« Apologetics, again | Main | What Abigail said, Part 2 »
What Abigail said, Part 1
By Joshuah | April 17, 2008
Here is the first of two comments Abigail sent to our other site (polygamy.joshuahshouse.com)- I will paste them in full length, and comment on them right here in the post.
Abigail | hainanmom@yahoo.com
Your argument that the reason for Paul requiring bishops/elders/deacons to be the husband of one wife is weak — because you are wrong in your past tense wording “he should have raised his children well” — the scripture in I Timothy is present tense — “having his children in subjection” “ruling his children” — it doesn’t say that the children have to be teenagers or adults to prove that he’s a good father — just that he should be ruling them well and they should be obedient to him.
Furthermore, in all the instructions given to families in the New Testament, it ALWAYS speaks of the husband and ONE wife - I Cor 7:2 - “Let each man have his own wife” “the husband is the head of the wife (not wives) — etc. Notice it doesn’t say, let each man have his wives. That doesn’t even seem to be a consideration. Proverbs 5 even says “Have joy in the wife of your early years…why take another woman in your arms?”
Furthermore, the whole idea of marriage in God’s eyes is for the husband and wife to be joined together as ONE flesh — how can that happen when there’s multiple wives?
Moreover, you are the one who is twisting scripture when you give your personal opinion (not God’s) that “There is nothing good about the fact that women can take care of themselves nowadays - it is a fruitless, unfruitful existence for a woman to be unmarried, and not at all desirable” — the scripture explicitely says that it is GOOD for them to remain unmarried (as Paul was) if they are able to be chaste, for a woman that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and mind. The Bible says that marriage is good and honorable, but there is also special blessing for those who are single (as long as they can deal with no sex) because they aren’t so cumbered with the things of the world.
You say
“it doesn’t say that the children have to be teenagers or adults to prove that he’s a good father — just that he should be ruling them well and they should be obedient to him.”
Please tell me then, at what age do you think it can be determined that “his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” (Titus 1:6) ?
If you want to rely on the New Testament alone to speak about marriage, please go ahead and do so, but Proverbs 5 would not have to mention the bit about the wife of one’s youth if she was the only one. If you take Exo 21:10 into consideration, you see the context. Interestingly enough, Exo 21:10 is also the context in which to view Isa 4:1, but more about that later.
About the “one flesh” thing: Please consider 1Co 6:16. If you can be one flesh with a whore, quite obviously it is a rather fleshly thing that we are dealing with here - big surprise there: Scripture says what it means and means what it says.
You say
“you are the one who is twisting scripture when you give your personal opinion”
Well, since my opinion is not Scripture, it is difficult to twist Scripture when I state my opinion. But be that as it may, of course the bible also mentions celibacy as one calling, just as monogamy and polygamy are different callings. But if is was so good for women to remain unmarried, like Paul was, please tell me how you reconcile that with the dominion mandate of Gen 1:28. Yes, Paul said he wished everyone was like him, but if that indeed was a statement that you can apply generally speaking, God’s dominion mandate would be neglected. Scripture doesn’t contradict itself though, so you need to come to an understanding in which both statements are valid. Hence my opinion that, given the dominion mandate, it is indeed undesirable and fruitless, unfruitful, for a woman to be unmarried, even if society nowadays thinks otherwise. There might be some called to celibacy, of course, but given Gen 1:28, that’s not the norm, but rather the exception.
Topics: apologetics |
April 18th, 2008 at 5:11 am
With reference to Titus, children can and do become believers at a young age — especially if they have godly parents. You used the word “debauchery” - but the actual Greek word is “asotia” — which simply means “unsaved” (although by implication it can mean riotous). Any child over the age of two can be insubordinate and riotous. Therefore, once again, no need for the children in question to be teens or adults — simply that they be believers, obedient to their parents, and well-behaved.
It is clear that God wants the bishops/elders/deacons to set the example of the ideal monogamous marriage, and proper parenting.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Abigail,
Well, if you took into consideration the Hebrew mindset, you would understand what the age of accountability is and means. Children were to be taught in the matters of the Law until they were 12/13, by which age that process should be completed and they should be able to tell right from wrong according to God’s standard.
The proper ceremony (Bar/ Bat Mitzvah) showed everyone in the community that this particular child was now a member, to be held accountable for his and her deeds. The “Bar Mitzvah” is the Jewish ritual that commemorates the religious adulthood of a boy, “Bat Mitzvah” would be the same a girl. We see Jesus teaching in the temple at the age of 12 and a half (Luk 2:41-52), not at the age of 2, 5 or 9. Why do you think that is the case ?
Before the Bar/ Bat Mizvah, nobody judged children as being believers or unbelievers, insubordinate or riotous - they were still in training. Hence, elders etc. could not prove that their children were actually believers and not insubordinate or riotous before they reached the age of accountability.
Oh, incidentally: “debauchery” is what the ESV translates, and if you compare different translations of the respective Greek word, you can see that several translations interpret “asotia” as being connected to an excessive lifestyle, probably because you find that same connection in Eph 5:18 and 1Pe 4:3-4, the only other two places in which this Greek word is used (according to Strong’s Concordance). The bible explains itself, you see.
So in conclusion, deacons and elders were indeed to set an example in many ways, but being monogamous was more a practical issue so that it could be determined whether or not they raised all their children well. Like I said before, doing the math would help in understanding this, and also, taking an additional wife as an elder or deacon would mean that the next child at least potentially might not turn out to be a believer, a pickle Paul quite obviously wanted to avoid.
Grace and Peace,
Talitha
April 18th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Look, I’m a victim of sexual abuse, I know it was abuse because I was brain washed into thinking it was okay and that as long as the rest of the world did not know what was going on everything would be fine. The truth is that it was not what I wanted but rather felt that I did not have a choice in the matter. I felt powerless and out control of myself. I was around 13 when I finally relized it was wrong. I refuse to go into detail what happened. Anyway, I developed I mind of my own.
Let’s think about something for a second. How many wives did Adam have? Yes, polygamy is mentioned in several areas in the Old Testament but is it mentioned as often in the New?
Oh, We are not persecuted by the Religous Laws the we break as beleivers but by own SIN. Becareful how you define SIN, might comeback and bite you in the but on judgement day.
Editor’s note: Michelle pasted an article here that discusses the question whether or not polygamy is allowed in the New Testament. We feel more comfortable to simply give you the link to the article:
christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html
Thanks Michelle.