Christian Polygamy

[Job8]

Im Curious About Christian (Non Mormon ) Women Views On Polygamy? Do You Thinks Its Ok Biblically? Would You Be Up To It?

Polygamy was tolerated by God in Old Testament times. But there is no sanction for it whatsoever in the New Testament, and certainly not in the teachings of Christ. Mormon Celestial Marriage is a deviant doctrine, as are all Mormon doctrines.

In fact, Jesus clearly pointed out that God's plan for human marriage was a permanent monogamous relationship ("one flesh", which goes beyond merely the physical, and into the spiritual), and the apostles maintained this doctrine. For elders and deacons, it was (and is) a Divine requirement to be monogamous.

Perhaps most Christians fail to see that Christian marriage is a type of the Marriage of the Lamb -- Christ and the Church in eternal intimate union and communion, which shuts out all other "spouses". Paul says that this is Mystery. He also says that he has "betrothed" Christians to Christ. So there is a lot more to human marriage than meets the eye.

As to the lapse of faith of Sarah in giving Hagar to Abraham, that in itself is an object lesson. Sarah becomes a type of the New Jerusalem and freedom in Christ, whereas Hagar becomes a type of Jerusalem on earth (Galatians 4:19-31), and bondage of legalism under the Law of Moses.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Dirk, can you be more specific where Paul said that in Romans? My dad always took issue with people relying solely on our English translations where they make use of singular language when the singular meaning wasn't absolutely rooted in the Hebrew or Greek.

Thanks

 

[SwordmanJr]

Polygamy was tolerated by God in Old Testament times. But there is no sanction for it whatsoever in the New Testament, and certainly not in the teachings of Christ. Mormon Celestial Marriage is a deviant doctrine, as are all Mormon doctrines.

In fact, Jesus clearly pointed out that God's plan for human marriage was a permanent monogamous relationship ("one flesh", which goes beyond merely the physical, and into the spiritual), and the apostles maintained this doctrine. For elders and deacons, it was (and is) a Divine requirement to be monogamous.

Perhaps most Christians fail to see that Christian marriage is a type of the Marriage of the Lamb -- Christ and the Church in eternal intimate union and communion, which shuts out all other "spouses". Paul says that this is Mystery. He also says that he has "betrothed" Christians to Christ. So there is a lot more to human marriage than meets the eye.

As to the lapse of faith of Sarah in giving Hagar to Abraham, that in itself is an object lesson. Sarah becomes a type of the New Jerusalem and freedom in Christ, whereas Hagar becomes a type of Jerusalem on earth (Galatians 4:19-31), and bondage of legalism under the Law of Moses.

Tolerated? What about God actively giving some men plural wives, and even commanding it in the Law for other men? To say that He merely tolerated it is to add to the word of God what isn't there. And why drag mormons into this? Polygyny didn't start with them, and it won't end with them. What do they have to do with any of this?

Also, can you tell us where the Bible said anything about "one flesh" having a direct tie to monogamy? Paul addressed men laying with prostitutes, and asked them if they didn't realize that laying with a harlot makes them one flesh with the harlot. He didn't say the man had to be single to be one flesh with a harlot. Are you an expert in Greek? Do you know better than those who wrote the Greek lexicons and dictionaries? If you have a higher level of credentials than they, we'd certainly like to hear about them.

Please clarify.

 

[Dirk1540]

Dirk, can you be more specific where Paul said that in Romans? My dad always took issue with people relying solely on our English translations where they make use of singular language when the singular meaning wasn't absolutely rooted in the Hebrew or Greek.

Thanks

Sorry what I did was just notice one of the posts from someone and assumed it was agreed upon because it wasn't challenged (may have even been a different thread). So TIME OUT!! Then this is great news, then you DON'T believe Paul made anything at all up, do you? I don't know how I got spun around thinking the argument was that Paul invented monogamy. Well I searched for 'The Bible's teaching against polygamy' and it was a lot of inferences, I guess the only argument that hinted at a 'Greek' argument could maybe be this;

"In 1 Corinthians 7:1–16 Paul answered questions that the Corinthian church had about marriage. In this passage Paul used the singular form of wife and husband throughout the passage. In fact, this is true of the New Testament writers in general."

Not sure if he's making a decent Greek argument here or not, I'd love to here you pick it apart lol...I feel better in fact that Paul does not making such a thing up. It appears all that he does is claim it for church leaders;

"In 1 Timothy 3:2 and 12 and Titus 1:6, we are told that leaders of the church must be the 'husband of one wife.'" (Hmm, how does the Catholic Church come up with zero wives??).

Anyway I'm happy with your reply, just curious about your opinion about the 1 Corinthians 7:1-16. There's nothing better then breaking stuff down into the Greek & Hebrew!!

 

[SwordmanJr]

So, let me ask you this. If Paul had said for every man to raise up his son (singular) in the teachings of Jesus, would that mean that every man is allowed to have only one son, or that only one of his sons is to be raised with the knowledge of Jesus, even if the context said nothing about the number of sons each man is limited to?

It seems to me that so many people who embrace monogamy as the only martial form God sets into the lives of His people, that they talk as if they have license to inject any and all meaning they personally choose into the scriptures wherever it can be made to fit. (Not saying you're doing this, but many seem to do this without any conscience.)

No, I have no reason to believe that Paul made anything up, although many who study the Bible seem to think that they have permission to inject whatever meaning they want into key areas of the the Bible that make it all sound as if it backs their cause.

I think we both agree about Paul.

 

[dayhiker]

Paul clearly knew that the law of the Jews allowed men to have more than one wife. He also knew having grown up in a Gentile city that Roman law only allowed me to have one wife. Since Paul was writing his epistles to the Gentiles its clear in my thinking that Paul didn't want to be telling Gentiles to go against the law they were under. Now the Jews if the 1st century patitioned Rome and got an exemption from that law. Those we have early church fathers poking fun at Jewish men who walked down the street with 4 wives. Personally, I think the Jews got it right as who what is acceptable to God and not Rome.

 

[SwordmanJr]

We're definitely romish here in the West, with our cultural-mandated brand of Christianity. The lies about marriage have been vomited from pulpits for over a century now about how the government legitimizes a marriage in God's eyes with a certificate from one's local town hall. Pure nonsense.....and they have the gall to accuse others of misinterpretations of the scriptures!

 

[Dirk1540]

Good points! Yeah it seems like this whole thread consisted of people 'Injecting' their anti-polygamy arguments into the texts...I don't recall a single argument that didn't come across as a complete stretch. And I say that as a person who has no plans to EVER have more than 1 wife.

I'm shocked that Rome had such a law. Hmm maybe because of legal reasons?? Surely it couldn't have been for reasons of sexual purity.

 

[dayhiker]

I believe the one wife law was for stability in civil life. Also a law that one could only have one wife, didn't mean you couldn't also have a concubine.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Blessedly, we aren't Rome (at least, not yet). As believers in Christ Jesus, we're supposed to be living that unshackled freedom scripture talks about. I wrote many, many posts for my dad where he talked long and hard about the shackles of social and cultural doctrines being established in Western Christianity as originating with God, when in reality they did not. Jesus spoke on the evils of man-made traditions. Well, churchianity is chalked full of such.

As an aside, I recently talked with some folks about how fed up I am with hearing socalled pastors yammering about how "the church" has failed to be what it was meant to be, and that being the reason behind the decline of our culture and nation. That is such a load of trash! The Church has always been glorious and shining. What I wish those men in the limelights would clarify is that they're talking abount institutional churches, not THE Church. The differences between the two are HUGE!

The most glaring is:

Unbelievers can and do populate the pews and chairs of church organizations all over the world.

Not one unbeliever stands in the ranks of the redeemed in Christ Jesus.

Wow. What a rush!

 

[SwordmanJr]

When I read posts where people point out the singular "wife" in some passages that have nothing to do with establishing monogamy as the only marital form that is acceptable to God, I can't help but to think of other verses such as Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives (PLURAL), even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;", and Col 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives (PLURAL), and be not bitter against them."

See? Both sides can play that game, and the monogamyonly people will remain stiff-necked. From what I've been taught, that's why logical fallacies and injected meanings into scripture are dishonest, which clearly isn't pleasing to the Lord. Oh, but they'll go to their "church" this Sunday, flip on the "worship" switch, and have no pains in their conscience after having abused the scriptures against other believers they've never even met in person, and pretend their "worship" that Sunday morning will be acceptable before the Lord.

This brings to mind the words of D. James Kennedy when he looked out across his followers sitting in their "church" building, and declared that some of them would not enter the Kingdom of God because of their unbelief. You could have heard a pin drop in that place. Some live their lives for the devil, such as promoting doctrines manufactured by mere men as if they were written by the very Hand of God. Criticism of such people isn't a matter of being bitter. I see them as living in a sad state of their faith that may cause them to be counted among those Dr. Kennedy talked about. To me, it's more important to get professing believers to embrace ALL that God's word teaches as a whole, and let go of the social gospel and doctrines of the devil that lead only to legalistic death.

 

[dayhiker]

I really think God is more gracious than that. He knows how hard it is for humans to really love one another. Most humans do well if they can love one other person and a few family members. God just keeps loving them hoping they will see how much better love is. Love covers a multitude of sins.

 

[SwordmanJr]

hiker, who were you responding to?

 

[dayhiker]

I guess swordman, that I don't see us needing to refer to the church as being dishonest.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Are you saying that you think institutional church organizations are "the church"? I always thought the Church is people, independent of organizational structuring and real estate. What I said is that institutional-ism, buy nature, is very prone to the pollution of man-made traditions and thought, which leads to varying levels of dishonesty in various forms. When they teach what clearly is false, they are dishonest. What else can they be? What other description fits? They have Bibles they can read, like all the rest of us. What excuse do they have that would suffice in laying aside the charge of dishonesty?

Just curious since you didn't quote exactly which statement I made that motivated your comment.

 

[dayhiker]

Definitely, the people are the church. The organizations are just the groups of some of the people that make up the church.
We are taught the way we are about these topics because of the asceticism the entered the church in its infancy. Then the shift
from people sinning because they worshiped idols to people are sinning because of their interest in sex.
By now, we have centuries of documentation that is built on those beliefs and that makes it hard to see past the man made rules.
Most pastors as so busy trying to help their people get thru life that they have no time to really search out ways that love can
be expressed beyond what they have been taught. If this did accept something new, they wouldn't know how handle it because
they have no model to follow. To me that isn't being dishonest. Its just living in the box we were born in.
Some of us find the box so uncomfortable that we have to get out of the church box and learn to love outside the box.
While some were sinning outside the box and find great comfort in the box.

So I don't put down those that live in the box, even those that box isn't working for many of them. Its all they know.
I'm learning to live outside the box. I'm living a poly lifestyle. I'm finding I can love in mind blowing ways. I'm finding
that many are coming to me as asking about my relationship with God as a result.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Hmm. They're living in a "box", and with that being all they know, they shouldn't be addressed as dishonest or anything else that may----offend them? Is that the word?

Do you think the Lord is displeased with us if we dare call institutionalism's members on the carpet, for not seeking the truth, because they don't know any better?

Can it be said that the scribes and pharisees should have received a more warm, wholesome welcome from Jesus because of their not knowing any better? But then, some will say they were knowledgeable of the scriptures, and yet chose to continue the path of legalism, so they therefore were worthy of Jesus' derision. Considering the literacy rate among the "churched" for many, many years now, what excuse do they have that makes them less worthy of the same chastisements Jesus gave to the pharisees? Just because Jesus gave the pharisees serious rug burn on their feet, they could still accept the Truth, turn aside from their man-made traditions, and walk in the Light, which some did.

Some will, some won't-----next.

That may seem fatalistic to some, but then I don't presume to change the hearts and minds of 100% of who I share with. Not even Jesus could accomplish that, even with them seeing all those miracles. I do make mistakes at times in my approaches, but making excuses for blind indifference on the foundation of ignorance, that seems a bit of a stretch to me. The only reason I ended up outside that "box", as you call it, is because of a prayer I lifted up to the heavens while sitting in one of those boxes. I was hardly prepared for the journey He led me through. My dad has a similar story.

 

[dayhiker]

Clearly, God has lead us to a very similar place but with differences as well.
I do tell those who as what my life and where I am at. After church today, a guy pulled me aside and we talked for over 45 mins because the churches
way wasn't working for him. I told him even more about my life and I'm sure rocked his world quite a bit. But he knew I wasn't just trying to keep him in a box
that didn't work for him. He said I was the only one that he could talk to about what he was feeling. I told him I was honored that he wants to talk to me about
the struggle he was having.
I don't expect the church will put me behind to the pulpit and let me tell what God has taught me. Yet in the last month I've had 10 people ask me how
I got to where I'm at. One lady who has known me for 17 yrs just tonight called me and told me that I was just glowing the last time she saw me. Oh,
she called to ask advice for a job interview coming up this week.

 

[SwordmanJr]

It's great to share with those who are seeking true fellowship and meaningfulness on their faith, and it's even better to help others to BECOME giants in the faith, to join with all the other giants walking this earth.

Our conversation inspired this song over this past weekend.

https://soundcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Ffourwindsangels%2Fmighty-and-glorious-remix

 

[xpower]

Was polygamy always looked at negatively in Christianity? If not, when did it start to?