Concerning Jacob and Solomon who clearly had more than one wife, what does the Scripture say?
Well you know that Jacob loved Rachal more than Leah. He was tricked into marrying Leah. He really loved Rachal.
Now it is very interesting that when Jacob died he requested to be buried next to who ? Leah was the one who he wanted to be buried with. Not the favorite second wife Rachal was his final partner in the tomb but the less favored one Leah.
Now you all can think what you wish. I believe that this indicates that God's will for him was that Leah was his real wife.
I could be wrong. But that's the way the passage strikes me. Jacob, in the end, gave honor to the fact that his original less favored wife Leah, was the choice of God for him.
Now with Solomon, we are told that his hundred's of political wives led him into idolatry. That became a huge problem to the nation and caused Israel to be divided into two tribes against ten tribes.
So the permitted six or seven hundred wives of Solomon really was his undoing.
Originally posted by jaywillThanks for this.
[b] Please ignore the Grinning smiley faces. That is unintentional
The issue is what does the Bible show as God's original intention. It is not what became acceptable. Nor what latter developed. The issue is what was originally established.
Quoting with permission from Glen Miller's website I first present these comments on manogamy from ANE s ...[text shortened]... multuple wives would be easier for the indulgent male to handle.[/b]
I read it but somehow you are missing my point.
The problem with trying to analyse anything is that people often ignore the most obvious and simplist points.
Some years ago they found rings in the cornfields in the UK and some the brightest minds were trying to figure out how these complicated rings appeared overnight. Some even said they were too geometrically complex for humans to do and must have been done by aliens. After several months they found a couple of guys with some rope and a piece of wood making this rings. Most people should know that a string and a pole can make perfect circles of any size in a few minutes. But that simple fact evaded them. Why ?
You are not looking at this problem from the ground up. As a result your complicated and convoluted analysis is irrelevant.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI agree with you that the specific passage concerns divorce. However, "from the beginning" by implication refers to what was originally established.
This is about divorce, not polygamy. Clearly a polygamist isn't allowed to discard his wives at a whim. That's only fair.
Tell me truthfully, do you see any room in those verses for polygamy? I think you have to labor imaginatively to cause that teaching to cover polygamy as an ordination from God.
Originally posted by jaywillYes, the prescriptions for divorce could be applied to polygamic divorce as well.
Tell me truthfully, do you see any room in those verses for polygamy? I think you have to labor imaginatively to cause that teaching to cover polygamy as an ordination from God.
It's hard to find justification for polygamy in verses proscribing divorce; I lack that kind of training.
Originally posted by Rajk999When you say I am not looking at the problem from the ground up, you may be right. And the reason is that it should not be considered from the ground up but from the heavens down.
Thanks for this.
I read it but somehow you are missing my point.
The problem with trying to analyse anything is that people often ignore the most obvious and simplist points.
Some years ago they found rings in the cornfields in the UK and some the brightest minds were trying to figure out how these complicated rings appeared overnight. Some even said ...[text shortened]... problem from the ground up. As a result your complicated and convoluted analysis is irrelevant.
Matthew is about the kingdom of the heavens. That does not mean going to heaven incidently. It means the kingdom whose source and origin is from heaven.
The kingdom of the heavens is the realm in which God can excercise His governmental administration over His people for the establishing of His government on the earth. The source of the kingdom is God in the heavens.
And the problem should be looked at from God's perspective.
Originally posted by jaywillLooking at a problem from the ground up means understanding the simplest things first.
When you say I am not looking at the problem from the ground up, you may be right. And the reason is that it should not be considered from the ground up but from the heavens down.
Matthew is about the kingdom of the heavens. That does not mean going to heaven incidently. It means the kingdom whose source and origin is from heaven.
The kingdom of the ...[text shortened]... kingdom is God in the heavens.
And the problem should be looked at from God's perspective.
I have another question since you avoided the SOS question.
Would you say that Paul had a clear understanding of this divorce and polygamy issue in the same way that you do ... ie monogamy was Gods plan from the start ?
Originally posted by Rajk999Asking a person to explain a book in one sentence is usually the question of the lazy or those desireing an occasion for an argument, which I think is your case.
Looking at a problem from the ground up means understanding the simplest things first.
I have another question since you avoided the SOS question.
Would you say that Paul had a clear understanding of this divorce and polygamy issue in the same way that you do ... ie monogamy was Gods plan from the start ?
The Song of Songs is about Christ and the church.
Yes, Paul as a faithful apostle in establishing churches understood God's economy.
Originally posted by jaywillI did not ask you to explain. I asked what the book SoS was about.
Asking a person to explain a book in one sentence is usually the question of the lazy or those desireing an occasion for an argument, which I think is your case.
The Song of Songs is about Christ and the church.
Yes, Paul as a faithful apostle in establishing churches understood God's economy.
Big difference.
The question is a test to see if you, like millions of Christians cant stand the fact that within their Holy Bible which is Gods word can contain details about Solomons love and lovemaking. That book has abosolutely nothing to do with either Christ or the Church.
Your answer proves that you have a problem with sexuality. As a result your take on polygamy will be biased.
As for Paul, he was able to make very clear statemens about such trivial matters like womens clothes :
I Tim 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
... but neglected to say that men should have one wife ?
Impossible!!
These are the simple facts that you have to take into consideration before you get too deep into analysis.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOne thing that would have helped your case is if the disciples had marveled and said
Yes, the prescriptions for divorce could be applied to polygamic divorce as well.
It's hard to find justification for polygamy in verses proscribing divorce; I lack that kind of training.
"If this is the case with a man and his [wives] it is better not to marry."
Originally posted by jaywillSince they were all dirt poor, having more than one wife was probably not common practice among them.
One thing that would have helped your case is if the disciples had marveled and said
[b]"If this is the case with a man and his [wives] it is better not to marry."[/b]
However, I'm out of sympathy with your entire take on the Bible, so this line of discussion is unlikely to bear fruit. I hope you will talk about music again sometime.
I do apologise for my rudeness earlier.
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999=============================
I did not ask you to explain. I asked what the book SoS was about.
Big difference.
The question is a test to see if you, like millions of Christians cant stand the fact that within their Holy Bible which is Gods word can contain details about Solomons love and lovemaking. That book has abosolutely nothing to do with either Christ or the Church.
Your a ...[text shortened]... the simple facts that you have to take into consideration before you get too deep into analysis.
I did not ask you to explain. I asked what the book SoS was about.
Big difference.
=================================
Ok. I answered " .. about Christ and the church"
======================================
The question is a test to see if you, like millions of Christians cant stand the fact that within their Holy Bible which is Gods word can contain details about Solomons love and lovemaking. That book has abosolutely nothing to do with either Christ or the Church.
=========================================
You guys crack me up. You're so eager to prove that I am not a typical male man. Hey, maybe I'd like two or three wives too left to myself.
I assure you that I am reasonably red blooded and typical in the arts of romantic love. Fortunately I have been blessed with a splendid wife for over thirty years.
I am a typical man. Okay?
Now to the Song of Songs. Sexual enjoyment is created by God. Sex was His creation. You and I didn't invent it. It came out of God's creativity. Praise Him.
Now some may be offended for me to say that the book is about Christ and the church. They think by me saying that it takes away from the sheer Oooo la la ness of the book.
I am saying on a deeper symbolic level this celebratory book which is obviously about the joys of love, romance, love making and marriage, has an underlying deeper purpose to protray something about Christ and the church.
This would not be elementary teaching. It would not be the milk of the word but the meat. And if one cannot take it, that is OK. Perhaps someday after some spiritual growth one can appreciate Song of Songs on a level revealing the pursuit of Christ by His lovers who collectively constitute His counterpart.
Shulimite is the femine form of the word Solomon. And at the end of the Bible the New Jerusalem is in a sense Mrs. Jesus Christ so to speak.
Song of Songs is a sweet little corner study of the conclusion of the whole 66 books of the divine revelation - the romance between the processed Triune God and His redeemed, resurrected, glorifies, transformed, conmformed, deified, corporate Bride and Wide - New Jerusalem.
===================================
Your answer proves that you have a problem with sexuality. As a result your take on polygamy will be biased.
=======================================
What problem ?