Moses As A Polygamist

[andrew]

I generally like what you've written there, but I have one little nit to pick, if I may. In saying that Paul here isn't listing things that apply to all Christians, you point out that he doesn't list murder or adultery. But you neglect that he does list not being covetous (I Tim 3:3), which is another of the Big 10. That doesn't negate the point that not all Christians are, e.g. apt to teach, but it does weaken the argument that nothing in this list is a addressing sins. (or, more specifically, that "he wouldn’t have to say anything about any activity that no Christian ought to be doing," because apparently, he did.)

Good catch.

Between you and me, I'd say that sandwiched between "not a brawler" and "rules well his own house" I can almost see the wheels turning in Paul's head as he switches gears from 'things that affect the man's relationships with others' to 'things actually under the man's jurisdiction' to the most intimate, internal problem: pride. If you're not coveting other people's stuff, you get into less brawls, and really you should be minding your own business anyway, which we can now talk about (rule your own house, manage your own children, and keep a lid on your pride if you're doing it well).

So in other words, I'm content that my argument based on the main thrust of Paul's argument is still solid, and I'm not sure (very personal, just my opinion) Paul was even thinking of covetousness in the 'commandment' sense there anyway, just thinking of regular sort of day-to-day 'misdemeanor' covetousness....

However, if I were in a hostile situation, and somebody thought they had just scored a major point by pointing that out, I would just quickly concede the point. Makes you look reasonable. And I tend to favor big picture, "what's the big idea" arguments anyway, as I find that most people don't have the attention span to follow long, convoluted, detailed presentations, and more importantly, the kind of guy that's going to make this connection and think that therefore this passage prohibits polygamy, therefore the whole bible prohibits polygamy, therefore God hates polygamy, etc, is not the kind of guy I should have been talking with in the first place anyway.

That's a real peek-behind-the-curtain kind of explanation (might have too much coffee circulating...), but it's a long way of saying your are absolutely right but I'm probably not going to change the webpage.

 

[andrew]

Actually (definitely too much coffee), on reflection I think I actually considered that point originally, because of this distinction:

"Covet" and "lust" are two words that we have positively ruined because of King James and his council of bishops. "Covet" now means something more like "envy", and "lust", well, you know....

But originally, both were just words for "strong desire". Covet comes from the Normans and lust comes from the Anglo-Saxon, but they both meant about the same thing originally.

The point of that is that now we think "coveting" and "lusting" are specific sins. They're not.

Desiring another man's wife is a sin, whether you call it coveting her or lusting for her. But desiring an eligible woman accompanied with strong irrational urges is not a sin.

Desiring a new car or a new house or a new computer is not a sin. Wanting someone else's stuff is a sin, because eventually it will lead you to do something stupid to get it. ("I wish that I had Jessie's girl"....)

So note for the record that the commandment says we're not supposed to [strongly desire] other people's stuff, whereas Paul just says an overseer shouldn't be, well, let's just say 'needy', or maybe 'materialistic'. You know the type: Always thinking that getting the next new toy will make him happy, etc.

I'd argue (given sufficient time to clear my head and get organized) that Paul doesn't have the commandment in mind at all.

 

[Mojo]

Probably didn't have that in mind. Maybe the filthy lucre stuff?

Mad props to you for referencing Rick Sprinfield!

 

[Shibboleth]

Yeah, I've done that word study. After your first response, I went ahead and looked up the interlinear (studylight.org/interlinear-bible/1-timothy/3-3.html), and found that the word epithumeo (used to translate covet, both in the LXX, and when Paul is refering to it in Romans, as well as translated lust in Matt 5:28) is actually not present in this verse as I would have expected from both the KJV and WEB translations. The word is literally not-a-money-lover (aphilargyon).

Interestingly, the greek word earlier in the verse, translated as "not greedy for money/filthy lucre" (aischrokerdḗs) also seems to be absent in some manuscript traditions. The NET translation leaves this phrase out, and has the more accurate translation for covetous:

not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money.​

Ok... I'll stop playing deep in the weeds now.

 

[andrew]

Mad props to you for referencing Rick Sprinfield!

Can't help it! While much of our thinking and memory is actually imagery, I think a big chunk of my brain traffics in song titles and lyrics....

 

[IshChayil]

It is the same word that is translated "first" in Acts 20:8.
If 1 Timothy 3:12 is translated as "first wife" then this verse has a whole different meaning, as in "You must have been faithful to your first wife, the wife of your youth, to be qualified to lead the flock".

I tackle this in the other thread but it's kind of heavy and long-winded so I get it if you don't wanna tread over there.
So, in the ESV translation, every place where the word in question heis/mia/en (masc./fem./neut. forms) is translated as "first" is based on an underlying Hebrew influence in how the days of the week are referred to. Sunday = "yom echad" which is literally "day 1". Later it does develop into "yom rishon" = "first day". In Israel today you can call Sunday either of those and everyone understands "day 1" or "1st day". If you check your firsts in ESV they are all (except 1) matching this underlying Hebraic pattern.
Acts 20:7 you listed is also a Sunday..."on the first day of the week...".
The only exception in ESV is Revelations 9:12 ... in this case we just render it as "first" b/c it makes more sense in English since the clause ends with "meta" + accusative (which translates "after" like Aristotle's meta+ta+physika ... that which comes after Physics = metaphysics).
Hope this helps

 

[IshChayil]

Desiring a new car or a new house or a new computer is not a sin. Wanting someone else's stuff is a sin, because eventually it will lead you to do something stupid to get it. ("I wish that I had Jessie's girl"....)

what about "my bestfriend's girl... and she used to be mine!"
Can we covet that one ?

on a serious note, I think this is what Yeshua was referring to with "if your eye be evil..." is a Hebrew idiom for being extremely covetous in that you judge in your heart the other person for being unworthy of having x,y,z

 

[IshChayil]

I always turn that around on them. I ask "If monogamous marriage became against the law, would you obey the law, or would you reason that government has over stepped its bounds?"
...
Remember forbidding marriage is in itself a sin (1 Timothy 4:3) and the Bible word for polygamy is "marriage" so I would argue that forbidding polygyny would be a sin, or in this case an evil perpetuated by the government. Obedience to government is not absolute.

or what about prima nocta were re-instituted would they allow the lord of the land to rape their virgin wife on the wedding night?

 

[cnystrom]

We also read of another father-in-law to Moses, Hobab the Kenite (Judges 4:11), a different name and family to Jethro, Zipporah's father. This strongly indicates a third wife, though we know nothing about her so cannot be certain that she was married to him at the same time as the others.

Just found Numbers 10:29 that indicates that Hobab was the son of Reuel, Moses' Father in law, which would make Hobab Moses' brother in law.

It seems like there is some confusion here.

 

[NetWatchR]

Could be a different Hobab? Perhaps similar issue as when discussing Ahinoam.

 

[andrew]

<pull pin, count to 3>Or it could be that it was just misremembered in one of the passages....<feets don't fail me now!>

 

[Nikud]

I'm not jumping on that gernade.

 

[andrew]

Discretion is the better part of valor....

 

[IshChayil]

Just found Numbers 10:29 that indicates that Hobab was the son of Reuel, Moses' Father in law, which would make Hobab Moses' brother in law.
It seems like there is some confusion here.

<pull pin, count to 3>Or it could be that it was just misremembered in one of the passages....<feets don't fail me now!>

Put that pin back in! I think the textual tradition is fine here.
This is a case where Hebrew syntax as marked by "taamiym" (Cantillation marks) helps resolve the ambiguity of the verse.
These are extra diacritical marks throughout the Hebrew bible which serve grammatical function similar to commas, semi-colons, etc. in English grammar. Traditionally they represent how our ancestors sang the text as a mode of memorization.
This is an example where they are important syntactically though often ignored by translators.
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֗ה לְ֠חֹבָב בֶּן־רְעוּאֵ֣ל הַמִּדְיָנִי֮ חֹתֵ֣ן‮‬ מֹשֶׁה֒
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: (2003). (Num 10:29). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

OK so here is a diagram which shows the relationships of the first part of the first clause in this verse, Numbers 10:29.
You'll see at the very top left it says "Athnah" (pronounced "etnach" or "atnachta" or "etnachta" by various communities).
That's an end of clause marker, looks like a chicken bone under the word for those of you learning Hebrew. So we are only dealing with part of this clause (ending with ethnachta) in our diagram.
Now see the words with highlighted boxes around them? (t0 Hobab) and look down bellow (the father-in-law of Moses)?
Follow the lines connecting them to see the syntactic relationship indicated by the ta'amiym.
Each offshoot is referring back to the initial referant, here it's Hobab.
In English we would do this via an appositive set off by commas.

So the verse syntax goes like this:
"And Moses said to Hobab, the son of Reuel (referring back to Hobab), the father-in-law of Moses (referring back to Hobab)."
So if we rely on the ta'amiym, Hobab here, as in Judges, is referred to as the "father-in-law of Moses".

This should not be problematic for us. Moses was no spring chicken when he encountered Hashem at the burning bush. He spent many years with Jethro in Midian; seems quite plausible he could have become pals with Hobab and that friendship could certainly have been cemented, as is Middle Eastern custom, by offering Moses a daughter.
So it seems Hobab is both the brother-in-law of Moses, and his father-in-law; Midianite style...

(that said, there is also an alternative reading, Samaritan 2nd reading as indicated in "Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner",Von Gall, which indicates Hobab as the חֲתַן son-in-law of Moses in this verse... I opted to not include it since it leaves us with an unsolved mystery ... unless they were both each others' fathers-in-law which also works... elected for the K.I.S.S. principle.)

 

[andrew]

Oh, fine.

 

[Nikud]

@IshChayil I like the new profile picture

Psalms 118:6

The Lord is for me; I shall not fear. What can man do to me?