The Bible and Polygamy

Posted By: Green Cochoa

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 08:02 PM

Rosangela,

If the Bible taught what you are asking it to teach (it doesn't), the following Godly men would all have been "adulterers."

Abraham
Jacob
Elkanah
David
Solomon

...and a good many more. God Himself would have portrayed Himself as an adulterer, marrying two sisters at that.

Notice that for Hosea, he was not depicted as an adulterer, but was to marry one. The setting for that, though, is intriguing. "Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine." (Hosea 3:1)

When Hosea receives this command, it appears, his bride-to-be is already an adulteress. That's something to chew on.

Interesting, too, the connection here between adultery and wine. More food for thought.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 08:13 PM

Yes, GC, all those men were adulterers, although they thought they weren't. They thought the standard of the world was the standard of God. But it wasn't. They will only be saved because "the times of ignorance God overlooked."

About Hosea, there are many opinions about the passage. Many think that the woman wasn't an adulteress when Hosea married her, but became one later. According to your own words, how could she be an adulteress before being married? In case she committed adultery while she was bethroted to him, the innocent party could - and still can - forgive the guilty party.

Quote:
Interesting, too, the connection here between adultery and wine.

?
What is it?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 08:34 PM

No, Rosangela, those men were not adulterers. Polygamists, yes. But those are two separate concepts. Polygamy is not necessarily adultery.

It's back to the definition of adultery: illicit relations with your neighbor's wife/husband. When it is your own wife, belonging to no one else, it cannot be adultery.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 08:38 PM

Regarding Hosea, his wife was already an adulteress, meaning she had already been married, not to Hosea, and was committing adultery OR she was committing harlotry with married persons, not being married herself. The question marks come with respect to "her friend." We are not told much about who that might be.

Regarding the wine, feel free to offer your thoughts on that part.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 08:50 PM

Quote:
No, Rosangela, those men were not adulterers. Polygamists, yes. But those are two separate concepts. Polygamy is not necessarily adultery.

Paul says it is for women. So you are saying it isn't for men?

Posted By: Rosangela

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 08:55 PM

Quote:
Regarding Hosea, his wife was already an adulteress, meaning she had already been married, not to Hosea, and was committing adultery OR she was committing harlotry with married persons, not being married herself. The question marks come with respect to "her friend." We are not told much about who that might be.

You are saying that, not the Bible. If she was married and was committing adultery, she would have been stoned, together with the person who committed adultery with her. If she was committing harlotry with married persons, she and those persons also would have been stoned. How come this didn't happen?

Quote:
Regarding the wine, feel free to offer your thoughts on that part.

The only relation I see between alcohol consumption and polygamy is what I have already said.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 09:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
No, Rosangela, those men were not adulterers. Polygamists, yes. But those are two separate concepts. Polygamy is not necessarily adultery.

Paul says it is for women. So you are saying it isn't for men?


Yes, that is what the Bible appears to teach.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 09:02 PM

That's what you teach. smile
Posted By: Green Cochoa

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 09:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Regarding Hosea, his wife was already an adulteress, meaning she had already been married, not to Hosea, and was committing adultery OR she was committing harlotry with married persons, not being married herself. The question marks come with respect to "her friend." We are not told much about who that might be.

You are saying that, not the Bible. If she was married and was committing adultery, she would have been stoned, together with the person who committed adultery with her. If she was committing harlotry with married persons, she and those persons also would have been stoned. How come this didn't happen?

How come the woman brought to Jesus was not stoned? Stoning did not always happen. The witch of Endor survived too. On the other hand, Nadab and Abihu were struck down by God Himself for their drunken sin, but Noah and Lot were not.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 09:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
That's what you teach. smile


If you think I'm the one teaching this, and that polygamy is adultery according to the Bible, you need to explain to me why God gave commands governing polygamy.

Gray areas are not necessarily easy to understand, especially via our ordinary logic.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 09:52 PM

GC, the Bible also brings commands governing slavery. Is slavery another "gray area" for you?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 05/31/11 10:31 PM

Quote:
How come the woman brought to Jesus was not stoned? Stoning did not always happen. The witch of Endor survived too. On the other hand, Nadab and Abihu were struck down by God Himself for their drunken sin, but Noah and Lot were not.

If there was no one willing to stone the person, the person obviously was not stoned. This happened because Jesus revealed the sins of the people who brought her to Him and they saw they deserved to be stoned, too, so they went away. Idolatry should also be punished with death, but when the whole Israel was worshiping idols, obviously nobody executed the penalty. The witch of Endor was not stoned because Israel was in apostasy and no one was willing to stone her (or everybody was afraid to do it). The same happened with David when he committed adultery with Bathsheba. No one dared to stone the king.
However, the bill of divorce was not an alternative to stoning. It was not applied in cases of adultery.
As to Nadab and Abihu, they were struck down by God for bringing strange fire to the sanctuary.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/01/11 06:50 AM

Stoning was a commandment, not an "if you want to" sort of thing.

Where are your supporting scriptures relative to divorce, adultery, and stoning? Please make your case, and I am willing to hear it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/01/11 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Stoning was a commandment, not an "if you want to" sort of thing.
Were there some things "commanded" which were not followed? Could it be, that somethings they "enjoyed" doing, such as killing, and other things they did not follow? Could that be the reason they were in the situation they were?

Quote:
If the Bible taught what you are asking it to teach (it doesn't), the following Godly men would all have been "adulterers."

Abraham
Jacob
Elkanah
David
Solomon
Thinking of at least David, what about murderers, a man after God's own heart? Does that mean murderers go to heaven or David won't be in heaven?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/01/11 06:47 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Thinking of at least David, what about murderers, a man after God's own heart? Does that mean murderers go to heaven or David won't be in heaven?

Thankfully, there is forgiveness for even the worst of sins. David repented. He did not continue being a murderer.

But if polygamy is adultery, those polygamists in the lists were adulterers to their dying days, without ever having repented of its "evil." Therein lies a fundamental difference.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 01:03 AM

Originally Posted By: JAK
I also challenge the "What is right is always right, and what's wrong is always wrong" fallacy. Judah's sons were put to death (by God) for not sleeping with their brother's wife. I'm fairly certain God does not want ME sleeping with my brother's wife (in the same situation.)

He was put to death because he didn't want to "give an heir to his brother" (Gen. 38:9). He wished to have the inheritance of his brother. Obviously he thought only of the material inheritance. His god was mammon. His death has nothing to do with the levirate marriage, which he could have refused, if he so wished.
About the levirate marriage, it's my conviction that only a bachelor brother could marry the widow of the deceased brother.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 02:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Originally Posted By: JAK
I also challenge the "What is right is always right, and what's wrong is always wrong" fallacy. Judah's sons were put to death (by God) for not sleeping with their brother's wife. I'm fairly certain God does not want ME sleeping with my brother's wife (in the same situation.)

He was put to death because he didn't want to "give an heir to his brother" (Gen. 38:9). He wished to have the inheritance of his brother. Obviously he thought only of the material inheritance. His god was mammon. His death has nothing to do with the levirate marriage, which he could have refused, if he so wished.
About the levirate marriage, it's my conviction that only a bachelor brother could marry the widow of the deceased brother.


That would appear inconsistent with the Biblical system, Rosangela, to presume that only a bachelor brother would be involved. First of all, the inheritance would have meant little to the brother in this case if he had had no sons already to inherit it. There was nothing for him to inherit himself, as the portion belonging to his deceased brother would have stayed with his widow. It would only be redivided upon her death, and could then be divvied out to the next generation (via his own property distribution). For him to inherit it would have been meaningless if it could not have been passed to his children (i.e. if he had no children to inherit it). Property always stayed in the family, but if there was no one left in the family to inherit it, it would go further up the tree, to the parents, tribe and/or nearest of kin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 02:55 AM

Rosangela, what about those "adulterers" who made faith's hall of fame?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 05:13 AM

Quote:
That would appear inconsistent with the Biblical system, Rosangela, to presume that only a bachelor brother would be involved. First of all, the inheritance would have meant little to the brother in this case if he had had no sons already to inherit it. There was nothing for him to inherit himself, as the portion belonging to his deceased brother would have stayed with his widow. It would only be redivided upon her death, and could then be divvied out to the next generation (via his own property distribution). For him to inherit it would have been meaningless if it could not have been passed to his children (i.e. if he had no children to inherit it). Property always stayed in the family, but if there was no one left in the family to inherit it, it would go further up the tree, to the parents, tribe and/or nearest of kin.

tsk, tsk...
GC, a woman would only inherited something from her father (not from her father-in-law), and only if she had no husband, and only in special cases and after all the men in the family had already received their share.
Onan's brother was the firstborn. Since he died, Onan would inherit the double share - but ONLY if his brother had left no heir. If he had had a son with the widow, the child would have been considered an heir of the deceased brother, and the double share would go to the child.
If he didn't give a child to the widow, the inheritance would go to him. After his father died and he had already got the inheritance, he could have a child of his own.
Last but not least, he could have opted for not marrying the widow, but by marrying her he would prevent his other brother from marrying her and giving her an heir.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 05:19 AM

Quote:
Rosangela, what about those "adulterers" who made faith's hall of fame?

GC, I've already answered your question. The Bible is clear that "the times of ignorance God overlooked." That's the only reason why they were saved. The problem is, some of them not only had more than one wife, but they had concubines, too. Do you consider concubinage OK, too?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 05:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
That would appear inconsistent with the Biblical system, Rosangela, to presume that only a bachelor brother would be involved. First of all, the inheritance would have meant little to the brother in this case if he had had no sons already to inherit it. There was nothing for him to inherit himself, as the portion belonging to his deceased brother would have stayed with his widow. It would only be redivided upon her death, and could then be divvied out to the next generation (via his own property distribution). For him to inherit it would have been meaningless if it could not have been passed to his children (i.e. if he had no children to inherit it). Property always stayed in the family, but if there was no one left in the family to inherit it, it would go further up the tree, to the parents, tribe and/or nearest of kin.

tsk, tsk...
GC, a woman would only inherited something from her father (not from her father-in-law), and only if she had no husband, and only in special cases and after all the men in the family had already received their share.
Onan's brother was the firstborn. Since he died, Onan would inherit the double share - but ONLY if his brother had left no heir. If he had had a son with the widow, the child would have been considered an heir of the deceased brother, and the double share would go to the child.
If he didn't give a child to the widow, the inheritance would go to him. After his father died and he had already got the inheritance, he could have a child of his own.
Last but not least, he could have opted for not marrying the widow, but by marrying her he would prevent his other brother from marrying her and giving her an heir.


Rosangela,

I'm not sure how you can see fit to reason it this way. It is obvious that if Onan could not be polygamous, and he would choose to marry the widow to keep her from being married and having an heir by the younger brother, that Onan would have been extremely myopic. It would mean he could never have a child of his own!

That is why he would not have any inheritance to pass along to his progeny--because with no progeny, said inheritance automatically reverts back up the line.

Besides, what a way to live...having no son to care for him in his old age? How short-sighted that would be!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 06:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Rosangela, what about those "adulterers" who made faith's hall of fame?

GC, I've already answered your question. The Bible is clear that "the times of ignorance God overlooked." That's the only reason why they were saved. The problem is, some of them not only had more than one wife, but they had concubines, too. Do you consider concubinage OK, too?


I don't think I understand the "concubinage" enough to say whether or not it was "ok." What I do understand is that "sexual relations" and "marital relations" are alike in God's sight. If one has sexual intercourse with someone else, it is an act of marriage. To God, the two are thereafter husband and wife, even if they have not had a special piece of paper notarized by a judge or notary public. smile (I'm not sure whom it might be in your country.)

The Bible tells us this: "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." (1 Corinthians 6:16)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 06:07 AM

Rosangela,

Do you think God would give laws governing our sins because we were ignorant? Like telling us how to sin fairly?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
GC: If the Bible taught what you are asking it to teach (it doesn't), the following Godly men would all have been "adulterers."
Abraham
Jacob
Elkanah
David
Solomon

k: Thinking of at least David, what about murderers, a man after God's own heart? Does that mean murderers go to heaven or David won't be in heaven?

GC: Thankfully, there is forgiveness for even the worst of sins. David repented. He did not continue being a murderer.

But if polygamy is adultery, those polygamists in the lists were adulterers to their dying days, without ever having repented of its "evil." Therein lies a fundamental difference.

So why do you object if he was an adulterer or not? Cannot adulterers be forgiven the same as murderers? Or do you suggest that he murder the one he committed adultery with so that he would no longer be one?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 06:12 PM

I agree polygamy and adultery are not one and the same sin.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 06:26 PM

Quote:
I'm not sure how you can see fit to reason it this way. It is obvious that if Onan could not be polygamous, and he would choose to marry the widow to keep her from being married and having an heir by the younger brother, that Onan would have been extremely myopic. It would mean he could never have a child of his own!

That is why he would not have any inheritance to pass along to his progeny--because with no progeny, said inheritance automatically reverts back up the line.

Besides, what a way to live...having no son to care for him in his old age? How short-sighted that would be!

GC, you must have missed what I said about this:

<<After his father died and he had already got the inheritance, he could have a child of his own.>>

All he had to do was to wait until he got his hands on the money. After that he could have as many children as he wished.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 06:31 PM

Quote:
Quote:
GC, I've already answered your question. The Bible is clear that "the times of ignorance God overlooked." That's the only reason why they were saved. The problem is, some of them not only had more than one wife, but they had concubines, too. Do you consider concubinage OK, too?

I don't think I understand the "concubinage" enough to say whether or not it was "ok." What I do understand is that "sexual relations" and "marital relations" are alike in God's sight. If one has sexual intercourse with someone else, it is an act of marriage. To God, the two are thereafter husband and wife, even if they have not had a special piece of paper notarized by a judge or notary public.

Would it be OK for the men who made faith's hall of fame to go to a prostitute?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 06:40 PM

Quote:
Do you think God would give laws governing our sins because we were ignorant? Like telling us how to sin fairly?

GC, certainly there were already polygamous marriages and slaves among the israelites when they left Egypt, and laws were made in order to lessen or minimize the evils caused by these ancient customs.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
GC, you must have missed what I said about this:

<<After his father died and he had already got the inheritance, he could have a child of his own.>>

All he had to do was to wait until he got his hands on the money. After that he could have as many children as he wished.

Rosangela,

That still makes no sense to me. If he had children by his brother's wife, would it matter when that happened? Those children would automatically become the heirs of his brother's estate. The only way for him to have all the children he wanted to and this not be the case would be to have those children by a different wife.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 06:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Would it be OK for the men who made faith's hall of fame to go to a prostitute?
Not necessarily. But to sleep with her is to marry her according to the Bible. So what happens if you are already married? I guess you just picked up another wife in that case.

There is simply no prohibition on polygamy in the Bible. Find me even one text that declares it to be a sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Do you think God would give laws governing our sins because we were ignorant? Like telling us how to sin fairly?

GC, certainly there were already polygamous marriages and slaves among the israelites when they left Egypt, and laws were made in order to lessen or minimize the evils caused by these ancient customs.


Rosangela,

God's command did not address the type of marriage you speak of here. It addressed NEW / ADDITIONAL marriages, i.e. plural marriages yet future.

"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
GC, you must have missed what I said about this:

<<After his father died and he had already got the inheritance, he could have a child of his own.>>

All he had to do was to wait until he got his hands on the money. After that he could have as many children as he wished.

Rosangela,

That still makes no sense to me. If he had children by his brother's wife, would it matter when that happened? Those children would automatically become the heirs of his brother's estate. The only way for him to have all the children he wanted to and this not be the case would be to have those children by a different wife.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
GC and Rosangela, there was more than the inheritance of money or estate in question. The biggest inheritance was the spiritual birthright. The son that was given that responsibility had a spiritual obligation to represent God, guide according to God's charge, and protect the rights of the family. Then that birthright was passed on to one of his descedance, but not necessarily his own son, but could be to one of his grand-son or great grand son depending when the one carrying the birthright is about to die and who God inspires to select.

This was the issue at hand and that's why the brother had to impregnant the deceased birthright holder's widow.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:22 PM

Quote:
That still makes no sense to me. If he had children by his brother's wife, would it matter when that happened? Those children would automatically become the heirs of his brother's estate. The only way for him to have all the children he wanted to and this not be the case would be to have those children by a different wife.

After the birthright had passed to him, obviously nobody could take it from him. His deceased brother's descendants would have lost the birthright.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:29 PM

Quote:
Would it be OK for the men who made faith's hall of fame to go to a prostitute?
Not necessarily. But to sleep with her is to marry her according to the Bible. So what happens if you are already married? I guess you just picked up another wife in that case.

No, you've committed adultery. And the person who comitted adultery cannot keep both "wives." Or do you think he can?

Quote:
There is simply no prohibition on polygamy in the Bible. Find me even one text that declares it to be a sin.

GC, find me even one text that declares that slavery is a sin, or that smoking is a sin.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
That still makes no sense to me. If he had children by his brother's wife, would it matter when that happened? Those children would automatically become the heirs of his brother's estate. The only way for him to have all the children he wanted to and this not be the case would be to have those children by a different wife.

After the birthright had passed to him, obviously nobody could take it from him. His deceased brother's descendants would have lost the birthright.

Rosangela,

I challenge you to supply even one instance from the Bible that would support your interpretation. It is my understanding that any child, regardless of how soon born to her, of that widow would have received the inheritance of the surrogate father's deceased brother. There is nothing that I have read that would indicate there was any kind of time limit on those births after which this would not be the case.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:34 PM

Quote:
God's command did not address the type of marriage you speak of here. It addressed NEW / ADDITIONAL marriages, i.e. plural marriages yet future.

"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."

Yes, God did not abolish these customs at that time. He waited for the people to mature spiritually so that they could realize that those customs were not according to His will. And this eventually happened.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
That still makes no sense to me. If he had children by his brother's wife, would it matter when that happened? Those children would automatically become the heirs of his brother's estate. The only way for him to have all the children he wanted to and this not be the case would be to have those children by a different wife.

After the birthright had passed to him, obviously nobody could take it from him. His deceased brother's descendants would have lost the birthright.
To my understanding, he get's nothing. All would go to the child who would carry his brother's name. Like GC said, if he wants his own children, he can have all the children he wants with another wife.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:38 PM

Quote:
I challenge you to supply even one instance from the Bible that would support your interpretation. It is my understanding that any child, regardless of how soon born to her, of that widow would have received the inheritance of the surrogate father's deceased brother. There is nothing that I have read that would indicate there was any kind of time limit on those births after which this would not be the case.

GC, Reuben lost his birthright and, obviously, so did his descendants. His birthright passed to another.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:45 PM

Quote:
To my understanding, he get's nothing. All would go to the child who would carry his brother's name. Like GC said, if he wants his own children, he can have all the children he wants with another wife.

Elle,
You and GC are trying to apply modern thinking to an ancient culture.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Would it be OK for the men who made faith's hall of fame to go to a prostitute?
Not necessarily. But to sleep with her is to marry her according to the Bible. So what happens if you are already married? I guess you just picked up another wife in that case.

No, you've committed adultery. And the person who comitted adultery cannot keep both "wives." Or do you think he can?

I can name examples of harlots who became wives and were kept. I think you could too, if you tried.
Originally Posted By: Rosangela

Quote:
There is simply no prohibition on polygamy in the Bible. Find me even one text that declares it to be a sin.

GC, find me even one text that declares that slavery is a sin, or that smoking is a sin.


Slavery was not a sin. God commanded it in certain cases and set down very careful rules to govern the practice. So much for a text that would declare it to be sin. Even Paul encouraged the runaway slave to return to his master (see Philemon).

As for the smoking, there is one text that puts it in a bad light. Not quite a "thou shalt not," but certainly lumping the practice with other evils.

"Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, [yet] will I not hear them." (Ezekiel 8:17-18)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:52 PM

Quote:
No, you've committed adultery. And the person who comitted adultery cannot keep both "wives." Or do you think he can?

I can name examples of harlots who became wives and were kept. I think you could too, if you tried.

If you think an adulterous person can keep both relationships, and that God agrees with that, I'll leave it at that. No amount of biblical argumentation will persuade you. Therefore, we will agree to disagree.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
To my understanding, he get's nothing. All would go to the child who would carry his brother's name. Like GC said, if he wants his own children, he can have all the children he wants with another wife.

Elle,
You and GC are trying to apply modern thinking to an ancient culture.

Then I invite you to share the texts from scripture that support your position. So far, all we have is your own opinion/interpretation. Where is the text telling us that if the widow he marries does not have children right away, those children can later be called by his own name in place of his brother's?

Rosangela, you have no text for this because there is none. That was never the law, despite your wishes to see it that way.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 07:59 PM

Quote:
Then I invite you to share the texts from scripture that support your position. So far, all we have is your own opinion/interpretation. Where is the text telling us that if the widow he marries does not have children right away, those children can later be called by his own name in place of his brother's?

Rosangela, you have no text for this because there is none. That was never the law, despite your wishes to see it that way.

The first child would still be his brother's, but that child would not inherit the birthright, since the birthright now belonged to him and to his descendants. This is obvious.
All you have is also your own opinion. Again, we will agree to disagree.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/02/11 08:01 PM

Rosangela,

It is not obvious to me. Where do you find that? Text please?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/03/11 06:15 PM

GC, you have said what you think isn't adultery, but I don't see what you define as adultery. If you say someone can have a wife, and then get another wife, and so on, and not be committing adultery, what, if anything, do you define as adultery?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/03/11 08:02 PM

kland,

I have said what I think adultery is, but it was in the other thread, and unfortunately was not copied to this one. Here is the link to the post.

However, to reiterate it clearly, adultery is sleeping with someone else's spouse. It is the marital form of stealing.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/03/11 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
I have said what I think adultery is, but it was in the other thread, and unfortunately was not copied to this one. Here is the link to the post.

However, to reiterate it clearly, adultery is sleeping with someone else's spouse. It is the marital form of stealing.
Yes, that post was one of the main ones I based my question on. So, would you agree that the other spouse is committing adultery with the first one since they are the married one? And if you lead someone else into sin, they would be sinning, too? If you didn't follow that, if one of two people are married to someone else, then one of them is committing adultery.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/04/11 03:32 AM

I'm not sure I follow your first part, but I think I understand your question in the second, kland. I guess I would have to say that it is possible that one of them in an illicit relationship might be committing adultery, and the other not--IF (and only if) the other one truly did not know that the first one was already married. It does happen. But in most cases, both parties would be party to the "adultery." (And again, God is the best judge of such circumstances.)

(And if that wasn't your question, please clarify it for me.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/04/11 05:23 AM

Adultery is definitely a married person having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. Two unmarried people having sexual relations is fornication. The punishment for adultery was death, whereas the punishment for fornication was marriage (see passage below).

Quote:
Deuteronomy
22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This passage is referring to consensual sexual relations, not rape, because the punishment for rape was death not marriage.

Polygamy does not involve adultery because it involves marriage. Nevertheless, God intended for couples to be monogamous.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/04/11 06:31 AM

As I understand it, adultery is more specific, and includes just one category of "fornication." "Fornication" involves any sexual sin, to include adultery, premarital relations, homosexuality, auto-eroticism (in the Bible this is what I understand to be covered by the phrase "youthful lusts"), bestiality, etc. It would almost certainly have included such things as today's pornography. The Greek word for it is "porneia."

The following site seems to concur with what I've always understood to be the Biblical usage:

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/fornication.html

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/04/11 06:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Adultery is definitely a married person having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. Two unmarried people having sexual relations is fornication. The punishment for adultery was death, whereas the punishment for fornication was marriage (see passage below).

Quote:
Deuteronomy
22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This passage is referring to consensual sexual relations, not rape, because the punishment for rape was death not marriage.

Polygamy does not involve adultery because it involves marriage. Nevertheless, God intended for couples to be monogamous.


Thank you for that perspective, Mike.

I was in a situation working at one of our institutions in Asia at one point where two unmarried staff committed "fornication." Unfortunately, the administrator counseled them to separate, as he thought they were ill-matched. They separated. So much for following the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/04/11 05:53 PM


Hey Green,

Do you know any church administrators that follow the Bible & SOP?

_______________________________
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/05/11 01:05 AM

It is something to think about, Gordon. Do we still choose to follow those old "Levitical Laws" today? Or is our modern way superior to those now?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/05/11 03:58 AM

Originally Posted By: MM
Two unmarried people having sexual relations is fornication.
I don't believe that is the correct definition of fornication. 1Cor 7:36 it doesn't say so and there's other scriptures to evaluate.

Fornication used in Mat 5:32 is mis-understood and so is why Jesus said what he said in Mat 5:31. Most interpret that it says that adultery is the only reason for divorce. So I need to address Mat 5:31 to come later with the correct understanding of fornication in this text. This is a study I did in another forum that I tailored it a little bit for here.

Context

Mat 5:31 is part of the sermon of the mount.
In a nutshell, the purpose of the "Sermon on the Mount" was to improve upon the Laws of Moses interpretation and application. Jesus started with the 10 C's and followed with other laws found. Jesus was giving the true spirit of the laws by which had been lost through the traditions of the elders and the Leaders.

Jesus Emphasizing to Give a Written Divorce
With that context in mind, and knowing that Jesus did not come to destroy the law, let us look at Matthew 5:31, 32 in greater detail. These two verses are a part of His comment on "Thou shalt not commit adultery,"(v.27) that is part of the 10 commandments. So the final thrust of His comment is to define adultery in relation to the laws of divorce and remarriage found in Deut 24:1 which Verse 31 simply refers to. In that Law, God demanded that men give their wives a WRITTEN bill of divorcement before they could lawfully put away their wives. Deut 24:2, of course, allowed divorced wives to remarry after a lawful divorce. So let us take another look at Matthew 5:31, 32, inserting a few key words in the original Greek, so that we get a proper translation of the passage.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion). 32 But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluo, lit. "put away") committeth adultery.

To paraphrase this: The law says that she commits adultery if she remarries (or lives with another man ) without a written bill of divorcement. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU that whoever puts her away (without divorce papers; that is, unlawfully) causes her to commit adultery (if she remarries or lives with another man under such conditions). Thus, he who simply put her out of his house without divorcing her properly is JUST AS LIABLE AS SHE IS. And whosoever marries her (or lives with her) that has been put away (without divorce papers) also commits adultery, because he is marrying another man's wife.

Jesus is here condemning men who put away their wives the Babylonian style (verbally), instead of putting her away in the manner prescribed by God's law. Under the laws of liability, this would make him (the husband who neglects to give a bill of divorcement to his wife before putting her away as God prescribed) guilty of adultery if she were to remarry or living with another man. So we see that the whole point of this commentary is to bring out a point of law that had not been covered by the Pharisees in their interpretations.

Besides for the Cause of Harlotry
But what of the section, "saving (parektos, near outside, i.e. besides) for the cause of fornication (porneia, harlotry)?" What does this mean? Most people assume it means that if a wife commits adultery then it is lawful to divorce her. However, it does NOT say, "because of ADULTERY." It says “besides for the cause of fornication or harlotry”. Further, the penalty for adultery was death -- not divorce. So what is meant by "fornication?" Why is it alright to put away one's spouse without divorce papers in a case of fornication?

A look on the Biblical Meaning of Fornication
Prostitution is the main sexual relationship that is call Fornication which is considered unlawful.

In Ex. 22:16, this is where a man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman. In Deut 22:23-29 gives more details on all the different circumstances. If she is bethroth and does not cry for help and is a rape, only the man is to be stoned. But if she is bethroth and doesn’t cry for help then both are stoned. This is not fornication. This is adultery and the penalty is stoning.

Now, if the damsel is not bethroth, then the man has to marry her and he may not put her away(divorce her) all his days of his life. The father of the damsel decides whether she is to marry him or not. If it is rape like in the case of Dinah the Daughter of Jacob, Jacob still decided to give her as a bride even with the case of rape. So regardless if it was rape or not, the man has to pay up the dowry to the father that is kept for her needs. I don’t know if the rape in this case would be considered fornication. I don’t think if it was a consenting affair it is fornication because in 1Cor 7:36 says they did not sin and to let them marry.

Esau a Fornicator

In Hebrews 12:16 Esau is called a fornicator ; yet there is no record in Scripture of his buying the services of a prostitute. But Genesis 26:34 does say that he married Hittite wives. From the account in Scripture, this obviously went against God's command not to take a wife from among the Canaanites. Thus, it may be classified as an unlawful marriage.

Incest is Fornication

We find the term "fornication" is used again in 1 Cor. 5:1. “ It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.” Thus we see that Paul uses the term "fornication" to describe another unlawful marriage or sexual relationship that had been forbidden in Leviticus 18:7, 8, namely, incest.

Homosexuality is Fornication

In Jude 7 we read of the people of Sodom and Gomorrha who had given themselves over to "fornication," going after "strange flesh." This, too, is obviously a sexual sin, and yet the only thing we have on record of their sexual tendencies is homosexuality, or "sodomy" (Gen. 19:4-8).

Unlawful Sexual Relationships is Fornication

Each of these examples have one thing in common: they are unlawful sexual relationships, and therefore, there is no LAWFUL marriage contract to bind the two parties together. In other words God does not recognize the "marriage" in the first place. It is void from the start.

Conclusion

So, when Jesus says it is alright to "put away" (separate without divorce papers) one's spouse in the case of fornication(or harlotry), the reason is quite obvious. There was no lawfully-binding marriage contract in the first place, so how can one appeal to the law of God to have it voided? God requires no such divorce papers. However, if the couple had obtained a marriage license from the government such as those of this world order, then they would have to petition it for a divorce as well, because governments recognize many marriage relationships that God's law does not. God does not recognize relationships which are homosexual, incestual, or otherwise forbidden as in the case of Esau, even if the parties sign a marriage contract. Another case where divorce papers are unnecessary is in the case of prostitution. Since prostitutes do not enter marriage contracts with a client, the solution is separation, not divorce.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/05/11 05:58 AM

Elle, what word does the Bible use in the case of consensual premarital sexual relations?
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/08/11 01:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Elle, what word does the Bible use in the case of consensual premarital sexual relations?

According to the Biblical definition, it is considered as a marriage. Intercourse between two people is the marriage itself. That is why this matter must be taken seriously. If there is intercourse between a man and a woman they are in the eyes of the Lord married for they have become one flesh, even in the case of a man having intercourse with a prostitute, as it is written, "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two,' He says, 'shall become one flesh.'" 1 Cor.6:16.

It is true that God does not recognize as a marriage relationships when men buys a prostitute's services, or sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex, or incestial relationships. But anything outside of these "fornication" is viewed as a marriage. Even in the case of rape if the father of the maiden agrees to allow the union. God is wise and have put it in the hand of the father the decision in the case the young man was workable and since the dowry to be paid was large, the young man needed to work it off in the father-in-law household where there would be plenty of time to teach him to be a proper young man for his daughter.

So today's definition of what constitute a marriage is very different from God's definition. As a church we should look to have the same outlook as God and not the world.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/08/11 07:10 PM

Elle, I used to serve the church as a pastor and an evangelist. We were taught people living together under common law must get married before they can be baptized and join the church. I hear you saying, no, they are already married in the eyes of God.

Also, the punishment for rape was death not marriage.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/09/11 02:45 AM

The following statement made by glenm in Post #134285 is to me quite indicative as to where God stands on this issue of polygamy and/in the Bible:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 379.1
I was shown that it was when David was pure, and walking in the counsel of God, that God called him a man after his own heart. When David departed from God, and stained his virtuous character by his crimes, he was no longer a man after God's own heart. God did not in the least degree justify him in his sins, but sent Nathan, his prophet, with dreadful denunciations to David because he had transgressed the commandment of the Lord. God shows his displeasure at David's having a plurality of wives, by visiting him with judgments, and permitting evils to rise up against him from his own house.


Along these lines of a “plurality”, I find quite significant that in the examples in the Bible where bigamy/polygamy is explicitly discussed (i.e., in the accounts of Biblical episodes), and where God did not express a displeasure, nor deliberately visit that household with judgements, as with David, there is always an underlying issue of a wife not being (at least at first/naturally) able to have children. (Though I have not gone through all of the Biblical mentions cited in this website). That can be seen with Abraham; Jacob; Elkanah (1 Sam 1:2).

Summarily said, my view that this was one of the ‘post-marriage discovered indecencies’ for a man could divorce his wife (Deut 24:1ff) , however for those who did not want to divorce their wive, but still have children/descendants, as the Law of God, greatly encouraged, indeed as this was also the Plan of God for this planet (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; cf. 17:6; (17:20); 35:11), particularly with (His) righteous people, God may have allowed for bigamy, or even polygamy (as I see it, only in Jacob’s case; Abraham was no longer married to/living with Hagar when he later also took Keturah as his wife, -apparently he wanted to have more than one child and Sarah of course was past the age of (natural) child bearing), so that either those men/women could have children. That would explain the regulation of this in the Law (Deut 21:15-17 - notice the specific: “two wives” and not “two or more”; or even: “one or more”).

So as God had condemned in the Law for kings (Deut 17:17) as it was indeed common and facilitatively likely for monarchs to do so, God was opposed to this “mindless” multiply of wives, i.e., having more than two =(polygamy vs. (tangibly-reasoned) bigamy). That may indeed be what the sin of the Antediluvians was (CC 36.5) and also other instances where God considered this to be “sin”.

I also see a relation with the justified bigamy and the Levirate unions, i.e., the issue of having children/descendants. In that prior discussion, I have not seen a Biblical reference to where this brother had to be a batchelor.

So my “working thesis” understanding thus far is that God allowed for only a second wife for legitimate issues/reasons of child bearing, and those who married outside of this justification or took more than two wives, were indeed acting contrary to God’s Law and sinning. (In the case of Jacob, it can be seen that he was tricked into marrying a extra wive with Leah, and then was actually jsutified, as I understand it in taking Rachel’s maid as a wive since Rachel was manifestly barren. So it is really with the issue of Leah’s maid that he would have sinned, merely giving to Leah’s jealousy and competitiveness with her sister to have children. However this was done under an apparently genuine worry of Leah that she had become barren (Gen 30:9); though that was not the case (vs. 16ff). And God did consider those 2 children of Zilpah, Leah maid (Gad and Asher) as equals in His Israel.)
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/09/11 04:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Elle, I used to serve the church as a pastor and an evangelist. We were taught people living together under common law must get married before they can be baptized and join the church. I hear you saying, no, they are already married in the eyes of God.

Also, the punishment for rape was death not marriage.


Mike,

Despite what the church may or may not say, Elle has the Biblical support for her stance on both of the points above. The church, for as much as God has honored us with wisdom, has not always been right. This is one of those points where I feel the church has diverged from a clear "thus saith the Lord."

Now, if you can show Bible support for your position.... smile

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/09/11 04:45 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
The following statement made by glenm in Post #134285 is to me quite indicative as to where God stands on this issue of polygamy and/in the Bible:

Originally Posted By: SOP 1SP 379.1
I was shown that it was when David was pure, and walking in the counsel of God, that God called him a man after his own heart. When David departed from God, and stained his virtuous character by his crimes, he was no longer a man after God's own heart. God did not in the least degree justify him in his sins, but sent Nathan, his prophet, with dreadful denunciations to David because he had transgressed the commandment of the Lord. God shows his displeasure at David's having a plurality of wives, by visiting him with judgments, and permitting evils to rise up against him from his own house.


Along these lines of a “plurality”, I find quite significant that in the examples in the Bible where bigamy/polygamy is explicitly discussed (i.e., in the accounts of Biblical episodes), and where God did not express a displeasure, nor deliberately visit that household with judgements, as with David, there is always an underlying issue of a wife not being (at least at first/naturally) able to have children. (Though I have not gone through all of the Biblical mentions cited in this website). That can be seen with Abraham; Jacob; Elkanah (1 Sam 1:2).

Summarily said, my view that this was one of the ‘post-marriage discovered indecencies’ for a man could divorce his wife (Deut 24:1ff) , however for those who did not want to divorce their wive, but still have children/descendants, as the Law of God, greatly encouraged, indeed as this was also the Plan of God for this planet (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; cf. 17:6; (17:20); 35:11), particularly with (His) righteous people, God may have allowed for bigamy, or even polygamy (as I see it, only in Jacob’s case; Abraham was no longer married to/living with Hagar when he later also took Keturah as his wife, -apparently he wanted to have more than one child and Sarah of course was past the age of (natural) child bearing), so that either those men/women could have children. That would explain the regulation of this in the Law (Deut 21:15-17 - notice the specific: “two wives” and not “two or more”; or even: “one or more”).

So as God had condemned in the Law for kings (Deut 17:17) as it was indeed common and facilitatively likely for monarchs to do so, God was opposed to this “mindless” multiply of wives, i.e., having more than two =(polygamy vs. (tangibly-reasoned) bigamy). That may indeed be what the sin of the Antediluvians was (CC 36.5) and also other instances where God considered this to be “sin”.

I also see a relation with the justified bigamy and the Levirate unions, i.e., the issue of having children/descendants. In that prior discussion, I have not seen a Biblical reference to where this brother had to be a batchelor.

So my “working thesis” understanding thus far is that God allowed for only a second wife for legitimate issues/reasons of child bearing, and those who married outside of this justification or took more than two wives, were indeed acting contrary to God’s Law and sinning. (In the case of Jacob, it can be seen that he was tricked into marrying a extra wive with Leah, and then was actually jsutified, as I understand it in taking Rachel’s maid as a wive since Rachel was manifestly barren. So it is really with the issue of Leah’s maid that he would have sinned, merely giving to Leah’s jealousy and competitiveness with her sister to have children. However this was done under an apparently genuine worry of Leah that she had become barren (Gen 30:9); though that was not the case (vs. 16ff). And God did consider those 2 children of Zilpah, Leah maid (Gad and Asher) as equals in His Israel.)


NJK, very interesting perspective. I've never seen anyone lay it out quite like that. I'm not entirely sure that I agree with it, but will give it some thought. There were some good points made there.

Regarding David, God disciplined him for stealing Bathsheba at the cost of Uriah's life. There is nothing in the Bible which adds to God's reasoning behind that discipline. That Mrs. White says it was partly on account of his polygamy is interesting. If that is true, I wonder if David got the message? We don't see David picking up lots of wives after that...mostly just one more, from what I can tell, and that being one in which the marriage was never consummated. Since David was king, he was indeed in the wrong to have so many wives. He transgressed a commandment just for kings on this point. (As with the issue of wine, polygamy was not for kings.)

Originally Posted By: The Bible
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deuteronomy 17:15-17)


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: glenm

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/09/11 05:18 AM

I'm not following this thread, but did have occasion earlier today to look briefly at what EGW says about polygamy.

There are at least two terms you can search on -- "polygamy" and "plurality of wives". It looks like there are around 25 distinct statements using these terms on the EGW CD-ROM.

One of the really core ones is as follows:

Quote:
In the beginning, God gave to Adam one wife, thus showing his order. He never designed that man should have a plurality of wives. Lamech was the first who departed in this respect from God's wise arrangement. He had two wives, which created discord in his family. The envy and jealousy of both made Lamech unhappy. When men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, they took them wives of all which they chose. This was one of the great sins of the inhabitants of the old world, which brought the wrath of God upon them. This custom was practiced after the flood, and became so common that even righteous men fell into the practice, and had a plurality of wives. Yet it was no less sin because they became corrupted, and departed in this thing from God's order. {1SP 93.2}
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/09/11 07:34 AM

Interesting SOP quote glenm again on this topic. I’ve browse through the other distinct SOP quotes and my Biblical understanding (still) is that God’s ideal was indeed one wife for each man, however, as with Levirate marriages allowed in the Law, I see/understand that in genuine cases of one wife not being able to bear children, for which she could be given a certificate of divorce, God allowed for a man to take another wife. In fact divorcing that barren wife would most likely result in her remaining unmarried for the rest of her life, thus really making her life doubly miserable (i.e., both “unloved” and barren, two things that God did not at all want for a woman/wife (cf. Deut 21:15-17; cf. His favoring of Leah for the “unloved” reason in Gen 29:31-33. My view is that the descendants of Ishamael have always been so much more numerous than even the descendants of Isaac (=Israel) for that same “unloved” reason with Hagar.). Lamech may indeed have gone against that just provision and may have married two wives for no such reasons at all.

So, as I see it, just like God allowed, and in Statutory Law, for divorce due to the tangible issues as a result of the loss of man’s perfect state, He also allowed for having a second wife for the sake of having children.

In regards to my earlier point with Elkanah (“a Levite” -PP 569.1/Josephus, Antiquities, 5:10.2 [#342]), it is said in the Bible and SOP (cf. Josephus) that Hannah was loved, but barren, and so Elkanah took second wife Peninnah, while not divorcing his first wife, justly for that reason of having children, which Peninnah did. (See PP 569.2)

It is indeed for this reason of Religious men and Leaders (Abraham, Jacob, Moses?, Elkanah) doing this without being punished by God as was (Lamech), David and Solomon for indeed “baseless” excesses, that I do not see every instance of it as a “sin.” Some cases, when involving childbearing, were indeed according to various pertinent Laws and thus Justified. (contra ST, March 27, 1879 par. 3). And, as I see it, God instructed Abraham to send Hagar away because of the strife her presence was causing in his household. As Is ee it, contra. SR 80.2, if God wanted to make a statement on polygamy, He would have rather instructed Abraham not listen to Sarah’s counsel and marry Hagar in the first place. So my view is that EGW overgeneralized the pointed revelation she was given on this issue to apply to every single occurrence.

Indeed having two wives was more than likely to produce contentious household however it seems to me that God’s Law in Deut 17:17 also indirectly served as an impetus to prevent this from taking place for those cases when such a second/Levirate marriage was justified for those reasons of childbearing.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/09/11 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
M: Elle, I used to serve the church as a pastor and an evangelist. We were taught people living together under common law must get married before they can be baptized and join the church. I hear you saying, no, they are already married in the eyes of God. Also, the punishment for rape was death not marriage.

GC: Despite what the church may or may not say, Elle has the Biblical support for her stance on both of the points above. The church, for as much as God has honored us with wisdom, has not always been right. This is one of those points where I feel the church has diverged from a clear "thus saith the Lord." Now, if you can show Bible support for your position.

Again, the punishment for rape was death not marriage. I believe Elle misinterpreted Duet 22:28-29.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/09/11 10:02 PM

Quote:
Jesus Emphasizing to Give a Written Divorce
With that context in mind, and knowing that Jesus did not come to destroy the law, let us look at Matthew 5:31, 32 in greater detail. These two verses are a part of His comment on "Thou shalt not commit adultery,"(v.27) that is part of the 10 commandments. So the final thrust of His comment is to define adultery in relation to the laws of divorce and remarriage found in Deut 24:1 which Verse 31 simply refers to. In that Law, God demanded that men give their wives a WRITTEN bill of divorcement before they could lawfully put away their wives. Deut 24:2, of course, allowed divorced wives to remarry after a lawful divorce. So let us take another look at Matthew 5:31, 32, inserting a few key words in the original Greek, so that we get a proper translation of the passage.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion). 32 But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluo, lit. "put away") committeth adultery. ”

To paraphrase this: The law says that she commits adultery if she remarries (or lives with another man ) without a written bill of divorcement. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU that whoever puts her away (without divorce papers; that is, unlawfully) causes her to commit adultery (if she remarries or lives with another man under such conditions). Thus, he who simply put her out of his house without divorcing her properly is JUST AS LIABLE AS SHE IS. And whosoever marries her (or lives with her) that has been put away (without divorce papers) also commits adultery, because he is marrying another man's wife.

Jesus is here condemning men who put away their wives the Babylonian style (verbally), instead of putting her away in the manner prescribed by God's law. Under the laws of liability, this would make him (the husband who neglects to give a bill of divorcement to his wife before putting her away as God prescribed) guilty of adultery if she were to remarry or living with another man. So we see that the whole point of this commentary is to bring out a point of law that had not been covered by the Pharisees in their interpretations.

So divorce is OK? If it's OK why does God hate it (Mal. 2:16; same word used in Deut. 24:3, 4)?
Besides, why did Jesus say that it was "for your hardness of heart [that] Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so"?
Both the passage in Deut. and Jesus mention the bill of divorcement before the putting away of the wife. So what Jesus is saying here is that the man who gives a bill of divorcement to his wife before putting her away is guilty of adultery if he marries another and that he makes of his former wife an adulterer if she remarries.
Posted By: kland

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/10/11 10:01 PM

(MM, divorce is another one where it's not God's will, but He instructs about it -- "for your hardness of heart")
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/11/11 03:20 AM

I see God granting this right to divorce because this hardness would directly translate into quite unhappy marriages. God Himself does not force a relationship or love and that also extends into marriages which is symbolic of His relationship with professed believers. And just like in marriage, when one party does not want to continue in the relationship, divorce (cf. Isa 50:1), though “hated” by Him, is the best option, however with strict regulations/limitations/conditions.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/11/11 11:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
M: Elle, I used to serve the church as a pastor and an evangelist. We were taught people living together under common law must get married before they can be baptized and join the church. I hear you saying, no, they are already married in the eyes of God. Also, the punishment for rape was death not marriage.

GC: Despite what the church may or may not say, Elle has the Biblical support for her stance on both of the points above. The church, for as much as God has honored us with wisdom, has not always been right. This is one of those points where I feel the church has diverged from a clear "thus saith the Lord." Now, if you can show Bible support for your position.

Again, the punishment for rape was death not marriage. I believe Elle misinterpreted Duet 22:28-29.

MM, I think you need to re-read Deut 22:23-30 carefully as it is very plainly written how to deal with the case of rape of a virgin damsel. The damsel is to scream if she’s rape which is what define if she’s rape or not(v.27). In the condition that she screamed (v.27) and is not bethrothed, that man does not die(v.27-29). He only dies if that damsel is bethrothed only(v.24 & 25).

So the conclusion according to this law is the man that rapes dies only because of the reason of adultery for he lied with a bethrothed maiden which is considered as a married woman. Deut 22 does not support your interpretation that all cases of rape = death.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/11/11 11:45 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
I see God granting this right to divorce because this hardness would directly translate into quite unhappy marriages. God Himself does not force a relationship or love and that also extends into marriages which is symbolic of His relationship with professed believers. And just like in marriage, when one party does not want to continue in the relationship, divorce (cf. Isa 50:1), though “hated” by Him, is the best option, however with strict regulations/limitations/conditions.

NJK, KLand, and others, I agree with the overall of the above. But one thing we need to remember, that God Himself had two wives and He divorced one of them(Israel) in the manner of His law(Jer 3:8 and Deut 24). He wrote her a bill of divorce through the prophet Jeremiah before taking her out of His house.

So God Himself is a Divorcee.

Did God got divorce because of the hardness of His heart?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/11/11 01:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle
So God Himself is a Divorcee.


Indeed/Agreed! And God remarriage is fully justified given the issue of marital unfaithfulness on OT Israel’s part.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Did God got divorce because of the hardness of His heart?


Of course not. As the Scriptures relatedly say it was because he ‘found fault with them’ (Heb 8:8ff) that he had to alter those previous relationship/covenantal arrangement though while in the midst of their allotted time (Jer 31:31-34 ca. 640 B.C.), but then at a point where a “marital separation” was about to occur with the Babylonian Captivity.

Indeed it was Israel who had hardened themselves against God in this ‘most gracious’ marriage relationship (cf. Deut 7:6, 7; Ezek 16:1-15), having developed the “forehead (i.e., mentality) of a harlot”, ‘playing the harlot’ and ‘refusing to be ashamed’ (Jer 3:3; Ezek 16:15ff; cf. Rev 17:5), (all something so counterintuitive that God did not “expect”, especially after all this loving care (Isa 5:1-4)).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/11/11 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
M: Elle, I used to serve the church as a pastor and an evangelist. We were taught people living together under common law must get married before they can be baptized and join the church. I hear you saying, no, they are already married in the eyes of God. Also, the punishment for rape was death not marriage.

GC: Despite what the church may or may not say, Elle has the Biblical support for her stance on both of the points above. The church, for as much as God has honored us with wisdom, has not always been right. This is one of those points where I feel the church has diverged from a clear "thus saith the Lord." Now, if you can show Bible support for your position.

Again, the punishment for rape was death not marriage. I believe Elle misinterpreted Duet 22:28-29.

MM, I think you need to re-read Deut 22:23-30 carefully as it is very plainly written how to deal with the case of rape of a virgin damsel. The damsel is to scream if she’s rape which is what define if she’s rape or not(v.27). In the condition that she screamed (v.27) and is not bethrothed, that man does not die(v.27-29). He only dies if that damsel is bethrothed only(v.24 & 25).

So the conclusion according to this law is the man that rapes dies only because of the reason of adultery for he lied with a bethrothed maiden which is considered as a married woman. Deut 22 does not support your interpretation that all cases of rape = death.

Contemporary English Version
Deu 22:28 Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught,
Deu 22:29 they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.

Matthew Henry Commentary
V. If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, Deu_22:28, Deu_22:29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of.

John Gill Commentary
Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,.... That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows: and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu_22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo_22:16 but not without her consent: and they be found; in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy.

Exodus
22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/12/11 01:50 AM

Quote:
So God Himself is a Divorcee

NJK hit the nail on the head. God divorced because of the sexual immorality on the part of His "wife" - which is the only valid reason for divorce, according to Jesus.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/12/11 03:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
So God Himself is a Divorcee

NJK hit the nail on the head. God divorced because of the sexual immorality on the part of His "wife" - which is the only valid reason for divorce, according to Jesus.

According to the law of Moses the punishment for adultery is death, not divorcement. Your statement is a little vague and you need to specify what you are implying by "sexual immorality". I didn't agree with your other statement earlier in regard to Mat 5:31,32. I don't believe the Law of Moses describes specifically the reasons for divorcement and only states if a man finds "some uncleanliness" Deut 24:1 which can be quite broad. So your statement is an attempt to narrow it down which is not scripturally based, nor your interpretation of Jesus statement in Mat 5:31,32 which I have elaborate in detail in post#1341611 .

However,
1. do you believe that someone should divorce their wife if they commit adultery?

2. Do you believe that God should divorce his wife in case of adultery or should He put her to death according to the law?

3. Do you believe that God should abide to HIs own laws?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/12/11 07:11 PM

Quote:
I don't believe the Law of Moses describes specifically the reasons for divorcement and only states if a man finds "some uncleanliness" Deut 24:1 which can be quite broad.
Elle, although the KJV's translation of Deut. 24:1-3 is possible, it does not fit the context at all. The NKJV's (and the RSV's) translation is the correct one:

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,
2 "when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife,
3 "if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,
4 "then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance."

So God is not at all commanding men to give a certificate of divorce, much less specifying the circumstances in which they should do so. God is just giving a law to regulate a custom which was already in existence, that is, the custom to put away a wife giving her a certificate of divorce. If the situation specified in that law happened to occur, the woman couldn't come back to her former husband.

That's why the gospel narrative says:

"They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' He said to them, 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so'" (Matt. 19:7,8).

Quote:
So your statement is an attempt to narrow it down which is not scripturally based

It's based on Jesus' words. I don't agree with your interpretation of Jesus' words. He was not at all emphasizing that a mere certificate of divorce solved the problem. He was making the point that "what God has joined together, let not man separate" (v. 6). The only valid reason for separation is then specified: in the case of sexual immorality.
Jesus is not saying, "Whoever divorces his wife without giving her a certificate of divorce, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery;" but: "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

Quote:
Your statement is a little vague and you need to specify what you are implying by "sexual immorality".

This is the translation of the word porneia used by Jesus in v. 9, which includes adultery but is broader than it:

1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; #Mr 10:11,12

Quote:
1. do you believe that someone should divorce their wife if they commit adultery?

This depends on the details in each particular case. If the guilty party does not want to repent, I think there is no alternative left.

Quote:
2. Do you believe that God should divorce his wife in case of adultery or should He put her to death according to the law?
3. Do you believe that God should abide to HIs own laws?

He does abide by His laws. The death penalty is no longer applied immediately for the transgression of God's law, but the penalty was by no means abolished - it was just postponed till the day of the final judgment. The wages of sin is death. In case the person repents and accepts Christ, the sinner's penalty is remitted just because it was already paid by Him.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/12/11 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
The death penalty is no longer applied immediately for the transgression of God's law, but the penalty was by no means abolished - it was just postponed till the day of the final judgment. The wages of sin is death. In case the person repents and accepts Christ, the sinner's penalty is remitted just because it was already paid by Him.


I would say in regards to this point, according to my understanding, is that God’s Israel has not been able to return to a state where it had the legal/civil authority to effectuate Capital Punishment. The Romans took that right away from them and God’s Israel was replaced in 34 A.D., (ironically enough with the unlawful Capital “Murder” of Stephen.)

As seen in the case of Annanias and Sapphira, God could immediately visit such blatant and knowledgeable sins in His New Israel, however these Church members could not themselves enforce those still standing aspects of God’s law. (Even Jesus did not do away with it in the episode of the woman caught in adultery).

There was an attempt to revive this, or a form of this, in the New Israel era, however this was Spiritually spurious as by then, God was no longer leading that (Roman Catholic) group and they certainly, in most cases, were either not punishing the sins that were legislated to be so punished or were effectuating capital punishment for things that were not truth and/or sins.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/13/11 04:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
So God Himself is a Divorcee

NJK hit the nail on the head. God divorced because of the sexual immorality on the part of His "wife" - which is the only valid reason for divorce, according to Jesus.

Did God "stone" the immoral one? Wouldn't that have been "adultery?"

If polygamy constitutes "adultery," wouldn't the wives have had the "right" to marry another without adultery?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/13/11 06:35 AM

I don’t get your questions here Green Cochoa. That is in relation to the actual (Spiritual) context of those quoted discussion statements.
Posted By: kland

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/13/11 04:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
If polygamy constitutes "adultery," wouldn't the wives have had the "right" to marry another without adultery?

Originally Posted By: jer 3:6
Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the Bible is wrong.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/13/11 06:15 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
I don’t get your questions here Green Cochoa. That is in relation to the actual (Spiritual) context of those quoted discussion statements.

I wasn't addressing the question to you. Perhaps you have a different understanding from that of Rosangela, but I was asking questions that might evoke a bit of thought on her part.

However, let's look at the same thing from another angle.

Jacob and his wives...never so much as a hint in the Bible that they should be stoned. Ditto for each and every case of polygamy in the Bible. Not even Jesus hinted at stoning of polygamists.

Yet, as Rosangela has aptly pointed out, the punishment for adultery was stoning. Was polygamy "adultery?"

Originally Posted By: The Bible
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)


The definition of adultery is quite clear in the text above. Polygamy is NOT adultery. Adultery was the stealing of another's spouse (in the case above, another man's wife).

Rosangela has yet to build a supportable case for polygamy constituting adultery according to the Bible. The fact is, as has been pointed out before, so long as the wives are not stolen from other men, and so long as the man has married them, marriage makes their relations licit. It cannot be adultery.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/13/11 07:15 PM

Green Cochoa,

I had understood what you were trying to do in your questioning, however I just didn’t see a relation with the initial statement that I had made, nor the ensuing responses.

As you may already understand, I agree in essence with your view here. Polygamy is not “adultery”, nor do I see that, when done for genuine reasons of having children when one’s first wife could not, it is another kind of “sin”. However my understanding was that in such cases God only permitted “bigamy” (i.e., not more than 2 wives, as David and Solomon did. That constitutes a ‘baseless multiplication’). And one would really have to be unlucky to marry two wives who both cannot have, and if such was the case, I see/understand that one would be lawfully permitted to marry another wife.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/13/11 07:17 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
If polygamy constitutes "adultery," wouldn't the wives have had the "right" to marry another without adultery?

Originally Posted By: jer 3:6
Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the Bible is wrong.


I don’t see that this is the exegetical, nor sequitur, takeaway here. The view that justified bigamy/polygamy is adultery is wrong, as however, manifestly is EGW’s overgeneralized understanding.

In regards to Jer 3:6, a harlot does not marry her lovers, nor is seeking to have children/a family with them. So that conduct is adultery and does not compare to the lawful marriage and commitment in bigamy/polygamy.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 03:52 AM

Quote:
Rosangela has yet to build a supportable case for polygamy constituting adultery according to the Bible. The fact is, as has been pointed out before, so long as the wives are not stolen from other men, and so long as the man has married them, marriage makes their relations licit. It cannot be adultery.

GC, for you to build your case that polygamy does not constitute adultery, you have to believe that God is a respecter of persons and that He has double standards in relation to men and women. You are free to believe that. I don't buy it. There is not a law for men and a law for women. The same law will judge both.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 03:59 AM

Quote:
Jacob and his wives...never so much as a hint in the Bible that they should be stoned. Ditto for each and every case of polygamy in the Bible. Not even Jesus hinted at stoning of polygamists.

Polygamy no longer existed in Israel at Jesus' time. Besides, Jesus didn't even stone someone who was an adulterer according to your standards.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 04:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Rosangela has yet to build a supportable case for polygamy constituting adultery according to the Bible. The fact is, as has been pointed out before, so long as the wives are not stolen from other men, and so long as the man has married them, marriage makes their relations licit. It cannot be adultery.

GC, for you to build your case that polygamy does not constitute adultery, you have to believe that God is a respecter of persons and that He has double standards in relation to men and women. You are free to believe that. I don't buy it. There is not a law for men and a law for women. The same law will judge both.


Rosangela,

I recommend you hide your eyes while reading certain parts of the Bible that you perhaps haven't yet read. It will help you be able to preserve your view. (For example, don't read Leviticus chapter 27.)

It's a bit like hiding one's eyes while seeing the butterfly drinking the "succulent" juices found in the middle of the fresh cow pie. It is so much nicer to have the warm-fuzzy feelings of believing that butterflies only drink sweet nectar from pretty flowers.

As for me, I do not believe that God has double standards. I just believe that God does not see things always as we do. He puts great importance on some distinctions that we may not understand. Some of those distinctions involve gender differences of roles, authority, dress, and respect. Sexual behavior is also outlined. There is no such thing mentioned in all of the Bible as rape of a man. Should I be crying "foul!" for this? Should I be saying that this is not fair, or that it is a "double standard?" No. Difference does not equate to double standard. If it did, I guess God did wrong to make men and women different.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 04:36 AM

Quote:
There is no such thing mentioned in all of the Bible as rape of a man.

So raping a woman is a sin but raping a man isn't? Is this your view about what God thinks?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 04:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
There is no such thing mentioned in all of the Bible as rape of a man.

So raping a woman is a sin but raping a man isn't? Is this your view about what God thinks?

I didn't say that. But does it not seem like a double standard, to your view, for men to not have mention of equal rights and protections as are given for women?

I know men who have been raped. They end up hiding it. It can be more humiliating for them than it may be for women, because society hardly speaks of such, nor addresses it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 08:54 AM

As I Theologically understand it, there is a most tangible reason why the OT was so “patriarchal”, favoring the man over the woman in many things, way beyond physical reasons. And that is the factual reasons that it was the woman who led man into sin. 1 Tim 2:14 reflects this notion by saying that Eve allowed herself to be deceived/seduced(with the Serpent’s empty words - Eph 5:6) into disobeying God. (Gen 3:13) Adam on the other hand was later acting mainly because he tangibly saw nothing wrong in what Eve had done. So his sin had more tangible “reason” to than Eve’s who had allowed herself to be purely “ideally” sway. Adam also acted in love and loyalty to Eve. (PP 55, 56). So God’s distinctive curses on the Woman (Gen 3:16) and the Man (vss. 17-19) were reflective of this theological/historical fact. That is e.g, why, women could not function as priests. That fall-derived distinction remained until Jesus made all things even at the Cross. (Gal 3:28)

So OT Laws indeed reflected that OT/Old Covenant reality, even OT-atoning necessity. God always has a tangible and just reason for what He does or allows.

And to emphasize what was already expressed, if God considered polygamy/bigamy to be adultery then, just like in Lev 20:10, He would have straightly said in Deut 21:15ff:

‘“If a man has two wives” (i.e., marries a second wife while married to a first, even if she is not “another man’s wife”), that is “adultery”, and they both, “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”’
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 05:13 PM

Quote:
As for me, I do not believe that God has double standards. I just believe that God does not see things always as we do. He puts great importance on some distinctions that we may not understand. Some of those distinctions involve gender differences of roles, authority, dress, and respect. Sexual behavior is also outlined. There is no such thing mentioned in all of the Bible as rape of a man. Should I be crying "foul!" for this? Should I be saying that this is not fair, or that it is a "double standard?" No. Difference does not equate to double standard. If it did, I guess God did wrong to make men and women different.

God must be understood by human beings. Therefore, He sometimes expresses Himself, or gives His laws, in such a way as to be best understood by people, in a certain generation, who possess a given mental frame.

I like the thought Paul Buchheight expresses here:

Quote:
Mental frames are the biased and limited way in which information is perceived or understood. Because the human brain is inherently biased and limited, we are always in some mental frame. That frame determines how we relate to and understand reality. As far as you can tell, that frame is reality.
http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/04/whose-reality-are-you-living-in-whose.html


God knows that. That's why, for instance, He condescended to enter into a covenant with Abraham employing such forms as were customary among men, at that time, for the ratification of a solemn engagement, and the divine presence passed among severed animals. God wouldn't employ the same forms today.

That's why, also, He tolerated some sinful customs which men didn't see at that time as sins, like polygamy and slavery.

This doesn't mean at all that these things weren't sins. God's moral standards do not change. So the argument of silence is not a valid one. The Bible says nothing about the raping of men and children being a sin, but of course we can infer this from the 7th commandment and from the fact that God specified the raping of a woman as a sin. The same is true about polygamy. If God specified polyandry as a sin, the same is true about polygamy. God's moral standards are the same for men and women. God's standards for both sexes have always been the same - despite the fact that this hasn't always been true in the mental frame of society. This is Ellen White's position, and mine, too.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 05:46 PM

Rosangela,

For some of my "mental frame" on this topic, please see this post.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 06:32 PM

GC, I was referring to the mental frame of the OT polygamists. My point was that polygamy was adultery at that time, as it is today. However, God tolerated it because, according to the mental frame of society at that time, it wasn't adultery, and so it wasn't a sin. I understand you disagree with this view.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 07:20 PM

Rosangela,

If you have some scripture behind your allegation that polygamy in the Bible constituted "adultery," I would like to see it. So far, you have not provided any support for this.

Polygamy may well have been a sin. I would not dispute that. But sins have various names based on their categories. Some sins are more grievous than others. Adultery and polygamy are in two separate categories, according to the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/14/11 08:01 PM

GC, sin is the transgression of the law. Which commandment does polygamy violate?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/15/11 08:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
GC, sin is the transgression of the law. Which commandment does polygamy violate?


It doesn't directly violate any of the commandments. Not all sins are defined by the Big Ten. For example, which commandment is violated by the use of alcohol or drugs?

However, I would have to believe that it might indirectly violate the first commandment, for some people, and the third commandment for some who are educated Christians and ought to know better. Then, if we add James' principle to the matter, we find that ALL of the commandments were broken.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/15/11 04:16 PM

All sins are violations of the 10C - this is the biblical definition of "sin." The use of alcohol and drugs violates the 5th commandment because they are a form of slow suicide.
Polygamy, as all forms of sexual irregularity, violates the 7th commandment, in the same way that anger (Matt. 5:21, 22) and hatred (1 John 3:15) are violations of the 5th commandment. The commandments are not limited, but exceedingly broad (Ps 119:96). The commandments are expressed in terms of the worst possible violation of a principle. The worst possible violation of the principle of purity is adultery, but all the other violations of this principle are included in the commandment - fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, prostitution, etc. God's ideal for human sexuality is one man and one woman, in love, within marriage. Anything which departs from this is sin.
Anyway, to me it's clear that polygamy, specifically, is adultery because polyandry is adultery. Having more than one spouse is adultery - both for men and for women, since God does not have double standards.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/15/11 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
All sins are violations of the 10C - this is the biblical definition of "sin." The use of alcohol and drugs violates the 5th commandment because they are a form of slow suicide.
Polygamy, as all forms of sexual irregularity, violates the 7th commandment, in the same way that anger (Matt. 5:21, 22) and hatred (1 John 3:15) are violations of the 5th commandment. The commandments are not limited, but exceedingly broad (Ps 119:96). The commandments are expressed in terms of the worst possible violation of a principle. The worst possible violation of the principle of purity is adultery, but all the other violations of this principle are included in the commandment - fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, prostitution, etc. God's ideal for human sexuality is one man and one woman, in love, within marriage. Anything which departs from this is sin.
Anyway, to me it's clear that polygamy, specifically, is adultery because polyandry is adultery. Having more than one spouse is adultery - both for men and for women, since God does not have double standards.


Rosangela,

Your understanding of a double standard is that things are not the "same" for both genders?

How come God never commanded that a widower should not go to marry another woman outside the family, but should marry one of the sisters of his deceased wife? Double standard?

I think you will find that there is a stark difference between men and women, both physiologically and in the laws which governed their marital situations. God designed them differently. Double standard?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/15/11 05:24 PM

The Ten Commandments do not define all literal sins, because the Ten Commandments do not comprise all of God's law. Jesus Himself saw fit to give other laws besides, and through Moses a multitude of laws were given in addition to the Big Ten.

Sin is transgression of the Law--any portion of God's law. God's law extends beyond the Ten Commandments. If this were not true, there would be no other laws.

If the Ten Commandments were able to define every single sin, there would be no need of any further laws. The fact that there are further laws is clear evidence that we needed more clarifications.

As adultery does not include all sexual impropriety, but only that which involves stealing someone's spouse or betrothed, the seventh commandment does not, cannot, address every sexual sin. It is not, nor ever was, adultery for two single, never-been-married individuals to engage in premarital relations. After all, you can't "cheat" on your spouse when you have no spouse.

The only way to define such a sin as "adultery" would be in the spiritual sense--which would fit every sin. We commit "spiritual adultery" when we turn from God to worship our own interests.

In the "spiritual sense," every sin may be defined in the Ten Commandments. But in the literal sense, this is simply not the case...as the proliferation of additional God-given rules clearly indicates.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/15/11 08:36 PM

Quote:
How come God never commanded that a widower should not go to marry another woman outside the family, but should marry one of the sisters of his deceased wife? Double standard?

This has nothing to do with moral principles. I'm speaking of moral principles.

Quote:
The Ten Commandments do not define all literal sins, because the Ten Commandments do not comprise all of God's law. Jesus Himself saw fit to give other laws besides, and through Moses a multitude of laws were given in addition to the Big Ten. Sin is transgression of the Law--any portion of God's law. God's law extends beyond the Ten Commandments. If this were not true, there would be no other laws.

All other moral commandments are an unfolding of the 10, which are an unfolding of the 2. Ceremonial commandments, of course, are not moral.

Quote:
As adultery does not include all sexual impropriety, but only that which involves stealing someone's spouse or betrothed, the seventh commandment does not, cannot, address every sexual sin. It is not, nor ever was, adultery for two single, never-been-married individuals to engage in premarital relations. After all, you can't "cheat" on your spouse when you have no spouse.

GC, you are putting yourself in a big trouble if you are going to explain to a pedophile, for instance, that what he is doing is a sin, as there is no specific divine law which speaks about pedophily. The 10C emcompass every conceivable sin in every circumstance of life. Of course pedophily is not adultery, but it is classified as a transgression of the 7th commandment. Having more than one spouse, however, is classified as adultery for women. Saying that the same is not true for men is obviously a double standard. Because the 10th commandment says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," does this mean that women cannot be considered guilty of mental adultery?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/16/11 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
How come God never commanded that a widower should not go to marry another woman outside the family, but should marry one of the sisters of his deceased wife? Double standard?

This has nothing to do with moral principles. I'm speaking of moral principles.

Rosangela, if marital/sexual matters do not involve moral principles, I don't know what does. When someone has a "moral" fall or an issue with "immorality," the first thing that comes to mind is a sexual matter.
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
The Ten Commandments do not define all literal sins, because the Ten Commandments do not comprise all of God's law. Jesus Himself saw fit to give other laws besides, and through Moses a multitude of laws were given in addition to the Big Ten. Sin is transgression of the Law--any portion of God's law. God's law extends beyond the Ten Commandments. If this were not true, there would be no other laws.

All other moral commandments are an unfolding of the 10, which are an unfolding of the 2. Ceremonial commandments, of course, are not moral.

I'm not the one bringing up distinctions here between "moral" and "ceremonial," but since you've brought it up, what happens if someone did not observe the ceremonial laws? Was that a "ceremonial sin" instead of a "moral" one? Or are you trying to say that it was not a sin to ignore the ceremonial laws?

It is clear that the ceremonial laws were not part of the "moral law." But then, if what you say is true, we seem to have a contradiction here. Either the ceremonial laws were all optional, or else not all sins were defined by the Big Ten.
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
As adultery does not include all sexual impropriety, but only that which involves stealing someone's spouse or betrothed, the seventh commandment does not, cannot, address every sexual sin. It is not, nor ever was, adultery for two single, never-been-married individuals to engage in premarital relations. After all, you can't "cheat" on your spouse when you have no spouse.

GC, you are putting yourself in a big trouble if you are going to explain to a pedophile, for instance, that what he is doing is a sin, as there is no specific divine law which speaks about pedophily. The 10C emcompass every conceivable sin in every circumstance of life. Of course pedophily is not adultery, but it is classified as a transgression of the 7th commandment. Having more than one spouse, however, is classified as adultery for women. Saying that the same is not true for men is obviously a double standard. Because the 10th commandment says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," does this mean that women cannot be considered guilty of mental adultery?


R: "Of course pedophily is not adultery, but it is classified as a transgression of the 7th commandment."

This doesn't make sense. This just means that you or someone is adding to the words of God. If pedophily is not adultery, as you are attesting yourself here, how then can the words "Thou shalt not commit adultery" address it? They obviously don't. Let's allow the Bible to speak as God saw fit to write it. These are among the few words which God wrote with His own finger. It is not right to misapply them. If you have a Biblical reason to broaden their sense and meaning, that is one thing. But to simply assume that for the lack of any of the other commandments addressing the point in question this one just "has to be it," in order to satisfy our own wish or bias.... I would expect better of a sincere Bible student, to be honest.

R: "Because the 10th commandment says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," does this mean that women cannot be considered guilty of mental adultery?"

Not necessarily. But it does seem to indicate which of the genders is more likely to offend on this point, does it not? Furthermore, it also suggests a difference in the "ownership" system that I have spoken of before somewhere. Men were not possessions of their wives, but wives were possessions of their husbands. In the Biblical system, wives were to respect and obey their husbands. Husbands were to love their wives, but they were to lead them, not obey them. Wives, as also the children, were dependents upon the head of household, the husband.

Parents owned their young children in like manner. This is not a double standard. Children were to respect their parents. Children were not to own their parents, rather the opposite is true.

Here's an interesting statement that I found while looking for something else today. It follows this same line of thought.
Originally Posted By: Ellen White
By many, age is no more respected. It is considered too old-fashioned to respect the aged, for it dates back as far as the days of Abraham. Says God, "I know him, that he will command his children and household after him." Anciently, children were not permitted to marry without the consent of their parents. Parents chose for their children. It was considered a crime for children to contract marriage upon their own responsibility. The matter was first laid before the parents, and they were to consider whether the person to be brought into a close relation to them was worthy, and whether the parties could provide for a family. It was considered by them of the greatest importance that they, the worshipers of the true God, should not intermarry with an idolatrous people, lest they lead their families away from God. {4bSG 49.1}
Even after their children were married, the most solemn obligation rested upon them. Their judgment then was not considered sufficient without the counsel of their parents, and they were required to respect and obey their wishes, unless they should conflict with their duty to God. {4bSG 49.2}


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/16/11 04:17 PM

Quote:
GC: How come God never commanded that a widower should not go to marry another woman outside the family, but should marry one of the sisters of his deceased wife? Double standard?

R: This has nothing to do with moral principles. I'm speaking of moral principles.

GC: Rosangela, if marital/sexual matters do not involve moral principles, I don't know what does. When someone has a "moral" fall or an issue with "immorality," the first thing that comes to mind is a sexual matter.

GC, the purpose of this statute was not to prevent someone from incurring a sin. It was just to preserve a family line. So it does not involve a moral principle.

Quote:
R: All other moral commandments are an unfolding of the 10, which are an unfolding of the 2. Ceremonial commandments, of course, are not moral.

GC: I'm not the one bringing up distinctions here between "moral" and "ceremonial," but since you've brought it up, what happens if someone did not observe the ceremonial laws? Was that a "ceremonial sin" instead of a "moral" one? Or are you trying to say that it was not a sin to ignore the ceremonial laws?

It is clear that the ceremonial laws were not part of the "moral law." But then, if what you say is true, we seem to have a contradiction here. Either the ceremonial laws were all optional, or else not all sins were defined by the Big Ten.

GC, the 10C define all sins, and they are intrinsically moral.
God may give a command which is not intrinsically moral (like, for instance, not eating of a fruit, or circumcision, or the utter destruction of all that belongs to Amalek), but the obedience to what God specified is a moral issue (encompassed by the first commandment), and so willful disobedience to God is the sin involved here.
If, OTOH, the command given by God is intrinsically moral, it's just an unfolding of the 10.

Quote:
R: "Of course pedophily is not adultery, but it is classified as a transgression of the 7th commandment."

This doesn't make sense. This just means that you or someone is adding to the words of God. If pedophily is not adultery, as you are attesting yourself here, how then can the words "Thou shalt not commit adultery" address it?

They address it as they indicate that the only correct form of sexual interaction is that of one man and one woman within the bond of marriage. Anything which deviates from this is sin.

Quote:
R: "Because the 10th commandment says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," does this mean that women cannot be considered guilty of mental adultery?"

Not necessarily. But it does seem to indicate which of the genders is more likely to offend on this point

The point is, if you consider only what is written in terms of the gender specified, women can never be guilty of mental adultery, and in fact there is no standard which can judge both men and women with equity.

Quote:
it also suggests a difference in the "ownership" system that I have spoken of before somewhere.

For God to be understood, He must express Himself taking into account the mental frame of the society He is speaking to.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/16/11 06:33 PM

Rosangela,

You are reading into the Bible that which is not there. That is unsafe, and untenable.

Your statement that "For God to be understood, He must express Himself taking into account the mental frame of the society He is speaking to." may have some merit, but they way you appear to have attached to it is as if to say that you understand "better" according to your more modern "frame" what God "actually meant" when He said something different way back then. This sort of philosophy is dangerous.

If you are unwilling to read the Bible carefully for what it says, without adding in your own personal biases, there is little point to continuing this discussion. Bible against strong opinion will never a convert make.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/17/11 01:11 AM

Well, it's clear that we don't see eye to eye.

Just some additional evidence that God recognized just a man's first wife as a legitimate wife. This is how God addressed Sarah and how He addressed Hagar, when speaking to Abraham:

Genesis 17:15 Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife..."
Genesis 17:19 Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son..."
Genesis 18:9 Then they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?"
Genesis 18:10 And He said, "I will certainly return to you according to the time of life, and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son."

Genesis 21:12, 13 But God said to Abraham, "Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called. Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed."
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/17/11 03:15 AM

I'm glad to see you're bringing scripture to the discussion now.

A couple of questions first:

1) Was Hagar Abraham's servant (i.e. "bondwoman")?
2) Was Sarah/Sarai Abraham's wife?

Then one more question:

Is it possible to be both a servant and a wife?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/17/11 04:39 PM

As God knew that the “marriage” to Hagar (Gen 16:3) was for completely and non-genuine invalid claims/beliefs of ‘Sarah being sterile’, moreover her accusation/conclusion that it was God who was deliberately prevented her (Gen 16:2), He rightly did not recognize this marriage. Indeed this would only validate Sarah’s faithless claims. As seen in Paul allegorical use of this episode in Gal 4:22ff, the issue of Faith was indeed paramount.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/19/11 02:42 AM

Quote:
1) Was Hagar Abraham's servant (i.e. "bondwoman")?

Any servant within his household obviously belonged to him.

Quote:
2) Was Sarah/Sarai Abraham's wife?

?
Of course.

Quote:
Is it possible to be both a servant and a wife?

The question is, In the eyes of God, was she a servant or a wife? How does He refer to her?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/26/11 02:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
M: Elle, I used to serve the church as a pastor and an evangelist. We were taught people living together under common law must get married before they can be baptized and join the church. I hear you saying, no, they are already married in the eyes of God. Also, the punishment for rape was death not marriage.

GC: Despite what the church may or may not say, Elle has the Biblical support for her stance on both of the points above. The church, for as much as God has honored us with wisdom, has not always been right. This is one of those points where I feel the church has diverged from a clear "thus saith the Lord." Now, if you can show Bible support for your position.

Again, the punishment for rape was death not marriage. I believe Elle misinterpreted Duet 22:28-29.

MM, I think you need to re-read Deut 22:23-30 carefully as it is very plainly written how to deal with the case of rape of a virgin damsel. The damsel is to scream if she’s rape which is what define if she’s rape or not(v.27). In the condition that she screamed (v.27) and is not bethrothed, that man does not die(v.27-29). He only dies if that damsel is bethrothed only(v.24 & 25).

So the conclusion according to this law is the man that rapes dies only because of the reason of adultery for he lied with a bethrothed maiden which is considered as a married woman. Deut 22 does not support your interpretation that all cases of rape = death.

Elle, if what you say is true, what would stop a guy from raping a woman who refused him if he wanted to have her to wife?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/26/11 04:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Elle, if what you say is true, what would stop a guy from raping a woman who refused him if he wanted to have her to wife?

I take it, Mike, that you have not read the text for yourself. You are looking merely at Elle's interpretation of it, and asking her to defend her interpretation. Why not look at the Bible itself and ask at God's Word?

I'll help you and make this easier.
Originally Posted By: The Holy Bible
If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)


Does marrying a woman because you have raped her, and not being able to "put her away" for your whole life equal a "death sentence" Mike?

Is Elle's interpretation at fault? Hardly. The Bible is explicit enough here.
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Again, the punishment for rape was death not marriage. I believe Elle misinterpreted Duet 22:28-29.

I would like you to defend your statement here. If Elle misinterpreted, pray tell, how do you interpret?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/26/11 04:17 AM

The very fact that there is a clear distinction made between rape of a married or engaged woman and the rape of an unattached/single virgin is evidence to support the understanding that adultery is THEFT. If the woman does not belong to a husband yet, she cannot be stolen from him. It is not, in that case, adultery.

Here is the full distinction...
Originally Posted By: The Bible
Deuteronomy
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22:23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.
22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


Looking at verses 23 and 24, it is clear that once a woman was betrothed, she was counted already as the wife of her fiance. So, Engagement = Marriage.

From the remainder of that passage, it is clear that rape of a "married" (engaged/betrothed included) woman equaled the sin of adultery. Rape of an unmarried woman was NOT adultery, and the punishment was not the same as for adultery.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/27/11 05:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Elle, if what you say is true, what would stop a guy from raping a woman who refused him if he wanted to have her to wife?

I take it, Mike, that you have not read the text for yourself. You are looking merely at Elle's interpretation of it, and asking her to defend her interpretation. Why not look at the Bible itself and ask at God's Word?

I'll help you and make this easier.
Originally Posted By: The Holy Bible
If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)


Does marrying a woman because you have raped her, and not being able to "put her away" for your whole life equal a "death sentence" Mike?

Is Elle's interpretation at fault? Hardly. The Bible is explicit enough here.
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Again, the punishment for rape was death not marriage. I believe Elle misinterpreted Duet 22:28-29.

I would like you to defend your statement here. If Elle misinterpreted, pray tell, how do you interpret?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, thank you for encouraging me to read the Bible for myself. You might be happy to learn that I did indeed study this passage in the Bible for myself. Which is why I am convinced it refers to consensual sexual relations.

You asked, "Does marrying a woman because you have raped her, and not being able to "put her away" for your whole life equal a "death sentence" Mike?" No, not at all, especially if you raped her because you love her believing the Bible guarantees she'll be yours forever. Pretty sick, don't you think?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/27/11 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
GC, thank you for encouraging me to read the Bible for myself. You might be happy to learn that I did indeed study this passage in the Bible for myself. Which is why I am convinced it refers to consensual sexual relations.

You asked, "Does marrying a woman because you have raped her, and not being able to "put her away" for your whole life equal a "death sentence" Mike?" No, not at all, especially if you raped her because you love her believing the Bible guarantees she'll be yours forever. Pretty sick, don't you think?

Does this mean you are now dropping your charge against Elle regarding "misinterpreting" because she had not thought rape always incurred a death sentence? I appreciate that you seem to be understanding the Bible more clearly now. I think Elle would appreciate some exoneration.

Regarding the "consensual" aspect, Mike, the "lay hold on her" portion of that scripture puts "consensual" into some doubt. It reminds me more, in fact, of a Hmong custom that is still sometimes practiced today. During the Hmong New Year festivities (or perhaps at other times, I'm not sure), the men folk will often lay eyes on a fair young maiden in her celebratory dress, and "pull" her. This means, basically, literally grabbing her and leading her to his house and, as the Bible would put it, "humbling" her. She stays there for one to three days inside, and emerges as his from then on.

I remember our Adventist boarding school not far away always having some worries for the young girls during this time of year, lest they should not return to their studies following the home leave. (This practice of "pulling" did not wait for one to reach the age of majority, and those who practiced it were ancestor/spirit worshipers, not Christians.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/27/11 11:37 PM

GC, I didn't hear MM say that. When you read the verses in context, it is quite clear to me MM is correct in the consensual. Verse 25 uses "force". Which means the other verses could use "force". They don't. Verse 24 says, "because she cried not", verse 28 says, "and they be found", which implies a togetherness in participation. Nothing about "force". Whether it's a custom you speak of, or consensual as MM speaks of, it is not the force 25 speaks of.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/28/11 04:02 AM

kland,

I didn't say MM was incorrect regarding the "consensual." What I said was that the "consensual" was not certain. It may have been, or it may not have been consensual.

It is my understanding that whether or not the act was "consensual," the punishment remained the same. For this reason, perhaps, the text is left more ambiguous--thus being applicable to either situation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 06/29/11 01:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Elle, if what you say is true, what would stop a guy from raping a woman who refused him if he wanted to have her to wife?

Thx for the good question MM. It got me into studying these texts a little closer and came to value much God's laws and would benefit our society today if practiced.

Many things will stop a guy to rape a woman. Here’s are what he will be facing according to the law.
1. Possibly NOT have Her as a Bride : The father of the maiden can refuse to give her as a bride

2. Pay the Bridal Price : He still has to pay the bridal price, however he won’t have much bargaining power, and whatever the father say will go over his say. Basically, the father can lay on the young man the maximum bridal price.

Ex 22:16 “And if a man entice ( pathah), a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her (4117 mahar literal translation read “ to pay bride price” ) “ to be his wife. 17. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry (4117 mahar literal translation “ “as bride price of” ) “ of virgins.” (KJV)

Here the law clearly state that this man has to pay the dowry price regardless if the father of the maiden accepts or refuse to give her hand in marriage in the case of enticing a maiden. If my understanding is correct, I believe the bridal price is not a set price and it is a bargain between the young man and the father of the maiden. It can be a large or a little sum, or even a number of years of labor that both agree on.

Ex 22:16 address a case where there is some type of “consensus” between a man and a maiden, however, biblically it is define as an “enticement”. Whether there is an appropriate “consensus” or not on the part of the maiden, the young man acted improperly and unlawfully. Acting according to the law of God would require a bargaining with her father and then an engagement. He stole the virginity of this maiden in an improper fashion and the offence was against the family, the maiden, the society, and the law of God. God gave the situation in the hand of the father of the maiden to judge the best way to rectify this situation to restore honor to his family, to the church, to the Law of God and to the best interest of his daughter by weighing the matter of consensus vs. enticement. If he view this young man as a good potential son in law, the father will lay a good dowry price higher than enticipated which the young man can work it off by working for the family. In that fashion, the father will be able to train this young man to be a proper husband for his daughter.

3. Pay 50 shekels of silver :
Now in the law of Deut 22, here we deal with another layer which is not a case of “consensing / enticing” (pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”), but dealing with a case of “ lay hold of her” (taphas – “to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably.”),


Deut 22:28 “ If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her ( taphas), and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


Fifty shekels of silver is refered to Lev 27:3 as the estimated value of a vow for a male between 20 – 60 years old. I still don’t understand the meaning of this, but I believe Deut 22:28 is referring to this law. Also, 50 shekels is the value of an homer of barley seeds (Lev 27:16).

I believe the 50 shekels is an additional price to the bargain price of the dowry, for the dowry price is not a set price and can be more or less depending on what the father evaluate her price.

4. Possibly Working as a Slave : If the dowry + the 50 shekels of silver is a sum he cannot pay, then he has to work as a slave according to the Law of repayment in Ex 22:3 “…He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”
I know this law is dealing with theft, however despite the case is not a literal theft of property, however it is a theft of a virginity and the honor of the family, and a theft of God’s honor which all have value and is measure as a sum of money.

In general and as a principle, all sins are measured as a debt and can be viewed as a theft which requires repayment.

Conclusion A man that thinks to rape a woman has to face the current laws establish in Israel. His maximum risk is ending up working no more than 49 years as a slave for the father of the maiden and not be guaranteed to have her as a bride.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/02/11 10:28 PM

Seems like the women who are raped get the raw end of the deal. Seems even stranger God would frame laws in such an unfair way. Also, do you know where in the Bible it deals with consensual, premarital sexual relations?
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/03/11 01:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Seems like the women who are raped get the raw end of the deal. Seems even stranger God would frame laws in such an unfair way.

I don't view this as unfair at all, nor do I think she has a raw end of it and I do see the wisdom of the law and see that it protects in great extend the honor of the maiden, the family, and the society.

The penalty for raping a woman is so great that it would make a man think twice before doing it, contrary to today's penalty for the same act. Today guys goes to prison for a year or so for sexual assault and a little more for rape, versus in Israel then, the guy would be a slave for up to 49 years.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Also, do you know where in the Bible it deals with consensual, premarital sexual relations?
???? Well I have quoted it and have discussed it in my post above. Here's the section of it:

Originally Posted By: Elle
“consensing / enticing” (pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”)

Versus a case of “ lay hold of her” (taphas – “to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably.”),


Ex 22:16 “And if a man entice ( pathah), a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her (4117 mahar literal translation read “ to pay bride price” ) “ to be his wife. 17. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry (4117 mahar literal translation “ “as bride price of” ) “ of virgins.” (KJV)

Here the law clearly state that this man has to pay the dowry price regardless if the father of the maiden accepts or refuse to give her hand in marriage in the case of enticing a maiden. If my understanding is correct, I believe the bridal price is not a set price and it is a bargain between the young man and the father of the maiden. It can be a large or a little sum, or even a number of years of labor that both agree on.

Ex 22:16 address a case where there is some type of “consensus” between a man and a maiden, however, biblically it is define as an “enticement”. Whether there is an appropriate “consensus” or not on the part of the maiden, the young man acted improperly and unlawfully. Acting according to the law of God would require a bargaining with her father and then an engagement. He stole the virginity of this maiden in an improper fashion and the offence was against the family, the maiden, the society, and the law of God. God gave the situation in the hand of the father of the maiden to judge the best way to rectify this situation to restore honor to his family, to the church, to the Law of God and to the best interest of his daughter by weighing the matter of consensus vs. enticement. If he view this young man as a good potential son in law, the father will lay a good dowry price higher than enticipated which the young man can work it off by working for the family. In that fashion, the father will be able to train this young man to be a proper husband for his daughter.

Comparing with Deut 22:28 “ If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her ( taphas), and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/03/11 02:13 AM

I wonder how many rape victims would agree? Also, which passage above do you feel addresses consensual sexual relations?
Posted By: Daryl

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/10/11 12:24 AM

bump

Bumping this one for a response.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I wonder how many rape victims would agree? Also, which passage above do you feel addresses consensual sexual relations?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/15/11 06:08 PM

I would appreciate an answer to the comment and question above.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/15/11 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I wonder how many rape victims would agree? Also, which passage above do you feel addresses consensual sexual relations?
I wonder, Mike...is it important that rape victims agree? Is it more important that they "agree" or that they properly "understand" the Bible's teaching?

Many people disagree with the Bible. Many throw it out because it goes against their own opinions. Should their agreement or disagreement affect our perceptions of it?

Regarding the "consensual" relations--we do not find much in the Bible about this. This word is frequently used in our modern judicial system--a system in which a "non-consensual" intercourse can be defined as "rape" even when it occurs between a husband and wife. In the Bible, there is nary a mention of "rape" (actually, the Bible's word here is "force") within a legal marriage. I'm not trying to say that we have our definitions today all mixed up, I'm just pointing out that there is a much different way of looking at things today.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/16/11 05:22 AM

I believe consensual, premarital relations is described and dealt with in Deut 22:28-29. The idea that it describes and deals with rape is unconscionable.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/16/11 08:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I believe consensual, premarital relations is described and dealt with in Deut 22:28-29. The idea that it describes and deals with rape is unconscionable.

Much is a matter of definitions. In today's world, for example, even a "consenting" 14-year old (or perhaps any minor) will be counted "raped" if the "offender" were of the age of majority.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/16/11 07:29 PM

In particular, Deut 22:28-29 describes and deals with consensual, premarital sexual relations. According to this passage, this law, people who engage in consensual, premarital sexual relations are obligated to get married and to stay married.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/16/11 07:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
In particular, Deut 22:28-29 describes and deals with consensual, premarital sexual relations. According to this passage, this law, people who engage in consensual, premarital sexual relations are obligated to get married and to stay married.


I dissagree. Ex 22:16 deals more with consensing sex by using the word pathah meaning "to be open", whereas Dt 22:28 deals with forced sex by using the word taphas meaning "to seize, capture...".

Originally Posted By: Elle
“consensing / enticing” (pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”)

Versus a case of “ lay hold of her” (taphas – “to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably.”),


Ex 22:16 “And if a man entice ( pathah), a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her (4117 mahar literal translation read “ to pay bride price” ) “ to be his wife. 17. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry (4117 mahar literal translation “ “as bride price of” ) “ of virgins.” (KJV)

Here the law clearly state that this man has to pay the dowry price regardless if the father of the maiden accepts or refuse to give her hand in marriage in the case of enticing a maiden. If my understanding is correct, I believe the bridal price is not a set price and it is a bargain between the young man and the father of the maiden. It can be a large or a little sum, or even a number of years of labor that both agree on.

Ex 22:16 address a case where there is some type of “consensus” between a man and a maiden, however, biblically it is define as an “enticement”. Whether there is an appropriate “consensus” or not on the part of the maiden, the young man acted improperly and unlawfully. Acting according to the law of God would require a bargaining with her father and then an engagement. He stole the virginity of this maiden in an improper fashion and the offence was against the family, the maiden, the society, and the law of God. God gave the situation in the hand of the father of the maiden to judge the best way to rectify this situation to restore honor to his family, to the church, to the Law of God and to the best interest of his daughter by weighing the matter of consensus vs. enticement. If he view this young man as a good potential son in law, the father will lay a good dowry price higher than enticipated which the young man can work it off by working for the family. In that fashion, the father will be able to train this young man to be a proper husband for his daughter.

Comparing with Deut 22:28 “ If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her ( taphas), and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/16/11 08:43 PM

Taphas (H8610) does not always imply force. Sometimes it indicates the ability to do something skillfully. For example:

Gen 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle (taphas, H8610) the harp and organ.

Jer 2:8 The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle (taphas, H8610) the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

Jer 50:16 Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him that handleth (taphas, H8610) the sickle in the time of harvest: for fear of the oppressing sword they shall turn every one to his people, and they shall flee every one to his own land.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/17/11 12:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Taphas (H8610) does not always imply force. Sometimes it indicates the ability to do something skillfully.
Yes and in those texts, taphas still doesn’t loose it’s meaning as “to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably.”.

We have the same expression in english in saying “he captured well the meaning of the law or he capture well the usage of the instrument”

… so context defines the application of the word. In Deut 22 it’s about a man that force a damsel, v25 in the case that she is betrothed, and v.28 in the case she is not betrothed.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/17/11 07:16 AM

Good points, both of you. I appreciate the use of scripture to define scripture. In this particular exchange, it appears to me that Elle has a stronger position. I am no Hebrew expert, however.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/17/11 08:02 PM

Again, the idea that Jesus requires rape victims by law to marry their rapist, with no hope of divorce, is absurd.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/18/11 09:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Again, the idea that Jesus requires rape victims by law to marry their rapist, with no hope of divorce, is absurd.

I'm not so sure. Certainly, it is counterintuitive. I will grant you that. But God does not always work the way that seems best to us.

The punishment may have been more for the man than the woman. Consider the difficulty the man would have who had raped the woman. While the difficulties would be numerous, a few thoughts here are quite pertinent.

First, the rapist would have to deal with the "baggage" that he himself had caused. His new wife would either punish him far more than about anything else could, or he would learn through great trials how to win her heart wholly--and this would be a miracle of forgiveness and God's grace. In other words, in a sense, this requirement of God's would cause the man to own up to his problems and deal with them.

Second, the rapist would have opportunity to tell others of the miserable consequences of acting as he had done. If the rapist were simply immediately stoned, as in the case of adultery, it would leave a humbled woman behind who was stigmatized and whose life was much in ruins already with very little chance of marriage. (Most men preferred virgins, and Levites were required to marry virgins.) To make it worse, she may be raising a little fatherless bastard, and with little or no support (child support?).

So, in a sense, God's requirement here is almost a "kiss-and-make-up" sort of command. It had the best possible chance of correcting the evil after the fact of about any conceivable scenario.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/18/11 05:37 PM

Perhaps. However, consider another scenario. The ugly, awkward, unpopular guy at school is smitten with the beautiful, graceful, popular girl. He knows he has no chance of winning her heart. But then he recalls Deut 22:28-29. To have her as his own he need only rape her and pay 50 shekels. Viola!
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/19/11 04:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Perhaps. However, consider another scenario. The ugly, awkward, unpopular guy at school is smitten with the beautiful, graceful, popular girl. He knows he has no chance of winning her heart. But then he recalls Deut 22:28-29. To have her as his own he need only rape her and pay 50 shekels. Viola!

Certainly, some people have gone there. Most who have had no knowledge of Deuteronomy. Furthermore, they all quickly learn what a bitter cup it is.

Not a wise choice!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/19/11 04:33 AM

I might add here that I have seen almost this exact scenario played out in South-east Asia on the part of two young ladies who wanted an especially handsome man. In the case of one of them, her mother pushed her to do it, as she wanted the young gentleman as her son-in-law. In the other case, the young lady herself wanted to force the marriage, and thought by enticing her man and seducing him she would have a guaranteed life with him. (Generally speaking, Asian cultures are still fairly old-school in these things.)

Both "marriages" ended up with the ill-matched couple separating. Both young men involved had their careers sorely affected. The one young man was to be a pastor. Not anymore.

The Bible does not particularly specify the circumstances required. It merely requires that they marry. It does not say "if" the young man rapes the young lady, or "if" the young lady rapes/seduces the young man. It does not need to specify. With any potential motivation, the required justice of permanent marriage remains.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/19/11 01:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Perhaps. However, consider another scenario. The ugly, awkward, unpopular guy at school is smitten with the beautiful, graceful, popular girl. He knows he has no chance of winning her heart. But then he recalls Deut 22:28-29. To have her as his own he need only rape her and pay 50 shekels. Viola!

Certainly, some people have gone there. Most who have had no knowledge of Deuteronomy. Furthermore, they all quickly learn what a bitter cup it is.Not a wise choice!


This man is not guaranteed to have the woman he has raped as a wife. He has to face the current laws establish in Israel which two main laws comes into effect -- #1 Ex 22 and #2 Deut 22 -- as pointed out in post #134834.

His maximum risk is ending up working for a maximum of 49 years as a slave for the father of the maiden and not be guaranteed to have her as a bride. This is a huge risk and something to think about before raping a girl.

LAW #1 : Ex 22:16 A man sleeps with a Maiden without pre-approval of the father and doesn't follow the customary bethrowal.

Ex 22:16 “And if a man entice ( pathah), a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her (4117 mahar literal translation read “ to pay bride price” ) “ to be his wife. 17. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry (4117 mahar literal translation “ “as bride price of” ) “ of virgins.” (KJV)

This Law says :

#1. Possibly NOT have Her as a Bride : The father of the maiden can refuse to give her as a bride.

#2. Pay the Bridal Price : This man has to pay the dowry price regardless if the father of the maiden accepts or refuse to give her hand in marriage. The bridal price is not a set price and it is a bargain between the young man and the father of the maiden. It can be a large or a little sum, or even a number of years of labor that both agree on. However he won’t have much bargaining power over her price, and whatever the father say will go over his say. Basically, the father can lay on the young man the maximum bridal price and has the right to double it as this man act is also considered a theft. This man has stolen the virginity of his daughter and has dishonored her. Also he has stolen the honor of the family. So these are considered as a theft. Under the law of theft the value stolen is doubled minimum and can be as a maximum 5 times the amount.

LAW #2 : Forced Sex in Deut 22:28

Deut 22:28 “ If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her ( taphas to capture, seize), and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


This Law says :
#3. Pay 50 shekels : which is an additional price to the price of the dowry.

#4. Never can he discard her as a wife : He has no choice to marry her nor can he ever discard her, if the father allows the marriage according to Law #1.

#5. Possibly work as a slave : If the dowry + the 50 shekels of silver is a sum he cannot pay, then he has to work as a slave according to the Law of repayment in Ex 22:3 “…He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”


Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/19/11 06:49 PM

I'm sorry, guys, but there is no way Deut 22:28-29 is talking about rape. My Jesus would never condone a law that punishes rapists with marriage. It totally devalues the woman and mocks the institution of marriage.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/19/11 08:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I'm sorry, guys, but there is no way Deut 22:28-29 is talking about rape. My Jesus would never condone a law that punishes rapists with marriage. It totally devalues the woman and mocks the institution of marriage.


??? It looks like you didn't read my reply MM. The guy that rapes does not get the girl unless the father allows it according to Ex 22 law. Whether the father allows him to marry or not, he still has to pay a large dowry sum plus the 50 shekels from the Deut 22 law. If he can't pay up, he has to sell himself to slavery to pay up the father and the woman's dowry.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/19/11 08:47 PM

A couple of comments here:

First of all where in the Bible, Elle, are you getting the punishment of ‘slavery for 50 years’ instead of 7 years, for being unable to pay 50 skekels?

Second, seems to me that is a heightening of force from the Exod 22:16 relation and the Deut 22:28 one. In fact Exod 22 may be referring to relations amongst known people, even friends (i.e., simply seduces this friend) vs. Deut 22's situation and its “finds” (vs. 23, 25,2 8) statement apparently applies to two total strangers. The question is however, how to prove that this was actually rape, because it really is one’s word against another. So I see that these Biblical laws are best understood and harmonized when it is seen that the distinctions of being ‘in the city’ (Deut 22:23ff) and ‘in the field’ (vs. 26ff) as well as the element of the girl screaming out or not, particularly if she is in hearing distance in the city actually recursively applies to the case of the unengaged young woman (a.k.a. virgin). But rather than repeat those stipulations, which are apparently to be understood, and restate the similar punishments for them, this new stipulation only goes further to deal with a completely different issue here, which is: what to do if that raped woman is not engaged, and, by all appearances, has consented to this (presumably, in a city) relation. The man would indeed have “statutorily” violated her, simply because she was not his wife, but God made it that they could not engage in such casual, premarital sex and, literally, get away with it. The phrase “if they are discovered”, indeed implies that this would have been a consensual act.

So to me, as with the law on striking a pregnant woman, prior laws on striking a man or a in Exod 21:12-24 still apply, (see this post (#131061) and othershowever an additional element in the law is made for the special circumstance of, ‘if the struck woman was also pregnant’. So the law in Deut 22 simply did not redundantly restated the, should be understood, stipulations for a forceful act vs. an apparently consensual one priorly mentioned in vs. 23-27.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/20/11 01:20 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
First of all where in the Bible, Elle, are you getting the punishment of ‘slavery for 50 years’ instead of 7 years, for being unable to pay 50 skekels?
My words was a maxmum of 49 years according to the law of Jubilee to pay up the sum of 50 shekels of silver + the dowry price. All debts are cancelled at the Jubilee. Well at least according to God’s law, the Israelites never observed it once, nor did they ever gaved rest to the land (and their slaves) every 7 years.

Where did you get the 7 years to pay up 50 shekels? ???Jacob??? If so, with Jacob it was not a 50 shekels price for the bride's dowry he was working for. It was a work agreement because the rich dowry of unknown amount for the bride was stolen before hand and he had nothing to offer. However Jacob had some barganing power for he was an experienced older worker which has more value than a young unexperienced man and he didn’t had sex with her prior like the young man who violated the laws in Ex 22 and Deut 22.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Second, seems to me that is a heightening of force from the Exod 22:16 relation and the Deut 22:28 one. In fact Exod 22 may be referring to relations amongst known people, even friends (i.e., simply seduces this friend) vs. Deut 22's situation and its “finds” (vs. 23, 25,2 8) statement apparently applies to two total strangers. The question is however, how to prove that this was actually rape, because it really is one’s word against another.


I agree that Ex22 is probably between friends describing the sexual approach of the young man as pathah (to be open) versus Deut 22 between strangers with the word taphas (to capture, seize). The law between the two friends in Ex 22 requires that the young man pay up the bridal price at minimum and not even be guaranteed to have the young lady as a bride. The father makes that decision.

Whereas in Deut 22 the penalty seems less with only 50 shekels of silver and this amount is not even for the bride's dowry. It specifically says in v.29 that it is to be for the father. I believe it could be the restitution value of the father’s name/honor damage for according to Lev 27:3 -- 50 skekels is the price of a man’s vow over 20 years old.

The laws are define seperatly. An act can violate several laws. So all the laws violated needs to be accounted for when it is time for judgment. In this situation of Deut 22 which Ex 22 Law is implied in this case, it only specifies the restitution for the father’s name, and defines that the young man has no choice in the matter of marrying or not this young girl. It is up to the father. Whereas in Ex 22, there's a possibility that the younr man may opt to not marry her for it only states the obligation to pay the dowry price in that law. Plus in Deut 22 adds that this young man don’t have the option to put her away all the days of his life.

Laws has it’s limitation of what it can describe. That’s why the people could come to the king and have a fair trials when the laws didn’t cover their specific case.

Originally Posted By: NJK
So I see that these Biblical laws are best understood and harmonized when it is seen that the distinctions of being ‘in the city’ (Deut 22:23ff) and ‘in the field’ (vs. 26ff) as well as the element of the girl screaming out or not, particularly if she is in hearing distance in the city actually recursively applies to the case of the unengaged young woman (a.k.a. virgin). But rather than repeat those stipulations, which are apparently to be understood, and restate the similar punishments for them, this new stipulation only goes further to deal with a completely different issue here, which is: what to do if that raped woman is not engaged, and, by all appearances, has consented to this (presumably, in a city) relation. The man would indeed have “statutorily” violated her, simply because she was not his wife, but God made it that they could not engage in such casual, premarital sex and, literally, get away with it. The phrase “if they are discovered”, indeed implies that this would have been a consensual act.


You read it again NJK, it first address(v.25-27) if the damsel is in the field and is bethrothed, then v. 28 address if that damsel is not bethrothed and uses specifically the word taphas -- to capture, seize. So because of the word taphas, it seems to be a continuance of v.25-27 by addressing the case in this situation if the damsel is not bethrothed.

Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/20/11 02:57 PM

Quote:
NJK: First of all where in the Bible, Elle, are you getting the punishment of ‘slavery for 50 years’ instead of 7 years, for being unable to pay 50 skekels?

Elle: My words was a maxmum of 49 years according to the law of Jubilee to pay up the sum of 50 shekels of silver + the dowry price. All debts are cancelled at the Jubilee.


That is again my question. Deut 15:1ff states that debts are to be cancelled at the upcoming 7th year period (i.e., not necessarily after 7 years, but e.g., if the debt was incurred in a 6th year of a sabbatical cycle, it was to be cancelled the next year). So where are you getting this law of ‘up to 49 years’. I only see “up to the 7th year”. Thus they were to be cancelled even long before the Jubilee year.


Originally Posted By: Elle
Well at least according to God’s law, the Israelites never observed it once, nor did they ever gaved rest to the land (and their slaves) every 7 years.


While that may seem likely, I do not see concrete proof of this in the Bible. As usual, notoriety is usually based on bad/controversial behavior and so we find most of those wayward times recorded in the Bile. However there are many years that are not so recorded and they may have included periods of strict obedient living, indeed long enough to have a perfectly observed Sabbatical Cycle of 7 years or even a Jubilee Cycle of 50 years. And that is even in part because, while Israel did never let their land keep its fallow Sabbath, which is tangibly why they were sent from it off to Babylon (2 Chr 36:20, 21), they may have been distinctly observing the “remissions of debts” aspect of the Law as they would have seen its concrete reason vs. the fallow land requirement which they had to trust God’s wisdom for. Also, as I understand it, the mention of a separate 49 years (7 weeks) in Dan 9:25, is to mark off the first Sabbatical cycle since the restoration (i.e., 457-408 B.C.) and it very well may have been that Israel, since the Sabbatical punishment of the Babylonian deportation was careful to observe the Sabbatical cycles. Their great care for this post-the Captivity is seen in the writings of Josephus which documentedly cover the 400-1 B.C. time period of Israel.

So your wholly dismissive conclusion does not seem to be factual to me.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Where did you get the 7 years to pay up 50 shekels? ???Jacob??? If so, with Jacob it was not a 50 shekels price for the bride's dowry he was working for. It was a work agreement because the rich dowry of unknown amount for the bride was stolen before hand and he had nothing to offer. However Jacob had some barganing power for he was an experienced older worker which has more value than a young unexperienced man and he didn’t had sex with her prior like the young man who violated the laws in Ex 22 and Deut 22.


Not at all. It indeed did not even remotely come to my mind. Deut 15:1ff law for the remission of debt was what I saw addressed this situation.

Originally Posted By: Elle
The laws are define seperatly. An act can violate several laws. So all the laws violated needs to be accounted for when it is time for judgment. In this situation of Deut 22 which Ex 22 Law is implied in this case, it only specifies the restitution for the father’s name, and defines that the young man has no choice in the matter of marrying or not this young girl. It is up to the father. Whereas in Ex 22, there's a possibility that the younr man may opt to not marry her for it only states the obligation to pay the dowry price in that law. Plus in Deut 22 adds that this young man don’t have the option to put her away all the days of his life.


I see the “cases” for the laws of Ex 22 & Deut 22 to actually be distinct. Again the punishment was less strict for Exod 22 because, ironically enough it could have been a moment of passion among friends. (And not even the promiscuous equivalent of today’s “friends with benefits” mentality which does not actually necessitate this considered “passion” of the Exod 22 case. However in Deut 22, after stating the general case of what would be a demonstrated rape situation in vs. 23-28 of an engaged woman, which I see also then recursively applies to the rape of a non-engaged woman; the distinct case of a non-engaged woman who manifestly has consented to relation, by never reporting this and them being “discovered,” which could be long after the fact, (e.g., through a parent’s questioning based on various observations, then the penalty in Deut 22:28, 29 applies and the punishment for this demonstrated consensual act of pure lust between two probably strangers is to be, at least forced marriage. So God had a lower tolerance for acts of adultery that were not based on any “understandable” passion at all but mere base behavior.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Laws has it’s limitation of what it can describe. That’s why the people could come to the king and have a fair trials when the laws didn’t cover their specific case.


That indeed was to be the function of the king, which as several texts in the Bible shows was first and foremost a Supreme Judge.

Originally Posted By: Elle
You read it again NJK, it first address(v.25-27) if the damsel is in the field and is bethrothed, then v. 28 address if that damsel is not bethrothed and uses specifically the word taphas -- to capture, seize. So because of the word taphas, it seems to be a continuance of v.25-27 by addressing the case in this situation if the damsel is not bethrothed.


The distinction here and why “capture” has to be used is that this is neither an act of passion as in Exod 22, nor rape as in vs. 23-27. The “capturing” implies at least a non-planned relation, but one that was manifestly eventually consented with none the less and only brought to light when those two were “discovered”. And this “capturing” may have simply been a verbal convincing. The key word to me is that they were “discovered” and that is why they both are punished.

So I see the laws not imposing marriage for actual rape also applying to a non-engaged woman. Only where there is concealment of the act and it had to be “discovered” thus there really is no way of judicially telling what the actual circumstance was, that both parties are default held responsible for it.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/20/11 05:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I'm sorry, guys, but there is no way Deut 22:28-29 is talking about rape. My Jesus would never condone a law that punishes rapists with marriage. It totally devalues the woman and mocks the institution of marriage.


??? It looks like you didn't read my reply MM. The guy that rapes does not get the girl unless the father allows it according to Ex 22 law. Whether the father allows him to marry or not, he still has to pay a large dowry sum plus the 50 shekels from the Deut 22 law. If he can't pay up, he has to sell himself to slavery to pay up the father and the woman's dowry.

Two different situations, two different laws. We can't throw them together and make one law.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/21/11 04:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I'm sorry, guys, but there is no way Deut 22:28-29 is talking about rape. My Jesus would never condone a law that punishes rapists with marriage. It totally devalues the woman and mocks the institution of marriage.

On the contrary, Mike, it cheapens the institution of marriage, even mocks it, to allow a one-night "rapist" encounter and NOT be united for life.

I see God as enforcing this to elevate the significance of marriage, as well as the value of women.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/21/11 04:51 PM

GC, imagine for a moment the unthinkable - your 18 year old daughter is raped by a 54 year old man because he knows the law will force them to get married. Which is exactly what he wants because he is smitten with her and knows she'll never agree to marry him. He wins - but you and your daughter lose big time. But it doesn't end there. Every night he rapes her and there's nothing she or you can do about it because the law will not allow her to get a divorce.

Can you live with such a law? Or, would you work to repeal it?

PS - If you don't have a daughter this example will not mean as much to you. If so, perhaps you can supply her place with a female you love dearly. Maybe a sister or a girl friend?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/21/11 05:41 PM

Mike,

And pedophilia is not addressed in the Bible much either. There is simply a lot that the Bible never said. What should that mean?

You speak of "rape" within marriage--that is something the Bible does not address. There was no such thing, by definition, as rape within marriage until our courts system reluctantly began to allow for such definitions. Prior to that, the courts did not want to touch with a ten-foot pole the private relations between a man and his wife.

I see a strong opinion on your part that I don't see reflected in the Bible. You don't sound wrong, it's just that the Bible doesn't offer you much support.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/21/11 06:47 PM

Unless, of course, you are mistaken and Deut 22:28-29 is addressing consensual, premarital sexual relations. If you are willing to admit this possibility, it sounds like you would be more willing to agree Jesus would not make a law forcing rape victims to marry their rapists. Such a law would never be passed in the USA. And, I shudder to think of what non-Christians would think of Jesus if such a law really existed in the Bible.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/22/11 05:33 PM

I did an informal survey with several people I know and asked the following questions:

1. Would you be in favor of a law that forces rape victims to marry their rapists?

Answer: absolutely not.

2. Do you think Jesus would be in favor of such a law?

Answer: absolutely not.

3. Does it sound like Deut 22:28-29 requires rape victims to marry their rapists?

Answer: yes.

4. Does the KJV mistranslate certain passages?

Answer: yes.

5. Is it possible the KJV fails to accurately reflect the original meaning of Deut 22:28-29?

Answer: most likely.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/22/11 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I did an informal survey with several people I know and asked the following questions:


Your informal survey proves absolutely nothing about what the Biblical truth is for Deut 22:28-29. Truth is not determined by surveys.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
1. Would you be in favor of a law that forces rape victims to marry their rapists?

Answer: absolutely not.


God did not, nor does not, formulate laws according to what people will be in favor of.’

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
2. Do you think Jesus would be in favor of such a law?

Answer: absolutely not.


Just, exegetically, ask Jesus himself.... Some people think Jesus was in favor of homosexuality.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
3. Does it sound like Deut 22:28-29 requires rape victims to marry their rapists?

Answer: yes.


Only when non-exegetically read, i.e., out of its greater, law unfolding context there.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
4. Does the KJV mistranslate certain passages?

Answer: yes.


While true, at a very high rate, that says nothing about Deut 22:28-29. In the KJV translates some passages just a well or even better than other Bible translations/versions.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
5. Is it possible the KJV fails to accurately reflect the original meaning of Deut 22:28-29?

Answer: most likely.


Exegetically prove it. That is the only valid proof that will make a conclusive difference here.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/23/11 06:30 PM

If initial impression and personal opinion means absolutely nothing why, then, does it play such an important role in the process of conversion? The reason I initially showed an interest in Jesus was because of the godly example of my uncle. I was impressed with him as person and in my opinion I felt good about Christianity.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/23/11 10:03 PM

Because that is not at all the issue or circumstance that I was addressing. I said ‘surveys do not beginning to determine what a Biblical truth should be’. The foundation of such a view is always some degree of exegesis. So you would instead need to first ascertain which Bible version, if any, has the most exegetically accurate translation of that passage. The “popular survey” aspect of this would only have a place after all exegesis has done and it is then being “voted” upon to see who will accept that independent determined and ascertain truth.

In regards to conversion, I’ll take the more general example of Jesus... The living world today can look at Him and perfect life and either decide to follow him or reject him for whatever personal reason/opinion they can come up with. Indeed He is (mostly) rejected, even, effectively, by professed/nominal “believers”, because He is “too good” and thus “no fun”. Or worse, they first popularly decide how he should be, according to their subjective views, and then they are willing to “follow” “him”.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/24/11 07:23 PM

NJK, your comments and responses discourage me from wanting to participate on these forums. Perhaps its time for me to withdraw my membership?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/24/11 10:08 PM

Whatever it takes for you to avoid proving your opinion/views and being Biblical!! Prov 16:18 (cf. 11:2) is the Spiritual diagnosis of your actual, and self-manufactured, problem here!
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/25/11 08:38 AM

topic
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Whatever it takes for you to avoid proving your opinion/views and being Biblical!! Prov 16:18 (cf. 11:2) is the Spiritual diagnosis of your actual, and self-manufactured, problem here!

NJK,

What is the real problem here? What is more important? Proving an opinion or love for one's neighbor? What is the worth of the soul?

"As you have done it to one of the least of these...."

Jesus did not spend much time arguing with the spiritual leaders of His day. We are not to do so either.

There is a dramatic difference between argumentation and fellowship. This forum exists for the latter.

With that in mind, let us get back to the topic here.
back

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/25/11 06:44 PM

NJK, okay, you win. I'm outta here. It's not so much your theology that is driving me away - in particular, it's your cruel and bitter spirit. This situation reminds of the bully in the sandbox. Now that you've driven everyone away - you can have the sandbox all to yourself.
Posted By: glenm

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/25/11 11:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, okay, you win. I'm outta here. It's not so much your theology that is driving me away - in particular, it's your cruel and bitter spirit. This situation reminds of the bully in the sandbox. Now that you've driven everyone away - you can have the sandbox all to yourself.

Hi Mike, I bailed out for similar reasons several weeks ago.

My impression is that the Maritime forums are foundering, and one of the big reasons is because false teachers and fanatics are being catered to.

The other day I ran across an interesting quote, that directly pertains to this situation:

Quote:
There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from Him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence; for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America. The Lord wants His people to act like men and women of sense. {Ev 610.2}

There are all sorts of Bible and EGW statements about not interacting with false teachers and so on, and if we ignore such statements, we're going to get ourselves into ever deeper trouble as the end approaches.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/26/11 02:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
topic
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Whatever it takes for you to avoid proving your opinion/views and being Biblical!! Prov 16:18 (cf. 11:2) is the Spiritual diagnosis of your actual, and self-manufactured, problem here!

NJK,

What is the real problem here? What is more important? Proving an opinion or love for one's neighbor? What is the worth of the soul?

"As you have done it to one of the least of these...."

Jesus did not spend much time arguing with the spiritual leaders of His day. We are not to do so either.

There is a dramatic difference between argumentation and fellowship. This forum exists for the latter.

With that in mind, let us get back to the topic here.
back

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


Seems to me that you can have both Fellowship and Truth. If people just want to spout of their personal views and cannot back up what they say with properly applied Bible and SOP statement, if any, then what’s the use of having a discussion to try to determine what is the Truth on an issue.

I really don’t see what is so “vexing” about asking someone to Biblically substantiate what they are claiming to be Truth.

And if you all begin to be swayed by Mountain Man’s pouting and pity party then you all are just, to say the very least, as (Spiritually) childish as he is.

And don’t eisegetically and subjectively cheapen Christ word in Matt 25:45, and make the word of God of no effect. Seek instead to help those in need who are actually spoken of in that passage, and that includes aborted infants.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/26/11 02:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, okay, you win. I'm outta here. It's not so much your theology that is driving me away - in particular, it's your cruel and bitter spirit. This situation reminds of the bully in the sandbox. Now that you've driven everyone away - you can have the sandbox all to yourself.


You actually defeated yourself. I personally won’t begin to miss, in an SDA Forum, people who can’t back up what they are saying with sound Biblical exegetical Truth. To think that you actually think that I begin to take any blame for any of your actions and decisions is, summarily said, laughable.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/26/11 02:07 AM

Originally Posted By: glenm
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, okay, you win. I'm outta here. It's not so much your theology that is driving me away - in particular, it's your cruel and bitter spirit. This situation reminds of the bully in the sandbox. Now that you've driven everyone away - you can have the sandbox all to yourself.

Hi Mike, I bailed out for similar reasons several weeks ago.

My impression is that the Maritime forums are foundering, and one of the big reasons is because false teachers and fanatics are being catered to.

The other day I ran across an interesting quote, that directly pertains to this situation:

Quote:
There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from Him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence; for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America. The Lord wants His people to act like men and women of sense. {Ev 610.2}

There are all sorts of Bible and EGW statements about not interacting with false teachers and so on, and if we ignore such statements, we're going to get ourselves into ever deeper trouble as the end approaches.


That is the easy thing to do. However for the sake of those who may think that what these false teachers are saying is true, especially in such publically accessible settings, I personally choose to engage them and make them prove that what they are claiming as truth is Biblical.

For people who claim to care so much about their Church, I don’t see much backing up of these claims in concrete actions. Talk about ‘False Shepherds who are only looking out for themselves’ (cf. Isa 56:10-12).
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/26/11 03:43 AM

Originally Posted By: glenm
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, okay, you win. I'm outta here. It's not so much your theology that is driving me away - in particular, it's your cruel and bitter spirit. This situation reminds of the bully in the sandbox. Now that you've driven everyone away - you can have the sandbox all to yourself.

Hi Mike, I bailed out for similar reasons several weeks ago.

My impression is that the Maritime forums are foundering, and one of the big reasons is because false teachers and fanatics are being catered to.

The other day I ran across an interesting quote, that directly pertains to this situation:

Quote:
There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from Him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence; for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America. The Lord wants His people to act like men and women of sense. {Ev 610.2}

There are all sorts of Bible and EGW statements about not interacting with false teachers and so on, and if we ignore such statements, we're going to get ourselves into ever deeper trouble as the end approaches.

Thank you for the great advice and awesome quote. As soon as NJK is banned from these forums things should return to normal. This is the worst infiltration we've encountered.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/26/11 04:25 AM

Read the Forum Rules Mountain Man and you’ll find the steps to take to get that done.... but of course there, you’ll also have to prove/justify your request with factually valid points.
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/27/11 02:37 PM

Quote:
NJK: First of all where in the Bible, Elle, are you getting the punishment of ‘slavery for 50 years’ instead of 7 years, for being unable to pay 50 skekels?

Elle: My words was a maxmum of 49 years according to the law of Jubilee to pay up the sum of 50 shekels of silver + the dowry price. All debts are cancelled at the Jubilee.

NJK : That is again my question. Deut 15:1ff states that debts are to be cancelled at the upcoming 7th year period (i.e., not necessarily after 7 years, but e.g., if the debt was incurred in a 6th year of a sabbatical cycle, it was to be cancelled the next year). So where are you getting this law of ‘up to 49 years’. I only see “up to the 7th year”. Thus they were to be cancelled even long before the Jubilee year.

The debt released on the sabbatical year of the land in Deut 15:1 is only a temporary release which gives the slaves time with their family and a rest for their own soul. Just as we all do every 7th day. On the 8th year they resume their work to their creditor until it is fully paid or until the Jubilee. Whatever comes first.

Quote:
Elle : Well at least according to God’s law, the Israelites never observed it once, nor did they ever gaved rest to the land (and their slaves) every 7 years.

NJK : While that may seem likely, I do not see concrete proof of this in the Bible. As usual, notoriety is usually based on bad/controversial behavior and so we find most of those wayward times recorded in the Bile. However there are many years that are not so recorded and they may have included periods of strict obedient living, indeed long enough to have a perfectly observed Sabbatical Cycle of 7 years or even a Jubilee Cycle of 50 years. And that is even in part because, while Israel did never let their land keep its fallow Sabbath, which is tangibly why they were sent from it off to Babylon (2 Chr 36:20, 21), they may have been distinctly observing the “remissions of debts” aspect of the Law as they would have seen its concrete reason vs. the fallow land requirement which they had to trust God’s wisdom for. Also, as I understand it, the mention of a separate 49 years (7 weeks) in Dan 9:25, is to mark off the first Sabbatical cycle since the restoration (i.e., 457-408 B.C.) and it very well may have been that Israel, since the Sabbatical punishment of the Babylonian deportation was careful to observe the Sabbatical cycles. Their great care for this post-the Captivity is seen in the writings of Josephus which documentedly cover the 400-1 B.C. time period of Israel.

So your wholly dismissive conclusion does not seem to be factual to me.

Is it written in Josephus document that they gave the land a rest every 7 years, temporarily release their slaves debts for the sabbatical year, and release their entire debt on the Jubilee? If so, I would like to see a reference of this. My hunch it is not there for following God to this level requires great spiritual maturity which I don’t believe they have acquired it nor come close to it. I do believe that they did reform to some extend after their captivity experience; however, I’m sure it was a partial and an “outside” reformation with a strong legalistic flavor.

Quote:
Elle = Where did you get the 7 years to pay up 50 shekels? ???Jacob??? If so, with Jacob it was not a 50 shekels price for the bride's dowry he was working for. It was a work agreement because the rich dowry of unknown amount for the bride was stolen before hand and he had nothing to offer. However Jacob had some barganing power for he was an experienced older worker which has more value than a young unexperienced man and he didn’t had sex with her prior like the young man who violated the laws in Ex 22 and Deut 22.

NJK : Not at all. It indeed did not even remotely come to my mind. Deut 15:1ff law for the remission of debt was what I saw addressed this situation.

Deut 15:1 does not address this situation at all. It all depends on how much this young man has to pay up after selling everything he owns to pay partially or wholly. He may have the funds if he comes from a rich family and might escape slavery. Also according to the law of redemption, it allows a close kinship (Ga’al = a redeemer) to pay it up for him.

Quote:
Elle : The laws are define separately. An act can violate several laws. So all the laws violated needs to be accounted for when it is time for judgment. In this situation of Deut 22 which Ex 22 Law is implied in this case, it only specifies the restitution for the father’s name, and defines that the young man has no choice in the matter of marrying or not this young girl. It is up to the father. Whereas in Ex 22, there's a possibility that the younr man may opt to not marry her for it only states the obligation to pay the dowry price in that law. Plus in Deut 22 adds that this young man don’t have the option to put her away all the days of his life.

NJK : I see the “cases” for the laws of Ex 22 & Deut 22 to actually be distinct. Again the punishment was less strict for Exod 22 because, ironically enough it could have been a moment of passion among friends. (And not even the promiscuous equivalent of today’s “friends with benefits” mentality which does not actually necessitate this considered “passion” of the Exod 22 case. However in Deut 22, after stating the general case of what would be a demonstrated rape situation in vs. 23-28 of an engaged woman, which I see also then recursively applies to the rape of a non-engaged woman; the distinct case of a non-engaged woman who manifestly has consented to relation, by never reporting this and them being “discovered,” which could be long after the fact, (e.g., through a parent’s questioning based on various observations, then the penalty in Deut 22:28, 29 applies and the punishment for this demonstrated consensual act of pure lust between two probably strangers is to be, at least forced marriage. So God had a lower tolerance for acts of adultery that were not based on any “understandable” passion at all but mere base behavior..


According to your understanding, I disagree that Ex 22 penalty is less than Deut 22. Let’s do a comparison:

Ex 22 : Sex between Friends without following the laws of betrowal

-Large Dowry Sum : This Young man has to pay the dowry of virgin which will be a maximum sum in his case, plus potentially doubled it for he has stolen this maiden’s virginity. This young man will have no bargaining power for he is in the fault by breaking the bethrowal law, dishonoring the family, dishonoring the law of the land, and bringing shame to this young girl for life.
-May not have the girl as a wife: The law states that the Father may refuse to give his daughter as a bride. It is always the decision of the Father to give the hand of his daughter to whom he deem worthy of her hand. That’s why there is a law of bethrowal in the land. This law requires the young man to come to the father of the maiden and ask for her and bargain a dowry price. This has to be done before courtship.

Deut 22 : Forced Sex between Strangers

-50 Shekels of Silver :This sum could be less than most dowry bartering. I don’t know how much is 50 shekels is terms of relevancy in their time. Do you know how many years of average labor does this represents?
-No Dowry to pay: This dishonor the brides and does not bring justice to the fact that the betroth law was broken.
-Has the girl as a wife:The law does state that he cannot put her away.

Conclusion : This comparison shows that the Forced sex infraction has less of retribution than the consented sex between “friends”. It is because we are not taking account that the man that committed the crime of Deut 22 has also broken the law of betrothment that Ex 22 address. Only by taken into account all broken laws with the Deut 22 crime, can true justice be served and will bring Deut 22 retribution greater than Ex 22.

Quote:
Elle : Laws has it’s limitation of what it can describe. That’s why the people could come to the king and have a fair trial when the laws didn’t cover their specific case.

NJK : That indeed was to be the function of the king, which as several texts in the Bible shows was first and foremost a Supreme Judge..

I’m sure you are agreeing that first; the people had to try to settle the injustice between themselves by applying the law of the land. Then if they couldn’t resolve the matter, then they needed to proceed accordingly to a minimal to what is defined in their time and society. I disagree that it was first to go to the Supreme Court. We don’t even do that today. Before hand, there’s smaller court proceedings that has to be first.

The proper procedure to proceed depended on the time of the infraction -- before or after Israel had a King. Before Kings ruled over Israel, in Ex 18:25 Moses had set up a hierarchy of heads over the people to settle matters before to come to Moses or Aaron to judge the people. There were men set up over 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s people. The Supreme Court (to come to Moses or Aaron) was the last resort.

I don’t know if this hierarchy system was still in place after Kings were appointed over Israel. Probably not. And I haven’t studied if they were set up in some ways with smaller court room before coming to the king.

There is another level of settling matters which applied in both before and after kings it was via the Ga’al of the family. The Ga’al was the spiritual leader of the family which has two main function: (1) to insure justice was met for the victim (acted as an avenger of the blood) or (2) came to redeem a kinsman(acted as a redeemer). So in many situation, a case can be potentially be discuss and resolved between the Ga’al of both families, if the family had one representing them. The Ga’al was a type of lawyer just like Christ is for us.

Quote:
Elle : You read it again NJK, it first address(v.25-27) if the damsel is in the field and is betrothed, then v. 28 address if that damsel is not betrothed and uses specifically the word taphas -- to capture, seize. So because of the word taphas, it seems to be a continuance of v.25-27 by addressing the case in this situation if the damsel is not betrothed.

NJK: The distinction here and why “capture” has to be used is that this is neither an act of passion as in Exod 22, nor rape as in vs. 23-27. The “capturing” implies at least a non-planned relation, but one that was manifestly eventually consented with none the less and only brought to light when those two were “discovered”. And this “capturing” may have simply been a verbal convincing. The key word to me is that they were “discovered” and that is why they both are punished.

I disagree. The Hebrew word employed here( taphas --to capture, seize) implies a forced relationship. If it was a consensus relationship like you and MM are suggesting here, then there was other word as employ in Ex 22(pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”).

The word “discovered” does not only implied that they were secretly concealing your propose flinging affair. It can also imply that this young man could of threatened this young maiden, or she might feel guilty for many reasons and by fear she was silence. As this is often the case with young girls today who are silence when men has improperly engaged in sexual affairs with them.

Quote:
So I see the laws not imposing marriage for actual rape also applying to a non-engaged woman. Only where there is concealment of the act and it had to be “discovered” thus there really is no way of judicially telling what the actual circumstance was, that both parties are default held responsible for it.

I disagree with you.
#1. You are disregarding and making null the Law of betrothment
# 2 You are disregarding and making null that man has a responsibility over woman. It is man that is placed above the woman in creation by the fact that man was first created and woman was taken out of man. According to 1 Co 11:3, the order of God has placed man in direct subjection to Christ. Woman is placed under man. Man has the charge to keep the law and to subdue all under him. Man has the responsibility to keep his family in order. And that’s why there is the law of betrothment in place in society like Israel and other societies still today. Before courting a woman, this young man has the obligation to see the Father of the damsel and tell him his intention. If he doesn’t do this, this young man is dishonoring everyone and it is a crime against everyone and he alone is responsible for this crime whether this young girl teased him before hand, or it was a act “between friends”, or it was an act of “passion”, or whatever. All reasons has no weight on putting the offense on the woman regardless if this maiden is a whore in heart or not.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/28/11 03:46 AM


Due to the fact. Elle, that this particular, and actually, side issue in this polygamy topic further is not a personally pressing issue for me to currently seek to accurately understand, I cannot engage in an in depth discussion on it. However I’ll state the following succinct answers to your responses:

Originally Posted By: Elle
The debt released on the sabbatical year of the land in Deut 15:1 is only a temporary release which gives the slaves time with their family and a rest for their own soul. Just as we all do every 7th day. On the 8th year they resume their work to their creditor until it is fully paid or until the Jubilee. Whatever comes first.


I still need to see a Scriptural support for that. I personally do not see that any enslavement of Israelites in Israel can ever extend beyond 7 years and Deut 15 laws seem to wholly cover that topic.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Is it written in Josephus document that they gave the land a rest every 7 years, temporarily release their slaves debts for the sabbatical year, and release their entire debt on the Jubilee? If so, I would like to see a reference of this. My hunch it is not there for following God to this level requires great spiritual maturity which I don’t believe they have acquired it nor come close to it. I do believe that they did reform to some extend after their captivity experience; however, I’m sure it was a partial and an “outside” reformation with a strong legalistic flavor.


From what I recall off the top of my head, you are quite correct here in saying that this post-captivity was merely for form and not out of deep Spiritual conviction. Indeed that hypocritical ‘outward show’ demeanor is what Jesus had to principally battle against by the 1st century A.D. I indeed do recall many instances in Josephus where Sabbatical years were mentioned, but as you say, the Socio-economic and Spiritual requirements in those laws were probably ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Elle
Deut 15:1 does not address this situation at all. It all depends on how much this young man has to pay up after selling everything he owns to pay partially or wholly. He may have the funds if he comes from a rich family and might escape slavery. Also according to the law of redemption, it allows a close kinship (Ga’al = a redeemer) to pay it up for him.


...

Originally Posted By: Elle
...The Ga’al was the spiritual leader of the family which has two main function: (1) to insure justice was met for the victim (acted as an avenger of the blood) or (2) came to redeem a kinsman(acted as a redeemer). So in many situation, a case can be potentially be discuss and resolved between the Ga’al of both families, if the family had one representing them. The Ga’al was a type of lawyer just like Christ is for us.


Seems to me that any enslaving debt, as this imposed dowry debt was, could/should be forgiven by the Deut 15 laws. It also seems to me that the aiding, law of redemption provisions, were available to avoid two people truly in love from being able to marry.

Originally Posted By: Elle
According to your understanding, I disagree that Ex 22 penalty is less than Deut 22. Let’s do a comparison:

Ex 22 : Sex between Friends without following the laws of betrowal

-Large Dowry Sum : This Young man has to pay the dowry of virgin which will be a maximum sum in his case, plus potentially doubled it for he has stolen this maiden’s virginity. This young man will have no bargaining power for he is in the fault by breaking the bethrowal law, dishonoring the family, dishonoring the law of the land, and bringing shame to this young girl for life.
-May not have the girl as a wife: The law states that the Father may refuse to give his daughter as a bride. It is always the decision of the Father to give the hand of his daughter to whom he deem worthy of her hand. That’s why there is a law of bethrowal in the land. This law requires the young man to come to the father of the maiden and ask for her and bargain a dowry price. This has to be done before courtship.

Deut 22 : Forced Sex between Strangers

-50 Shekels of Silver :This sum could be less than most dowry bartering. I don’t know how much is 50 shekels is terms of relevancy in their time. Do you know how many years of average labor does this represents?
-No Dowry to pay: This dishonor the brides and does not bring justice to the fact that the betroth law was broken.
-Has the girl as a wife:The law does state that he cannot put her away.

Conclusion : This comparison shows that the Forced sex infraction has less of retribution than the consented sex between “friends”. It is because we are not taking account that the man that committed the crime of Deut 22 has also broken the law of betrothment that Ex 22 address. Only by taken into account all broken laws with the Deut 22 crime, can true justice be served and will bring Deut 22 retribution greater than Ex 22.


It seems quite straightforward to me that if someone only wanted a fling, and had to even “convince” someone else to do so, then being forced to permanently marry that person alone was quite a punishment. Indeed, that punishment pointedly said that ‘that offender could not freely sleep around and furthermore could never lawfully, and thus at the penalty of death for “statutory adultery” ever have a marital relationship with anyone else. So that law alone really nailed in the bud a person casually sleeping with someone they don’t even like at all because if they were ever “discovered”, he would be stuck with that person forever. That then left pre-marital relationship amongst actual close friends and Exod 22 understandingly”, yet still justly and strictly, covered that potential sinning course.

Originally Posted By: Elle
I’m sure you are agreeing that first; the people had to try to settle the injustice between themselves by applying the law of the land. Then if they couldn’t resolve the matter, then they needed to proceed accordingly to a minimal to what is defined in their time and society. I disagree that it was first to go to the Supreme Court. We don’t even do that today. Before hand, there’s smaller court proceedings that has to be first.

The proper procedure to proceed depended on the time of the infraction -- before or after Israel had a King. Before Kings ruled over Israel, in Ex 18:25 Moses had set up a hierarchy of heads over the people to settle matters before to come to Moses or Aaron to judge the people. There were men set up over 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s people. The Supreme Court (to come to Moses or Aaron) was the last resort.

I don’t know if this hierarchy system was still in place after Kings were appointed over Israel. Probably not. And I haven’t studied if they were set up in some ways with smaller court room before coming to the king. ...

You completely misunderstood me here. I did not say that the King was the ‘first and foremost’ resolution recourse in Israel, but that the function of the king was first and foremost that of judging. E.g., when Absalom wanted to demonstrate that he should be made king, he did so by showing how good of a judge he was. (2 Sam 15:2-6).


Of course this was, more than likely always, at a “Supreme Court” level taking the position of Moses, but that is besides my point that the King was to mainly decision such cases and other non-cases judicious matters. I had to do an in depth study on this topic in the course of my work on the 70 Weeks as it explained how and why the pointed stipulation in Ezra 7:25, 26 did indeed cause Israel to regain its lost political power, even if they were still ultimately under the authority of the Persian Empire.

Originally Posted By: Elle
There is another level of settling matters which applied in both before and after kings it was via the Ga’al of the family.


Didn’t the law of redemption have to (only) do with Levirate duties?? (e.g., Ruth 4:6, 7). If you don’t think/see so, state the reference where these laws as you are applying them in this situation are found in the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Elle
I disagree. The Hebrew word employed here( taphas --to capture, seize) implies a forced relationship. If it was a consensus relationship like you and MM are suggesting here, then there was other word as employ in Ex 22(pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”).

The word “discovered” does not only implied that they were secretly concealing your propose flinging affair. It can also imply that this young man could of threatened this young maiden, or she might feel guilty for many reasons and by fear she was silence. As this is often the case with young girls today who are silence when men has improperly engaged in sexual affairs with them.


I won’t presently be exhaustively examining the exegetical details here, but the context seems to me to support that this was, at the very least, and non-physically convinced-to-go-along relation, indeed when jointly considered with a “discovering” needed to find it out. As laws today cover, this was also an ‘aiding and abetting crime after the fact’, and thus any claim of “rape” was automatically rendered unsupportable.

Give that the penalty for rape was death of the rapist, then that woman, threatened or not, had absolutely nothing to lose nor fear by denouncing this criminal and having him taken into custody. It was only expected and intuitive for her to seek to protect her honor at any cost and the law and judicial system was entirely in her favor, and if everything else failed there was always the Court of God Himself who could injunctively decide an unresolvable issue. So any covering up here was out of a preference to do so and was then only seen as a stemming from a consent .

Originally Posted By: Elle
I disagree with you.
#1. You are disregarding and making null the Law of betrothment
# 2 You are disregarding and making null that man has a responsibility over woman. It is man that is placed above the woman in creation by the fact that man was first created and woman was taken out of man. According to 1 Co 11:3, the order of God has placed man in direct subjection to Christ. Woman is placed under man. Man has the charge to keep the law and to subdue all under him. Man has the responsibility to keep his family in order. And that’s why there is the law of betrothment in place in society like Israel and other societies still today. Before courting a woman, this young man has the obligation to see the Father of the damsel and tell him his intention. If he doesn’t do this, this young man is dishonoring everyone and it is a crime against everyone and he alone is responsible for this crime whether this young girl teased him before hand, or it was a act “between friends”, or it was an act of “passion”, or whatever. All reasons has no weight on putting the offense on the woman regardless if this maiden is a whore in heart or not.


Generally said, which to me manifestly can/should address this whole point, I rather see that the Man and Woman were originally on an equal status and it was only after Eve first and convinced Adam to sin (Gen 3:17a) that she was to be ‘ruled over by her husband’ (Gen 3:16b).
Posted By: Elle

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/30/11 03:49 PM

Quote:
Elle : The debt released on the sabbatical year of the land in Deut 15:1 is only a temporary release which gives the slaves time with their family and a rest for their own soul. Just as we all do every 7th day. On the 8th year they resume their work to their creditor until it is fully paid or until the Jubilee. Whatever comes first.

NJK : I still need to see a Scriptural support for that. I personally do not see that any enslavement of Israelites in Israel can ever extend beyond 7 years and Deut 15 laws seem to wholly cover that topic.

Wow! Isn’t it amazing that we do not even know the most important law of all laws which is the ultimate Sabbath of all Sabbaths. This Law is the basis of the plan of salvation. You will find the Law of Jubilee in the entire chapter in Lev 25. The basic is the following:

(1) Sin is the breaking of the Law. All sins/crime are reckoned as a debt. Mat 6:12
(2) A debt has to be paid to his victim = Restitution which hard cases are determine by a judge (Ex 22:1-22; Deut 17:8-13)
(3) If he doesn’t have the money to pay up, then he has to sell everything(possession and land) he owns until the sum is gatered. If he still doesn’t have enough funds, then he(& family) is sold to slavery to work off his debt. (Ex 22:3; Lev 25)
(4) The selling of the land is really only a lease according to the value of what it can produced yearly until the coming Jubilee. Lev 25:15,16,23 Lev 27:16
(5) A near kinsman has the right to buy off the debt at any time. Lev 25:24-28, 48-49, 50-52
(6) If he wasn’t redeemed, all debts are cancelled at the Jubilee, no matter how large the remaining of the debt is or if he incurred additional debts. Every man returns to their land and family at Jubilee(DOA of the 49th year). Lev 25:8-13,28,54
(7) The Jubilee is not a choice, it is an obligation that God has declared as LAW.


Quote:
Elle: Deut 15:1 does not address this situation at all. It all depends on how much this young man has to pay up after selling everything he owns to pay partially or wholly. He may have the funds if he comes from a rich family and might escape slavery. Also according to the law of redemption, it allows a close kinship (Ga’al = a redeemer) to pay it up for him.

...

Elle:...The Ga’al was the spiritual leader of the family which has two main function: (1) to insure justice was met for the victim (acted as an avenger of the blood) or (2) came to redeem a kinsman(acted as a redeemer). So in many situation, a case can be potentially be discuss and resolved between the Ga’al of both families, if the family had one representing them. The Ga’al was a type of lawyer just like Christ is for us.

NJK : Seems to me that any enslaving debt, as this imposed dowry debt was, could/should be forgiven by the Deut 15 laws

No! Deut 15 does not forgive the debt. God put the law of the rest of the land every 7 year for us, so we would take a sabbatical year from our work. This law includes the slaves, the servants, the sojourners -- everyone in the land. This is what Deut 15 is addressing… all debt are to be released for that year; however it is not erased. It is only erased at the Jubilee in Lev 25.
Originally Posted By: NJK
. It also seems to me that the aiding, law of redemption provisions, were available to avoid two people truly in love from being able to marry.

I’m not following you nor understanding what you are trying to say? Could you please re-word it.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
According to your understanding, I disagree that Ex 22 penalty is less than Deut 22. Let’s do a comparison:

Ex 22 : Sex between Friends without following the laws of betrowal

-Large Dowry Sum : This Young man has to pay the dowry of virgin which will be a maximum sum in his case, plus potentially doubled it for he has stolen this maiden’s virginity. This young man will have no bargaining power for he is in the fault by breaking the bethrowal law, dishonoring the family, dishonoring the law of the land, and bringing shame to this young girl for life.
-May not have the girl as a wife: The law states that the Father may refuse to give his daughter as a bride. It is always the decision of the Father to give the hand of his daughter to whom he deem worthy of her hand. That’s why there is a law of bethrowal in the land. This law requires the young man to come to the father of the maiden and ask for her and bargain a dowry price. This has to be done before courtship.

Deut 22 : Forced Sex between Strangers

-50 Shekels of Silver :This sum could be less than most dowry bartering. I don’t know how much is 50 shekels is terms of relevancy in their time. Do you know how many years of average labor does this represents?
-No Dowry to pay: This dishonor the brides and does not bring justice to the fact that the betroth law was broken.
-Has the girl as a wife:The law does state that he cannot put her away.

Conclusion : This comparison shows that the Forced sex infraction has less of retribution than the consented sex between “friends”. It is because we are not taking account that the man that committed the crime of Deut 22 has also broken the law of betrothment that Ex 22 address. Only by taken into account all broken laws with the Deut 22 crime, can true justice be served and will bring Deut 22 retribution greater than Ex 22.

It seems quite straightforward to me that if someone only wanted a fling, and had to even “convince” someone else to do so, then being forced to permanently marry that person alone was quite a punishment. Indeed, that punishment pointedly said that ‘that offender could not freely sleep around and furthermore could never lawfully, and thus at the penalty of death for “statutory adultery” ever have a marital relationship with anyone else. So that law alone really nailed in the bud a person casually sleeping with someone they don’t even like at all because if they were ever “discovered”, he would be stuck with that person forever. That then left pre-marital relationship amongst actual close friends and Exod 22 understandingly”, yet still justly and strictly, covered that potential sinning course.

These are pure unreasonable diversions to offset the real issue at hand. What’s the problem NJK? Why don’t you want to acknowledge the word taphas used in Deut 22? Why don’t you want to admit that there’s more than your suppose reason that this was kept “secret”? The facts that you cannot see these shows that you are not objectional and not seeking truth in this discussion.

First, what you said doesn’t stand for in those days, woman were highly subjected to their man and it was highly the norm. It was not like what we see today. So if there’s someone to “be stuck” with another and being oppress, it is moreso the woman who has to endure being coerce into sex and work for the rest of her life to a foolish man. The fact that this man used forced(taphas) to get what he wanted initially shows that he is not a meek or kind man. Plus, in was lawful for men in those days could have several woman which makes the situation less possible for one particular woman to have power over the man. If she was too obstinate then he doesn’t have to sleep with her again or probably rape her if oppression/force is a type of kick for him. The point is that he has more the ability to make her life quite miserable for according to the laws and the ways of the land -- (1)he is the head/master of the house, and (2)he can have more than one wife if he desires. For sure the woman can complain which he has to endure, but he has the assumed right to beat her and to punish her because he is in authority. Whereas the woman doesn’t and her say has no weight especially to a foolish oppressive man.

So please, address the situation according to what scripture says and address the question at hand when you said that Deut 22 penalty was greater than Ex 22 which it is not.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
There is another level of settling matters which applied in both before and after kings it was via the Ga’al of the family.

Didn’t the law of redemption have to (only) do with Levirate duties?? (e.g., Ruth 4:6, 7).

??? Where did you get that??? Are the Levites the nearest kinsman to all the Israelites? No they were not and they were not considered as such. There were many NEARER kins. Just as Boaz was a near kinsman, but there was another that was nearer than he. So the nearest kin had the first right to redeem Ruth.
Ruth 2: 12 “And now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. 13 Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives.

Her closer relative didn’t want to redeem Ruth because he had to marry her according to the law of Deut 25 (see Josephus in Antiquities, V, ix, 4) and he had to produce an heir for Ruth’s deceased husband Mahlon. Basically, all of the property Elimelech and Naomi had, would of went to Ruth’s child according to the law in Deut 25:5-10. So without marying Ruth he would of gladly taken up the property of Elimelech which he had already claimed, however when Boaz challenged him that he had to take account of the whole law and not only partially, then there was no more real financial incentive for the closest relative to redeem Ruth and Naomi, if he had to marry her.
Originally Posted By: NJK
If you don’t think/see so, state the reference where these laws as you are applying them in this situation are found in the Bible.

First in Ex 22:4 a man can redeem his own trepass by restoring double its value, and in Lev 27:13-33 a man can redeem his vow(his own person or property that he had sanctified(given) to the Lord) by paying the value of it plus 1/5. So trepasses, vows, or no heirs, or natural disasters like drought like the possible case of Naomi and Elimelech to have moved in foreign land, can make so that we loose our possession. The nearest kinsman has the right to these possession before anyone(Num 27:11). This is the law that Elimelech closest kin was taking into account, however, he didn’t want to honor the law in Deut 25.

The main laws directly referring to the nearest kinsman’s right of redemption is found in Lev 25:25-54 and in Num 5:8. This is the law that gaved the right to Jesus to redeem Israel (by being from the line of Judah) and the world(by being born as a man -- the second Adam).
Originally Posted By: NJK
Give that the penalty for rape was death of the rapist, then that woman, threatened or not, had absolutely nothing to lose nor fear by denouncing this criminal and having him taken into custody. It was only expected and intuitive for her to seek to protect her honor at any cost and the law and judicial system was entirely in her favor, and if everything else failed there was always the Court of God Himself who could injunctively decide an unresolvable issue. So any covering up here was out of a preference to do so and was then only seen as a stemming from a consent .

I failed to correct your underlined assumed statement above in the previous post. If you read the discussion(page 7, 9,11-15, this point was clearly crossed examined and you are unbiblically in aggreement with MM which Green and I disagree in your interpretation. A man is put to death on the basis of committing adultery and not for commiting rape.

So you are basing your interpretation on a false assumption and that’s why you chooose to disregard explicit words like taphas describing the situation in Deut 22:28 and consider the sequential logic this law is presented so to support your unbiblical interpretation.
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
I disagree. The Hebrew word employed here( taphas --to capture, seize) implies a forced relationship. If it was a consensus relationship like you and MM are suggesting here, then there was other word as employ in Ex 22(pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”).

The word “discovered” does not only implied that they were secretly concealing your propose flinging affair. It can also imply that this young man could of threatened this young maiden, or she might feel guilty for many reasons and by fear she was silence. As this is often the case with young girls today who are silence when men has improperly engaged in sexual affairs with them.


I won’t presently be exhaustively examining the exegetical details here, but the context seems to me to support that this was, at the very least, and non-physically convinced-to-go-along relation, indeed when jointly considered with a “discovering” needed to find it out. As laws today cover, this was also an ‘aiding and abetting crime after the fact’, and thus any claim of “rape” was automatically rendered unsupportable.

Give that the penalty for rape was death of the rapist, then that woman, threatened or not, had absolutely nothing to lose nor fear by denouncing this criminal and having him taken into custody. It was only expected and intuitive for her to seek to protect her honor at any cost and the law and judicial system was entirely in her favor, and if everything else failed there was always the Court of God Himself who could injunctively decide an unresolvable issue. So any covering up here was out of a preference to do so and was then only seen as a stemming from a consent .

Originally Posted By: Elle
I disagree with you.
#1. You are disregarding and making null the Law of betrothment
# 2 You are disregarding and making null that man has a responsibility over woman. It is man that is placed above the woman in creation by the fact that man was first created and woman was taken out of man. According to 1 Co 11:3, the order of God has placed man in direct subjection to Christ. Woman is placed under man. Man has the charge to keep the law and to subdue all under him. Man has the responsibility to keep his family in order. And that’s why there is the law of betrothment in place in society like Israel and other societies still today. Before courting a woman, this young man has the obligation to see the Father of the damsel and tell him his intention. If he doesn’t do this, this young man is dishonoring everyone and it is a crime against everyone and he alone is responsible for this crime whether this young girl teased him before hand, or it was a act “between friends”, or it was an act of “passion”, or whatever. All reasons has no weight on putting the offense on the woman regardless if this maiden is a whore in heart or not.


Generally said, which to me manifestly can/should address this whole point, I rather see that the Man and Woman were originally on an equal status and it was only after Eve first and convinced Adam to sin (Gen 3:17a) that she was to be ‘ruled over by her husband’ (Gen 3:16b).

I know what you are saying above is what we have been taught in the church and is echoed in other denominations and the equality of man and woman is highly esteemed in the world. I do not agree with this stand for it is in contradiction with 1Co 11:3 and many other laws and principles depicted in scriptures. And it’s not because Eve fell that woman are in submission to man. Paul clearly explains that the order of God is establish due to the order of creation -- Man was created first and that Eve was taken out of man(v.12), and Eve was created for man and not vice versa(v.9). She is to be a help meet to man. So it has always been so and always will be for what God has establish is forever, for God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Your are not taken into account that the law of bethothment has been broken with the act of Deut 22. So like Boaz said to Ruth’s nearest Kinman, “Thou must not remember the laws by halves, but do everything according to them;…” Josephus Antiquities, V, ix, 4
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: The Bible and Polygamy - 07/31/11 12:57 AM

Again due to the lack of time Elle, I have for this side issue, here are my succinctly answers to your above response post, (indeed not even addressing, as I should, your several, factually speaking, variously subjectively, even biasedly, baseless, hyperbolic points couchings). I may have missed several minor points.

As I see it:

-I am not exegetically seeing/applying Lev 25 as you, non possibly enough to me, spiritually to another law. In the Pentateuch God actually states a law and stipulation fully and does not depend on the spiritualization of one law to understand another one. So in the Law itself, “debt” was not ‘spiritually sin’ [contra. your Point (1) fundamental view basis here] and furthermore n Matt 6:2 Jesus was speaking figuratively/illustratively. Your other points could easily also be debunked even if as defaultly ‘thus non/no longer -applicable,’ but my time fails me.

-The Law stipulations in Exo 22:4 are distinctly for thefts not rape. You are unjustifiedly confusing the laws here.

-Deut 15:1, 2 is clear that the debt is fully remitted. The debts of the Jubilee are also not for incurred debts as in Deut 15, but for the distinctly poor (e.g., sudden death of physical provider in the family). As an illustration the 7 year cycle was the emergency Employment insurance provision for people who cold actually repay it by the end of that cycle. The Jubilee was the more involved Welfare provision when the economy of Israel was wholly set aright, debt or not debt. I.e, properties were returned and fairly reallocated.

-I was saying that the law of redemption in regards to marriage was to help people get married if money was an obstacle. The redemption of properties in the Jubilees seems quite distinct to me. Also marriage Levirate redemption does not apply to a sin penalty payment aiding. Indeed it is not even a “redemption”.

-I am actually straightly going by you provided definition for taphas in #134834 which I see with the example given by Mountain Man of potentially having a figurative/non literal force, thus a mental convincing to consent. The issue of being discovered is determinatively key to me.

-In a forced marriage, both parties are equally “penalized”. I didn’t actually mean it from the male perspective only, that is however from where the Bible is stating this law.

-If a woman with a 100% chance of conviction, especially for a quick reporting neither scream for, nor reports a rape after the fact, then the only judicially logical conclusion was that she somehow consented to it. And like I said, in case of a wrong decision for either party, there was always the possibility to appeal to God through the priest (cf. Num 5:11-31).

-“Levirate” does not refer to Levites but to “The biblical institution whereby a man must marry the widow of his childless brother in order to maintain the brother's line”

-Deut 22:25-27: ‘(Only) The rapist was to be put to death’.

-Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 11:3 does not negate what was supposed to be before sin and particularly how it came to occur.

-In Deut 22:28, 29, which is what is pointedly under discussion here, there is no “betrothment”. It is just an act of consensual non-marital sexual relation(s).
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church