29 Jul 08
7 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Please ignore the Grinning smiley faces. That is unintentional
A more important question which I hope you will answer but which you will ignore is NOT this :
Why didn't Jesus Christ or the writer of Genesis say [b]"shall be joined to his WIVES [plural] "
But This :
Why did Christ or Paul or God NOT say "Thou shall have one wife"
Lets see you give a reasonable answer.[/b]
The issue is what does the Bible show as God's original intention. It is not what became acceptable. Nor what latter developed. The issue is what was originally established.
Quoting with permission from Glen Miller's website I first present these comments on manogamy from ANE scholars:
==================================
This, by the way, is where polygamy sometimes came in as ‘semi-acceptable’ in the wider ANE: the need for labor and the need for a demonstrable heir, in the case of a barren wife:
In the ANE, monogamy was the rule and standard. The exceptions made for polygamy in the law codes show how the normal standard of harmonious monogamy was subservient to having a community-recognized heir.
“Generally, marriage was monogamous, even among the gods.” [OT😀LAM:132]
“With rare exceptions, a man could not have more than one formally recognized wife at a time. Both Babylonian law codes and court proceedings indicated that only under exceptional circumstances was a man permitted to have more than one wife at the same time.” [OT😀LAM:136]
“Polygamy was probably an option for the rich although we have no instances of it (2400-2000BC)” [OT:LIANE:20]
“Monogamy was the norm, and two or three children was average (2000-1800BC)…Kings and maybe other very rich people had polygynous families” [OT LIANE34]
“Monogamy continued to be the norm…Polygamy was possible, but sources do not envision more than two wives (2000-1600BC)” [OT LIANE 51,52]
“The Middle Assyrian ‘laws’ from shortly before 1077 BCE in the north of Mesopotamia preserve older traditions, and they assume much the same monogamous marriage as we see in the Code of Hammurapi from the Old Babylonian period.” [OT LIANE68]
“Polygamy occurred among kings, but much less among private persons (1600-1100bc)”
[OT:LIANE:74]
“From the collection of Hittite laws we can see that the family was monogamous, although kings had concubines whose children had lesser status.” [OT:LIANE:76]
“The structure of the family seems a continuation of earlier models. Rich men, and kings especially, could afford more than one wife, but most people were monogamous (1100-626bc).” [OT:LIANE:81]
“The rich, especially kings, had several wives, but otherwise monogamy was the norm (Israel, 1100-626BC)” [OT:LIANE:87]
“In Israel, as in most of the ancient world, monogamy was generally practiced. Polygamy was not contrary to law or morals, but was usually not economically feasible. The main occurrence of polygamy would be when the first wife was barren, but there are several other factors which encouraged the practice, including (1) an imbalance in the number of males and females, (2) the need to produce large numbers of children to work herds and/or fields, (3) the desire to increase the prestige and wealth of a household through multiple marriage contracts, and (4) the high rate of death for females in childbirth. Polygamy is most common among pastoral nomadic groups and in rural farming communities where it is important that every female be attached to a household and be productive. In the Bible most cases of polygamy among commoners occur prior to the period of the monarchy.” [OT:BBCall, at. 1 Sam 1.2]
“Most marriages were monogamous, but because of the importance of male heirs [in ancient Mesopotamia], fathers who lacked sons had the right to marry a second wife.” [CANE:478]
==============================
This infomation indicates that manogamy was the norm though there were exceptions in the Ancient Near East.
I believe that it was the norm for people because of the realization that monagamy was normal if not divinely ordained.
There seems to be no hint in Matthew 19:4-10 that "from the beginning" ANYTHING was mentioned about polyagamy. The final attitude of the disciples is that God's way is too strict rather than it provides leeway for male indulgence:
"His disciples said to Him, if the case with a man and his wife is like this, it is not profitable to marry." (v.10)
Their understanding appears to be that they are strck with the strickness of what was ordained "from the beginning" rather than the permissiveness of what was ordained.
From verse 4 to the end of verse 6, the word of the Lord Jesus not only acknolwedged God's creation of man but also confirmed God's ordination regarding man's marriage. And that ordination is that one male and one female are to be joined and yoked together as one flesh and not to be separated by man.
The certificate of divorce commanded by Moses which allowed a man to get rid of a wife and take another was not part of the basic law but part of the supplemental law. It was not according to God's ordination from the beginning but was something temporary because of the hardness of man's heart.
Is there any hint that polygamy was originally intended ? I don't think so. Jesus says:
"But I say to you that whoever divorces HIS WIFE, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery ..."
He did not say "whoever divorces [ONE OF HIS WIVES] ...".
Jesus said " ... and he who marries her who has beem divorced commits adultery."
He did not say " ... and he who marries [THEM] who [have] been divorced ..."
His instructions are emphasis what God originally ordained. He is not accomadating for deviations rom God's original ordination concerning marriage. The kingdom of the heavens, which Christ is teaching here, is a recovery of marriage back to the beginning.
In His recovery of marriage back to God's original ordination nothing breaks the marriage bond of one man to one woman except death, or harlotry or whoredom. Except for death or fornication there is no excuse to break the marriage bond for those seeking to live in the kingdom of the heavens.
If polygamy were a part of this recovery of God's original ordination, I don't think the disciples would have been so overwhelmed as to say "If the case of the man with his wife is like this, it is not profitable to marry."
Having multiple wives definitely makes the commandment of Christ more bearable. And I think it is a male centered attitude which seeks to shoe horn polygamy into that teaching in a permissive way.
If one is struck by the strictness and even the impossiblity of keeping such a practice apart from the merciful grace of God, then I think you have rightly understood the teaching. It should scare the male into realizing that without the mercy of God no one can be that strict.
You are looking for a loophole to allow for the indulgence of multiple wives. But from the beginning it was ordained one man for one woman and no separation except spontaneously because of death or because of whoredom (harlotry), ... fornication.
Christ indicates that the standard is so high that only those to whom God allows grace are able to abide it:
"And He said to them, Not all men [can accept] this word, but [only those] to whom it has been given." (v.11)
In other words the word is a hard word, a strict word, a difficult word, a word not all men can accept.
Now ask yourself this, if ANYWHERE in that teaching there was ground for a man having more than ONE wife, would the teaching be as strict and as difficult? I say definitely not. Its strictness is derived from its limitation. A permissive teaching allowing for multuple wives would be easier for the indulgent male to handle.
29 Jul 08
1 edit
==================
Why did Christ or Paul or God NOT say "Thou shall have one wife"
Lets see you give a reasonable answer.
===========================
It is just not phrased that way. Death or whoredom allowed for another wife.
Also that might give the impression that marriage was mandatory which it was not.
The Levitical commandments often are phrased in that way. But not all of God's will has that kind of phrasing.
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitMonogamous marriage belongs to God. Polygamy and divorce belong to man. That's the idea.
Yeah...maybe in Sodom. 😛
What God has joined together let no man separate. Monogamous marriage belongs to God. We were permitted polygamy and divorce. They belong to man.
I think we should understand the matter this way:
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywillLet's see if you're blind the second time.
Monogamous marriage belongs to God. Polygamy and divorce belong to man. That's the idea.
God explicitly allows for divorce, and clearly rewards with polygamy (in the case of Solomon,
David, or Abraham). How can you pretend that these things aren't in 'The Word of God?'
Nemesio
29 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillSure, you can keep that belief if you're willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary. This thread has several good examples of God not only permitting polygamy, but actively supporting it.
Monogamous marriage belongs to God. Polygamy and divorce belong to man. That's the idea.
What God has joined together let no man separate. Monogamous marriage belongs to God. We were permitted polygamy and divorce. They belong to man.
I think we should understand the matter this way:
You'd probably be the first to tell me that God does not tolerate sin. If polygamy were truly sinful, God would have forbade it, right? But if it is not a sin, then why can't we practice it today?
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by Rajk999I belong to a secret cabal that operates above, below and beyond the law.
LOL .... I like that.
How come you got that word 'idiot' in there.
I have tried to use that word before and the post gets rejected.
You paying more subscription than me or something ?
I am to the law as Titania is to Bottom.
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Kyou cannot objectively judge that. you subjectively judge it according to your own preferences.
The issue of sanity is immaterial. I am only saying that we can objectively judge what is perverse behaviour -- and the mentally ill can commit acts of perversion.
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by Nemesiojesus changed that. it is another case of ignore the old testament when it suits you, enforce rules from it when it suits you
Let's see if you're blind the second time.
God explicitly allows for divorce, and clearly rewards with polygamy (in the case of Solomon,
David, or Abraham). How can you pretend that these things aren't in 'The Word of God?'
Nemesio
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziDid Jesus proscribe polygamy?
jesus changed that. it is another case of ignore the old testament when it suits you, enforce rules from it when it suits you
I know that legally, polygamy remained legal until Justinian banned it, along with homosexuality and other traditional practices.
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagei don't know. i would respect jesus' opinion but the main reason i am not polygamous is not because a fat priest says god frowns upon it. it is because it is freakin hard making a marriage work with just one woman. imagine you have to deal with two or more mother-in-laws 5 or more kids, 2 or more naggin wives, and other fun facts about marriage.
Did Jesus proscribe polygamy?
I know that legally, polygamy remained legal until Justinian banned it, along with homosexuality and other traditional practices.
polygamy's only use would be in case of constant wars when the males would kill themselves and the best genetic material stayed home and breed. and poligamy as in a woman with multiple husbands would really be pointless.
29 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio======================
Let's see if you're blind the second time.
God explicitly allows for divorce, and clearly rewards with polygamy (in the case of Solomon,
David, or Abraham). How can you pretend that these things aren't in 'The Word of God?'
Nemesio
God explicitly allows for divorce, and clearly rewards with polygamy (in the case of Solomon,
David, or Abraham). How can you pretend that these things aren't in 'The Word of God?'
=============================
Let's see if you still refuse to see.
The issue in Matthew 19 is what was established "from the beginning".
I have already said a number of times, by His permissive will He allowed divorce and polygamy.
" ... but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt.19:8)
You seem not to notice these words. " Moses ... allowed you ... BUT from the beginning it was not so."
As many times as you objectors say "But God allowed it. But these were polygamous. And those were polygamous. And these others were polygamous. And that on, this one, and the other one, were polygamous" it doesn't effect what was ORIGINALLY established in the beginning.
That is what Christ is saying. The beginning was the standard. It is not the latter deviations permitted by God which were the standard from the beginning.
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywillThis is about divorce, not polygamy. Clearly a polygamist isn't allowed to discard his wives at a whim. That's only fair.
[b]======================
God explicitly allows for divorce, and clearly rewards with polygamy (in the case of Solomon,
David, or Abraham). How can you pretend that these things aren't in 'The Word of God?'
=============================
Let's see if you still refuse to see.
The issue in Matthew 19 is what was established "in the b ...[text shortened]... tter deviations permitted by God which were the standard [b]from the beginning.[/b]
29 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambit=================================
Sure, you can keep that belief if you're willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary. This thread has several good examples of God not only permitting polygamy, but actively supporting it.
You'd probably be the first to tell me that God does not tolerate sin. If polygamy were truly sinful, God would have forbade it, right? But if it is not a sin, then why can't we practice it today?
Sure, you can keep that belief if you're willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary. This thread has several good examples of God not only permitting polygamy, but actively supporting it.
========================================
Since I already wrote that God permitted it this point is moot. I didn't ignore evidence of God allowing polygamy. I provided some. I mentioned Jacob and Solomon.
The issue is what was established "from the beginning".
========================================
You'd probably be the first to tell me that God does not tolerate sin.
==========================================
Depends on what you mean. He will judge sin. He tolerates it everyday in the sense that He sees it happening.
If you read Matthew and you say to yourself "I could never not divorce a wife. I could never turn the other cheek. I could never walk the extra mile. I could never love my enemies. I could never not look at a woman to lust after her. I could never be restricted to only one wife. All these things are too strict and too demanding. I could never be a follower of Christ. Then you got it.
NOBODY can live this way except Jesus Himself.
You have to get the resurrected and living Jesus INTO your being to live in the kingdom of the heavens.
The demand in Matthew's Gospel is met by the supply in John's Gospel. There Jesus is the Life. You must have life in His name. You must abide in the True Vine. Without abiding you can do nothing.
The high standard and high demand of Matthew is met by the rich supply of the indwelling Christ in John.
This is why these two books compliment each other. You cannot take them as isolated from one another. You should not take them as having nothing to do with each other.
The demand in Matthew is so high and strict it should scare you. But this forces us to open to Christ the life to be empowered to live a life in the highest standard of morality.
Perhaps you have been thinking that I am saying "Now, go off and do all these things and you'll be right with God." We cannot do it. We need to have within us the resurrected Christ as life and grace to empower us to live a life of the highest standard of morality,
"You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) means that you need the divine life of the Father to live on this high plane of morality. Because John shows us how to be born of the divine Father and live abiding in the divine nature of the Father we can live up to the high demand of Matthew.
You should consider much of Matthew's Gospel as a discription of Jesus Himself. He is talking about His own being and placing that before men as the highest standard of morality in the earth. Like Him we need a "organic" life relationship with the divine Father's life and have the Father's nature to live this highest standard of morality. We need to be reborn of the life of the divine Father. This is covered in John's Gospel.
The perfection of the heavenly begetting Father will be transmitted to His sons who possess His life and nature - "You therefore shall be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect."
These are not commandments 11,12, 13 to be added to the 10 commandments. These are descriptions of Christ and indicators that we need Him as our indwelling Lord and life to live in the kingdom which has its source not on earth but of the heavens.
29 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywillJaywill, what is the book Songs of Solomon about, please.
[b]=================================
Sure, you can keep that belief if you're willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary. This thread has several good examples of God not only permitting polygamy, but actively supporting it.
========================================
Since I already wrote that God permitted it this point is moot. I didn't ignore ...[text shortened]... e to live in the kingdom which has its source not on earth but of the heavens.[/b]
In one sentence. Thanks.