rnmomof7 said:
No where in scripture does God endorse polygamy
His provision for it in the Law
"If a man marries
another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and
marital rights. (Ex. 21:10)
Again, these laws were given by God. "These are the laws that you (Moses) are to set before them." (Ex. 21:1).
His mandate for it:
The "Levirate Marriage Law" (Duet. 25), requires that if one's brother dies with no son, his widow is to marry the living brother, to give an heir to his brother. This is true even if the brother is already married. If he refuses to marry her, he is cursed publicly by her (vs. 7-10). Thus we have a mandate from God for polygamy in this situation.
You have made mention in past post that this meant that the single brother fulfill the duties of the deceased brother. Only one problem, the Scripture doesn't say that. The Scipture does not put a "qualifier" on it. It matters not whether the brother was married. To say that it is part of the requirement is to add a
human requirement to Scripture.
His statement showing it's origination for David"
"I gave you your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms....and if all of this had been too little I would have given you more." (2 Sam. 12:8).
This statement shows that God had given David all that he had, including his many wives. This statement came directly after David's sin with Bathsheba and followed up Nathan's parable and insuing rebuke, "But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveler unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him;
but took the poor mans lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him." (2 Sam. 12:4) And Nathan's rebuke followed, "And Nathan said to David, (b)You are the man(/b)." (2 Sam. 12 :7)
You can try to relate God's anger towards David because of his polygamous lifestyle, but to do so, you again are adding to Scripture. For God nowhere in this or any other verse hints at God's displeasure at his many wives.
rnmomof7 said:
His feelings are fully displayed in that He wants the leaders and teachers in his church to be the husband of one wife. he limited the shepherds .
His feelings here are fully displayed for the leadership for the Church. Even with this statement a closer examination of the text is warranted.
When I began to do word studies on this passage, I started with Strongs concordance and looked into the meanings of the various words. Something struck me a very strange in this passage concerning the word "one." I fully expected to see the same word "one" used repeatedly throughout the Epistle. However, in
every instance when Paul talks about the husband of "one" wife, the same word is used and it's a different word than is used throughout the rest of the letter. He chose the word "Mia" (Strong's #3391), both in this letter and in his letter to Titus discussing the same issue. Strong's discribes it as
one or
first, x
other. Now wait a second....why didn't he use the word that represents the numerical one, Gk. "heis" (Strong's #1520) Described as a primary numeral. Within the same breath he uses "mia" and then "heis." This is odd at best.
Interesting thoughts on the word "one." I read one translation of Acts 20:7 which said "...upon one of the sabbaths..." This is the literal rendition of that phrase given in Nestle's Interlinear. In this case, and others (Acts 19:34, 1 Cor. 6:16, 2 Pet. 3:8, Rev. Rev. 13:3), the word "one" does not denote the ordinal one as distinguished from two or more, but simply denotes one of possibly several. Since I am not a Greek expert, I will leave the examination into the hands of those more qualified. I do however cite the differece in terminology.
Being that the context is the various qualities necessary in being a Church leader (temperate, self-controlled, respectable etc...) it is a possibility that Paul was saying a Elder was supposed to be a man that was the husband of his "first" wife not necessarily only one wife. That is, a man not given into divorce, which is what Jesus talked about in Matt. 19. and in the OT (Mal. 2:15), but a man that had demonstrated control of himself and his family.
As this relates the case of God forbidding kings to have more than one wife, He also stated His reason, i.e. that the kings heart might not be turned away from truth, justice, and the One True God. I see such prohibitions as general rules, allowing for exceptions. Most Kings could not resist the influence of many wives. But some exceptional kings could do so. David is again the classic example. In His case God actually gave him multiple wives an concubines. It may be somewhat like a parent's "prohibition" against handling a sharp knife, although allowing that very thing with supervision. In any case, since we are now dealing with a situation wherein Christ has destroyed law as His Kingdom's ruling principle, replacing it with Love, that issue does not bear upon us personally at all. We must discuss it perhaps in contesting the truth with others, but whatever the result may be, it has no present bearing on whether we are allowed to have multiple wives under Christ's Kingdom Law of Love. And it remains true that no such prohibition was ever made for the "common" man. Even in the NT prohibition of multiple wives for "elders," such a prohibition says nothing concerning those who are not "elders."
God was very pointed about telling NT Christians what things would keep them out of the kingdom of God. He gives detailed list of such sins in 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5 19-21' Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5-9, etc... Since polygamy existed in the church, how is it possible that God considers it a great sin and yet fails to mention it
even once as a sin requiring repentance? This fact appears strongly to demonstrate that God has not changed His mind from what we see in the OT record. What He accepted before the cross, He still accepts. Society's attitude is not the standard of right or wrong on this matter. The church's attitude is not the standard. The combined facts that polygamy existence in the NT church, with God's silence about it, demonstrates God's acceptance of it. God did not correct it in the NT simply because He did not see it as needing correction.
rnmomof7 said:
One thing about scripture is God does not paint over the people he chose . he shows them bumps and all.
Praise God for that...they're human and He shows all of their human qualities.
rnmomof7 said:
Because God has in the times passed overlooked sin, does not mean it is not sin .
Red flag...He never called it sin.
rnmomof7 said:
If your church does not speak out against sin...you need a new church
They speak out against sin. They do not have the authority to mandate sin. Again, One Lawgiver.
rnmomof7 said:
If a man kills his mother that is suffering that is love...it is also murder.
True.
rnmomof7 said:
If a young woman loves her boyfriend and has sex ... that is done in love, but it is also fornication
I don't agree with this.
rnmomof7 said:
Rom 12:5 So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
1Cr 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ
It is ONE Bride , one body , to try to extrapolate that is dishonest.
The church is the bride of Christ. He is not a polygamist.
No, I don't believe it to be dishonest. I believe it to be consistent.
God was married to the nation Israel. The proposal can be seen in Exodus 1-7. Verse 8 is Israel's acceptance and verses 10-11 are her preporation for her wedding day. Exodus 20 is the marriage contract.
The agreement we read in Exodus 19 was a conditional agreement dependent upon behavior.
God did not just demand obedience from Israel, his wife. When he could he gave her what she wanted. They asked him why they could not be like the other nations and have a king. He tried to explain why, but they just were not satisfied and so he gave them a king.
Eventually the size of the kingdom grew because of God's good promises. During the reign of King David God sent the prophet Nathan to promise a new home with more space in which to grow.
After King David died his son, Solomon, had a very successful reign, but upon Solomon's death there was a disagreement over money when Rehoboam unwisely decided to increase the taxes on the people. However it was from God that he made that decision. The whole story is in 2 Chronicles 10. The result was that there was a division between north and south. Where there had been 1 nation made up of 12 tribes there were now
2 nations. The house of Judah included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and most of the Levites with the king living at Jerusalem as his fathers had. The house of Israel included the remaining ten tribes with their king living at Samaria. They became totally separate entities and they did not get along except in rare circumstances.
At this point something very interesting happens. Now that there are two nations God views them as the following verses suggest.
Ezek. 23:1 The word of YHVH came again to me, saying:
2 "Son of man, there were two women, The daughters of one mother.
3 They committed harlotry in Egypt, They committed harlotry in their youth; Their breasts were there embraced, Their virgin bosom was there pressed.
4 Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister;
They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names,
Samaria is Oholah, and
Jerusalem is Oholibah."
As you see God considered the house of Israel, Samaria, and the house of Judah, Jerusalem,
His two wives. God says that they were His and that they bore children to him. Is this to outlandish to accept? So here we have our God showing that he was a polygynist. If he did not approve of this he would have immediately divorced the house of Israel. However he did not do this. It was many generations after the split of the two houses that he finally divorced the house of Israel. Even after this he asks the house of Israel to return to Him as you will read in scripture below.
Actually we will see perhaps in a future lesson that this was God's plan to keep his unconditional
promises and eventually move the vast majority of Israelites out of Palestine and into new promised lands. There just was not enough room for the Israelites to become many nations, a multitude of nations and a company of nations as had been unconditionally promised to Abraham, Jacob and Ephraim (Genesis 17:5, Genesis 48:19 and Genesis 35:11).
The House of Israel went after Other Gods.
Yahweh's promise of the land of Palestine was a conditional promise of land based on their behavior. When Israel went after other gods this constituted a break of the contract (adultery) with God. After putting up with this for many years God did the following:
YHVH said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: "Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. 7 And I said, after she had done all these things, 'Return to Me.' But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.
9 So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees.
10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense," says YHVH. 11 Then YHVH said to me, "Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: 'Return, backsliding Israel,' says YHVH; 'I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,' says YHVH; 'I will not remain angry forever.
13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against YHVH your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,' says YHVH. 14 "Return, O backsliding children," says YHVH; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding." (Jeremiah 3:6-15. Jeremiah 3:6 )
One can only divorce one wife and remain married to another if one had been married to two women!
So the children of Israel went by captivity rather than allowing God to move them a better way. God always keeps his promises. God made promises to Abraham. He did not break them in regard to either the House of Israel or the House of Judah and He is still keeping them today.
rnmomof7 said:
1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Trust me there will not be polygamists there
I think your definitions are wrong. A quick glance at Hebrews, chapter 11 should clear this up.
rnmomof7 said:
The purpose of civil law is to have an orderly society , obeying civil law is not a moral or salvation issue. The law often prevents yet a greater evil. The law is called the law of Moses ...not the law of God.
Again, this is answered above.
rnmomof7 said:
The bible tells us that God never changes.
Great point. Nothing in the NT changes what throughout the OT was a widespread practice accepted by God and even granted to David as a blessing. Polygamy was never a sin in OT, nor is there any indication in all of Scripture that God disapproved of it.
If that is true I assume that slavery is permissible in Gods eyes?
This is a huge question and one that cannot be answered in a flippant way. And to get into the intregal aspects of slavery should and has, involved an entirely different thread. Slavery to our modern (American) ears conjurs up notions that are not identical to times of antiquity, which can be demonstrated by this quote:
"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003.
But you do have a valid point in that slavery (much like polygamy), was condoned, provided for in the law and carried over into the NT times and not directly negated by Jesus or Paul but is now considered to be immoral. So the two do have a lot of similarities. Where the divergence occurs, and can be seen more clearly, is in the NT is Christ's Law of love.
The issue of slavery itself was a carry over from the nations that surrounded the early Israelites. God provided for the proper care of these slaves without condeming the practice all together. Jesus and Paul carry this theme of "Love for God, Love for neighbor," as the central tenant of what now would define proper moral behaviour. Without either of them explicilty condemning the practice, their consistent message of love eventually achieved the desired result. The principles of love and respect destroy slavery every where the gospel is allowed to dominate." The law-principle of love forbids slavery. Paul did not throw 1st century culture into havoc by demanding that believers immediately free their slaves (much like granting equality to women). Neither slave owners nor slaves were ready for such drastic action. But love demanded that owners immediately begin treating slaves with dignity and respect, and the principle of love, and the fact that "in Christ there is...neither slave nor free..." (Gal.3:28) gradually produced the desired result.
Here is the difference in the two subjects...Nothing in the principle of love serves to eliminate polygamy. To say that love forbids more than one wife, is to say that no man can possibly love more than one woman, which is absurd.
rnmomof7 said:
I also assume that we are not to wear blended fabrics or eat shrimp .I also assume you would put all those with skin diseases out of the city. The law said is a man raped a woman he had to marry her. Should that be the law today?
I am fully aware of the difference in cultic, ceremonial and moral laws. The fact is that Paul's use of "law" and "the law" throughout Romans and Galatians make sit clear that Paul is saying that Christ destroyed "law" as a principle by which God deals with His people. The Greek language of both epistles tells us that Christ "is the end of law for righteousness for those who believe..." (Rom.10:14) Paul's use of Mosaic Law serves only to illustrate to those saints that since law as a governing principle has been destroyed by Christ, most assuredly has the Mosaic law been thus destroyed. His arguments is clear: We no longer relate to Christ on the basis of a "law of commandments contained in ordinances," (Eph. 2:15).
We are now self-governed solely by the Law of Love.
rnmomof7 said:
God moral laws are eternal .
Amen.
rnmomof7 said:
Do you believe that abortion is ok with God? That is approved under civil law here. You can not draw an arbitrary time line and say God authored all the law then and not today, if you are going to say he is the only law giver.
Can you cite this pro-abortion verse? I know of none that speeks directly to and in favor of abortion.
rnmomof7 said:
Furthermore the fact that polygamy is not allowed under the law today would be actual proof that God no longer will tolerate it.
What? Are you speaking on behalf of America? What about the countries where it is legal? Do you apply this to abortion too? Is the government being directed by God's will on the abortion issue?
rnmomof7 said:
That is a judgment chapter (2 Sam.). God does not call the wives a "blessing" He just states the obvious that David had many wives and that Uriah had but one
"
I gave you your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms....and if all of this had been too little
I would have given you more." (2 Sam. 12:8).
When the Lord says, "I gave you," it is generally considered to be a blessing.
Divorce for specific reasons was a legitimate allowance which was provided for in the law. OT men were abusing the allowance. You will again have to prove that polygamy is adultery. Can you cite one verse which shows this to be true? Biblically, adultery is the taking of another man's wife or breaking a covenant commitment (vow).
rnmomof7 said:
I ask you again.
At the time when the earth was need to be populated and that was Gods desire and plan . Why did god only make one woman and not many for Adam . Why when the earth need to be repopulated did God not take a man with many wives? Even the plan for the ark showed Gods plan.
he did not order 12 female and one male , He ordered them 2 by 2.
It looks like He required the bare minimun to propogate life, given the space requirements for the ark. What does this have to do with the allowance for more? And agian, why does He not warn Noah and his family about polygamy if it was indeed a evil practice?
rnmomof7 said:
Nice spin but not so (concerning Duet. 17:17) .It is a clear order . It is interesting in this case you want to make it symbolic yet when we use the inspired symbol (Christ and his one bride the church) Apostasy takes many forms . The human heart is an idol factory . A man with many wives has less time for God, he is more occupied with the necessities of those wives.
I answered this in the above reference to 1st Timothy... I see such prohibitions as general rules, allowing for exceptions. Most Kings could not resist the influence of many wives. But some exceptional kings could do so. David is again the classic example. In His case God actually gave him multiple wives an concubines. It may be somewhat like a parent's "prohibition" against handling a sharp knife, although allowing that very thing with supervision. In any case, since we are now dealing with a situation wherein Christ has destroyed law as His Kingdom's ruling principle, replacing it with Love, that issue does not bear upon us personally at all. We must discuss it perhaps in contesting the truth with others, but whatever the result may be, it has no present bearing on whether we are allowed to have multiple wives under Christ's Kingdom Law of Love.
Whatever your specific view is of this verse, it is directed at the king and future kings of Israel.
rnmomof7 said:
So there are blessings in disobeying a command? Those very wives and the gold and wealth led to the down fall of Israel . Why do you think God sent them into exile ?
No I don't, that's why I'm suprised your stretching this verse. If you take this verse as literal, then you also have to take the part about acquiring horses and accumulating wealth. Both of which are not considered a sin in our society today. But you like to pick and choose which parts of the passage you believe you can apply to our present day situation and ignore the rest. When in reality, the passage does not apply to our present day situation.
rnmomof7 said:
Show me where God says directly that many wives are blessings.
I've already done that several times now.
rnmomof7 said:
I believe that God ordered the people killed in the conquered wives with an order not to marry them.
No. He said that they could marry them. He didn't qualify it as only single men either. " When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her,
you may take her as your wife." (Deut. 21:10)
rnmomof7 said:
The bible also does not say God ordained it.
Provided for it. Required it. Blessed by it.
rnmomof7 said:
Just show me in the New testament where Jesus or the disciples teach men to have many wives or that they say it is good and right in the eyes of God.
They don't have to tell you marry, to chew gum, to drive a car etc... They laid down the principle's upon which we are to base our behaviour Matt. 22:37.
rnmomof7 said:
That was not about sex or even marriage. it was about David being given the entire Kingdom and Saul being stripped of every thing . The idea of being given the crown meant everything. God gave him everything and yet David still wanted more. That was the point.
Everything meaning his wives also and he wanted what was not his to have...that's the point.
rnmomof7 said:
for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
This makes it very clear that God now intends for one man to have one wife only, and that any departure from this rule is adultery.
If it was His intention...He never stated it.
rnmomof7 said:
Pastor Lloyd Jones
made this observation regarding divorce that applies here too
""If that is so," asks someone, "how do you explain the Law of Moses? If that is God's own view [The Creation Ordinance] of marriage why did He allow divorce to take place on the conditions which we have just considered?" Our Lord again answered that question by saying that, because of the hardness of their hearts, God made a concession, as it were. He did not abrogate his original law with regard to marriage. No, He introduced a temporary legislation because of the conditions then prevailing."
Again, the subject matter is divorce. Your stretching this again to try to make it apply to polygamy.
rnmomof7 said:
You know, you grasp at straws here .Scripture does say that God put up with their sin in the Old covenant because of the hardness of the heart. We are under a New Covenant , with new rules .
Yes...we agree!!!!!!! Can you tall me how polygamy violates this new covenant?
rnmomof7 said:
I find how vested you are in this very interesting. May i ask why?
I wish I knew. Some times I find myself fighting this fight and I have to ask myself this very question......why? It is not this subject only I contend with, it's the whole of Biblical sexual ethics. I've been studying this subject over many, many years now, when things that were preached from the puplit didn't correspond to what I read about and studied in Scripture. When I pressed for answers, I got vague "pre-packaged" answers that did not address the real issues. Definitions for words didn't make Biblical/Lexical sense. So I decided to study these things for myself instead of being "spoon fed." The journey has been exhausting, amazing and discouraging. Exhausting because there is so much to research. Amazing because I'm learning things that make sense and I can see absolute consistency in Scripture, and why He allowed what He allowed even when our modern day Theologians say, "He never allowed that!" And discouraging because of the names I've been called, I've been placed outside of the kingdom of God by many and told that I have a heart that is far from what God desires.
As you will note; the majority of threads that deal with sexual questions have a very high viewer total in most cases on this board. Case in point..the Nudity thread. Sexual issues are not being dealt with in the church today. Most will not ask their Pastor or clergymen for advice on sexual issues because of the embarassment or fear of rejection or excommunication for "thinking" a certain way. The Church (for the most part) does not give real world practical advice that really works. A ever increasing strict legal code is not what's needed. Paul said it best:
" Since you died with Christ to the basic principle's of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to rules: Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch! These are all destined to parish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have a appearance of wisdom, with their self imposed worship, their false humilty and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." (Col. 2:20-23)
Eph. 3:20