[nolidad]

I start this thread for I saw the old thread was closed. I just wish to apologize for my very untoward behavior I displyed on several of my posts and ask for forgiveness. I have no excuse but present the following as what was happening that caused me to choose poorly my debating style.

In the past several weeks I have had to undergo 2 Xrays, 3 CAT scans, 3 MRI's, a cystoscopy, an endoscopy and enough fluid exams to last a lifetime. I have been hit with multiple health issues and I allowed them to lower my behavior. ONcew again I am not making excuses just presenting what has been happening to explain why I went negative.

In my next post here if the mods do not shut this down-- I will, w/o the sarcasm and innuendo present biblical and linguistic argument as to why polygamy though tolerated in the few instances recorded was not the standard or norm in Judaism and Christianity.

My last post was answered and cleard up issues of debate and helped also to ease the sense of frustration I felt over some issues as well. Once again I do apologize anhope the debate will continue.

[JerryLove]

Sad to hear of your health issues. That's an awful lot of CT and MRI scans. I'm not surprised that you've had both (the path is usually X-Ray -> CT -> MRI or X-Ray -> CT -> PET). I don't want to imagine what they are doing both MRIs and Endoscopys for; but I certainly hope that your situation improves. I've had all of those procedures and am not fond of any (well, X-Rays are simple and don't have all the lovely contrast of a CT or duration of an MRI... but still)

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Sad to hear of your health issues. That's an awful lot of CT and MRI scans. I'm not surprised that you've had both (the path is usually X-Ray -> CT -> MRI or X-Ray -> CT -> PET). I don't want to imagine what they are doing both MRIs and Endoscopys for; but I certainly hope that your situation improves. I've had all of those procedures and am not fond of any (well, X-Rays are simple and don't have all the lovely contrast of a CT or duration of an MRI... but still)

Thasnk you for your concern Jerry. For those who pray I will briefly share what has happend.

I have a heart condition and was on cumadin (besides 4 other RXs) . I had a cramp in my thigh that ended up being a massive bleed out that had swollen my thigh to the size of a watermelon.

X-ray, cat scans (1 w/o contrast and one with) revealed no arterial rupture. Blood work revealed blood cells in my urine- on to the urologist- cat scan and blood work and cystocopy revealed all things in urinary normal but lesions in m y thigh, arthritis of the lower spine, abdominal abnormalities and tumors on the adrenals.

MRI of adrenals revealed benign adenomas that they are going to wait before removing (still small) Endoscopy of esophagus, abdomen and doudenum revealed heay erosion from reflux and aspirin. another RX for me!!!

Mri of lower spine and of thigh still awaiting results. but back to the issue of polygamy and hopefully more civil.

[nolidad]

To review from the prior thread.

1. There is no direct or explicit command that allows polygamy found in scripture

2. There are many instances of polygamy described in Scripture

3. There is an explicit prohibition of polygamy for Jewish kings found in Deuteronomy 17

14When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Horses- for th ey were not beasts of burdens in these days but used for the military almost exclusively
And to become polygamous would turn the kings heart away from the LOrd so future kings wewre prohibited from being polygamous. Interestingly enough from thje time of Saul into the gospel period- the only recorded cases of polygamy were of kings and the nobles and aristocracy-- the people (at least the kings) who God prohibited.

4. as to the verse giving some implicit tolerance of polygamy Deut. 21: 15If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

There has been some controversy over the verse. The Septuigant Greek, Vulgate, Syriac,Arabic and the Targum all translated this originally as "If a man has had..." which could just as well apply to he became a widower and remarried-- the impoort of the verse is the protection of the birthright and not a implicit apporval of poly gamy anyway.

Aconclusion brought forth by J Jeremias and Josephus was that polygamy was not widepread, was restricted to on esubsect of Judaism iin Palestine(those who followed the teachings of Rabbi Shammai) which happened to be most of the aristocracy. The schools of Hillel and followers of Gamaliel (hillels grandson) condemned polygamy as adulterous. Jews outside of Israel followed mongamy which was the custom in most of the greek and roman lands.

5. The language of the OT surrounding marriage is always 1 man and 1 woman at 1 time.
[Exodus 20

17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Genesis 2:

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Deut. 28:

54So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

Ps. 128:

3Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.

Strong evidence circumstantially- wife is singular but children are plural-- God said chioldren were a blessing and if poly gamy was implicitly apporved of by God then wives would have been just as natural as children in this passage

Proverbs 5:

18Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

19Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

even stronger-- wife singular and let only her breasts satisfy you always (thus commanding he should notr find satisfaction in anothers breasts)

Jeremiah 6:

11Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.

There are many more passages that keep wife as singular in instructing Israel but I believe we see the pattern that is almost universally agreed upopn by Rabbis and ministers-- Monogamy wqas the satandard established by God and that if God tolerated polygamy (which He did) it was not by permission but by Grace. Even so-- of the 4,000 years of history covered by the OT we have only about 12 instances of recorded polygamy-- none of them given happy surroundings (HAgar banished) (Leah hated) (Davids house lost all peace) (Solomon well we know his depression in Ecclesiastes)

As for the NT it is clear

Matthew 19:

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If as man marries another woman if divorced from his first wife (except for unfaithfulness) commits adultery . why becasue the divorce in Gods eyes in unlawful and thus he is a bigamist-- henceforth more than one wife is equated to adultery.

Also the passage in 1 Timothy 3:2-

2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:6

5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly

.


1

Timothy 3:12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

So monogomy was to be the rule for the leadership in the church.

But these leaders are told to be examples to the flock, and the believers are told to follow the example of the apostles, disciples, and leaders. [Phil 3.17; 4.9; 1 Thess 1.6,7; 2 Thess 3.7,9; 1 Tim 4.12; 2.7; 1 Pet 5.3; 1 Cor 4.6; 1 Cor 11.1]

So why was this prohibition written?

1. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.
2, His missionary journeys took him to asia minor, greece and rome.
3. within gentiles cvonverts in some lands (crete and ephesus by implication) men were getting saved who were polygamous. The church welcomed them in at the state they were found but they could not hold leadership oositions within the church.

This is the practice of the church even today. In African missions many converts are polygamous. They are received as brethren but not allowed any further marriages and cannot lead.

This is also true in parts of asia as well as micronesia. these teachings are based on the passages found here.

So we can safely conclude that though there were very few isolated instqances of polygamy amongst Gods people in Scripture based on the evidence of the rest of Scripture concerning marriage-- it was not Gods standard, nor allowed or practiced by the overwhelming majority of Israel or the church.

[JerryLove]

1. There is no direct or explicit command that disallows polygamy found in scripture

2. There are many instances of polygamy described in Scripture

3. There is an no explicit prohibition of polygamy for Jewish kings found in Deuteronomy 17, only a command against hording (horses, wives, money, etc). "two" and "many" not being the same thing.

4. There are explicit commands which would require polygamy.

Exodus 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

2Samuel 12 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
[8] And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Deut 22:28-30 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deut 25: If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

5. There are also laws placing rules on proper polygamy (not possible unless polygamy is not improper to begin with,

Leviticus 18:18And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

6. The Bible is full of "righteous polygamists" Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (to name only a few prophet polygamists). God said of Abraham (after his death)

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

So we can safely conclude that there were many instances of polygamy amongst Gods people, in some cases people who Hod explicitly claimed holy even after their death. Based on the evidence of the rest of Scripture concerning marriage-- it was Gods standard, and allowed.

[nolidad]

So we can safely conclude that there were many instances of polygamy amongst Gods people, in some cases people who Hod explicitly claimed holy even after their death. Based on the evidence of the rest of Scripture concerning marriage-- it was Gods standard, and allowed.

it was not Gods standard-- we do not read of direct command from God but we do hear through Moses--Just like divorce- Jesus rebutted all laws of divorce except for unfaithfulness. He further went on to say if a man divorced his wife for any cause other than unfaithfulness and married another he would be guilty of adultery. And said this was from th ebeginning-- having two wives would not constitute adultery if polygamy/bigamy was the standard God approved

3. There is an no explicit prohibition of polygamy for Jewish kings found in Deuteronomy 17, only a command against hording (horses, wives, money, etc). "two" and "many" not being the same thing.

Well the Hebrew declares: From Strongs:

H7235
רבה
râbâh
raw-baw'
A primitive root; to increase (in whatever respect): - [bring in] abundance (X -antly), + archer [by mistake for H7232], be in authority, bring up, X continue, enlarge, excel, exceeding (-ly), be full of, (be, make) great (-er, -ly), X -ness), grow up, heap, increase, be long, (be, give, have, make, use) many (a time), (any, be, give, give the, have) more (in number), (ask, be, be so, gather, over, take, yield) much (greater, more), (make to) multiply, nourish, plenty (-eous), X process [of time], sore, store, thoroughly, very.

to simply increase--men never "stored" or "hoarded" wives

From Brown-Driver- Briggs:

H7235
רבה
râbâh
BDB Definition:
1) be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)
1a2) to be or grow great
1b) (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to make much, make many, have many
1c1a) to multiply, increase
1c1b) to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly
1c1c) to increase greatly or exceedingly
1c2) to make great, enlarge, do much
2) (Qal) to shoot

and multiply here is in hiphil-- so it means to increase- add to or be a polygamist. Even hoarding wives means he adds to the number which is still polygamy.

1. There is no direct or explicit command that disallows polygamy found in scripture

Agreed--neither is there an explicit command to be a polygamist the levirate marriage weould require polygamy if all the brothers were married but in Ruth there is an intimation of refusing to be the kinsmen redeemer because the man was already married and to take Ruth to wife would "mar" his inheritance. There is not consensus here but some would do take it to mean he was already married and would notr do this.

2. There are many instances of polygamy described in Scripture

Agreed, but just because Scripture records it does not mean it met with divine approval. It is jsut the recorded history that was preserved unless we have the command of approval otherwise.

Exodus 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

Taken out of its context:

7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

This is a Jewish girl sold to a Jewish man as a slave. If he pledges to marry her (vse 8) and he is not pleased with her- she is allowed the right of redemption.

If he pledges her to his son- he is to treat her like his daughter. And if the master marry another woman (because he was betrothed or engaged to thisone) he will not deny her fodd clothing or the right to marry.

11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

You cite 2 sam 12:

2Samuel 12 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
[8] And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things

.

From Keil and Delitsczh

Sa_12:7-8
The parable was so selected that David could not suspect that it had reference to him and to his son. With all the greater shock therefore did the words of the prophet, “Thou art the man,” come upon the king. Just as in the parable the sin is traced to its root - namely, insatiable covetousness - so now, in the words of Jehovah which follow, and in which the prophet charges the king directly with his crime, he brings out again in the most unsparing manner this hidden background of all sins, for the purpose of bringing thoroughly home to his heart the greatness of his iniquity, and the condemnation it deserved. “Jehovah the God of Israel hath said, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom.” These words refer to the fact that, according to the general custom in the East, when a king died, his successor upon the throne also succeeded to his harem, so that David was at liberty to take his predecessor's wives; though we cannot infer from this that he actually did so: in fact this is by no means probable, since, according to 1Sa_14:50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2Sa_3:7 only one concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself

Also Sauls wife would have been Davids mother in law! And to wed your mother in law was punishable by burning to death.

Lev. 20: 14

14And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

the entire context this is found in is sexual sins so there is no question that it would have meant his death.

Also during this time and in this region (Thogh we do not know if Israel followed for David was onlyu its second king) When a new king ascended- he was granted all the possessions of the formere king so wives would be just as easily rendered as women which could have meant Sauls concubine and woman servants. I lean to the latter based oon Hebrew scholars.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by nolidad

it was not Gods standard-- we do not read of direct command from God but we do hear through Moses--Just like divorce- Jesus rebutted all laws of divorce except for unfaithfulness. He further went on to say if a man divorced his wife for any cause other than unfaithfulness and married another he would be guilty of adultery. And said this was from th ebeginning-- having two wives would not constitute adultery if polygamy/bigamy was the standard God approved



Well the Hebrew declares: From Strongs:

H7235
רבה
râbâh
raw-baw'
A primitive root; to increase (in whatever respect): - [bring in] abundance (X -antly), + archer [by mistake for H7232], be in authority, bring up, X continue, enlarge, excel, exceeding (-ly), be full of, (be, make) great (-er, -ly), X -ness), grow up, heap, increase, be long, (be, give, have, make, use) many (a time), (any, be, give, give the, have) more (in number), (ask, be, be so, gather, over, take, yield) much (greater, more), (make to) multiply, nourish, plenty (-eous), X process [of time], sore, store, thoroughly, very.

to simply increase--men never "stored" or "hoarded" wives

Solomon did. 1000 women sounds like a hoard to me...

but 2-4 like the patriarchs...

From Brown-Driver- Briggs:

H7235
רבה
râbâh
BDB Definition:
1) be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)
1a2) to be or grow great
1b) (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to make much, make many, have many
1c1a) to multiply, increase
1c1b) to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly
1c1c) to increase greatly or exceedingly
1c2) to make great, enlarge, do much
2) (Qal) to shoot

and multiply here is in hiphil-- so it means to increase- add to or be a polygamist. Even hoarding wives means he adds to the number which is still polygamy.

Not simple polygamy, but making many. Think Solomon, more than Abraham.

Agreed--neither is there an explicit command to be a polygamist the levirate marriage weould require polygamy if all the brothers were married but in Ruth there is an intimation of refusing to be the kinsmen redeemer because the man was already married and to take Ruth to wife would "mar" his inheritance. There is not consensus here but some would do take it to mean he was already married and would notr do this.

There was a way out, if someone else wanted the bride and you didn't... that is a lot more involved than just already married, sorry. Ruth was also a gentile, so children would be viewed as pretty much half-breeds. There is a lot to the story. Also, there is no indication without Boaz wanting to take her, that the other kinsman would not have been forced to.

Agreed, but just because Scripture records it does not mean it met with divine approval. It is jsut the recorded history that was preserved unless we have the command of approval otherwise.

Exodus 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

Taken out of its context:

No, the context is polygamy. Granted, specifically with a slave girl, but it is about polygamy, no more, no less.

This is a Jewish girl sold to a Jewish man as a slave. If he pledges to marry her (vse 8) and he is not pleased with her- she is allowed the right of redemption.

You do realize, that "not pleased with her" refers to sex in this context...

If he pledges her to his son- he is to treat her like his daughter. And if the master marry another woman (because he was betrothed or engaged to thisone) he will not deny her fodd clothing or the right to marry.

no, they are already married and sleeping together in this context.

You cite 2 sam 12:

.

From Keil and Delitsczh


Also Sauls wife would have been Davids mother in law! And to wed your mother in law was punishable by burning to death.

Lev. 20: 14

David committed a good number of punishable offenses with a death penalty attached.

the entire context this is found in is sexual sins so there is no question that it would have meant his death.

Really? what about the Bathsheba incident? Would not that have meant certain death as well?

Also during this time and in this region (Thogh we do not know if Israel followed for David was onlyu its second king) When a new king ascended- he was granted all the possessions of the formere king so wives would be just as easily rendered as women which could have meant Sauls concubine and woman servants. I lean to the latter based oon Hebrew scholars.

Especially concubines. Things worked in much the same way as in Absolom's revolt, where he slept with the concubines. It clearly means that he got the sexual partners. And only Michael's mother would have been off limits legally.

[JerryLove]

Billgamesh got a lot of this, so I'll try to not be repetitive.

Originally Posted by nolidad

it was not Gods standard-- we do not read of direct command from God but we do hear through Moses--Just like divorce- Jesus rebutted all laws of divorce except for unfaithfulness. He further went on to say if a man divorced his wife for any cause other than unfaithfulness and married another he would be guilty of adultery.

You haven't heard anything from God. You've read a book, which is a translation of a scroll, which is (at best) the writing of someone who heard what God said.

All that said: If you don't trust Moses; why would you trust Matthew?

So assuming we trust all of them (I have been basing my arguments on a truthful Bible after-all), your comment from Jesus is about divorce. It says nothing about polygamy.

And said this was from th ebeginning-- having two wives would not constitute adultery if polygamy/bigamy was the standard God approved

That's correct. And since polygamy/bigamy was part of the allowable standard, having two wives does not constitute adultery (Biblically). There's nothing in the Bible that says otherwise, and there are many examples of it (with no mention of a single one being called adultery).

[Ax]

Just to throw this out there... duty of marriage and marital rights mean sexual relations, not the right to remarry... meaning, he can't deny her sex or decrease the amount of sex he has with her.

Talking about the OT is fun.

[nolidad]

Billgamesh writes: Not simple polygamy, but making many. Think Solomon, more than Abraham.

Well poly gamy is 3 or 30,000 and Solomon did make it the extreme.

There was a way out, if someone else wanted the bride and you didn't... that is a lot more involved than just already married, sorry. Ruth was also a gentile, so children would be viewed as pretty much half-breeds. There is a lot to the story. Also, there is no indication without Boaz wanting to take her, that the other kinsman would not have been forced to.

Well the other kinsemen was the nearere kinsmen-- it was his right off first refusal or acceptance-- If after his and oif Boaz refusal-- it would havew moved further down the line.

Solomon did. 1000 women sounds like a hoard to me...

and still polygamy.

You do realize, that "not pleased with her" refers to sex in this context...

No it doesn't. It means he is not attracted. At this point he is betrothed-- and sex was not allowed in the bewtrothal stage- once a couple had sex (especially a master-servant format) because no bride prioce was needed then they were no longer betrothed but married.

7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

No, the context is polygamy. Granted, specifically with a slave girl, but it is about polygamy, no more, no less.

The cointext is treatment of slaves. Verse 10 refers back to verse 9 (the son being the nearest antecedant to he in 10) And again verse 9 refers to the engagement or betrothal which is a pledge to wed not the wedding itself.

Bottom line- if the son takes another wife (or different wife equally synomous way of readinf) then the Israeli maidservant should not be left destitute but allowed food, clothing and the right to marry. And if they withold those three from her- she is allowed to go free without having had a price paid for her freedom. She is a servant sold to them, and because they betrothed but not married- they had to make sure they still cared for her in her servanthood (because she is a daughter of Israel) and make sure the three provisions are granted. Masters let their servants marry but this girl was found unattractive to both and if she was a gentile- she could have been treated harshly- but becuase she is a Jew- provision is given to make sure she is still treated well- or given her freedom without a price paid.

no, they are already married and sleeping together in this context.

[

See above and:

H3259
יעד
yâ‛ad
yaw-ad'
A primitive root; to fix upon (by agreement or appointment); by implication to meet (at a stated time), to summon (to trial), to direct (in a certain quarter or position), to engage (for marriage): - agree, (make an) appoint (-ment, a time), assemble (selves), betroth, gather (selves, together), meet (together), set (a time).

David committed a good number of punishable offenses with a death penalty attached.

yes it is true- but we have no proof that David married his mother in law.

Really? what about the Bathsheba incident? Would not that have meant certain death as well?

Yes, If God had not intervened through NAthan and given grace. Though it did result in David losing peace in his household.

Especially concubines. Things worked in much the same way as in Absolom's revolt, where he slept with the concubines. It clearly means that he got the sexual partners. And only Michael's mother would have been off limits legally.

And scripture records saul had only 1 concubine. I agree David was a polygamist as was solomon and several kings after .

From Jerry Love:

You haven't heard anything from God. You've read a book, which is a translation of a scroll, which is (at best) the writing of someone who heard what God said.

Well I never intimated I heasrd directly from God-- but From His inspired Word.

All that said: If you don't trust Moses; why would you trust Matthew?

Its not a question of trusting between Moses and MAtthew but recognizing what God allowed because of the hardness of the human heart and what is the command. It is not MAtthew but Jesus who declared what has been from the beginning.

So assuming we trust all of them (I have been basing my arguments on a truthful Bible after-all), your comment from Jesus is about divorce. It says nothing about polygamy.

It is not "just about divorce". But about wrongful divorce and remarriage. Jesus declared the only lawful way to remarry from divorce if it is due to unfaithfulness. Paul reiteraters this truth as well.

Rom. 7: 2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

And Jesus: Matt. 19

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So if bigamy and polygamy (haviing more than one spouse) and polyandry were not sin --this would be an irrelevant statement. But Just as in Romans 7 Jesus said that a man is bound to his wife (except if she commits fornication ) so that even if he divorces her and marries someone else- he is still bound to her. Hence bigamy and polygamy =adultery.

That's correct. And since polygamy/bigamy was part of the allowable standard, having two wives does not constitute adultery (Biblically). There's nothing in the Bible that says otherwise, and there are many examples of it (with no mention of a single one being called adultery).

see above-- Jesus declared that even though it was something done- He declared it adultery. Otherwise you need to define why a man who divorces his wife for a cause other than unfaithfulness and marries another is not a bigamist and an adulterer. Gods word lets us know that top be married to 2 people is to be an adulterer (Romans 7)

And it was not part of the aloowable "standard" but as Jesus stated it was tolerated becuase of the hardness of mans heart- and afdter that reaffirms that which was from the beginning.

Just because God may have tolerated (through grace) a situation does not mean He gave His stamp of approval on it-- as He declared in Matthew.



Kittie doggie writes:

Just to throw this out there... duty of marriage and marital rights mean sexual relations, not the right to remarry... meaning, he can't deny her sex or decrease the amount of sex he has with her.

Agreed-- but she was not "married" only betrothed. Betrothed were bound to each other by contract but not yet wed- if a woman was unfaithful or a man- then they would be stoned for adultery- but they were not yet to have sex- so this maidservant was under contract but notyet married- they had to free her to marry and have marital rights- if after the father and son betrothed her- did not follw thorugh to marriage.

[JerryLove]

Well poly gamy is 3 or 30,000 and Solomon did make it the extreme.

Well. 1 or 30,000 it's still marriage. Anything you support with this argument must be applied to monogamy as well.

Well the other kinsemen was the nearere kinsmen-- it was his right off first refusal or acceptance-- If after his and oif Boaz refusal-- it would havew moved further down the line.

The law cited (requirement to marry sister-in-law if no child exists was not violated in this example; therefore this example cannot be used to establish that the law is violate-able. If your only brother dies, married and without children, you must marry his wife and attempt to get her pregnant (under OT law). There are no exceptions mentioned as allowed or actually happening in the Bible.

and still polygamy.

And still marriage; and therefore an irrelevant comment. You have not established that 2 or 3 wives is "hording".

No it doesn't. It means he is not attracted. At this point he is betrothed-- and sex was not allowed in the bewtrothal stage- once a couple had sex (especially a master-servant format) because no bride prioce was needed then they were no longer betrothed but married.

So a guy had a slave that he wanted to marry but didn't realize he wasn't attracted to her (BTW, the word used in Hebrew translates as "hates"? That doesn't even make sense. Further, you ignore the Bible's own definition of the term. It also appears in Deut 22:13 "dislikes" is tied to "not virgin".

"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,""

And before you argue that this is a case of "didn't sleep with her, just figured she wasn't a virgin", her defense requires proof that he did sleep with her (22:17), a bloody cloth.

And you are wrong. Sex is allowed between a master and a slave. Only in the case of a betrothed (to another slave) is it even declared sinful (but not adultery since he owned her at the time).

Leviticus 19:20. Since "betrothed" is a prerequisite; we've acknowledged sex with unmarried slaves and given no condemnation of sex with not-betrothed ones.

Bottom line- if the son takes another wife (or different wife equally synomous way of readinf) then the Israeli maidservant should not be left destitute but allowed food, clothing and the right to marry.

You are mistranslating 21:10. What you put in English as "right to marry" is hnwe (http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bi...rew&stnm=05772) meaning "cohabitation, conjugal rights". You are required to continue having sex with her, or let her go find a husband who will.

And if they withold those three from her- she is allowed to go free without having had a price paid for her freedom. She is a servant sold to them, and because they betrothed but not married- they had to make sure they still cared for her in her servanthood (because she is a daughter of Israel) and make sure the three provisions are granted. Masters let their servants marry but this girl was found unattractive to both and if she was a gentile- she could have been treated harshly- but becuase she is a Jew- provision is given to make sure she is still treated well- or given her freedom without a price paid.

You are muddling Jewesh law very badly here.

If you had sex with a betrothed free woman, you have committed adultery. See Deut 22:23-24 where sex with a betrothed non-slave is punishable by death. Contrast it with sex with a non-betrothed non-slave (say 22:28) where the punishment is marriage.

Note also that nowhere does it ask/mention if the man is single, betrothed, or married in any of the rules; though every one is concerned with the state of the woman.

The list goes on, but I need to run to lunch. The Bible consistently does not forbid sex with single, non-virgin women regardless of the state of the man, and often demands marriage; again with no regard for the man's marital state.

And if, as I suspect some will say, it's supposed to be "assumed"; then I can't wait to hear why it's spelled out every time for the women.

Bluntly: your post is long and I'm going to go eat dinner. I've gone through every point in this thread an the previous one and disproven them. I've started at the beginning here and not skipped any; so shall we agree I can address the remainder the same? If there's one in particular you think is salient; let me know and I'll make sure to respond to it.

[nolidad]

And still marriage; and therefore an irrelevant comment. You have not established that 2 or 3 wives is "hording".

Because I did not claim that men were hording. So I have no need to establish it. All I said if Solomon "was hording" wives it still is polygamy. (Which was in response to someone elses claim of hording) Polygamy is more than two wives.

Well. 1 or 30,000 it's still marriage. Anything you support with this argument must be applied to monogamy as well.

?????????????????????????????????

How can one equate monogamy to polygamy???? Monogamy is married to 1 polygamy is married to 3 or more so solomon had 300 wives. that makes him a polygamist. You cannot equate this to monogamy.

So a guy had a slave that he wanted to marry but didn't realize he wasn't attracted to her (BTW, the word used in Hebrew translates as "hates"? That doesn't even make sense. Further, you ignore the Bible's own definition of the term. It also appears in Deut 22:13 "dislikes" is tied to "not virgin".

"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,""

Because in the Deut p[assage you cite- he marries her. In the passage I cite- he is only betrothed but not yet m arried according to teh passage. Your tying of dislike to equal non virgin oin the other passage is incorrect exegesis. IN the Deut 21 passage his disliking is caused from her not being a virgin- but you cannot use the term dislikes the same way every time itr appears unless it is the same context and cause and effect in a passage. You should know that better than me.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Because I did not claim that men were hording. So I have no need to establish it. All I said if Solomon "was hording" wives it still is polygamy. (Which was in response to someone elses claim of hording) Polygamy is more than two wives.

It's the Bible that discusses hording. Sorry. I thought you were pretending to make a Biblical argument. My mistake.

How can one equate monogamy to polygamy???? Monogamy is married to 1 polygamy is married to 3 or more so solomon had 300 wives. that makes him a polygamist. You cannot equate this to monogamy.

Of course I can equate it. Watch me do it again.

He was married.

If all polygamy is created equal (your arbitrary standard, but required for your position), then all marriage is created equal. Solomon proves marriage is bad. (actually: I could support that with Paul, but I digress)

Marriage isn't Biblically sinful, and neither is polygamy. Greed/hording, however, is (why people put it on the "seven deadly sins" list. Hundreds of wives would certainly meet that.

Because in the Deut p[assage you cite- he marries her. In the passage I cite- he is only betrothed but not yet m arried according to teh passage. Your tying of dislike to equal non virgin oin the other passage is incorrect exegesis. IN the Deut 21 passage his disliking is caused from her not being a virgin- but you cannot use the term dislikes the same way every time itr appears unless it is the same context and cause and effect in a passage. You should know that better than me.

So the two passages say the exact same thing but have entirely different meanings? I don't suppose you can prove that claim?

I gave you several instances of both multiple wives and pre-marital sex. You've not given a single example that supports your interpretation.

Given that men were having sex with slaves betrothed to others: why wouldn't he sleep with one betrothed to him? Why are you ignoring the fact that he's required to not deny her sex or let her go?

[nolidad]

[It's the Bible that discusses hording. Sorry. I thought you were pretending to make a Biblical argument. My mistake.

I have been --hording is an artificially introduced word.

lets look at the verse again :

Deu 17:17 Neither3808 shall he multiply7235 wives802 to himself, that his heart3824 turn not away:5493, 3808 neither3808 shall he greatly3966 multiply7235 to himself silver3701 and gold.2091

multiply:

H7235
רבה
râbâh
raw-baw'
A primitive root; to increase (in whatever respect): - [bring in] abundance (X -antly), + archer [by mistake for H7232], be in authority, bring up, X continue, enlarge, excel, exceeding (-ly), be full of, (be, make) great (-er, -ly), X -ness), grow up, heap, increase, be long, (be, give, have, make, use) many (a time), (any, be, give, give the, have) more (in number), (ask, be, be so, gather, over, take, yield) much (greater, more), (make to) multiply, nourish, plenty (-eous), X process [of time], sore, store, thoroughly, very.

Solomon amassed the most of all the kings but it still is polygamy.

Definition
polygamy Show phonetics
noun [U]
the fact or custom of being married to more than one person at the same time

hoarding

hoard Show phonetics
verb [T]
to collect large amounts of something and keep it in a safe, often secret, place:
During the siege people began hoarding food and supplies.
There would be enough food on a daily basis if people were not hoarding it.

If you want to make a subjective judgment as to the reason Solomon married so often-- that is your privilege. But I will not read an unknown reason w/o strong evidence.

The Bible simply forbad kings form adding or increasing wives-- and after this prohibition it is recorded only of the kings that they commited polygamy or multiplied wives.

If all polygamy is created equal (your arbitrary standard, but required for your position), then all marriage is created equal. Solomon proves marriage is bad. (actually: I could support that with Paul, but I digress)

straw man. Based on selective editing of the facts.

So the two passages say the exact same thing but have entirely different meanings? I don't suppose you can prove that claim?

No I never said that. they speak of differing instances.

Given that men were having sex with slaves betrothed to others: why wouldn't he sleep with one betrothed to him? Why are you ignoring the fact that he's required to not deny her sex or let her go?

Why is that a given? ON what basis?

Well having sex with slaves made one go from betrothed to wed. Betrothal is pre-sex biblically. Just like Mary and Joseph.

But let us look at the verse once more

I gave you several instances of both multiple wives and pre-marital sex. You've not given a single example that supports your interpretation.

Pre marital sex is a fallacy in the OT up to here. Marriage was accomplished by having sex-as it is today- the ceremony does not marry a couple, intercourse does.
At this stage of the game if a man had sex with a girl- he married her. Even the passage you try to use against my arguments proves that:

13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

When betrothal appears- it presupposes no sex yet-that is the biblical understanding- cause as soon as one has sex- they are no longer betrothed but wed.

7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Nowhere in this verse does it say he had sex with the Jewish servant-girl. It saysd he was engaged to her. If he doesn't like her anymore-then he must let he be redeemed but not sold to foreigners.

Ands if he engages her to his son- he has to treat her as a daughter (still no sex yet, only an assumption)
Then if his son takes a different wife (because nowhere does it say eithewr the father or the son actually married the girl) Then they must continue to feed, clothe her and give her her rights of marriage or let her go free w/o a price paid for her.

Why do I say this? because betrothed is clearly contrasted with wife in this passage as it is throughout Scripture. Betrothed was pledged and not married yet.

Also why do I say they need to give her her right of marriage instead of having sex with her?
1. Nowhere in th elaw did it require men to have sex with their wife more than once.
2. Masters could provide their slaves with spouses :

If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Third the clause: because he dealt deceitfully with her.

I will grant you that some rabbis interpret your way, but many more interpret the way I have presented it and I tend to agree with them.

[JerryLove]

I have been --hording is an artificially introduced word.

That's cause the Bible was not in English. It's non-the-less the topic. I've supported that repeatedly. I've supported mandated polygamy repeatedly. I've shown the inherent contradiction in your position (where you've simultaneously allowed multiples horses but disallowed multiple wives requiring two different definitions of one word in one sentence).

Solomon amassed the most of all the kings but it still is polygamy.

And it's also still marriage. And it's not a verse condemning marriage, nor is it a verse condemning polygamy. There is no condemnation of polygamy in the Bible, though there are many mentions of it.

What is frequently condemned is excess. Hoarding of wealth or things or wives. Collecting them. It is said to cause your heart to turn away.

If you want to make a subjective judgment as to the reason Solomon married so often-- that is your privilege. But I will not read an unknown reason w/o strong evidence.

The Bible simply forbad kings form adding or increasing wives-- and after this prohibition it is recorded only of the kings that they commited polygamy or multiplied wives.

Going from 0 wives to 1 wife is adding a wife.

Going from 0 wife to 1 wife is increasing wives.

Solomon was married.

You don't believe your own claim.

straw man. Based on selective editing of the facts.

I'm sure this is the part where you explain what your actual position was and what the relevant facts are.

Hrm. No you don't seem to do that. You've over and over denied your own claims; never taking the time to explain them. It makes me feel that your denials are dishonest.

So the two passages say the exact same thing but have entirely different meanings? I don't suppose you can prove that claim?

No I never said that. they speak of differing instances.

I'm confused. You deny that you believe they have different meanings, but then seem to imply that you believe they have different meanings ("differing instances"). Establishing that the language used is the same is simple.

Do you believe that Deut 22:13 and Exodus 21 in using the exact same word (Strong's translates as "hates"), in both cases describing women to whom they were betrothed mean the same thing or mean something different.

If you are claiming that the definition is different: support your claim. Otherwise, I've already supported that the discussion in Deut is of sex.

Why is that a given? ON what basis?

On the fact that that Bible explicitly acknowledged it and said it was wrong but not adultery (I've already cited the verse). Are you disputing it?

Well having sex with slaves made one go from betrothed to wed. Betrothal is pre-sex biblically. Just like Mary and Joseph.

Consummation of a betrothal makes it a marriage. That is to say "when you have sex".

Deut already made clear that "hates" means "had sex with and disliked". Why would a slave owner who planned to marry a slave and just changed his mind be suddenly beholden to care for her? It doesn't even make sense. Why bother being "betrothed" at all?

Pre marital sex is a fallacy in the OT up to here. Marriage was accomplished by having sex-as it is today- the ceremony does not marry a couple, intercourse does.
At this stage of the game if a man had sex with a girl- he married her. Even the passage you try to use against my arguments proves that:

So now you deny the Bible in Deut 22:28, where marriage is a required action after pre-marital sex?

I agree that it wasn't "married" until they had sex. The opposite, however, is not true.

If not A then not B does not necessitate if not B then not A.

When betrothal appears- it presupposes no sex yet-that is the biblical understanding- cause as soon as one has sex- they are no longer betrothed but wed.

Sex after betrothal is marriage. Sex outside of betrothal is just sex. Deciding to marry after having sex I simply don't know (I suspect it's auto-consummated).

Nowhere in this verse does it say he had sex with the Jewish servant-girl. It saysd he was engaged to her. If he doesn't like her anymore-then he must let he be redeemed but not sold to foreigners.

No. You have the nonsensical "I decided not to marry you so suddenly have to support you and can't deny you sex". Oh, I forgot, you reinvented that word too.

Why do I say this? because betrothed is clearly contrasted with wife in this passage as it is throughout Scripture. Betrothed was pledged and not married yet.

I don't know when you started caring about the rest of scripture. You've ignored one scriptural command for polygamy after another; and you keep ignoring the similar language in Deut. Similarly, you've ignored numerous cited instances of pre-marital sex (such as the rapist in Deut).

But yes, they are not betrothed after he hates her. They are married. That's why he has to allow her (your translation here) "marital rights": defined by strong's as "sex". Only you keep calling it "the right to marry someone else"... which makes no sense in that there's no indication why it would be suddenly denied, nor any indication that the requirement to care for her will end then, nor any reason why "I'm gonna marry you... no, nevermind" to a slave would suddenly grant freedom and rights.

OTOH, actually having sex with her makes her your wife... and even if you take another, you cannot ignore her, or deny her food or clothing or marital rights. You are not allowed to... how did the Bible put it elsewhere in scripture? "turn your heart away".

Third the clause: because he dealt deceitfully with her.

I will grant you that some rabbis interpret your way, but many more interpret the way I have presented it and I tend to agree with them.

1. You've made no cite of your appeal to popularity.
2. An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
3. The entire Jewesh community in the Bible from the beginning to post NT did not interpret it that way (proven by the fact they allowed polygamy)
4. It's not a Biblically consistent interpretation (I've already proven with scripture).
5. It's also not consistent with the interpretation of the linguistic scholars who actually translated the Bible (proven by the translations themselves).