The inconsistencies in arguing polygyny is adultery.

[Kojent]

As long as we dont tear each other's heads off, we can keep each other sharpened and in-check!

Yes, Brother. They’ll know we are His disciples because of our love for one another. You know, with chapters and verses being modern innovations and all, I always like to read the last verse in Hebrews 12 together with the first verse in Hebrews 13.

It’s a good reminder! Blessings.

 

[Heavens Declare]

One of the verses I’ve been most challenged by in my prayerful research on the subject of adultery is Mark 10:11. While I agree that it is plain to see adultery can not be committed against a woman in the Old Testament, the wording of Mark 10:11 is very interesting. I also noticed that Mark 10:11 is one of the verses that isn’t addressed in BibFam’s scripture index. Perhaps one of the resident pro-polygyny theologians here would be open to expositing this passage for my benefit.

Notice the wording of v 12, and how it is missing that last prepositional phrase. Ask yourself, if he is actually committing adultery AGAINST her, why wouldn't she be considered to be committing adultery against him. Also examine the Greek word used there, and the word that is usually used to mean against. The word used in Mark 10:11 is the same word used when John speaks of Jesus walking UPON the water. The word usually translated AGAINST, is the word "Kata". The only other place I have seen "ep" translated "against" is in the parable of a general coming against another army, and clearly the word "upon" could have been used there. The Wycliffe translation uses the word "upon" as well, and the Tyndale translation says "to her warde". It echos what Jesus said in Matt 5:32 that the man who divorces his wife except for porneia causes her to commit adultery.

 

[Heavens Declare]

Of course. This forum has all types. I’m just contending that they do so inconsistently.

In my study, the Law of Christ did not destroy the Law of Moses. Jesus said so himself in Matthew 5. “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus preached against the Laws of men, not the laws of God.

This is now pretty much over the line of what admin wants for us to discuss. Send me a PM if you want to discuss further.

Blessings

When you do so, you violate the rules of this forum. Torah Observance or any such advocating for one while denigrating the other, is off limits for debate.

 

[frederick]

I see it as problematic, too. In conjunction with 1 Corinthians 7:4 and a woman potentially having some sort of property rights over her husband’s body, these two verses together may be used by some to contend for a more egalitarian reading, as well as an expansion (or at least clarification) of the Law.

The passage in 1 Cor. 7:4 is specific to the husband and the wife. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

The wife does not have authority over his other wives, their bodies, or their interactions with the husband.

 

[frederick]

We can certainly see that as God reveals Himself over time, things do shift a bit, such as when what Jacob did with Rachel and Leah is later outlawed.

Are you referring to Leviticus 18:18; Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive? This command forbids taking a woman as a rival to her sister not marrying two women who are sisters. Otherwise God would be wrong to illustrate His relationships by taking the sisters Oholah and Oholibah. Ezekiel 23:4 Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah. Cheers

 

[frederick]

Something to keep in mind regarding 1 Corinthians 7:4, it doesn't negate the divine order; Father, Jesus Christ, man, woman. The wife must still submit to her husband; cf. Eph. 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1. While the feminazi will hijack the passage to declare equal rights being enshrined and a wife having veto power over the husband's actions, that's just BS. It's obvious Paul didn't change anything because he wrote Ephesians 5:22!

 

[Kojent]

Are you referring to Leviticus 18:18; Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive? This command forbids taking a woman as a rival to her sister not marrying two women who are sisters. Otherwise God would be wrong to illustrate His relationships by taking the sisters Oholah and Oholibah. Ezekiel 23:4 Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah. Cheers

I don’t find this reasoning to be particularly compelling, but I grant that it will probably resonate with others here. God is speaking by way of analogy but even if He were speaking quite literally, there are many things which are permissible or proper for God that are not for permissible or proper for us.

If I squint a bit, though, I can see how the “as a rival” qualification might be used to interpret the whole text more narrowly, similar to the “adding” vs. “multiplying” wives distinction.

Thanks for chiming in just the same.

 

[steve]

If I squint a bit, though, I can see how the “as a rival” qualification might be used to interpret the whole text more narrowly, similar to the “adding” vs. “multiplying” wives distinction.

It’s the qualifier, you have to squint hard in order to see past it.
Otherwise it has no meaning.

 

[Mojo]

The passage in 1 Cor. 7:4 is specific to the husband and the wife. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

The wife does not have authority over his other wives, their bodies, or their interactions with the husband.

If one verse seems odd or at odds with the rest of scripture then maybe there’s another explanation.