Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphonette  But "I gave you...your master's wives into your arms" is a fairly explicit statement in and of itself, the meaning of which isn't changed because it's part of a larger statement. The LORD gave David those wives. He says so about as clearly as He could. How else could he phrase it so as to make it plainer, if that is indeed what He meant?
<snip>
"I gave your master's wives into your arms." If that's not the LORD saying that the reason David had those wives is because the LORD gave them to him, I cannot think of how else He could have phrased it so that it did mean that. |
It seems to me that this is a case of letting the weight of Scripture bear on a hard-to-understand part of Scripture, as opposed to resting a case on a single text. Statements that seem clear on the face often have to be interpreted carefully (and perhaps in a way different than first blush - e.g. "The Lord repented that he had made man", which about as clear as day sounds like the Lord thinks He was in error for making man! We interpret that differently given that the rest of Scripture speaks differently of God with respect to making mistakes.) in the light of the whole Bible. Clarity of expression is not the only thing we have to consider (though I agree it is a factor).
Don't you think another reading is possible, and more likely, given the weight of the rest of Scripture? Perhaps what is meant is that David legitimately (as successor) could have chosen any of the wives of Saul (how many were there, anyway? I'm only aware of one, in addition to his concubine(s)... perhaps the word translated "wives" there should be interpreted as "women" of his household?) to be his own. Instead, what he did was choose an illegitimate route of adultery.
Quote:
|
Mind, now, this is not me arguing in favor of polygamy as a Good Thing, but simply that it is not inherently sinful, for if it were, the LORD wouldn't have given men more than one wife (as the first cause; naturally, being sovereign, everything we do is part of His grand, overarching design).
|
This would take us down another path - that is, first cause, and not first cause - that would better be explored elsewhere. I also think with all due respect this distinction of things as "inherently not sinful" but "not a good thing" is somewhat of an icy sidewalk to stand on.
__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net
"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light"
(Christopher Love)
Click to get:
Board Rules --
Signature Requirements --
Suggestions?