I'm not following this thread, but did have occasion earlier today to look briefly at what EGW says about polygamy.

There are at least two terms you can search on -- "polygamy" and "plurality of wives". It looks like there are around 25 distinct statements using these terms on the EGW CD-ROM.

One of the really core ones is as follows:

Interesting SOP quote glenm again on this topic. I’ve browse through the other distinct SOP quotes and my Biblical understanding (still) is that God’s ideal was indeed one wife for each man, however, as with Levirate marriages allowed in the Law, I see/understand that in genuine cases of one wife not being able to bear children, for which she could be given a certificate of divorce, God allowed for a man to take another wife. In fact divorcing that barren wife would most likely result in her remaining unmarried for the rest of her life, thus really making her life doubly miserable (i.e., both “unloved” and barren, two things that God did not at all want for a woman/wife (cf. Deut 21:15-17; cf. His favoring of Leah for the “unloved” reason in Gen 29:31-33. My view is that the descendants of Ishamael have always been so much more numerous than even the descendants of Isaac (=Israel) for that same “unloved” reason with Hagar.). Lamech may indeed have gone against that just provision and may have married two wives for no such reasons at all.

So, as I see it, just like God allowed, and in Statutory Law, for divorce due to the tangible issues as a result of the loss of man’s perfect state, He also allowed for having a second wife for the sake of having children.

In regards to my earlier point with Elkanah (“a Levite” -PP 569.1/Josephus, Antiquities, 5:10.2 [#342]), it is said in the Bible and SOP (cf. Josephus) that Hannah was loved, but barren, and so Elkanah took second wife Peninnah, while not divorcing his first wife, justly for that reason of having children, which Peninnah did. (See PP 569.2)

It is indeed for this reason of Religious men and Leaders (Abraham, Jacob, Moses?, Elkanah) doing this without being punished by God as was (Lamech), David and Solomon for indeed “baseless” excesses, that I do not see every instance of it as a “sin.” Some cases, when involving childbearing, were indeed according to various pertinent Laws and thus Justified. (contra ST, March 27, 1879 par. 3). And, as I see it, God instructed Abraham to send Hagar away because of the strife her presence was causing in his household. As Is ee it, contra. SR 80.2, if God wanted to make a statement on polygamy, He would have rather instructed Abraham not listen to Sarah’s counsel and marry Hagar in the first place. So my view is that EGW overgeneralized the pointed revelation she was given on this issue to apply to every single occurrence.

Indeed having two wives was more than likely to produce contentious household however it seems to me that God’s Law in Deut 17:17 also indirectly served as an impetus to prevent this from taking place for those cases when such a second/Levirate marriage was justified for those reasons of childbearing.

Again, the punishment for rape was death not marriage. I believe Elle misinterpreted Duet 22:28-29.

So divorce is OK? If it's OK why does God hate it (Mal. 2:16; same word used in Deut. 24:3, 4)?
Besides, why did Jesus say that it was "for your hardness of heart [that] Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so"?
Both the passage in Deut. and Jesus mention the bill of divorcement before the putting away of the wife. So what Jesus is saying here is that the man who gives a bill of divorcement to his wife before putting her away is guilty of adultery if he marries another and that he makes of his former wife an adulterer if she remarries.

(MM, divorce is another one where it's not God's will, but He instructs about it -- "for your hardness of heart")

I see God granting this right to divorce because this hardness would directly translate into quite unhappy marriages. God Himself does not force a relationship or love and that also extends into marriages which is symbolic of His relationship with professed believers. And just like in marriage, when one party does not want to continue in the relationship, divorce (cf. Isa 50:1), though “hated” by Him, is the best option, however with strict regulations/limitations/conditions.

MM, I think you need to re-read Deut 22:23-30 carefully as it is very plainly written how to deal with the case of rape of a virgin damsel. The damsel is to scream if she’s rape which is what define if she’s rape or not(v.27). In the condition that she screamed (v.27) and is not bethrothed, that man does not die(v.27-29). He only dies if that damsel is bethrothed only(v.24 & 25).

So the conclusion according to this law is the man that rapes dies only because of the reason of adultery for he lied with a bethrothed maiden which is considered as a married woman. Deut 22 does not support your interpretation that all cases of rape = death.

NJK, KLand, and others, I agree with the overall of the above. But one thing we need to remember, that God Himself had two wives and He divorced one of them(Israel) in the manner of His law(Jer 3:8 and Deut 24). He wrote her a bill of divorce through the prophet Jeremiah before taking her out of His house.

So God Himself is a Divorcee.

Did God got divorce because of the hardness of His heart?

Indeed/Agreed! And God remarriage is fully justified given the issue of marital unfaithfulness on OT Israel’s part.



Of course not. As the Scriptures relatedly say it was because he ‘found fault with them’ (Heb 8:8ff) that he had to alter those previous relationship/covenantal arrangement though while in the midst of their allotted time (Jer 31:31-34 ca. 640 B.C.), but then at a point where a “marital separation” was about to occur with the Babylonian Captivity.

Indeed it was Israel who had hardened themselves against God in this ‘most gracious’ marriage relationship (cf. Deut 7:6, 7; Ezek 16:1-15), having developed the “forehead (i.e., mentality) of a harlot”, ‘playing the harlot’ and ‘refusing to be ashamed’ (Jer 3:3; Ezek 16:15ff; cf. Rev 17:5), (all something so counterintuitive that God did not “expect”, especially after all this loving care (Isa 5:1-4)).

Contemporary English Version
Deu 22:28 Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught,
Deu 22:29 they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.

Matthew Henry Commentary
V. If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, Deu_22:28, Deu_22:29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of.

John Gill Commentary
Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,.... That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows: and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu_22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo_22:16 but not without her consent: and they be found; in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy.

Exodus
22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.