Then please, tell us how it's done!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Where does the Bible command polygamy?

God doesn't contradict Himself. If the Bible and the writings of EGW contradict themselves, they can't come both from Him.
What are the passages that you think contradict themselves?

Rosangela,

God commands, just after the Ten Commandments are given, in fact, that if a man marries a second wife, he must not diminish his care of nor "duty of marriage" with the first one. Furthermore, God commands that widows should not leave the family to marry outside of it, but must marry a brother of the deceased husband. The only time when this command could not be followed would be if the deceased had had no brother. Then she would be free to go elsewhere, presumably. But no specification is given for the woman who has three brothers-in-law, all of them married. She is simply commanded to marry one of them. This would cause one of them to have a second wife (or third, etc., if already having plural wives). Even before God gives this command, precedent for it had been set (see Genesis chapter 38).

How can these commands of God, the one which details how to treat multiple wives, the other which commands a potentially polygamous marriage, not be in contradiction to the words "God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance"? Furthermore, God goes on record, speaking through the prophet Nathan, that He gave David his wives (plural). How can this not be "sanctioning?"

I would appreciate any view which has the potential for erasing this apparent contradiction. I'm not a contradiction seeker, but have sufficient logic and reason to recognize one when I see one. This particular one seems almost inescapable. The two perspectives seem irreconcilable. One or the other appears incorrect, or shall we say, "inexact."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So He is not commanding that a man marries a second wife, but merely making a provision to protect the wife in case a man marries again. So God is tolerating, not commanding, polygamy.


The Bible doesn't give many details about the levirate marriage, but in the details it does give, there are no cases of a married man taking the wife of a deceased brother.
In the case of Tamar, her second husband was single and the third son of Judah, who had been promised to her, was also single.
In the book of Ruth, we verify that this precept wasn't limited to brothers, but was extended to the nearest of kin (who, in this case, was also single).
This may imply that, in case the brother was already married, the duty could be fulfilled by the nearest relative who wasn't married. Besides, the brother or relative could opt out of the levirate marriage.
The Reformation Study Bible says, "The limitation to brothers 'living together' may indicate that it applied to an unmarried brother."
So, we don't know much about this custom, but we can't affirm it was potentially polygamous.


Again, God cannot contradict Himself. In Deut. 17:17 God had said about the king, "He shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away." Would God tell a king NOT to multiply wives for himself, and then give him multiple wives? Would this make any sense?
In the Bible many times God says that He did what He merely permitted or tolerated.
The evil spirit who tormented Saul was not "from God" (1Sam. 16:16). The Lord did not send lying spirits to entice Ahab (1 Ki 22:19-23). He permitted these things.

Rosangela,

If it were a sin to take a second wife, why would God say "if he take him another wife...?" If it were a sin, God should have said instead, "he must not take another wife within her lifetime..." or something to that effect. God would never have been "permissive" of sin, to give a law like that allowing sin.

This, in itself, proves that polygamy was not so heinous as some might see it.

(Going back to topic...)

Neither would God have allowed to enter His sacred Word such "permissions" as "Let him drink...and remember his misery no more." Consider that that statement actually begins with "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts." When I'm out and about in the city and run across an alms-seeker, I rarely, if ever, give him money for fear that he'll waste it all on beer. But, according to this commandment, I should not withhold from him, even if he were to spend it up on wine, isn't that what it seems to be saying?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Regarding Tamar, do we know that Judah's sons were unmarried? (I'll grant that we know that for the last one, but what of the others?)

Regarding Boaz, do we know that he was single? Where do we find such a fact?

It is noteworthy that Mrs. White makes zero mention of Tamar in all of her published writings, and the word "Boaz" appears but thrice, with only one of those being an actual statement of Mrs. White referring to the Bible character (and it refers only to his courtesy).

Neither does Mrs. White make even one mention of any Biblical widow remarrying. (In a modern case, she claims to have no light from God on the subject of a widow's remarriage, either for or against.)

Silence. Is eloquence. Of what?

Back on the topic of wine, Ellen White is also entirely silent upon the text of Proverbs 31:6-7. She makes no use of this text, nor does she mention it at all. The nearest we come to a mention of the Deuteronomy passage, apparently, is the following statement, which omits any reference to the "strong drink" whatsoever, nor is that portion of the passage addressed. She entirely passes over verse 26, and does not reference it.



Meanwhile, there are hundreds of times where Mrs. White used the term "strong drink." She clearly viewed it as alcoholic. Here is one such statement which illustrates this.



Mrs. White speaks of the "strong drink" in reference to the angel's words to Samson's parents, but does not acknowledge the use of this term in any portion of the Bible where strong drink is less-conservatively portrayed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, do you agree with JAK that God permitted "drunkenness" on special occasions?

And, do you agree with him that Jesus occasionally experienced "drunkenness"?

Also, concerning the two texts which appear to recommend "wine" and "strong drink" in specific instances, do you think God is recommending "drunkenness"?

Finally, what do you make of all passages in the Bible and the SOP which explicitly prohibit "wine" and "strong drink" and "drunkenness"? Do they contradict the other two passages you posted?

Let me rewrite what you said:
If it were a sin to divorce, why would God say, "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce..." (Dt 24:1)? If it were a sin, God should have said instead, "he must not divorce his wife..." or something to that effect. God would never have been "permissive" of sin, to give a law like that allowing sin.
This, in itself, proves that divorce was not so heinous as some might see it.

Is that your logic? But if divorce is not heinous, adultery is not heinous.
"But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

The same is true about slavery. But I won't rewrite it again. I think you understood my point.

Mike,

I think JAK and I may be coming from different perspectives on this. I would not deliberately choose to imply that God permitted drunkenness "on special occasions." I think that sort of perspective is flawed on multiple counts, not least of which is that of "consistency." If it were ok on one occasion, it should be just as acceptable on the next, unless express conditions were outlined in advance (such as the recipe which God instructed for the anointing ointment that was not to be ever made again).

To my mind, we need to be looking for a broader picture here, as opposed to one involving any "special circumstances" or "exceptions."

I also do not believe Jesus experienced drunkenness. I believe that accusation of Him was false. We are told that Jesus was very careful when eating with others not to eat everything presented, but only those foods which would nourish Him, and I think this means in part that He kept it simple. I find that I feel much better on Sabbath afternoons when I have done likewise--I'll eat only from two or three dishes, and when I go back for seconds, I get the same foods (or similar). I avoid foods that are too complex. Then I don't get any headache, such as Ellen White speaks of people getting after their Sabbath meals. (I used to get headaches before I learned my lesson on this.)

If Jesus would have been so careful as this about His food, I am certain He would have taken some consideration for what He drank. That said, there was food a thousand times better in Heaven, which He left behind. He came to us, eating what we ate (close to garbage, sometimes, by comparison!), in order to teach us and take our debt of sin upon Himself. We know He ate fish. Even after His resurrection. I do not believe Jesus was addicted to meat as many are today. He ate it not for Himself, but for us. He ate it in acceptance of our humble conditions and hospitality. And fish is only part of what He may have eaten that we might wonder about. They didn't have refrigerators back then. Perhaps He ate some cheese, and Ellen White says it was never fit for human consumption. Perhaps He did drink some wine that was preserved in its own vinegar or alcohol. I cannot prove it one way or another. If He did drink it, however, it would have been for others, and not for Himself. He would have had no taste for it.

Nevertheless, the accusation against Him for drunkenness was tantamount to the accusations He faces for being a "bastard." They were illegitimate claims, both of them. Jesus had a Heavenly Father which the people of His day may not have recognized as a "legitimate" father.

In short, while I cannot be certain as to all of what Jesus ate or drank, I am sure of His motives and His habits of keeping Himself as pure as possible. Physically, life on this earth was a challenge. Even the very best of conditions here would have tended toward corruption of His health. Yet, His motives were pure, and it was no sin for Him to eat the common fare of the day with His family and friends. Did that common fare include some spice, pickles, cheese, vinegar or wine? We simply do not know, and I cannot make any judgment on these things one way or the other.

I'll have to address your other questions in another post.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.