Polygamist of the Old Testament

[Richard_yaash]

in the ancient days, polygamy was permitted for the protection and provision of women

It was also to build up the population.

I was waiting for someone to suggest that argument. I don't disagree, but that places you closer to the argument, it was wrong but utilitarian to allow it to exist. I lean toward progressive revelation being the solution to this argument. Like to idiosyncrasies you allow in children merely because of their age and experience. Translation there were more pressing issues for their maturity level and grasp of the ethic of faith.

Glad to have been of accommodation to you.

I also believe that polygamy was granted/given/allowed for that very purpose. It would have served well from Eden. Again from the flood and from any place in which the male population was decimated/devastated. Such as in Moses time, the males wer destroyed, in times of war, etc..

I do understand your point Ddavid.

As I have said, I do not support polygamy, but I can not deny that it was allowed simply due to the regulation of it.

[EricH]

The problem is that all kinds of things happened in the OT that the Bible does not supply a value judgement about. That does not mean it condoned the practice. it just reports it. Are there any passages that overtly allow or command polygamy?

[Ddavid from NC]

The problem is that all kinds of things happened in the OT that the Bible does not supply a value judgement about. That does not mean it condoned the practice. it just reports it. Are there any passages that overtly allow or command polygamy?

I think we have exhausted them Eric. IMO we have concluded it is either allowed due to level of progressive revelation at the time of the patriarchs or you believe it is a cultural phenomenon that the Scripture is silent on & therefore a matter of personal conscience for those involved. The main consensus, none of us would attempt to duplicate it even if it were legal. But the wedding industry would love to see it revived$$$$$$!

[EricH]

The problem is that all kinds of things happened in the OT that the Bible does not supply a value judgement about. That does not mean it condoned the practice. it just reports it. Are there any passages that overtly allow or command polygamy?

I think we have exhausted them Eric. IMO we have concluded it is either allowed due to level of progressive revelation at the time of the patriarchs or you believe it is a cultural phenomenon that the Scripture is silent on & therefore a matter of personal conscience for those involved. The main consensus, none of us would attempt to duplicate it even if it were legal. But the wedding industry would love to see it revived$$$$$$!

As would divorce attorneys

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE But I am not making an argument from silence. God may not outright call polygamy a sin, but He gives us ample examples of problems that polygomy breeds. He does not need to trot out EVERY polygomous marriage before us to make that point.

Before the Instruction [Torah] was given we have Jacob. Now Jacob took two wives, and yes, there were troubles there. Those troubles however brought about such as Leviticus 18:18. For the troubles we see prior to the Instruction, we see written within the Instruction precepts to intervene and help keep those troubles from occuring.

I don't see the relevancy to the point I was making.

And there it is, you are presenting an argument from silence. Because the Scriptures are silent with regard to "blessing such arrangements".

I am not making an argument from silence. I am looking at two things. I am looking that institution of marriage that God Himself ordained. Only one institution of marriage has God's blessing upon it. The stories in the Bible are given to us as examples as lessons for us to learn from. God allows us to see the problems that polygamy itself breeds. We don't find any cases where polygamous marriages receive any open approval from the Lord. He only approves of one arrangement, and that is monogamy, and he shows us why.

So let's take poll, a survey, let's review say the boards here and note how many instances of troubled monogamous relationships are recorded v. untroubled ones. Based upon that data, if troubled relationships are shown as having a greater frequency of occurrence, should we then build a case for celebacy?

It matters not if we are to speak of pologamy, monogamy or even celebacy, each of them of fraught with it's own problems.

That completely misses the point. I did not say that everyone in monogamous marriages live happily ever after. I never indicated that they don't have their own share of problems. The points I am making are as follows:

1. Polygamy and monogamy are not morally equivalent. We cannot make the argument that one is just as good as the other and both were perfectly acceptable in God's eyes.

2. While monogamous marriages have problems, the difference is that polygamy incites and inflames carnal, baser qualities in people. Polygamy breeds jealousy, hatred, bitterness, favoritism, strife, etc. The monogamous arrangement does not breed such things.

Yes, drash does, however it may not be used in a manner that is not in accord with the pshat reading. Drash is an abstraction from the text.

It can be used allegorically, but it is better understood as homiletic.

The drash you are attempting to use upon Devarim YZ, is contradictory to the pshat and the remetz of the text.

sigh... no, it isn't. It may contradictory to what YOU think it is saying, but that is a different matter.

So according to your "more accurate pshat", a king could only have one horse as well. The structure of the Ivrit here demands that both are handled in the same manner.

Not at all. I have already made my case for why that is not so.

Shiloh my brother, I would sincerely caution you in this. I do understand where you are coming from, however we can not allow our own perceptions to interfere with the plain simple reading of the text.

I am not interfering at all with the simply meaning of the text.

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man has two wives...

Did the author change his mind/intent just 4 short chapters later suddenly allowing for two wives? Remetz upholds the intent of the pshat within Devarim YZ. Further, remetz disallows the drash you desire to use here.

God is giving his Torah to a group of people most of whom are probably married, in some cases, there are men already married to multiple wives. Instead of breaking up these families, God regulates their behavior. It would have been more troublesome for God to force the men to divorce all of his wives but one, so God takes a group of people, as they are, and He is able to regulate their behavior in their present condition.

God's regulation of polygamy was not, "Okay men, if you want to marry lot's of women, here's how you do it." God did not encourage polygamy. He simply set up rules that would apply to their current situation if they were already in a polygamous arrangement.

The passage in Deut. 17:17 only applies to kings.

I am alarmed though, very alarmed by the statement, and I quote: "That supercedes the verb construction". That is a very dangerous statement IMO. Are we now to decide that our own doctrine(s) supercedes the text and the construct thereof?

Please come to your senses my brother, for that statement is as alarming as nothing I have heard in a long time. A statement such as that verges upon those of heretical cult leaders.

Give me a break... honestly, I am simply following basic rules of hermeneutics, one of which tells us that word usage cannot be divorced from intent of the author. The difference is that I am viewing the passage in Deut. 17 through the lense of God's perfect will for marriage. The commandment not to multiply wives stems from what a proper marriage is from God's standpoint. The King was commanded not to multiply wives unto himself in excess of what God's will for marriage is. That is why it is ludicrous to assume that we would have to then say if the King can only have one wife means he can only have one gold coin or one horse. I am simply applying a little common sense.

I am all for examing the grammar and syntax as part of the interpretive method, but it is only PART of the method. It is not the beginning and end of interpretation.

I have seen many many cult leaders throw out the construct of the Hebrew and the binyanim [conjugations] of Hebrew verbs in order to uphold their doctrines over that which is sound. I am indeed very alarmed by this statement my brother...

Oh please... stop being such a drama queen. I am not throwing anything out. I am simply keeping the syntatical analysis in its place with respect to the rest of the hermeneutic process.

[Richard_yaash]

I am not making an argument from silence. I am looking at two things. I am looking that institution of marriage that God Himself ordained. Only one institution of marriage has God's blessing upon it. The stories in the Bible are given to us as examples as lessons for us to learn from. God allows us to see the problems that polygamy itself breeds. We don't find any cases where polygamous marriages receive any open approval from the Lord. He only approves of one arrangement, and that is monogamy, and he shows us why.

Alright: Let's cut to the chase shall we?

You are again obviously making reference to Genesis 2:24. Yet, you did not answer with regard to "one flesh" previously and wisely so.

You have not shown one clear case within the Scriptures of polygamy being condemned. You have not shown one clear case of monogamy as the only approved. The statements being made herein are not conclusive nor can they be fully supported by the text.

That completely misses the point. I did not say that everyone in monogamous marriages live happily ever after. I never indicated that they don't have their own share of problems. The points I am making are as follows:

1. Polygamy and monogamy are not morally equivalent. We cannot make the argument that one is just as good as the other and both were perfectly acceptable in God's eyes.

2. While monogamous marriages have problems, the difference is that polygamy incites and inflames carnal, baser qualities in people. Polygamy breeds jealousy, hatred, bitterness, favoritism, strife, etc. The monogamous arrangement does not breed such things.

Yet we can not condemn one in favor of the other when both are clear practices within the TaNaKh.

You are using problems/troubles to condemn one in support of the other. When in fact both have their own sets of troubles/problems.

How many monogamous relationships are you aware of in which jealousy, bitterness, hatred and strife are a part of it? You can not say that such is not a problem within monogamous relationships, for it is clearly a problem within both.

Yes, drash does, however it may not be used in a manner that is not in accord with the pshat reading. Drash is an abstraction from the text.

It can be used allegorically, but it is better understood as homiletic.

Yet even homiletic can not go against that which is written and maintain aletheia.

The drash you are attempting to use upon Devarim YZ, is contradictory to the pshat and the remetz of the text.

sigh... no, it isn't. It may contradictory to what YOU think it is saying, but that is a different matter.

Then please break down the Hebrew sentence structure so that it may be clearly seen by all.

So according to your "more accurate pshat", a king could only have one horse as well. The structure of the Ivrit here demands that both are handled in the same manner.

Not at all. I have already made my case for why that is not so.

Please, demonstrate for it for me from the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 17:16-17.

To be continued:

[Richard_yaash]

Continuation:

Shiloh my brother, I would sincerely caution you in this. I do understand where you are coming from, however we can not allow our own perceptions to interfere with the plain simple reading of the text.

I am not interfering at all with the simply meaning of the text.

You have made this claim: Now please support it from the Hebrew text, show me the proper way to handle the conjugation of this verb so that it supports your claim.

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man has two wives...

Did the author change his mind/intent just 4 short chapters later suddenly allowing for two wives? Remetz upholds the intent of the pshat within Devarim YZ. Further, remetz disallows the drash you desire to use here.

God is giving his Torah to a group of people most of whom are probably married, in some cases, there are men already married to multiple wives. Instead of breaking up these families, God regulates their behavior. It would have been more troublesome for God to force the men to divorce all of his wives but one, so God takes a group of people, as they are, and He is able to regulate their behavior in their present condition.

God's regulation of polygamy was not, "Okay men, if you want to marry lot's of women, here's how you do it." God did not encourage polygamy. He simply set up rules that would apply to their current situation if they were already in a polygamous arrangement.

Do we need to bring forth and examine every reference in this regard? It appears that we do. For that which you are presenting here will not hold up in examination of the text. Wouldn't it have been much easier in the scenario you are presenting for one verse to simply say: "Alright men, you got two or more wives, but no more of that ya hear!"

I am alarmed though, very alarmed by the statement, and I quote: "That supercedes the verb construction". That is a very dangerous statement IMO. Are we now to decide that our own doctrine(s) supercedes the text and the construct thereof?

Please come to your senses my brother, for that statement is as alarming as nothing I have heard in a long time. A statement such as that verges upon those of heretical cult leaders.

Give me a break... honestly, I am simply following basic rules of hermeneutics, one of which tells us that word usage cannot be divorced from intent of the author. The difference is that I am viewing the passage in Deut. 17 through the lense of God's perfect will for marriage. The commandment not to multiply wives stems from what a proper marriage is from God's standpoint. The King was commanded not to multiply wives unto himself in excess of what God's will for marriage is. That is why it is ludicrous to assume that we would have to then say if the King can only have one wife means he can only have one gold coin or one horse. I am simply applying a little common sense.

I am all for examing the grammar and syntax as part of the interpretive method, but it is only PART of the method. It is not the beginning and end of interpretation.

Shiloh my brother, you are indeed treading dangerous ground IMO. I am giving you not a break, but rather a warning. It is very serious in my opinion to make a statement that we should ignore the text and the construct thereof as you did with the above statement.

I have seen many many cult leaders throw out the construct of the Hebrew and the binyanim [conjugations] of Hebrew verbs in order to uphold their doctrines over that which is sound. I am indeed very alarmed by this statement my brother...

Oh please... stop being such a drama queen. I am not throwing anything out. I am simply keeping the syntatical analysis in its place with respect to the rest of the hermeneutic process.

So please, show me how to break down the Hebrew while maintaining proper construct in regard to the conjugation.

[Richard_yaash]

In considering this:

Shiloh, I leave you to make a final reply. If you would care to address this upon a deeper level, I will continue discussion. If your reply is upon the same level it has been, I shall cease response, for I foresee this going nowhere constructive if we continue on the current path...

In earnesty,

Richard

[EricH]

So when the Bible describes someone as blameless in scripture, does that imply sinlessness to you?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 19 2008, 03:03 AM)

I am not making an argument from silence. I am looking at two things. I am looking that institution of marriage that God Himself ordained. Only one institution of marriage has God's blessing upon it. The stories in the Bible are given to us as examples as lessons for us to learn from. God allows us to see the problems that polygamy itself breeds. We don't find any cases where polygamous marriages receive any open approval from the Lord. He only approves of one arrangement, and that is monogamy, and he shows us why.

Alright: Let's cut to the chase shall we?

You are again obviously making reference to Genesis 2:24. Yet, you did not answer with regard to "one flesh" previously and wisely so.

I did not see any question about "one flesh."

You have not shown one clear case within the Scriptures of polygamy being condemned.

That is because I didn't make the claim that it was condemned. (Helpful hint: Try reading what I say, instead of responding to what you THINK I am saying.)

You have not shown one clear case of monogamy as the only approved.

It is the ONLY instution that God takes responsibiilty for. God only blesses that which glorifies Him.

Yet we can not condemn one in favor of the other when both are clear practices within the TaNaKh.

All I did was show why polygamy is inferior the marriage insutution the Lord created. The fact that it was practicted is irrelevant to that point.

The statements being made herein are not conclusive nor can they be fully supported by the text.

The Bible also does not say it is wrong to pour gasoline on yourself and set yourself on fire. I could not support directly from the text that such a practice is wrong; however, there is enough revelatory information in the Bible, that I can logically deduce what the Lord's Will in the matter would be.

You are using problems/troubles to condemn one in support of the other. When in fact both have their own sets of troubles/problems.

How many monogamous relationships are you aware of in which jealousy, bitterness, hatred and strife are a part of it? You can not say that such is not a problem within monogamous relationships, for it is clearly a problem within both.

Yes, there are those kinds of problems in both. I already said that. The point is that polygamy breeds it. Polygamy by nature, incites jealousy, bitterness and strife. It does so, because it forces wives to compete bitterly with each other for the favor of the husband. It also incites sibling rivalry as well.

While such problems do occur in monogamous marriages, the difference is that it is not the type of marriage that breeds those problems. Those problems occur within monogamous marriages often from things being brought in from the outside.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

QUOTE (Richard_yaash)

Yes, drash does, however it may not be used in a manner that is not in accord with the pshat reading. Drash is an abstraction from the text.

It can be used allegorically, but it is better understood as homiletic.

Yet even homiletic can not go against that which is written and maintain aletheia.

That is true, but I have never made any point that goes against what is written.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

QUOTE (Richard_yaash)

The drash you are attempting to use upon Devarim YZ, is contradictory to the pshat and the remetz of the text.

sigh... no, it isn't. It may contradictory to what YOU think it is saying, but that is a different matter.

Then please break down the Hebrew sentence structure so that it may be clearly seen by all.

You don't get it. It is not a matter of breaking down the Hebrew. Besides, we have been over that already. It is a matter of understanding the text in the light of God's plan for marriage, and interpretting the text in that light. You want to keep the issue solely on the issue of the text, and I am approaching the issue from the full range of hermeneutic methodology.

The difference here is that I am not limiting my interpretation to only one aspect of hermeneutics. I am taking all factors into account and allowing the meaning to be drawn out. You are forcing an interpretation on the text by only using ONE factor within the interpretative process and are, therefore, engaging in an inferior process of interpretation causes you to reach in erroneous and inaccurrate conclusion.

Do we need to bring forth and examine every reference in this regard?

Yes, you do. If you think the text of Scripture contradicts my claim that God did not encourage polygamy, then by all means, show every reference where God told men that were to marry several wives.

Shiloh my brother, you are indeed treading dangerous ground IMO. I am giving you not a break, but rather a warning. It is very serious in my opinion to make a statement that we should ignore the text and the construct thereof as you did with the above statement.

As I have stated several times, I am not "ignoring" the text. I am approaching the text using all of hermeneutics, not just grammatical syntax. The reason we disagree is because you are relying on only ONE part of the hermeneutic process to arrive at your conclusion, and I am not. So, you throw up this ridiculous straw man that I am ignoring the text, when the truth is you are ignoring proper hermeneutics. Not one credible scholar/commentator that I have been reading on this particular passage out of Deuternomy thus far, has arrived at the conclusion you are espousing.