Polygamy in the Bible

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

What law was given to the patriarchs? A written law?

Much of what is in the oral law is true though it is not God inspired word.

Same goes for the Apocrypha. Though it is not the inspired word of God many truths are expounded there. We don't accept them because during that time there was no word from God through a prophet as such called the silent years. Ever heard of the Maccabees?

Where do we get the culture and customs from? Many writings that are historical records. We study these though they are not the word of God. Do you have Josephus or Eusebius the father of church history on your book shelve. These are a good study though you should not equate them to the Word of God.

Tell me where the additional detail comes from that is added to the New Testament that not found in the Old. You probably have never studied that.

The Mishnah, Talmud, and others are not God's Word nor inspired! You cannot claim the law the Patriarchs had or was given was that of the Mishnah and others. Not even Messianic Jews would say that. What is true in the Oral Law is pure speculation on our part.

Your point on Revelations is your own speculation. There is plenty of historical precedents that Revelations is authentic. If you want to argue 2 Peter, Esther or 3rd John as noncanonical then I might give you a ear.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

What law was given to the patriarchs? A written law?

Much of what is in the oral law is true though it is not God inspired word.

Same goes for the Apocrypha. Though it is not the inspired word of God many truths are expounded there. We don't accept them because during that time there was no word from God through a prophet as such called the silent years. Ever heard of the Maccabees?

Where do we get the culture and customs from? Many writings that are historical records. We study these though they are not the word of God. Do you have Josephus or Eusebius the father of church history on your book shelve. These are a good study though you should not equate them to the Word of God.

Tell me where the additional detail comes from that is added to the New Testament that not found in the Old. You probably have never studied that.

Also don't ASSUME anything with me. You know nothing of my background nor of my studies!

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Also don't ASSUME anything with me. You know nothing of my background nor of my studies!

I am sorry that for questioning your background but I don't understand if you have studied biblical criticism how you do not realize the different forms that are available to validate the written Word.

As I said I do not equate the oral tradition that we have today as the original. The only original we do have is that which was given to Moses as the Genesis account. In it we can see that there is many laws that were given, as they observed them.

Source criticism

Core principles

* Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narrratives.
* A given source may be forged or corrupted why strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.
* The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened
* A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, that is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.
* If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
* The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
* If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

I am sorry that for questioning your background but I don't understand if you have studied biblical criticism how you do not realize the different forms that are available to validate the written Word.

As I said I do not equate the oral tradition that we have today as the original. The only original we do have is that which was given to Moses as the Genesis account. In it we can see that there is many laws that were given, as they observed them.

Source criticism

Core principles

* Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narrratives.
* A given source may be forged or corrupted why strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.
* The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened
* A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, that is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.
* If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
* The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
* If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

Yes, and everything is STILL assumption for the most part. Sure these type of rules are fine as safe guards and logical scientific method to find the truth but in the end it comes down to measured speculation for the most part. I have studied quite a bit in this area but to what degree in compared to anyone I would not give a answer. I can only answer for myself. I am very critical on what we TODAY consider canon as you might have guest from my other post.

[LUKE2447]

Also the core principle you mentioned are good guides but as you know each of those have failures inherent to themselves. By adding more and more rules it possibly makes the probability higher but in the end it still is a guess.

[Aquila]

I’d like to address some of the points made in the posts above by Bro. Salaz to add some insight from this side of the discussion….

God has mercy on us knowing that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. It is not because it is his desire for us to have multiple marriages, his mercy covers our iniquities. His grace showers us with blessings if we are by faith trying to do our personal best in spite of our many flaws. This does not however eliminate if we do wrong we will not pay the consequence for our wrongdoing on earth. Seed time and harvest time. Our eternal destiny is based on faith in doing what we know is to be the will of God. God deals with our sin based on his covenant with Adam of a coming savior/redeemer. If we keep his type and shadow of offering an animal sacrifice to take the place of our sin He then deals with the eternal consequence of sin. This does not eliminate the immediate consequence of sin and the pain, suffering it will bring to us when the harvest comes. What happened between Sarah and Hagar, and her seed and Hagar's?

He was tolerating sin and did not immediately condemn it. Before the law of Moses was established we see God had already established LAWS. We see in the action of the Patriarchs and know that God had given them laws regarding His will. This is called Oral Tradition which later began to be written down as the Mishnah and later included the rabbinic discussions with it known as the Talmud. Even some details of this are evident in the New Testament as we find further elaboration on what was written in the Tanakh or Hebrew Word of God that was not originally in there. The Midrash also included them which is a Hebrew Commentary on the scriptures.

God expressly stated through the prophet Nathan that He gave David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addition God also stated that he would have been more than willing to give David even more of these same things if David so desired. Yet David still chose to commit Adultery with Bathsheba. What is interesting here, is that God not only expresses that he gave David multiple wives and that he would have even given David more…but God only rebukes David for his sin with Bathsheba. Lastly even the Law of God allows for more than one wife and illustrates inheritance rights for the wives and children.

Here’s the deal….if polygamy is sin God sinned in giving David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addiction if God was only “tolerating sin” it was on his own account…because God himself never rebuked man for polygamy.

Also, you mention the Mishnah and the Talmud. I find that VERY interesting. Because my wife is from a Jewish family and I’ve sat and talked with two rabbis (Rabbi Press and Rabbi Kopmar) on more than one occasion. I firmly believe that this will make your argument far MORE complex. First, because these are not the, “Word of God”; second, because both the Mishnah and the Talmud both express strong rabbinical opinions in favor of polygamy explaining it’s ethics, especially in regards to in heritance rights. So you’re citing sources that agree with us! LOL

[Aquila]

Original intent once again is spelled out by Jesus. Not because this is Gods design but because of the hardness of our heart to hear and do the will of God.

Mat 19:8 He 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.
Mat 19:9 And 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.

I believe we should do our best to speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where they are silent. In the above text you reference Jesus is specifically condemning the Pharisees for what is known as, “serial monogamy”. You see, the Pharisees (and men in general) were marrying only one woman…but then divorcing her and marrying another as though women were disposable objects. Jesus wasn’t addressing polygamy but rather divorce. Jesus NEVER directly addresses polygamy. However, Jesus was questioned by the Sadducees about Liverite Marriage, a marriage in which a man’s widow was married off to his brother (even if that brother were already married). The Sadducees asked about what would happen in the resurrection (which they didn’t believe in) if a man died and his wife were married off to his six brothers, each of them dying in turn until she finally died. They wanted to know who’s wife she would be in the resurrection. Here was ample opportunity for Jesus to say, “Men often received his brothers wife in addition to his own, but I say unto you that from the beginning it was not so. For a man should have one wife.”, but Jesus didn’t. Jesus nowhere rebukes the implicated idea of polygamy in this text. However, Jesus does answer their question by stating that those who take part in the resurrection will not marry or be given in marriage because they will be like the angels in heaven.

[Aquila]

What was happening in the days of Noah/Noe?

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Did God tolerate sin? Yes he did! Who did Jesus go and preach to? Those that were disobedient as we see above. Disobedient in marriage. They didn't believe God, no faith, did their own will and condemned themselves. Hard hearts. The same thing that saves some condemns others. Doing Gods will and intention for us to have a blessed and prosperous life. Otherwise it brings hardships and condemnation. The ark and baptism symbols of faith and obedience. If we believe, we do what God says, if we don't we show unbelief or lack of faith.

I think you missed what Jesus was actually saying. Jesus wasn’t addressing sin. Jesus was addressing preparedness. There is nothing wrong with eating or drinking. There is nothing wrong with marrying a wife or giving one’s daughter in marriage. What Jesus is pointing out is that at the end of the world people will be going about their lives like they’ll live forever in spite of the signs and the warnings. People will be celebrating, marrying, and planning families in spite of the Bible’s warnings to be ready (just as those rebellious souls were doing in the days of Noah).

There isn’t any reference here to “marital sin”.

[Aquila]

The Word specifically mentions this disobedience as one of the reasons why God brought judgment. It mentions as in the days of Noah so shall it be when God brings judgment again. Not by flood this time though.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Just because they were not born out of Gods original intent did not mean they wouldn't become men of Renown and mighty. They still were sinful and judgment came. If they had faith in God and did righteousness by trying to fulfill Gods Laws to the best of their ability God did not condemn them to hell as a sinner but their faith was counted unto them as righteousness. Hebrews 11. Just as we do not fulfill every detail of the moral law yet our faith is counted to us for righteousness. The ceremonial law is fulfilled in Jesus and we no longer have to deal with the types and shadows but we still have to fulfill the moral law to please God not to be saved. How many men of renown do we have now that are men of God but still do unrighteous deeds. I count myself in on that one. Yet my overall testimony is clearly seen because I have faith in God.

First, I’d like to point out that this text’s interpretation has been highly debated for thousands of years.

To properly understand it, the term “sons of God” has to be properly defined.

Some claim that the Hebrew for the term “sons of God” is used throughout the Hebrew Scripture for angels (namely the book of Job and the Psalms). The “Jewish oral traditions” prior to the first century hold the interpretation that these “sons of God” were fallen angels who materialized (as they do occasionally throughout the OT) and took the “daughters of men” in unholy marriages. Their children (giants, the men of renown) were regarded as being half human and half devil having supernatural powers. The book of Enoch explains that these fallen angels taught mankind witchcraft, grand scale warfare, and general mysticism. In addition, since these “daughters of men” aged and the fallen angels didn’t, they taught women how to make themselves look younger and more attractive by using what we call “make-up” (this would explain that there is a demonic origin to make-up). With this demonic invasion of earth violence and debauchery began to fill the earth and Hell was attempting to thwart the birth of the Messiah by poisoning the human line with demon/human spawn. However, Noah was righteous and pure in his “generations”, meaning he was faithful and pure bred. So God sets out to preserve the line of the Messiah, and the only option God has is to save Noah and destroy the earth to thwart Hell’s attempt to derail God’s plan of salvation. God sends a flood and the “sons of God” (the angels that left their first estate) are bound in chains of darkness to await the day of judgment. However the giants, or men of renown, are left to die in the flood. But there is an issue confronting Heaven. These men of renown are part devil and part human. Since these fit nowhere in the paradigm of creation their spirits are left to roam the earthly plane and today are known as “demons” and “unclean spirits”. These spirits desire to live in body again to live out their sinful nature but their only way of doing so is through “demonic possession”. When a man or woman sins it tempts these spirits to congregate in their lives. When the person opens themselves up spiritually these spirits entrench themselves like an unholy infestation in the human psyche and spirit. It goes deeper from here….but you get the point. Not only to ancient Jewish sources hold this view, but even the historian Josephus illustrates that it was the preeminent view in mystical Judaism during the time of Christ. This subject alone could lend itself to an interesting discussion.

And yet others interpret the “sons of God” as being the righteous line of God’s people and the “daughters of men” being the daughters of the unrighteous or ungodly. It is argued that the “sons of God” took the “daughters of men” all of which they chose. The issue according too sources that hold this view isn’t that the sin was polygamy….it was being unequally yoked. When the godly marry the ungodly sin will result because the ungodly will influence the godly to do wickedness. If polygamy was a sin, God would have done well to rebuke mankind for the practice quickly instead of enabling man’s sin and even giving wives as blessings as he did in the case of King David. However, this interpretation also doesn’t explain why their children were unique. Nor does it agree with the most ancient sources of Jewish teaching.

My point? My point is that this isn’t as “cut and dry” as you presuppose that it is. And by bringing Jewish oral tradition into the mix....you're going to make this very complex and find that your sources oppose your position.

[Rico]

I am surprised that this thread has made it to page 60. How many different ways can you show that the Bible isn't against polygamy?