Since you answered my post within your quote, I hope I don't misunderstand any of your responses due to that. Also, I had to split this in two due to character restrictions.
I said:
BroRoyVa79 said:
First, God created One man and One woman and ordained their union.
Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and
female he created them.
(Emphasis mine)
The Hebrew words here for male
(zakar) and female (
nĕqebah) are not in the plural form, nor is "them" in the Hebrew, but the "them" there is talking about the man and woman.
You replied:
So, if we apply your system of interpretation to other areas of scripture, we find ourselves with a problem:
[Pro 22:6 KJV] 6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Given your logic, a father is limited to training up only ONE of his plural children in the way he or she should go....that is, if we are to inject meaning into the
Genesis 1:27 or any other verse where singular is pitted against the lack of plural. What system if interpretation is that? It smacks of a level of Eisegetical subjectivism that causes me discomfort to say the least.
It is a system of interpretation that deals with the context (linguistic, cultural, historical, literary etc.) of the Bible as written. It is only with the Bible that people (and other things when people want to do this, but mostly the Bible) that people like to play fast and loose with interpretations.
Plus, what I provided was not an interpretation. It was using the Bible, what was in the text, to deduce what God's answer would be regarding polygamy.
Your rebuttal takes Proverbs 22:6 out of context in an attempt to try to rebut Genesis 1:27 that I took in context. Especially when we already know God ordained couples to have multiple children so we know from that revelation that Proverbs 22:6 is figurative expression teaching a lesson applicable to multiple children the couple would have. Also, especially given Proverbs is poetic in genre meaning it is full of figurative expressions meant to teach lessons.
Whereas, Genesis 1:27; 2:24-25 is establishing a fundamental definition of God's ordained union between a man and a woman.
Also, where in scripture does God ordain, bless, whatever that specifically says that one man/many women marriages/unions, or any other different marriage/union are okay as compared to the obvious passages that shows God prefers one man/one woman marriages? Please show me.
I said:
BroRoyVa79 said:
God went on to tell them to be fruitful and multiply after blessing them (Gen 1:28).
You replied:
Don't forget that God also left Adam's offspring blood brothers and sisters to have sex with one another in order to have children, which was an ongoing practice until Moses penned the Law against such.
I don't have a problem with Adam and Eve's children intermarrying early in human history to populate the earth. Nor do I have a problem with the grandchildren of Noah and his wife doing the same. But that is not the point of this topic. That is incest, which was necessary to initially populate the world and repopulate it after the flood. Once the population was at an adequate level, God dealt with it. Plus, we aren't talking about incest, we are talking about polygamy.
I said:
BroRoyVa79 said:
Jesus quotes and interprets both of these verses when asked about divorce:
Matthew 19: 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “
Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Notice here Jesus says the two shall become one flesh, not the many shall become one flesh. Not the three, not the four, not the five, but the two shall become one flesh.
You replied:
Again, this really isn't saying much of anything. God gave to Adam one wife, and to David He gave two additional wives in addition to the other two or three he already had. (shrug) So what? Adam having only one wife well establishes that we all originated from the same two parents. Just imagine hoe much worse racism would have been had Adam been given more than one wife. Sheesh. It's bad enough already.
First, Jesus quoting Genesis says a lot. God establishes His original plan for humanity in Genesis, it is foundational to theology found throughout the rest of the Bible. In Genesis, God didn't create two women, one man, He created one man and one woman and went on to bless their union.
Thousands of years later, God in the flesh, Jesus, when asked a question in the context of marriage reiterates the original plan God had for man and woman, that it was meant to be a one man/one woman unbroken union. I don't know how else to emphasize that point.
Second, David's wives. Only eight are mentioned by name in scripture and only three are given great details about their involvements with David.
Michal was given to David by Saul, her father, in an attempt for Saul to use Michal to keep tabs on David. This was after David turned down Merab, Saul's eldest daughter. It was Saul's servants who were instructed by Saul who persuaded David to marry Michal. In that entire situation, David didn't go to God once about the situation. He performed the task of killing 200 Philistines, a task Saul set because he thought the Philistines would kill David, but they didn't. Yes, the Lord protected David in all this due to who David was meant to be, but David did not go to the Lord about Michal. There was no "David you shall marry Michal" from the Lord. There's not even a strong implication. The only implication here is that God protected David from Saul's schemes to kill him and Michal loved David. That's it. Beyond that, God was with David as He had been since David's birth since God had chosen him to replace Saul. There's nothing in this text to indicate God blessed David's future polygamy. See:
1 Samuel 18-19.
Quoted passage for emphasis:
1 Samuel 18: 21 Saul thought, “Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David a second time, “You shall now be my son-in-law.” (ESV, Emphasis mine)
Abigail was initially the wife of Nabal, a man who was known to be inhospitable, worthless, rude, etc. David, while away from home, tried to, in so many words, get work by sending some of his men to guard Nabal's men. Instead, Nabal's men were rude to David's soldiers. Thus, David sought to repay Nabal by killing Nabal's flock. Abigail went to David and appeased his anger. When Abigail went back to her husband, Nabal, and told him that David's army had come to kill him had she not intervened the man a heart attack and about ten days later the Lord took him away. (1 Sam:25:37-38) Afterward, it was David who sent for Abigail and married her. It wasn't God who sent her to him or him to her. See:
1 Samuel 25.
Quoted passages for emphasis:
1 Samuel 25: 39 When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the Lord who has avenged the insult I received at the hand of Nabal, and has kept back his servant from wrongdoing. The Lord has returned the evil of Nabal on his own head.” Then David sent and spoke to Abigail, to take her as his wife. (ESV, Emphasis mine)
1 Samuel 25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and both of them became his wives. 44 Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was of Gallim. (ESV, Emphasis mine)
Notice something here. Although we know Saul didn't like David, it appears Saul also didn't like David marrying another woman as he gave Michal to another man. Interesting. Yes, I know David got her back, but their story
(David and Michal) is not one of peace and harmony after this.
Bathsheba, her story with David is well known and is used to show the dangers of infidelity. Yet, we're not talking about infidelity now, we're talking about polygamy and as shown, Saul gave a wife to David then took her away when David married two other women whom David took for himself. To say God gave these women to David ignores what the recorded text tells us. Still, David saw Bathsheba, saw that she was beautiful, lusted after her then when he found out she was pregnant, he killed her legal husband to try to cover for his sins. To say God gave David Bathsheba is to say God was okaying infidelity and murder to cover one's sins. This also ignores that God sent Nathan to rebuke David immediately after this and through David's actions, his womanizing I might add, he cursed his household. So to look at this and say somehow God was alright with David's practice of polygamy when it led to this is definitely reading that into the text. See:
2 Samuel 11 and 12.
Now beyond Abigail, Michal, and Bathsheba, the rest of David's wives are listed in genealogies. See:
2 Samuel 3:2-5 and its counterpart
1 Chronicles 3:1-3, and unnamed wives as recorded in
2 Samuel 5:13.
Nothing in these texts indicate God wholesale said "Polygamy is alright," as I said. At the least, God worked with flawed human beings as He's always done.
I said:
BroRoyVa79 said:
Now, yes, the direct subject is divorce, but within that subject is the context of marriage and Jesus states marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman, not many women and one man or many men and one woman or whatever else.
You replied:
No. Jesus at no time, in that context, stated anything in relation to the number of wives to which a man is limited. Divorce is the exact opposite of marriage, so twisting that context into the subjective form of your choosing is highly suspect for an agenda moreso than reading scripture for what it says.
The context of divorce is marriage. You can't have a divorce without being in a marriage first. Yes, it's the end of a marriage, but marriage is the beginning of a divorce. Get it?
So the Pharisees asked about divorce. Jesus replied that marriage was never intended to be something that would be broken by quoting Genesis and stating that God made one man and one woman and for that reason a man will leave his parents and marry his wife (singular in the Greek). He didn't say a man would leave his parents and marry his wives.
I stated the direct context, but there is also an implication there of what marriage is since Jesus reiterates the fundamental passages of Genesis that also define marriage.
I said:
BroRoyVa79 said:
Yes, the Bible records that in ancient times even people of God practiced polygamy just like they practiced other taboo things that people around them practiced and God worked with them despite that. God did not wholesale say, "Polygamy is okay."
You replied:
He also never said that being pushed out to the moon on a huge thurst of flame was ok either, but we have done that several times now (except in the minds of conspiracy theorists).
Moot, we're talking about Biblical support of polygamy. One could argue God giving mankind dominion over creation allows for mankind to venture into the cosmos, but that is another topic.
You also replied:
Look, trying to argue a negative is almost always problematic. The Lord commanded the taking of an additional wife in some cases, the Patriarchs possessed plural wives. Don't you suppose that had God not been happy with such, that surely the Lord would have said SOMETHING to to at least ONE of them? I mean, come on. Let's get real.
Pleas show me where God commanded the taking of additional wives by the Patriarchs and that it is not the Patriarchs doing this on their own or anyone else other than God encouraging the Patriarchs to practice this. Nor can it be that later God is just using their flawed nature and flawed decisions to work good. Please show me supporting texts.
God spoke specifically against this for kings when He established a people for Himself because He knew it would cause problems.
(See Solomon)
Deuteronomy 17:17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. (ESV, Emphasis mine)
Just because the Bible records later or before that men and women didn't hold to God's original plan or his commands, doesn't mean He was alright with it. Just because at that moment He didn't always or doesn't always strike someone dead when they do something, doesn't mean He is alright with it.
Numbers 14: 18 The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
2 Peter 3: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
To add to this, later in the New Testament, again when guidelines for his people are established, Church leaders, monogamous (one man/one woman) marriages are emphasized. I see no support in the Biblical texts to indicate God is alright with polygamy beyond the implication that He worked with flawed humanity to achieve His overall purpose which was to establish a people in which to bring the savior into the world through them.
You also replied:
And the idea that a man cannot be one flesh with more than one wife, that too is debunked even in the NT by Paul himself.
[1Co 6:16 KJV] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Paul never said the man who joins with a harlot had to be single in order to be seen as "one flesh" with her.
You realize Paul is rebuking sexual immorality here on the basis that God ordained man to be with one woman which is why he quotes Genesis there. Paul is advocating people to be monogamous by quoting "the two shall be one flesh." You are twisting his words by saying otherwise.
Sure, a man, or woman, can sleep with many people and give themselves to many people in intimacy. That is possible. That's not the point, the point is that that's not the intended reason for God creating intimacy between a man and a woman, the intention was for one man to find one woman and be intimate with her and her with him for the rest of their lives. That's the point. You're taking this verse out of context.