Polygamist of the Old Testament

[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?

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."?

Richard I have not. My understanding your comments were time sensitive to the patriarchal period.

[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 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.

And I quote: "Every polygamous family in the Bible, WITHOUT exception was troubled."

That IMO is a blanket statement. To my recollection, there is no reported trouble in regard to Rehoboam. Lamech is mentioned prior to the time of Moses and while the record there is lacking, there is no reported trouble. With the exception of his parents disapproval, there is no recorded trouble amoung Esau and his wives.

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.

Indeed there is. However the drash and sod can not overthrow the pshat reading. As for remetz, it also in invaluable, for without it, it would be impossible to completely understand any given subject. We can not allow allegorical/abstract or mystic/mystery readings of the text to overthrow the pshat/plain/simple reading of the text. As soon as we do, we may as well throw the text out, for we open the door to almost any meaning one wishes to place upon the text.

As for the intent of the author, we could look at almost any given topic/subject within the Torah and without remetz in addition to the pshat reading there is no single topic/subject that we could possible come to a complete comprehension of.

Even with remetz, it still may not overthrow the pshat reading on any given topic/subject.

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.

I am aware of the others: However, none of the other methods may overthrow the pshat. Remetz enhances our fullness of understanding upon a given topic, but no instance of remetz may be used to overthrow the pshat of any given topic/subject. As for drash and sod, while they have some value, again, they may not overthrow the pshat.

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.

Devarim YZ:YZ velo' yarbeh_lo nashim velo' yasur levavo vekesef vezahav lo' yarbeh_lo me'od:

Now let's look at verse 16:

Devarim YZ:YV raq lo' yarbeh_lo susim velo'_yashiv 'et_ha`am mitzraymam lema`an harbot sus vaYHVH 'amar lakem lo' tosifun lashuv baderek hazeh `od:

Yes, there is the adverb mo'ed in verse 17. We could say: "Jack ran" v. "Jack ran swiftly". It does not change the verb, it only enhances it.

However verse 16 in reference to horses does not contain the adverb. So I ask you, even with the presense of the adverb mo'ed, can we overthrow an obvious clear usage in verse 16?

[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."?

Richard I have not. My understanding your comments were time sensitive to the patriarchal period.

Neither of us have advocated such in this day and age. Personally, I do not think there is a man alive who would be capable of such. Too many seem to be incapable of loving even one woman in the fullest sense of it. For myself, I would rather have one wife and be completely devoted to one another.

I know that Shiloh and yourself hold a different perspective upon this than I. I can respect your respective POV's. Regrettably our diametric POV's may never be resolved. I probably should never have stepped into this thread, for I do not wish nor desire any dissension between nor amoung us. I have a great amount of respect for both Shiloh and yourself. However, it doth remain that upon some topics we are likely to not be in accord.

In my last reply to you, I had hoped to bow out gracefully. My sincere apologies to both you and Shiloh in this. For I know that any of us could be a formidable adversary to the other. That is a path I do not wish to ever go down with either of you.

I want for both you and Shiloh to know that I dearly love you both...

[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?

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."?

Richard I have not. My understanding your comments were time sensitive to the patriarchal period.

Neither of us have advocated such in this day and age. Personally, I do not think there is a man alive who would be capable of such. Too many seem to be incapable of loving even one woman in the fullest sense of it. For myself, I would rather have one wife and be completely devoted to one another.

I know that Shiloh and yourself hold a different perspective upon this than I. I can respect your respective POV's. Regrettably our diametric POV's may never be resolved. I probably should never have stepped into this thread, for I do not wish nor desire any dissension between nor amoung us. I have a great amount of respect for both Shiloh and yourself. However, it doth remain that upon some topics we are likely to not be in accord.

In my last reply to you, I had hoped to bow out gracefully. My sincere apologies to both you and Shiloh in this. For I know that any of us could be a formidable adversary to the other. That is a path I do not wish to ever go down with either of you.

I want for both you and Shiloh to know that I dearly love you both...

There is no loss of respect or affection here. This hints at a dispensational argument of which I am not. The opinions you hold I believe you really hold. You are not blind to the danger of polygamy, ours was a third party discussion about a group of people of a different era, who we should be compassionate to because it was a totally different culture. I am not emotionally tied to the outcome of this discussion at all, but enjoy the interchange. Life is good here, the UNC Tarheels are ACC champs. It would take more than this to upset me. I like you have found it hard to keep one woman happy less a harem. The holidays would be a killa!

[Richard_yaash]

There is no loss of respect or affection here. This hints at a dispensational argument of which I am not. The opinions you hold I believe you really hold. You are not blind to the danger of polygamy, ours was a third party discussion about a group of people of a different era, who we should be compassionate to because it was a totally different culture. I am not emotionally tied to the outcome of this discussion at all, but enjoy the interchange. Life is good here, the UNC Tarheels are ACC champs. It would take more than this to upset me. I like you have found it hard to keep one woman happy less a harem. The holidays would be a killa!

It is beyond me to even fathom it...

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 16 2008, 01:49 PM)

QUOTE (Richard_yaash)

QUOTE (shiloh357)

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.

And I quote: "Every polygamous family in the Bible, WITHOUT exception was troubled."

That IMO is a blanket statement. To my recollection, there is no reported trouble in regard to Rehoboam. Lamech is mentioned prior to the time of Moses and while the record there is lacking, there is no reported trouble. With the exception of his parents disapproval, there is no recorded trouble amoung Esau and his wives.

I think you know what I meant. I was referring to every polygamous marriage that the Bible refers to. A little common sense can go a long way. We do not have ANY references to polygamous marriages that were not troubled. Every case in Scripture where we see multiple wives, we see a wake of trouble. That is just fact.

Indeed there is. However the drash and sod can not overthrow the pshat reading. As for remetz, it also in invaluable, for without it, it would be impossible to completely understand any given subject. We can not allow allegorical/abstract or mystic/mystery readings of the text to overthrow the pshat/plain/simple reading of the text. As soon as we do, we may as well throw the text out, for we open the door to almost any meaning one wishes to place upon the text.

As for the intent of the author, we could look at almost any given topic/subject within the Torah and without remetz in addition to the pshat reading there is no single topic/subject that we could possible come to a complete comprehension of.

Even with remetz, it still may not overthrow the pshat reading on any given topic/subject.

It is not a case of "overthrowing" the pshat. The problem is that your view can ONLY be suported if you stop at pshat. That is why your assertion is hermeneutically inaccurate. When we read the entire passage in the light it was intended to be understood taking all hermeneutic factors into account instead of just rely on only one level of interpretation, we come to a more sensible and accurate understanding of the text. Pshat is just beginning. It does not stand on its own.

Yes, there is the adverb mo'ed in verse 17. We could say: "Jack ran" v. "Jack ran swiftly". It does not change the verb, it only enhances it.

It also reveals the intent of the author. The fact is that multiplying wives and multiplying silver and gold cannot be compared in the manner you are doing here. The fact that the same verb is used in both halves is irrelevant. It is the intent of the author that you are ignoring.

However verse 16 in reference to horses does not contain the adverb. So I ask you, even with the presense of the adverb mo'ed, can we overthrow an obvious clear usage in verse 16?

It is not a case of "overthrowing" anything. It is case of letting the text simply speak for itself.

[Richard_yaash]

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.

And I quote: "Every polygamous family in the Bible, WITHOUT exception was troubled."

I think you know what I meant. I was referring to every polygamous marriage that the Bible refers to. A little common sense can go a long way. We do not have ANY references to polygamous marriages that were not troubled. Every case in Scripture where we see multiple wives, we see a wake of trouble. That is just fact.

And within the Scriptures there are many cases of recorded of one having multiple wives with no recorded trouble. You are presenting as you so eloquently stated: "an argument from silence, at best; conjecture at worst. We don't know either way..."

Within a given church, it is not the ones who are happily married that we hear the most about. It is the troubled relationships that we hear the most about. So too is true of the Scriptures, for these things are presented in so that we might learn from them. Relatively, there is only a handful of polygamist relationships in which we read of trouble. I am confident that there were literally thousands of such relationships. Perhaps many in which there was no trouble.

So based upon this: Should we deem all monogamous relationships as being detrimental or troubled since we hear more in that regard than we do of those which are sound, happy and complete? No. For that also would be an argument from silence. Just because we hear or read of troubles with regard to any specific issue, does not make that issue something from which we may regard every case as so being.

However the drash and sod can not overthrow the pshat reading. As for remetz, it also in invaluable, for without it, it would be impossible to completely understand any given subject. We can not allow allegorical/abstract or mystic/mystery readings of the text to overthrow the pshat/plain/simple reading of the text. As soon as we do, we may as well throw the text out, for we open the door to almost any meaning one wishes to place upon the text.

As for the intent of the author, we could look at almost any given topic/subject within the Torah and without remetz in addition to the pshat reading there is no single topic/subject that we could possible come to a complete comprehension of.

Even with remetz, it still may not overthrow the pshat reading on any given topic/subject.

It is not a case of "overthrowing" the pshat. The problem is that your view can ONLY be suported if you stop at pshat.

My view is in accord with not only the pshat, but also remetz. I do not put much stock in drash and sod, for I do not care to allegorize or mysticize the text. Is there some to be gleaned through drash and sod? Yes. However it must remain in accord with the pshat reading.

When working with cults and the doctrines thereof: The commonality between almost every single one of them, was that they would use drash and sod to interpret the text to the point of overthrowing the plain and simple reading. Drash and sod must remain in accord with the pshat reading.

That is why your assertion is hermeneutically inaccurate. When we read the entire passage in the light it was intended to be understood taking all hermeneutic factors into account instead of just rely on only one level of interpretation, we come to a more sensible and accurate understanding of the text. Pshat is just beginning. It does not stand on its own.

It could also be said that you are attempting to apply drash here above and beyond the pshat reading. Drash can not be used to supercede the pshat, not of the verse, nor of the surrounding context.

One of the requirements of a king, is that he is to write a copy of the scroll for himself. Why is that?

Let me ask you a point blank question: Do you interpret Deuteronomy 17:17A as meaning that a king is to have only 'one' wife?

Further: If one interprets it in that manner would it be a fair statement to say that any king who took more than one wife was acting in a manner that was not in accord with the 'Instruction' [Torah]?

Yes, there is the adverb mo'ed in verse 17. We could say: "Jack ran" v. "Jack ran swiftly". It does not change the verb, it only enhances it.

It also reveals the intent of the author. The fact is that multiplying wives and multiplying silver and gold cannot be compared in the manner you are doing here. The fact that the same verb is used in both halves is irrelevant. It is the intent of the author that you are ignoring.

So you say that I am ignoring it. IMO: The intent of the author [YHVH] was to remind a king not to take too many wives. Not that he [a king] was limited unto 'one' wife.

The adverb mo'ed only enhances the verb yarbeh_lo, it does not change it's meaning/effect/intent. I will address this again below.

However verse 16 in reference to horses does not contain the adverb. So I ask you, even with the presense of the adverb mo'ed, can we overthrow an obvious clear usage in verse 16?

It is not a case of "overthrowing" anything. It is case of letting the text simply speak for itself.

Alright, once again let's examine the simple text:

[Deut 17:16] Devarim YZ:YV raq lo' yarbeh_lo susim

[Deut 17:17] Devarim YZ:YZ ve lo' yarbeh_lo nashim

Here is a very simple rendering so it is relatively easy for everyone here to see:

Deut 17:16 Only not have many horses

Deut 17:17 And not have many wives

To insist that Deuteronomy 17:17A means only 'one' wife, so also we must insist that a king may only have one horse.

And yes, my previous assertion with regard to Deuteronomy 17:17B stands. It is the same verb, yarbeh_lo, it is the same conjugation. The same tense, the same personage, the same in every way. Just as it is in regard to horses in Deuteronomy 17:16A.

We can examine the binyanim of the root verb rabah and dig deeper into this. However I really do not think it is necessary as a comparison of Deuteronomy 17:16A v. 17:17A makes it clear beyond any doubt IMO.

In summation: It is impossible to imply that Deuteronomy 17:17A is intended to refer to 'one' wife. Further: To do so implies that the Kings of Judah and Israel, who wrote a copy of the Scroll for themselves, did not understand their own language and that each of them who took more than 'one' wife did so in direct contradiction to the Instruction [Torah].

[Ddavid from NC]

As the OP set the subject in the patriarchal period, everyone to my knowledge and memory say they are not advocating it for today. Is that merely because it is illegal in Western culture? Or do you think the liberation of women to a higher equality in society changes that practice? Which would create the natural question is polygamy downgrading to women? If that is so, wouldn't that make it sinful both today and yesterday?

[Ddavid from NC]

As the OP set the subject in the patriarchal period, everyone to my knowledge and memory say they are not advocating it for today. Is that merely because it is illegal in Western culture?

Personally *I* would never 'advocate' polgamy *IF* I were the guy in charge of it all.

But I could not in good conscious, knowing what I found in my studies, prohibit it or declare anyone having more than one wife as being 'sinful'.

In our culture I would discourage polygamy, but in some middle eastern or asian country where it might be lawful, I really would not feel to present anything MORE than what Gods word declares...such as Exodus 21 showing that if a wife isnt being provided for then she is free to leave the marriage, no questions asked.

Or do you think the liberation of women to a higher equality in society changes that practice? Which would create the natural question is polygamy downgrading to women? If that is so, wouldn't that make it sinful both today and yesterday?

I think, based on Exodus 21, that if the woman is not being treated AS a wife should be, then by default it is 'sinful' regardless of the situation and that she should be permitted to leave the marriage if the man does not give her what is due her as his wife.

Oddly enough Ive read a LOT of interviews with wives in these polygamous marriages and almost ALL of them seem quite content.

There are a few who break away and say they hate it, but for those that remain it seems to be ok with them for whatever reason.

If the man is doing ok..and the women and children are fine also, who are we to declare that something is inherently 'wrong' with the situation *IF* Gods word doesnt state as much...kwim ?

Sounds like a man's world to me...In those cultures you are somewhat familiar, what is the value of a woman in society? This is my point. The women who are content, know they can't survive in those cultures without a man. I think I would probably not want to express any discontent either. Therefore I believe it is a fair question does this mean it is mistreatment of women and therefore a sin?

[Ddavid from NC]

Sounds like a man's world to me...In those cultures you are somewhat familiar, what is the value of a woman in society? This is my point. The women who are content, know they can't survive in those cultures without a man. I think I would probably not want to express any discontent either.

Believe me, the whole polygamy thing makes me physically ill.

In *MY* mind I cannot fathom how a woman could NOT feel like a piece of meat or property and surely not 'loved' the way a wife should be if she is just one of however many wives in this mans harem, kwim ?

But I also cant comprehend the MAN who would even WANT more than a single wife....God knows I can barely handle the one I have sometimes

Is it about sexual deviance?

Is it about a man who has a LOT and sees women who cannot provide for themselves and actually works with his existing wife who MIGHT actually be ok with his taking a second wife?

I just am not in a position to condemn what God doesnt seem to even if *I* feel like the women in these situations are being demeaned.

Think about this too...SOME women dont want all that attention from their husbands.

I know this because I see it in my own family.

I actually have at least two women in my family that Im almost convinced would actually WANT their husbands to have a second wife to keep them occupied sometimes.

I cant say that for sure, but if you saw the situation youd probably wonder too.

Now a woman like my wife Laura...no way. If I even thought of being a polygamist it would break her heart. Shes very possessive of our relationship and time together so theres no way she would ever go for it and it would kill her to think I was with someone else like I am with her.

Just some thoughts on my part...nothing substancial.

Don't let her see this post.