by ParadiseCircus 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
So marriage is currently the topic du jour in the TMS and this meme's got me thinking about the Bible and marriage:
But when I bring this up with dubs they say that 'Jehovah tolerated this so that the Israelites could shore up the numbers; it wasn't necessarily sanctioned by Him'. Can I get some help with a rebuttal?
Well, several of those scenarios in the chart are from the Mosaic Law, so those situations were sanctioned by Jehovah and, in fact, were commandments. It wasn't a matter of tolerance, because nobody wanted to marry his sister-in-law, but Jehovah made them do it. Same with rapists, obviously.
LOL. Is that what the dubbies say? Ask them if the Old Testament prohibition on homosexuality was for the same reason….
Great reference and thinking points!
I would add that polygamny was NEVER CONDEMNED in the Bible, even in Christian times. A man's secondary wives were protected under Jewish law. Now polygamy might have been "discouraged" but the Law made it so that the first wife was not neglected. So if a wealthy man wanted to take on a second wife, he still had to perform his sexual obligation to his first wife. She was not to be back-burnered.
The respect for the responsibility to the family is emphasized during Christian times when men with secondary wives were excluded from positions in the congregation. This might have been an obvious exclusion for a least two reasons: 1) Positions in the congregation were for those who actually had the time to devote to the extra duties and they were required to have their families in order along with dependent children. If not, it was hypocritical to have them serve as elders or ministerial servants in the congregation when their own households were not in order, obviously the priority was to get their own households in order. 2) Very much related to #1, polygamous households even under the best circumstances were typically challenging and difficult. Further, it is obvious a man's time and interest was already sub-optimal to any one wife in a polygamous household, so that being his primary responsibility, a standard rule was made to exclude them from positions in the congregation which would further tax his situation. However, this in no way meant they should divorce all but their first wife in order to attain a position in the congregation! This is a misinterpretation of the role in the congregation being one of "service" and not great honor and ego.
This is no different than the WTS requiring missionaries to marry, but refrain from children? Why? Because a single man in the territory is a target for scandal. Some men might become jealous. Missionaries might become tempted. So that is solved by them being married. On the other hand, little children to care for will take away time from their purpose in the ministry, so they had a rule not to have chlidren. But does that mean everyone aspiring to be a missionary should get rid of their children to adoption agencies? Does this mean that it is a sin to remain single? No! It's just the marital or family circumstances impact on the ability to carry out a specific task related to the ministry.
That's why today's world of Christendom who seem to have a distinct disdain of polygamist, based on their own distorted puritanical view of sex, is inappropriate. The Bible does not condemn polygamy! But it does condemn divorce except on the grounds of fornication. So when the WTS goes into Africa and requires the brothers there with many wives to divorce all but the first, breaking those homes and subjecting the divorced women to temptation of adultery, they fulfilll the reference where one travels around the globe to make one proselyte and then after finding him, makes him twice as subject to Gehenna. Because he was fine with being married with his wives. These were legally recognized wives and families. Once they divorce them, they break God's law against divorce.
This is why the WTS is called the "man of lawlessness" at 2 thess 4:2. "They honor God with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from him."
Didn't want to tangent, but just note that POLYGAMY is still an approved marital state per God's law. There is no old law or Christian law or rule condemning polygamy.
LS
LS, do you count your time in writing this? Your points heavily sidetracked, but it was probably good to let it out :)
LS, do you count your time in writing this? Your points heavily sidetracked, but it was probably good to let it out :)
Yeah, I kind of get emotional when I think of those broken up families and all the pain that was NEEDLESSLY caused by the WTS and blamed on Jehovah. But did want to make the point under the general discussion of "Biblical definitions of marriage" that polygamy is still considered a sanctioned union. Western bias, which tends to worship and idolize the Western woman is antethetical to polygamy, of course.
Point well taken but not off-topic.
Cheers.
P.S. Of course I count this time! (nada ) I'm hoping all the sleep minds might wake up a bit.
LS
NOTE: I will comment on one thing that might seem misogynic without considering the culture. That of a rapist being reqired to marry his victim. In that culture the average man owned property. A woman scorned and not a virgin any more would have a problem getting married to anyone, so the rapist not only took away her dignity and virginity but any hope of a future. So the idea that he had to marry the woman he raped was a way for him to pay her back for his indescretion. That is, in our modern culture, this would seem to be adding insult to injury, but in that culture it would have been considered limiting the cultural harm of that rape. Still not ideal for the woman, but better than her being condemned to a life of poverty. It is reasonable that the woman might have the choice to refuse if she wanted. I wonder what the scenario would be if a married woman was raped? I guess the husband would have the right to kill him?
As can be seen by the chart, a lot of the context of marriage was security and property. Brother-in-law marriage was clearly something to benefit the woman, for instance. Often the men didn't want to do this. But this clearly shows a preference for the widow and her children, but again, in regard to the right to property and inheritance.
God likes women too. He hated divorce! That was one of the things going on in Israel, all the pain from broken marriages. Women cast aside.
In the new order, all will be "like the angels" and thus after population zero is reached, with no need for childbirth or marriage, the sexes will be demolished and everyone will be unisexual, like the angels. "Marriage" will be abolished even though everyone in the population will sort of be in an open marriage with everyone else. If you wanted to have sex with any other individual, you can. The two sexes are only necessary for reproduction only. Once that is over, then there is no reason to have two sexes, including women being the "weaker" sex. Men and women will thus be the same. Not completely sure if everyone will have a womb and a penis--that will work. Maybe you will get an orgasm from holding hands or something? Anyway, it will be great and equality between all will finally be achieved. Women will cease to be the sexually disadvantaged.
LS
quote LS:
P.S. Of course I count this time! (nada ) I'm hoping all the sleep minds might wake up a bit.
LS
Well I came on strong, didn't meant to be harsh :)
No wonder we get emotional, considering our roots..
Adonai: Well I came on strong, didn't meant to be harsh :)
No wonder we get emotional, considering our roots..
Yes, it gets emotional. But I think it is too far along to correct anything. A few people will try to search for answers, more will just wait to see what happens.
Christ is said to be married. The church is his bride. Does that mean an intimate relationship? Sex? Spiritual sex? Isn't that what a marriage is for, a special intimacy? I don't think many think of Christ as having the equivalent of sex with his special chosen ones. The mind works in strange ways, twisting and blocking out what we don't want to face. Perhaps the reference is more that they are all "one body" like being "one flesh" as husband and wife are said to be.
Jus some more thoughts on topic: marriage.
LS
I know that I am somewhat off-topic, but I feel some relevance.
What right does one group -- Christians/Jews -- have to impose their views on to non-believers? If a Christian interprets marriage as only between a man and a woman, then that limitation relates to their own convictions. But that does not mean everyone else has to be obedient to a Christian's viewpoint.
Is there any proof that children of a man/woman relationship are always better cared for?
Why should the partners of a homosexual or lesbian relationship have less legal rights?
Likewise for the children of such a family. Why should they have lesser legal rights and protections?
Doug
Lars, I think you made some good points there. I'd never thought of that about Polygamy before. Obviously the culture in Africa is much more different than in the Western world and having to divorce all his wives would be a hardship to those women. The same as in Israelite days.
Also in Israelite times the culture was that any woman who stayed single or had no children was disgraced. It was worse for her to be unmarried and have no children than to be married to a man she didn't romantically love. It's difficult for us to see beyond our own culture sometimes.
