Recent thread on Jewish board

[Daniel DeLuca]

I found this thread and I couldn't resist sharing here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/mes...548.html?sid=cc14a0d058b1efeeacc40187bb41009d

One member wrote:

mredd2022 wrote: ↑
10:27 AM - Jan 13
"If polygamy were adultery, why would God have permitted it to begin with?"

they will say it was an evil which was being "regulated"
gods hands were "tied," he couldnt on the spot say, "don't take more than one wife"

to quote a missionary on reddit:
Why did God allow polygamy and other likewise evils back then? Because the Israelites were too stubborn to forsake their transgressive traditions, so God had to make a concession and bide his time. The time was not yet ready to abolish these institutions because the people weren't yet ready.

In response another user wrote:

This is utter nonsense. G-d gave the Jews numerous commandments which includes many "lo sa'aseh" ("thau shall not do"). G-d also explicitly told the Jews that they should follow the commandments, indicating that they had His full confidence that they can, in fact, do so. The Jews themselves explicitly declared that they would do His commandments. So it is ridiculous to assume that there are some things G-d did not want the Jews to do (and even considered "evil") but He made a concession and didn't actually say anything about it. Moreover, when did He say something about it? I would assume that if this was because "the people weren't ready" then they would be ready within a generation or two. So where is it recorded that G-d told them they cannot do polygamy?

He makes a solid argument that I believe can be effective in refuting the Matt 19:9 argument, which I have found to be the hardest argument to refute. Force them to go back and answer the original question, "If polygamy were adultery, why would God have permitted it to begin with?"

 

[PeteR]

Nice find!

He also nice blows up Christendom's argument that the Jews couldn't keep the Torah... (Hint, it was the myriad oral traditions that became the yoke too heavy to bear, but that's another discussion.)

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

He makes a solid argument that I believe can be effective in refuting the Matt 19:9 argument, which I have found to be the hardest argument to refute. Force them to go back and answer the original question, "If polygamy were adultery, why would God have permitted it to begin with?"

It’s not a good argument because there is at least one thing that Jesus said was permitted because of the hardness of their hearts, but that from the beginning it was not so.

Matthew 19:7-8 KJV
[7] “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [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.”

He also nice blows up Christendom's argument that the Jews couldn't keep the Torah... (Hint, it was the myriad oral traditions that became the yoke too heavy to bear, but that's another discussion.)

No it wasn’t, and Scripture doesn’t tell us that, it has to be inserted into the text. Jesus rejected the Tradition of the Elders, out of hand. The disciples were already bypassing the ceremonial hand washing station during Jesus’ earthly ministry. So to say that it was something the early church was still unsure about is silly. Many things Jesus taught, His disciples didn’t understand the meaning of until later, but the traditions of men were something they were very clear about from the start.

 

[rockfox]

It’s not a good argument because there is at least one thing that Jesus said was permitted because of the hardness of their hearts, but that from the beginning it was not so.

Matthew 19:7-8 KJV
[7] “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [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.”

This is especially true in that Christ also says that to marry a divorced woman is to commit adultery. So there is a direct parallel.

 

[Mark C]

This is especially true in that Christ also says that to marry a divorced woman is to commit adultery. So there is a direct parallel.

Which shows directly what a crappy translation will do. The word He said was that used IN His word, "shalach", or put away. If she is ONLY 'put away,' she still (to note Paul) "has a living husband."

But the parallel is important to note.

(The problem, of course, is you shouldn't put her away at ALL. And THAT was the issue of being hard-hearted! He just didn't want her punished forever.)