Polygamist of the Old Testament

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 16 2008, 09:10 AM)

QUOTE (Richard_yaash)

With regard to Timothy and Titus: Well, a man with more than one wife wouldn't have the necessary time, nor the required energy to fulfill the duties of that calling.

It was deeper than that. Every polygamous family in the Bible, WITHOUT exception was troubled. Polygamous marriages in the ancient near east were always frought with jealousy, bitterness, pride and anger. Wives who were barren were the least loved, those who bore daughters were not much better. Wives who produced sons were most favored and were often in bitter competetition to see their son be the husband's most favored child. It was in the mother's best interest that her son be the chief heir.

I agree that it is much deeper. However to say that "every polygamous family in the Bible without exception was troubled" is a blanket statement that will not completely bear up IMO. Is there trouble recorded with regard to Lamech? Is there trouble recorded [aside from his parents not liking it] within amoung the wives of Esau? There is no recorded trouble with Ashhur? True, there is very little written, but there is no recorded trouble. I do not recall any trouble for Rehoboam as well. All that is required to disprove such a blanket statement is one polygamous family in which there is not recorded trouble.

Yes, but that is irrelevant. God did not have to outline the problems within every polygamous marriage in the Bible to illustrate that it is problematic and inferior arrangement to monogamy. We have enough of a record given to us to draw that conclusion.

Further, with regard to Timothy and Titus: It is my opinion that we can not explicitly state that it is a sole wife as in a man never divorced. For in the instance of a man married, divorced and remarried before ever coming to know Christ, we are in effect putting the very Blood of the Lamb on trial in stating that it [the Blood of the Lamb] is not sufficient to cover the things done in ignorance by this man.

I also do not believe that it is referring to a man previously divorced prior to becoming a Christian. I do believe it applies to a man's ability to manage his affairs after coming to the know the Lord.

The only reason that I even mentioned it, was because you had previously introduced this into the discussion. I am aware of to whom it pertained unto. I remain of the opinion that any attempt to limit this to 'one' wife must also therefore limit it to one piece of gold and one piece of silver.

That would not be in keeping with the plain and obvious sense of the text.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

As for the gold... Any sensible reading of the text (even without extensive hermeneutic treatment) would understand the prohibition to refer to amassing vastly inordinate amounts of wealth, which ordinarily cannot be obtained without inflicting oppression. Furthermore, such inordinate amounts of wealth would tempt the king into placing more trust in his riches than God. The king was not to trust in uncertain riches, but rather his trust was to be in God alone.

Agreed. However the verb remains the same. We can not reasonably translate one instance of the identical conjugation as being 'one' and the other instance being 'more than one but not too much'.

We must also be guided by the plain sense of the text and the obvious intention of the author. To ignore that is poor exegesis. A rational approach is required, not simply trying to follow wooden translation rules. We need to approach Scripture making sure we are keen to the object the author has in view.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

The commandment is quite unprecedented in Moses' day. It places limits on the kings of Israel with respect to liberties that were freely enjoyed without restriction by pagan kings. As I previously indicated, the reistriction is unprecedented in that it holds Israel's kings to a higher standard of conduct than the polygamous, pagan kings of other nations.

Yet, we have record of Polygamy prior to Moses. In Moses' day they were in slavery/just coming out of slavery.

So what? What is your point?

[Richard_yaash]

Yes, but that is irrelevant. God did not have to outline the problems within every polygamous marriage in the Bible to illustrate that it is problematic and inferior arrangement to monogamy. We have enough of a record given to us to draw that conclusion.

While it may be irrelevant, it disallows a blanket statement.

I also do not believe that it is referring to a man previously divorced prior to becoming a Christian. I do believe it applies to a man's ability to manage his affairs after coming to the know the Lord.

Concur.

That would not be in keeping with the plain and obvious sense of the text.

I do understand your position upon it and it is duly noted and respected. My position OTOH in the pshat reading of the text is the same as yours although polarized.

We must also be guided by the plain sense of the text and the obvious intention of the author. To ignore that is poor exegesis. A rational approach is required, not simply trying to follow wooden translation rules. We need to approach Scripture making sure we are keen to the object the author has in view.

Fully understood and appreciated. As I have said, the pshat reading IMO does not allow for one half of this to be singular while the other side becomes plural. Here again though, as we approach the passage from diametric positions, it is unlikely we will ever agree in full upon this point.

[Ddavid from NC]

The Biblical purpose of marriage is intimacy and exclusiveness. Jesus and the church is given as a mandate and an analogy. God is described as a jealous God interested only in a monogamous faithful relationship with his bride. If polygamy were acceptable it would destroy the analogy.

[Richard_yaash]

The Biblical purpose of marriage is intimacy and exclusiveness. Jesus and the church is given as a mandate and God is described as a jealous God interested only in a monogamous faithful relationship with his bride. If polygamy were acceptable it would destroy the analogy.

While I disagree with regard to polygamy, I do understand your point Ddavid.

[Ddavid from NC]

While the Bible may not say directly polygamy is wrong (in the opinion of some). We have to consider does it offend the righteous treatment of women?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 16 2008, 10:56 AM)

Yes, but that is irrelevant. God did not have to outline the problems within every polygamous marriage in the Bible to illustrate that it is problematic and inferior arrangement to monogamy. We have enough of a record given to us to draw that conclusion.

While it may be irrelevant, it disallows a blanket statement.

I did not make a "blanket statement." Made a statement based upon the avialable evidence. The fact is, God has provided us with enough evidence to know His heart on the matter.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

That would not be in keeping with the plain and obvious sense of the text.

I do understand your position upon it and it is duly noted and respected. My position OTOH in the pshat reading of the text is the same as yours although polarized

Pshat is only the ground floor. There is more to understanding text, including remetz, drash and sod. In addition, the intent of the author has to be taken into account.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

We must also be guided by the plain sense of the text and the obvious intention of the author. To ignore that is poor exegesis. A rational approach is required, not simply trying to follow wooden translation rules. We need to approach Scripture making sure we are keen to the object the author has in view.

Fully understood and appreciated. As I have said, the pshat reading IMO does not allow for one half of this to be singular while the other side becomes plural. Here again though, as we approach the passage from diametric positions, it is unlikely we will ever agree in full upon this point.

The difference is that I understand that Pshat is not meant to be a stand alone interpretative method. There is more to it. You are trying act as if pshat is as far as you need to go, and that is where you are mistaken.

The fact is that the Hebrew does not does not read exactly the same in both halves of the verse. The 2nd half reads "lo yarbeh lo me'od." It refers to "greatly" multiplying silver and gold. The fact the the same verb is used in the 1st half is really inconsequential. The 2nd half refers to an inordinate amassing of wealth. It obvious from any sensible reading of the text, that both halves are to interpreted differently.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Biblical purpose of marriage is intimacy and exclusiveness. Jesus and the church is given as a mandate and God is described as a jealous God interested only in a monogamous faithful relationship with his bride. If polygamy were acceptable it would destroy the analogy.

While I disagree with regard to polygamy, I do understand your point Ddavid.

It is impossible to be "one flesh" with multiple spouses.

[Guest LadyC]

While the Bible may not say directly polygamy is wrong (in the opinion of some). We have to consider does it offend the righteous treatment of women?

given the prospective life of a woman without a husband in those days, i think the reason it WAS permitted was FOR the protection of women.

ddavid, God is not "indirect" regarding what is permissable and what is not. particularly with the israelites, where the consequences for unholiness were very dire. they didn't live in the age of grace that we now live in. i mean, there was some grace, surely, but not as we know it today. if a man was disobedient to God, he was defiled and could not enter into fellowship with Him until he had been through the whole purification thing. this would not have been possible if God considered polygamy to be "wrong", because if it was wrong, it would be sinful, and would have been addressed directly.

[Richard_yaash]

The Biblical purpose of marriage is intimacy and exclusiveness. Jesus and the church is given as a mandate and God is described as a jealous God interested only in a monogamous faithful relationship with his bride. If polygamy were acceptable it would destroy the analogy.

While I disagree with regard to polygamy, I do understand your point Ddavid.

It is impossible to be "one flesh" with multiple spouses.

If a man is married to one wife and goes unto a prostitute, does he also become "one flesh" with the prostitute?

[Richard_yaash]

While the Bible may not say directly polygamy is wrong (in the opinion of some). We have to consider does it offend the righteous treatment of women?

Have I promoted polygamy as being acceptable in this day and age?

Have I directly stated that, and I quote: "For myself: I do not advocate polygamy."?