A discussion on the morality of polygamy

[Prakk]

Up until I began to frequent this forum (today) I had never seen Polygyny defined as having more than one "Female Mate" which implies in a sort of left handed way that Melissa Ethridge could be Polygynous by having more than one lesbian bride. If the definition has been updated, I'm not aware of which dictionary uses this approach. Until that time Polygyny was defined, and still is in my view as a man having more than one female mate, wives or concubines. I have absolutely no trouble with polygyny. As to what it is that brings me to the conclusion that Polygyny is acceptable to God, there are two things that immediately jump out. One, the complete absence of condemnation. Two, the widespread practice in the Old Testament of Polygyny.

After those to initial factors there is the compelled polygyny of what is known as Levarite law. Deuteronomy 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."

Only the obstinate would claim that this provision of God's law did not make a lot of men in Isreal polygynists as a result of fulfilling their duty. (and it is God's law, the quotes in the "Torah" to that effect would fill a page sized post.)

The whole book of Song of Solomon (AKA Song of Songs) is about one of the polygynous marriages of Solomon. Queens and Concubines are the observers in this book and the poetic refrain/chorus to the "Shulamite" who is Solomon's love. Solomon's wife who bore him Rehoboam was not a Shulamite and bore him Rehoboam while he was still heir apparent and not the King.

The book of Ruth is devoted to what is almost undoubtably a polygynous relationship. One must realize that Boaz represented quite a "catch" by Old Testament standards and was not sexually dead even in his older age, as evidenced by his extreme attraction to Ruth. Later in the book as her marriage to Boaz is celebrated, Rachel and Leah are lauded in song as "building up the house of Isreal." Rachel and Leah are the two wives of Jacob, Bilhah and Zilphah their slaves and Jacob's concubines.

Jeremiah three depicts God as polygynous having the wives Judah & Isreal. Granted he divorces one, promises he will divorce the other and so on, but there is a time in that passage where they are both wives. Also Nathan says that God gave King David WIVES. 2 Samuel 12:8

"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."

God seemingly would have given him even more. Even the restriction of Elders to one wife virtually screams that there were men with more than one wife in the congregations. Lest we say that this is an ideal too quickly, I would remind you that you are then setting up the notion that being a woman is a substandard state since women and polygynous men are excluded from being Elders.

I have one important point to make about polygyny. I have no desire to practice it. The most immediate effect on Christians today is in the area of divorce. When you realize that adultery for a man does not constitute him having sex with more than one woman at a time (not group sex mind you, but alternating individual sexual partners) and that adultery is the only cause for which a marriage of two believers can be broken through divorce, you are forced to the conclusion that believing women have no permission to divorce believing men. None whatsoever. This means that the majority of our evangelical, conservative, Bible Believing churches condone and teach error with regards to divorce and in fact encourage divorce actions that are nothing more than sin. It is better to have a millstone tied around one's neck and to be tossed into the sea, than to teach error.

Hugh McBryde

 

[FadingWhispers3]

The only thing I remember concerning polygamy is:

"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." 1 Timothy 3:2

 

[Prakk]

In suggesting that because and Elder is to be husband of one wife, we all should be monogamous, you essentially suggest that no one should be a woman either. Polygynous men are disqualified from the office of Elder, women are disqualified. Finally, this qualification of monogamy for Elders virtually proves that many men were not monogamous. It's like saying, "No Elder Shall Wear Old Spice After Shave." Why bother? There was no Old Spice After Shave. Likewise why prohibit polygynous men from being an Elder, unless there were polgynous men in the churches.

Hugh McBryde

 

[FadingWhispers3]

In suggesting that because and Elder is to be husband of one wife, we all should be monogamous, you essentially suggest that no one should be a woman either.

In the first place, I say no such thing. Paul does. Secondly, I have made no indication at all that I agreed with Paul or what my understanding was of what Paul was saying. Thirdly, I make no suggestions... it is only your assumption that I have. If I did, then I would have commented on the verse rather than leaving it up for everyone to examine. I do not say whether a man who has multiple wifes should be an Elder or not. Neither do I mean to imply that no women can be Elders... you are putting words in my mouth.

Now, feel free to continue discussing your thoughts on why this verse exists and what, if any implications, it has on polygamy.

 

[seebs]

In suggesting that because and Elder is to be husband of one wife, we all should be monogamous, you essentially suggest that no one should be a woman either.

In the first place, I say no such thing. Paul does. Secondly, I have made no indication at all that I agreed with Paul or what my understanding was of what Paul was saying. Thirdly, I make no suggestions... it is only your assumption that I have. If I did, then I would have commented on the verse rather than leaving it up for everyone to examine. I do not say whether a man who has multiple wifes should be an Elder or not. Neither do I mean to imply that no women can be Elders... you are putting words in my mouth.

Now, feel free to continue discussing your thoughts on why this verse exists and what, if any implications, it has on polygamy.

I think the point of the analogy is that, if we were to use this verse to argue that polygamy was wrong, it would have to be based somewhat on the argument "things Paul said an elder shouldn't do are wrong".

Honestly, I don't have enough information to speculate very usefully on what Paul was getting at. I'm curious.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

On the traditional view-

The requirement that elders and deacons be husbands of one wife, cannot be made to mean anything more than that Church leaders must only have one wife. This is akin to the requirement that Israel's kings not "multiply wives unto yourselves..." The possibility of being led away from truth because of the great influence of many wives and concubines is well illustrated by Solomon's history. Many wives, with their many desires and demands on a husband, makes it difficult to be objective in dealing with other people. Those who lead the church must be able to deal objectively, righteously and fairly with everyone. Therefore their judgment must not be clouded by the "advice" of many wives. It is because they were responsible for the souls of many they must be extra careful about any influence that would lead them away from the truth.

This probably explains why David could be such a great king and a man "after God's own heart," though he had many wives and concubines. And in spite of the fact that God told him not to multiply wives for themselves. Be reminded that it was God Himself who gave David his many wives, and said He would give him more if he wanted them (2 Sam. 12:7,8). So God's specific order was not meant to be an absolute prohibition against a king having many wives. It was a warning of the dangers such could bring. But because He knew David's heart, and because apparently God considered having many wives and concubines to be a blessing, He gave many of them to David. In the same manner we probably ought to see Paul's instruction for elders to only have one wife. It cannot be viewed as more rigidly prohibitive for elders in the church than it was for kings in Israel. The safest course to pursue for spiritual leaders is monogamy; not for moral reasons, but because of responsibility to avoid influences that would lead them to apostasy and thus endanger the souls of those whom they lead.

An important question here is, "what circumstances existed in Ephesus and Crete that would make such a requirement as this appropriate for the epistles to Timothy and Titus?" If polygamy did not exist in the churches of the time this restriction makes no sense at all. If there was no probability of church leaders having more than one wife how could Paul, by inspiration, make an issue of it? The fact that this restriction appears in these epistles is secondary proof that polygamy was in the church at that time, just as church history affirms. The suprising thing is that, even though polygamy was in the church, Paul made a restriction only regarding elders and deacons. If polygamy was a detestable thing, how could Paul refuse to tell Timothy and Titus to eradicate it from the church?

God required a similar thing thing of Israel, under Nehemiah's leadership. Not requiring them to leave all wives but the first wife, only requiring them to leave their pagan wives. Because of God's rebuke (Ezra 10:2) they covenanted with God to put these wives away. If polygamy was wrong why did God instruct them to put only the pagan wives away? Why not require them to put all their wives away except for the first? This Ezra passage proves they would have done so if God had desired it. These same people "confessed their sin," (Neh 9:2) . We have several examples of National repentance, but not once do we fing them repenting of the "sin" of polygamy and turning away from it and indeed God never required it.

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. Nor is hatred of the Mormon church (of which I am not a member). 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.

It remains true that no such prohibition was ever made for the "common" man. If indeed Christ intended that polygamy end, how can we possibly explain Paul's silence about it in the very context where we would most likely expect to find it?

Polygamy existed throughout the entire era of Biblical revelation, from Moses (Genesis), through John (Revelation). By the testimony of some of the early church fathers, it existed in the church during the first two centuries. Yet when everything else was changing and there was one perfect opportunity- it should be said-the only possible opportunity- to set the course of the church in the correct direction, when the NT was being written, no apostle wrote a syllable about God's preference for monogamy. If the apostolic writings are indeed our sole basis for faith and practice must we not be satisfied with their silence on the subject? And is that silence profoundly significant in view of the prevelance of polygamy in that century, even in the church? Are we justified in making our human and fallible interpretations the rule of faith and practice in the church?

If we truly believe that God condemns polygamy now then:
*Why condemn it now but never before?
*If it was acceptable in OT times, what happened to change it in to a sin?
*If polygamy was a blessing for David, what transformend it into a sin a curse for us? Certainly not God's law, for there is no law.
*The nature of polygamy has not changed. If God with His infinite wisdom, looked with approval at polygamy in OT times, how can we believe He looks at the same thing now with disapproval?
*If it is as important as we think it is to abstain from this practice, why not a word about it in the only book God gave us that enables us to follow His will?

Why are left to arrive at the conclusion that polygamy is sin by human reasoning, rather than having direct revelation? Human reasoning is good for many things, but it is utterly worthless for establishing Divine Law.

If we follow the same reasoning used to condemn polygamy, then we also must condemn instrumental music in worship, clapping, raising hands and dancing in worship. Anyone who accepts these worship expressions, does so in the face of the silence of the NT. 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. God's attitude did not change after Christ died.

This is not an advocation for anyone to begin an attempt to convert to this lifestyle. It is an attempt to find congruency and clarity in Scripture. It is an attempt to find truth in Scripture whether I personally like the outcome or not. Our personal opinions and dislikes bare no weight in establishing Divine Truth. If you should pray about this and believe it to be true, then embrace this truth in your relationship with God by admitting that you have been wrong. Nothing more needs to be said. If asked, and we lack the courage to say what we believe, then we must simply be silent on the matter.

This lifestyle would be very impractical for me at the present and probably always will be. But there are others out there, perhaps in third world countries that this has direct implications upon. Can you imagine the horror of a man that has mutliple wives, in a third world country that has been met by missionaries and then those missionaries tell him he has to divorce all his wives but the first if he is to become a Christian? That this God of love that the missionaries preach, demand that he can only love one, only the first one? This is antithetical to the gospel message. IMO this is where the danger lies about not knowing what the Bible really says about polygamy.

Eph. 3:20

 

[LibertyChic]

Eph. 3:20....

You make very excellent points. Why, do you suppose, is it all right for a man to have multiple wives, yet it is a sin for a woman to have multiple husbands?

Again, I realize scripture is silent on this issue and that tradition never allowed for such a thing. I am simply asking for a personal opinion here as you seem to have a lot of insight.

Thanks,
LC

Edit to add: Anyone feel free to respond to this. I didn't necessarily mean to address just Eph 3:20 alone.

 

[Prakk]

Fading,

I think that's my point, 1st Timothy 3:2 says NOTHING about polygyny. I agree with Seebs, the point of the verse isn't that qualifications of an Elder automaticly reveal faults in persons not qualified to be an Elder. Those qualifications are not an Archetype, just as the behaviors of Adam and Eve or any other figure in scripture are, unless they are specificly stated to be that.

Liberty asks:

"Why, do you suppose, is it all right for a man to have multiple wives, yet it is a sin for a woman to have multiple husbands?'

The answer is going to sound sexist. But men are to women as God is to a man, or to mankind. We cannot have two masters scripture says, and women are subject to men, you can't be subject to two men, it doesn't work. This is a long discussion but to argue with it would reveal two things about you. One, that you haven't read scripture thoroughly, or two, that you just don't agree with it. There's a solution to the first problem, rebuke is the only answer to the second.

I agree so strongly with most of Eph 3:20's post that I will only point out that he should substitute the word POLYGYNY everywhere he uses POLYGAMY or one of it's derivatives. Eph 3:20 also brings up some perspectives I hadn't thought about.

In closing I would point out my continuing concern is that this more relates to the practice of and endorsement of divorce in our Churches. Ceding up front that most if not all churches would be less than enthusiastic about divorce, even the most "Bible Believing, Evangelical, Conservative" denominations teach the the same things that qualify a woman as a target of divorce also qualify a man as a target of divorce. Scripture (and therefore God) NEVER EVER ONCE teaches that women may divorce men. No reasons are provided as adequate for a woman to do so. The reluctant permission to divorce is gender specific and given to men only. Before you start jumping up and down, please note that marriages can be disolved in ways that are not termed divorce in scripture. This would include the abandonment of a spouse, including a wife, by an unbeliever as specificed by 1st Corinthians 7.

Hugh McBryde

 

[LibertyChic]

The answer is going to sound sexist. But men are to women as God is to a man, or to mankind. We cannot have two masters scripture says, and women are subject to men, you can't be subject to two men, it doesn't work. This is a long discussion but to argue with it would reveal two things about you. One, that you haven't read scripture thoroughly, or two, that you just don't agree with it. There's a solution to the first problem, rebuke is the only answer to the second.
<snip>
Scripture (and therefore God) NEVER EVER ONCE teaches that women may divorce men. No reasons are provided as adequate for a woman to do so. The reluctant permission to divorce is gender specific and given to men only.

Interesting. OK....any other takers with any differing viewpoints?

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Yes, I have some thoughts...don't shut the door just yet! Quite busy today but I'll post as soon as I can.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Prakk]

Liberty,

I would assume you issue an invitation to bring thoughts to the table that are scriptural.

Hugh McBryde

 

[an7222]

I don't know how it is possible to society to be against unions of more than two people, if they spontaneously decided to do it, no matter if it is 1 man with 3 woman, 1 woman with 3 man, 5 man, 7 woman, 2 man and 2 woman, whatever. IT'S THEIR BUSSINESS.

 

[Natman]

Interesting. OK....any other takers with any differing viewpoints?

Based on the information Eph has brought to the table, proper lineage for the purpose of inheritance was extremely important to the Hebrews (as well as most societies). If a man has multiple wives ("polygyny"), the lineage of any son can be known with some degree of certanty. If a woman has multiple husbands ("polyandry"), unless she limits her sexual activity to only one at a time, actual lineage can be un-known, especially if multiple brothers are involved.

This principle would make since if "adultery" simply means "having sexual relations with someone else's wife".

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Prakk]

Natman,

You Said:

"adultery simply means having sexual relations with someone else's wife."

That is exactly correct. Thus since the only reason in scripture provided for divorce is adultery, and since that sin is not commited against the wife of a man who might suppose to have sexual relations with another man's wife, then there is no possibility of divorce for acceptable reason by a wife against her husband. I would note that in Biblical times the man commiting that adultery would be subject to the death penalty. That would clean up a lot of the loose ends.

Hugh McBryde

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Natman,

You Said:

That is exactly correct. Thus since the only reason in scripture provided for divorce is adultery, and since that sin is not commited against the wife of a man who might suppose to have sexual relations with another man's wife, then there is no possibility of divorce for acceptable reason by a wife against her husband. I would note that in Biblical times the man commiting that adultery would be subject to the death penalty. That would clean up a lot of the loose ends.

Hugh McBryde

I agree partially with this definition. It is also breaking covenant. As in Israel broke covenant with God by which Israel was called an adulterous nation. The act of adultery is not just a sex act. We can talk about this in further detail later if you desire.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Eph. 3:20.... Why, do you suppose, is it all right for a man to have multiple wives, yet it is a sin for a woman to have multiple husbands?

Well I think this is where Prakk and myself will disagree. I think we are both in agreement that God not only permitted polgyny, but also mandated it and it was seen as a blessing by the Hebrews of the OT. But this very subject (polyandry) has relevance into many things...the proper role of women in church, in marriage etc.. I don't think the subject can be viewed in isolation without again setting up the culture in which the Patriarchal system of polgyny was set into. I will strive to deliver a full argument as I expect others will disagree with what I have to say, and hopefully these two posts will answer their questions.

It is true that in the OT culture a womans rights were virtually non-existent. A study of Biblical sex laws makes one thing clear: sexual practice was largely regulated by the principle of respect for sexual property. God forbade what violates one's personal sexual property (thus forbidding rape, incest and parents prostituting their children), and sexual property belonging to others (thus forbidding adultery and requiring restitution for "using" another man's slave). Property is an extenion of the owner. To violate my property is to violate my person. It is to steal something from me. The wife was viewed as property of the husband, she could not divorce her husband and could not have sexual relations with men other than her husband without severe retribution. A man's future depended on on his having many children, especially sons. Anything that might raise a doubt about whether or not a child was truly his own was potentially devastating to a Israelite husband. Inherited property rights and purity of physical lineage messianic lineage was not just important culturally it was a survival matter. Their tribal Hebrew culture demanded that a man only have "pure" offspring to receive his inheritance. Otherwise his inheritance might fall into the hands of another family. In Israel, if another man had intercourse with a married woman it constituted theft of her husband's right to legitamate offspring. Thus the OT law against adultery applied only to a man having sex with a married woman, because the act threatened her husband's lineage. A man could not commit adultery against his own wife because she had no claim to him as property. A man could copulate with as many women as he desired without ever corrupting his family lineage. Adultery was only a issue with a married woman.

This is why polygyny was never a big issue with God. God's concern was not who was having sex with whom and how. For a man to have several sex partners was never a matter of adultery, even if Soloman had 1000 sex partners always available. In the NT the same privilege remains for the man simply because God never took it away. But now, because woman is sexually and maritally equal with man this privilege is open for the woman also. Since God did not change His law and forbid polygamy in the NT, it remains a freedom for a man to marry many wives. Since man and women become equal in NT ethics God makes it possible for women now to enjoy the same privileges that were once open only to a man. Rather than destroying man's former privileges and bringing him down to a lower level, Jesus raises women up to the man's previous level.

With Jesus' alteration to this situation, the woman became equal property owners of the husband thereby gaining the same privileges in sexual matters as he has. Granting equal status to husband and wife did not shackle both of them with prohibitions against privileges that were available to the man in OT law. It had the effect of opening to both man and woman the same sexual privileges, "In the same way the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife" (1 Cor. 7:4), this was not true in the OT. So now his sexual freedom is no greater than hers. They share equal opportunity both with each other and with others. In Jesus' teaching adultery is defined such that its nature was in divorcing one's spouse to marry another without sufficient reason (Matt. 19:4). This was to discard one's wife without consideration of her rights to him as her property. He was destroying her rights to posses her property. The man also broke the bond of permanancy-"till death do us part."

"The position of women in that day was far from enviable. They could be divorced on the slightest pretext, and had no recourse at law. Almost all the rights and privileges of men were withheld from them. What Jesus said in relation to divorce was more in defense of the rights of the women of His time than as a guide for the freer, fuller life of our day. Jesus certainly did not mean to recommend a hard and enslaving life for women. His whole life was one long expression of full understanding of them and sympathy for them" (Patterson, The Measure of a Man, 181 f.).

So with Jesus and NT authors, intention becomes the main thing. Even "looking at a woman to lust after her" it is the intention Jesus deals with. It is not the looking that is adultery, but it is the intention to take away the man's property and to have it as his own; to break up the marriage and to have the woman whom he "covets." A discussion of lust can be found in this thread... http://www.christianforums.com/t1011852-is-premarital-sex-wrong.html&page=10

While I view God's positive acceptance under the Old Covenant (God's relationship with Israel), I believe we are under the New covenant (God's relationship with believing Jews, Gentiles through Jesus Christ). God modified the status of women to be equal to that of men. We have to understand that the things that determined the way in which early Israel functioned are no longer applicable to us today. If a sex act or marriage ceases to be a situation where a man's wife is being taken from him, or his rights of legitimate offspring are being threatened, or inheritance of family wealth is not compromised or Messianic lineage is not being compromised then we are released from the boundaries that were placed there for our protection of those very things.

Note: A married OT man could have sex with virtually any other woman who was not already married. It was not adultery for him to do so because the above circumstances were not a factor of his actions. Adultery was only a factor when sexual intercourse involved a married woman. A married OT woman could never have sex outside of her marriage without the charge of adultery. But now, Jesus redefined adultery as such that both the husband and the wife could commit adultery against each other. In the NT his sexual freedom is no greater than hers, (1 Cor. 7:3,4). Positionally, she now has a claim to her "property," namely her husband. They are now sexually and maritally equals.

This will be continued.....

Eph. 3:20

 

[seebs]

She can't divorce him, but she can dance on his grave. I guess that works.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

How could it be a blessing for the man the but a curse for the woman now? The advantage granted by the ethics of the NT is that women now have a voice in this whole arena and she has the same sexual liberty as her husband. A parallel to this is the raising of women to the same spritual status of the man so that she can now exercise leadership in the Church equally with man. What was not generally allowable in the OT is now allowable in this area. So it is with sexual liberty. Only the man could enjoy liberty then. Since God did not eliminate that freedom it remains for the man. But because the gospel liberates women and raises her to the same status of the man, now women can enjoy the same sexual liberty that man has always enjoyed. Man was not brought down; the woman was brought up.

The law that we are bound by now is "The Royal Law of Love," (Matt. 22:27). God protects the relationship we have with others. Jesus ended the law's rule over believers (Rom 10:4). This emphatic statement ends any validity to arguments that the OT law is regulative for our conduct in any way. We are to obey the law..."that is not written on tablets of stone but on the tablets of human hearts. (2 Cor. 3:3). If we will love God and love our neighbor, we fulfill all commandments God ever gave (Rom 13:8, 10). Thus Christ's one new commandment has effectively replaced all God's former individual commandment's..this includes God's commandments about sex. We are not under the old husband's rule anymore (Rom. 7:1-4), we are under the rule of our New Husband, Jesus. His law about sex and everything else is singular; "In sexual matters do nothing that will harm others. This will fulfill all God's previous laws about sex."


The effects of the fall were completely reversed by the work of Christ. This includes redemption of the male/female relationship. Thus Paul says that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, or you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal.3:28). As surely as inequality has been erased between Jew/Greek, and bond/free, so has it been erased between male/female. But we cannot have it both ways. Either such distinctions have been erased or they have not. Scholars who accept the above premise with respect to bond/free and Jew/Greek, refuse to accept the same with regard to male/female. Such inconsistency cannot be acceptable. Arguments against such "across the board" equality between man and woman are based on a couple of Paul's statements that seem to inveigh against it.

He says indeed that "man is the head of a woman...man was not created
for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." (1 Cor. 11:3,9). But this passage illustrates how absolutely crucial it is to interpret all Scripture according to both Biblical and cultural context. Paul prefaced this whole section by advising the Corinthians to "hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you," (vs. 2). Then he says later "we have no other custom, nor have the churches of God," (vs.16). He also appeals to "nature itself" (vs.14). Such phrases prove that Paul is not delivering "law" but is giving advice based on prevailing customs. Unredeemed society could not understand male/ female equality, and would accuse the church of all sorts of
unlawful and unnatural behavior if women were seen to interact equally with men. Therefore it was crucial in those early days of the church that, as near as possible, all outward appearances of social propriety be observed by saints. Other wise the church could never convince pagans that they had truth. Thus Paul argues not from law, but from tradition and custom encouraging women and men to relate publicly in such a way that false charges would be minimized. Unless the church understood that men and women were not equal, there would have been no situation in which Paul would have to offer such advice. But the Corinthians, having been previously taught by Paul about their liberty and equality in Christ (as per Gal.3:28), were acting on this knowledge, and Paul had to come back to the issue and remind them that liberty must be exercised in love - even love for unbelievers and enemies (cf. Rom. 13 and 14). Certainly Paul cannot be made to tell the
Galatians that men and women are equal in Christ, then tell the Corinthians they are unequal! All such seeming disparity arises from the need for saints to be aware of cultural circumstances, and to enjoy their liberty in such a way that they do not unnecessarily break public decorum.

As is true of all other moral/ethical issues, this one is subject to the fundamental truth of Christ's work on Calvary. He destroyed law as a principle of conduct, and put love in its place. The only valid question then about both polyandry and polygamy is whether either practice violates love for others. There is no longer an issue of whether either of them violates a command, for commands are no longer valid.

So, as far as God's will is concerned, men may marry multiple wives, and women may marry multiple husbands. However because our society disallows either practice, we can do neither in this country. If we lived in another cultural environment that allowed multiple partners, we would be free to marry as often as we desired.

Hope this helps,

Eph. 3:20

 

[Prakk]

Eph. 3:20,

You said:

"But now, because woman is sexually and maritally equal with man this privilege is open for the woman also. Since God did not change His law and forbid polygamy in the NT, it remains a freedom for a man to marry many wives. Since man and women become equal in NT ethics God makes it possible for women now to enjoy the same privileges that were once open only to a man. Rather than destroying man's former privileges and bringing him down to a lower level, Jesus raises women up to the man's previous level."

I disagree completely on the basis of these statements by Paul: 1st Corinthians 11:8

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9)Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

Prior to that he had said in 1st Corinthians 11:3

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

& 1st Corinthians 14:34

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

& 1st Timothy 2:13

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14)And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Summing up, man is to woman as God is to man or mankind. The woman is FOR the man, not the other way around. Men are in authority over women. This is made clear by the fact that they aren't even to speak in the churches. Man was even created first. All of these reasons exist even if sin had not entered into the world, but it did, and even that counts in the total as reasons why the woman is subject to and for the man.

Christ does not go contrary to the law nor does he create new provisions, but only clarifies, Mathew 5:17

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (18)For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (19)Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

All is NOT fulfilled, heaven and earth have NOT passed away. I could go into a far more exhaustive proof based on the number of times that God says the law usually attributed to Moses is in fact his law, the fact that Moses is said to have received the law in the form of writing by God's finger in stone or to have taken it in the form of dictation, and that Jesus is a prophet (among the many other things that he is) in the same mold as Moses. A thing that both he and Moses say to bookend the concept and to make it a certainty. Also accepting the concept of the trinity, Jesus is the one that's dictating and writing in stone the very things that are, as the the priest says to Josiah, "the law of God as given to Moses."

You conclude with this:

"So, as far as God's will is concerned, men may marry multiple wives, and women may marry multiple husbands. However because our society disallows either practice, we can do neither in this country. If we lived in another cultural environment that allowed multiple partners, we would be free to marry as often as we desired."

You are wrong, you teach sin, you teach heresy. Recant and repent, you place yourself under judgement of the worst sort. You are a deceiver.

Hugh McBryde

 

[LibertyChic]

Liberty,

I would assume you issue an invitation to bring thoughts to the table that are scriptural.

Hugh McBryde

Well, being as this is an open area of the forum, I expect to hear all sorts of opinions, including various arguments using scripture.