Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:This is a joke, isn't it ?
It specifies wives, it doesn't specify husbands.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Malachi does not specify monogamy, but the idea of being "made one" implies it. And what he is saying about divorce is quite different than what Moses said.
Malachi 2:14 The LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the LORD of hosts.
quote:This radically changes Moses' teaching about divorce. Does it imply that it is wrong to add a wife without divorce? Jesus takes up the topic again in Matthew 19:
Matthew 5.31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
quote:There are two things here:
Matthew 19.3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
quote:None of these examples are exactly definitive. Still, there hasn't been as much controversy on this point as you might expect. I think that people intuitively grasp that polygamy doesn't work that well when you really think about it - despite the obvious appeal for many men.
Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.
Revelation 21.9 “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I'm not sure that levirate marriages were considered polygamy. The idea was for a man to impregnate his brother's widow so that his family line could be carried on. It was the duty of a surviving brother--not something that he simply wanted to do.
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that Jesus at least tacitly acknowledged the legitimacy of levirate marriages in his response to the Sadducees (e.g., Mark 12:18-27). I will readily grant that polygamy is no longer appropriate, but it is far from clear that it was dismissed by Christ.
quote:I can't believe that you are suggesting that any marriage based on a sense of duty isn't a marriage. Is this really your point?
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm not sure that levirate marriages were considered polygamy. The idea was for a man to impregnate his brother's widow so that his family line could be carried on. It was the duty of a surviving brother--not something that he simply wanted to do.
quote:It didn't seem to suggest that to the old testament patriarchs...
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
quote:To be fair, the OT Patriarchs didn't have Genesis 2.
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:It didn't seem to suggest that to the old testament patriarchs...
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
quote:Very true. I think, however, that the Bible is reasonably definite in praising sexual exclusivity and criticizing alternatives.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think marriage is a good case of our reading the way we do things back into the Bible. There's probably nothing like modern marriage in the Bible, if for no other reason than that gender was constructed differently in biblical cultures (which differed from each other as well). Social roles, status, and economics always factor into marriages in any culture.
quote:That's how I see it.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Actually, I think the question is whether or not the levirate marriage is your marriage, or a continuation by proxy of your brother's marriage.
quote:Though I would suggest that it did suggest itself to the recorders of the Patriarchal narratives. As HenryTroup pointed out in the OP - polygamy never seems to produce a happy home.
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:It didn't seem to suggest that to the old testament patriarchs...
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
quote:
“Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
quote:Clear if you don't read them perhaps.
Originally posted by noelper:
The basis for monogamy lies in the Ten Commandments , which advocate fidelity only to One Person and honouring of one's father and mother, whilst explicitly prohibiting adultery and forbidding the coveting of a neighbour's wife.
It seems very clear to me.
quote:Does your reading infer that women are not forbidden from coveting other women's husbands ?
They prohibit sex with another person's husband or wife, and forbid men to covet other men's wives.
quote:I refer to fidelity to the One God, Who makes relationship with individuals in the community of His people, which is likened to marriage.
How you get "fidelity only to One Person" from that baffles me, once again.
quote:It specifies wives, it doesn't specify husbands.
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:Does your reading infer that women are not forbidden from coveting other women's husbands ?
They prohibit sex with another person's husband or wife, and forbid men to covet other men's wives.
quote:So how exactly does worshipping one God make it "very clear" that a man should only have one wife?
I refer to fidelity to the One God, Who makes relationship with individuals in the community of His people, which is likened to marriage.
quote:This is a joke, isn't it ?
It specifies wives, it doesn't specify husbands.
quote:Are you seriously suggesting that the covenant/marriage relationship refers to a one-sided fidelity, and that on the part of women only ?
So how exactly does worshipping one God make it "very clear" that a man should only have one wife?
quote:However, adultery (for a man) is sex with a woman who is not [one of] your wives. (For me, the set is of cardinality one.)
Originally posted by noelper:
[QB] ...whilst explicitly prohibiting adultery and forbidding the coveting of a neighbour's wife.
...
quote:Good guess, but no, this is called logic.
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:This is a joke, isn't it ?
It specifies wives, it doesn't specify husbands.
quote:What the hell are you talking about? How is that supposed to be an answer to my question?
quote:Are you seriously suggesting that the covenant/marriage relationship refers to a one-sided fidelity, and that on the part of women only ?
So how exactly does worshipping one God make it "very clear" that a man should only have one wife?
quote:Proabably.
I hate to be post-modern here, but you're reading it through the eyes of someone raised in a monogamous culture, so you see the two as requiring monogamy.
quote:Being a cynic, when I see, "the wife of your youth," the first thing I think of is "How many other wives ya got?" Sort of like when I used to jokingly call my spouse "my first husband." There can be "rank" among women in a polygamous situation. The wife of your youth may be the mother of your first-born son, giving her a higher status in the household than the other wives, and entitling her to some additional consideration from you, her husband, to whom she has given an heir. (Obviously I mean the generic you!)
Originally posted by Freddy:
...
In the Old Testament, Malachi comes out forcefully against divorce:
quote:Malachi does not specify monogamy, but the idea of being "made one" implies it. And what he is saying about divorce is quite different than what Moses said. ...
Malachi 2:14 The LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. ...
quote:If it was thought that women's sexual desires were non-existent, or far weaker than men's desires, there might not have been a lot of female coveting going on, so it might not have been felt necessary to specify it explicitly. And depending on the organization of the society and the restrictions on women's activities, married women may not have often come into contact with the husbands of other women (except members of the extended family, and who covets a brother-in-law?).
Originally posted by noelper:
Does your reading infer that women are not forbidden from coveting other women's husbands ?
quote:Not so in the OT IMHO. There is no criticism (e.g.) of Jacob for having more than one wife, nor of Elkanah. There is perh. implied criticism of Jacob's favouritism.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Very true. I think, however, that the Bible is reasonably definite in praising sexual exclusivity and criticizing alternatives.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think marriage is a good case of our reading the way we do things back into the Bible. There's probably nothing like modern marriage in the Bible, if for no other reason than that gender was constructed differently in biblical cultures (which differed from each other as well). Social roles, status, and economics always factor into marriages in any culture.
quote:In the OT adultery is sex with a woman who is someone else's wife. Sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed woman by a married man is not adultery.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:However, adultery (for a man) is sex with a woman who is not [one of] your wives. (For me, the set is of cardinality one.)
Originally posted by noelper:
[QB] ...whilst explicitly prohibiting adultery and forbidding the coveting of a neighbour's wife.
...
quote:Given the excessive divorce rate in our culture, it appears that monogamy doesn't make for a happy home, either.
Originally posted by noelper:
But it has already been said - polygamy does not make for a happy home. Always assuming that is the objective, of course.
quote:Can you proof text this ?
Sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed woman by a married man is not adultery
quote:Or perhaps people are naturally polygamous, but, wishing to apply some kind of 'spirituality' to relationships, they are engaging in serial monogamy, as an approximation of that mystical 'ideal'.... Who knows ?
Given the excessive divorce rate in our culture, it appears that monogamy doesn't make for a happy home, either.
quote:Apologies for double-posting.
There is no criticism (e.g.) of Jacob for having more than one wife, nor of Elkanah. There is perh. implied criticism of Jacob's favouritism.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Dunno about anyone else, but it works for me.....
I said I would scatter them
and blot out their memory from mankind,
but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy, lest the adversary misunderstand and say,
'Our hand has triumphed;
the LORD has not done all this.'
quote:Really?
Originally posted by noelper:
But it has already been said - polygamy does not make for a happy home. Always assuming that is the objective, of course.
quote:The Catholic Encyclopedia (quite a good source for these kinds of things, BTW), says:
Originally posted by noelper:
BroJames
quote:Can you proof text this ?
Sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed woman by a married man is not adultery
quote:The text around the two references cited in the quote provide some supporting text. The facts as stated in the article are pretty widely recognized, and it is awkward to read much of the OT any other way. But I am not enough of a scholar to be able to cite a specific line that says, "sex with an unmarried and unpromised woman is not adultery." Nonetheless, since the penalty is called out as a fine for that, and stoning for adultery, it is very hard to maintain a coherent interpretation that treats adultery as applying to unattached women. I would also note that men don't seem to be subject to any penalty that I can find for having sex with a prostitute (assuming of course that she is a bad jewish woman, and not one of them dread ferriners), which I can only see as further indication that these proscriptions were more a matter of property rights of other men than some abstract concern about being upright sexually.
In the Mosaic Law, as in the old Roman Law, adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery, but fornication. The penal statute on the subject, in Lev., xx, 10, makes this clear: "If any man commit adultery with the wife of another and defile his neighbor's wife let them be put to death both the adulterer and the adulteress." (See also Deuteronomy 22:22) This was quite in keeping with the prevailing practice of polygamy among the Israelites
quote:Not cynical at all. In a society where polygyny was common people would likely read Malachi as saying that when a man marries a second wife he must not divorce the first wife.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Being a cynic, when I see, "the wife of your youth," the first thing I think of is "How many other wives ya got?"
quote:Yes - at least so far as monogamy is concerned. Both OT and NT seem simply to reflect the expectations of their respective cultures, i.e. that polygamy is normative; and then that monogamy is normative. This is especially obvious when you compare the silence of the Bible on this to all it has to say about, e.g. divorce, and adultery. The ethics of polygamy is one where the Bible isn't a lot of use.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
quote:I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything that suggested I wished or expected you to.
Originally posted by noelper:
I can't help you, friend.
quote:Well, I'm glad that's settled then.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything that suggested I wished or expected you to.
quote:Hang on a mo'....
Then why was it so popular and "successful" in so many ancient (and not so ancient) cultures?
If polygamy always led to unhappiness, it would have quickly died out.
quote:Only if the NT isn't part of the Bible.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The PLAIN reading of the OT is that polygamy is perfectly acceptable. OT characters practised it with little or no criticism from the OT writers. What criticism that DOES exist is mainly to do with HOW polygamy was practised, rather than its actual existence.
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
quote:First of all, you were the one arguing that polygamy was self-evidently wrong because polygamy does not make for a happy home. All I am doing is pointing out that this is not true and that the Bible does not actually condemn polygamy. So your bits about child sacrifice, idols etc are rather irrelevent to the point in hand.
Originally posted by noelper:
Oscar the Grouch
quote:Hang on a mo'....
Then why was it so popular and "successful" in so many ancient (and not so ancient) cultures?
If polygamy always led to unhappiness, it would have quickly died out.
Are you suggesting that slavery or cannibalism have not died out, because they are popular modes of human behaviour ?
As I read the bible, God's purpose in revealing Himself to Israel was to wean His people away from 'natural' inclinations - which evidently included child sacrifice, idol worship and polygamy.
quote:But the problem is that you have assumed that it is self-evident that polygamy (and slavery) are "abhorrent to God". Yet the bible doesn't say so and in fact the merest glance at history will tell you that these practices do not have to be "abhorrent".
Originally posted by noelper:
Unfortunately, as communities of believers have demostrated time and time again, we are not very adept at abandoning practises abhorrent to God; but highly skilled at justifying the necessity for such behaviour, within individual conscience.
quote:Even in the NT, views about marriage are (on the whole) assumed rather than spelled out.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Only if the NT isn't part of the Bible.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The PLAIN reading of the OT is that polygamy is perfectly acceptable. OT characters practised it with little or no criticism from the OT writers. What criticism that DOES exist is mainly to do with HOW polygamy was practised, rather than its actual existence.
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
quote:On balance, this is correct, being based on the premise that any code of conduct may be applied in a manner which is either beneficial or detrimental to others, depending on individual circumstances. Lawyers grow rich as a direct result. I agree that wage slavery is probably as malign as outright ownership of people - however this takes no account of the value of human freedom, which becomes priceless upon deprival.
But the problem is that you have assumed that it is self-evident that polygamy (and slavery) are "abhorrent to God". Yet the bible doesn't say so and in fact the merest glance at history will tell you that these practices do not have to be "abhorrent".
quote:Exhaustive working through of the relevant issues...
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Only if the NT isn't part of the Bible.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
quote:This is sensible enough, prima facie, but it doesn't stand up to examining the actual content of the Bible. Why if God's purpose was to wean his people off polygamy (as off child sacrifice and idol worship) did he not tell them it was wrong (as he did so emphatically with child sacrifice and idol worship)?
Originally posted by noelper:
As I read the bible, God's purpose in revealing Himself to Israel was to wean His people away from 'natural' inclinations - which evidently included child sacrifice, idol worship and polygamy.
quote:But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
Unfortunately, as communities of believers have demostrated time and time again, we are not very adept at abandoning practises abhorrent to God; but highly skilled at justifying the necessity for such behaviour, within individual conscience.
quote:That's a bit twisted, isn't it? Sin doesn't matter if you're religious enough?
My own approach is derived from placing unqualified trust in a God, Who was prepared to overlook David's polygamy AND adultery, and to find in his favour because of an unequivocal fidelity to God.
quote:First, let me say how much I enjoy your posts. They are generally thoughtful, educational, and entertaining -- quite a hat trick!
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:That's a bit twisted, isn't it? Sin doesn't matter if you're religious enough?
My own approach is derived from placing unqualified trust in a God, Who was prepared to overlook David's polygamy AND adultery, and to find in his favour because of an unequivocal fidelity to God.
And unequivocal fidelity to God being compatible with a lifestyle that is abhorrent to God? That's just nuts.
quote:The adultery was blotted out through David's repentance (Ps 51). Was God wrong to have done so ?
I'm not quite sure what it means to be faithful to God while stealing another man's wife, for example.
quote:In the light of the above, both, actually.
So, is it Noelper that is nuts here, or is it God?
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:David, when the prophet rubs his nose in it, confesses his sin and takes his punishment, which is certainly in his favor. But, it's the adultery and murder that he confesses to, the polygamy is not an issue.
Originally posted by tclune:
... Noelper's idea that it was because of David's unwavering fidelity to God doesn't quite ring true to me -- I'm not quite sure what it means to be faithful to God while stealing another man's wife, for example.
quote:Sorry, don't geddit.
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
quote:You confuse fidelity with religiosity. Big difference.
Sin doesn't matter if you're religious enough?
quote:You have remeinded us that the old Law forbade adultery and coveting someone else's wife. And that children were commanded to honour their father and mother.
Originally posted by noelper:
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here.
quote:There's very little to interpret. From the OP:
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:Sorry, don't geddit.
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here....
quote:It doesn't say "don't marry another woman".
Exodus 21:10 says:
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
quote:My point was not that God should not forgive, but that David was not being faithful to God's dictates. If I were to cheat on my wife, she might forgive me. But that would not mean that I had been unwaveringly faithful.
Originally posted by noelper:
tomclune
quote:The adultery was blotted out through David's repentance (Ps 51). Was God wrong to have done so ?
I'm not quite sure what it means to be faithful to God while stealing another man's wife, for example.
quote:Backing up for a second, I think this is a pretty good argument.
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
quote:ken's 12 variations of interpretation suggests that there is a significant element of de rigeur thinking concerning the marriage relationship.
My own take is that the modern day practice of marriage is based more on cultural custom and tradition rather than Biblical pronouncements.
quote:What on earth do you mean ???
It also says nothing at all about sex between consenting unmarried adults...quote:There's very little to interpret. From the OP:
I fully agree. This omission invalidates the quasi-church view of such sex, too often linked with the happily ever-after image of monogamy, which (we are all aware) is a chocolate-box representation of a rite-of-passage which might only achieve sacramental status, after many tears.
Henry Troup
quote:King Solomon's polygamy, servicing 1000 wives and concubines
But, it's the adultery and murder that he confesses to, the polygamy is not an issue., is unequivocally blamed as the eventual cause of Israel's inexorable decline.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:Sorry, don't geddit.
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here....
quote:It doesn't say "don't marry another woman".
Exodus 21:10 says:
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
quote:It's had to believe that we're reading the same passage. The problem was that King Solomon had married foreign wives, who turned him away from God. The sheer number of them may have added to the distraction, but the OT is always more alarmed at marrying goyem than at polygamy. Marrying many non-jews is just proof that you are persistent in your apostacy.
Originally posted by noelper:
King Solomon's polygamy, servicing 1000 wives and concubines
quote:"Valid"? In what sense?
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:Sorry, don't geddit.
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here.
quote:2. And it nowhere condemns polygamy.
Deuteronomy 21:15-16
If a man has two wives..., he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn.
quote:Which, of course, is beside the point. Condemning a king for having a thousand wives is not the same thing as saying that no man may have more than one wife. Deuteronomy says the king "must not acquire many horses for himself", but that's hardly a universal ban on horseriding, is it?
King Solomon's polygamy, servicing 1000 wives and concubines, is unequivocally blamed as the eventual cause of Israel's inexorable decline.
quote:Valid to me as compared with your opinion, for example. This also reflects the basis of my faith, and takes no account of majority opinion.
"Valid"? In what sense?
If you mean justified by the evidence, it's obvious to everyone apart from you that it isn't.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Generously and moderately put.
Originally posted by tclune:
First, let me say how much I enjoy your posts. They are generally thoughtful, educational, and entertaining -- quite a hat trick!
But this particular comment seems a bit too dismissive.
quote:You appreciate of course that I applied the words "twisted" and "nuts" to the ideas expressed in Noelper's posts, and that therefore any impressions you may have about my opinions of any person or persons here present are matters of conjecture, or at best inference, and are not based on information that I have either stated or implied.
So, is it Noelper that is nuts here, or is it God?
quote:Yeah, right.
You appreciate of course that I applied the words "twisted" and "nuts" to the ideas expressed in Noelper's posts, and that therefore any impressions you may have about my opinions of any person or persons here present are matters of conjecture, or at best inference, and are not based on information that I have either stated or implied.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:That is not a sense of the word "valid".
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:Valid to me as compared with your opinion, for example.
"Valid"? In what sense?
If you mean justified by the evidence, it's obvious to everyone apart from you that it isn't.
quote:No one is trying to take away your rights or your opinions; but if you are going to write and defend obviously incoherent, illogical and objectionable rubbish in a forum for intelligent debate, your views are going to be challenged.
If you don't like my conclusions, simply move on and allow me the right to be wrong, for goodness sake.
quote:So what happened between Genesis 2 and Genesis 4:19? A few generations go by, and, for no apparent reason, Lamech decides to take two wives. OliviaG
Originally posted by Niënna:
quote:Backing up for a second, I think this is a pretty good argument.
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
quote:I think Genesis 3 happened. It may be worth noting that one of the explicit consequences of the "Fall"™ is that the marriage relationship is cursed.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:So what happened between Genesis 2 and Genesis 4:19? A few generations go by, and, for no apparent reason, Lamech decides to take two wives. OliviaG
Originally posted by Niënna:
quote:Backing up for a second, I think this is a pretty good argument.
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Yes, I thought of that too. Is the line of Cain thought to have perished in the Flood? There doesn't seem to be any mention of multiple wives down the line from Seth to Noah, or in the listing of Noah's descendants. The next polygamist is Abraham, no? OliviaG
Originally posted by Anselm:
I think Genesis 3 happened. It may be worth noting that one of the explicit consequences of the "Fall"™ is that the marriage relationship is cursed.
Lamech is then, of course, in the line of Cain.
quote:"An overseer must be the husband of one wife...."
Originally posted by SteveTom:
Bearing in mind that we're talking about monogamy and polygamy here, are you really saying you find instructions against the latter in the NT? I don't see any.
quote:And as the OP says, the same is repeated for the three-fold orders of ministry. There is nothing that clearly makes this binding on all Christian men.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
..."An overseer must be the husband of one wife...."
What do you think this means?
quote:Or ... being an "overseer" (sounds like foreman at the slave farm) is so taxing a job, you wouldn't want it AND the responsibilities of more than one spouse. Bit like Paul and his "better to be single in the current situation" remarks in 1 Cor.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:I think one can go a fair ways with those NT passages - they make it clear that monogamy is the most clearly moral form of marriage. But they don't cross the line into prohibiting other arrangements for everyone.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
..."An overseer must be the husband of one wife...."
What do you think this means?
quote:The same as you, I imagine. But it's a qualification for a job, isn't it? The same passage (1 Tim 3:1-7) also lists being above reproach, respectable, a good teacher, gentle, a good household-manager, a father of submissive children, a longstanding believer, and well respected by non-Christians.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
"An overseer must be the husband of one wife...."
What do you think this means?
quote:So the conclusion I am getting from this thread is that while there is something of a biblical basis for monogamy, it is not nearly as clear and definitive as you might expect.
Originally posted by SteveTom:
It's not clear these qualifications for episcopal office are the moral standard for all Christian life.
quote:Genesis 16:
4 Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
quote:I'd like to compare that with Mary's response in Luke 1:
1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said.
quote:So when presented with what appears to be a reproductive impossibility, Mary accepts that God can and will make it happen. Abraham and Sarah seem to feel that they have to take matters into their own hands (so to speak) to make God's promise come true.
34Then said Mary unto the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
...
36 [Angel]"And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth: she hath also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible."
38And Mary said, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." And the angel departed from her.
quote:Steve, I'm going back to this because I think that there is more evidence than this. I gave quite a bit in the second post above. Others have added more. Admittedly the passages are not direct and conclusive, but I don't think that it is fair to say that there is no evidence.
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:"Valid"? In what sense?
Originally posted by noelper:
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here.
If you mean justified by the evidence, it's obvious to everyone apart from you that it isn't.
The evidence is:
1. The Law of Moses explicitly accepts polygamy:
quote:2. And it nowhere condemns polygamy.
Deuteronomy 21:15-16
If a man has two wives..., he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn.
3. It condemns polytheism.
quote:But I imagine it's rather less of an academic question if someone from a polygamous Islamic country converts to Christianity, especially if they are already in a polygamous marriage. Then again in those kinds of countries I would guess you have a lot to worry about if you're going to convert to Christianity.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Maybe this joins other topics, like slavery, where the biblical evidence could be seen as ambiguous, yet which spark little debate among modern Christians.
quote:I should point out that the discussion you quote was specifically about the law of Moses and not the whole Bible, so what you go on to say is mostly beside that particular point. I don't think there can be any reasonable case made for the Law of Moses in itself clearly condemning polygamy.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Steve, I'm going back to this because I think that there is more evidence than this. I gave quite a bit in the second post above. Others have added more. Admittedly the passages are not direct and conclusive, but I don't think that it is fair to say that there is no evidence.
Originally posted by SteveTom:
The evidence is:
1. The Law of Moses explicitly accepts polygamy:
2. And it nowhere condemns polygamy.
3. It condemns polytheism.
quote:Yes, it does. But how prescriptive can we be about that ideal? It also presents vegetarianism, veganism in fact, as ideal. Does 1-2 Genesis frown on celibacy, singleness and homosexuality as well as on polygamy?
The creation account appears to present the marriage of one man and one woman as ideal.
quote:He does. But then his point is the permanence of marriage, not its exclusivity. And if he's talking about divorce within a monogamous culture, then he would talk about divorce between one man and one woman, wouldn't he?
Jesus appears to reinforce this idea in Matthew 19.
quote:Hm. Or not.
The injunctions against adultery and divorce can be seen as implying the sacredness of sex with only one partner.
quote:It can indeed.
The permission of polygamy to the Israelites can be seen as similar to their permission to divorce - being due to the "hardness of their hearts."
quote:I don't see it. The point of the analogy is that a wife (Israel) should stay faithful to her husband (the Lord), not that she should be his only wife.
The prohibition of polytheism is many times expressed in language relating to marriage. This can be seen as implicitly supporting monogamy.
quote:I think this is it. People who have learnt their moral instincts from the Bible and Christian tradition have, as in the case of slavery, ended up applying them more adequately than the Bible itself. The difference is not so stark with polygamy as it is with slavery, but I think is fair.
While these are not especially powerful arguments or evidence, the idea of monogamy has been universally endorsed in Christian countries for a very long time. It has been seen as a Christian teaching. It has been accepted as a matter of principle to the point that polygamy is illegal in many countries. It may just be due to the confirmation of pre-existing accepted practices, but that doesn't seem to explain it fully.
I would compare it to the topic of slavery. You can make a biblical case against slavery. It is not a very clear cut case. There are many passages that support it and others that assume slavery without criticism. But I'm sure we would agree that the Bible, taken as a whole, does not actually support slavery.
quote:No, that is exactly the point of the Torah law on divorce - but you have the reason 180 degrees out!
Originally posted by noelper:
Had polygamous marriage had been permissable under OT Law, there would not have been a provision for divorce.
Otherwise a bored husband could have cast off any number of wives in favour of updated versions, without having to undergo the trouble of obtaining a divorce.
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
I am absolutely shocked !
quote:Perhaps the fact that you did not appreciate the cultural context of the Law of Moses explains your failure to grasp its explicit provision for polygamy?
I am finding it difficult to distinguish between wives and slaves, within the biblical terms of reference.
quote:I think you fall into the trap of assuming because there is not explicit condemnation (editorializing, essentially) that there was no condemnation. Personally, I've often wished the Bible came right out and said, "and this was wrong, because..." but it hardly ever does. In the case of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, it is abundantly clear that "helping God along" was not a good idea (see Genesis 17 and 22 for evidence of that conclusion). So while you may argue that Abraham was not condemned for bearing a child with his wife's servant Hagar, he is not praised for it; it is a failure of faith, setting up "the son of the flesh" and "the son of the promise." Yes, Ishmael IS blessed, for Abraham's sake - but he's also sent away, out of the story of Israel. God has a relationship with Hagar (she interacts with the Angel of the Lord twice; Sarah's only interaction is to claim she didn't laugh at the thought of a late pregnancy) and I trust He had one with Ishmael, too - but it's not recorded in scripture.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A few thoughts here. By reason of the fact that no-one condems Abraham's morality for having a son by a slave woman, or Jacob's for having two wives or David for having wives and concubines in the hundreds, its obvious that those practices must have been acceptable in the time in which the stories were written.
quote:Nor does it mean they weren't. You're arguing from silence here, reading condemnation where there is none expressed.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
So while you may argue that Abraham was not condemned for bearing a child with his wife's servant Hagar, he is not praised for it;
8< snip
God uses it all, but it doesn't mean He approved it.
8< snip
But it doesn't mean those behaviors were approved;
quote:What does divorce have to do with polygamy?
Jesus, in His teaching on divorce, clearly says "From the beginning it was not so--" Moses *allowed* divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts
quote:This has already been covered, and it isn't much of an argument against polygamy.
I think the Matthew 19:4-6 teaching is pretty clear (And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created {them} from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
quote:Which is obviously why he condemned polygamy - oh, wait, he didn't, did he?
Jesus was radical in His view and treatment of women
quote:How, in that case, do you distinguish something that is bad from something that is neutral (or even good) but can have bad effects, which need to be ameliorated? And how do you demonstrate that polygamy falls into either category? Gluttony might be bad, but food isn't bad per se. What test do you apply to categorise something as wholly bad, possibly bad, or wholly good?
Again, I don't think the fact that humanity embraced sexism, racism, greed, or slavery means that the Bible approved of any of those attitudes or behaviors, but we do see scripture attempting to ameliorate the conditions and circumstances.
quote:"No Answer" was the stern reply...
Originally posted by Anselm:
Perhaps it could be argued that the scriptures' position is that polygamy, while not necessarily morally wrong, is unwise.
quote:Nope, not offended. I am simply amazed at the extent of measures used by the patriarchial exponents of scripture, to deny the equality of women. In my reading, the Laws of God are entirely counter-cultural - aside from Jewish rituals which affirm that culture. Jesus re-affirmed this. Yet scripture as expounded by men for thousands of years, would have women barely differentiated from slaves and ranked amongst the posssesion of men. This despite the eulogising at Proverbs 31:10-31.
So, you're offended that the people for which most of the OT (and probably some of the NT) were originally written considered women to be closer to property than free individual humans?
quote:I'm not quite sure who these "patriarchial exponents of Scripture" are, certainly no one here has expounded Scripture to deny the equality of women. There's a big difference between saying that the society in which ancient documents were written didn't recognise the equality of women and saying that women aren't equal to men.
Originally posted by noelper:
I am simply amazed at the extent of measures used by the patriarchial exponents of scripture, to deny the equality of women.
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reads very much like "the Bible is counter cultural, except where it isn't". Which doesn't seem to be an awfully enlightening statement to me.
In my reading, the Laws of God are entirely counter-cultural - aside from Jewish rituals which affirm that culture.
quote:Well, Scripture certainly has been abused like that. For a time, Scripture was used to defend the proposition that the Earth is stationary and the sun, stars and planets orbit the earth. So what? We look back and realise that people were reading their own pre-suppositions about the nature of the universe (or, in the case of the status of women the relative position of men and women in their society) into Scripture and say "tut, tut, that was wrong" - often without recognising that we're doing exactly the same thing by reading our own pre-suppositions back into Scripture.
Yet scripture as expounded by men for thousands of years, would have women barely differentiated from slaves and ranked amongst the posssesion of men.
quote:You infer more than I wrote. Why ?
I'm not quite sure who these "patriarchial exponents of Scripture" are, certainly no one here has expounded Scripture to deny the equality of women.
quote:You are wrong. The Bible gave rise to Jewish tradition. Fact.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reads very much like "the Bible is counter cultural, except where it isn't". Which doesn't seem to be an awfully enlightening statement to me.
quote:I am attempting to discuss what it has meant, and continues to mean, for both Jewish and Christian women ie ascribed roles secondary to men, as justified by reference to a variety of biblical passages with that single objective in common - if little else.
But, we're not really here to discuss what others have understood the Bible to mean.
quote:As far as I can see, there is. Stale mate.
As far as I can see, there's nothing that explicitely teaches "one man, one woman, for life" as the ideal marriage in Scripture.
quote:You must live according to your rules, as I shall live according to mine.
The effect of that on interpreting passages where polygamous relationships aren't condemned could lead one to conclude that it's OK for a man to have several wives, and it's OK for a woman to have several husbands.
quote:noelper - this is Kerygmania, where we study the text. Don't assume that either Alan or I are attempting to find justification for polygamy - that would be a Purgatory topic, for one thing.
Originally posted by noelper:
...As far as I can see, there is. Stale mate....
You must live according to your rules, as I shall live according to mine.
quote:No. Can you provide a text explicitly in favour of polygamy ?
Can you provide a text explicitly against polygamy?
quote:Presumably because what you wrote was so unclear.
Originally posted by noelper:
You infer more than I wrote. Why ?
quote:
quote:As far as I can see, there is. Stale mate.
As far as I can see, there's nothing that explicitly teaches "one man, one woman, for life" as the ideal marriage in Scripture.
quote:Can you see how perfectly you contradict yourself here?
quote:No. Can you provide a text explicitly in favour of polygamy?
Can you provide a text explicitly against polygamy?
quote:Why are you bringing the way Alan lives into this? What the hell does it have to do with this discussion?
quote:You must live according to your rules, as I shall live according to mine.
The effect of that on interpreting passages where polygamous relationships aren't condemned could lead one to conclude that it's OK for a man to have several wives, and it's OK for a woman to have several husbands.
quote:Host hat on
Originally posted by noelper
Get off my case.
quote:Actually, I am not. In order to keep my post short, I didn't include the scriptures I mentioned, but I will include them now: Gen. 17:15-21 Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah {shall be} her name. I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be {a mother of} nations; kings of peoples will come from her."
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:Nor does it mean they weren't. You're arguing from silence here, reading condemnation where there is none expressed.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
So while you may argue that Abraham was not condemned for bearing a child with his wife's servant Hagar, he is not praised for it;
8< snip
God uses it all, but it doesn't mean He approved it.
8< snip
But it doesn't mean those behaviors were approved;
quote:It's not divorce that reflects on polygamy, it's God's intent from the beginning that humans be coupled - "the two become one flesh, let no one put asunder what God has joined together."
quote:What does divorce have to do with polygamy?
Jesus, in His teaching on divorce, clearly says "From the beginning it was not so--" Moses *allowed* divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts
quote:"they are no longer TWO" ??? I think it's a simple numeric argument. They cannot be ONE flesh if half that flesh is also ONE flesh with another... it does not work.
quote:This has already been covered, and it isn't much of an argument against polygamy.
I think the Matthew 19:4-6 teaching is pretty clear (And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created {them} from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
quote:Like *most* of the old testament law, Jesus did not reiterate the position of scripture. I see the position of scripture as pretty clear, even though there was no legal prohibition of polygamy. And, in the context of warring cultures, it was a way to regenerate a population - practical, from the human standpoint.
quote:Which is obviously why he condemned polygamy - oh, wait, he didn't, did he?
Jesus was radical in His view and treatment of women
quote:If you follow the argument from Genesis 17 and 22, as well as the prohibition against *kings* multiplying wives (and if it wasn't good for the king, it's going to be good for "just plain folks?" I don't think so) from Leviticus, you see that polygamy is not "the best way" - it's tolerated, but NOT encouraged.
quote:How, in that case, do you distinguish something that is bad from something that is neutral (or even good) but can have bad effects, which need to be ameliorated? And how do you demonstrate that polygamy falls into either category? Gluttony might be bad, but food isn't bad per se. What test do you apply to categorise something as wholly bad, possibly bad, or wholly good?
Again, I don't think the fact that humanity embraced sexism, racism, greed, or slavery means that the Bible approved of any of those attitudes or behaviors, but we do see scripture attempting to ameliorate the conditions and circumstances.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I think two millennia of monogamy make this argument seem more valid than it actually is.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
"they are no longer TWO" ??? I think it's a simple numeric argument. They cannot be ONE flesh if half that flesh is also ONE flesh with another... it does not work.
quote:LynnMagdalenCollege
My own approach is derived from placing unqualified trust in a God, Who was prepared to overlook David's polygamy AND adultery, and to find in his favour because of an unequivocal fidelity to God.
quote:So do I.
I see the position of scripture as pretty clear, even though there was no legal prohibition of polygamy.
quote:I don't think that you can assume that that priority would be the same for everyone.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I would hate ever to be in a position where I needed to choose between the love I have for my sons and the love I have for my wife. But I think "one flesh" declares the ideal of an indelible priority. In that horrible hypothetical situation I describe, it would be the love for my wife which would win out.
quote:Alternatively, the analogy could be continued in a Holy Family, with Jesus the Offspring as the product of a sacred union.
I note folk on the thread have drawn anologies between marriage and relating to God. On that basis one could use the trinity to argue for polygamy, God as three-in-one rather than two-in-one after all.
quote:I agree that one's relationship with the church is not like a marriage. We are all a single body however, irrespective of the size, scale or relative importance in comparison with other body parts.
However, I think this is a blind alley - because bascially one's relationship with God or the church is not like a marriage.
quote:Marriage (whether by formal agreement of not )is a covenant relationship in a rite-of-passage which is dependent upon on-going agreement, and which may or may not prove synergistic. The fact that we romanticise the facts of marital relationship, does not detract from the essentially contractual basis.
It is a romantic analogy that seeks to sanitise sexual love, and I think mistaken. (The virgin Mary is, possibly, the only exception to this.)
quote:This does not differentiate the rite-of-passage, (which persists as a foundational construct of human relations) from the social mores which accompany it. In the example quoted, David was paying a dowry for the privilige of marrying the King's daughter. The methods of payment change, or are abandoned, thank God.
Arguing from the OT to justify current practice is always going to be dubious, wasn't it David who swapped a cartload of foreskins for a woman who didn't want to marry him - but was sent anyway ?
quote:Though you would have to say that, other than the ability to teach, the list is an ideal that is set for all to aspire to, isn't it?
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:The same as you, I imagine. But it's a qualification for a job, isn't it? The same passage (1 Tim 3:1-7) also lists being above reproach, respectable, a good teacher, gentle, a good household-manager, a father of submissive children, a longstanding believer, and well respected by non-Christians.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
"An overseer must be the husband of one wife...."
What do you think this means?
It's not clear these qualifications for episcopal office are the moral standard for all Christian life.
quote:I am not sure what you are saying here (you seem to agree that monogamy is presented as the ideal), or how the logic of your argument works (if you are saying that the ideal is... not binding, not really an ideal?). ISTM that at most it urges caution in interpreting 'the ideal'™ rather than dismissing it from the present discussion.
A few posts later
quote:Yes, it does. But how prescriptive can we be about that ideal? It also presents vegetarianism, veganism in fact, as ideal. Does 1-2 Genesis frown on celibacy, singleness and homosexuality as well as on polygamy?
The creation account appears to present the marriage of one man and one woman as ideal.
quote:I mean my relationship with God is not like a sexual relationship that I might have with another human being, however loving.
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is a romantic analogy that seeks to sanitise sexual love, and I think mistaken. (The virgin Mary is, possibly, the only exception to this.)
The fact that we romanticise the facts of marital relationship, does not detract from the essentially contractual basis.
I am unclear about the reference to Mary; please
amplify.
quote:My point being I think we are being highly selective about which pieces of the presence/absence of text in the OT we take to be significant. That story could be used to support a biblical basis for arranged marriage or the payment of dowries, never mind anything else.
N:quote:This does not differentiate the rite-of-passage, (which persists as a foundational construct of human relations) from the social mores which accompany it. In the example quoted, David was paying a dowry for the privilige of marrying the King's daughter. The methods of payment change, or are abandoned, thank God.
DT: Arguing from the OT to justify current practice is always going to be dubious, wasn't it David who swapped a cartload of foreskins for a woman who didn't want to marry him - but was sent anyway ?
quote:Two points. Firstly, from Ephesians 5 there is analogical interplay, both ways, between marriage relationships and the relationship between Christ and the Church. So from that scripture, one can argue that marriage, ideally, is in some sense "like" the relationship between Christ and the Church. Secondly, I dont think Paul is being romantic, or sanitising sexual love in Ephesians 5. He is simply relating back to the idealised "pre-Fall" model. In which the man and the woman were naked and unashamed. Overall, I think it is legitimate to argue that it is an idealised view, which does not invalidate its principles.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
However, I think this is a blind alley - because bascially one's relationship with God or the church is not like a marriage. It is a romantic analogy that seeks to sanitise sexual love, and I think mistaken. (The virgin Mary is, possibly, the only exception to this.)
quote:That's your interpretation. I could equally say that God rejects Ishmael because he is a manifestation of Abraham's lack of faith. There's no evidence here that God either approved or disapproved of polygamy per se.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
quote:Actually, I am not. In order to keep my post short, I didn't include the scriptures I mentioned, but I will include them now:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Nor does it mean they weren't. You're arguing from silence here, reading condemnation where there is none expressed.
8< snip
In the first, we see that God has rejected the child that Abraham and Sarah conspire to conceive through Hagar - not as a person, but as the son of the promise, in a prophetic sense. In the second we see God completely ignore the existence of Ishmael, saying, "Take your son, your only son whom you love," which is the first appearance of the word "love" in the Bible, btw. For God's purposes with Abraham and his descendants, Ishmael does not exist. I do not call that an argument from silence.
quote:
quote:It's not divorce that reflects on polygamy, it's God's intent from the beginning that humans be coupled - "the two become one flesh, let no one put asunder what God has joined together."
What does divorce have to do with polygamy?
quote:These are relying on exactly the same argument, which SteveTom's already answered very effectively. I can't help feeling, LMC, that you're reading these passages through the prism of your existing expectations of what marriage ought to look like.
"they are no longer TWO" ??? I think it's a simple numeric argument. They cannot be ONE flesh if half that flesh is also ONE flesh with another... it does not work.
quote:(my italics)
Like *most* of the old testament law, Jesus did not reiterate the position of scripture. I see the position of scripture as pretty clear, even though there was no legal prohibition of polygamy. And, in the context of warring cultures, it was a way to regenerate a population - practical, from the human standpoint.
quote:The same prohibitions include having great numbers of horses, or too much gold, and the NIV has in Deut 17:17
If you follow the argument from Genesis 17 and 22, as well as the prohibition against *kings* multiplying wives (and if it wasn't good for the king, it's going to be good for "just plain folks?" I don't think so) from Leviticus, you see that polygamy is not "the best way" - it's tolerated, but NOT encouraged.
quote:How do you get from this to a clear Biblical argument against polygamy? It reads to me like several would be OK, just not many, and the reason for that is practical, rather than moral.
He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.
quote:Not good, just neutral. Most of the OT, I think - time and time again, the OT explicitly describes polygamous relationships, and you know what? It isn't ever condemned. There is criticism of Solomon's many foreign wives, various adulterous relationships, and some passages, like Deut 17:17 preach "polygamy in moderation", but there's no outright condemnation. Considering some of the things that are condemned, that it seems to have been such a common practice, and that you can find some form of "thou shalt not" almost anywhere, I think this is quite revealing.
So what are your arguments from scripture to indicate that polygamy was good? I will be very interested to see them.
But if you say that the Bible clearly rejects polygamy, I'll have to say I think you're completely wrong.
quote:Especially so in a Kingdom of priests.
Anselm:
Though you would have to say that, other than the ability to teach, the list is an ideal that is set for all to aspire to, isn't it?
quote:Just as well really, since the NT relationship predicated between God and individuals is that of Father-Child; and the OT relationship between God and the community is that of Husband-Wife. Accordingly the lower emphasis on
Doublethink:
I mean my relationship with God is not like a sexual relationship that I might have with another human being, however loving.
quote:Agreed. This possibly represents an attempt to embrace the chocolate-box image, prevalent in wider society.
Doublethink:
I think that the analogy has been used before because the church has been uncomfortable with messy humaness of sexual relationships and has tried to gloss over it, or de-emphasise it.
quote:It could be so used, but isn't.
Doublethink:
That story could be used to support a biblical basis for arranged marriage or the payment of dowries, never mind anything else.
quote:For me neither. Having married as an atheist, with a husband remaining atheist/agnostic, the only safe conclusion is that we both consider the marriage covenant to be binding - for whatever reason.
Barnabas62:
This aint theory for me...
quote:It isn't about the practice, but about This amazing God.
The Great Gumby:
Most of the OT, I think - time and time again, the OT explicitly describes polygamous relationships, and you know what? It isn't ever condemned.
quote:
John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
quote:But being united with a third person (sexually) sunders the one-flesh relationship he/she has with the first person, since the "let no one put asunder" argument is not about coitus interruptus (otherwise, every time we *ahem* disengaged, we would be putting asunder our marriages...). I'm not sure how bringing in the figurative speech of "I love my son with my whole heart, with so much of myself that there's nothing left over" really applies in the argument, as the only "you shall love with your whole heart" instruction within scripture directs us to love God with our whole heart (Deut. 6:5, etc.) - not wives, husbands, or children. Please don't misunderstand (!), I'm not saying we shouldn't love our wives, husbands, children as much as we can, secondary to loving God.
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:I think two millennia of monogamy make this argument seem more valid than it actually is.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
"they are no longer TWO" ??? I think it's a simple numeric argument. They cannot be ONE flesh if half that flesh is also ONE flesh with another... it does not work.
That fact that marriage unites a man and a woman does not mathematically preclude either or both of them being united with a third person.
quote:LMC
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SteveTom:
Barnabbas62, I think "one flesh" is not actually an emotional description, but a spiritual reality best described as "one flesh" (I know, "flesh" isn't a "spiritual" word, but this is the terminology of scripture). One can be annoyed with one's spouse and still be "one flesh"...
quote:Forgive my stupid question... obviously there is only one Christ, but the Church has many believers. Is there a "marriage-like" relationship between individual members of the Church and Christ? (Remember that Personal Relationship with God/Jesus?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Two points. Firstly, from Ephesians 5 there is analogical interplay, both ways, between marriage relationships and the relationship between Christ and the Church. So from that scripture, one can argue that marriage, ideally, is in some sense "like" the relationship between Christ and the Church.
) Does that make God "polyamorous" by analogy?quote:I think there's something in this, especially when combined with Doublethink's economic point.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
If you follow the argument from ... the prohibition against *kings* multiplying wives (and if it wasn't good for the king, it's going to be good for "just plain folks?" I don't think so) from Leviticus, you see that polygamy is not "the best way" - it's tolerated, but NOT encouraged.
quote:That's how I see it too. In fact, I think that institution of marriage derives its sacredness from its metaphoric relationship with that heavenly marriage.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think in the analogy it is because the church is one singular Body (composed of many parts) and is also described, in the singular, as "the Bride of Christ". Analogies are dangerous of course, but I think that is what is going on.
quote:Yes, I guess it is.
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:Though you would have to say that, other than the ability to teach, the list is an ideal that is set for all to aspire to, isn't it?
Originally posted by SteveTom:
It's not clear these qualifications for episcopal office are the moral standard for all Christian life.
quote:I think we basically agree, its an analogy, its an imperfect analogy. My further point is that because it is a particularly - to my mind - imperfect analogy, I don't think we should stretch it too far.
Originally posted by noelper:
Just as well really, since the NT relationship predicated between God and individuals is that of Father-Child; and the OT relationship between God and the community is that of Husband-Wife. Accordingly the lower emphasis on sexual relationships by church, reflects a valid position where all aspects of Love are represented as God-given - albeit out-of-place within a marriage ceremony.
>snip<
Agreed. This possibly represents an attempt to embrace the chocolate-box image, prevalent in wider society.
quote:Exactly, and why isn't it ? That's what I mean about us being highly selective - and I think that selectivity is determined by our current cultural mores. By extention I think we project backwards in time to support our current views about monogamy.
N:quote:It could be so used, but isn't.
DT:
That story could be used to support a biblical basis for arranged marriage or the payment of dowries, never mind anything else.
quote:May I disassemble that statement for a moment ?
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's how I see it too. In fact, I think that institution of marriage derives its sacredness from its metaphoric relationship with that heavenly marriage.
quote:In what way? The topic of this thread is the Biblical basis of traditional marriage, so what is it about if not marriage practices?
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:It isn't about the practice, but about This amazing God.
The Great Gumby:
Most of the OT, I think - time and time again, the OT explicitly describes polygamous relationships, and you know what? It isn't ever condemned.
quote:Good question, Doublethink. I'm not sure.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
In what way, exactly, is the relationship between God and the Church similar to a marital relationship?
)quote:Yes, it is a kind of reverse causality. That would be, I think, because the marital relationship is a known and observable entity, whereas God is, for the most part, invisible.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do you not think that the gospel writers tried to describe something new - church - in terms of something that already existed - marital relationship ? So direction of causality is backwards.
quote:It seems to me that the many Old Testament references to this kind of relationship with God - which essentially equates idolatry and adultery - can be seen as elevating the marriage relationship.
Isaiah 54:4 “ Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed;
Neither be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame;
For you will forget the shame of your youth,
And will not remember the reproach of your widowhood anymore.
5 For your Maker is your husband,
The LORD of hosts is His name;
And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel;
He is called the God of the whole earth."
Jeremiah 3:20 Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, So have you dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel,” says the LORD.
Jeremiah 31:32 ...not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
Ezekiel 16:32 O Israel, you are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband.
Hosea 2:2 “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; For she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband! Let her put away her harlotries from her sight, And her adulteries from between her breasts;
Hosea 2:7 She will chase her lovers, But not overtake them; Yes, she will seek them, but not find them.Then she will say, ‘ I will go and return to my first husband, For then it was better for me than now.’
Hosea 2:16 “ And it shall be, in that day,”
Says the LORD,
“ That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’
And no longer call Me ‘My Master,’
19 “ I will betroth you to Me forever;
Yes, I will betroth you to Me
In righteousness and justice,
In lovingkindness and mercy;
20 I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness,
And you shall know the LORD.
quote:The Biblical basis of traditional marriage is a God, Who would teach us better ways to love, rather than condemn our dysfunctionality.
TGG
It isn't about the practice, but about This amazing God.
In what way? The topic of this thread is the Biblical basis of traditional marriage, so what is it about if not marriage practices?
quote:Amen to that.
Barnabas62
So I suppose the short summary is something like this. The faithfulness which we all hope for from our partners in relationships, and which we see in the best of marriages, is a pointer to just how faithful Christ has been, is, and will be towards his church.
quote:Right, but I think you need to provide some Biblical evidence that polygamy is indeed dysfunctional. It may be argued that there are better ways to do things, referencing the NT requirements for an elder, for example, but that might just be an ideal for a particular purpose. Note that Paul also says it's better not to marry at all - we can all work out how practical this would be if everyone followed it to the letter.
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:The Biblical basis of traditional marriage is a God, Who would teach us better ways to love, rather than condemn our dysfunctionality.
TGG
In what way? The topic of this thread is the Biblical basis of traditional marriage, so what is it about if not marriage practices?
quote:Hosea is a story about a man who marries a woman who is unfaithful to him, yet keeps taking her back. And, it's an illustration of a God who keeps taking back his people despite their repeated unfaithfulness.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was thinking "Hosea" too. It is perhaps these qualities of faithfulness (which elevates) and unfaithfulness (which costs) which are the illustrators.
quote:Good question, Alan.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would that message be any different if Hosea had two wives, one who remained faithful and the other unfaithful? Any more than a story about a man with two sons, one of whom runs off an squanders the riches his father gave him and the other who remained at home faithfully fulfilling the duties of a son.
quote:So if there are "other sheep" there could theoretically be "other wives." Considering how much the marriage metaphor is used, however, it might be seen as telling that there is no hint of that possibility. Of course it would naturally be anathema to ancient Israel to think that there might be another "virgin daughter" that Jehovah was chasing after to add to His harem.
John 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring,
quote:One flock, one wife, one husband. I can see how people could come to that conclusion.
and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Yes, that's probably right. And it does depend on how we think the human writers were inspired by God. I would go with the option that the particular analogy was also inspired, as was the cultural context.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
However, if we want to argue from silence, as some have being doing with the OT, we could say that the fact the church is never described as the harem of God is indicative of an anti-polygamus attitude. But I still think it is human writers, inspired by God, calling upon metaphors that occur to them in the everyday life of their temporal and cultural context, that results in the particular analogy used.
quote:Nope, aside from the case of Solomon, previously cited.
TGG
So have you got any Biblical evidence of the dysfunctionality of polygamy? That's the basic thrust of the thread, and I've yet to see anything very convincing.
quote:I can't find a place BEFORE the conception of Ishmael where God says specifically to Abra(ha)m that Sarai (later Sarah) would be the mother of his child - so for it to demonstrate a "lack of faith" on Abram's part, that would require that there was something "unfatihful" or "insufficient in faith" about taking Sarai's handmaid to bear his son.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
That's your interpretation. I could equally say that God rejects Ishmael because he is a manifestation of Abraham's lack of faith. There's no evidence here that God either approved or disapproved of polygamy per se.
quote:We all read scripture through our own prisms of expectation and assumption, every one of us. I think my expectation of what marriage "ought to look like" came from growing up with married parents. I spent a good 10 years living a life which didn't conform to Biblical standards because I thought they didn't apply any longer and at a certain point, I became convinced that they do apply. So, in looking to scripture, I found the best justification for sex outside marriage is Tamar and Judah (Gen. 38; and that ain't very justified!) and a clear sense of one man/one woman/forever as the ideal. This was not what I wanted to find.
I can't help feeling, LMC, that you're reading these passages through the prism of your existing expectations of what marriage ought to look like.
quote:You're taking my argument farther than I take it myself: I am not saying "polygamy is clearly rejected by scripture" - I am arguing the Biblical basis of traditional marriage, which does *not* require that scripture clearly reject polygamy or make it "legally immoral" but only that scripture present a clear ideal. For me, this is one of the places where reading the Bible is very interesting and very challenging: to what degree has scripture "compromised" God's "perfect will" to accomodate the foibles of humanity, the realities of iron age economics, the hardness of our hearts? Jesus certainly indicates that the laws regarding divorce which Moses was "allowed" to include are just that, a concession to our imperfection. I think NOT condemning polygamy outright was another concession, but not one I can prove - but that's not the basis of this discussion, is it? "prove polygamy is wrong, from scripture"?
quote:(my italics)
Like *most* of the old testament law, Jesus did not reiterate the position of scripture. I see the position of scripture as pretty clear, even though there was no legal prohibition of polygamy. And, in the context of warring cultures, it was a way to regenerate a population - practical, from the human standpoint.
If there's no legal prohibition, but you nevertheless think polygamy is clearly rejected by scripture, it's a funny sort of clarity to my mind. And I wouldn't have thought any moral law could be cast aside for pragmatic reasons, as you suggest.
quote:To quote my first post, "Lev. 17:14-20, God gives very specific instruction that when the people cry out for a human king, how he should behave and NOT multiply wives, horses, wealth - laws that were not obeyed so please note I included the prohibitions against horses and wealth, as well. We can *speculate* about why God included these warnings for the king (I expect all three were arenas in which kings competed amongst themselves) and we know that Solomon's foreign wives turned his heart from God (marriage to non-Hebrews was also discouraged, so he blew it on a number of counts - and he was the wisest man on the planet.
quote:The same prohibitions include having great numbers of horses, or too much gold, and the NIV has in Deut 17:17
If you follow the argument from Genesis 17 and 22, as well as the prohibition against *kings* multiplying wives (and if it wasn't good for the king, it's going to be good for "just plain folks?" I don't think so) from Leviticus, you see that polygamy is not "the best way" - it's tolerated, but NOT encouraged.quote:How do you get from this to a clear Biblical argument against polygamy? It reads to me like several would be OK, just not many, and the reason for that is practical, rather than moral.
He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.
quote:I don't see how you get "polygamy in moderation" out of Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold... It looks to me, however, that the bulk of our argument is over the misapprehension that MY claim is that scripture "clearly rejects" polygamy, and that is not my argument. I do think scripture makes it clear that polygamy is NOT the ideal and you haven't presented any scriptures which counter that; the fact that God doesn't attach a big red "thou shalt not" to something which nearly all men of means were practicing at the time doesn't make an argument for ideal. If you can find an instance in which polygamy doesn't create pain or trouble, I will be very impressed, because I sure can't think of any.
quote:Not good, just neutral. Most of the OT, I think - time and time again, the OT explicitly describes polygamous relationships, and you know what? It isn't ever condemned. There is criticism of Solomon's many foreign wives, various adulterous relationships, and some passages, like Deut 17:17 preach "polygamy in moderation", but there's no outright condemnation. Considering some of the things that are condemned, that it seems to have been such a common practice, and that you can find some form of "thou shalt not" almost anywhere, I think this is quite revealing.
So what are your arguments from scripture to indicate that polygamy was good? I will be very interested to see them.
I don't hold any kind of brief for polygamy - there are good practical reasons for rejecting it as a viable model for worldwide marriage, and legal ones for not living polygamously. Besides which, I don't think Keren-Happuch would like the idea much.
quote:I agree with the and/both aspect of your response but no one has addressed how this is NOT an argument against polygamy - an additional sexual partner sunders the relationship. I don't see any way around that. "The two" cannot be "one flesh" and ALSO have one of those people be "one flesh" with another person.
Barnabbas62 said:
It is actually a "becoming" which I believe means that God's in it, we're in it, and anyone who really cares about us is, ideally, some sort of positive support (that's the leaving bit). If you don't annoy, or get annoyed, some of the time, you're either very fortunate or there's something wrong! Short answer - not either/or, but both. And on the human side, maybe more about the enduring promise than the really important matter of the heart.
quote:Well, polygamy is explicitly mentioned in the OP as the contender, if you like, for the title of Biblical Model of Marriage, so any attempt to address the OP has got to assess the Biblical attitude to polygamy, especially as there are far more examples than there are of monogamy.
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
You're taking my argument farther than I take it myself: I am not saying "polygamy is clearly rejected by scripture" - I am arguing the Biblical basis of traditional marriage, which does *not* require that scripture clearly reject polygamy or make it "legally immoral" but only that scripture present a clear ideal. For me, this is one of the places where reading the Bible is very interesting and very challenging: to what degree has scripture "compromised" God's "perfect will" to accomodate the foibles of humanity, the realities of iron age economics, the hardness of our hearts? Jesus certainly indicates that the laws regarding divorce which Moses was "allowed" to include are just that, a concession to our imperfection. I think NOT condemning polygamy outright was another concession, but not one I can prove - but that's not the basis of this discussion, is it? "prove polygamy is wrong, from scripture"?
quote:Then read my post again. I think you've quoted the wrong passage when you refer to Lev 17:14-20 (look it up - I suspect you meant Deut), but the NIV (and, it would appear, most translations apart from the KJV) renders the Deuteronomy passage as "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray", which suggest to me a) a practical, rather than moral objection, and b) an objection not to 2, 3 or 4 wives, but 200, 300 or 400. I certainly can't imagine using "many" to mean 2. Without going into the precise detail of the Hebrew, I think it's fair to say the passage is less than explicit.
I don't see how you get "polygamy in moderation" out of Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold...
quote:The fact that no big red "thou shalt not" attached to something so many people were doing suggests to me that at worst, it can't be far from the ideal - God seems to have been fairly quick to condemn various widespread practices throughout the OT. I agree that polygamy isn't the ideal, but I don't think scripture makes that clear at all, not when the overwhelming majority of marriages mentioned are polygamous, and yet are not condemned for that.
I do think scripture makes it clear that polygamy is NOT the ideal and you haven't presented any scriptures which counter that; the fact that God doesn't attach a big red "thou shalt not" to something which nearly all men of means were practicing at the time doesn't make an argument for ideal. If you can find an instance in which polygamy doesn't create pain or trouble, I will be very impressed, because I sure can't think of any.
quote:Err....David prospered because he was nothing less than a man after God's own heart. So much so, that Jesus is modelled upon the example set by David. That his polygamy prospered (in contrast with that of Solomon) was a by product of the love which God had for him - warts and all.
TGG
If ever there was someone God would lead towards a better model, it was surely David, but He didn't and David prospered.
quote:Only that we now have a NT passage that gives an ideal of monogamy AND an OT passage (Gen 2) that sets an ideal of monogamy.
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:Yes, I guess it is.
Originally posted by Anselm:
Though you would have to say that, other than the ability to teach, the list is an ideal that is set for all to aspire to, isn't it?
But I think this just brings us back to what I said way back about OT & NT both simply reflecting the norms of their respective times (about marital plurality).
quote:You asserted this earlier. If David was a man after God's own heart, why would he do something that was against God's will? If he didn't know it was against God's will, why didn't God tell him? He wasn't exactly shy about sending Nathan to slap him down over his adultery and murder.
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:Err....David prospered because he was nothing less than a man after God's own heart.
TGG
If ever there was someone God would lead towards a better model, it was surely David, but He didn't and David prospered.
quote:Exactly what do you mean by this?
So much so, that Jesus is modelled upon the example set by David.
quote:So God loves some people so much that He doesn't even bother to tell them to stop sinning, while at the same time He makes life hell for people He doesn't like for doing exactly the same thing? I don't recognise this picture at all - it seems to be bordering on Calvinism.
That his polygamy prospered (in contrast with that of Solomon) was a by product of the love which God had for him - warts and all.
quote:Though the civil war that occurred under his rule could hardly be seen as a "high point" of prosperity in his reign - and this could be seen as a direct consequence of his polygamy; i.e. the interplay of siblings from different mothers (not unlike what we see in the relations between the sons of Jacob).
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
As an instance of polygamy that doesn't cause trouble, how about David? He seems to have been positively blessed in his polygamy. It also seems reasonable to assume that God wasn't just keeping his counsel about this straying, considering how efficiently David was brought to repentance by Nathan over the Bathsheba incident. If ever there was someone God would lead towards a better , it was surely David, but He didn't and David prospered.
quote:David disobeyed God by running contrary to His Will, plenty of times. This is my own experience too. God has His own ways of showing how wrong we are - mostly through hindsight, if not through the likes of Samuel and Nathan. David always repented and turned back to God; as do I -eventually.
TGG
You asserted this earlier. If David was a man after God's own heart, why would he do something that was against God's will? If he didn't know it was against God's will, why didn't God tell him? He wasn't exactly shy about sending Nathan to slap him down over his adultery and murder.
quote:Whilst Jesus' priesthood is in the order of Melchizedek, his Kingship is in David's line ie the Servant King whose Kingdom was established and ruled by God.
So much so, that Jesus is modelled upon the example set by David.
Exactly what do you mean by this?
quote:I don't understand what this means. God has made Himself and His message known throughout history. Don't people have a share in the Hell which engulfs us ?
So God loves some people so much that He doesn't even bother to tell them to stop sinning, while at the same time He makes life hell for people He doesn't like for doing exactly the same thing?
quote:God's love centres on mutuality as exemplified by David, not on Calvinist predestiny.
I don't recognise this picture at all - it seems to be bordering on Calvinism.
quote:I agree that this is an interesting point, but it's a pretty weird one too.
Originally posted by noelper:
I am wondering whether the absence of condemnation is directly linked to Jesus' point blank refusal to condemn the adulterous woman. That is, His judgement was based upon her circumstances, relative to the practices of those around her.
If women were only accorded status through marriage or child-rearing, or other sexual association ie concubine/prostitute, then an outright condemnation of polygamy would have consigned countless women and their children to.... what exactly ?
And which of the parties would be counted as the wrong-doing 'adulterer' ?
Jesus' silence must have been deafening.
quote:OK, so the creation story presents monogamy and veganism as ideal.
Originally posted by Anselm:
I think Genesis 1-2 does say something about the issues you raised - though it would be off the topic to deal with them now...other than to mention that veganism was directly dealt with by God in Gen 9.
mmmmmmm juicy steak.
quote:And, indeed, no Christian should marry at all, monogamously or otherwise, if we apply that reasoning to 1Cor7.
Originally posted by SteveTom:
OK, so the creation story presents monogamy and veganism as ideal.
Polygamy is permitted by the law of Moses.
Meat-eating is permitted by the law of Noah.
Christians are expected to live not by the permission but by the ideal.
Therefore Christians shun polygamy and steak. No?
quote:I certainly agree that you could read it this way, but you could look at it in other ways as well. The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether the facts are even related. However, inasmuch as all things are related to each other in the wider scheme of things, you probably have a point. In fact, I wonder if I'm on a fool's errand attempting to show an entirely positive example of polygamy, not because there weren't any, but because they weren't recorded.
Originally posted by Anselm:
Though the civil war that occurred under his rule could hardly be seen as a "high point" of prosperity in his reign - and this could be seen as a direct consequence of his polygamy; i.e. the interplay of siblings from different mothers (not unlike what we see in the relations between the sons of Jacob).
), so any exemplar for any argument is most likely going to be all too fallible in one way or another. The further problem is that in general, only "interesting" stories get much attention from the authors, and when they bother to mention an entirely blameless person, they shockingly neglect to record his marital arrangements for posterity! So, for example, King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, is praised in glowing terms, and I couldn't find any criticism of him at all, but his marital situation isn't recorded. I suspect he would have had more than one wife, but without confirmation, this is just a supposition.quote:I'm not sure I fully understand the question, but the story in 1 Sam 25 portrays David in bigamous marriage with Abigail, being already married to Michal. By this time he had also married Ahinoam. v 44 indicates that Saul disapproved so violently that he gave Michal to another man - but Saul was a nutter anyway.
TGG
Noelper, could you give some examples of David persistently sinning and not repenting of his own accord? Because that's what he was doing if his polygamy was contrary to God's will. Apart from the business with Bathsheba, I can't think of any. In fact, it seems very odd to me, if polygamy is wrong in some way, that God would send a prophet to tell him off about his adultery and not bother to mention his equally sinful polygamy.
quote:OK, I'll try again. You contend that David's polygamy was against God's will, and support this position by observing that David sinned many times, but always repented. This much I agree with. However, he didn't repent of his polygamy, nor did he ever give any indication that he might, or even that there might have been anything wrong with it. If it was, indeed, against God's will, I would have expected him to do something along these lines - after all, he always repented, right? The only other occasion I can think of when he sinned, but didn't come to repentance off his own bat shortly afterwards was Bathsheba-gate, when Nathan the prophet challenged him about it.
Originally posted by noelper:
I'm not sure I fully understand the question
quote:I suspect I am missing something in your logic or assumptions here, because this seems to me to be "guilt by association" that you are arguing. "Monogamy and veganism are both ideals ... surely we aren't required too be vegans...therefore we aren't required to be monogamous."
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:OK, so the creation story presents monogamy and veganism as ideal.
Originally posted by Anselm:
I think Genesis 1-2 does say something about the issues you raised - though it would be off the topic to deal with them now...other than to mention that veganism was directly dealt with by God in Gen 9.
mmmmmmm juicy steak.
Polygamy is permitted by the law of Moses.
Meat-eating is permitted by the law of Noah.
Christians are expected to live not by the permission but by the ideal.
Therefore Christians shun polygamy and steak. No?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Resuming the earlier argument, ie which of the parties of polygamy would be the adulterer?. David's polygamy was clearly in keeping with the cultural practices prevailing at the time. Despite many indications of God's displeasure over his womanising (previously cited), in the story of Bathsheba, God acted decisively because David was unequivocally the guilty party. He had broken 4 out of the 10 commandments, because he was unfaithful - not only to his plentiful supply of wives, but to God.
This would mean that not only did David uncharacteristically base his entire life on sin, he never even considered the possibility that God might have other ideas, and God didn't bother to send him the rebuke that would surely have prompted David to clean up his act, even though He was already sending a prophet on another matter.
quote:The point of my argument was to follow through the logic of your argument, and show that it applies to meat-eating in the same way that it applies to polygamy.
Originally posted by Anselm:
I suspect I am missing something in your logic or assumptions here, because this seems to me to be "guilt by association" that you are arguing. "Monogamy and veganism are both ideals ... surely we aren't required too be vegans...therefore we aren't required to be monogamous."
quote:They have been. But as I understand it, you are appealing to the ideals of the creation story against the way they were developed in the OT.
Isn't it possible that these "ideals" might be developed through salvation history in different ways and with varying degrees of significance?
quote:Not yet. But I like your vigilance.
BTW, are you now acknowledging that monogamy is more than simply a cultural preference in the Bible. Doesn't this then shift the discussion from whether the Bible has an ideal for marriage, to how the Bible applies the ideal of marriage?
quote:Although there's no mention of the number of wives, I'd say you can infer polygamy (the only other inference would be a severely exhausted single wife) in at least a couple of cases in Judges 12:8 to the end.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
<snip>
In fact, I wonder if I'm on a fool's errand attempting to show an entirely positive example of polygamy, not because there weren't any, but because they weren't recorded.
<snip>
... only "interesting" stories get much attention from the authors, and when they bother to mention an entirely blameless person, they shockingly neglect to record his marital arrangements for posterity! So, for example, King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, is praised in glowing terms, and I couldn't find any criticism of him at all, but his marital situation isn't recorded. I suspect he would have had more than one wife, but without confirmation, this is just a supposition.
In the circumstances, I think it would be hard to construct much of a case that any model of marriage inherently causes problems. Certainly, it would be possible to claim the occasional high-profile monogamist as evidence in favour of that model (Moses springs to mind), but it doesn't demonstrate an inherent superiority over polygamy. I think the best we can do is probably to examine the Law, and any recorded criticism of marriage practices. All else is open to far too much interpretation.
<snip>
quote:Then I don't know how else I can explain what I'm asking.
Originally posted by noelper:
Sorry, I've completely lost the plot .
quote:This is an extraordinary claim, and one that is entirely unprovable. I don't think differences between the events related in different books demonstrates anything.
A propos David's sins, it seems that God so loved David that few of his sins are recorded
quote:Yes, we're all sinners, and yes, attitude is important, but God nevertheless requires the sin to cease. Why not in this case? There is a possible parallel with the woman caught in adultery. After no one feels able to condemn her, Jesus, despite having intervened to save her life, instructs her to go and sin no more.
These incidents fully accord with the principle, established from the start with Abraham, that God credits those whom He loves with righteousness. That is, David, the patriarchs, and indeed every single one of us, are sinful beings; but God may (or may not) blot out our sins, if we only remain faithful to Him.
quote:No argument here. The question is, as it has been for a while, if polygamy is against God's will, why did He remain silent, rather than condemning it?
David's polygamy was clearly in keeping with the cultural practices prevailing at the time.
quote:Sorry for my incomprehension.
TGG
Then I don't know how else I can explain what I'm asking.
quote:Whilst accepting that it is unproveable, why is it extraordinary ?
This is an extraordinary claim, and one that is entirely unprovable. I don't think differences between the events related in different books demonstrates anything.
quote:This might be the source of my misunderstanding...
Yes, we're all sinners, and yes, attitude is important, but God nevertheless requires the sin to cease. Why not in this case? There is a possible parallel with the woman caught in adultery. After no one feels able to condemn her, Jesus, despite having intervened to save her life, instructs her to go and sin no more.
quote:For myself, the answer is that He remains silent about the practice, even to now, because He prefers Salvation to condemnation.
The question is, as it has been for a while, if polygamy is against God's will, why did He remain silent, rather than condemning it?
quote:The word "abomination" occurs about 140 times in the OT.
Originally posted by noelper:
For myself, the answer is that He remains silent about the practice, even to now, because He prefers Salvation to condemnation.
quote:Because it more or less turns the entire Bible into one big hagiography. If you believe this, why believe that Jesus was really sinless, or performed the miracles that are recorded? The gospel accounts may have been "sexed up" because he loved God, and that's all that matters.
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:Whilst accepting that it is unproveable, why is it extraordinary ?
This is an extraordinary claim, and one that is entirely unprovable. I don't think differences between the events related in different books demonstrates anything.
quote:I don't know. I suspect that nearly being stoned to death would have had quite a profound effect on her, and probably prompted some sort of change, but I don't see that it's relevant. The point is that even while not condemning, Jesus leaves her in no doubt about the "right" course of action, information which seems to be lacking in David's case.
This might be the source of my misunderstanding...
Do you really believe that:
A)the woman stopped sinning ?
B)Jesus believed that she would cease the sinful life ?
C) If so, why ?
quote:But the Bible, especially the OT, is chock full of condemnation of this practice, that practice, and frequently the other practice. God's commands range from the deadly serious, to the apparently ridiculous, to the downright bizarre, so if you propose that God's preference for salvation over condemnation explains His silence on polygamy, I think you need to demonstrate why all the OT laws are different, and need to be laid down in this way.
quote:For myself, the answer is that He remains silent about the practice, even to now, because He prefers Salvation to condemnation.
The question is, as it has been for a while, if polygamy is against God's will, why did He remain silent, rather than condemning it?
quote:I shall respond to your other points later, but note that your approach seeks to justify the ways of God to men and women - when the bible teaches that it is our ways which are not justifiable.
TGG
But the Bible, especially the OT, is chock full of condemnation of this practice, that practice, and frequently the other practice. God's commands range from the deadly serious, to the apparently ridiculous, to the downright bizarre, so if you propose that God's preference for salvation over condemnation explains His silence on polygamy, I think you need to demonstrate why all the OT laws are different, and need to be laid down in this way.
quote:Noelper, in this you are surely also justifying God's ways though?
Originally posted by noelper:
For myself, the answer is that He remains silent about the practice, even to now, because He prefers Salvation to condemnation.
quote:This is a classic cop out - insist that you have a true and right understanding of God and that other people's are contradictory and inconsistent, then when someone points out the contradiction and inconsistency in your own, you say "Ah, but God is an incomprehensible mystery"
Originally posted by noelper:
I shall respond to your other points later, but note that your approach seeks to justify the ways of God to men and women - when the bible teaches that it is our ways which are not justifiable.
quote:While I'm not in agreement with N's general thrust in this thread, I think that your point here is not well-taken. ISTM that the nature of our appreciation of God is that we see through a glass darkly. There are things that have been given to us, both as a Church and as individuals, to see clearly. Most of God's creation does remain a mystery to us, though. The fault, I think, is in attempting to argue one's way out of our God-imposed limits.
Originally posted by SteveTom:
This is a classic cop out - insist that you have a true and right understanding of God and that other people's are contradictory and inconsistent, then when someone points out the contradiction and inconsistency in your own, you say "Ah, but God is an incomprehensible mystery"
quote:Agreed. The general thrust of my position ( as I have consistently made clear ) is that I have indeed 'copped out' in favour of a position where God is Right, no matter what. This in turn raises the question 'What is Faith?'- which I have answered in my own mind.
tclune
It is entirely appropriate to hold on to the Truth we have been given. I agree that this is a bit slippery -- we are sinful creatures, and can easily deceive ourselves that we have been given truths that are convient. Nonetheless, placing our ability to argue at the core of our faith seems absurd. So we are pretty much left with the "cop out," aren't we?
quote:That's all well and good, but the problem here is that it's difficult to extrapolate from the general "God is Right" to the specific "God wants us to be in monogamous marriages" based on what God has actually said on the subject - which, in the Christian Scriptures at least (which is the only thing relevant for a thread on the Biblical Basis of traditional marriage), is practically nothing.
Originally posted by noelper:
The general thrust of my position ( as I have consistently made clear ) is that I have indeed 'copped out' in favour of a position where God is Right, no matter what.
quote:It is because I believe that Jesus was sinless that I assert David and others' sinfulness. The scriptural picture painted of David is warts-n-all - a far cry from hagiography.
TGG
Because it more or less turns the entire Bible into one big hagiography. If you believe this, why believe that Jesus was really sinless, or performed the miracles that are recorded? The gospel accounts may have been "sexed up" because he loved God, and that's all that matters.
quote:You have not established which part of " Do not commit adultery " amounts to equivocation about marriage or to second, third or more spouses; nor about sexual relations with people already married. Jesus simply reiterated the old, old story and OT scriptures document peoples' failure to follow God's instructions.
The point is that even while not condemning, Jesus leaves her in no doubt about the "right" course of action, information which seems to be lacking in David's case.
quote:I can't believe we are reading the same bible.
Alan Cresswell
That's all well and good, but the problem here is that it's difficult to extrapolate from the general "God is Right" to the specific "God wants us to be in monogamous marriages" based on what God has actually said on the subject - which, in the Christian Scriptures at least (which is the only thing relevant for a thread on the Biblical Basis of traditional marriage), is practically nothing.
quote:Sorry, I thought we'd already concluded that the Bible is silent on the pro/con of polygamy
Originally posted by noelper:
I can't believe we are reading the same bible.
quote:You can't offer a text that explicitely condemns polygamy. We can't offer a text explicitely in favour. The Bible is practically silent on the subject.
Originally posted by noelper about 3/4 down p2 of this thread:
Henry Troup
quote:No. Can you provide a text explicitly in favour of polygamy ?
Can you provide a text explicitly against polygamy?
quote:No. The consensus has been that the texts previously quoted do not constitute open dispprobation /condemnation of polygamy. It appears that only a cursing in Black and White constitutes a command. As if that ever made any difference with the human race....
Alan Cresswell
Sorry, I thought we'd already concluded that the Bible is silent on the pro/con of polygamy.
And....
That seems to be the sum totally of the Biblical texts on the subject. Hardly a deafening, unmistakable command from God.
quote:
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
Posted 21 June, 2006 09:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for monogamy lies in the Ten Commandments , which advocate fidelity only to One Person and honouring of one's father and mother, whilst explicitly prohibiting adultery and forbidding the coveting of a neighbour's wife.
It seems very clear to me.
But as Jesus the realist said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:Is there any reason to pre-suppose that the child/ren of such relationships are less entitled to love, nurture or shelter from both parents (irrespective of marital/sexual relations)- apart from common sense, that is ?
Alan C
Is there any reason for someone to honour their father less if he has more than one wife, or to honour their mother less if she's just one of several wives?
quote:I wonder if perhaps we are reading the post I was replying to differently. Perhaps not, but it's hard to see how what you say applies to it otherwise.
Originally posted by tclune:
While I'm not in agreement with N's general thrust in this thread, I think that your point here is not well-taken. ISTM that the nature of our appreciation of God is that we see through a glass darkly. There are things that have been given to us, both as a Church and as individuals, to see clearly. Most of God's creation does remain a mystery to us, though. The fault, I think, is in attempting to argue one's way out of our God-imposed limits.
quote:You keep saying this. Can you explain what it means?
Originally posted by noelper:
Get off my case.
quote:You can't say that David is portrayed warts-and-all, at the same time as you say that many of his sins were left out of the Bible in deference to his love of God. These statements are mutually contradictory, so which is it to be?
Originally posted by noelper:
It is because I believe that Jesus was sinless that I assert David and others' sinfulness. The scriptural picture painted of David is warts-n-all - a far cry from hagiography.
[unnecessary definition of hagiography]
quote:That's been established at great length on this thread already, and I see no reason to go over the same ground again. However, to keep you happy, adultery refers to sex with someone not your spouse. It says nothing about how many spouses one should have.
You have not established which part of " Do not commit adultery " amounts to equivocation about marriage or to second, third or more spouses; nor about sexual relations with people already married. Jesus simply reiterated the old, old story and OT scriptures document peoples' failure to follow God's instructions.
quote:No reason at all. In fact, I'd say that the children of a polygamous marriage shouldn't expect to get any less love and nurture from both parents as children from a monogamous relationship. There is a danger of children of a wife who is more loved by the father being specially treated (eg: the story of Joseph and his brothers), but that's an issue of human jealousy and failing, and I don't think it's necessarily a part of polygamous relationships any more than poor parenting is a part of a monogamous one.
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:Is there any reason to pre-suppose that the child/ren of such relationships are less entitled to love, nurture or shelter from both parents (irrespective of marital/sexual relations)- apart from common sense, that is ?
Alan C
Is there any reason for someone to honour their father less if he has more than one wife, or to honour their mother less if she's just one of several wives?
quote:I can say so because it is simple fact. If you believe there is a contradiction, perhaps you should consult the authors.
TGG
You can't say that David is portrayed warts-and-all, at the same time as you say that many of his sins were left out of the Bible in deference to his love of God. These statements are mutually contradictory, so which is it to be?
quote:This kind of hair-splitting is possibly appropriate in a court of law; less so in a discussion of christian theology where Jesus said in Matt 5:27-28 :-
However, to keep you happy, adultery refers to sex with someone not your spouse. It says nothing about how many spouses one should have.
quote:I proposed a reason; take it or leave it. Makes no difference to me.
That would explain the extraordinary contortions you're going through to justify the Bible's silence on the matter, but it really doesn't help to address the OP.
quote:This is a fair statement of the position, mainly because you have not given any good reason for discarding my basic assumption - that God knows what He is talking about. Moreover, since none of the participants in the discussion appear to consider polygamy appropriate to their individual lifestyle, the academic discussion is somewhat meaningless IMO.
If you can discard your prior assumptions, maybe we can have a fruitful discussion about this, but otherwise, I don't think we're going to get very far.
quote:You're going to have to explain how two contradictory statements can make one simple fact.
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:I can say so because it is simple fact.
TGG
You can't say that David is portrayed warts-and-all, at the same time as you say that many of his sins were left out of the Bible in deference to his love of God. These statements are mutually contradictory, so which is it to be?
quote:No, it isn't a fact, because you can't hold two opinions which contradict each other. If various sins were deliberately left out, as you maintain, it isn't a warts-and-all account. It's that simple.
Originally posted by noelper:
quote:I can say so because it is simple fact. If you believe there is a contradiction, perhaps you should consult the authors.
TGG
You can't say that David is portrayed warts-and-all, at the same time as you say that many of his sins were left out of the Bible in deference to his love of God. These statements are mutually contradictory, so which is it to be?
quote:There's that prior assumption again. I see no mention of any form of marriage in this passage. This does nothing to demonstrate a link between a prohibition of adultery and a prohibition of polygamy.
This kind of hair-splitting is possibly appropriate in a court of law; less so in a discussion of christian theology where Jesus said in Matt 5:27-28 :-
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
quote:I wouldn't disagree that God knows what he's talking about. The problem is, you haven't demonstrated that God has ever said anything against polygamy, so the question has no relevance.
quote:This is a fair statement of the position, mainly because you have not given any good reason for discarding my basic assumption - that God knows what He is talking about.
If you can discard your prior assumptions, maybe we can have a fruitful discussion about this, but otherwise, I don't think we're going to get very far.
quote:Not at all. In particular, there is the issue of whether monogamy should be insisted on as a moral command in cultures where polygamy is the norm, or at least acceptable.
Moreover, since none of the participants in the discussion appear to consider polygamy appropriate to their individual lifestyle, the academic discussion is somewhat meaningless IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Get off my case.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Host hat on
SteveTom has criticized the clarity and logic of your argument. This is appropriate in Kerygmania. Saying 'Get off my case.' is not appropriate. It personalizes what should not be a personal argument. If you want a personal argument, call SteveTom to Hell.
Host hat off
quote:ADMIN MODE
Originally posted by noelper (again):
Get off my case.
quote:Thanks, TGG, this is really the issue here, I think.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The problem is, you haven't demonstrated that God has ever said anything against polygamy, so the question has no relevance.
quote:Not at all. In particular, there is the issue of whether monogamy should be insisted on as a moral command in cultures where polygamy is the norm, or at least acceptable.
Moreover, since none of the participants in the discussion appear to consider polygamy appropriate to their individual lifestyle, the academic discussion is somewhat meaningless IMO.
quote:Yes, certainly half-way.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Didn't I advance a half-way reasonable biblical argument earlier in this thread?
I have various reservations about your reasoning, though, as stated since. In particular, I can't make the leap from a prohibition of adultery to a prohibition of polygamy. quote:I don't say there's no argument. You can construct an argument for anything!
You can't say that there is no biblical argument. It's just not very direct or strong. Much like the arguments against slavery, child abuse, and a host of other "bad things" that we would all be happy to impose on other cultures.
Seriously, a reasonable argument can be made, but I think it's rather short of convincing. I think you meant we would be happy to impose our condemnation of these "bad things" on others - I don't think we really want child abuse for all! But I think we would impose it on rather more secular "human rights" grounds, albeit drawing on Biblical principles of love and justice - would you agree? I don't think the same issues have much of a bearing on the subject of how many people you can marry.quote:I disagree. Let's say a woman lives in a polygamous culture, and has recently converted to Christianity. She loves a man, and he loves her, and they want to get married, but he's already married to another woman. I'd want to be pretty damn sure of my ground before I told her she'd be committing a sin if she married him. You appeal to our cultural consensus, but that doesn't have the authority of holy writ, and in any case, this woman's culture says different. So what now?
Should monogamy be insisted on as a moral command in cultures where polygamy is the norm, or at least acceptable? The answer to that doesn't really depend on whether the Bible offers indisputable evidence that monogamy is a Christian principle.
quote:That's understandable, TGG. It's more of an inference than a link.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In particular, I can't make the leap from a prohibition of adultery to a prohibition of polygamy.
quote:Yes. I think that this is really the strongest way to approach it.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I think you meant we would be happy to impose our condemnation of these "bad things" on others - I don't think we really want child abuse for all! But I think we would impose it on rather more secular "human rights" grounds, albeit drawing on Biblical principles of love and justice - would you agree?
quote:You never know. Marital issues have a pretty large effect on society. In the big picture it can be seen as being about people being hurt, children suffering, the moral fabric of society, etc. etc. Of course it is debatable.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I don't think the same issues have much of a bearing on the subject of how many people you can marry.
quote:*Yes, it is a bed thing.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
As I said above, I don't feel polygamy is the best model of marriage, but I don't think it's a bad thing* per se. I'm certainly not convinced that the Bible supports such an interpretation, even if it could be read as indicating that polygamy is generally "sub-optimal".
quote:So how would you act in my hypothetical? I thought from your earlier comments that you'd insist that the marriage shouldn't go ahead, but maybe I've got that wrong.
Originally posted by Freddy:
But you're right that it is debatable. Seems clear to me, but plenty of people on earth see it differently.
quote:No, you're right about that. If I had anything to say about it. My point was just that if it's in another culture I wouldn't have a say about it.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:So how would you act in my hypothetical? I thought from your earlier comments that you'd insist that the marriage shouldn't go ahead, but maybe I've got that wrong.
Originally posted by Freddy:
But you're right that it is debatable. Seems clear to me, but plenty of people on earth see it differently.
quote:OK, I was assuming that you'd be in a position where you did - say, as a missionary pastor of some type - and the woman was a member of your church who wanted advice.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:No, you're right about that. If I had anything to say about it. My point was just that if it's in another culture I wouldn't have a say about it.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:So how would you act in my hypothetical? I thought from your earlier comments that you'd insist that the marriage shouldn't go ahead, but maybe I've got that wrong.
Originally posted by Freddy:
But you're right that it is debatable. Seems clear to me, but plenty of people on earth see it differently.
quote:Well in that situation I could be very clear. The New Church has very definite teachings about polygamy. And there are many New Church congregations in Africa, and this does come up.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I was assuming that you'd be in a position where you did - say, as a missionary pastor of some type - and the woman was a member of your church who wanted advice.
quote:Jamac, yes, I think that.
Originally posted by Jamac:
After skimming this.. amd I may have missed something Is there anyone who thinks Jesus comment "He who made them in the beginning made the male and female,,What God has joined together let no man put asunder" implies a spiritual jioning of the two that would necessitate the exclusion of anyone else from the relationship?
quote:This seems to me to imply that two people become, in a sense, one person by marriage.
Matthew 19.4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
quote:oops sorry that sounded like I doubted He said them, I simply could not remember where and wished to put them in Context, thank you Freddy.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Jamac please could you give us the verses where Jesus said those things? Thanks.
P
quote:You tell jailed teens Bible stories? And they ask good questions? Way to go!
Originally posted by duchess:
This question always comes up from kidlets in jail that hear the story of Leah and Rachel.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
