In a message dated April 15, 1998, Pet564 writes:

Both reasons 1) and 2) above would lead me to discount the passage in Titus on the subject in question. The principle given in Deuteronomy is/was a principle that the early Jews attributed to their deity, and thus called it one of God's laws. The passage cited (Deut. 17:17) reads as follows in my copy of the 'good book':

"Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

This passage (without reference to other passages in the Bible that may conflict - and I'm sure there are some) hardly isolates the principle it is trying to identify with any sense of certainty or exactness, for it only states that 'he' (a husband) shall not "multiply wives to himself." Does this mean he is to start with one wife, and stick with one wife (monogamy), or should he not 'multiply' one thousand wives and take two thousand? At best, because of its vagueness (for which the Bible is most notorious - hence its many interpretations and denominations) this passage hardly answers questions about marriage, but in fact generates many in my mind (hence this post, and yours too, should you choose to comment).

The position of the Old Testament, to be sure, doubtlessly approves polygamy - at least for its 'favorite sons'. Take Solomon for example: 700 wives and 300 concubines (I should be so lucky!). So, I would state the Old Testament - in this case as in many other moral issues - leads by example, rather than by principle.

The New Testament, if you take the Titus quote that Pet564 cites above, can easily be construed to condone the positions exemplified in the Old Testament stories by virtue of its context as a rule intended specifically for 'elders' (church leaders). Clearly, monogamy was not the principle for the early Christian church, otherwise this exception would not have merited mention from Paul to Titus. By default, polygamy is implied, and therefore wins approval.

The portion of the Deuteronomy quote (17:17) here that prohibits man from "greatly multiply[ing] to himself silver and gold" is an early example of the religion's animosity towards wealth (often referred to by the "pious" as a "warning" as if wealth were somehow evil, or somehow imparts evil). As such, it is at best ambiguous as a principle, for no mention is made to what constitutes or measures "greatly multiply." At what point does someone's wealth qualify as "greatly multiplied?" Blank out. Perhaps that was left intentionally vague so that priests who sought the unearned (for which they by nature are notorious) could assign that ceiling for their own gain as they go, referring to this verse to justify their actions, and appetites.

Also, one should note that this injunction against accumulating wealth makes no mention that a man has a right to the wealth that he earns. And that is why I am so opposed to such reckless aspersions as this passage contains. The implication is that wealth earned at one's expense is evil ("an abomination before the Lord"), and that, if one exceeds whatever assigned limit of wealth that the presiding priests declare, the church has given itself the right to seize that wealth from that industrious individual.

Kind of like our government and its crusade against Bill Gates, and against me as a taxpayer. How fitting that the subject should come up today of all days.

More later, so stay tuned.

Tindrbox

_________________________________