Going back to Mark's original post, I think we all understand that Christ and His apostles define marriage the same way the Torah, Prophets, and Writings do.
Great. As He in fact said.
Polygyny is marriage. It is not adultery, or sexual immorality. This is a universal moral law.
So far, so good.
I still think there is a hole in Mark's argument.
I take Mark to be saying:
(Premise A)
Polygyny is legitimate marriage.
Of course. His Word says so, more than once. And He confirmed that.
Therefore
(Premise B)
Paul cannot prohibit polygamous men from being chosen as elders or deacons.
Close, but not exactly. He was a "bondservant," and "follower of the Most High,"
(he introduced himself that way in the letter to Titus!) so he WOULD NOT HAVE.
Why would he contradict His Master? AND - if he even tried - he would have done what he did elsewhere, say that it was his opinion, and not that he was speaking for YHVH. And, as he also did in many places, he would have provided a WHOLE LOT of rationale for even appearing to contradict Scripture that way.
I'm saying it should be clear that
he did NOT do any such thing.
(And it needn't "be Greek to us.")
I don't think premise A necessitates premise B. There is another possibility.
Polygyny might be totally legitimate, but polygamous men still excluded from church leadership for practical reasons (rather than moral disqualification)....
OK, maybe...continue... (and
emphasis added)
...Perhaps polygamy is as well.
Keep in mind that I don't think this is the case. I think Paul is saying that elders should have experience leading a wife (and family), and should be faithful in doing so.
Back to "agreed."
The point is simple, in spite of the attempts to obfuscate and sidetrack. In science and logic, it's called "Occams' Razor" - the simplest explanation is generally the preferred one.
This one might be called "Yahuah's Razor." (Oh, yeah, I can hear the shrieks already!
![Smile :) :)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)
)
If a passage of Scripture has been twisted in translation so as to even make it APPEAR that the Author Himself is violating His Own Word, then go with what He almost certainly ACTUALLY Wrote instead.
Since I don't care about dissing Abraham, or other angels-dancing-on-pinheads idiocy, a few practical examples, relevant to marrige:
If YHVH says "if he [a man] take another wife..." then that means HE CAN. Otherwise He wouldn't need to say anything about it at all, right? After all, He NEVER first says, "don't boink a man like you would a woman," and then "changes His mind" and says, "but if you DO, wear a condom."
This is not rocket science. All it takes is a bit of consistency. Which He is careful to provide!
And, since He says, "do not commit adultery," and then write instructions (rules) for a "war bride," then that is
not adultery. Reasons abound, and - guess what - they are ALL consistent with His Word. You can use the 'razor' to "rightly divide" them.
And in the very same section of Scripture where He talks about idolatry, and how He hates it, and reiterates the "Ten Debarim," and what Yahushua Himself called the "Greatest Commandment" (Deuteronomy 6:4), He says don't "add to" or "subtract from" His Word.
Men did it with polygyny. Destroyed families, ruined societies, and killed a whole lotta people for it. Yahushua called 'em "hypocrites." And He was Right - again. And they're still doing it. In about every arena you can imagine.
Why do we put up with that?