

"Under the influence of Hebrew idiom we find the numeral heis turning into an indefinite pronoun in the Greek of the LXX, as in Gen. 42:27 lusas de heis tov marsippon, and then subsiding into a mere article, as -

Jdg. 13:2 anêr heis, 9:53 gunê mia.
ii K. 2:18 hôsei mia dorkas en agrô.
ii Esd. 4:8 egrapsan epistolên mian.
Ezk. 4:9 aggos hen ostrakinon.

"There are instances of the same usage in the two most Hebraistic books of the N.T.

Mt. 8:19 heis grammateus, 9:18 arkhôn heis, 21:19 sukên mian, 26:69 mia paidiskê.

Rev. 8:13 henos aetou, 9:13 fônên mian, 18:21 heis aggelos, 19:17 hena aggelon.

"Our own indefinite article 'a' or 'an' (Scotch ane) is originally the same as 'one'. We can also see the beginning of the French article in the colloquial language of the Latin comedians.

Ter. And. 118 forte unam aspicio adilescentulam.
Plaut. Most. 990 unum vidi mortuum efferri foras.

"Apart from the influence of Hebrew, heis is occasionally found in good Greek on the way to becoming an article. See L. & S. under heis 4. In German the indefinite article and the first of the numerals coincide, and so a German, in beginning to speak English, frequently puts 'one' for 'a'. In the same way a Hebrew learning to speak Greek said heis aetos and so on."

Given that Conybeare and Stock's entry shows that heis/mia/hen was used as an indefinite article in Septuagint and NT Greek, it is therefore very possible, maybe even probable, that Paul's usage of it is following that of Matthew and John. Paul's education would suit this possibility, for they also point out that heis/mia/hen was used this way in 'good' or Classical Greek apart from any Hebrew influence. Being that Paul was a well educated and traveled man, we can probably safely assume that he would have been aware of this usage. Conybeare and Stock's evidence verifies without any doubt that heis/mia/hen was indeed being used as an indefinite article at the time the NT books were being written.

Paul's Usage of prôtos

Some have taken the fact that mia is translated as 'first' (in reference to the first day of the week) and then sought to apply its usage there as its definition in the one wife verses assuming that one was a mistranslation and assumed Paul meant 'first' while using the cardinal numeral 1 instead of the ordinal numeral. Paul's usage of the ordinal prôtos suggests otherwise. Prôtos is overwhelmingly Paul's word of choice for expressing the ordinal notion of 'first' or 'foremost'. Throughout his letters, whenever he wants to say 'first', he uses the word prôtos [#4413G] or its adverbial form prôton [#4412G]. In the list below, I have listed every occurrence of prôtos/prôton in Paul's writings which is translated as first in the King James text. Note that the list below assumes that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

First, I thank my God (Ro 1:8, KJV, prôton)
to the Jew first (Ro 1:16; 2:9-10, KJV, prôton)
First, Moses saith (Ro 10:19, KJV, prôtos)
if first I be somewhat (Ro 15:24, KJV, prôton)
For first of all (1C 11:18, KJV, prôton)
first, apostles, secondarily prophets (1C 12:28, KJV, prôton)
let the first hold his peace (1C 14:30, KJV, prôtos)
the first man Adam (1C 15:45, KJV, prôtos)
that was not first which was spiritual (1C 15:46, KJV, prôton)
the first man is of the earth (1C 15:47, KJV, prôtos)
first gave their own selves (2C 8:5, KJV, prôton)
he also descended first (Ep 4:9, KJV, prôton)
the first commandment with promise (Ep 6:2, KJV, prôtos)
from the first day until now (Ph 1:5, KJV, prôtos)
dead in Christ shall rise first (1Th 4:16, KJV, prôton)
except there come a falling away first (2Th 2:3, KJV, prôton)
in me first Jesus Christ might shew (1Ti 1:16, KJV, prôtos)
I exhort therefore, first of all (1Ti 2:1, KJV, prôton)
For Adam was first formed, then Eve (1Ti 2:13, KJV, prôtos)
let these also first be proved (1Ti 3:10, KJV, prôton)
let them learn first (1Ti 5:4, KJV, prôton)
they have cast off their first faith (1Ti 5:12, KJV, prôtos)
which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois (2Ti 1:5, KJV, prôton)
must be first partaker of the fruits (2Ti 2:6, KJV, prôtos)
At my first answer (2Ti 4:16, KJV, prôtos)
first being by interpretation (Hb 7:2, KJV, prôton)
for if that first covenant (Hb 8:7, KJV, prôtos)
he hath made the first old (Hb 8:13, KJV, prôtos)
Then verily the first covenant (Hb 9:1, KJV, prôtos)
was a tabernacle made; the first (Hb 9:2, KJV, prôtos)
into the first tabernacle (Hb 9:6, KJV, prôtos)
the first tabernacle (Hb 9:8, KJV, prôtos)
under the first testament (Hb 9:15, KJV, prôtos)
the first testament (Hb 9:18, KJV, prôtos)
He taketh away the first (Hb 10:9, KJV, prôtos)

These examples of Paul's usage of prôtos/prôton demonstrate well that Paul would have not used mia to mean 'first' if he wanted to say first. If Paul had wanted to emphasize 'first wife', our paradigm would look like this:

HUSBAND OF FIRST WIFE = prôtas gunaikos andra (1Ti 3:2, KJV)
HUSBANDS OF FIRST WIFE = prôtas gunaikos andres (1Ti 3:12, KJV)
HUSBAND OF FIRST WIFE = prôtas gunaikos anêr (Ti 1:5-7, KJV)
WIFE OF FIRST MAN = prôtos andros gunê (1Ti 5:9, KJV)

It is true that Paul used mia referring to the first day of the week as do other New Testament writers. But, even so, mia in those verses did not mean 'first' to them in the context of the Greek language. We translate the construction tê mia tôn sabbatôn in John 20:1 et al as the 'first day of the week' because that's more like commonly used English. However, the literal meaning is (regarding) the one of the sabbaths. In fact, he was using it much like the way 'echâd is used in the Old Testament to denote the first day or year of a span of time. Thus the English translation first here is idiomatic, and not literal. It is important to remember that heis/mia/hen is used in the Septuagint to translate 'echâd. However, Hebrew, like Greek and English, has a separate word to mean 'first' - ri'shôwn - which is used considerably more often than 'echâd in this capacity. There is also the word ben which is so translated in the KJV. In Hosea, when he speaks regarding her first husband (Ho 2:7), he uses ri'shôwn to denote 'first'. So we might expect ri'shôwn to be used if the Old Testament contained the phrase 'first wife' (which is does not appear to contain). All taken together, there is not much here to support the rendering of mias gunaikos as 'of first wife'.

Some Other Thoughts

One of the other things I can say is that most of the Greek dictionaries I used in reading about heis/mia/hen make absolutely NO semantic distinction between the three forms. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and Vines' Dictionary seem to make this distinction, but Gemoll, Bullinger, Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich, Menge-Güthling, Liddell & Scott, Wigram and Thayer do not. In the study I did, using several Greek dictionaries, I discovered these meanings for heis/mia/hen: "one, a/an, other, first, sole/alone, unity, simularity". Obviously, we could look at Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus using any or all of these definitions and consider how they affect the meaning.

On the basis of used vocabulary, I do not think we can prove anything about polygyny or monogyny using these verses. In any case, the provisions in the Law of Moses for first wives (Ex 21:10-11) and the firstborn son (Dt 21:15-17) should be enough to discourage any condemnation of polygyny as being a sinful practice. Another important consideration is that the Levirate Law in its application would have created some situations where a married man, being the brother of the deceased, would have had to become a bigamist or polygamist in order to raise up seed unto his brother (Dt 25:5-10). Indeed, Judah's son Onan was killed by Yahweh because he failed to fulfill this principle (Gn 38:6-10). When Paul defended himself before Agrippa, he said this:

Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. (Ac 26:22-23, KJV)

Indeed, if we read through Paul's writings, he quotes extensively from the Law of Moses in teaching and presenting the New Covenant. It is highly doubtful that Paul would have written anything contrary to the Law. If anything, whatever he wrote should be understood drawing from the teachings of Moses and the prophets. My conclusion is that Paul had no objection to polygamy. Given the evidence which I have presented in this writing, I suggest that the best translation of the husband(s) of one wife verses is HUSBAND(S) OF A WIFE.

If we take the "husband of one wife" verses as though they were absolute law, then we have to exclude not only polygamous men, but also unmarried man, and when we render mia as 'first', divorced men, and widowed men from participation in these ministries. Would you say this is what Paul intended? He himself was celibate, as was also Jesus. Would we exclude them from these ministries? What if an elder had an unruly son given to drug abuse or criminality? Would we demand that that man be removed from his ministry?

Even if we believe that these passages, 1. Timothy 3:2, 1. Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:5-7, recommend or mandate monogyny, Paul only specified it for bishops, deacons, and elders, but not for apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers. Logically, if we are to take these recommendations as law or righteous requirement, and then claim that they forbid polygamy, then these also have the effect of rejecting anyone who is unmarried (whether celibate, single or a widower) from being or becoming a bishop, deacon, or elder. That would have disqualified both Paul and Jesus. In the context of the verse surrounding these passages, it is clear that Paul wanted Timothy and Titus to appoint to these offices only those who were holy and walked in the ways of Yahweh. What he was really saying was, in effect, 'look for men who are married and holy'. This would have extended to those who had more than one wife as well.

The Levitcal High Priest As a Pattern

If anything, I think the emphasis of these verses is not on monogyny, but on being married in general, especially since neither Moses, nor any of the other Old Testament saints who came after him, seemed to see any contradiction between they shall be one flesh and a man having several wives. I suspect that Paul wanted bishops, elders, and deacons who were married because they would understand the concept and experience of being in covenant relationship, whereas the unmarried person might not. And he may well have been drawing on this from the Law of Moses:

And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother; Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD. And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him. (Lv 21:10-15, KJV)

The principle is not the number of wives, but the preference for these leaders to be married and to be holy, having handled those relationships according to the will of God. This is very much the focus of Paul's recommendations for bishops, elders, and deacons. The commandment here only applied to the high priest. And it is a positive commandment, commanding the high priest to take a wife, and specifying the kind of wife he was to take. The indefinite article 'a' (according to the CVOT) is not present in the Hebrew, so that the verse can read "he shall take wife in her virginity". In any case, there is no limitation on the number of wives in this regulation.

[dizzle]

This has already been refuted in that other thread. In fact the other propolygamy person has conceded the point that the translation is accurate. I answered Swordman's arguments there on the "why" and he posts here as if no answer has been given. No problem, hopefully this weekend I will do it all over again. I am tireless in countering this revival of the demeaning of marital love and fidelity.

[Swordman]

Today @ 07:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=258041#post258041)
Dee Dee Warren:

This has already been refuted in that other thread. In fact the other propolygamy person has conceded the point that the translation is accurate. I answered Swordman's arguments there on the "why" and he posts here as if no answer has been given. No problem, hopefully this weekend I will do it all over again. I am tireless in countering this revival of the demeaning of marital love and fidelity.

Well, Dee Dee, I will admit that you have mastered the art of whipping a dead horse. That is an old tactic, and it is less than admirable. If you can refute the "one wife" article, then you are free to do so. I have no problem with that. Just remember that there are a number of people here who have mentioned to me, in private messages, your unreasonable tactics. You habitually stuck to your points even though they were effectively dealt a death blow through systematic disection of the verses you attempted to utilize to your advantage.

Yes, there were those few who patted you on the back in order to keep you from breaking your own arm doing so, but that all went to prove nothing. It appears that not one of those people who stood behind you ever took up your manic chants of victory. Tit for tat is not an effective foundation for healthy dialogue. I asked questions of which you never answered. Instead of answering, you stuck to your tactic of only repeating your nonsensical misapplications rather than dealing with specific words, context and meaning.

If you can stick to the context of your proof-texts without adding what is not there, then by all means, let's rumble. If you insist upon whipping your dead horses, well, you will have to do that alone because the stench of ambiguity and inconsistency simply is too undesirable for me to remain within the vicinity.

Dr. Don Dean

[Swordman]

07-30-2003 @ 12:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162858#post162858)
The Curtmudgeon:

The first problem with your post is blaming God for man's mistakes. Point out one single verse in 1 or 2 Samuel where God gives David any wife. Rather, David is quite straight-forward in taking what he wants.

Ok. Here it is:

2 Sam. 12:
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

For those who like to dredge up the old, worn out argument that David only "took care" of Saul's wives because of it being "customary," well, the language of verse eight is much too telling to allow for such an uninformed understanding. The Hebrew expression that is translated "into thy bosom" is VERY intimate.....TOO intimate to be understood as his merely "taking care" of those women. I know that there are a handfull of scholars who have attempted to establish that idea from this text, but it simply falls short of not only the language, but also historical facts, according to many biblical historians who have told me that it was also customary for some kings to make the previous king's widows his own wives. If that were such an unusual practice, then it seems unlikely that David would have done that himself.

[Jaltus]

Today @ 06:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=258007#post258007)
Swordman:
Please note that there is no definite article used before words "husband" (anêr), "man" (anêr) or "wife" (gunê) in the Greek text for any of these verses. Although some translations insert them, we should also note that the Greek words for "but," "only," "true" and "faithful" are not found in these "husband of one wife" phrases. This may have some bearing on how we understand them.

And here we begin on the wrong foot. Try quoting a modern translation and you will quickly notice that none of these "additions" are in them. That is what you get for quoting the KJV, which uses a different set of Greek manuscripts than the modern versions. At least try to be accurate instead of poisoning the well by using misinformation in your introduction. If you plan on quoting from the UBSGNT, then use an English translation that relies on that Greek text instead of a different one.

Technically, when you requote but change words, you are no longer using the KJV and thus should take off that tag.

Why would Paul have specified "one wife" if there weren't believers in the churches who had more than one wife?

Wow, there are a million answers to this one, but the expedient answer is to note that Paul taught against divorce and remarriage, and this would be the idea of "one wife." Try sticking within the Pauline corpus before pulling in your own ideas. Besides, multiple wives was not something that happened in that day and age as a general rule, and thus your supposition lacks historical credance.

It seems to me that his instructions point in this direction. Moreover, if Paul was fundamentally opposed to polygyny, why didn't he forbid polygyny?

He did, try reading Ephesians 5:23-33. Notice the quote from Genesis.

I would think, given the direct and straightforward character of his writings, that he would have specifically forbidden it if he had anything in his spirit against it.

Try reading II Peter 3:15-16.

You are right that "if it is from Strong, it is probably wrong" (which used to be my signature line on different web sites). A little Greek is a dangerous thing, as you will quickly show...

With regard to mia, I don't know how Greek developed this albeit unusual feminine form, but I can say that it is not because mia meant 'first' rather than 'one' (heis and hen can also mean 'first'). Paul could have used the more specific word prôtos, which specifically means 'first' if that is what he wanted to emphasize. Thus, the usage of heis and mia in the 'one wife' and 'one husband' verses does not necessarily prove anything with regard to polygyny.

Actually, you are wrong here. mia actually came from the words for "this alone" (oioV monoV) as can be seen in the Iliad's forms for it (ia instead of mia, changing oios into a feminine form). The masculine developed from oios alone. As for it becoming the indefinite article, that is completely irrelevent. It was never used as an indefinite article until AFTER Byzantine times, which means over 1000 years after the New Testament books were written. You might as well say that modern English had an influence on Gaelic (modern English comes from Gaelic).

Thus, to interpret the verses in which the wife is in the genetive case (gunaikos) as the first wife in a polygynous marriage, we would be compelled by the grammar to interpret the husband (andros) in 1Ti 5:9 as the first husband in a polyandrous marriage. Thus, the 'first wife' scenario collapses because while polygyny is consistent with the Old Testament (Paul's Bible) testimony, polyandry is not.

Quite correct, so I think that makes you 1 for 6.

As I have been saying, heis/mia/hen mean exactly the same thing. Other than spelling and pronunciation, the only difference is grammatical gender. When this numeral is used with nouns, to denote '1' thing or 'a' thing, the gender of the numeral must agree with the gender of the noun with which it used.

eiV mia en never means "a" in the entire NT corpus. This is an outright false statement.

echâd and heis/mia/hen

It is worthy of note that heis/mia/hen is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word 'echâd in Genesis 2:24 they shall be one (mia) flesh and in the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one (heis) Lord. In both instances, 'echâd denotes unity, the unity of the man and the woman in sexual intercourse, and the unity of Elohim. 'echâd is also used in some instances to denote the numeral 1 as in Genesis 2:21 where it reads he took one (mia) of his ribs. According to Gesenius, in addition to its other meanings such as 'one', 'first', 'some one', 'once', 'suddenly', 'the same', 'united', etc., 'echâd also "acts the part of an indefinite article". Since Paul and the other New Testament authors were Hebrews, we might expect them to carry this usage into their writing in the Greek language.

You might, but you would be wrong. Remember that Paul at the very least was educated in Greek rhetorical styles, and thus in Greek grammar as well. He is very unlikely to be thinking echad when he wrote eis. This is an unsupportable supposition. Again, you cannot argue Greek grammar by looking at how it translates another language.

If heis/mia/hen is being used as an indefinite article in these verses, then there is absolutely no possibility of these verses being usable for any argument in favor of monogyny to the exclusion or banning of polygyny. It would also then mean that Paul was essentially requiring that bishops, deacons and elders be married men with no further qualification (as it pertains to marital status) being necessary. It would like mean that bishops, deacons and elders could be men having more than one wife. Thus, the essential question is this: Was heis/mia/hen being used as an indefinite article in these verses? Are there other instances in the Scriptures where heis/mia/hen was used as an indefinite article?

This is where he loses it, folks. There is no occurrence in the GNT where eis/mia/ev is used for "a" in the entire corpus. You will notice he must go directly back to the LXX and not the GNT. The examples he cites from the GNT all mean "alone" or "a single one" as opposed to being in a group.

Let me show by mentioning every single usage he lists:

Mt. 8:19 heis grammateus = as opposed to the group Jesus had come from talking to

9:18 arkhôn heis = the article cannot come after the noun and refer to the noun unless it has modifiers, and if it has modifiers, then it is noting "the one who... "

21:19 sukên mian, see above


26:69 mia paidiskê = refers to one servant instead of another (note 26:71)

Rev. 8:13 henos aetou = because the numeral three is used in the same verse, it is distinguishing

9:13 fônên mian = "a voice, the one from the altar..."

18:21 heis aggelos = as opposed to more, stressing his strength

19:17 hena aggelon = as opposed to more, stressing the power of his voice since it reached all the birds

Given that Conybeare and Stock's entry shows that heis/mia/hen was used as an indefinite article in Septuagint and NT Greek, it is therefore very possible, maybe even probable, that Paul's usage of it is following that of Matthew and John. Paul's education would suit this possibility, for they also point out that heis/mia/hen was used this way in 'good' or Classical Greek apart from any Hebrew influence. Being that Paul was a well educated and traveled man, we can probably safely assume that he would have been aware of this usage. Conybeare and Stock's evidence verifies without any doubt that heis/mia/hen was indeed being used as an indefinite article at the time the NT books were being written.

They are wrong, and every other lexicon disagrees with them.

These examples of Paul's usage of prôtos/prôton demonstrate well that Paul would have not used mia to mean 'first' if he wanted to say first.

I agree.

One of the other things I can say is that most of the Greek dictionaries I used in reading about heis/mia/hen make absolutely NO semantic distinction between the three forms. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and Vines' Dictionary seem to make this distinction, but Gemoll, Bullinger, Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich, Menge-Güthling, Liddell & Scott, Wigram and Thayer do not. In the study I did, using several Greek dictionaries, I discovered these meanings for heis/mia/hen: "one, a/an, other, first, sole/alone, unity, simularity". Obviously, we could look at Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus using any or all of these definitions and consider how they affect the meaning.

Stick with LSJ and BDAG. The rest of them are either dated or just not well done (Thayer).

On the basis of used vocabulary, I do not think we can prove anything about polygyny or monogyny using these verses. In any case, the provisions in the Law of Moses for first wives (Ex 21:10-11) and the firstborn son (Dt 21:15-17) should be enough to discourage any condemnation of polygyny as being a sinful practice. Another important consideration is that the Levirate Law in its application would have created some situations where a married man, being the brother of the deceased, would have had to become a bigamist or polygamist in order to raise up seed unto his brother (Dt 25:5-10). Indeed, Judah's son Onan was killed by Yahweh because he failed to fulfill this principle (Gn 38:6-10).

Actually, you are right here since this is not supposed to be about either but about the qualifications for elders and deacons. It does mean, however, that they must be monogamous. Since we should all aim to be leaders within the church, then we should all aim to be monogamous.

Indeed, if we read through Paul's writings, he quotes extensively from the Law of Moses in teaching and presenting the New Covenant. It is highly doubtful that Paul would have written anything contrary to the Law. If anything, whatever he wrote should be understood drawing from the teachings of Moses and the prophets. My conclusion is that Paul had no objection to polygamy. Given the evidence which I have presented in this writing, I suggest that the best translation of the husband(s) of one wife verses is HUSBAND(S) OF A WIFE.

Then you must not have looked at your own evidence. Clearly from what you have shown, Paul does in fact speak of one wife, for even if we bought your LXX comparison and your uses in Matthew and Revelation, you have shown no proof that Paul would ever argue this way himself. Just because other authors do it does not mean Paul does. Your case is sadly lacking, and in fact I think it proves quite convincingly that Paul was referring to monogamy. You have not shown any example of Paul using one for a.

If we take the "husband of one wife" verses as though they were absolute law, then we have to exclude not only polygamous men, but also unmarried man, and when we render mia as 'first', divorced men, and widowed men from participation in these ministries. Would you say this is what Paul intended? He himself was celibate, as was also Jesus. Would we exclude them from these ministries? What if an elder had an unruly son given to drug abuse or criminality? Would we demand that that man be removed from his ministry?

This is well off track.

Even if we believe that these passages, 1. Timothy 3:2, 1. Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:5-7, recommend or mandate monogyny, Paul only specified it for bishops, deacons, and elders, but not for apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers. Logically, if we are to take these recommendations as law or righteous requirement, and then claim that they forbid polygamy, then these also have the effect of rejecting anyone who is unmarried (whether celibate, single or a widower) from being or becoming a bishop, deacon, or elder. That would have disqualified both Paul and Jesus. In the context of the verse surrounding these passages, it is clear that Paul wanted Timothy and Titus to appoint to these offices only those who were holy and walked in the ways of Yahweh. What he was really saying was, in effect, 'look for men who are married and holy'. This would have extended to those who had more than one wife as well.

This argument negates itself. If we take your meaning here, then we really are left with Paul and Jesus excluding themselves. You in no way work around that. At this point you have argued for husband of a wife and excluded all other interpretations. What, then, can you say to Paul and Jesus? What about Timothy, who was in all liklhihood unmarried? For that matter, you make a false break between pastor and elder (see I Peter 5 which links apostle/elder/pastor together into a single station within the church, which makes me really wonder about your ecclesiology). Since there is an imperative, it is much stronger than "look for" rather it is "they must be".

Your section on the priest was so speculative I am not even going to look at it.

How about this argument instead:

Paul has 74 verses (if one erroniously includes Hebrews as you did) in which eis/mia/ev occurs.

If we exclude the 4 you mention, there are 70 verses in which eis/mia/ev means one and only means one. Those verses are:


NAU Romans 3:10
NAU Romans 3:12
NAU Romans 3:30
NAU Romans 5:12
NAU Romans 5:15
NAU Romans 5:16
NAU Romans 5:17
NAU Romans 5:18
NAU Romans 5:19
NAU Romans 9:10
NAU Romans 12:4
NAU Romans 12:5
NAU Romans 15:6
NAU 1 Corinthians 3:8
NAU 1 Corinthians 4:6
NAU 1 Corinthians 6:16
NAU 1 Corinthians 6:17
NAU 1 Corinthians 8:4
NAU 1 Corinthians 8:6
NAU 1 Corinthians 9:24
NAU 1 Corinthians 10:8
NAU 1 Corinthians 10:17
NAU 1 Corinthians 11:5
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:9
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:11
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:12
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:13
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:14
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:18
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:19
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:20
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:26
NAU 1 Corinthians 14:27
NAU 1 Corinthians 14:31
NAU 1 Corinthians 16:2
NAU 2 Corinthians 5:14
NAU 2 Corinthians 11:2
NAU 2 Corinthians 11:24
NAU Galatians 3:16
NAU Galatians 3:20
NAU Galatians 3:28
NAU Galatians 4:22
NAU Galatians 4:24
NAU Galatians 5:14
NAU Ephesians 2:14
NAU Ephesians 2:15
NAU Ephesians 2:16
NAU Ephesians 2:18
NAU Ephesians 4:4
NAU Ephesians 4:5
NAU Ephesians 4:6
NAU Ephesians 4:7
NAU Ephesians 4:16
NAU Ephesians 5:31
NAU Ephesians 5:33
NAU Philippians 1:27
NAU Philippians 2:2
NAU Philippians 3:13
NAU Colossians 3:15
NAU Colossians 4:6
NAU 1 Thessalonians 2:11
NAU 1 Thessalonians 5:11
NAU 2 Thessalonians 1:3
NAU 1 Timothy 2:5
NAU Titus 3:10
NAU Hebrews 2:11
NAU Hebrews 10:12
NAU Hebrews 10:14
NAU Hebrews 11:12
NAU Hebrews 12:16

I can honestly say I looked at every single one of these verse both in English (NASB, update 1995) and in Greek (NA 27). Not a single usage means other than "one" with the possible exception of two idiomatic usages (both the same thing) of eis in a specific construct with a demonstrative pronoun, so it means "that one" instead of one.

I must admit, this is among the longest bad arguments I have ever dealt with. The mixture of misinformation and intentionally dodging the pertinent questions while laying down a track of false evidence was wonderful.

[Swordman]

Yesterday @ 03:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=259159#post259159)
Jaltus:

And here we begin on the wrong foot. Try quoting a modern translation and you will quickly notice that none of these "additions" are in them. That is what you get for quoting the KJV, which uses a different set of Greek manuscripts than the modern versions.

I have done some study on the Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Aleph, B, C, and others. The debate over the newer discovereies of manuscripts, and the misinformation on both sides, is very prolific, and the debate very heated. I prefer not to get into a debate over manuscript integrity, or the lack thereof, since such a debate has proven to ultimately degenerate into nothing but squabbles over issues that cannot be resolved outside of personal study of the manuscripts in question, etc. I do not have enough years left on this earth to do such a study. It is sad to observe the glaring polarization that has resulted over the debate concerning manuscripts. Although it is true that I use the KJV myself, I also utilize many other sources. The deep-seated emotion on both sides of the debate makes both look almost cultic in their zeal to defend their chosen sources.

BTW, I tried to get onto this site earlier this morning, and the service provider appears to have been down. I almost experienced withdrawal symptoms. :shocked:

Don

[dizzle]

I almost experienced withdrawal symptoms.

I almost gnawed my foot off.

[TedO]

We are all very sick people... :duh:

[Jaltus]

Today @ 07:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=260028#post260028)
Swordman:



I have done some study on the Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Aleph, B, C, and others. The debate over the newer discovereies of manuscripts, and the misinformation on both sides, is very prolific, and the debate very heated. I prefer not to get into a debate over manuscript integrity, or the lack thereof, since such a debate has proven to ultimately degenerate into nothing but squabbles over issues that cannot be resolved outside of personal study of the manuscripts in question, etc. I do not have enough years left on this earth to do such a study. It is sad to observe the glaring polarization that has resulted over the debate concerning manuscripts. Although it is true that I use the KJV myself, I also utilize many other sources. The deep-seated emotion on both sides of the debate makes both look almost cultic in their zeal to defend their chosen sources.

BTW, I tried to get onto this site earlier this morning, and the service provider appears to have been down. I almost experienced withdrawal symptoms. :shocked:

Don


My point was that if you are comparing the KJV to the UBSGNT, you are comparing apples and oranges. Either compare the UBSGNT to a translation taken from that set of manuscripts, or else compare the KJV to the MT. It is dishonest to compare the KJV to the UBSGNT and then mock it for being inaccurate.

It is a deceptive tactic, and since you admit to having studied the problem, you knew very well it was a dishonest tactic.

[digger]

ok, if a man goes and has say, ten wives, all are as close to his way of being, i would venture a guess that supporting them would not be hard and as long as they all did fair amount of house keeping, it really shouldnt be a source of thought.

[Paul]

Hmmm..

I don't know if Christ emphasized that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. I think what Christ was emphasizing was more how adultery is wrong. Adultery can take place in a polygamous context as well as a monogomous context. But I do agree that the Christ's law tells us to be married to only one woman.

I don't know if we can really know the reasons why Christ made this law or why it is different in the Old Testament. But if I were speculating I would say that part of the difference may be due to practical considerations. It's sometimes said that it's not directly contrary to the natural law, the law engraved in human nature, for a man to marry more than one woman, but that since the essence of marriage is friendship, that polygamy may be an obstacle to that. It may be more difficult to have friendship with multiple wives than it is to have so with one wife.

I think also that a marriage between one man and one woman, in general, might symbolize better the higher realities it is supposed to symbolize.

[Swordman]

Deut. 21:15 If a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, and they both bear him children, 21:16 in the day he divides his inheritance he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the other wife’s son who is actually the firstborn. ...

This is the question. Why did God allow a man to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, yet, Jesus makes a point that a man is to have only ONE wife in the New Testament?

The reason one could say God allowed multiple wives for one man is that God specifically made a rule on how one should treat his children in the even one has multiple wives....

If my reasoing is false, what am I not understandig properly?

Thanks,
Vladimir
I have as of yet to observe anyone showing that Jesus ever addressed the issue of plural wives.....without adding to the text what is not there, or taking something completely out of its context and applying it without any prequalification(s).

Dr. Don Dean

[Swordman]

I do agree that the Christ's law tells us to be married to only one woman.
Reference please?

I don't know if we can really know the reasons why Christ made this law or why it is different in the Old Testament. But if I were speculating I would say that part of the difference may be due to practical considerations.
I have never known anyone to consider God's moral foundation to be at all based upon practicality. Could you explain this further?

It's sometimes said that it's not directly contrary to the natural law, the law engraved in human nature, for a man to marry more than one woman, but that since the essence of marriage is friendship, that polygamy may be an obstacle to that. It may be more difficult to have friendship with multiple wives than it is to have so with one wife.
Hmm. So you personally feel that you could not form a bond of friendship with more than one wife. I can accept that since I do not know you as God knows you. However, do you think that the way you feel about your own abilities applies to every other man around you?

I think also that a marriage between one man and one woman, in general, might symbolize better the higher realities it is supposed to symbolize.
"...supposed to symbolize..."? What does this mean? What is a man having only one wife "supposed" to symbolize? Again, please clarify.

Don

[Mujibur]

Swordman, why is it that your sole contribution to TWeb is to defend polygamy? Why do you care so much? You accuse Dee Dee of beating a dead horse, but you resurrect polygamy threads when they have died down so that you can defend it some more. Just wondering why this is. Surely your doctorate has provided you with familiarity with other topics as well.

[reasonabledoubt]

Nobody can point to one verse forbidding polygamy in the OT- God simply did not forbid it. It was not a breaking of the law, it was not sinful, it was not something that a sacrifice be made for.
God found it fitting to legislate against all sorts of things- he went into great detail - if he condemned polygamy, he would have said so.

The verses in the NT about being the husband of one wife simply acknowledge that polygamy was a practice, but that the deacons, etc were held to a higher standard of one wife.
Jesus also never said anything about polygamy, although he did about divorce.

This is just an example of trying to do backflips and twist stuff around to try to say that God considered polygamy a sin. He clearly did not. Whatever reason he had for allowing it, hardness of hearts, culture, whatever- doesn't change the fact that he allowed it.

[dizzle]

I am not going to respond further until I can write the substantive article I am planning - but Dr. Dean is truly obsessed with the idea of being able to be properly unfaithful and apparently constantly has the idea of multiple women on his mind - that cannot be healthy to be so preoccupied with this one topic. Whatever his doctorate is in, it is not in Greek as his arguments in the NT on that level have been embarassingly defeated.

The fact is that Jesus did state that a man married to more than one woman is committing adultery. It is the logical consequence of his words. The failure to perceive it or accept it is either a high failure in criticial thinking or a dogged (pun definitely intended) to justify sexual immorality and to shrink away from God's ideal.

[reasonabledoubt]

I'm a woman, and I completely am repulsed by polygamy- but how can you say it was sexual immorality in the OT when God never condemned it?

And where does Jesus condemn it? Sure he can say that God's intent from the beginning was one man and one woman- but it certainly doesn't follow from that that it was immoral. Maybe God had his reasons for allowing it. But there's no getting around the fact that he allowed it- it's nowhere condemned in the law in the OT.

[dizzle]

Divorce is immoral, yet God allowed it. Most people operate today under a mistaken notion of what objective morality or Biblical absolutism is and have a poor understnading of what relativism is. The fact is that it is prohibited by Christ who calls it adultery. The rest are rabbit trails to the ultimate issue of Christian praxis - it is immoral for the Christian.

[sprky777]

Divorce is immoral, yet God allowed it. ... The fact is that it is prohibited by Christ who calls it adultery. ....
This is what Christ said:

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9
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.

Mark 10:11
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mark 10:12
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Now, removing what Christ was saying about DIVORCE, what are you left with? Christ never mentions having more than one wife. Every one of these verses, in context, were prohibiting DIVORCE.

Saul had more than one wife and when GOD cursed him with an evil spirit it was because he didn't follow GODs instruction to slay everything in a conquered city. GOD didn't have a problem with Sauls polygyny.

David had 6 wives and many children BEFORE he moved to Jerusalem as king. He found favor with GOD. While in Jerusalem he was given what was Sauls and also took Bathsheba as a wife. This is where GOD found fault in him. Bathsheba was the WIFE of ANOTHER man. David now committed adultery. GOD punished David by letting his son by Bathsheba die and in a classic 'eye for an eye' penalty GOD gave all of Davids wives to his neighbors. Now that Davids wives had been profaned before all Israel, David separated himself from them and placed them in confinement to be cared for until their death. Then he took Bathsheba as a wife and had more children by her. One of which was king Solomon.

Clearly, David was punished for adultery. Never for polygyny.

There are many examples of polygyny in the bible.

Abdon, Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ahasuerus,
Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David,
Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Heman,
Hosea, Ibzan, Issachar(many in his tribe), Jacob,
Jair, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash,
Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses,
Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Shaharaim, Shimei,
Simeon, Solomon, Terah, Zedekiah, Ziba

In some cases we are shown how there were difficulties in their relationships resulting from jealousy and envy. I believe that is the lesson. Most of the other cases are not elaborated on because they were peaceful. Just as in todays media, good news doesn't make the headlines, you hear about the tragedy.

The Song of Solomon was written about Solomons 141st wife.

Terah, father of Abraham was also the father of Sarah but Abraham and Sarah had different mothers.

Abdon had 40 sons, number of daughters unlisted.
Ibzan had 60 children, must have had more than one wife...
Jair had 30 sons, number of daughters unlisted.
Shimei had 22 children, while they could have all been from one wife it would be more likely to have been from more.

The bible points out the difficulties caused by envy and jealousy. It is our own pride that brings destruction. Some can live in a polygynous marriage without strife and as in the bible, these are the families that don't draw attention to themselves.

Swordman has stated that he is monogamous and has one wife.
I also have only one wife.
That fact has no relevance on our position to debate in favor of polygyny.
I debate it because I see Christians in polygynous marriages being persecuted by other Christians as well as the population in general. I see people with strong faith and a love of Christ being expelled from fellowship because of this one belief. The polygynous community is scant, rare and mostly scattered with very little public or family support. I see this as a great injustice and am willing to devote time to this issue. I don't have time to visit every forum site to debate other issues that are already the focus of so many individuals but the topic of polygyny has few to come to its aid.

[MCWAY]

I see a much simpler reason for that verse regarding multiple wives. We all know how valuable the firstborn son was in ancient history. And we also know how women were given care back then as well.

If a man marries two wives and "one is beloved and another hated", naturally, the inclination will be to give the son of the beloved wife all (or at least, most of the inheritance.

That's not that hard of a concept to grasp today. How many of you have half-siblings or know people who have them. In far too many of those cases, how each child get treated depends on the nature of the relationship. For instance, take a woman with two boys from two different men. If the relationship with the father of Boy "A" was a volatile one, Boy "A" may be treated less than kindly. If the relationship with the mother and the father of Boy "B" ended, but on much more amicable terms, she may treat boy "B" better.

In ANE times, the scenario would be a man and two wives. The firstborn would take care of his mother when Papa dies. If Papa leaves the firstborn of the "hated" wife squat, that boy has nothing with which to care for his mother.

As an insurance policy to keep "hated" women from being left in the cold, the firstborn of the "hated" wife got the lion's share of the property and $$$$ left by his father.

Of course, the simplest way to avoid all of this drama (and the fraticide, patricide, and all the other "-cides") is to stick with the Lord's original marriage plan, in the first place: one man and one woman.

[sprky777]

As an insurance policy to keep "hated" women from being left in the cold, the firstborn of the "hated" wife got the lion's share of the property and $$$$ left by his father.

Deuteronomy 21
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn.
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Whichever son was the firstborn received the larger share.

[kofh2u]

Hmmm..

I don't know if Christ emphasized that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. I think what Christ was emphasizing was more how adultery is wrong. Adultery can take place in a polygamous context as well as a monogomous context. But I do agree that the Christ's law tells us to be married to only one woman.

I don't know if we can really know the reasons why Christ made this law or why it is different in the Old Testament. But if I were speculating I would say that part of the difference may be due to practical considerations. It's sometimes said that it's not directly contrary to the natural law, the law engraved in human nature, for a man to marry more than one woman, but that since the essence of marriage is friendship, that polygamy may be an obstacle to that. It may be more difficult to have friendship with multiple wives than it is to have so with one wife.

I think also that a marriage between one man and one woman, in general, might symbolize better the higher realities it is supposed to symbolize.


You might be correct, "...Christ's law tells us to be married to only one woman.".... but check if he said, "If... then, one"....

IMO, Jesus seemed inordinately unhappy with that institution in his day, and somewhat implied that before, and even in our own day, now, he was/continues to be less than satisfied with marraiges in the system of things in our society.

"And the woman, (symbolizing those who have institutionalized a system of sexual seduction into a failed matrimony), was arrayed in (recognizable hues of) purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls (of her courtships and divorces), having a golden cup in her hand, (a sacramental place in the order of religion), full of abominations (of abortions, STD, even inclusion of gay marriage), and the filthiness of her (adolescent excesses and) fornications (before choosing the victim of her matrimony):
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, (Istar), BABYLON THE GREAT, (the first to amass the golden bank), THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, (trading sexually), and the abomination (of adolescent sexual license) on the earth. Rev. 17:4-5

1Tim. 4:1 Isa. 3:17 1Tim. 5:14 1Cor. 7:37 1Cor. 7:9 1Cor. 7:33
Luke 17:26-9 Hebr. 13:4 Matt. 19:4 Matt. 19:10 Mark 10:9
1Tim. 5:14 1Tim. 5:11 1Cor. 7:32 Mark 10:11

[Swordman]

Deut. 21:15 If a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, and they both bear him children, 21:16 in the day he divides his inheritance he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the other wife’s son who is actually the firstborn...

This is the question. Why did God allow a man to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, yet, Jesus makes a point that a man is to have only ONE wife in the New Testament?
There is no right answer to the wrong question. First of all, God did not simply "allow" a man to have multiple wives in the "Old Testament," and then send Jesus who then made it immoral. God not only made governing provision for polygyny, He also declared His alignment with polygyny when referring to Istael and Judah as His wives (plural) and in His giving to David at least two of his already plural wives. Polygyny is simply marriage, just as monogamy is marriage. There is not one instance where Jesus declared that a man can have only one wife. If you think that he did, then I would be most interested in your providing a reference.

The reason one could say God allowed multiple wives for one man is that God specifically made a rule on how one should treat his children in the even one has multiple wives....

If my reasoing is false, what am I not understandig properly?
Treatment of children was not directly tied only to polygyny, for children are to be loved no matter how many wives a man has.

Don Dean

[Swordman]

Multipule wives, slaves, women in submission to men, animal sacrifice, women being silent, all this was allowed , now none of it is pertinant, but modern day men want to keep these dead issues alive.
This is feminism at its absolute worst. Cases of abuse do not justify outright defiance of all that God has established.

Don Dean

[Swordman]

with the Scripture I quoted is that it appears that God does not have the same Standard, that God is not 'unchanging', but does indeed change.
This is indeed a correct conclusion if God indeed changed the foundation of His moral absolutes to suddenly put an end to His direct involvement for a man to have more than one wife. The fact is, He never did change His definition of marriage, even though mankind has his own definitions.

Again, this is not my personal belief, but it appears that God changed His requirements in the New Testament.
No, He did not.

Don Dean

[Swordman]

I think it is totally consistent for the Bible to allow particular marital conditions in one society, and then argue against them when the particularities of that culture are no longer pertinent.
This basically boils down to accusing God of having created a foundation for morality being subject to social/cultural tides. This is indefensible.

For example, Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and half-sister (Genesis 20:12),
Incest was never a moral issue. The Lord commanded an injunction against this institution because of genetic deterioration. We understand this now because of science. The Lord knew it would not be right to allow incest to continue because of the deformities and retardation that results, which further proves His benevolence.

and Jacob married two sisters (Genesis 29:13-30). Both of these are later forbidden by Moses (Leviticus 18:18).
The issue or marrying sisters was indeed commanded against, but not because having more than one wife was wrong. This proves absolutely nothing in relation to God making changes in His moral absolutes, nor does it prove that having more than one wife is wrong at any point in the history or future of mankind on this earth.

[Swordman]

when the bible speaks of God not changeing, it is speaking of his inner morals, his fruit of his own Spirit, his characther, or his nature, these never change about him.
True.

However God does lift curses, he spares what he may previously intended to destroy, this shows that God is flexible, even though he is absolute. If God is flexible, then so is Christ, the living word, if the living word is flexible, then so is the written word. The bible must be simular to God also, it must span the decades of time and still remain relevant.
Pure nonsense. Flexibility in decisions is one thing, but flexibility in morals is completely outside of the character of the God portrayed within the pages of the Bible. No man could live within a system of shifting morals and be expected to accept responsibility for his sin. I do not know what god you believe in who shifts his morals around on the basis of social and cultural whim, but the God portrayed within the pages of scripture clearly is not such a being.

It must be able to be cross-cultured, bi-racial , reasonable, factual and peer relevant, or apealing to youth.
What is your criteria for assuming such a thing? He is self-existent. He does not have to bend to please each cultural background. Where did you get these ideas? What is your source?

One interesting example is the issue of slavery. When the bible was written, slavery was legal, now it is illegal, so we must disguard the verses that pertain to slavery.
You must not have much understanding of all the forms of servitude that have long since been labeled as "slavery". Not all forms of "slavery" are evil. Some were entered into willingly. Legalities do not govern God's Law or His moral absolutes.

As you have mentioned, marriage to multiple wives was legal then, and in some areas of the world-- still is. If a man becomes a christian after he has already taken on multiple wives in his native land, and that be legal, should he divorce the others to adhere to the one wife standard.
No man should divorce any wife (wives) for any reason apart from that allowed by scripture. Social theology is not at all authoritative.

Do you split the family up, or leave them together, or let them decide for themselves?
"Pastors" are all the time caudling and teaching that it is ok for a woman to divorce her husband. They wink at divorce for the sake of membership and tithes. That is one of the main reasons why divorce is to rampant among professing believers.

I tend to think in terms of not interfering. Although many people may not understand this statement; you just have to use common sense when navigateing spiritual matters that mix with fleshly matters. People have just got to learn to think for themselves.
And your thinking is based upon your own investigations into the issue of a plurality of wives, therefore thinking on your own? Who is fooling who? Find me one verse that clearly speaks an injunction against all men from having a plurality of wives, and we will talk.

Don Dean

[Swordman]

The biblical teaching on polygamy has already been addressed in a TWe thread www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=44982#post44982 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=44982#post44982) which has links to other articles.
Although AiG takes an admirable stand where creation is concerned, that does not make them infallible in their views concerning marriage. They are famous for their sloganeering, but then such a compaign simply will not save them from the error they have made concering marriage.

Don Dean

[Swordman]

Interestingly, I seem to remember that Luther advised Philip of Hesse to take a second wife rather than to divorce --- he also wanted this solution kept quiet, but it instead became a bit of a scandal....





(edited to add that, in case anybody gets the wrong idea, Luther's advice here is no doubt something better left alone)
:jade:
Why should this be left alone? What is interesting is that when public pressure was brought to bear against Luther for his treatise that clearly spoke of his not being against a man having more than one wife, he rewrote his opinion about this topic, and in that opinion, rather than deny what he knew was biblical, and therefore create inconsistency between himself and what the Bible actually does teach, he simply declared that it is not in the best interests of any man to have more than one wife. That is not a denial, only a limitation. It was enough to keep the feminists and religionists off his back.

Don Dean

[Swordman]

On this subject. I would recomend anyone advocating polygammy to look at the outcome of polygammy in the Bible.
This is meaningless. One could also say, "Look at the outomce of having a wife. Had it not been for that, Adam may not have ever eaten of the fruit at all." If you wish your comment above to be taken seriously, then at least be less general and let us know what exactly you are talking about.

Think of what Jesus said about divorce. In the OT God allowed it because of their hardened hearts. I think polygammy falls in hte same category.
This is a clear demonstration of the fact that, first of all, you do not know the Bible, and secondly, polygyny is not at all similar to divorce. God NEVER allowed for divorce because of hardness of heart. Jesus made it clear that it was MOSES who made that allowance. If you are going to speak authoritatively, at least know your subject matter first before making such a fundamental error.

I ask you to look at the lives of those who engaged in polygammy in the OT. (I will summarize here but then I walked through each case listed in the OT) You had jealous wives (in all cases).
This is false. You have no evidence of this.

You had sibling rivalries (often leading to fratricide). You had animsity towards the parents (often leading to attempted or actual patricide). You had wives leading their husbands into idolatry...
Are you saying that these things did not happen within monogamous marriages. Who are you trying to fool? At least next time be a little less obvious about your dishonest bias. The first man, who is almost always upheld as the archetype for all men to limit themselves to only one wife, plunged the world into great sin and suffering, which brought death to an otherwise perfect world.

All to say they made their own beds and were miserable so whatever perceived benefeits you may see in this the familial strife will negate all of htem in the long run,
Please explain to us all why you think that monogamous marriages have never experienced these same maladies you have brought up in this post.

and watch your back when some of you children start gunning for you after they have killed some of you other children.
The next time any of us makes it to the level of a king, then we will certainly take this into consideration.....:lmbo: As a matter of fact, we might even take a step up into limbo......

Don Dean

[Swordman]

God allowed polygamy, because that is what people did, so he regulated it, without moving from his command to monogamy.
Would you mind providing a reference where the Lord allegedly commanded against polygyny?

Why did he allow it? Well, he allowed divorce for the harndess of men's hearts, perhaps he allowed polygamy for similar reasons (I see GP has just voiced this view as well)
Here we go again.....another one who does not know his Bible. Jesus made it clear that it was MOSES who allowed for divorce because of hardness of heart, not the Lord Himself. Please read your Bible more carefully before making such false accusations against the Lord.

What is interesting is that his regulation of it was in the way of preserving equity and justice in the family relationship, since a man might have taken another wife to gain an heir, or to oust a preferred heir, or whatever. In other words, he didn't let them get away with it.
Could you at least provide references to back this grandiose reasoning you have applied here with such broad brush strokes? One would think that any one of us could think of instances where this is portrayed, but I cannot think of one.

Don Dean

[Swordman]

It is very reasonable to assume God allowed polygamy for the same reasoning he allowed divorce, men have a heart to do certain things that God could really careless about.
It is a good thing that the Lord is above our petty reasonings.

mutiple wives is one of those things that is perhaps like slavery, just plain outdated, old fashion, culturely ended.
It will not be long before your rationale will become even more widespread, and marriage completely outmoded like it is in Denmark today. Yes, they are reporting that the percentage of people getting married in that country is rapidly decreasing every year after allowing for homosexual marriages. Most couples in that country are now moving from one relationship to another, leaving children with no stable environment for family life.

"Outdated" and "old fasion"? This sounds more like a sloganeering festival than an honest analysis of marriage itself. Yes, polygyny is simply marriage, just like monogamy. They are both noble, and blessed of God, regardless of your own personal opinion about either.

But as some will not release women being silent or covering their heads, some men want to keep the old ways of many wives. If one could justify any one of these, then none of them are sin, they all came from the same era.
Your liberal bent is most telling indeed.

Don Dean

[Swordman]

And i understand the tendecy to use scripture as a shoe, believing only that which fits our lives. The subjugation of women as sex slaves, is the same as subjugating them to remain silent, wear head conerings, be submissive in marriage, stay bearfoot pregnant and in the kitchen.
Then we better get cracking to outlaw monogamy since this can take place in ANY form of marraige. One woman can be made a sex slave just as easily as 10,000 according to your philosophy. Marriage is such a terrible thing.....at least in your estimation.

If you accept any one of these, in my view of scripture you are quilty of them all, and may as well honestly live them in your life.
Oh, but are we not so progressive. Never mind allowing a man to sell himself into servitude in order to pay his debts. It is better to just declare bankruptcy and get out of having to pay at all. Right? I do not knnow what color the sky is in your world, but it certainly does not fit that of this world. It would be great if this world were ideal, but it is not. Therefore history shows us a number of methods of dealing with various situations in life that, in spite of being "outadted" does not make them wrong or unseemly. Like Winston Churchill said, "History has proven that we do not learn from history."

If yopu accept the ten commandments as still being relevant, you must accept all 206 laws of Moses, you cannot pick and choose law, either you reject them all, or accept them all, there is no inbetween.
Which demonstrates the flaw in your understanding of both the Law and the entire counsel of God. The historic timeline does not force any change in God's moral absolutes, whether written within the Law or recorded utterances of Christ Jesus.

If you accept one law governing women, you must take them all to be true and valid. Kind of what we humans call having your cake and eating it to. Christians cannot disect the bible according to their pleasure.
But you can? So, what does that make you?

Don Dean

[Prakk]

"If you accept the ten commandments as still being relevant, you must accept all 206 laws of Moses, you cannot pick and choose law, either you reject them all, or accept them all, there is no inbetween."To which I reply; "I choose them all, but they don't all choose me." One who is intimately familiar with the law knows that it never says it applies the same way to everyone. Acts 15 does say that the concept of sexual morality in the Law DOES apply to me.

Hugh McBryde

[Amazing Rando]

While these verses do not speak specifically against polygamy for the average joe, they indicate God's will for his church leaders:

Bishops (or "overseers"): Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, selfcontrolled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Deacons: A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Elders (or "presbyters"): An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

Now if Paul explicitly commands church leaders to be monogamous in their marital relationships, (note- this was a restriction on wives, not a proscription to be married), what makes you think he'd okay it for the laity as well? In the New Testament, there is simply no indication whatsoever that plural wives are to be accepted in the church.

[Prakk]

Rando,

You're making the assumption that all the things on Paul's list represent ideals that we should aspire to. They're simply not. If they are, you're saying it's less than ideal to be a woman, for an elder must be a man.

Hugh McBryde

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Rando,

You're making the assumption that all the things on Paul's list represent ideals that we should aspire to. They're simply not. If they are, you're saying it's less than ideal to be a woman, for an elder must be a man.

Hugh McBrydeActually, being a man isn't on that list. The list is addressed to men for it presupposes that an elder is a man, but here in the list are moral qualifications that have to do with a person's lifestyle. And monogamy is one of those qualifications.

Glenn

[Swordman]

Actually, being a man isn't on that list. The list is addressed to men for it presupposes that an elder is a man, but here in the list are moral qualifications that have to do with a person's lifestyle. And monogamy is one of those qualifications.

Glenn

The question still stands why one would assume that the qualifications for being an elder would ever be something to which the general populace is to be bound? What you are suggesting is that Paul's meaning is that we ALL must qualify for being an elder, to which I would say is clearly outside Paul's intent as portrayed within the context. Certainly Paul was intelligent enough to issue such an instruction if that was his intent, so why assume it into the vast silence? It could have been stated in just one sentence, something like, "To the rest of you, I instruct that ye also should have but only one wife, and no more." Are you assuming that Paul chose to leave it up to some to figure out the deeper, more cryptic association that he never verbalized? What manner of reasoning is that? If I applied that kind of reasoning to support a doctrine of one of the cults, I assume that you would call me on the carpet for inserting what is not there, so why the selective application of bad, subjective, and convenient interpretational rules?

Don Dean

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The question still stands why one would assume that the qualifications for being an elder would ever be something to which the general populace is to be bound? What you are suggesting is that Paul's meaning is that we ALL must qualify for being an elder, to which I would say is clearly outside Paul's intent as portrayed within the context. Certainly Paul was intelligent enough to issue such an instruction if that was his intent, so why assume it into the vast silence? It could have been stated in just one sentence, something like, "To the rest of you, I instruct that ye also should have but only one wife, and no more." Are you assuming that Paul chose to leave it up to some to figure out the deeper, more cryptic association that he never verbalized? What manner of reasoning is that?At the moment it is a straw man type of reasoning on your part, by labelling my suggestion "cryptic." I'm not suggesting for a moment that Paul was being cryptic and just expecting everyone else to "get" that he was meaning to make these instructions to everyone as well as elders. I'm not suggesting that at all.

Take a look at how Paul lists these qualifications. He begins with a general statement of what an elder must be, and then he goes through examples of what this entails. See for yourself:

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
I put it to you very simply that all these traits are simply part and parcel of what it means for a man to be "Above reproach." This is not mysterious, cryptic or unduly complicated for Paul's audience as you suggest. In fact, this is confirmed by what follows in his instructions about deacons. We see the general statement of what kind of person he must be, followed by some examples:

Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.


I certainly wouldn't suggest that this list is exhaustive (for example, although the example of not purusing dishonest gain is not used of an elder/overseer but it is used of a deacon, it does not follow that an elder may do this while a deacon may not). My point is that the summary statement is at least partly explained by the examples that follow. These traits in a deacon are examples of what it means to be "worthy of respect." Likewise with an elder. These traits are part of what it means to be "above reproach." if a person lacks these traits, he is not above reproach and may not be an elder because he would be a poor example.

If I applied that kind of reasoning to support a doctrine of one of the cults, I assume that you would call me on the carpet for inserting what is not there, so why the selective application of bad, subjective, and convenient interpretational rules?Your portrayl of my representation of Paul as being mysterious and cryptic is what is bad, convenient and subjective. It was no such thing, as you can hopefully now see. Perhaps colourful negative descriptions like those would best be left out of an exegetical discussion. There's a saying about chickens, eggs and hatching.

Incidentally, in case you're open to alternative points of view, I would highly recommend Walter Kaiser's book Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) for a well represented argument that God always intended and promotes exclusive monogamy in marriage. You can check it out here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310371104/qid=1101120254/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-3850727-9168626?v=glance&s=books

Glenn

[Prakk]

Glenn, you say:"Actually, being a man isn't on that list. The list is addressed to men for it presupposes that an elder is a man, but here in the list are moral qualifications that have to do with a person's lifestyle. And monogamy is one of those qualifications."I am well acquainted with what "Theonomy" is. I am frequently mistaken for a resurrected form of Rushdooney. Are you, being acquainted with Theonomy or a proponent thereof arguing that an Elder can be a woman? If you're not, on what basis do you say that an elder should be a man? Is it not from verses like those in 1st Timothy and Titus? If it is, then you say that being a man is on that PARTICULAR list of prerequisites for Elders and thus it is proved that not all the requirements of office represent ideals. In fact all that are ideals with the curious exception of monogamy are stated elsewhere in the Pauline epistles or the scriptures in general to be ideals. Since being a man is not ideal, since I find no statement that monogamy is ideal elsewhere in scripture, I conclude that it is not an ideal, just as being a man is not ideal. One could even argue that being a NOVICE is not less than ideal, since all of us as finite beings have to start somewhere. The ideal in that case would be growing as a Christian, not being a grown Christian.

Hugh McBryde

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Are you, being acquainted with Theonomy or a proponent thereof arguing that an Elder can be a woman?No. I'm not sure why you might think that.
If you're not, on what basis do you say that an elder should be a man? Is it not from verses like those in 1st Timothy and Titus?Correct. Not this particular verse in Timothy, however. This list, as we can both see, doesn't state that an elder must be a man. Rather, it's a list of the kinf od traits this man must have, if he is to be considered worthy of respect or above reproach, and therefore fit to be an elder. An elder had to be more than just any old man, he had to be a godly man. Ergo I conclude that these traits are used as examples because they are indicative of what a godly man is like, namely, he would have no more than one wife.
If it is, then you say that being a man is on that PARTICULAR list of prerequisites for Elders and thus it is proved that not all the requirements of office represent ideals.But being a man is just not on this ist. It's not there - you can see that yourself.
In fact all that are ideals with the curious exception of monogamy are stated elsewhere in the Pauline epistles or the scriptures in general to be ideals. Since being a man is not ideal, since I find no statement that monogamy is ideal elsewhere in scripture, I conclude that it is not an ideal, just as being a man is not ideal. One could even argue that being a NOVICE is not less than ideal, since all of us as finite beings have to start somewhere. The ideal in that case would be growing as a Christian, not being a grown Christian.Your argument assumes that being a man is one of the ideals listed, and it is not. As for your second example, being a novice is indeed less than ideal. Christians should seek for the ideal of maturity. Being a novice is indicative of being inexperienced and generally more ignorant than somebody who has been a Christian for a while. All Christians should look to maturity as a goal, just as they should look to monogay as a model of marriage.

You might say "aha, but then being a novice is not a moral disadvantage, but only a practical disadvantage." If you were to respond that way, I would do what I always do, and point you back to the text. The rational for Paul's specific instructions is spelt out clearly. being "the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money," are all explanations of what it means for a man to be "above reproach." By contrast, Paul is happy to admit that the rationale for choosing sombody who is not a recent convert has a somewhat more practical rationale: "or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil."

So I just can't see a sound exegetical reason to doubt that being the husband of but one wife is a moral trait indicative of the fact that a Christian man is "above reproach."

Glenn

[Prakk]

Glenn,

First of all, the burden of proof remains on you to show that this is a list of IDEALS. Out of courtesy I have addressed this issue as if it was assumed to be and then sought to disprove that notion which I think I have done."Correct. Not this particular verse in Timothy, however. This list, as we can both see, doesn't state that an elder must be a man."It does not say, an elder is to be a man as a seperate stand alone statement. There are statements that can be made that frame one or more conditions, so when you say "husband of one wife" you've restricted the crowd to only men. Absent any other proof in scripture this is convincing. The pool of people that is capable of limiting themselves to one wife is in fact male. If you make it an ideal, you've also said that the elder MUST be married, I'm not so sure I can sign onto that. Do you believe that an elder MUST be married?

Even if what I say is not the case we must then return to the issue of you're proving that this is in fact a list of ideals. The best you can get out of this sort of proof is the statement to potential polygynists "I'd rather you didn't", which is still not a prohibition.

Hugh McBryde

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Glenn,

First of all, the burden of proof remains on you to show that this is a list of IDEALS. Out of courtesy I have addressed this issue as if it was assumed to be and then sought to disprove that notion which I think I have done.Not at all, you have simply denied that it is such a list. By contrast, I have show that in context this list is a list of things that are part of being above reproach." I'm confused as to why you do not respond to the point, but you instead just say that I still have the burden of proof. I gave an argument, and you have chosen not to address it.
It does not say, an elder is to be a man as a seperate stand alone statement. There are statements that can be made that frame one or more conditions, so when you say "husband of one wife" you've restricted the crowd to only men. Absent any other proof in scripture this is convincing. The pool of people that is capable of limiting themselves to one wife is in fact male.Convincing of what? As I noted, this instruction presupposes that the person in question is a man. That point is fully granted. But what this list does is answer the question: what kind of man must he be?
If you make it an ideal, you've also said that the elder MUST be married, I'm not so sure I can sign onto that. Do you believe that an elder MUST be married?Firstly, I consider that to be a reasonable inference. It is perfectly plausible to draw from this verse that an elder must be a married man with children, and that this is presupposed here. After all, as Paul explains in this context, the way he deals with his family says something about his ability to be an elder.

But secondly, I don't think it is a necessary inference. I agree with the translators of the NIV who take the reference to one wife to mean "but one wife," rather than "at least one wife."

Even if what I say is not the case we must then return to the issue of you're proving that this is in fact a list of ideals. The best you can get out of this sort of proof is the statement to potential polygynists "I'd rather you didn't", which is still not a prohibition.I never said anything to lead to the conclusion that this is only a preference judgement. On the contrary, being "above reproach" is above being morally upright. So I've seen nothing yet to cause me to doubt the soundness of the argument I provided a couple of posts ago.

Glenn

[Prakk]

You say I have been confusing, very well.'Not at all, you have simply denied that it is such a list. By contrast, I have show(n) that in context this list is a list of things that are part of being above reproach." I'm confused as to why you do not respond to the point, but you instead just say that I still have the burden of proof. I gave an argument, and you have chosen not to address it.'I apologize. What I should have been saying all along is "prove it" and offering nothing to counter you. The consideration was that I allowed your premise to stand, for the sake of discussion. I was agreeing by default that the phrase "above reproach" was structured so that a reasonable man would charactorize it as the title of the list. As I said, the mere fact that I answer your assertion bypasses my best argument and recognizes your assertion as the most obvious approach. Prove it is a list to which the phrase "above reproach" applies, I see no reason to depart from the position that "above reproach" is an item on the list, not a description of it. It might be that some of the items on that list would bolster the good charactor of that man, but there is no proof that it's anything but coincidental."(T)his instruction presupposes that the person in question is a man. That point is fully granted. But what this list does is answer the question: what kind of man must he be? Firstly, I consider that to be a reasonable inference. It is perfectly plausible to draw from this verse that an elder must be a married man with children, and that this is presupposed here. After all, as Paul explains in this context, the way he deals with his family says something about his ability to be an elder."This is the point at which I should discuss the consequences of calling it a list things that are "Above Reproach." You have stated that in this verse, however poorly phrased, the notion that an Elder be a male is a given based on the structure. Where do you divide the list from a list of ideal behaviors that are a necessity to the office to a mere prerequisite of office? What criteria do you use? I can as easily cede your claim that it's a list of ideals and then argue from that premise as I have before, that EVERYTHING is on it. I can use this claim to subjegate women as sentient cattle. This would be a signifigant departure from the instruction to wives to be subject to husbands and instead give men permission to treat them as little more than intelligent animals and demand their fealty. Unless you can show where the author makes a clear distinction between the items, making one group into ideal charactoristics and the other, a mere prerequisite of office, I am free to move things from one heading to the other based on preference. That is what you are doing.

The better way to analyse the scripture is to look around first at other Pauline Epistles and see what things are general ideals from Paul's point of view. Failing to find them there, to travel to other New Testament writings and see if the prerequisites of office are merely that or ideals. Lastly you would examine the whole of scripture to see what might be left out and is listed as ideal in Old Testament times. It's my position that the overall context of scripture dictates which items are ideal and therefore prerequistes of office for THAT reason and which are merely unique preconditions of the office. Again I assert that you have no choice but to include all the conditions of office on the "Ideal" list or you leave me free to pick and choose, just as you have. Arguing that you have good cause to include them as ideal or not is still just speculation on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence that doesn't stand up to the whole context of scripture.

Hugh McBryde

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

You say I have been confusing, very well.I apologize. What I should have been saying all along is "prove it" and offering nothing to counter you. The consideration was that I allowed your premise to stand, for the sake of discussion. I was agreeing by default that the phrase "above reproach" was structured so that a reasonable man would charactorize it as the title of the list. As I said, the mere fact that I answer your assertion bypasses my best argument and recognizes your assertion as the most obvious approach. Prove it is a list to which the phrase "above reproach" applies, I see no reason to depart from the position that "above reproach" is an item on the list, not a description of it.One fairly obvious reason, i would think, is that "being above reproach" doesn't tell us anything specific - it is an empty concept unless we are told what it entails, whereas the specifics in the list are specific examples of behaviour. I think this is fairly clear in the same way where the qualifications of a deacon are spelled out. The first statement that he must "be worthy of respect" doesn't tell us anything in aprticular, whereas the traits that follow flesh out what this means. Later traits are given their own specific rationale (as I discussed with regard to recent converts). And so I submit that the first group of traits is no more than an expansion of being above reproach. This is not only a fairly digestable way of readin them, but it fits with what immediately follows. This is the same way Paul structures his comment to Titus:
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.The qualifications that follow are evidence that the man is blameless and trustworthy as an elder.
This is the point at which I should discuss the consequences of calling it a list things that are "Above Reproach." You have stated that in this verse, however poorly phrased, the notion that an Elder be a male is a given based on the structure.Given that the instruction by its very nature applies to men, and not because the requirement of being a man is stipulated on this list. That is correct.
Where do you divide the list from a list of ideal behaviors that are a necessity to the office to a mere prerequisite of office? What criteria do you use?I make the division thus: Things that are not stipulated in the verse but merely presupposed, I take to be things that are taken for granted. This includes the fact that the elder is a man, and it arguably includes the fact that he is a family man. The latter is arguable because of the different ways of understanding "the husband of one wife" as noted above. It could mean "the husband of but one wife," or "someone who is in fact married, and only to one wife." In either case, his being a family man alone does not qualify him, the specific stipulation here is that if he is, there is only one wife involved. That is the prescriptive element of the reference to his spouse.
I can as easily cede your claim that it's a list of ideals and then argue from that premise as I have before, that EVERYTHING is on it. I can use this claim to subjegate women as sentient cattle.You can? How could you reach that conclusion from this passage?
Unless you can show where the author makes a clear distinction between the items, making one group into ideal charactoristics and the other, a mere prerequisite of office, I am free to move things from one heading to the other based on preference. That is what you are doing.What I'm doing is drawing a distinction between what is specifically required as a restriction or an obligation of conduct, and what is being presupposed as a given. The things that are not merely being presupposed but are actually being commanded become strange comments indeed if there is nothing inherently moral about them. Being sober, not violent or quarrelsome? I daresay common sense must play a role in the way we read these - why would the Apostle lay down all these restrictions on an elder's lifestlye for non moral reasons? It would seem arbitrary and legalistic to do so.
The better way to analyse the scripture is to look around first at other Pauline Epistles and see what things are general ideals from Paul's point of view.For the sake of clarity - are you saying we can only accept any of the things on this list as moral virtues (or at least that we should only do so with any confidence) if Paul repeats them elsewhere and clearly states that this is what they are? Moreover, I would think Paul's discussion about marriage in Corinthians 7 clearly treats it as though monogamy were inherent to proper marriage. Additionally His teaching on a husband-wife union being like that of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5) clearly only works if we assume monogamy. So if you want to resist my reading of Paul's words to Timothy until we can see confirmation elsewhere in paul that this really His how he saw the ideal model of marriage,, the evidence is not hard to find.
Again I assert that you have no choice but to include all the conditions of office on the "Ideal" list or you leave me free to pick and choose, just as you have.Well, you can see why I beg to differ.

Glenn

[Prakk]

"One fairly obvious reason, i would think, is that "being above reproach" doesn't tell us anything specific. - it is an empty concept unless we are told what it entails, whereas the specifics in the list are specific examples of behaviour. I think this is fairly clear in the same way where the qualifications of a deacon are spelled out."Ok, but I don't see it that way, as I stated in the last post you're analysing this from your perspective, which, God knows, may turn out to be correct. But it may not, you are interpretting. I could counter that this means "someone everyone agrees is a nice guy" or someone who would serve well as a public spokesman. Likeable, not offensive, that sort of thing. It would be then a subjective requirement of office that says to us, pick someone who doesn't rub people the wrong way, and that would vary from venue to venue. Even a novice is a relative term, what's a Novice to you Glenn? Am I a novice? I have read the scriptures countless times, cover to cover. I have no seminary education. Does this change with the venue, the culture, the local sensibility? Is a novice an uneducated man? Is a novice at Orangewood Presbyterian Church in Castleberry FL elder material Havre MT? Is a banker above reproach in Miami and a railroader above reproach in Livingston MT? You see, Paul may have thrown in some subjective qualities.

I said "I can as easily cede your claim that it's a list of ideals and then argue from that premise as I have before, that EVERYTHING is on it. I can use this claim to subjegate women as sentient cattle", and you replied,"You can? How could you reach that conclusion from this passage?"By classing men as ideal, thus women are not, thus they are beneath me, which is different from them being asked to be subject to their husbands. I have dominion in creation over lower forms of life. What I'm doing is drawing a distinction between what is specifically required as a restriction or an obligation of conduct, and what is being presupposed as a given. The things that are not merely being presupposed but are actually being commanded become strange comments indeed if there is nothing inherently moral about them. Being sober, not violent or quarrelsome? I daresay common sense must play a role in the way we read these - why would the Apostle lay down all these restrictions on an elder's lifestlye for non moral reasons? It would seem arbitrary and legalistic to do so. I also said "The better way to analyse the scripture is to look around first at other Pauline Epistles and see what things are general ideals from Paul's point of view", to which you say,"For the sake of clarity - are you saying we can only accept any of the things on this list as moral virtues (or at least that we should only do so with any confidence) if Paul repeats them elsewhere and clearly states that this is what they are?Yup, pretty much. The have to be directly refered to as the object of the word "Ideal" or some other synonymous word or phrase. Think about it, we even have to interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" by referring outside the passage. If we had been raised in a "Skinner box", how would we know what "Adultery" meant? It's the larger context, always."Moreover, I would think Paul's discussion about marriage in Corinthians 7 clearly treats it as though monogamy were inherent to proper marriage."I'm not going to make that argument for you Glenn, you'll have to make it. I don't see that so tell me how you do."Additionally His teaching on a husband-wife union being like that of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5) clearly only works if we assume monogamy. So if you want to resist my reading of Paul's words to Timothy until we can see confirmation elsewhere in paul that this really His how he saw the ideal model of marriage,the evidence is not hard to find. Well, you can see why I beg to differ."In Jeremiah 3, God depicts himself as married to TWO women. Also, you're jumping to the conclusion that Paul depicted monogamy without us agreeing that this is what he depicts. Would it surprise you to know I see it differently? Odd how suddenly without any clear condemnation, with countless examples, with occasional compulsions to polygyny such as occur in Levirate law, the Lord then imposes through murky means a more restrictive practice on his Church after Christ. More legalistic restrictions through Liberty than throught the Law and furthermore such restrictions are expressed in ambigious manner requiring we need an educated elite priesthood class to show it to us? Even the LAW says this, about itself, Deuteronomy 30:11-14:"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."The LAW is easier than this period of GRACE? In being no longer under the law I am compelled now to obtain a scholar to understand LIBERTY which restricts me more severly than the LAW?

I've raised what I think are valid alternative explanations for this verse. Without other clear instructions to guide is, my explanation is as good as yours and thus, out of necessity, neither of us can use our explanations as proof of anything, which remains my point, we have to go elsewhere, other than Timothy or Titus, to know if monogamy is an ideal or desired over and above polygyny or if God is displeased by polygyny or even forbids it.

Hugh McBryde

[Swordman]

Divorce is immoral, yet God allowed it.
This is utterly false, for you cannot produce one reference to back such an accusation.

Most people operate today under a mistaken notion of what objective morality or Biblical absolutism is and have a poor understnading of what relativism is. The fact is that it is prohibited by Christ who calls it adultery. The rest are rabbit trails to the ultimate issue of Christian praxis - it is immoral for the Christian.
This is a gross misrepresentaion of the text and the context of what Jesus was addressing, so the rabbit trails analogy is meaningless.

Don Dean

[Prakk]

I'm reading backwards and wondering, how many of you people have read the Bible? Do you read it often? All of it? How many times? I can't believe that I'm actually conversing with people who are well versed in scripture. There are some exceptions of course.

Hugh McBryde

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Ok, but I don't see it that way, as I stated in the last post you're analysing this from your perspective, which, God knows, may turn out to be correct.Well, I have given reasons for my understanding of this text. Not just conclusions, but premises as well. I see that you just don't accept the truth of them, and so there's nothing I can do to alter this. The reasons I have offered also show that it's not right to see the trait of being a man as an ideal, but I see that you reject it too. I don't think I have been offered an argument against my reasons, but again, I don't have the power to just make a person accept an argument, so I've done all I'm willing to do.

I also don't think it's reasonable that a person should have to abstain from any conclusion about this text without being able to provide multiple corroboration from other Pauline texts, if there is a good argument for one's conclusion about the text in question, as I believe I have shown there is. Additionally, when I did point to such texts, you simply took one step away by saying that you don't accept my conclusions about those texts either, so now I had to argue for my conclusions about them as well. I suppose we could keep going that way ad infinitum, but I certainly have no intention of doing so. I'm sorry I haven't met your expectations of willngness.

With regard to your coments about the Old TEstament and God changing His mind: I believe there is a good and lengthy argument that God never desired polygamy, and has always considered it wrong in some respects, but I didn;t join the thread to make that case from the OT simply because I never intended - and still do not intend - to write a book. That's why I referred to the book by Walter Kaiser, who I believe makes the case very well. It doesn't bother me that you are not persuaded by me - just as I assume you don't mind that I am not persuaded by you.

Glenn

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm reading backwards and wondering, how many of you people have read the Bible? Do you read it often? All of it? How many times? I can't believe that I'm actually conversing with people who are well versed in scripture. There are some exceptions of course.

Hugh McBrydeThe what? The Bible? Hyuk! Yup, I picked me up one of them yesterday at Walmart. I've started on the book that starts with G, but it has a few big words, so I might take it back for a refund and buy me some fluffy dice.

[Swordman]

I put it to you very simply that all these traits are simply part and parcel of what it means for a man to be "Above reproach." This is not mysterious, cryptic or unduly complicated for Paul's audience as you suggest. In fact, this is confirmed by what follows in his instructions about deacons. We see the general statement of what kind of person he must be, followed by some examples:
If I understand your correctly, you are perpetrating a syllogistic fallacy to assume that because most of the particulars are admirable traits for all men, that all the particulars mentioned must therefore all apply to all men. What is your basis for assuming this if this is in fact your conclusion?

My point is that the summary statement is at least partly explained by the examples that follow. These traits in a deacon are examples of what it means to be "worthy of respect." Likewise with an elder. These traits are part of what it means to be "above reproach." if a person lacks these traits, he is not above reproach and may not be an elder because he would be a poor example.
I submit, then, that the text clearly shows us that being above reproach is one among the several admirable character traits listed, not just a result of the few listed since Paul's list is not exhaustive. Being the husband of one wife, however, stands out as being very much set apart from the others, for one cannot legitimately argue that a man with more than one wife is therefore no longer above reproach. To say otherwise is nothing more than circular logic that ultimately leads to a dead end.

Don Dean

[Prakk]

"Well, I have given reasons for my understanding of this text. Not just conclusions, but premises as well. I see that you just don't accept the truth of them, and so there's nothing I can do to alter this."What's amazing to me Glenn is that I can see your point, however I can see other possible meanings in the text, not just obscure meanings, but plausible ones. Admittedly one set of explanations of this verse might seem more plausible based on how you approach it, but that's just the point. Once I raise plausible explanations that don't fit your view of it, the truth is that we can't be sure. But you push bravely forward claiming that I "can't see the truth of them." I can see why, you're whole argument isn't based on this interpretation but the balancing act you'll have to engage in if you can't use this interpretation borders on circus quality. I grow weary of debating persons who see my fair treatment of their argument as a simple hole through which to run. MY TWO SUGGESTED ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS are not evasions, THEY'RE PLAUSIBLE. IF what I say about Polygyny is true, they're actually more than plausible, they're the only two left. But you're like any academic or politician in a debate. Graciousness from your debate opponent is not cause for you to realize their sincerity or open your mind however briefly to their argument, to see if it has weight, it's merely a chance to play to the crowd and make the opposition appear weak. I find it dishonest."The reasons I have offered also show that it's not right to see the trait of being a man as an ideal, but I see that you reject it too. I don't think I have been offered an argument against my reasons, but again, I don't have the power to just make a person accept an argument, so I've done all I'm willing to do."You apparently don't see that the only proof I need is to offer another plausible explanation, once this alternative is presented, we need other proof to bolster our opinions. For instance, alone, Galatians 3:28, the verse about "neither male nor female", etc. would seem to eliminate a male claim on the pulpit, until you read verse 27, and then the whole chapter, and realize it's about our being sheilded in Christ, judged in him before God in judgement and in that context none of our earthly roles pertaining to gender or race or societal position survive. It is the greater context that must inform us and your interpretation while admittedly credible is not proven, I also have at least two credible explanations for the verses that AREN'T a stretch and don't support your view. Frankly Glenn, a honest man gives up trying to prove his point solely on these verses. If your point is valid, there should be adequate proof elsewhere. As I said, it's only ideal if it's said to be ideal elsewhere, everything on that list, with the exception of being male, a novice or monogamous is said to be ideal and desireable elsewhere. The only exception would be a verse that says, I want Elders to be monogamous because everyone ought to be. There is no such definite statement."I also don't think it's reasonable that a person should have to abstain from any conclusion about this text without being able to provide multiple corroboration from other Pauline texts, if there is a good argument for one's conclusion about the text in question, as I believe I have shown there is."This is beyond rationalization and is now arrogance."Additionally, when I did point to such texts, you simply took one step away by saying that you don't accept my conclusions about those texts either, so now I had to argue for my conclusions about them as well. I suppose we could keep going that way ad infinitum, but I certainly have no intention of doing so. I'm sorry I haven't met your expectations of willngness."I think Glenn, if you approached the verse with the real expectation that it wasn't a proof of mandated monogamy, you'd see it quite differently. I honestly had no ulterior motive in approaching the verse this way, I in fact didn't approach it with any preconception. My belief in this doctrine is the direct result of trying to solve other problems in doctrine and suddenly realizing that they all got solved when I realized that Polygyny was not only allowed, it was perfectly FINE. It was one of those "SHAZZAM" experiences. I wasn't seeking to have another wife, and I wasn't seeking to justify an "adultery" on my part. In fact I was trying to reconcile Paul's statements on divorce with Christ's. It was a coincidental result of resolving them."With regard to your coments about the Old Testament and God changing His mind: I believe there is a good and lengthy argument that God never desired polygamy, and has always considered it wrong in some respects, but I didn't join the thread to make that case from the OT simply because I never intended - and still do not intend - to write a book. That's why I referred to the book by Walter Kaiser, who I believe makes the case very well. It doesn't bother me that you are not persuaded by me - just as I assume you don't mind that I am not persuaded by you."Glenn, I read the scriptures extensively and I'm not going to retreat to the errors that essentially made the reformation necessary in the first place. Martin Luther was right to study himself, was right to question the wrong interpretation of the church, I don't care what Kaiser said, I am as MEM in Psalm 119, my immersion in the word, my ever present companion, the Holy Spirit, and my willingness to hear the truth from God, whatever that is, is the foundation. The correction of bretheren who approach scripture the same way, IF THAT CORRECTION IS FROM SCRIPTURE, are all the truths I need. I need to tell you something that is IRREFUTABLE for a reformed person, something that you need to think about long and hard before replying. The ONLY ultimate purpose of books and papers on doctrine is the preservation of Bad Doctrine. I'm not against books, but think about it, it is irrefutable for a reformed person.

Hugh McBryde

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

If I understand your correctly, you are perpetrating a syllogistic fallacy to assume that because most of the particulars are admirable traits for all men, that all the particulars mentioned must therefore all apply to all men. What is your basis for assuming this if this is in fact your conclusion?It isn't a syllogistic fallacy, if by that you mean the fallacious misuse of a syllogism. In fact, since posting the comment that you have responded to, I have already explained a basis for what I claimed. being "above reproach" has no content, it is a sweeping statement, whereas the list that follows gives content tho this generalisation. I also provided other examples where this is the case. For example in the requirments for a deacon in this same chapter, Paul starts out by saying that he must be "worthy of respect," which again doe snot specifiy anything at all, and then he goes on to provide the specifics. The same pattern appears in Titus, which again, gives the "above reproach" qualification, which tells us nothing, and then we see specific examples of what is required. It is not clear to me what "fallacy" you are referring to.
I submit, then, that the text clearly shows us that being above reproach is one among the several admirable character traits listed, not just a result of the few listed since Paul's list is not exhaustive.We agree thatthe list is not exhaustive, that was never in dispute. But if Paul has already said that he must be "beyond reproach," what more could be asked? Should he be BETTER than "beyond reproach"? Is there such a thing? Surely the more natural reading is the one I have suggested, that the general sweeping statement that he must be beyond reproach is fleshed out with some examples of what that means, just as I might say "My son is a good boy - he never lies, swears or fights." "Good" tells us very little, but the examples flesh out (although not exhaustively) what I mean.
Being the husband of one wife, however, stands out as being very much set apart from the others, for one cannot legitimately argue that a man with more than one wife is therefore no longer above reproach. To say otherwise is nothing more than circular logic that ultimately leads to a dead end.On the contrary, to assume, as you have here, that ins spite of what we see before us, it couldn't possibly mean that a man with more than one wife is not above reproach since this is not "legitimate", would be to argue in a circular manner. So it is you, and not me, who is employing circular reasoning.

Glenn

[Richbee]

Sorry, I am late to the debate, but don't berate me!

I will open with all my guns firing my scripture quotes - First!!!

The first case of polygamy recorded in the Scriptures had to do with a descendant of the infamous Cain, Lamech, who “took unto him two wives” (Gen. 4:19). The manner in which the practice is introduced into the Bible, (in obvious contrast to 2:24) and this reveals that it did this did not represent the ideal "family".

Later in Old Testament history, polygamy was practiced to some extent; both David and Solomon, for example, were polygamists. Again, this is not viewed as ideal, and the troubles these two endure through life bear witness.

Yet, this IS tolerated under the Mosaic regime. And, YET this is *NOT* the divine ideal, and it never brought genuine happiness to those who indulged. In most cases, polygamy accelerated even greater levels of unacceptable conduct. (See 1 Kings 11:1-3)

In direct contrast, Jesus taught that the divine pattern is that “the two [not three, four, etc.] shall become one flesh” (Mt. 19:5). Polygamy mars the “one flesh” ideal.

The monogamous family is God’s authorized plan for marriage until the end of time. The New Testament takes for granted the relationship of one man for one woman in the marriage arrangement (See 1 Cor. 7:2; 9:5; Eph. 5:23).

[Swordman]

On the contrary, to assume, as you have here, that ins spite of what we see before us, it couldn't possibly mean that a man with more than one wife is not above reproach since this is not "legitimate", would be to argue in a circular manner. So it is you, and not me, who is employing circular reasoning.
This makes no sense. For clarification, are you saying that a man with more than one wife is in violation of one or more of the qualities in the two lists? If so, then how is it a violation. This should help to do away with the false claim that I am engaging circular logic. If you feel that it is a violation of any or all of the particulars, then how is it a violation?

Don Dean

[Swordman]

The first case of polygamy recorded in the Scriptures had to do with a descendant of the infamous Cain, Lamech, who “took unto him two wives” (Gen. 4:19). The manner in which the practice is introduced into the Bible, (in obvious contrast to 2:24) and this reveals that it did this did not represent the ideal "family".
This makes no sense. It ignores the fact that the very first man to exist (Adam), brought sin, suffering and death into this world, and he had only one wife. We have no record that he ever repented of what he did, so what of him. If we are going to guage the marriages of Cain and Lamech as beingless than ideal simply on the basis of their actions, then you cannot ignore the logical conclusion of such logic, for it leads you to the inevitable conclusion that monogamy is even less ideal than polygyny since Adam was the first and most decisive perpetrator of that from which we all suffer. Cain and Lamech have not done anything, to my knowledge, that has negatively affected our lives, but Adam did. So, we are left with the revelation that your criteria for judging the ideal verses the not-so-ideal is fundamentally flawed.

Later in Old Testament history, polygamy was practiced to some extent; both David and Solomon, for example, were polygamists.
Yes, and the Lord said nothing to any of the patriarchs who had more than one wife. As a matter of fact, God gave to David at least two of his already plural wives.

Again, this is not viewed as ideal, and the troubles these two endure through life bear witness.
This ignores the evidence to the contrary. David's trouble was the result of his adultery and murder, not because he had more than one wife. Solomon's troulbe was his allowing some of his wives to draw him away from the Lord. Therefore, if it were not ideal for a man to have more than one wife, then you are accusing the Lord Himself of perpetrating that which is against His ideal when He gave to David plural wives. Sorry, but the Lord's actions and words betray the fact that, for some men, to have more than one wife is ideal in the Lord's eyes, if not in yours and others who agree with you.

Yet, this IS tolerated under the Mosaic regime. And, YET this is *NOT* the divine ideal, and it never brought genuine happiness to those who indulged. In most cases, polygamy accelerated even greater levels of unacceptable conduct. (See 1 Kings 11:1-3)
This is an argument from silence. If the heart of mankind is desperately wicked, then to place the blame for the woes within the lives of the patriarchs upon polygyny is pure nonsense. Please provide example of your claim, if you can find them.

In direct contrast, Jesus taught that the divine pattern is that “the two [not three, four, etc.] shall become one flesh” (Mt. 19:5). Polygamy mars the “one flesh” ideal.
Again, you are standing as an accuser against the Lord of Glory since we can clearly observe Him identifying Himself as a polygynist and for His giving a plurality of wives to David.

The monogamous family is God’s authorized plan for marriage until the end of time.
This sounds very profound and all, but it collapses under its own weight, never mind the weight of evidence to the contrary.

The New Testament takes for granted the relationship of one man for one woman in the marriage arrangement (See 1 Cor. 7:2; 9:5; Eph. 5:23).
So, the fact that the majority of mankind has been/is monogamous because of the almost perfect balance in the ratio of men to women (except in situations of war), that this somehow indicates monogamy to be the ideal? That is hardly a legitimate basis for comparison and conclusion.

Don Dean

[Prakk]

I suggest Richbee & Theonomy go to this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42210 And read the first post.

[Richbee]

This makes no sense. It ignores the fact that the very first man to exist (Adam), brought sin, suffering and death into this world, and he had only one wife. We have no record that he ever repented of what he did, so what of him. If we are going to guage the marriages of Cain and Lamech as beingless than ideal simply on the basis of their actions, then you cannot ignore the logical conclusion of such logic, for it leads you to the inevitable conclusion that monogamy is even less ideal than polygyny since Adam was the first and most decisive perpetrator of that from which we all suffer. Cain and Lamech have not done anything, to my knowledge, that has negatively affected our lives, but Adam did. So, we are left with the revelation that your criteria for judging the ideal verses the not-so-ideal is fundamentally flawed.

You can't ignore history!

And, most of all the progressive revelation in the Bible! There were a great many things permitted in the OT that we don't tolerate today.

IMO, from the OT to the NT, there is a progressive Revelation to God's people, and by the time of Jesus, no Jew practiced Polygamy and no one esteemed this as "good".

See the account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultry, or the weeding feast, and Parable of the Bride and Groom. (Note: Not the Groom and Brides.)

Polygamy abuses women, and is against the Law in America and that includes Utah. (period)

[Richbee]

I suggest Richbee & Theonomy go to this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42210 And read the first post.

Thanks, I glanced at your post, but truly, as a single man, just one wife will be enough and cause for THANKSGIVING!

Forgive me, if I don't want to wade in too deep on this issue.

Rather moot!

Now, what about Muslims who come to this country? I know a number of folks at the Saudi Embassy, what if they bring multiple wives? Are they Married?

BTW, even in Islam, one wife is best!

[Prakk]

"BTW, even in Islam, one wife is best!"Wow, that's enough to scare me into getting a second wife.

[Prakk]

"You can't ignore history!"Yeah you can, YOU'RE doing it."And, most of all the progressive revelation in the Bible! There were a great many things permitted in the OT that we don't tolerate today."The "progressive" revelation of scripture never erases prior revelation, it builds on it. Start naming the things "permitted" in the OT that we don't tolerate today. And then tell me what scriptural basis there is for your claims.'IMO, from the OT to the NT, there is a progressive Revelation to God's people, and by the time of Jesus, no Jew practiced Polygamy and no one esteemed this as "good".'Really, what proof do you have that by Jesus time "no man practiced polygamy"? Besides it would be called Polygyny."Polygamy abuses women, and is against the Law in America and that includes Utah. (period)"It does abuse women? Monogamy never does? This is like the gun control argument. Forms of marriage don't abuse women, men do.

Hugh McBryde

[porter]

Really, what proof do you have that by Jesus time "no man practiced polygamy"? Besides it would be called Polygyny.

The best example would be Herod the Great.
He would likely have had more than one wife if it were legal.
I don't remember my history very well, but I think he did have more than one wife.

Porter

[Prakk]

Assuming for a moment that this is an accurate study, it raises the possibility that the "above reproach" provision of Paul's monogamy mandate for elders was for the purpose of having them accepted by the culture around them.

245. Jewish Polygamy in the Roman Empire

by Stanislaw Królewiec





It is a matter of some interest to Christian polygamists to learn as much as we can about the historical practice of polygamy both within Judaism and the successor Christian faith. For centuries following the Babylonian Captivity and evential return to Judea the Judahites (Jews) found themselves in a sea of monogamy-only and homosexuality-accepting Hellenism (Greek culture). Jewish colonies were to be found throughout the Greek world and, following the fall of the Ptolemaic Empires, the Roman world.



Jews in the Roman Empire soon found themselves occupying one of two possible statuses:

1. Resident Aliens;
2. Citizens.
and depending which status you had, this would determine whether you were allowed to marry polygamously or not. Scholar W.D.Davis, expert on the status of Jews in the Hellenic world (the eastern part of the Roman Empire for the most part), lists the difference between resident aliens and citizens:


Jewish Resident Aliens
a. Could marry according to Jewish Law;
b. Could practice polygamy;
c. Could follow Jewish laws of succession;
d. Could be tried by the Roman governor;
e. Could be flogged, expelled, or imprisoned;
f. Did not have the right to the highest offices in the State; and
g. Usually dressed like Romans.

Jewish Citizens
a. Could marry according to Jewish Law but only because this was not in conflict with Roman Law;
b. Could not practice polygamy;
c. Could only follow Roman laws of succession;
d. Could also appeal to the Emperor [as Paul did];
e. Were free from flogging, expulsion and imprisonment;
f. Had the right to the highest offices (e.g. there were Jewish senators); and
g. Had to dress as Roman citizens.

(Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Van Nostrand Reinhold, Wokingham, UK: 1982, p.688)
The temptation to abandon polygamy in order to gain the maximum benefits of Roman citzenship must have been great. We can be absolutely sure, then, that Jewish Roman citizens like the apostle Paul and the historian Josephus were not polygamists. For Paul, his citizenship almost certainly saved his skin more than once (Ac.21:39; 22:28).

It is not difficult to see how polygamy as an institution went into decline (except amongst the wealthy nobles) when avoidance of corporal punishment and rich political pickings were available, making an obvious temptation to the ambitious and upwardly mobile Jew. When Yahweh's people have found themselves in a foreign culture, compromise with that culture is typical rather than exceptional owing to the weakness of the carnal man.

Making polygamy work in cultures that are implaccably hostile to it, as is the case in the West today, is therefore understandably difficult even if concommitant moral laxity makes it less difficult to live watered-down versions of it biblically-speaking.

http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM245-JewishRoman.html

Interesting stuff.

Hugh McBryde

[Prakk]

Something else interesting that I found.

"(I)f polygamy was not forbidden it was not directly sanctioned. It was a heritage from the past and it was left undisturbed. As the civilization of the people reached a higher form and, especially under the teaching of the prophets, their moral and religious consciousness developed, the polygamous system gradually declined. This is noticeable in Israel after the return from the Exile. In the Second Commonwealth polygamy is far from general (cf. Tobit and Susanna). Yet it survived far into the Christian era. In the New Testament Jesus neither condemns polygamous unions nor advocates a change in the system. From this noninterference attitude Luther, as late as the 16th cent., arrived at the conclusion that he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife."-By Charles A. Rubensteinhttp://www.polygamy.com/Jewish/Polygamy-in-Jewish-History.htm

I don't agree with the tone of the article, but it's interesting that Mr. Rubenstein places polygyny in Christ's time, and well beyond it.

Hugh McBryde

[Swordman]

You can't ignore history!
What history? You will have to be more specific than this.

And, most of all the progressive revelation in the Bible! There were a great many things permitted in the OT that we don't tolerate today.
The key to what you just said is "we". The word of God and the morality defined therein is not governed by what anyone on this earth "tolerates". You have a strange understanding of biblical appologetics. You appeal to purely subjective criteria.

IMO, from the OT to the NT, there is a progressive Revelation to God's people, and by the time of Jesus, no Jew practiced Polygamy and no one esteemed this as "good".
Progressive revelation is a subjective appeal to silence when you make no specific reference to particular passages.

See the account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultry, or the weeding feast, and Parable of the Bride and Groom. (Note: Not the Groom and Brides.)
Your system reasoning presented here is riddled with holes. Your continued reliance upon purely subjective interpretation is less than admirable. If you have a case to present, then please provide references from the scriptures, and then discuss why you think those verses provide support for your viewpoint. Apart from that, you are simply spitting into the wind.

Don Dean

Polygamy abuses women, and is against the Law in America and that includes Utah. (period)[/QUOTE]

[Prakk]

This is probably why I keep hearing the Divorce/Polygyny tie in. At least it's one of the reasons I keep hearing it. I've always wondered why. Prof. John Murray from Principles of Conduct, Eerdmans, p 14"Is there not diversity in the Bible and diversity of a kind that embraces antithetical elements? Are there not in the Bible canons of conduct that are contrary to one another? To be specific: Is there not an antithesis between the canons of conduct sanctioned and approved of God in the Old Testament and those sanctioned and approved of God in the New in respect of certain central features of human behavior? It is a patent fact that the behavior of the most illustrious of Old Testament believers was characterized by practices which are clearly contradictory of the elementary demands of the New Testament ethic, Monogamy is surely a principle of the Christian ethic. Old Testament saints practiced polygamy. In like manner, under the Old Testament, divorce was practiced on grounds which could not be tolerated in terms of the explicit provisions of the New Testament revelation. And polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation in terms of the canons of behavior which were recognized as regulative [JGR: But not ‘sanctioned and approved by God’?] in the Old Testament period."My greatest worry about books on doctrine, and the reason I haven't written one myself (apart from my natural rebellion and laziness) is that their ultimate function is merely to preserve bad doctrine.

Hugh McBryde

[GrayPilgrim]

This is false. You have no evidence of this.





Are you saying that these things did not happen within monogamous marriages. Who are you trying to fool? At least next time be a little less obvious about your dishonest bias. The first man, who is almost always upheld as the archetype for all men to limit themselves to only one wife, plunged the world into great sin and suffering, which brought death to an otherwise perfect world.



Before getting into the evidence let us look at a little principle in hermeneutics of narrative passages. The clues to the author’s position in a text are found in the context. Stating something happened doesn’t make it laudable or condemnable it is how the author shades it that lets the reader know what the author intends the reader to understand of the situation. And the clues when it comes to those men who took multiple wives, it is never a flattering perspective on that act, whether there were other laudable things are not. For instance Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Now that is laudable but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a snake in the grass:



Lamech--he takes two wives and after kills a man he hides between their skirts.

Abraham--he takes multiple wives and Sara sends Hagar away based upon her jealousy.

Jacob--he takes two wives and their maids (four total)--they are always fighting over him. The sons of the other three conspire against Joseph.

[Skip a few for time sake]

Deut 17:17 multiple wives will lead your heart astray

David--Marries a passel of 'em. Tamar is raped by half brother Amnon. So here full brother kills Amnon. This leads to a civil war and attempted patricide. The Hebrew verbiage of the Bathsheba incident is telling that David is taking another wife showing how discontent he was even after all the goodness God has shown him.

Solomon--1000 in all, and this is the reason given in 1 Kings for Solomon's apostasy.



I could go into more detail, but I have to write a paper tonight and this is just craziness on your part. Please show me one incidence where a person is PRAISED for having multiple wives, I don't mean an incidence where it is reported, that is just setting the stage, I would like to see where God actually praises it.

[Swordman]

Before getting into the evidence let us look at a little principle in hermeneutics of narrative passages. The clues to the author’s position in a text are found in the context. Stating something happened doesn’t make it laudable or condemnable it is how the author shades it that lets the reader know what the author intends the reader to understand of the situation. And the clues when it comes to those men who took multiple wives, it is never a flattering perspective on that act, whether there were other laudable things are not. For instance Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. There are other equally valid rules of which you failed to mention. However, for the sake of space, I will agree on a very, basic and simplistic level.

Now that is laudable but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a snake in the grass:

Lamech--he takes two wives and after kills a man he hides between their skirts.
This, of course, ignores the fact that the first monogamist (Adam) brought sin, suffering and death into this otherwise perfect world. The logical outplay of your reasoning, along this line, therefore, must judge monogamy to be equally unacceptable. I am sure we can both agree that this simply will not serve either of our purposes, therefore it would be best to stay clear of this kind subjective reasoning.

Abraham--he takes multiple wives and Sara sends Hagar away based upon her jealousy. It must be pointed out that there exists the possibility that there were other wives (concubines) already in existence at the time Hagar was given to Abraham as his wife. If this is in fact true, and there is no mention of problems associated with them in the family, then the use of this example is rendered to be far less than credible.

Jacob--he takes two wives and their maids (four total)--they are always fighting over him. The sons of the other three conspire against Joseph. Jacob's situation serves to show us the problems that can exist when marrying two sisters, which was later disallowed in God's written Law. It does not shed a negative light upon polygyny itself. Human, sinful, fallen nature can and does cause problems no matter where we may look.

David--Marries a passel of 'em.
Ok. What, may I ask, is your point?

Tamar is raped by half brother Amnon. So here full brother kills Amnon. This leads to a civil war and attempted patricide.
Are you saying that this is not at all found within monogamist relationships?

The Hebrew verbiage of the Bathsheba incident is telling that David is taking another wife showing how discontent he was even after all the goodness God has shown him. Is it your contention, therefore, that marital/sexual discontentment is peculiar only to polygyny?

Solomon--1000 in all, and this is the reason given in 1 Kings for Solomon's apostasy. I disagree. Where does scripture lay the blame upon the doorstep of polygyny for Solomon knowingly allowing his heart to be turned away from the Lord into idolotry? Who can say that just one pagan wife cannot accomplish the same ends within a monogamous marriage?

I could go into more detail, but I have to write a paper tonight and this is just craziness on your part.
I wish you had gone further into this, because the points you have brought up were eaily dispatched.

Please show me one incidence where a person is PRAISED for having multiple wives, I don't mean an incidence where it is reported, that is just setting the stage, I would like to see where God actually praises it. Why would you think that the Lord's praise of something is the only means by which He demonstrates His acceptance? I can show you where the Lord portrayed Himself as a polygynist, commanded the taking of a second wife in certain circumstances, made governing provision for it in His Law, and where He also gave a plurality of wives.

Don Dean

[Xavier]

Moved from Biblical Languages

[Swordman]

Well, I have given reasons for my understanding of this text. Not just conclusions, but premises as well. I see that you just don't accept the truth of them, and so there's nothing I can do to alter this. It would be blind acceptance, on our part anyway, to accept what you consider to be "the truth" of what you have said in this regard.

I also don't think it's reasonable that a person should have to abstain from any conclusion about this text without being able to provide multiple corroboration from other Pauline texts, if there is a good argument for one's conclusion about the text in question, as I believe I have shown there is. Not from what I have seen. I presented to you that the one issue, being polygyny, that stands out from the actual character traits listed, as being something other than a character trait, you flat out rejected with the same knee jerk reactionism of which you accused Prakk. Rather than whine about other's non-acceptance of your lack of coherent logic and reason, why not just make a good presentation, and give due consideration to other's input? I tried to discuss with you what I considered to be a fallacy for you to include having only one wife as a character trait, and you dismissed it without any in-depth explanation as to how you consider monogamy to be a character trait without applying emotional appeal as the sole basis of your argument. Your desparity with the lack of blind acceptance from us is less than impressive.

Don Dean

[Prakk]

GrayPilgrim, which translation are you using? Supposedly, this is a quote of the Bible;Deuteronomy 17:17;"multiple wives will lead your heart astray"I've done a Google & Yahoo search of this exact phrase, the result return is EMPTY. I checked the website www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/) and no version they reference, (and they reference TWELVE) uses this phrasing, there is not even one that uses the word "astray."

The lowest form of scriptural interpretation is "word wrangling." In this form a person descends to arguing the meaning of a particular word, in a translation, or in the original language to try to prove a point. Knowing all the possible meanings of a word in translation is useful, but any who know rudimentary principles of translation know that context pares away the available meanings of a word that can be used. My favorite example of this principle is the english word "cleave" which can mean to adhere to, or to divide by cutting. They're near polar opposites. This my understanding of the Apostle Paul's references to "rightly dividing" and the avoidance of what is known as "word wrangling" in his letters. He means, don't get bogged down in narrow word studies or phrase studies. They won't take you anywhere. One word is nothing, words together mean something. To finite human beings, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING when it comes to language. It's even how you learned your first langage, when you were a baby.

THIS is the expanded context of the apparent PARAPHRASE of a partial verse by GrayPilgrim. Deuteronomy 17:16 & 17;"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."The context is clear. The passage says "a lot", which GrayPilgrim is trying to say is "two or more." Unless David NEVER had a chariot, or NEVER rode in one, we're being asked to believe he had only one horse, and that to have more would be a sin. I'm not believing it, it seems that David took chariots from Hadadezer, and I'm not guessing that they were of the "one horse" variety. Contextually we must concede the same phrase that restricts the king on horses means numericly something similar to the phrase about his wives. This is also what Samuel says about Kings and Chariots. Even figuring ONE HORSE per chariot, this is still more than one. 1st Samuel 8:10 & 11;"And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots."If you're saying that a King could only have one horse and one chariot, you're free to think so, but your support is only in your own mind, not in scripture. Furthermore, these passages regardless of how you interpret them, are about a King. I'm not a King."Lamech--he takes two wives and after kills a man he hides between their skirts."You MUST have a different version of the Bible than all us of use, I don't see it, where is it said that Lamech "hid between their skirts?" All we know about Lamech is that he was in Cain's line, and he had two wives and he war REALLY torqued at somebody. He seems to have been a bit of a hothead. Lamech probably wore clothes, and had kids too, I suppose we should go around naked and childless and monogamous because we don't want to be Lamech, or maybe we should have three or MORE wives, not two. Maybe TWO is the bad number, no, wait, Jehoiada gave Joash two wives."Abraham--he takes multiple wives and Sara sends Hagar away based upon her jealousy.Sigh, Abraham's only problem, according to God, was using Hagar to get an heir when he had promised the heir through Sarah, directly. This claim is a clear evidence of one or all of three things, LACK of KNOWLEDGE of the scriptures, A willingness to LIE about them and not reading the thread. This has been dealt with, as this has;"Jacob--he takes two wives and their maids (four total)--they are always fighting over him. The sons of the other three conspire against Joseph."It only takes two sons to conspire. Right off the bat, the son of the monogamous Adam and Eve, Cain, murders his brother. Esau wanted to, and apparently would have killed his twin, and they were the sons of Monogamous Isaac and Rebecca. This is anecdotal stuff and means nothing other than mankind is SINFUL. Besides, most of the familes about which we have detailed information were POLYGYNOUS. We have very few intimate details about families in scriptures that we can prove were monogamous."David--Marries a passel of 'em. Tamar is raped by half brother Amnon. So here full brother kills Amnon. This leads to a civil war and attempted patricide. The Hebrew verbiage of the Bathsheba incident is telling that David is taking another wife showing how discontent he was even after all the goodness God has shown him."And the beat of deceptive and wrong interpretation GOES ON. Scripture itself says that Bathsheba was wrong to take, not additional wives, BATHSHEBA. Scripture lays at the feet of David's adultery and murder, by prophecy, the impending trouble in his house. I would agree that wives numbering in the hundreds is wrong though."Solomon--1000 in all, and this is the reason given in 1 Kings for Solomon's apostasy."Also an outright lie about scripture, or at least a clear demonstration that YOU GrayPilgrim, are a novice, with no business in the arena of correction and instruction about the word. 1st Kings 11:1-5;"But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites."The wives that turned his heart away were not his domestic wives, but those of foreign marriage alliance, who brought with them, their own Gods. Hebrew wives did not bring to Solomon his strange Gods, it is THIS that Solomon is said to do wrong in, the taking of foreign wives. This is aid to be the inevitable result of taking foreign wives. Exodus 34:14-16;"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."Such results as Solomon got are FORETOLD as the result of breaking the commandment I just quoted."I could go into more detail, but I have to write a paper tonight and this is just craziness on your part. Please show me one incidence where a person is PRAISED for having multiple wives, I don't mean an incidence where it is reported, that is just setting the stage, I would like to see where God actually praises it."I'd hold the presses on that paper, you need a LOT more study. And your proof? Jacob is indirectly praised by the praise of Leah and Rachel, in Ruth. Ruth 4:11;"And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem."How can you be praised, and urged to be like the two wives, if you're not in a Polygyny?

Hugh McBryde

[Swordman]

GrayPilgrim, are you ever going to answer the question as to what version of the Bible you got this from?

"Deut 17:17 multiple wives will lead your heart astray"

It appears that this is your own transliteration rather than a translation of what is actually written within the Hebrew. (T.R.)

What license do you have to twist the biblical wording around to match your agenda?

Don Dean

[Prakk]

I also call for an answer to this question. Since I called for it in the first place. Maybe you thought it would go away if you said nothing Gray?GrayPilgrim, are you ever going to answer the question as to what version of the Bible you got this from?

"Deut 17:17 multiple wives will lead your heart astray"

It appears that this is your own transliteration rather than a translation of what is actually written within the Hebrew. (T.R.)

What license do you have to twist the biblical wording around to match your agenda?

Don DeanMisquoting is a serious error. Deliberately misquoting scripture is a matter that should be brought to the attention of the elders of the Church where you commune. Which is it? An error of a novice who parades around as knowing more than he does or a deliberate attempt to change the word of God? This presupposes as I do, that you have no version to cite for this unusual rendering of the Hebrew.

Hugh McBryde

[Amazing Rando]

GP is an expert in Hebrew, and he's completing his graduate level studies (PhD?) in biblical studies using the original Hebrew. He's the expert here, not you guys, and he's busy. Graduate studies will do that to you. :poke: He was likely just paraphrasing anyhow.

But just for reference, the context of Deut 17:17 is 14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.


Verse 17:17 is a clear commandment against the king taking multiple wives. The stated consequence of this practice is "his heart will be led astray." Yet this is precisely what Solomon did. He took many wives, and wouldn't you know it, his heart was led astray.

[Prakk]

'Verse 17:17 is a clear commandment against the king taking multiple wives. The stated consequence of this practice is "his heart will be led astray." Yet this is precisely what Solomon did. He took many wives, and wouldn't you know it, his heart was led astray.'Many ( A large indefinite number) and Multiple (Having, relating to, or consisting of more than one individual, element, part, or other component) are not synonyms, and as has been discussed before, it is not the many wives of Solomon that led him astray, but his specfic disobediance by entering into foreign marriage alliances. Sheesh, you print it yourself and you get it wrong. Gray DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY MISQUOTED. That's wrong.

Hugh McBryde

[shunyadragon]

Many ( A large indefinite number) and Multiple (Having, relating to, or consisting of more than one individual, element, part, or other component) are not synonyms, and as has been discussed before, it is not the many wives of Solomon that led him astray, but his specfic disobediance by entering into foreign marriage alliances. Sheesh, you print it yourself and you get it wrong. Gray DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY MISQUOTED. That's wrong.

Hugh McBryde
It looks like Amazing Rando is joining the Gray Pilgrim using the slight of hand to manipulate the text to justify his own worldview. A doctorate with honors will not help those who are anchored in their presuppositions to justify the text for their own purposes.

By the way, archeology tells us that two horse chariots were very common. In fact with time, more common and desirable in warfare then one horse chariots.

[Prakk]

I agree with this completely;"It looks like Amazing Rando is joining the Gray Pilgrim using the slight of hand to manipulate the text to justify his own worldview. A doctorate with honors will not help those who are anchored in their presuppositions to justify the text for their own purposes."Let's call slight of hand what it is in this instance, IT IS A LIE. A serious LIE about the word of God. What could be more serious other than denial of God himself? If it's a mistake, we need to know immediately.

Hugh McBryde

[Swordman]

GP is an expert in Hebrew, and he's completing his graduate level studies (PhD?) in biblical studies using the original Hebrew. He's the expert here, not you guys, and he's busy. Graduate studies will do that to you. :poke: He was likely just paraphrasing anyhow.
Is that right? Well, although my doctorates are not in the field of languages, I know those whose expertise is in that field, and they have confirmed to me that Gray is clearly in a world of his own making, so this little shennanigan will not pass without challenge. His misquoting of Deut. 17:17 is suspicious to the point of dishonesty. I suspect that he knows that he perpetrated a horrid lie because he has been completely silent in the face of challenges to this little ploy with that verse. He may have even had a good laugh about it, but it serves only to cast a shadow upon his personal integrity.

Verse 17:17 is a clear commandment against the king taking multiple wives. The stated consequence of this practice is "his heart will be led astray." Yet this is precisely what Solomon did. He took many wives, and wouldn't you know it, his heart was led astray.
You are in error. The injunction is against "multiplying" wives, not simply having more than one. It is no more wrong for a king to have two wives than it is for him to have two horses.

Don

[GrayPilgrim]

As was said I am a PhD student and busy. I had a death in the family, and I was out of town so I never saw your stinkin' accusations of lieing, for which I demand an Apology you guys are ridiculous!

I did not use a version so that would indicate your vain search for what translation I used. It was his my translation from the Hebrew of Ab=b'l. rWsßy" al{ïw. It literally says and "his heart will be turned aside." The grammatical logic runs like this:

do not increase for himself many wives.
In order that his heart not be lead astray
This is consistent with and in keeping with the grammatical explanation of this verse in GKC § 109g.

Rem. In 2 Ch 35:21 a negative final clause with -la;w> is dependent on an imperative, forbear from (meddling with) God … that he destroy thee not. As a rule, however, negative final clauses are attached to the principal sentence by means of aolw> and a following imperfect; so after an imperative, Gn 42:2, 1 K 14:2, 18:44; after a jusaive, Ex 30:20, Neh 6:9; after a perfect consec., Ex 28:35, 43, 30:12, Nu 18:5; after aol with an imperfect, Lv 10:6, Nu 18:9, Dt 17:17 neither shall he multiply wives unto himself ( Abb'l. rWsy" aolw> ) that his heart turn not away; 1 S 20:14, 2 S 21:17, Jer 11:21; after -la; with jussive, Lv 10:9, 11:43, 16:2, 2 S 13:25, Jer 25:6, 37:20, 38:24 f.; after the asseverative ~ai with the impft., Gn 14:23; even after a simple imperfect, Jer 10:4 with nails … they fasten it ( qypiy" aolw> ) that it move not; after a participle, Jb 9:7.



So you may argue that it is the whole lsit, the problem is that the grammatical construction of a yaqom followed by a yiqtol indicates that the second clause is in reference to the previous clause and not the injunctions against chariots, or for that matter after the acquisition of a lot of gold and silver which follows. In fact if it was the list as a whole that it referred to then it would have been place at the end of the list not at in the middle right after this particular injunction against multiple wives.

"Lest they turn his heart aside" is not only a proper interpretation of the passage, but the interpretation, which the grammar necessitates. So while you may not like it, while it may be inconvenient for your interpretation of Scripture, it is not a lie, misleading, or hypocrisy. As for the second accusation of my being a hypocrite, I would have to have multiple wives, which I do not. So based on these grammatical arguemnts I demand that you apologize on both grounds of calling me a liar and calling me a hypocrite. These are beseless accusations.

GP