• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Does Jesus Contradict the Old Testament on Polygamy?

Wow! That was a really good article, even if it was intended to be anti poly. Once you get past his logical fallacies in his conclusions, it becomes a really great pro poly article. Especially the part about the word two that is added in Genesis but is not present in the old Hebrew, just in the subsequent Greek editions. It would be interesting to see the source for those claims, but if true, thats a game changer.
 
eye4them said:
It looks like the comment section is closed, well, at least I don't see a way to comment.
Click to expand...
I especially love the comment from Juan where he points out that the article is basically saying that polygamy reverts to becoming acceptable, if the ratio of women to men goes up. I always point out that the ratio is artificially held low through female infanticide in India, and China's one-child policy that was in effect for nearly four decades.
 
Good article that in its atempt at truth and honesty, it demonstrates the indefensible monogamy only position.

And, YES! There is no 'two' in Genesis 2:24. Nice find that pokes another hole in MO.

I'd love to see the author challenged with Yeshua's words in Matthew 5:17-19.... that demolishes his claim that 'Jesus changed the law...'
 
Very interesting article. He gets off-base much earlier than the conclusions though, when he interprets Jesus' statements as being regarding polygamy rather than divorce. This then allows him to read in a whole load of other logic from external Jewish sources, and attribute these views to Jesus, resulting in the erroneous conclusions. Pure eisegesis, but using ancient ideas rather than your own ideas.

The comments are all soundly reasoned. This is the Logos bible software blog, and I wonder if only people who have the software can comment. That could explain the more educated and logical responses than you see elsewhere, when you trim the list to people who spend money on bible study software you have only a select few serious scholars left.
 
The Old Testament allows polygamy but doesn’t encourage it. Great men such as Abraham, Israel, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David, and Solomon had multiple wives, though the Old Testament records many problems that resulted. However, the law actually made it mandatory in one circumstance: if a married man died without leaving a male heir
Click to expand...

This is what happens when you're more interested in defending an social bias than actually discovering what the scriptures say. You make assertions which not only contradict scriptures, but are self-contradictory.

And it takes a lot of self-delusion these days to say things like "records many problems that resulted" with a straight face.
 
I was just re-reading Luck and talks about and opposes some of the concepts in this article. Here is the important part:

"Of course, since Jesus quoted the same passages when he discussed marriage, one expects a quick appeal to him to fulfill this requirement. But such an appeal is in vain. Jesus’ quote of this passage is not attempting to affirm monogamy in Matthew 19:5 f. He is insisting that no covenanted person is free to walk away from the partner. The context makes this clear. It only compounds the confusion to appeal to the fact that the Essenes interpreted the “two shall become one flesh” clause as teaching monogamy. No one denies that the Essenes held that position, but that fact is of questionable relevance, for there is no reason aside from the quote of a common source to affirm that Jesus interpreted Genesis 2:24 as they did."
 
Also this:


MATTHEW 19:5/MARK 10:8

Turning to the New Testament, we might hear reference to Matthew 19:5 and its Marcan parallel. Jesus quotes the LXX of Genesis 2:24, which adds (to the Masoretic text) the word “two” to the phrase: “they shall become one flesh.” It is pointed out that the Essene community interpreted this addition as an attack upon the (fading?) practice of polygyny. There is no doubt that the Essene community in their Temple Scroll so interpreted the LXX, but it is not at all clear that the LXX, which was written long before the founding of the Essenes, should be interpreted as the Essenes did. Jesus simply quoted the predominate translation known to his hearers, and that translation included the extra word “two.” It is certainly acceptable in a context of polygyny to use the extra word, especially in the historical context of the Gospel verse. For there, Jesus is underscoring that though the two partners in marriage once were independent, by their vows they have become one team, in which the privilege of one of them unilaterally breaking or walking away from the covenant with the result that they would be two again, is denied. For the woman, to be sure, that did mean not contracting another marriage, though that is not known from the words per se, but from other Scripture, such as Ex. 22 and Deut. 22. But for the man, it did not mean anything of the kind—see the same passages. For the man it simply meant that he could not do as the School of Hillel suggested, i.e., end the union simply because he wanted to, for any reason at all. To jump on the Essene interpretation because it is available is poor reasoning. It is a hasty conclusion, not supported by internal evidence or proven historical connection. The fact that Jesus’ cousin John came from the desert and the Essenes were in the desert is admitted, but the assertion that John learned from them and then taught this to Jesus, is utter speculation based on the desert alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top