An interesting discussion... .to be continued

[RGK]

Caleb Hetrick That said, I think God calls us to a standard of monogamy. As far as the point about Abraham, Jacob, and David, that doesn't make sense to me. Abraham was outside the will of God with Hagar, and Keturah he married after Sarah died. I don't think he can be called a polygamist, and regardless, he wasn't right to have Hagar. David disobeyed God's law not only with Bathsheba but also with all his wives other than Michal, as the law says, "You shall surely set a king over you,... and he must not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away." Even though he hadn't yet taken the throne when he married most of them, he was the anointed king. Jacob's polygamy was a result of deceit. (Surely we don't support concubines! But he slept with them as the result of jealousy, another sin issue.) Solomon's heart was turned away by his multiple wives.
39 minutes ago · Like

The worst defense of monogamy I have ever heard. Especially the reference to Deut 17.

In context, Deuteronomy 17:16-17 is parallel in construction. It shows two unlike things, and says identical things about them. In essence, the passage says "horse or wives, Kings are not to "רבה (rabah)" them, whatever that is. Here is the passage:

"Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply [רבה (rabah)] horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.' He shall not multiply [רבה (rabah)] wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly [מאד (meh·ode')] increase [רבה (rabah)] silver and gold for himself."

Using the modifier "meh·ode' " to go with "רבה (rabah)" there are the beginnings of a case to distinguish gold and wealth from wives and horses. But in the cases of the first use of "rabah" in verse 16, the "stem" and "aspect" of the verb is the same as in the case of it's use with wives in verse 17. It is the "Hiphil" stem and "imperfect" aspect. This renders the two constructions parallel. Furthermore, there are some other uses of the same stem and aspect that are worth looking into.

Genesis 16:10:

"Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, 'I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.' "(NAS)

Or Genesis 17:2:

"I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly."

Genesis 22:17:

"...I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Genesis 28:3:

"May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples."

This simply cannot be a word, particularly in it's stem and aspect, that is confined to the use "more than one." As it is used, in the immediate context, and others, the Hebrew "rabah" in the Hiphil stem and imperfect aspect means "a bunch." It may mean "a really big bunch."

If interpreted to mean "more than one wife" which is distinctly inconsistent with it's usage elsewhere by Moses in other books, it would also have the effect of limiting a King to one horse. The sentence construction again, is parallel. Whatever is said about a wife, is also being said about a horse. If a King is not to have more than one wife, he is also being said not to have more than one horse. If a King lives in a way that is instructive to the rest of the populace, then indeed we are to have only one wife, as the King would, and indeed, only one horse. This would make animal husbandry problematic, and getting horses a really big problem because in this same passage we are told that a King was not to go down to Egypt again, for the purposes of multiplying horses. Why not say "don't have horses at all?"

I am not one to say that the translations are in error. I think they are more than adequate, whether it be the King James, or the NASB or the ESV. They do get spun over time though, as politicians do focus groups and find buzz words, theologians work the margins of word meanings until we become accustomed to hearing them in contexts that dictate meanings not shared by the original text. Multiply has interesting meanings. The word "rabah" is translated "Multiply" or "Many" depending on your version. In English, depending on context, two is not many, nor may it be an accurate rendering of multiply. It's just barely multiply, and it's certainly not many. It can't be said to dictate only one wife, though it might, if read a certain way in the English. In the Hebrew, it simply can't be said to dictate one wife.

 

[cnystrom]

David disobeyed God's law not only with Bathsheba but also with all his wives other than Michal

What law would that be?

Really, Abigail an evil adultress? Most people do not take that position (http://preachersfiles.com/abigail-in-the-bible/).

...and he must not multiply wives for himself...

It always amazes me when people list Deuteronomy 17:17 as an anti-polygamy verse, when it is so clearly the opposite. If the rule was one and only one wife there would be no need to have a verse that said not to over do it. The existence of this verse is one of the best proofs that one and only wife is not the rule.

Chris

 

[RGK]

Here is something I have been preparing to send for review to a professor of Theology. I have been corresponding with him over the last few years. I though it might be applicable here. This is a rough draft synopsis of what I have been working on. I contend that wife means joiner, and wife is used as a noun that describes her function. Kind of like how a Shepard gets its name. I would appreciate reviews on this work. So please comment on it. It may help me finish tying all the loose end together.

Exodus 26:3: The five curtains shall be coupled together one to another; and other five curtains shall be coupled one to another.

In this cased the Hebrew word אשה('ishshah)is translated as the word "one" in the KJV in the phrase "one to another. There are FIVE joined or coupled to one.

Exodus 26:5: Fifty loops shalt thou make in the one curtain, and fifty loops shalt thou make in the edge of the curtain that is in the coupling of the second; that the loops may take hold one of another.

Again in the KJV, it is "one to another" with the Hebrew word אשה('ishshah) indicating fifty curtain loops are joined to one curtain.

Exodus 26:6: And thou shalt make fifty taches (buckles or clasps) of gold, and couple the curtains together with the taches: and it shall be one tabernacle.

In this case the Hebrew word אשה('ishshah) is translated as "together with" indicating that fifty "taches" join the curtains to the Tabernacle.

Exodus 26:17: Two tenons shall there be in one board, set in order one against another: thus shalt thou make for all the boards of the tabernacle.

In this case the phrase "one against another" is from the Hebrew word אשה('ishshah). What is being joined to "one Tabernacle are the boards.

The Hebrew word אשה('ishshah) is in other places most prominently and frequently translated as wife or woman or less often as "marry" or "marriage."

In all of the above cases, this is The LORD our God speaking, instructing Moses on how to build the Tabernacle. No greater authority can exist other than The LORD. It is the LORD that proposes we "wive" many things, 5 to sometimes 50 in quantity, to one.

God choose to use the word also used for "wife" or "woman" to indicate multiple joinings to one thing. The question is: Why would The LORD do this in describing his most Holy Place on this Earth?

Blessings
Robert

 

[FollowingHim]

To be honest, this comes across as such a shaky argument that if someone presented it to me, and I disagreed with polygamy, I would immediately think "the Bible must really strongly oppose polygamy if someone has to resort to verses this irrelevant to try and justify it". Stick to the passages that clearly back up polygamy, this one's far more likely to be counterproductive.

Exodus 26:3: The five curtains shall be coupled together one to another; and other five curtains shall be coupled one to another.

In this cased the Hebrew word אשה('ishshah)is translated as the word "one" in the KJV in the phrase "one to another. There are FIVE joined or coupled to one.

Ishshah generally means "woman" or "wife". It is often used in conjunction with marriage, because women are a key part of marriage.

The word translated as "to another" is "achoth", which means "sister". So literally, the phrase means to couple them "woman to sister", and the same two words are used in verse 6 and 17 as well. Doesn't sound much like polygamy to me. Maybe it's saying that a woman should be joined to her sisters in some form of holy incestuous lesbian orgy?

Or maybe it just means that similar curtains (similar like sisters), should be hooked together to make the wall of a tent.

 

[RGK]

it want meant to be a pro poly argument per se, but an anti mono philosophy argument. It was to say wife is a joiner. The things in the verses were "wifed" together. The mono only crowd pushes a mutual submission and possession. I say the wife joins to the husband and the husband receives to wife. (joining).

 

[RGK]

I just realized why you thought it was a pro poly argument. The number of things joined together was really little to no part of the argument. I posted here because one of the gentlemen in the original post stated that monogamy was the biblical mandate. At the core of monogamy only is mutual possession and submission which is mutual joining.

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm glad it wasn't intended as a pro-poly argument, sorry for misunderstanding you there!

Having said that, as I read it, the word "ishshah" means "woman", and here is translated "one". It does not actually refer to joining, the only reason it is associated with joining is because this passage says to join this "one" to her "sister". So the wife herself is not the joiner, but rather is one being joined to another.

 

[RGK]

the original work was that if someone I respect greatly.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I would contend the Hebrew word אשה('ishshah) has a larger meaning than "wife" or "wives" or "woman" as it is often translated. We lose things in the wordy fog of English, which often tries to narrow meanings into smaller fragments of what Hebrew, as a language, saw as a whole. The insertion of the idea "joiner" from the English language though, more closely aligns with all the uses of the Hebrew word אשה('ishshah).

That doesn't prove anything absolutely, but it's very interesting to see how that concept fits. Does אשה('ishshah) mean "join, joining, joiner" or "that which joins?" Should we approach the concept of what it means to be a woman from the concept the Hebrew word seems to represent and see what happens when we delete words like "woman, wife, marry" or "marriage?"*

That's the exercise here. Hebrew is a language of limited vocabulary but remarkably easy to understand and devastatingly precise in my experience. I would note that when it came to making computers more efficient and faster, after several generations of increasing complexity, programmers resorted to the "RISC" chip. It stands for "Reduced Instruction."

*Though the concept of marriage is clearly present in scripture, there is actually no word for it in the Old Testament, only a specific subset of the marriage concept has a word, that being יִבֵּם (yabam).