Polygamy and Christianity

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't see room for polygamy in 1 Corinthians 7, do you?

Is that supposed to mean something? Please explain. Why would anyone try to force into that text what was not at all the subject of that text? Where does it address the number of wives to which a man is limited? It speaks of marrying and not marrying. It speaks of divorce and not divorcing. Other verses in the Bible talk about a command for some men to take an additional wife, and in other verses it talks about God giving a man two additional wives to his already plural wife family. So why would you think that 1 Cor. 7 MUST have made room for polygamy for it to be a valid form of marriage when many other areas of scripture support it? Not for all men, but for some. I would never suggest that most men go out and seek an additional wife. Most men can't even handle having one.

He's telling Timothy who to nominate based on their conduct and maturity. That's called a standard.

No. Wrong. He's spelling out a specific injunction against two specific groups of leaders. Period. What license do you possess (apart from personal opinion, which is not at all binding upon others) that authorizes you to create "principles" at personal whim that others around you should take seriously? I mean, if you choose to adopt that as a guiding principle for your own life, that's fine. I'm not here to take that from you, but pretending that you're some sort of doctrinal teaching authority by making statements with a tone of doctrinal superiority, then I'll just have to call you out on that one.

Because there is no reason to believe that other believers are licensed to be known for poor character, intemperate, greedy, a drunkard, violent, quarrelsome, a lover of money, irresponsible, and ignorant. We are to grow in knowledge and character

So, Abraham, who had plural wives, is known as one who was a man of poor character? After all, your making open-ended claims with no limitations.

[Gen 26:3-5 KJV] 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

What man would not want that praise from the Most High God, and here you are spewing your venomous diatribe in an attempt to poison a marital form of which you know nothing about; apart from what your false teaching pastor, priest, Sunday school teacher, or whomever, has told you. The Bible is replete with evidence that is absolutely contrary to your words. To suggest that those men throughout all history, to this very day are, who had/have plural wives, are all in violation of a personally contrived "principle" as allegedly originating from God, and with no evidence whatsoever, that is presumption at its worst.

Then Scripture would have clearly denoted it. This is irrelevant to the present case.

But it DID denote it? Paul specifically addressed deacons and overseers. How much more clear could he have possibly made it to keep naysayers from inventing nonsense like what you have stated? You are in denial of an absolutely specific DENOTATION. Don't you get it?

What's at stake isn't the moral absolute, but the command. He gave the Jews commands about marriage and adultery in the Law, and Jesus clarified their meaning in an age where the Pharisees abused it.

What pharasee had plural wives that Jesus addressed? Hmm? Please tell us.

Look, although it appears that you seem to enjoy biblical revisionism, Jesus addressed DIVORCE to the pharasees, not polygyny, or even the more broad spectrum of polygamy. So, drawing lines of parallel nowhere supported in that context is manipulation, eisegeticism, falsehood, etc. No man must "divorce" his first or subsequent wife to possess a second wife, for a total of two at once, or three, or four. If you think otherwise, then prove it.

Not my problem. Besides, there's whatever measure of grace God chose to give them when Jesus was dead.

You trying to prove a negative IS your problem! You can't do it. It's not our problem that you don't know your Bible.

No, not at all. First, God was speaking figuratively. Second, God has different rights and privileges than human beings (Romans 12:19 being an easy example of this).

If He was speaking so figuratively, then why did He speak of handing out a writ of divorce for one of them having after having committed adultery with other gods and nations? Since when is the physical that we can see on this earth more real than what is Heavenly? Seriously, you have the cart before the proverbial horse on that one. The unseen is more real than the seen, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

Jr
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

bèlla

❤️
Supporter
Jan 16, 2019
20,485
17,646
USA
✟933,730.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
I was referring to a second marriage after the death of the first spouse. I have never justified and I will never justify polygamy.

This is a growing topic in some circles. I wish they’d stopped using the bible to justify carnal urges. Admit you want multiple partners or whatever fill-in-the-blank you’re trying to pin on God. And be done with it.

~Bella
 
Upvote 0

Chrystal-J

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
12,804
5,993
Detroit
✟798,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Says who? You?

Well, I fully support you possessing what is no more than merely your opinion along that line, and I will even defend your freedom to hold to that opinion, no matter how irrational it is.

Blessedly, your opinion is only that, and no more.

Now, if you can prove that your opinion is more than just your opinion, we'd all love to see the evidence for such....if you can conjure something up with some sort of substance.

It's interesting that your stab at this with your denial of the "one flesh" reality in all sexual unions has apparently been abandoned, unless you have more to say about that one....

Jr
Would you like your spouse to have another spouse?
 
Upvote 0

Chrystal-J

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
12,804
5,993
Detroit
✟798,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Here's a bible verse important to this topic: 1 Corinthians 7
4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.

If a wife rules over her husband's body, how would he be able to take another spouse?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Is that supposed to mean something? Please explain. Why would anyone try to force into that text what was not at all the subject of that text? Where does it address the number of wives to which a man is limited? It speaks of marrying and not marrying. It speaks of divorce and not divorcing.
Yeah, if you already have a spouse, it makes no room for adding another one while the first lives. In a city as deviant as Corinth, one would expect some sort of permission in that chapter to be alluded to, if such permission exists.

Other verses in the Bible talk about a command for some men to take an additional wife, and in other verses it talks about God giving a man two additional wives to his already plural wife family.
None in the New Testament.
No. Wrong. He's spelling out a specific injunction against two specific groups of leaders. Period. What license do you possess (apart from personal opinion, which is not at all binding upon others) that authorizes you to create "principles" at personal whim that others around you should take seriously?
Why should I take your denial that it's a standard seriously?

So, Abraham, who had plural wives, is known as one who was a man of poor character? After all, your making open-ended claims with no limitations.
The plural wives was pretty far from his moral high point, but you're missing my point. My point is that if it's not optional for the laity to be sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, not drunkards, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not lovers of money, why should polygamy get its own special exception?

What man would not want that praise from the Most High God, and here you are spewing your venomous diatribe in an attempt to poison a marital form of which you know nothing about;
My "venemous diatribe"? That's funny.

The Bible is replete with evidence that is absolutely contrary to your words. To suggest that those men throughout all history, to this very day are, who had/have plural wives, are all in violation of a personally contrived "principle" as allegedly originating from God, and with no evidence whatsoever, that is presumption at its worst.
Then share that Biblical evidence. Explain why, in the face of what Jesus and Paul taught the Christians, a Christian can rightly seek more than one spouse at a time. Where is that New Testament permission?

But it DID denote it? Paul specifically addressed deacons and overseers. How much more clear could he have possibly made it to keep naysayers from inventing nonsense like what you have stated? You are in denial of an absolutely specific DENOTATION. Don't you get it?
My contention is that they are held to high moral standards that are taught to all Christians elsewhere in the New Testament, and there are also some basic competencies of teaching and leadership that they need to have as well. And that the ideal here is leadership by example, and that the laity should follow the examples of good overseers and deacons. Thus, the moral standards are for everyone, and the other basic competencies should be cultivated to the best of one's ability. Hence, the entire list should be cultivated to the best of everyone's ability, and if they live long enough, there will be a wider pool of candidates for church leadership to draw from.

What pharasee had plural wives that Jesus addressed? Hmm? Please tell us.
The abuse of the Pharisees that I was referring to, is by those of the school of Hillel who claimed that a man may divorce his wife "for any and every reason." I don't need to name a Pharisee to make that point, what matters is that some of them were teaching it, which is why Jesus had to address it in Matthew 5, and again when he was approached by Pharisees in Matthew 19.

Look, although it appears that you seem to enjoy biblical revisionism, Jesus addressed DIVORCE to the pharasees, not polygyny, or even the more broad spectrum of polygamy. So, drawing lines of parallel nowhere supported in that context is manipulation, eisegeticism, falsehood, etc. No man must "divorce" his first or subsequent wife to possess a second wife, for a total of two at once, or three, or four. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
OK. If marrying multiple women is acceptable, then why is divorcing one wife and marrying another adultery?

If He was speaking so figuratively, then why did He speak of handing out a writ of divorce for one of them having after having committed adultery with other gods and nations?
Because the "writ" is also figurative in that context.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
There's something insidious in polygamy that turns me off to the religions that advocate or have advocated for it. Maybe it's the idea that one man is able to handle all those women or that one man should even have all those women to begin with. Has there ever been a polygamous relationship that matches the best monogamous relationships between a single man and woman?

Yes many old Testament figures engaged in polygamy, but it caused more problems for them than it solved. Abraham marrying Hagar didn't produce legitimate offspring and only caused Sarah grief.

While there isn't a clear scriptural denunciation, we don't need that to see what established Christian practice since the first century was. We have no examples of Christian polygamy to point to in the New Testament and in the immediate centuries that followed. This was an unwritten rule or tradition of the Church which should be respected and followed.

Whenever marriage is spoken about it is as if it's between two people with no clear reference or rules to polygamy, which surely would have existed if there was actual practice of it. We as Christians have looked not the Patriarchs as examples but to Adam and Eve as the original intention of God in allowing marriage to begin with. This is what Christ did as well when he declared we should not divorce easily.
 
Upvote 0

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I was referring to a second marriage after the death of the first spouse. I have never justified and I will never justify polygamy.

Isn't it interesting how serial polygamy is so well accepted in most churches today, with men and women divorcing their first spouse on the basis of "incompatibility", and then remarrying? In other words, God never made allowances for divorce on the basis of compatibility, which means that their first and subsequent divorce(s) were illegitimate, with them going on and marrying another, with them thinking that they are monogamous, when in fact they are POLYGAMOUS!

The idea that legal maneuvers on this earth through man-made courts presided over by pseudo judges legitimizes divorces God never allowed is a level of self-delusion, and yet so many of those same people will, in self-righteous indignation, shake their finger at virtuous men who love all their wives, and who serve as the priests of their homes with integrity, are loving fathers to all their children, never having divorced any of their spouses. Hypocrisy abounds in the West.

Jr
 
Upvote 0

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here's a bible verse important to this topic: 1 Corinthians 4
4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.

If a wife rules over her husband's body, how would he be able to take another spouse?

First of all, the chapter is 7, not 4. There's also no right answer to a wrong question. The key word that's tripping you up is "rule". The Greek word in that verse, and as defined by its grammatical usage in that context, means:

"to be master of the body, i. e. to have full and entire authority over the body, to hold the body subject to one's will," (biblegateway.com, and from Thayer's)

There is a vast distinction between rulership over another's body, and rulership over another in totality.

[Eph 5:23 KJV] 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

As you can see from that verse, headship rests only in ONE of the two, not both, not shared, not egalitarian. Headship is exclusively possessed by only ONE within the family unit, just as the (C)hurch has only ONE Head, not two or more like a dragon. The body is comprised of many members, but with only one head. Keep in mind that it was the Lord who made that connection. I did not draw that line of parallel by any contrived authority I may try to bestow upon myself by a power I don't possess.

So, rule over the BODY is not at all the same thing as headship, forcing it into the realm of exclusivity. You and I can be in a hospital and have just one, or even multiple doctors, overseeing and having "rule" or "care" over our bodies for the sake of our well being, and it not violate anything reasonable. Given this comparative, what's your question, and how is it valid for you to try and use this?

The Bible has already shot down your attempt to misapply the "one body" concept, and now you're trying to yet again misapply a concept, specifically regarding the rule over the body, as if a man can have only one ruling over his body, when in fact there can be more than one, just as happens even in hospitals. The Lord didn't state there is a problem in the lives of the polygynous Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs of our faith didn't see any problem with their bodies being ruled by more than one wife, so why would you have a problem with it?

Jr
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, if you already have a spouse, it makes no room for adding another one while the first lives. In a city as deviant as Corinth, one would expect some sort of permission in that chapter to be alluded to, if such permission exists.

Those passages don't have to make room for polygyny because that's not at all a topic within that context. Room for plural wives has been well established in many other parts of scripture. The concept you're trying to force into that context is an illegitimate rule for interpretation. Trying to apply the injunctions against divorce into subjective application as applying as an injunction against polygyny is no different than the interpretational tactics I see being applied by mormons and jehovah's witnesses. You would never allow them to get away with using this type of rules for interpretation, but here you are trying the same style of tactic.

None in the New Testament.

Really? Are you really going to go there? Please show to us where the New Testament made any clear and precise declaration that the coming of Christ Jesus made any changes to marriage, and thus added to, or took away from, any allowances that did not already exist in the Old Testament.

Why should I take your denial that it's a standard seriously?

Wow. You subjectively misapplied context, drew a subjective parallel, I called you out on it, and this is your response? Tit for tat? That's it? That's all you have in your arsenal of apologetic in defending your position?

The plural wives was pretty far from his moral high point, but you're missing my point. My point is that if it's not optional for the laity to be sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, not drunkards, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not lovers of money, why should polygamy get its own special exception?

Mainly because those other items are upheld in many, many other areas of scripture as applying to us all, with this verse being the ONLY verse with that ONE injunction item leveled AGAINST that ONE group of leaders. So, what's the problem?

Then share that Biblical evidence. Explain why, in the face of what Jesus and Paul taught the Christians, a Christian can rightly seek more than one spouse at a time. Where is that New Testament permission?

I'm not the one who laid claim to a negative. YOU are the one trying to prove a negative, so the burden of proof is not on my shoulders. You can read what Nathan said to David just as easily as I can read it, as well as the command for some men to take on an additional wife, specifically the wife of a dead brother in order to provide for him an heir. What's next? "My dad is bigger than your dad, and can therefore whip your dad!"

My contention is that they are held to high moral standards that are taught to all Christians elsewhere in the New Testament, and there are also some basic competencies of teaching and leadership that they need to have as well. And that the ideal here is leadership by example, and that the laity should follow the examples of good overseers and deacons. Thus, the moral standards are for everyone, and the other basic competencies should be cultivated to the best of one's ability. Hence, the entire list should be cultivated to the best of everyone's ability, and if they live long enough, there will be a wider pool of candidates for church leadership to draw from.

Nobody would argue that leading by example is a good thing. However, had Paul said that overseers and deacons should not ever wear pants, but must wear long, flowing robes with artistic sashes, coupled with all those other virtues, you would then take that and demand that ONE disallowance should ALSO be something we ALL must follow? Don't write that off as absurd, because that is indeed the level of absurdity you're trying to apply here. Other areas of scripture already uphold those other virtues as applying to us all, but here, in this one verse, that one item exists ONLY HERE, and it is specifically directed at overseers and deacons.

How does this one verse, with its one disallowance, when limited to that one set of leaders, somehow negate all the other areas of scripture where those other virtues are applied to us all? I don't see the connection, or the crisis. Please explain.

OK. If marrying multiple women is acceptable, then why is divorcing one wife and marrying another adultery?

It's adultery when a man marries ANY other woman who is divorced from her first or subsequent husband for reasons not allowed within scripture. He then becomes a partaker of her adulteries. THAT is going on in (c)hurches all around the world. It's also adultery when a man divorces his wife for reasons not allowed within scripture and marries another. That's just the way it is. Most divorces are illegitimate in the eyes of God, and "pastors" are watching it all going on right under their noses, and say little to nothing about it. After all, they don't want their contributing congregant members to feel guilty and leave. That would put the hurt on the flow of money. When a divorce is not legitimate in the eyes of God, and both go out and remarry, that is polygamy, which is inclusive of polyandry (women with plural husbands).

If a man divorces his wife for her adultery, and remarries a woman who is not bound to another man by way of never having been married or is divorced for biblical reasons, then it is not adultery on his part.

Because the "writ" is also figurative in that context.

You just don't get it. The fact remains that what is declared in Heaven is more real than a physical piece of paper on this earth. God is Spirit, and therefore not seen my us, and yet we believe He is more real than anything we may see with our eyes, and feel with our hands. Good grief, dude. For real?

Jr
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Isn't it interesting how serial polygamy is so well accepted in most churches today, with men and women divorcing their first spouse on the basis of "incompatibility", and then remarrying?
It is indeed. I don't think this thread is necessarily meant to be about divorce though. But since you mention it, one of the great scandals of American Christianity these days is how the divorce rate among Christians is pretty similar to the divorce rate of the non-Christian world.

In other words, God never made allowances for divorce on the basis of compatibility
This is absolutely true, you're right.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sketcher
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Those passages don't have to make room for polygyny because that's not at all a topic within that context. Room for plural wives has been well established in many other parts of scripture.
If you're going to say that, you have to either claim that they had that down but didn't have the more basic commands against fornication and adultery and divorce down, or that no Corinthian had thought of having more than one wife at a time. The context makes both of those possibilities highly unlikely.
Really? Are you really going to go there? Please show to us where the New Testament made any clear and precise declaration that the coming of Christ Jesus made any changes to marriage, and thus added to, or took away from, any allowances that did not already exist in the Old Testament.
Matthew 19:7-8.

Wow. You subjectively misapplied context, drew a subjective parallel, I called you out on it, and this is your response? Tit for tat? That's it? That's all you have in your arsenal of apologetic in defending your position?
Nope, just calling out how silly your ad hominem attack was. Attacking me doesn't attack my argument.
I'm not the one who laid claim to a negative. YOU are the one trying to prove a negative, so the burden of proof is not on my shoulders. You can read what Nathan said to David just as easily as I can read it, as well as the command for some men to take on an additional wife, specifically the wife of a dead brother in order to provide for him an heir.
Those are Old Testament references, not repeated in the New Testament. The New Testament is stricter on the matter. Those passages can still teach us, but they do not prescribe polygamy for us.
Nobody would argue that leading by example is a good thing. However, had Paul said that overseers and deacons should not ever wear pants, but must wear long, flowing robes with artistic sashes, coupled with all those other virtues, you would then take that and demand that ONE disallowance should ALSO be something we ALL must follow? Don't write that off as absurd, because that is indeed the level of absurdity you're trying to apply here.
But it is absurd because no such requirement is listed.

Other areas of scripture already uphold those other virtues as applying to us all, but here, in this one verse, that one item exists ONLY HERE, and it is specifically directed at overseers and deacons.

How does this one verse, with its one disallowance, when limited to that one set of leaders, somehow negate all the other areas of scripture where those other virtues are applied to us all? I don't see the connection, or the crisis. Please explain.
There's no NT permission given for polygamy. The standard of what constitutes adultery is strict enough to make it impossible to pursue polygamy without committing adultery. I therefore have no reason to believe that 1 Timothy 3 is as restrictive as you say it is.
It's adultery when a man marries ANY other woman who is divorced from her first or subsequent husband for reasons not allowed within scripture. He then becomes a partaker of her adulteries. THAT is going on in (c)hurches all around the world. It's also adultery when a man divorces his wife for reasons not allowed within scripture and marries another. That's just the way it is.
OK, so if a man gets tired of his wife, divorces her, and marries a younger and more attractive woman who had never been married before, that's adultery on his part, right? If so, why is it adultery rather than just abandonment? Is it not because his first wife is his true wife, and that he is to be faithful to her? If that is the case, why would acquiring a second wife not be adultery, since he's not being faithful to his first wife?


You just don't get it. The fact remains that what is declared in Heaven is more real than a physical piece of paper on this earth. God is Spirit, and therefore not seen my us, and yet we believe He is more real than anything we may see with our eyes, and feel with our hands.
I agree that what God declares in Heaven is more real than what people would say on Earth. He also speaks figuratively to people on Earth since we cannot understand many Heavenly realities. The writ of divorce is such a figure of speech.
 
Upvote 0

Chrystal-J

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
12,804
5,993
Detroit
✟798,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps you should do a word study in the Bible for adultery.

Jr
I asked how you would personally feel, not anything based on the bible.
 
Upvote 0

Chrystal-J

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
12,804
5,993
Detroit
✟798,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I asked how you would personally feel, not anything based on the bible.

How I feel should conform to what the Bible says, and how it defines key terms. Any other feelings I may have about it are irrelevant.

So, doesn't what the Bible says trump anything you personally feel about something?

Jr
 
Upvote 0

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
248,786
114,476
✟1,339,865.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
For the sake of clarification, we are not saying that it's ok to divorce one wife and then marry another. What we're saying is that having a wife, and marrying another as a second wife is indeed an allowance the scriptures not only condone, but also command in certain instances.

So, bringing divorce into this mix is an outlandish gyration and juggling act that does little else than poison the well.

Jr
the scriptures not only condone, but also command in certain instances.
God never CONDONED multiple wives. Those that had multiple wives were not getting that directive from God.

Scriptures do not condone multiple wives from my understanding. However, i'm curious. Perhaps you could post the scripture that your post is referring to.

Thank you kindly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you're going to say that, you have to either claim that they had that down but didn't have the more basic commands against fornication and adultery and divorce down, or that no Corinthian had thought of having more than one wife at a time. The context makes both of those possibilities highly unlikely.

I don't have to claim anything of the kind since you laid no foundation for such. You claimed that the reference you provided made no room for polygyny, as if you have license to force that into that niche where it does not belong. Polygyny is not at all a matter of divorce, and your trying to force that connection is absolutely inconsistent with any legitimate rules for interpretation, and is a purely subjective rationale.

The bottom line in all this is that other areas of scripture make allowances for plural wives, with no universal injunctions against it stated anywhere.

Matthew 19:7-8.

Again, you are in error. If you read the text for what it says, Jesus clearly laid the blame at the feet of Moses for that allowance. Nowhere did that text indicate that the responsibility for that allowance ever originated from the Lord, even on the basis of the hardness of heart.

Nope, just calling out how silly your ad hominem attack was. Attacking me doesn't attack my argument.

Ad hominem? Really? From me? Come now, I have only attacked your tactics and applications. I don't know you well enough to know that there are flaws in your character worthy of attack in this forum or any other, just as you likewise don't know me.

Those are Old Testament references, not repeated in the New Testament. The New Testament is stricter on the matter. Those passages can still teach us, but they do not prescribe polygamy for us

With the OT being the foundation for all the Bible, and with there being no specified injunction against plural wives in the NT, you're practicing what looks like Eisegetical interpretation. That is something I get from some of my liberal acquaintances quite a bit, as well as mormon and jehvoah's witness acquaintances I've encountered over the years, who try to defend their beliefs in the same way about various topics. So, please explain to us the basis for you writing off the OT texts so easily and conveniently.

But it is absurd because no such requirement is listed.

Dude, I was making a hypothetical comparison to show the fallacy in your analysis. Your refusal to recognize the errors in your logic is on you alone.

There's no NT permission given for polygamy.

There's no NT permission to drive cars that burn fossil fuels either, but most of us do it anyway. Slicing off the OT as if it has no relevance for us today is a purely subjective practice that opens up all kinds of cans of worms.

The standard of what constitutes adultery is strict enough to make it impossible to pursue polygamy without committing adultery. I therefore have no reason to believe that 1 Timothy 3 is as restrictive as you say it is.

Then why is it that Jesus portrayed Abraham on the side with Lazarus, which was the opposite side of the gulf from the rich ruler? If it was the sin of adultery now, then it had to be the sin of adultery then. God did not alter His foundational definition for adultery anywhere in the Bible, although it could be said that Jesus added to it when stating that lust is akin to the sin of adultery.

OK, so if a man gets tired of his wife, divorces her, and marries a younger and more attractive woman who had never been married before, that's adultery on his part, right?

No. It is not. Given your scenario above, the man will have become guilty for CAUSING his first wife's adulteries, as is stated in Matt. 5:32:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Is it not because his first wife is his true wife, and that he is to be faithful to her? If that is the case, why would acquiring a second wife not be adultery, since he's not being faithful to his first wife?

A man acquiring a second wife without divorcing his first wife is not adultery on anyone's part, given that God's foundational definition for adultery throughout all the Bible did not change with the coming of Christ Jesus.

I agree that what God declares in Heaven is more real than what people would say on Earth. He also speaks figuratively to people on Earth since we cannot understand many Heavenly realities. The writ of divorce is such a figure of speech.

If it's figurative in your mind, its conceptual reality is more real than you seem to realize.

Jr
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SwordmanJr

Double-edged Sword only
Nov 11, 2014
1,200
402
Oklahoma City
✟43,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God never CONDONED multiple wives. Those that had multiple wives were not getting that directive from God.

Scriptures do not condone multiple wives from my understanding. However, i'm curious. Perhaps you could post the scripture that your post is referring to.

Thank you kindly.

Deut. 25:5 "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."

The Lord gave some men plural wives, as is seen in 2 Sam. 12:

"7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

So, to say the Lord does not condone what He actively commanded (in certain instances) and actively gave to some men, that simply doesn't seem to be a true statement.

Jr
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
248,786
114,476
✟1,339,865.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Deut. 25:5 "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."

The Lord gave some men plural wives, as is seen in 2 Sam. 12:

"7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

So, to say the Lord does not condone what He actively commanded (in certain instances) and actively gave to some men, that simply doesn't seem to be a true statement.

Jr
in Deut 25:5 God was not condoning polygamy. He was providing for a widow.

In 2 Sam 12 God was again, providing for the widows.

In all of God's Word, God is CLEAR on a man having ONE wife, and they become "one" and cleave to one another.

Ever heard of J Vernon McGee?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sketcher
Upvote 0