• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it moral?

Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Tlaloc said:
Carl,

Not minding the side discussions that have come up, is your original question\objection answered sufficiently for you? That is, is it settled that there are no cases of things being secretly frowned upon and positive commands are not necessary to make things moral? I don't want to derail the conversations that have sprung but I do want to know if the original problem is solved or not.
Click to expand...

I know of no other verses in the entire Bible than Exodus 21:10 and Deutoronomy 21:15 that would apply to most men and potentially allow polygamy

I think a better understanding of Deutoronomy 21:15 and Exodus 21:10 would be the most effective way to answer the question.

If they specifically give permission to marry a second wife polygamy would definately be okay!

However if they simply explain what you are supposed to do after you marry a second wife, the answer would be unclear one way or the other.

Bringing up examples of what people did, does not really resolve the issue for me, because I have to be sure it applies to other people.

If someone could explain how to better understand the precise meaning of Exodus 21:10 and Deutoronomy 21:15 to see if it is an after the fact rule, or a before the decision permission that would help.

Or if there are any other verses that apply to most men and allow polygamy that may also solve the question.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Tlaloc said:
Not minding the side discussions that have come up, is your original question\objection answered sufficiently for you? That is, is it settled that there are no cases of things being secretly frowned upon and positive commands are not necessary to make things moral? I don't want to derail the conversations that have sprung but I do want to know if the original problem is solved or not.
Click to expand...

Someone just explained to me, something that makes a lot of sense.

I do not know if they want me to mention their name so I am leaving there name unmentioned.

Based on what they said I figure this way.

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Deuteronomy 21:10-11 NIV

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,
Deutoronomy 21:15 NIV

So God says you may take the woman.

Now it does not specify if the man is married or unmarried.

Since there is no verse prohibiting polygamy (except for certain specific leaders), it seems reasonable that the man is essentially any man (except for certain specific leaders.)

So the set it is referring to would include both married and unmarried men.

Therefor a married man may take her as an additional :D wife. And to say otherwise would be restricting what God has allowed. ;)

So it seems that polygamy is clearly allowed.

This question seems to be resolved, but I should still think about this more since I just learned this recently.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Hi Discussing,

Your brain works like Algebra!! Many if/then statements-- :shock:

Anyhow, you should look into the "prohibited for some leaders" clause thing again also... lots of fun alzheimer's prevention there for all of us! ;)
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Itsoktobesingle ;) said:
Hi Discussing,

Your brain works like Algebra!! Many if/then statements-- :shock:
Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment. Thank God for blessing me.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

I know tons of info has already been given.

However, I'll offer this thought.

The Great Commission teaches for us to make disciples. That is the greatest command of all along with love to God and to man.

There is a strong case to be made that sense a woman comes underneath the head of a man she becomes his disciple. Thus, that is a part of the great commission. Secondly, yet in symmetry to that is also the discipleship work of Christ that began after his ascension.

The case of the great commission in the life of Christ can also be strong evidence for this. Christ first birth one church. The Jerusalem church. This was a bride betrothed to Christ. Then he later birth and betrothed the Church of Antioch. And then other churches and so on and so forth. Thus, Christ himself is a typology of the head to the members of the body.

Therefore, if the "husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church" is the basis for how one views relationships, and if one accepts the premise that love is the fundamental theme of the OC and NC then with no prohibitions from either testament or covenant the command to make disciples and the actual birthing and betrothals of Christ to multiple church/brides/members constitutes a very strong piece of evidence for the doctrine.

However, let me stop here and add a warning as some may go too far with this. Christ has infinite resources, time, and he is perfect in all of his relational dealings. Thus, no human who has sin should expect that they can go and just marry a plethora of women in order to be like Christ. Someone who attempts to do that shows their own pride and lack of humility. Furthermore, if someone is more excited about taking on a wife, just to have more or to have sexual satisfaction or to boost their ego and pride, than seeing people get saved from sin and the firy path of eternal destruction then it also shows a self-centered heart. A single woman who nevers marries but finds Christ is in better shape than a single woman who marries but does not find Christ. More could be said of this but I place it here as a principle of wisdom and guidance so someone does not run wild with a statement and go out trying to take wives like Christ plants churches. We who are with sin don't have the same amount of holiness and love as does Christ, so we are more limited. Maturity, resources, personal strength, and providence should be the guide, not one's ego, pride, or mask of using the gospel just to get a wife. A godly man's heart will be broken over the lost and their plight to destruction. He will make his first order of business to love Christ and then in turn he will be seeking to reach the lost. And, if along the way by providence God draws hearts together, well then so be it. The Lord is eager to unite people together for the work of the gospel.

Dr. Allen
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

DiscussingTheTopic said:
Since there is no verse prohibiting polygamy (except for certain specific leaders),...
Click to expand...

I would be interested in what verse(s) you are referring to here. Are you referring to the Kings of Isreal, or are you referring to Elders and Deacons in the NT?

Chris
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

cnystrom said:
DiscussingTheTopic said:
Since there is no verse prohibiting polygamy (except for certain specific leaders),...
Click to expand...

I would be interested in what verse(s) you are referring to here. Are you referring to the Kings of Isreal, or are you referring to Elders and Deacons in the NT?

Chris
Click to expand...

Yes I would be referring to elders and deacons (although their titles would probably be different in different English translations.) The restrictions on Kings was not a restriction on polygamy of a reasonable number of wives but too many wives the way I see it. I was also referring to any other restrictions I might have missed.

The restrictions on elders and deacons might be questionable.

Of course they do not apply to me because I am not one of those specific leaders.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Aside: (covered elsewhere, but relevant in this sense):

I can't speak for others but the only place I can find where plural marriage may be considered commanded is: 1. The levirate marriage, where the near-kinsman raises up seed to his brother and 2. A man seduces a virgin, he is responsible to marry her even if he already has a wife.
Click to expand...

There is a third, when one considers the implications of Shaul/Paul's commentaries.

Consider that a man whose wife unjustly abandons him has been wronged, and is "not under bondage" (I Cor. 7:15) Should he be blessed with another wife, even though he has never given a certificate of divorce to the wife who abandoned him, consider the obvious implications.

(And do not forget the admonition of I Cor. 7:11.)

When and if she repents, and is "spared from the snare of the devil" -- of COURSE he should forgive her. That man has two wives. (It is only 'commanded', of course, in the sense that a man who is obedient knows that he is "not to put her away", and that "if you do not forgive, then neither will your Father forgive you.")
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

I know of no other verses in the entire Bible than Exodus 21:10 and Deutoronomy 21:15 that would apply to most men and potentially allow polygamy
Click to expand...

Actually, that reasoning is actually backward, DTT, because there is simply NO verse in the entire Bible that ever PROHIBITS "most men" from having more than one wife -- and that includes even those verses which essentially define concepts like adultery, in context and both explicitly and by example. ("woman who breaks wedlock")

As a friend once noted, "you can show me ANYWHERE that it is prohibited, but I can show you where it may be REQUIRED." (No less than at least three specific instances -- and, as the war bride example shows, potentially more as an option.)

I note as well that not ONLY does YHVH prohibit something (such as patriarchy/polygyny) and then give PROCEDURES for it, He also does not call Himself a sinner (either by giving wives to David, as has been noted, or indicating He has -- through more than one witness -- more than one wife; Judah/Israel, or Jerusalem/Samaria, and so on, not forgetting the five at the Wedding Feast.)

For a fuller exposition, which has been done here on the site several times, I suggest you take a look in the archives here on BF. Here are a couple of links:


"A brief Biblical understanding of Polygyny"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=1015
(This one is on Helium as well, at:
http://www.helium.com/items/1655657-pol ... -the-bible )


"Hit Me with your Best Shot"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=821

"Rebuttal to the WORST arguments against polygyny"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=1016
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

I have little to add here. But I might say that the title of the topic implies that morality trumps God or Scripture.

Everyone else’s morality is often wrong (just ask anyone) and invites an open-ended debate drawing from many sources (or no sources). We all have some degree of morality and judge others as being with or without morality depending on commonality and agreement.

I knew a moral man once, and then I read his bumper stickers so I changed my opinion. Moral debate seems to be always won by those with sarcasm.

"Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everyone in good society holds exactly the same opinion." - -- Oscar Wilde

But if I was to add something of substance I would ask why in Exodus 20:14 it says not to commit adultery and then in the next chapter just 22 verses later in Exodus 21:10 it authorizes plural marriage. It is obvious that the Ten Commandments in chapter 20 must be in agreement with the very next chapter. This should be enough for anyone to reappraise a monogamy only approach. If not then my moral position is that monogamy only is entirely wrong and plural is totally correct. That's my moral position but of course it is not much help, as only one's own moral position is valid.

A moral argument against plural will not work and is actually better defined as an argument based on avoiding the appearance of evil. The appearance of evil discussion can be found on this forum by typing in “appearance” in the top right hand corner of any forum page and clicking ‘search’.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

SURPRISE, I'M STILL HERE! :mrgreen:

Today is my sweet Abigail's birthday, born 07/07/07. What a glorious day it is too! Just happened to notice this on my FB page after the festivities died down and thought I would respond to it.

:::waving and grinning at Mark:::

At the risk of repeating myself, I don't like the word "polygamy" for various reasons. Here are a few:

1) It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
2) It's far too general a term.
3) The definition of the word is so corrupt and perverse that it is no longer worth adhering to.

I would rather take my chances with the term "biblical bigamy". Plural marriage works too, but some would contend that it leaves room for serial monogamy on the part of the woman. The WORD says that if we are a friend of the world then we are an enemy of GOD. (James 4:4) So as believers in the true MESSIAH, we would do well to put GOD's moral laws before the laws of the world. Any law that is contrary to GOD's moral law is not from above; whereas GOD's moral law is perfect. I can't find this worldly term, "polygamy" in the Holy Bible. Maybe there is a good reason for this; but to be fair, I can't find the term "biblical bigamy" in the Holy Bible either. Yet it is certainly clear that there are indeed examples of bigamy found in the scripture and the legal term does usually apply to one man with more than one wife in the world. Of course, there are exceptions to this because the world always makes exceptions for the enemy; but polygamy is being defined as so many different things these days, by legal definition, zoological definition, and vulgar definition that it tastes like B.S. There you go... A few more reasons to drop the word from my vocabulary.

Ultimately "Biblical Marriage" is probably the safest terminology to those who actually believe in it and practice it. The term includes both monogamy and bigamy but morality is a thing which is determined by GOD in His Holy Word. The fact is, it is not a sin for a man to have more than one wife. This assumes, of course, that his "wives" (plural) are wives indeed and I think this view merits considerable thought. I am nearly finished reading a book about polygamy that has greatly vexed my heart and the grievous treatment the women and children were subjected to in this real life account have only furthered my position that POLYGAMY is not worth defending. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is downright disgusting. The name of the book is called ESCAPE, written by Carolyn Jessop. Perhaps some of you have heard of it or read it. This is FLDS poly and if that is how they practice marriage I would go so far as to say that these people are lost. They're serving Satan and they uphold "another gospel" which isn't good news at all. There is Liberty in Christ and the account I am nearly finished reading exemplifies nothing of the sort. That said, I think there are some in the FLDS that are trying to amend their ways and I salute Winston Blackmore of Canada for at least making an effort to do what is right in the Sight of GOD. He has a big job ahead of him.

I have never enjoyed "throwing out the baby with the bath water" but it is my view that people's approach to plural marriage needs to change. I have no quarrel with the word polygyny (not a typo) because it literally means "many wives". Nothing wrong with this. I sacrificed a great deal for taking my stand on plural marriage, having come from a monogamous background and searching the scriptures thoroughly, but for all intents and purposes I "lost" the wife of my youth because of it and the respect and support of my family and friends. My young wife has chosen to remain with me through all of it. Spiritually speaking, I've suffered my 40 lashes and I am now preparing to move on. I am fully pursuaded to believe that if it were not for my "well meaning" community, the wife of my youth would still be with me today; but who can really say, and who can really tell? As GOD is my witness, I did not commit adultery, I did not "sneak around" her back, she gave me every reason to believe that she was "open" to the idea, and frankly, I feel as though I was SET UP. My first love is my LORD and SAVIOUR and though it may well be the desire of every woman after the flesh for her to be her husband's "one and only", my face is toward GOD alone in this respect. This is not because I don't love my wife (wives) but precisely the opposite. I love them enough to bear in mind that GOD comes "first" in all things. So it would seem that the principle of SACRIFICE still remains for some of us to embrace. Last year I was served divorce papers at the hand of my only son because I refused to bow to ungodly laws in my nation that run contrary to the Word of GOD. Before winter set in, some female "magistrate" allegedly decided that she had the authority to grant the wife of my youth a divorcement. HOW FURIOUS CERTAIN PEOPLE BECAME WHEN I DECIDED TO MAKE THIS INFORMATION PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE! And (as some of you already know) I was threatened with legal action for having done so... As if this WASN'T MY LIFE ALSO... As though what was happening to me didn't count. I am still of the persuasion that the enemy was wroth with me for this because I robbed him of his ammunition. I could not be falsely accused of "pretending" to be a polygamist; BUT with respect to morality and legalities... That which is legal is not necessarily that which is lawful. GOD has called us to peace. My accusers have deemed my actions immoral, though not once did I strike my wife/wives or "cheat" on them, beat on them, or force them to comply with my religious views. They knew about eachother for nearly two years before I even so much as held the other's hand and they knew about eachother from the very day I first met my new wife. I entered this very carefully and I was betrayed in spite of it. So I have a question to the question: Just because the wife of my youth served me with divorce papers (howbeit indirectly) and some female "magistrate" decided that we are no longer legally "husband and wife" is my betrayer still the wife of my youth or should I regard her as "something other"? I mean, with respect to MORALITY and LEGALITY what sort of position should I take concerning this and am I still in a plural marriage or, am I a monogamist? I sure don't feel like a monogamist and despite my betrayal, I dearly love both of these mothers of my offspring.

GOD BLESS
___________________
edited spelling... somewhat
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24 NIV

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
[a] Matthew 19:4 Gen. 1:27
Matthew 19:5 Gen. 2:24

Mathew 19:4-9 NIV

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
[a] Mark 10:6 Gen. 1:27
Mark 10:7 Some early manuscripts do not have and be united to his wife.
[c] Mark 10:8 Gen. 2:24
Mark 10:2-12 NIV

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
[a] Deutoronomy 24:1
Mathew 5:31-32 NIV

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Luke 16:18 NIV

Here is how I see it. And I may be wrong.

1 Divorcing and marrying again is adultery. But marrying a second wife is not adultery.

These passages do not prohibit a man from marrying a woman and than a second women. Why? It does not say that whoever marries another woman commits adultery, but.... whoever divorces and marries another woman commits adultery. The combination of divorce and remarriage are adultery, but simply marrying another woman (and not divorcing the first) is not adultery.

2. A woman who is divorced by men but not God is still married to her husband. And it is adultery for her to remarry!

"So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

The point of this passage is not to prohibit a man from marrying more than one woman but rather that you can not separate a man from the woman or women he is married to.

The man is still married to his wife even with a divorce, so when she marries the next man then she is an adulteress (Romans 7:3)

3

If man separates people it does not count. However if God has separated people they are separate indeed. A woman who divorces her husband based on the criteria in Exodus 21:10 (or possibly a man who divorces his wife based on Deuteronomy 24:1) has got a divorce that God recognizes, because God says those divorces are okay.

So the short answer is that your wife is still your wife, that is you are still married to her even if she gets a divorce paper (this might change if she commits adultery by marrying another man or you fail your commitment in Exodus 21:10 or possibly if you find something indecent about her (Deuteronomy 24:1).) Unless she has a divorce recognized by God. And that divorce certificate was not written by God but a judge

Oh and you can marry another woman without committing adultery because you did not divorce her she divorced you.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Where does it say in the bible that the woman can divorce you?
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Itsoktobesingle ;) said:
Where does it say in the bible that the woman can divorce you?
Click to expand...

A woman can divorce her husband under the criteria of Exodus 21:10-11

If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Exodus 21:10-11 NIV

If she divorces for some arbitrary reason, and men give a divorce certificate it does not count she is still married to her husband in God's eyes.

However, I assume God would not count it as adultery if she divorced her husband for Exodus 21:10 and married another man, because indeed God would have separated her. That is how I see it right now and I could be wrong.

I would think that she can also divorce her husband if he has sex with another man's wife which would be adultery, because her husband would normally be executed, and if her husband is killed she can marry another man (see Romans 7:3.) But if he has sex with a woman who is a complete stranger and takes her home as a second wife, without consulting his first wife, she can not divorce him as far as I see the scripture at the present time.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

She is free to leave...it does not say she is free to divorce.

The word used in Exodus 21:11 (she shall go out) is:
יצא yâtsâ' yaw-tsaw'
A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.

Notice that even then the Apostle Paul states:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

She is free to leave, for example if he is starving her, to find food, but that does not negate a marriage covenant:

Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

If I may comment:

Divorce 'for any reason' (such as disliking cooking, an actual example) as the pharisees allowed was not a legitimate divorce, thus she was still married, thus if she is with another man she is committing adultery and the new man is committing adultery. However, the culpability for all this adultery is on the man that sent her away,he who put her away for an unjust reason causes her to commit adultery and the sin is on his head . It is not her fault she was sent, and it is not the fault of the man who takes her in.

Interestingly enough one of the pharisees new allowable reasons for divorce was if a man liked another woman and didn't want to provide for the first wife. What foolishness...

Divorce for just cause as outlined by scripture is a true divorce, and there is no adultery in the person who takes her. I agree with your assessment that Exodus 21:10-11 can give women grounds for divorce, for the same reasons as you.

@ Scarecrow

Don't you think in the context of the root word entails freedom from obligation too? Its the same term used for slaves going free and the freedom from Egypt. I doubt a woman neglected was meant to be left without a family.

I don't personally see 1 Corinthians as being referencing Exodus 21,
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

My assumption is there are two kinds of divorce

1. True Divorce accepted by God

2. False Divorce accepted by people but not God

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 NIV

So how come the woman is not executed when she marries the second husband in this case. My assumption is because she was divorced from the first husband for legitimate reasons and this divorce is recognized by God. If the divorce was not recognized by God in ANY cases ever then the woman should be put to death in ALL cases, but since there is even one case in which she is not put to death then in some cases she is recognized as no longer married to her first husband!
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

@Tlaloc

Slaves were of value...she was to be "set free" (allowed to depart) in the context that you mention in that she was allowed to leave without redeeming herself (not required to pay the price). Part of a valid Biblical Marriage is a contract (written or not), and that was being breached.If she was not being provided for she had the right to leave, that is all that passage stipulates. There are numerous other passages where the word for divorce is used, and clearly if she was allowed to divorce her husband that is the word that would have been used. Divorce is a man made institution and never sanctioned by God. Individuals wishing to find a way to annul a Biblical Marriage covenant will go to great lengths to justify it; however there is not one instance I know of where God indicates that He recognizes an annulled covenant between a man and a woman; broken yes, annulled no. The only time annulment is allowed is during the betrothal period before the marriage is finalized by the ceremony, signing of the contract, and consummation (Mary and Joseph, Joseph was going to quietly put her away).

If you choose to apply certain passages to some areas of the scriptures, but not others, you will soon develop a wonderfully unique doctrine all your own as numerous cults have chosen to do. Your statement about ignoring 1 Corinthians befuddles me. But I guess that logic is prevalent in the church...that same logic is used to justify the statement that "God allowed men to have more than one wife, but that was back then and not now." If you look closely at that verse the Apostle Paul is saying that these ARE the words of God. Do you think that God suddenly made up a new regulation about marriage for the Apostle Paul to teach? The Apostle Paul was simply restating what God had long ago ordained. It seems you believe that God simply makes things up as He goes, I believe it was ordained before the foundations of the Earth were set.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

"then shall she go out free without money. "

I agree she goes without her cost of dowry, I also submit she also goes free without any obligation too the former husband. Slaves having value has nothing to do with this, what I was saying is that going out entails freedom from obligation too. Israel had no further obligation to Egypt when it went out of it (same root) just as Israelite who went out of idolatry where no longer bound to idols. Divorce is directly sanctioned by God when God directly sanctions it in Deuteronomy where literally sanctions it by the precise meaning of the word sanction. He makes a writ of divorcement a binding force and law. In its correct sphere it doesn't get anymore justified than that.

And, for being on such a high horse on this topic I would expect you to actually look and see how many times the word divorce is actually used. The term which is the root of writ of divorcement only occurs 7 times in the whole bible, 4 times in the old testament and 3 in the new. All three uses in the new refers to the same event, two in the old is in the same two verses of Deuteronomy. It occurs once in Isiah which sheds no light on this discussion, and once in Jeremiah where God himself is giving a writ of divorcement to Isreal.

So no, the term is not used much, in fact its only used in the context of the particular legal writ of divorcement.

Now, if you want proof my interpretation of yaw-tsaw is correct, look at

Deu 24:2 And when she is departed (yaw-tsaw) out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

If he does not provide for her she may depart. When she is departed, she may go and be another mans wife.



I did not ignore 1 Corinthians whatsoever, I said "I don't personally see 1 Corinthians as being referencing Exodus 21,". And if you want to talk cults talk about cults that ignore context and say any one part of scripture is referring to another with no heed for context. Scofeildism would be the worst offender of that in modern times. I on the other hand assure you that Matthew 12:8 is not referencing Genesis 9:20 and Hebrews 6:1 is not referencing Amos 5:7. I suppose 1 Corinthians 7 may be related, but 1 Corinthians looks to be along the lines of a temporary parting or spending excessive time apart, the Greek root romanized too chorizo (makes me think breakfast sausage :) ) translates roughly to put space in between as opposed to the root of put away in Mathew and Mark which is romanized to apoluo meaning to set completely free or release.

In the same way when 1 Corinthians 7 says "and let not the husband put away his wife." put away comes from the root aphiemi not apoluo. Different roots, different meanings, different applications. 1 Corinthians 7 the way you present it is in opposition to Exodus 21, in one she may depart and in the other she may not. The way I present it is against 'trial separations' where they just don't want to be together for any foolish reason. This being in line with 1Co 7:5 "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinence." By commission, have sex consistently, by command don't live in different places. If she insists on living somewhere else for unbiblical reasons she may not marry and only has the option to reconcile.

One way or another 1 Corinthians is dealing with illegitimate separation, while Exodus gives the very limited guidelines for a proper separation. If 1 Cor is referencing Exodus the it is overturning it, but 1 Cor 7 is dealing with situations the Corinthians wrote Paul about, but we have lost. It would be a spurious text to draw an overturning of the law from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top