Posted on 12/08/2012 5:28:00 AM PST by Kaslin
Kid you can “try the entire” Old Testament until youre blue in the face...
but you wont find ANYWHERE in the Bible where God told someone to commit adultery...
nor said it was OK when someone did...
Abraham had sex with his wife’s SLAVE on his own without God...
and we suffer today because of that...
and Jacob went along with his FILs scheme because he wanted Rachel...
Leah was his legal wife, Rachel and the 2 slaves were concubines...
Jesus didnt come from the line of Joseph nor Benjamin..
He came from the line of Judah, Leah’s legitimate son...
Jesus didnt come from the bastard Ishmael, the father of the Moslems...
He came from the line of Isaac the legitimate son, the son of the free woman...
Polygamy is unGodly and unBiblical...
Polygamy is adultery...
its against the Commandment of God...
Davids first son from his adulterous laiason with Bathsheba died...
Well said.
instead takes the pet lamb of a poor man and cooks it up.
________________________________________
No kid...
David took the only EWE lamb the man had...
Theres a distinction...
Nathan wasnt there to say that the polygamy/adultery David was engaged in with his other concubines was OK with God...
He merely pointed out that David already had several, unattacthed girlfriends to have sex with...
but now he had taken the wife and only woman of another man...
Next you’ll want to tell us the wives of the quite still alive 11 men that Joey Smith had adultery with were given to him by God......
(at least one was already pregnant so Smiths 10 virgins he was entitled to story is kaput right there)
If we're going to use the descendants of polygamous relationships as a argument against polygamy, I think it falls apart pretty quickly.
Jacob took four wives, and for no particularly urgent reason. There is nothing in the Bible record about him to indicate God was displeased by his doing so.
Most obviously, our Lord and Savior (not Barack) could not have had the ancestry he did without polygamy. He was descended from David via two lines, by two different wives, with his legal (though not blood) relationship through the royal line via Bathsheba and Solomon, and his true blood relationship through another wife.
Kings in the Middle East had harems, at the time. That was just a fact of life, and the Israelite kings were no different.
Well, no it doesn't.
16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
This is very obviously a warning against ostentation and decadence. The king is not supposed to take "many wives" for the same reason he is not to accumulate large numbers of horses or large amount of gold and silver, because doing so would require oppression of the people to be able to afford the extravagance.
It also clearly says "many wives," not "more than one wife." Just as the reference to large numbers of horses can't be taken to mean the king should only have one horse.
Also, polygamy is addressed in Malachi 2.
Well, no it's not, or at least that's not the obvious primary meaning of the verse.
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Based on other scriptures with similar references, this refers to divorcing the "old wife" in order to marry the hot new number, a practice that is still popular in the USA and unfortunately not unknown among those claiming to be Christians. And of course America has advanced so far women can indulge in it too.
I suppose it could be stretched to include taking an additional wife, but that would be a lot less treacherous than tossing the old one out into the street without a way to support herself.
My reading of it is that Jacob wanted one of them (Rachel) in particular, was tricked by his father-in-law Laban into marrying her sister (Leah) first, then each wife, exercising sibling rivalry expressed by proxy childbearing, urged him to take her maidservant as another wife as a means of producing children.
Therefore the foundation of the twelve tribes of Israel was through deception and rivalry, yet despite this God still brought good out of it.
There is no discussion of polygamy I've read that doesn't involve rivalry and bickering among the multiple wives. Each wife gets less than a whole husband.
Left to his own devices, I'm not sure Jacob wouldn't have been satisfied with Rachel alone. Jacob's favorite children (Joseph and Benjamin) were her sons.
"Neither shall he multiply wives" was a commandment to Israel's king.
Christ Himself pointed back to Adam and Eve's union (monogamous) as the divine blueprint for marriage. Anything beyond that was due to man's "hardness of heart" provision for which was given in Mosaic law.
True. And Jesus descended from his second son with Bathsheba, as well as from a later son of their union.
(I was wrong in a previous post in assuming that Nathan had a different mother. Mea culpa.)
In any case, Bathsheba was most definitely not his first (according to you, only legal) wife. She was probably not in his first couple dozen.
As part of a command not to accumulate a lot of gold and silver or many horses. IOW, not to be extravagant.
Didn't mean the king could only have one item of gold or silver, or one horse, or one wife.
Okay, I'll buy that. Bud this of course recognizes that polygamy was allowed by Mosaic Law, which is all I've said from the beginning.
I never said God endorsed or approved it. The original post to which I responded said that he never "sanctioned" it. Well, in the Law he certainly did.
Sanction - verb: Give official permission or approval for (an action).
To sanction means to allow, not necessarily instruct or command to do something.
I'm not getting all judgey on the divorced. I was making the point that if Jesus spoke frankly about divorce being evidence of our "hard hearts"--then polygamy is a similar hard-heartedness. The argument is being made that because the patriarchs were polygamists, that was part of God's plan.
Beautifully said.
And this is why I am a conservative.
Progressives and Libertarians are much the same as to the means -they both want government tyranny and as such are both leftists. Where they differ is in the ends. Progressives wish for complete government control while Libertarians simply seek government imposed Anarchy.
What of social order -what of common law, tradition, and institutions time tested such as marriage? Progressives wish to transform while Libertarians wish to abandon...
That is why I am a conservative.
As to marriage -government is tasked with promoting and protecting the institution. NOT transforming it -NOT abandoning it.
I think we should end no-fault divorce also, since that and the homos are both destroying the traditional family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.