A Critique - Part 1
by A.K.
Well, I see that you are religious and believe in the Bible, which is admirable. So this will make
my task much easier if we both believe that G-d is not a source of confusion, but of a sound mind and that His Word, the Holy Scripture is the inerrant Word of G-d.
Let me give a little introduction about myself. I grown up in a Christian home, however when I accepted Jesus as my Messiah and Lord in my late teenage years, the Lord revealed himself to me through his Word. The Scriptures were my companion through my college years especially, where I gravitated toward healthy and sound Bible teachers. Since I like to study the Scriptures, I do come into disagreement with some even well known Christians. Sometimes these disagreements are minor, sometimes they are major. It all depends on whether it makes a division in the body of Christ or not.
As I was reading your articles like Were Adam and Eve a prototype of human marriage and some others as well, like What does it mean to be a husband of one wife, I noticed something that should struck any Bible scholar, namely I haven't seen in any of these articles the main marriage law quoted or referred to.
Let me explain. The main teaching of the Tanakh, the Scriptures about marriage is Ge 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
This was given before the Fall, however it was confirmed by Yeshua in Ma 19:5.6 and also in Eph 5:31
Now, also worth mentioning here before we dissect these verses, that there is no commandment in the Scripture that would overwrite or amend this commandment. Although the Tanakh has many records of godly, and also not so godly man marrying more than one wife, in none of these cases we find an explicit command from G-d that would change the original one given in the Garden of Eden.
So in this sense I would argue with you that the marriage of Adam and Eve was the prototype
marriage for the Human race. Remember, Yeshua confirmed it as well.
If we look into the verse from Genesis, the original Hebrew speaks of one man joined to his one wife, not wives, in plural. Studying the original Hebrew and specially Greek, which is more restrictive language grammatically than Hebrew, in the Ma 19 account, there is no hint here that the marriage could mean somehow multiple wives. Don't you think that the Scripture is very plain here?
This is the rule that is used for marriage, and understanding this will help us to interpret other passages in the New Testament that are given by the apostles as guidelines for choosing bishops and other servants for the Church.
For example, the one article What does it mean to be the husband of one wife? tackles the instruction given by Paul to Timothy for the Church. (1 Ti 3:2)
The Greek word for one refers here as one certain wife, rather than the first one or other wife, which the word itself could mean also, but not in the context it is used. The strictness of the Greek grammar doesn't allow here the idea of first wife (from several wives). Please study and find it out for yourself.
As you correctly assume, this requirement given by Paul to Timothy is a guideline that we should be wise to follow. So it is not a rule on marriage, but on service in the House of G-d. It was never intended to be a commandment for marriage.
As I see it, you prefer the husband of first wife interpretation of the 1 Ti 3:2 passage, rather than the husband of one wife. As I explained earlier you really have to bend the meaning of the word here, because the strict Greek grammar doesn't allow the meaning of first in this context, rather one certain wife, meaning the only one.
But lets assume for a moment that the first interpretation is the correct one. In this case what is the restriction? You really have to stretch this one now, because this would command a bishop to have more than one wife if he is married, which would be in direct contradiction to many other Scripture passages and even would contradict your own argument.
So what about polygamy mentioned in the Tanakh? It is always a good principle to find the first time it was used in the holy Scriptures. In Ge 4:19-24 we read that Lamech took two wives. These five verses of Scripture can take hours and days of study, but the bottom line is that Lamech pronounced a worse curse on himself than Cain was given by G-d for the murder of his brother.
And I want you to notice this, since you like to quote the Hebrew words from the Bible, that his curse was related somehow of marrying two wives. As the rabbi would say, there is no unimportant detail in the Talmud.
So why didn't G-d spoke out against it? Here is my answer:
· First I do think that G-d laid down the principle in Ge 2:24, the ideal principle for marriage
· Since G-d commanded it in Ge 2:24, there was no need to reiterate the commandment. If somebody chooses to ignore it, being even a godly person like David or others, doesn't really change the rules. Yeshua said: Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my Words will by no means pass away and he said it also: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5"and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
· Thirdly, since the government laws about marriage do not contradict the Scripture commandment as we know it, especially believers have to obey it. There is no conscience issue here that would give grounds somehow to civil disobedience. And Ro 13 does point out that breaking the rules of government equates resisting G-d's authority as well, and this in turn invokes the judgment of G-d.
· Fourthly, we do well to acknowledge that God does indeed refrain from explicit prohibitions against polygamy, but the full revelation of his Scriptures certainly does not commend or encourage us to practice it. Contrary, almost without exception, negative impact in the family lives of polygamists are recorded and stressed in the Scripture.
I pray that your eyes be opened to the truth of the Scripture as it gives uncompromising guidelines to marriage relationships.
There were other issues that I avoided as of now to go into, just for simplicities sake, conveying what I understand to be the marriage commandment of G-d. I would expect you as a brother in Christ to reply to my email. I would also expect you to prayerfully consider before your reply, to give chance to the Holy Spirit to talk to your spirit about the truth. Because the Holy Spirit can't teach two different truths, so let's find out what the Holy Spirit teaches.
With respect, A.K.
Response - Part 1
by 'Pilgrim Barry'
I would suggest that few people, if any, who have married, have not in some respect gone beyond the strictest sense of what is written in Ge, 2:24. If going beyond what is written is wrong, we have a problem.
In the command (Ge. 2:24) it is quite obvious a man "shall" leave his father and mother. Not a word is mentioned about his wife doing the same. In fact, there is no command of God anywhere indicating a general rule - she "shall" or "must" leave father and mother. Even where there are references to a woman being "given" to a man in marriage, there is no command that she "shall" or "must" leave her parents - they could theoretically not go beyond what is written and thus live with her parents until they are no more. Which command of God explicitly mandated that she leave? None. So in other words, since shortly after God gave the command, most marriages have been constituted while going beyond the original command. Who gave explicit permission to do so? Consider your argument:
"Although the Tanakh has many records of godly, and also not so godly man marrying more than one wife, in none of these cases we find an explicit command from G-d that would change the original one given in the Garden of Eden."
Would not your logic continue to apply? Where is God's explicit command that would mandate a change in the original cohabiting position of a wife with her parents? Her leaving is not in the command - only his leaving is. It being stipulated for a man to leave, but not his wife - if followed in the most explicit sense, both will live with her parents.
Thus, unless you will yet uphold the strictest sense of God's command, then, by accepting a woman leaving her parents for marriage, you have started down a road of going beyond what God originally said. That begins to crack open the door for going beyond in other aspects - polygamy being one possible consequence. It cannot be mandatory to not go beyond in one aspect, and yet be okay to do so in another; consistency matters in our treatment of the scriptures. Sir, (presuming I'm writing to a man) I suggest, if you are married, but your wife has left her father and mother, you along with your wife, have gone further than God's original command. I haven't read that God said you couldn't.
It should be obvious, but it is often missed, what is the full extent of implications if we will have strict compliance when God said "they shall become one flesh". At what point did God change this - so that they could get out of bed and he go off to work while she does laundry etc? You mean people can arbitrarily decide to disconnect for a while? I suggest there are many examples and commands necessitating going beyond strict adherence to Ge. 2:24. A restriction in practice to nothing beyond its exact wording - is obviously impossible. Becoming one flesh must at some point give way to doing things beyond what is stated in the command. Of course, there is a long list of things that are beyond, outside of, not included in, the original command. So then, who gets to decide what can, or cannot be done by a man in addition to being one flesh with his first wife? I think you would agree that what God has said decides it. What He says is sin - that's what is actually sin.
So what has God said? He said in 1 John 3:4, "sin is the transgression of the law". Let's be clear about this. Did God say "sin is going beyond how things are initially begun"? If that were true - then because of going no further than God's command - all us married people had better get back in bed at the wife's parents place and get on with it till death do us part. I'm not being ridiculous for no reason. If it were true that no one may in any respect go beyond what God commanded in the beginning, the ridiculous is inevitable. However, sin is the transgression of the law. So then, which law indicates - as you used the word - "explicitly", that going beyond the original marriage command is prohibited? There isn't any such law. No such law = no transgression = no sin. If no sin - what's the problem? If God does not call a thing wrong - we should not of ourselves preach that it is. Proverbs 30:6
For a long time I have marveled at an amazing contrast. Anti-polygamy writer's arguments always use the "Adam was given only one woman" argument to mandate one wife per man is a must now . This is done repeatedly in the face of NO biblical writer using the Eden marriage to prove exactly that point. Why is this? I must therefore conclude, many current writers are not in tune with the bible's writers and Author on this issue. The contrast speaks loudly - I can't ignore it.
A brief comment about the overseer requirement "husband of one wife".
If you look at the whole list of requirements - it's a list of minimums - not maximums. There is no limit stated for a man's desire to be an overseer - nor for how apt to teach he is, how gentle he is, no limit to a good report form outsiders that he must have, etc. The tenor of the context is that he must come up to at least these standards. That he may go beyond other men, and excel in any point - there's no restriction. So too, husband of one wife. If it is a maximum restriction - it's an anomally on the list - everything else on the list is a bare minimum with no restriction to do more, go further, do better, or build upon initial minimum standards. Hopefully, the guy will go on to be a yet better teacher, have his children even more adherent to his house rules, go futher away from being given to wine, and even perhaps, in marriage, exemplify our Messiah joining himself to the Church. Note: Church is a plural word in the Greek, it = assembly or congregation - in other words He is joined to a plurality. I believe "husband of one wife" fits right in with the context tenor - a minimum not maximum.
About the law of the land being against polygamy:
In some places that is changing. Polygamy became recognized as legal in South Africa in 1998. The European Union requires that social assistance payments be made to any eligible man; and if he has more than one wife through marriage in a previous country of origin, and is yet their provider - payments must be made for all his wives. The door to polygamy has cracked open there. In a number of other countries, recogition of homosexual marriages (sad, bad situation) is being established due to govenments withdrawing legislation previously used to control private personal lives of citizens. Many legal opinions agree this will logically lead to inevitable acceptance of polygamy. If this happens, anti-poly people will be forced back to using just the bible - which is where what is "right" should be established from in the first place - not hiding behind the laws of man.
A.K. - be encouraged to go beyond the pat answers often used for casting in a bad light, some of the most godly men who ever lived.
I hope what I have written will be used to my Master's glory.
Barry
Critique - Part 2
by A.K.
Okay - I'll have a go at answering.
To AK
I would suggest that few people, if any, who have married, have not in some respect gone beyond the strictest sense of what is written in Ge, 2:24. If going beyond what is written is wrong, we have a problem.
In the command (Ge. 2:24) it is quite obvious a man "shall" leave his father and mother. Not a word is mentioned about his wife doing the same. In fact, there is no command of God anywhere indicating a general rule - she "shall" or "must" leave father and mother. Even where there are references to a woman being "given" to a man in marriage, there is no command that she "shall" or "must" leave her parents - they could theoretically not go beyond what is written and thus live with her parents until they are no more. Which command of God explicitly mandated that she leave? None. So in other words, since shortly after God gave the command, most marriages have been constituted while going beyond the original command. Who gave explicit permission to do so? Consider your argument:
I heard some arguments so far about Ge 2:24, but you certainly surpass everybody else in
hermeneutics.
First, based on the original Hebrew text (I love to go back to the original), although it doesn't say that the wife should leave her parents it is implied though. The Hebrew marriage ceremony that is also referred to by Jesus the Messiah in the New Testament, in a nutshell consists of the following:
· betrothal
· a bridegroom preparing an abode for his bride
· a procession when a bridegroom comes to get his bride and takes it to the place he made for
her
· the marriage ceremony is held at the bridegroom's place
· and just to put the dot on the i, the marriage consummation takes place during the ceremony.
So,do you think that the Hebrews misunderstood the marriage command for centuries and G-d
wouldn't correct them? Yeshua even told a parable in Mathews Gospel about the marriage ceremony.
Do you think Yeshua would use a faulty example to teach about the Kingdom of G-d?
I rather believe that you are in fault, than the Messiah.
But I still don't understand your point though - clarity is a must in debates and arguments.
Now, if I assume for a moment what you seem to push here, then your logic in a nutshell is like this:
· since the bride doesn't have to leave her parents, the bridegroom moves into her place. So this takes care of the requirement that a man shall leave his father and mother.
· Since the man who just married already left his parents, how can he marry again? He certainly
can't leave his father and mother again, since he already left them with his first marriage!?!
· So how can He marry again? Let's adopt the sailors practice, one wife in every harbor.
Ridicules? You bet. I agree.
· This is how far ungodly man will twist the Scriptures to tickle their own lusts.
"Although the Tanakh has many records of godly, and also not so godly man marrying more than one
wife, in none of these cases we find an explicit command from G-d that would change the original one given in the Garden of Eden."
Would not your logic continue to apply? Where is God's explicit command that would mandate a
change in the original cohabiting position of a wife with her parents? Her leaving is not in the
command – only his leaving is. It being stipulated for a man to leave, but not his wife - if followed in the most explicit sense, both will live with her parents.
Exactly, G-d didn't change it. Please see section above.
Thus, unless you will yet uphold the strictest sense of God's command, then, by accepting a woman leaving her parents for marriage, you have started down a road of going beyond what God originally said. That begins to crack open the door for going beyond in other aspects - polygamy being one possible consequence. It cannot be mandatory to not go beyond in one aspect, and yet be okay to do so in another; consistency matters in our treatment of the scriptures. Sir, (presuming I'm writing to a man) I suggest, if you are married, but your wife has left her father and mother, you along with your wife, have gone further than God's original command. I haven't read that God said you couldn't.
It should be obvious, but it is often missed, what is the full extent of implications if we will have strict compliance when God said "they shall become one flesh". At what point did God change this - so that they could get out of bed and he go off to work while she does laundry etc?
Nonsense, or Scripturally: trying to explain spiritual things according to the flesh. Even Stan wrote about the spiritual aspects of the marriage.
You mean people can arbitrarily decide to disconnect for a while? I suggest there are many examples and commands necessitating going beyond strict adherence to Ge. 2:24. A restriction in practice to nothing beyond its exact wording - is obviously impossible. Becoming one flesh must at some point give way to doing things beyond what is stated in the command. Of course, there is a long list of things that are beyond, outside of, not included in, the original command. So then, who gets to decide what can, or cannot be done by a man in addition to being one flesh with his first wife? I think you would agree that what God has said decides it. What He says is sin - that's what is actually sin.
So what has God said? He said in 1John 3:4, "sin is the transgression of the law". Let's be clear about this. Did God say "sin is going beyond how things are initially begun"?
You just prove my point again. Jesus stood by the Ge 2:24 account. And Yeshua asks you the same
question: Haven't you heard what was given in the beginning? Why do you try to pontificate on it?
There is NO OTHER MARRIAGE RULE! If you find any other, please quote it. I am eager to learn.
The question is can you teach the truth?
If that were true - then because of going no further than God's command - all us married people had better get back in bed at the wife's parents place and get on with it till death do us part. I'm not being ridiculous for no reason. If it were true that no one may in any respect go beyond what God commanded in the beginning, the ridiculous is inevitable. However, sin is the transgression of the law. So then, which law indicates - as you used the word - "explicitly", that going beyond the original marriage command is prohibited?
It seems to me that you miss the issue, so let me re-emphasize it again:
· First you misquote me. When I used the word explicit (not explicitly just to be precise) I used it in a context that even with polygamous marriages in the Tanakh, in NONE of these cases we find an explicit command from G-d that would change, overwrite or amend the Ge 2:24 rule.
Why don't you point out a new rule for marriage? Simply because there is NONE.
· Secondly, if you would put down your blinders of judgment and just be open to the Spirit, you
would understand that I said G-d does indeed refrain from explicit prohibitions against
polygamy, however He doesn't commend or encourage us to practice it! This is what you
should be concentrating your arguments, if you have any.
· Thirdly, I state with proof on interpreting both Ge 2:24 and Ma 19:5,6 that these verses do not hint in any way for polygamous relationship. In contrary, you ask me "which law indicates that going beyond the original marriage command is prohibited?". Instead why don’t you tell me the Scripture that proves your views, rules that go beyond the original marriage command? I
stated my point based on the Scripture, you did not do the same to prove yours. Is it
because there is now such proof?
There isn't any such law. No such law = no transgression = no sin. If no sin - what's the problem?
If God does not call a thing wrong - we should not of ourselves preach that it is. Proverbs 30:6
That's why you should be more careful here, because the overall teaching of the Bible doesn't
encourage it either. So if you want to do something that is:
· Not encouraged by G-d
· Not commanded by G-d
· The commandment that was given in Ge 2:24 doesn't allude to it either, unless you stretch the
truth again.
For a long time I have marveled at an amazing contrast. Anti-polygamy writer's arguments always
use the "Adam was given only one woman" argument to mandate one wife per man is a must now .
This is done repeatedly in the face of NO biblical writer using the Eden marriage to prove exactly that
point.
There is no mandate in the Bible about marriage. In the contrary, many verses do encourage not to marry if someone can whit-stand sexual immorality. 1 Co 7 which is not even talking about leaders, just every day believers, mentions in a number of places to remain single or unmarried, like:
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman
have her own husband (1,2)
...
For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry (7-9)
...
Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.
Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you. (27,28)
...
But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away. But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. (29-33)
...
So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does
better. (38)
When Jesus explained in-depth about marriage to his disciples, once they understood it, they replied:
If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry (Ma 19:10)
So whom do you believe? Yeshua or man?
Why is this? I must therefore conclude, many current writers are not in tune with the bible's
writers and Author on this issue. The contrast speaks loudly - I can't ignore it.
A brief comment about the overseer requirement "husband of one wife".
If you look at the whole list of requirements - it's a list of minimums - not maximums. There is no limit stated for a man's desire to be an overseer - nor for how apt to teach he is, how gentle he is, no limit to a good report form outsiders that he must have, etc. The tenor of the context is that he must come up to at least these standards. That he may go beyond other men, and excel in any point - there's no restriction.
So too, husband of one wife. If it is a maximum restriction - it's an anomally on the list -
everything else on the list is a bare minimum with no restriction to do more, go further, do better, or build upon initial minimum standards. Hopefully, the guy will go on to be a yet better teacher, have his children even more adherent to his house rules, go futher away from being given to wine, and even perhaps, in marriage, exemplify our Messiah joining himself to the Church. Note: Church is a plural word in the Greek, it = assembly or congrecation - in other words He is joined to a pluality. I believe "husband of one wife" fits right in with the context tenor - a minimum not maximum.
About the law of the land being against polygamy:
In some places that is changing. Polygamy became recognized as legal in South Africa in 1998. The European Union requires that social assistance payments be made to any eligible man; and if he has more than one wife through marriage in a previous country of origin, and is yet their provider -
payments must be made for all his wives. The door to polygamy has cracked open there. In a
number of other countries, recogition of homosexual marriages (sad, bad situation) is being
established due to govenments withdrawing legislation previously used to control private personal lives of citizens. Many legal opinions agree this will logically lead to inevitable acceptance of polygamy. If this happens, anti-poly people will be forced back to using just the bible - which is where what is "right" should be established from in the first place - not hiding behind the laws of man.
I presented you with a Scripture
For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves Ro 13:1-2
If the marriage laws of the land are not in contradiction with the law of G-d, so why don’t you want to reject it when it means that G-d will judge you????
It is a terrible thing to fall into the (judging) hand of G-d. Go ahead if that is what you want to do. My intention was to be a help pointing to the truth.
A.K. - be encouraged to go beyond the pat answers often used for casting in a bad light, some of the most godly men who ever lived.
I When I look unto godly men in the Scripture I try to learn their godly character, like
· David’s heart for worship and not his adultery with Bethseba, or his polygamy per say
· Abraham’s faith, and not his weakness when he married Hagar (interesting how polygamy
pops up)
· Joshua’s leadership
· Moses’ meekness, not weakness
· Jeremiah’s steadfastness in proclaiming G-d’s word to an unbelieving nation
So these are a few of those godly men that I learn from.
I hope what I have written will be used to my Master's glory.
Who is your Master Barry, G-d or Stan?
Because G-d can defend His Word, whom are you defending?
At first you might find this offensive or out-of-line so to speak, however if you follow your arguments, you use worldly logic to explain spiritual things. You are not trying to present me with the overall teaching of the Bible about marriage, but using worldly arguments. You prove exactly the point of the Bible when it speaks about false teachers:
Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from
sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be
teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. (1Ti 1:5-7)
Or in 2 Ti 4:1-6
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
Fables like the multiple wives of Adam, which is not in the Bible. I am sorry that you base some of your arguments on this fable circumventing the plain teachings of the Scripture. (This is to Stan, not Barry)
Stan, I doubt that you would be so quick to post this on your website, but this would be a fair thing.
Even the Bible says that you can’t judge someone without giving a chance for defense. J
My first letter was my statement to you Stan as a challenge on your interpretation of the Scripture.
Barry defended you and attacked me, as best he could.
So this is my defense.
And for all of you who read this response and have more questions, please study the Bible, which is the truth. And decide for yourself what does the Bible teach.
Response - Part 2
by 'Pilgrim Barry'
To A.K.
As I'm sure you would agree, examining a couple of square inches on a large painting will not be enough to convince most people of it's value. Also, looking at only a few pages of a book will convince few it is a book with a good message. So too, I would have been surprised if you had immediately, with no further evidence, heartily embraced what you have stood strongly against. Actually, I commend you on that - too many people are persuaded easily by a few nice sounding arguments. Be encouraged to continue not jumping on just any band wagon that may pass in front of you. At the same time, be encouraged to thoroughly examine if the band you are currently hearing, is playing the Master conductor's tune. In myself, I have had to fight against being quick to reject anything that doesn't line up with what I've always believed. I've had to backtrack on a variety of issues, because, as I saw more of the compete picture, I couldn't continue to turn away from overwhelming evidence. That has been my experience with polygamy.
Please do not assume I write as I do, to justify my current marriage practice. I have only one wife and that may (for all I know) be the case until I die. So I therefore am not in the least trying to vindicate polygamy because of a need to gain anyone's acceptance of my behavior. No instead, I hold the perspective that I do, purely because I am compelled by scriptural evidence that I at one time had no interest to see. If I see something is upheld by God's word, I have no option but to say it is right - even if it never has an application to my personal situation. For example, I still say being a mother is right even though I'm sure I will never be one.
From your arguments, I conclude you are either new to dealing with the issue of polygamy, or, if you have looked at it for a while, you have been contented with the standard arguments most anti-poly people use. Please continue to put forward arguments - by doing so, you therefore will look at what is actually written to prove your arguments. Because I have confidence in the power of God's word, I believe it is most likely that what He has said will have the greatest ability to persuade you. If you have ever had the experience of arguing a point, and later finding out you were wrong - then, you may not be surprised if that will happen again. I've lost track of how many people I've heard of, who set out to prove polygamy wrong and then were compelled to change their view because the total scriptural evidence was decidedly for it. In other words, they didn't want it to be so, some even hated it and were angry at it, but in the end, submission to all God has said about it, changed their mind.
Of course, not everyone does change their mind, but I have noticed that those who do, usually have an approach to the bible of accepting all it says - even if they don't happen to like it. I hope that will be your approach. This is quite different than liking the idea of polygamy and then going to the word to see if what they want can be accommodated. I believe that's how many people approach polygamy - except the other way around - They don't want it to be right - so they grasp at any straw argument to support the way they prefer it to be. A close friend of mine really really does not like polygamy doctrine; however, this person feels compelled by scriptural evidence to argue for it. Of course, in a case like that, what one prefers, needs to be brought in line with what is known to be true.
You said:
"although it doesn't say that the wife should leave her parents it is implied though."
As I'm sure you are aware, historically, much contradicting doctrine has been built on assumed implications. Your words " it doesn't say that " is a standard I interpret by. If we established doctrine upon things people believe is implied, we are at some point headed for disagreement; possible implications tend to be seen according to what we want. I suggest we will agree more if we confine our discussions to what it actually does say - that's something solid, and will not involve so much opinion.
You said:
"So, do you think that the Hebrews misunderstood the marriage command for centuries and G-d wouldn't correct them?"
You are making my point for me. It is precisely because they did for centuries understand the marriage command, that many men who communed directly with God, practiced polygamy; and that without Him once speaking against it to them. You said "and G-d wouldn't correct them?" Of course, if they had misunderstood - God would have corrected them - He is too holy to totally ignore sin for centuries. In the complete absence of God correcting any man for marrying more than one wife, plus, never once pointing to the Eden account for restraining men to one wife - I must conclude, it is the anti-poly people of today that misunderstand His command - not those who intimately conversed with Him so much. With some of the polygynously married men, God had on-going, very close, communion and fellowship with them, yet, we have no record He in the least disapproved them if they took an additional wife. Why will anyone today condemn what God did not - especially when it was being practiced by the people He spoke directly to? I do think the Hebrews rightly understood the marriage command and its significance - thus the many godly polygynously married men. God would have at least once corrected them if they had got it wrong.
I gather from your comments, that perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous arguments. I'll try again.
I did not intend in the least to imply, a woman must never leave her father and mother. I simply pointed to that as a logical outcome if your take on Gen. 2:24 would be followed consistently. Correct me if my understanding of what you meant is misplaced. I understand you to mean - that original command of God is a statute limiting all men thereafter from marrying beyond one wife. Is this what you meant? If so, my point is that you must be consistent in your application and not allow going beyond in one aspect of the command, while disallowing it for another. If it is okay (I believe it is) for the woman to leave her parents and for the new husband and wife to do things beyond becoming one flesh - consistency demands it is also allowable (not mandatory) for the man to go beyond that one wife. Surely you believe we have to be consistent?
I see you are stumbling over the concept that a man can only leave his father and mother once. Fair enough. However, of the marriages in the bible that describe before and after marriage circumstances, there is often a span of time between the time the man has left his parents, and is then married. Take Jacob for an example. He was away from his parents for years before he married Leah. When he married her - was he in a position of having left father and mother? Clearly, yes. Did he become one flesh with Leah? Also, yes. Was God's original marriage command fulfilled by Jacob? Yes, but there was considerable time elapsed between his leaving and becoming one flesh. So when he married Rachel, was He still in the position of having left his father and mother? Yes - Who could say in truth "Jacob has not yet left his parents"? No matter how many women he married thereafter, he for life, remained a man who had left his father and mother. Just as for life he came into the position of "married", so too, he for life, was describable as one who has left his father and mother. A man can be one who has left father and mother whether he is never married or is married many times - it still stands - he is thereafter accounted as one who has left his parents - getting married does not change that. The faultiness of the argument you used becomes quite evident through a little more consideration:
You said:
"Since the man who just married already left his parents, how can he marry again? He certainly can't leave his father and mother again, since he already left them with his first marriage!?!"
Okay, so what if the woman he marries dies? If your logic were valid - that's it for life for him - he can never marry again. How is he going to leave his mother and father to marry a new wife now that his first wife is dead? Maybe you can clarify this? If your logic stands - how will he leave again? Or perhaps you do believe he cannot marry again. I've not run into that reason before for prohibiting a widowed man from getting married - but I guess someone somewhere might say it's so. I hope you can see that your argument is in need of consistency.
You said:
"You just prove my point again. Jesus stood by the Ge 2:24 account. And Yeshua asks you the same question: Haven't you heard what was given in the beginning? Why do you try to pontificate on it?
There is NO OTHER MARRIAGE RULE! If you find any other, please quote it. I am eager to learn.
The question is can you teach the truth?"
No other marriage rule? Do you think we could call it a "rule" if we can observe how God himself did or did not comply with your take on Gen. 2:24? If we can't call such things a "rule", perhaps we can agree that we must take into account God's own actions. What am I talking about? Eve was not the only woman God gave to a man in marriage. Yes, it is recorded He gave one woman to Adam. But another occasion of God doing wife-giving is also recorded.
In 2 Samuel 12:8 - it is recorded that God gave David his master's wives. This of course, was in addition to wives David already had. So to both Adam and David, God did wife-giving. The first occasion God gave one wife to a man - on the second occasion He gave a plurality of wives to an already married man. In both cases, God is the giver. Did God somehow miss the significance of His first act of giving, and let some of His absolute holiness and perfection slip when He gave David additional wives - on top of wives he already had? A.K., I can't believe God is ever inconsistent with Himself in His own actions. Either God should not have given David more wives because of Gen. 2:24, or He should have given them because what He does is right and there was no contradiction with that verse. I can't help but conclude from God's actions that His original command is no prohibition to additional wives. I don't believe God is the author of confusion - He does not change, and is consistent from beginning to end.
You said:
"He doesn't commend or encourage us to practice it! "
Maybe you can clarify why you say this - I tend to see God giving David more wives than he already had, as a commendation and encouragement to practice polygamy. Do you believe that what God did with David was a "discouragement" and "condemnation" of polygamy? I can't see that. I don't see as a problem - in fact it would be an honor, if it should please the Lord to be my Shepherd in similar practical terms as He was for David.
You said:
"Instead why don’t you tell me the Scripture that proves your views, rules that go beyond the original marriage command? I stated my point based on the Scripture, you did not do the same to prove yours. Is it because there is now such proof?"
I think what I have just said above, shows there is such proof. The rule I follow for understanding is, "If God does it - it's automatically right". I hope you take this as a rule as well. Psa 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works. I believe this is true including when He gave David more wives.
You tried to make a point from Paul's commendation of a single life. Paul was right - the unmarried can be devoted to service of God in a way that married ones can't. However, I do not see this as overriding either the overseer requirement to be married - nor do I see it revokes God's statement in Eden, "It is not good for the man to be alone". When a subject is addressed in more than one place in the bible, it is necessary to take all evidence into account. I encourage you to do this when you form your opinions and try to raise a point.
A number of other things you wrote were in an antagonistic and unfriendly tone. I'm not convinced of value in discussing when one or more parties has that tone. I see that my Lord could call even Judas by the sincere term "friend". I hope to have future communications with you, based at least on that same sentiment.
A.K. - I certainly agree with your final statement. You said:
"So this is my defense. And for all of you who read this response and have more questions, please study the Bible, which is the truth. And decide for yourself what does the Bible teach".
May what the Bible actually teaches, guide us all.
Barry
Author: AK & PB
