Scripturally, what's wrong with polygamy?

[swordman]

And just what are "my rules of interpretation" that I am not following? Do you know what method of study I imploy? I don't recall even stating a method.................Is this the confusion that you and Don are experiencing or is it because I do not accept the "method" that you use to study.

When you point to the singular "wife" as opposed to the plural "wives" as some sort of proof that Jesus was limiting all men to having only one wife as His ideal for all mankind, then you obviously are emplying SOME sort of interpretational rule that I have demonstrated to be in error.

It is not my practice to use "whichever" definition of a word that suits or conforms to my way of thinking, that will only keep satisfying my own sinful nature. But I will say this, I believe by faith and by the Written Word that God has chosen the words and the usage of those words carefully so that we, as His children, will comprehend the message.

Wait a minute. Who said anything about definitions of words? You were being challenged on your magnifying words rendered in the singular as being some sort of clear indicator of God's desire for all men to have only one wife when the context does not at all support such thinking. Who is fooling who? This straw man tactic simply does not wash.

For me it is very clear that God never intended polygamy. It is not my job to "persuade" you, that is the job of the Holy Spirit and the word of God.

I can assure you that the Holy Spirit will not convince anyone of anything that is not in keeping with the written word. If I am wrong about polygyny, then I will openly admit my error. I am fallable like everyone else here. I have yet to see you make the same admission. I stand with you on many things, but your powers of understanding contextual relevance and the rules of proper interpretation (which were not devised by myself) are not only out of step with conventional theology, hermeneutics, exegesis, and other methods of study, but you will force yourself to violate your own rules you have established in this thread.

Now, why do you think Abraham had lust in his heart for his having several wives?

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Debi]

When you point to the singular "wife" as opposed to the plural "wives" as some sort of proof that Jesus was limiting all men to having only one wife as His ideal for all mankind, then you obviously are emplying SOME sort of interpretational rule that I have demonstrated to be in error.



Wait a minute. Who said anything about definitions of words? You were being challenged on your magnifying words rendered in the singular as being some sort of clear indicator of God's desire for all men to have only one wife when the context does not at all support such thinking. Who is fooling who? This straw man tactic simply does not wash.



I can assure you that the Holy Spirit will not convince anyone of anything that is not in keeping with the written word. If I am wrong about polygyny, then I will openly admit my error. I am fallable like everyone else here. I have yet to see you make the same admission. I stand with you on many things, but your powers of understanding contextual relevance and the rules of proper interpretation (which were not devised by myself) are not only out of step with conventional theology, hermeneutics, exegesis, and other methods of study, but you will force yourself to violate your own rules you have established in this thread.

Now, why do you think Abraham had lust in his heart for his having several wives?


Mike, If you are so sure I am in error, why ask me anything. Go with your sinful flesh. You can use whatever interpertation of a word you want if it suit your fancy. I don't know what you are doing. but my study tools do show that just because it states "one" First is not used with each scripture the word one is uses. Challenge? As I stated before, I gave you the scriptures. If you wish to make a case for supporting the idea of polygamy, go right ahead, I will not be a part of your perversion of the Written Word. You have proven me wrong by whose standards? yours? Ok, whatever!! I stated before, I am done. I don't care to increase ungodliness with the topic. It takes away from the faith and leads to more ungodliness.
Dr. Don Dean

 

[swordman]

Don, You must like a good rumble.

Rumble? Well.....maybe just a little.....when confronted with someone who enjoys hit and run.....

Do you want me to tell you what the verse says? 1st of all, the verse is not speaking to you or I, God was speaking to Moses. So God was not telling either of us that we can only have one male child. "son" in that scripture refers to members of a group, descendants, the builder of a family, not that he can only have one son.

Very good, Debi. Thank you.

Now, do you want to know How or why I know the translation does not mean one child? When reading the the bible, you first should establish the context of the chapter and who is being spoken to. Surely you do not claim to be side by side with Moses and say the Lord God was talking to you too?

I said I was side by side with YOU on many things.

Now, what is your next attack, because you probably will not agree with the translation.....

Actually, I applaud you in agreement. I am pleased that you do not agree with my applying your rules of interpretation concerning singular usage of words having any great meaning when that is not the object of the context.

Now, who was Jesus talking to? He was talking to the pharasees concerning their question about the "writ of divorcement," if I am recounting the right set of verses that you were initally talking about. The Lord indicated that divorce was not at all the plan from the beginning since He had made them male and female, which speaks of the intent of their being an unbroken union that divorce was never meant to be a destructive force against. I could launch into all kinds of analysis since systematic theology is the very field of my study and instruction. My teaching systematic theology has given me considerable time to study not only the written word itself, but to also study the cultural climate into which these words of Jesus were addressed. There is SO much information to be gleaned from the depths. The REAL treasures are overlooked by most who study these passages only in passing.

Anyway, I hope this gives you a pleasant surprise in that we mostly agree. Now, it is my hope that we can get out of this rut of singular wording within a context that had nothing to do with polygyny, and move on to other areas of your stance against polygyny.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[swordman]

Mike, If you are so sure I am in error, why ask me anything.

Mike? Who is Mike? Besides, correct me if I am wrong, but you came into this thread on your own accord without anyone dragging you into here kicking and screaming, right?

Go with your sinful flesh. You can use whatever interpertation of a word you want if it suit your fancy. I don't know what you are doing. but my study tools do show that just because it states "one" First is not used with each scripture the word one is uses.

What? How did that get into our discussion? Who is Mike?

Challenge? As I stated before, I gave you the scriptures. If you wish to make a case for supporting the idea of polygamy, go right ahead, I will not be a part of your perversion of the Written Word. You have proven me wrong by whose standards? yours? Ok, whatever!!

It is more like "whatever" rather than my standards. I do not make up standards. I abide by the same rules to which most knowledgable scholars adhere. Come on, Debi. This is nothing but yet another straw man. You can do better than this. Who is Mike?

I stated before, I am done. I don't care to increase ungodliness with the topic. It takes away from the faith and leads to more ungodliness.

Well, just remember that you did not quote any verse to back this. Most of your reference was very general in nature rather than specific and with proper appologetic for WHY you see it the way that you do. You appear to be a product of typical, mainstream thinking. I prefer to think outside the envelope so that the scriptures can speak for themselves, which means that I take proper responsibility for what I believe rather than to be a mere product of someone else's thinking and bias.

Hey, who is Mike?

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Bjyman]

I must say I've been reading this and I am very impressed by the theological arguments used to show that nowhere in the Bible polygyny is condemned. But what really sums it up for me is this.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, whill by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17)

Since I think we can all can agree that polygyny was regulated through the Law of Moses then that has not changed with the coming of Christ.

Secondly the fact that God gave David wives is more than God just tolerating polygyny it leans more towards him supporting it.

Blair

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Blair, glad you found some insights.

One thing I should correct, I don't believe the words of Jesus you quoted applied to laws such as polygyny, but rather the moral law (10 commandments). Many of those other laws have certainly passed away.
However, I haven't really looked into this in depth, so my interpretation could be wrong.

The main difficulty for those who oppose polygyny is to demonstrate that polygyny is something God once tolerated but ultimately opposed. All the Scriptures seem to point not towards His disfavour, but rather that He accepts it as good in some circumstances.

I find it very persuasive that He puts Himself in a polygynous relationship in Ezekiel 23.

 

[water_ripple]

One thing I should correct, I don't believe the words of Jesus you quoted applied to laws such as polygyny, but rather the moral law (10 commandments). Many of those other laws have certainly passed away.
However, I haven't really looked into this in depth, so my interpretation could be wrong.

The main difficulty for those who oppose polygyny is to demonstrate that polygyny is something God once tolerated but ultimately opposed. All the Scriptures seem to point not towards His disfavour, but rather that He accepts it as good in some circumstances.

I find it very persuasive that He puts Himself in a polygynous relationship in Ezekiel 23.

This is simply MHO...God said in the old days to go forth and multiply. The ancient times were times when life expectancies were usually very short compared to modern day. Taking many wives was not unheard of, and it helped to ensure the survival of humankind. The more children one had effectively ensured that more people would be able to spread the word of God, and also gave a better chance that the bloodline (or genetics or whatever one would call it) would not die out.

In modern day life expectancy is usually much higer. I think that in light of modern day that taking many wives is frivolus. The human race still needs to reproduce, but the reproduction of humans is not as critical as it was in the ancient times. I am not trying to say that I think people should be limited to the number of children they should have or anything of the sort. I think that in light of modern day that taking many wives is unnecessary. And I think a married man who is courting another woman is effectively commiting adultery. He is actively lusting after her with the intention of marriage while he is already married. I think that modern day polygamists use the old law as an excuse to commit adultery, and if one is married and persuing another they are lusting and commiting adultery. I think if one is going to practice the old laws they should take all scriputural references into account not just the actions of others into account. If one takes more than one wife he is effectively putting the original wife away. He is ignoring the emotional objections of his wife. One who has more than one wife cannot fufill both wives. It is impossible. He is one and they are two, or three, or whatever. Men are to treat their wives as Christ treats the church. Christ does not take on more people and neglect to fulfill all who come to Him. One difference between man and God is that while Christ can fulfill all that come to Him men cannot effectively fufill more than one wife. That obviously works both ways. One cannot be in 2, or 3, or X amount of places at once. God can b/c He is omniscent. Man is not omniscent.

 

[wonder111]

here's some good info on this topic

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of-jesus-modern/jesus-feminist.shtml


He arose from there and came into the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan. Multitudes came together to him again. As he usually did, he was again teaching them. Pharisees came to him testing him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
He answered, "What did Moses command you?"
They said, "Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her."
But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
In the house, his disciples asked him again about the same matter. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."

 

[Fiat]

This is simply MHO...God said in the old days to go forth and multiply. The ancient times were times when life expectancies were usually very short compared to modern day. Taking many wives was not unheard of, and it helped to ensure the survival of humankind. The more children one had effectively ensured that more people would be able to spread the word of God, and also gave a better chance that the bloodline (or genetics or whatever one would call it) would not die out.

In modern day life expectancy is usually much higer. I think that in light of modern day that taking many wives is frivolus. The human race still needs to reproduce, but the reproduction of humans is not as critical as it was in the ancient times. I am not trying to say that I think people should be limited to the number of children they should have or anything of the sort. I think that in light of modern day that taking many wives is unnecessary. And I think a married man who is courting another woman is effectively commiting adultery. He is actively lusting after her with the intention of marriage while he is already married. I think that modern day polygamists use the old law as an excuse to commit adultery, and if one is married and persuing another they are lusting and commiting adultery. I think if one is going to practice the old laws they should take all scriputural references into account not just the actions of others into account. If one takes more than one wife he is effectively putting the original wife away. He is ignoring the emotional objections of his wife. One who has more than one wife cannot fufill both wives. It is impossible. He is one and they are two, or three, or whatever. Men are to treat their wives as Christ treats the church. Christ does not take on more people and neglect to fulfill all who come to Him. One difference between man and God is that while Christ can fulfill all that come to Him men cannot effectively fufill more than one wife. That obviously works both ways. One cannot be in 2, or 3, or X amount of places at once. God can b/c He is omniscent. Man is not omniscent.

great post!

 

[swordman]

This is simply MHO...God said in the old days to go forth and multiply. The ancient times were times when life expectancies were usually very short compared to modern day. Taking many wives was not unheard of, and it helped to ensure the survival of humankind.

That does seem like a plausible consideration, but the problem is that the first man who took more than one wife lived among people who survived until they were well past 400 years of age in the book of Genesis. Besides, marriage, whether it be to one or to several wives, was not a matter of replenishing the earth's population. The number of wives a man had was a personal choice rather than having to do with the earth's population. When one searches the scriptures, we find that the Lord nowhere withdrew that command to multiply. This earth, contrary to the tree-hugger's claims, is far from reaching its limit in being able to support a greater population than what we now have. The starvation that we hear about is the result of wicked, evil men, not the lack of food in the world.

We could also observe that David's having been given more than one wife by the Lord is not a direct demonstration for a need to repopulate the earth. It was the Lord's good pleasure to give to David several wives, and who knows how many other men's plural wives were a gift from the Lord. We simply do not know one way or the other. The bottom line is that we are not told anywhere in the word of God that the average believer is now limited to having only one wife. The appologetics for the socially engineered theology of monogamy-only has within its makeup the trappings of feministic thinking more than it does the Lord's thoughts.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

 

[swordman]

here's some good info on this topic

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of-jesus-modern/jesus-feminist.shtml


He arose from there and came into the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan. Multitudes came together to him again. As he usually did, he was again teaching them. Pharisees came to him testing him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
He answered, "What did Moses command you?"
They said, "Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her."
But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
In the house, his disciples asked him again about the same matter. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."

Yes, this deals very effectively with the issue of divorce. It does not say anything about how many wives to which a man is limited, but it does address the rampant divorce we see even today. To force the issue of plural wives into this text is to attempt creating inconsistenty in the Lord's own words. It is interesting how "churches" today will tell a man with more than one wife that he is committing adultery, but they caudle divorcees who are divorced for anti-biblical reasons, and then they applaud those same divorcees finding another mate, which DOES fall under the biblical definition of adultery. Hypocrisy, by any other name, is still hypocrisy.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[look]

/me says, "That's why I hate 'religion', or man's way of coming to God..."

 

[CryptoKnight]

I think that Genesis 2:23-24 cover it pretty well. I'm not one to read into something that which isn't there, but these verses break down when more than one wife is involved...

Genesis 2:
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

So, now you have a wife, and you want another? Should a man now leave his first wife for the second, or will they all become one flesh? Will they be adding to the "one flesh" the additional women?

Also, see:
(18) Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; (19) I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Not "some helpers". "A helper".

However, God, in His wisdom, DID account for this possibility by giving guidelines around how these families should react. Leviticus 18 deals with all of the "uncovering of nakednesses" that _could_ imply that a father has more than one wife. Upon close reflection, however, I believe that it implies a single wife at any time (it does NOT say "You shall not uncover the nakedness of ONE OF your father's wives...", rather it says "...nakedness of your father's wife". Singular.

I also believe the Spirit leads us in these things. We _know_ it's wrong to have many wives. What normal man would not feel a tinge of guilt, at least at the outset?

 

[water_ripple]

That does seem like a plausible consideration, but the problem is that the first man who took more than one wife lived among people who survived until they were well past 400 years of age in the book of Genesis. Besides, marriage, whether it be to one or to several wives, was not a matter of replenishing the earth's population. The number of wives a man had was a personal choice rather than having to do with the earth's population. When one searches the scriptures, we find that the Lord nowhere withdrew that command to multiply. This earth, contrary to the tree-hugger's claims, is far from reaching its limit in being able to support a greater population than what we now have. The starvation that we hear about is the result of wicked, evil men, not the lack of food in the world.

We could also observe that David's having been given more than one wife by the Lord is not a direct demonstration for a need to repopulate the earth. It was the Lord's good pleasure to give to David several wives, and who knows how many other men's plural wives were a gift from the Lord. We simply do not know one way or the other. The bottom line is that we are not told anywhere in the word of God that the average believer is now limited to having only one wife. The appologetics for the socially engineered theology of monogamy-only has within its makeup the trappings of feministic thinking more than it does the Lord's thoughts.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't these guys around before Christ? And how are men to treat their wife? And does Christ neglect the emotional or spiritual needs of those that follow Him while another comes into the picture? No Christ does not. He can be in a million different places at once. A human being cannot. When a man who is already married to one when he is courting another the latter is what his attention is foucsed on. Courting someone takes quite a bit of commitment ya know.

 

[Palatka44]

Isn't it interesting that from Adam to Noah there is no mention of any man having more than one wife? Noah did not bring several women into the ark as his wives he brought only one. His three sons had only one each.

Why did God not destroy Noah and his family?
Genesis 6:1-3
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Something began to upset the standard of marriage. There are some that say that at this time the line of Seth began to marry into the line of Cain, which I do subscribe to. However if you'll note verse 2 says this and they took them wives of all which they chose. It could also be said here that the first incidence of polygamy in the lives of men began to become an abomination before God.

Noah and his sons did not participate in the this world wide social behavior.

Genesis 6:8-10
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

If you'll also note that in the life of every man in the Bible that had many wives he had family problems and violence. Now see what was going on in the world before the flood.

Genesis 6:11-12
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.


Now isn't it interesting that in American society today that the higher crime rate (in the catagory of murder) is not that of stranger upon stranger but stems from domestic violence? The dishonesty of the husband to his wife and like wise the wife to her husband contributes to this fact. Most drug and alcohol abuse is attributed to broken homes where the husband can not provide for his children because he has had to many women bearing his children. I know of a man whos paycheck was so garnished for child support that for a weeks wage he brought home only $0.46 US.

Let's face the facts, violence rules in these homes. And God does not like it.

There is no doubt in my mind that this will become the accepted norm again as the laws will be changing to placate the gay lifestyle. With the changing of these laws sexual orientation will have a broad spectrum in our social culture. Thus fullfilling the scripture,

Matthew 24:37
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Keep up the good fight Debi, you have great insights.

 

[Palatka44]

That does seem like a plausible consideration, but the problem is that the first man who took more than one wife lived among people who survived until they were well past 400 years of age in the book of Genesis. Besides, marriage, whether it be to one or to several wives, was not a matter of replenishing the earth's population. The number of wives a man had was a personal choice rather than having to do with the earth's population. When one searches the scriptures, we find that the Lord nowhere withdrew that command to multiply. This earth, contrary to the tree-hugger's claims, is far from reaching its limit in being able to support a greater population than what we now have. The starvation that we hear about is the result of wicked, evil men, not the lack of food in the world.

We could also observe that David's having been given more than one wife by the Lord is not a direct demonstration for a need to repopulate the earth. It was the Lord's good pleasure to give to David several wives, and who knows how many other men's plural wives were a gift from the Lord. We simply do not know one way or the other. The bottom line is that we are not told anywhere in the word of God that the average believer is now limited to having only one wife. The appologetics for the socially engineered theology of monogamy-only has within its makeup the trappings of feministic thinking more than it does the Lord's thoughts.

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

Isn't it true to history that when a peace treaty was sealed between two kings that it was sealed with of each exchanging daughters to be given in marriage? With that exchange it was hoped that the marriage would produce children to keep the peace. It often was a form of slavery than that of a marriage.
This practice continued even into relatively modern times. It is my understanding that the present English Queen was cousin to many of Europe's Royalty. When WWI started the King of England and the German monarch Bismark had very close family ties, as did the Russian Tsar. Did this practice make Europe any more peaceful? Not hardly. We are just now seeing that Europe can be a peaceful place because most of these royal houses are not in power anymore.
Violence rules the day in the polygamist world.

 

[Glausfan]

tyreth,

I understand what you're saying and seem like nobody have answered your question about where God prohibiting the polygamy pracitice. However, if you live in a country where that forbid the polygamy, we ought to abide it as Paul says in Romans 13:1-10. But if you live in other country that allow it, then so be it. Here's the link that may be helpful and I find this very interesting:
ww.geocities.com/avtattenai/sexual.html

(please add one more "w" in "ww" to get that link).

 

[water_ripple]

Violence rules the day in the plygimist world.

Violence is also quite common in marriages that have only one wife.

 

[Palatka44]

Violence is also quite common in marriages that have only one wife.

Yes and mostly due to extra-marrital affairs. In the Bible every one of these men who had many wives had a load of children that were always at each others throat. Just name the sin and it is found in these families.

I have been a Dad for the past 20 years and have only two great children. I love children but the two that I have can be very hateful to oneanother at times and it is a full time job to keep things civil. I can just imagine having to put down the squabbles that sibblings can get into if my household consisted of 5 wives with 20+ children. Every one of these men of the Bible did not nor could not control their households.

Wisdom dictates that 1 wife and few children is enough for one man.

 

[swordman]

I think that Genesis 2:23-24 cover it pretty well. I'm not one to read into something that which isn't there, but these verses break down when more than one wife is involved...

Genesis 2:23

So, now you have a wife, and you want another? Should a man now leave his first wife for the second, or will they all become one flesh? Will they be adding to the "one flesh" the additional women?

Good question. I think we can all agree that the "one flesh" representation is a spiritual one. How can that be, physically speaking? According to the trinitarian doctine about God and His nature, He is three Persons in One. How can that be, physically speaking? All believers are unified into one body through Christ Jesus. How can that be, physically speaking? Each wife is unified into a singular family unit through a common husband. How can that be, physically speaking? Well, when we are given spiritual imagry utilizing physical language, I can certainly understand the existence of confusion, especially in those areas that violate the strength of socially engineered theologies that Westernized Christianity holds so very dear.

Also, see:
(18) Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; (19) I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Not "some helpers". "A helper".

Uh, oh. There goes that singular wording argument again.....

However, God, in His wisdom, DID account for this possibility by giving guidelines around how these families should react. Leviticus 18 deals with all of the "uncovering of nakednesses" that _could_ imply that a father has more than one wife.

Imply in whose mind? The specifics talked about in those verses simply do not make any allowances for implications that are not at all similar to the context. If what you are saying is true, then the Lord would never have violated His own word by giving David several of his plural wives.

Upon close reflection, however, I believe that it implies a single wife at any time (it does NOT say "You shall not uncover the nakedness of ONE OF your father's wives...", rather it says "...nakedness of your father's wife". Singular.

If I were to apply your standard of interpretation and appologetics to other equally important areas of scripture, then we would all be limited to having only one son, only one grandson, etc., etc., based upon the singular use of key words. Because of this, you would then be forced into applying inconsistent rules of interpretation in order for you to keep from being seen as a total heretic. The rules you are trying to apply for this interpretaion of yours simply are not functional since you would have to limit their application to only this aspect of doctrinal appologetics, which would never be considered acceptable in any "church" or course in theology.

I also believe the Spirit leads us in these things. We _know_ it's wrong to have many wives. What normal man would not feel a tinge of guilt, at least at the outset?

Well, maybe YOU feel led by the Spirit to have only one, but God deals with us not only on a corporate basis, but also on an individual basis. Maybe there are other men He has called to accept plural wives. Your own personal calling is not a measure of what everyone else is to be limited.

Dr. Don Dean