A discussion on the morality of polygamy

[Buzz Dixon]

Buzz, the hasty generalization is a fallacy.

Arguing from Genesis, we find that a man should only sleep with a woman made from his rib, and that only if he's first found that animals don't offer him enough companionship.

What we find from the Bible as a whole is that the one-flesh relationship is sometimes extended.

Underneath it all: We have clear evidence that such relationships are not inherently sinful. The problems we see with them are PRAGMATIC ones. That means that they will not work all the time, and maybe not even often, but that doesn't mean that the ones which work are unacceptable!

I'll concede the point, especially among nomadic shepherds living in the desert.

The default position has been, is now, and always will be one man + one woman. People may customize, modify, and add-on all they wish, but it still starts there.

To put it another way, God is not displeased if people take only a single partner of the opposite sex and stay monogamous to them for the rest of their lives. He can be displeased with other relationships.

Frankly, I think polygamy today would be extremely hazardous to many men's health.

I know my wife would kill me if I suggested it.

 

[rnmomof7]

I'll concede the point, especially among nomadic shepherds living in the desert.

The default position has been, is now, and always will be one man + one woman. People may customize, modify, and add-on all they wish, but it still starts there.

To put it another way, God is not displeased if people take only a single partner of the opposite sex and stay monogamous to them for the rest of their lives. He can be displeased with other relationships.

Frankly, I think polygamy today would be extremely hazardous to many men's health.

I know my wife would kill me if I suggested it.

You can not argue from silence .

God never said or encouraged or said he blessed polygamy .

In fact one might argue that polygamy actually starts with the sin of adultery because the word says if you lust for a woman in your heart , you have committed adultery .
So a man seeing a woman that he desires for another wife, He has already committed adultery .

 

[seebs]

You can not argue from silence.

God never said or encouraged or said he blessed polygamy.

That's arguing from silence right there! You're drawing a conclusion from silence!

But, in fact, as pointed out elsewhere, the discussion with David makes it clear that God blesses polygamy in some cases; similarly, we see that God encourages it in some cases; for instance, when an older brother's wife dies, the younger brother is encouraged, and quite strongly so, to become polygamous.

In fact one might argue that polygamy actually starts with the sin of adultery because the word says if you lust for a woman in your heart , you have committed adultery.

But not all desire is lust!

So a man seeing a woman that he desires for another wife, He has already committed adultery.

Not so! That would be true if all desire were lust, but if that were the case, even desiring your own wife would be adultery. Indeed, lust is always wrong; there is no acceptable context for lust, any more than there can be an acceptable context for hatred. Lust is not mere desire.

 

[seebs]

I'll concede the point, especially among nomadic shepherds living in the desert.

The default position has been, is now, and always will be one man + one woman. People may customize, modify, and add-on all they wish, but it still starts there.

Sure.

To put it another way, God is not displeased if people take only a single partner of the opposite sex and stay monogamous to them for the rest of their lives. He can be displeased with other relationships.

He can be displeased with that one too. An abusive monogamous relationship will not please God.

What He is likely to find wrong with such relationships is the same thing He is likely to find wrong in the "default" relationship.

Frankly, I think polygamy today would be extremely hazardous to many men's health.

I know my wife would kill me if I suggested it.

I tend to think it's almost-always a bad idea. But not always.

I guess... If a man decided that he wasn't getting enough sack time, so he wanted to pick up another girl, I could see that being a Bad Thing.

But then, if someone decides he's not getting enough sack time, and starts dating with intent to find someone he can exchange vows with so he can get laid without feeling guilty, I think that's probably a Bad Thing as well.

Wanting a partner because you're horny is indeed immoral, and stays immoral whether it's your first or your fifth.

 

[truthnluv]

I think through this discussion there is a opportunity to address something that we all will inevitably run up against which is where Prakk and myself are right now. And that is Scriptures that appear to contradict each other. How do we resolve the issue when there are two opposing viewpoints that seem to have equal validity?

This is an extremely important principle of Bible study: If different sets of verses seem to contradict each other, decide in favor of the majority of the evidence. Then study to see how the conflict can be resolved by looking at context, culture, original language and so on.

This is the very situation here. What are we to believe about women pursuing ministry and leadership in the Church when we have the two passages...

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Tim. 2:12)

"Women should remain silent in the Churches." (1st Cor. 14:34)

that seem to conflict with these passages...

"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) Speaking of gender equality.

"And every woman who prays or prophesies..." (1 Cor. 11:5) specifically granting women liberty to prophecy in Church.

Women involved in ministry from OT and NT, Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Elizabeth, Cloe, Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, Junias (female apostle), Tryphena and Tryphosa.

*********


One should base his/her decision always on the majority of the evidence. To this list could be added (from my earlier post):

Both men and women are divinely gifted and empowered to minister to the whole Body of Christ, under His authority (Acts 1:14, 18:26, 21:9; Rom 16:1-7, 12-13, 15; Phil 4:2-3; Col 4:15; see also Mark 15:40-41, 16:1-7; Luke 8:1-3; John 20:17-18; compare also Old Testament examples: Judges 4:4-14, 5:7; 2Chron 34:22-28; Prov 31:30-31; Micah 6:4).

In the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1Cor 11:5; 1Peter 2:9-10; Rev 1:6, 5:10).

Good study will eventually solve what only appears to be a conflict with the two verses.


My own opinion...

Paul simply could not have told the women that they could pray and prophecy if they first covered their heads (1 Cor. 11:11), then just three chapters later tell them they had to be silent in the church, if he meant that they could not speak at all, or contribute to the service. Deciding in favor of the majority of evidence allows women the freedom to minister and to be leader's in Christ's Church. All his instructions are culturally motivated, and are meant to lead the Corinthians saints to avoid behavior that would unnecessarily unsettle the pagan society in which they lived. Thus what appears to be contradictions are seen to be perfectly understandable in view of the prevailing notions of the people around them.

It is folly to base a conclusion on two verses when many more than that lead in the opposite direction. There has been extreme human suffering caused by the church's error on issues such as race and slavery, witchcraft, salvation by grace, the Crusades and so on. The issue of women in ministry directly effects the right of women to participate fully in God's kingdom; to enter fully into the great blessings bought for them by Jesus' blood. How can we even hesitate to open to them this opportunity when the mass of evidence supports it? After all, for women this is too is a vital part of their inheritance of Freedom in Christ.

Eph. 3:20

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument; The context of 1Cor. 11:11 is not a church setting. There is nothing mentioned about being in the midst of a church service nor is it implied. However, 1Cor.14:34 clearly is within the context of a church service(1Cor.14:26).

Also, the verse in Galations is not in the context of gender roles. The context is heirship and sonship based on faith in Jesus Christ(Gal.3:26-27).

Also, as a Hermeneuticist, you must ask yourself how the original audiences understood the words of Moses(Gen.3:16) and Paul(1Cor.11, 1Cor.14:34, 1Tim.2).

How did the men of the Old Testament treat their women based on their understanding of God's word? How did women of the Old Testament behave based on their understanding of God's word? What role did they play in ancient Isreal? How did first century Christians treat women based on God's word? What role did women play? What role are women told to play within the Church? What duties are they told to take upon themselves as women(Titus 2:4-5)? How are they commanded to behave?

If you can answer these questions based on God's word with verses that are clear and in context, then you will understand the role of women in the Church today.

truthnluv

 

[CaDan]

Is it about time for Lilith to make an appearance in this thread?

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Do you have a scripture that says that God approves of polygamy or wife swapping?

Good questions....

Since they are two different subjects I will answers them seperatly.

Yes there are a couple of Scriptures that speak to polygamy.

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. This is what Onan refused to do (Gen. 38: 7-10) and he was, well you know, done away with.

It is useless to argue a special circumstance in this instance. If polygamy is truly a "moral" offense, no special circumstance can make it morally right. Immoral acts cannot be permissable simply because of circumstance. Sin is sin. On one hand God decrees the death penalty for "adultery." On the other hand God decrees multiple marriage in this text.

I think it is supremly important to note that it was God's requirement. Especially in light of the fact that most modern age Theologians call polygamy sinful. Most of us can agree that there is one Lawgiver and that culture does not define sin in the eyes of God. All things allowable and all things forbidden remain in those categories until God speaks a change to their status. So by the very fact that God instituted this Levirate requirement it is impossible that it is considered a "sinful" activity.

Here's something interesting; look at Duet. 21:15. This is God's Law also and talks about a man with two wives and his required care for them. It talks about "love" in the marriage and places the emphasis of it in subjection to that of placement in the marriage. It does have relevance to the concept of marriage and it's purpose at that time.

Here is God's provision within His law if he takes another wife....

"If a man marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food. clothing and marital rights. (Ex. 21:10)

Also in Nathan's rebuke to David after his adultery (wife stealing) with Bathsheba, "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).

God Himself was the author of the many blessings that fell on King David. David had wives and concubines because God gave them to him. Far from being something that God merely tolerated, polygamy was seen as a blessing from God. And God said He would have blessed David with more women if what he had was not enough. This passage gives proof that God not only blessed David's polygamy and concubinage; God Himself was the author of His many wives and concubines.

We can go on to note that out of all of God's annointed leaders, many if not most were polygamous. They never lost their Divine annointing and many of these were directly responsible for bringing for the Messiah.

Also to say that God approved.....His silence on this matter implies His acceptance. If we were to substitute "idol worship" (something we actually know is a sin) for "polygamy," there is no doubt that God would have spoke out against this evil practice. But God did not speak out against this practice that was in effect from Genesis and practiced through revelation. This fact alone speaks volumes to the case for God's acceptance of polygamy.

I will answer your other question in a seperate post. It takes me a while to write most of this...my apologies.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

The responses I'm asked to make are getting away from me.... I wanted to comment on this particular instance before this passes too. We have a incorrect definition of lust and adultery and that's why we cannot understand or make it fit into our understanding of why God permitted polygamy.

You can not argue from silence .
God never said or encouraged or said he blessed polygamy .
In fact one might argue that polygamy actually starts with the sin of adultery because the word says if you lust for a woman in your heart , you have committed adultery .
So a man seeing a woman that he desires for another wife, He has already committed adultery .

I think a powerful arguemnet can be made from God's silence on the issue, but I won't address that now...my plate is full. I had most of these comments from another thread that addressed this issue.

The OT understanding of adultery is the same as the NT understanding of adultery, our modern understanding is incorrect. Again, the key to this whole verse is the proper understanding of adultery. This is what the Hebrews knew and this is where Jesus draws His inferences from. He's is not completly changing the Law, He is further clarifying the Law. He is again drawing their focus to the "intent" of the matter. Matt. 5:32 deals with heart issues that manifest themselves in sinful actions.

OT culture is what the early Church knew. In fact Jesus is brand knew to them and all they knew was the OT teaching. We can't apply our 21st century definitions onto lust and adultery, we have to go back to their culture and understand it the way they would have understood it. This verse doesn't have to do with a man looking at a woman and appreciating her sexuality, it has to do with adultery.

This verse has to do with the OT concept of adultery. In that culture a man could not commit adultery by taking another wife. This is proven a thousand times over in the OT. If a man wanted another wife and he had the resources to care and provide for her, he could take another. It was never a violation of any sort. However, it was always a violation for man to take another man's wife. This was always adultery. That's why "looking" with the intent to posses is the issue here. That's why Jesus gives us that word picture:

"If your right eyes causes you to sin, gouge it out..." describes the lusting, the desire for something that is not yours to posses. "If you right hand causes you to sin, cut it off..." describes the possessing what is not yours. (Matt. 5:29,30) You see, if this verse was just talking about "seeing" a woman the eye portion makes sense, but the cutting off of the hand makes no sense. But it's also talking about the "stealing" which is why the cutting off of the hand is there.

He didn't have to say that looking at a "married" woman was adultery. To them there was only one way to understand it. They could only commit adultery with a married woman period. He didn't have to designate her marital status, nationality, hair color or any of those things...the principle remains consitent. A single man could never commit adultery unless it was with a married woman. A single man could never commit adultery with a single woman. A married man could not commit adultery unless it was with a married woman. It was impossible for either a married or single man to commit adultery with a single woman. If you don't believe so, you'll have to cite some passages that prove this to be so.

The word used as lust "epithumeo" (Strongs #1937) is the exact same word used in Rom. 7:7, 13:9, "...for the Law said, thou shall not covet." That is what Christ was trying to teach us. It is wrong to put your "fixation" on a object, person or whatever and "desire" to have that "thing" for our own. It is "to strongly desire to have what belongs to someone else..." (pg. 291. 25.20, The Greek-English Lexicon of the NT based on Semantic Domains).

Just as the OT commandment tells us that we are not to covet our neighbor's house, wife, property etc...Jesus tells us the same thing. We can admire those things, even appreciate their beauty (sexually or otherwise just like the Shulamite incident), but we are not to place upon them that "fixation" to the point that we long for that "thing" that the other person has. To even "desire" to have my neighbor's wife as my own constitutes adultery in the Matt. passage.

This is the exact reason why there was never, ever, ever a charge of adultery brought against the OT saints who desired to have more than one wife, or sex with their concubines or slaves. That is why there is never a problem with text like the Shulamite dancer. To define "lust" by our modern day definition is to understand the entire culture of the OT a sinful. If that is our understanding, then again it is a flawed human understanding and has no authority for Divine Law. God spoke nothing about the improper behaviour of His OT saints in these areas.

Eph. 3:20

 

[seebs]

A bit of looking at the OT will show that the response to "X and Y had sex" is not to punish them for adultery, unless Y was a married woman and X was not her husband. Otherwise, it's not adultery, whatever it is. Even if it's wrong, it's not adultery.

 

[seebs]

Just show us where God blessed them and encouraged them seebs.

Well, let's see. What did God give David? What did God say about David's adultery? He said that, if David had wanted more wives, God would have given him more -- just not someone else's wife.

What does God require of a Hebrew man, happily married, whose older brother dies and leaves a childless widow? Polygamy. That's encouraged. What happens to Onan? He refuses to perform his duties for the second wife God expects him to take, and is struck down for refusing this direct order.

How many more do we need? Does Jacob ring a bell at all?

There are two possibilities.

One is that there is total silence on the issue, in which case, you have no basis to assert a condemnation, because there is none. The other is that we take these examples at face value, and there is clear encouragement and blessing. These unions were blessed; you can tell, because they produced children. That's how God blessed unions, throughout.

 

[rnmomof7]

Good questions....

Since they are two different subjects I will answers them seperatly.

Yes there are a couple of Scriptures that speak to polygamy.

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. This is what Onan refused to do (Gen. 38: 7-10) and he was, well you know, done away with.

It is useless to argue a special circumstance in this instance. If polygamy is truly a "moral" offense, no special circumstance can make it morally right. Immoral acts cannot be permissable simply because of circumstance. Sin is sin. On one hand God decrees the death penalty for "adultery." On the other hand God decrees multiple marriage in this text.

I think it is supremly important to note that it was God's requirement. Especially in light of the fact that most modern age Theologians call polygamy sinful. Most of us can agree that there is one Lawgiver and that culture does not define sin in the eyes of God. All things allowable and all things forbidden remain in those categories until God speaks a change to their status. So by the very fact that God instituted this Levirate requirement it is impossible that it is considered a "sinful" activity.

Here's something interesting; look at Duet. 21:15. This is God's Law also and talks about a man with two wives and his required care for them. It talks about "love" in the marriage and places the emphasis of it in subjection to that of placement in the marriage. It does have relevance to the concept of marriage and it's purpose at that time.

Here is God's provision within His law if he takes another wife....

"If a man marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food. clothing and marital rights. (Ex. 21:10)

You assume because God protected the first wife that he approved of the polygamy .
That is not well founded.

Also in Nathan's rebuke to David after his adultery (wife stealing) with Bathsheba, "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).

But the truth is , once David repented his sin , he sent away his other wives and was a husband to only Bethsheba .
See that is the difference.
The punishment that came as a result of Davids lust is seen in the offspring

See II Samuel 12:9-12. "Now therefore," said God (Verse 10), "the sword shall never depart from thine house; BECAUSE THOU HAST DESPISED ME, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." Notice, David despised GOD -- not merely the commandment of God, as in Verse 9, but also the very PERSON of God! He did it by taking this woman as his wife. Therefore the sword was never to depart from his house.


The House of David, at that time consisted solely of these plural WIVES, and his children. This was a tremendous sin . God was meting out tremendous superpunishment. Now notice the next verse:

"Thus saith the Eternal, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of THINE OWN HOUSE ...." His own house included his wives and children. WHAT evil? God has just said the SWORD will now come upon his house his family. God continues: ".... and I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."

God took all his wives, leaving Bathsheba only. With David's first and only legitimate wife, Michal, probably dead (see II Sam. 6:23), God also had cleared the way for Bathsheba to become the legal wife of David. Apparently this was done, that she might be the mother of Solomon, through whom God was to keep His unconditional, dynastic promise to David -- a forefather of Jesus Christ -- and a prophet used in writing the Bible.

After that David was away from Jerusalem. But, returning there were ten concubines (his former harem). Here is what David did with them: "And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, WHOM HE HAD LEFT TO KEEP THE HOUSE, and put them in ward, and fed them, but WENT NOT IN UNTO THEM. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood" (II Sam. 20:3).

Just as David kept the ten concubines "in widowhood" -- that is, he had no relations with them, for they had been defiled -- so he put away his other wives (II Sam. 19:6) BECAUSE THEY TOO HAD BEEN DEFILED by a neighbor (II Sam. 12).

David had truly repented. He practised polygamy NO MORE! When David was becoming old, he went "fully after the Eternal" (I Kings 11:6). He was "a man after God's own heart," because his heart was right. He did repent. He had been a warrior. In his younger life he went after many women. He had sown his wild oats. BUT HE REPENTED!

His heart turned to God. His life's race ended in victory -- he "went fully after the Eternal." It is not the one who starts out with the biggest burst of speed, but the one who finishes first AT the END of the race who wins it.







.

God Himself was the author of the many blessings that fell on King David. David had wives and concubines because God gave them to him. Far from being something that God merely tolerated, polygamy was seen as a blessing from God. And God said He would have blessed David with more women if what he had was not enough. This passage gives proof that God not only blessed David's polygamy and concubinage; God Himself was the author of His many wives and concubines.


We can go on to note that out of all of God's annointed leaders, many if not most were polygamous. They never lost their Divine annointing and many of these were directly responsible for bringing for the Messiah.

No the line of Jesus was through Solomon, the son of a SINGLE wife. He was not polygamous at the time of Solomon's birth .

God gave this absolute COMMAND regarding future kings of Israel -- telling them they must not do as the pagan nations around them (whose kings had their harems): "NEITHER SHALL HE MULTIPLY WIVES TO HIMSELF!" Saul, Israel's first king, DISOBEYED that command. He let demons take hold of him.
That sin brought David to the throne



God deposed him, and put David in his place. David started out in polygamy, but God punished him. HE REPENTED thoroughly, and he finished his reign with his ONLY living wife. Solomon finished his life in polygamy and idolatry -- and God, in punishment, rended the KINGDOM away from his son, Rehoboam.

GOD DID NOT CONDONE POLYGAMY! He PUNISHED those who practised it! It was ALWAYS SIN! It is SIN today!
.

Also to say that God approved.....His silence on this matter implies His acceptance. If we were to substitute "idol worship" (something we actually know is a sin) for "polygamy," there is no doubt that God would have spoke out against this evil practice. But God did not speak out against this practice that was in effect from Genesis and practiced through revelation. This fact alone speaks volumes to the case for God's acceptance of polygamy.

No it speaks of Gods long suffering.
God over looked sin in His Patience

Mat 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
It was because of the hardness of their hearts not his approval .


Incidentally, the belief that a lot of people a plurality of wives in the Old Testament is not reality . It was very uncommon to have many wives . Look at Noah, he had only had one wife. Adam had one wife. Abraham had one wife. It is true that he bore Ishmael by a concubine,but clearly as we read the scripture we see the fruit of that sin.

Isaac had one wife. Jacob had only one wife after his conversion .
Moses had one wife. Some of the kings began to have harems. They followed in the footsteps of the heathen kings.

But ordinarily in the Old Testament there was one wife. There are some exceptions, but they are really rare, as compared with the usual.We see that there was division and sin as the result of polygamy not blessings as one receives when they are in the will of God.

Matthew 19:4 it says, "Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female? For this reason a man (a man, not men) shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (not the three shall become one, or the four shall become one, or the five shall become one, because there is more than one wife or more than one husband). "The two shall become one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." That is the Biblical rule. One husband and one wife, and they become one flesh.

May I ask if you are a member of that Liberated "Christian " group that advocates polygamy and or spouse swapping?
You position seems similar to theirs

 

[seebs]

I don't recall God punishing people for practicing polygamy. I recall Him punishing people for committing adultery, by taking someone else's wife.

 

[rnmomof7]

Well, let's see. What did God give David? What did God say about David's adultery? He said that, if David had wanted more wives, God would have given him more -- just not someone else's wife.

What he did was set the son of one wife against the son of another because of jealousy so deep that it was a murderous situation .
That is the fruit of sin , not blessings.

What does God require of a Hebrew man, happily married, whose older brother dies and leaves a childless widow? Polygamy. That's encouraged. What happens to Onan? He refuses to perform his duties for the second wife God expects him to take, and is struck down for refusing this direct order.

Onan was not married he was single that was one of the reasons for his spilling his seed. he wanted his own wife and children.

“When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger.* Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name shall not blotted out of Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)

This does not indicate any polygamy . It is the burden of the younger brother , most likely single brother.

How many more do we need? Does Jacob ring a bell at all?

Jacob was not a believer when he had 2 wives (which he was tricked into )


But Jacob was not yet converted. He leaned to his own understanding. He did not seek wisdom from God, nor did he seek to OBEY God. He did what seemed right to him, in his own selfish interest. So Jacob lived in polygamy with two wives, and also had children by their two personal maids.

But you read of Jacob's conversion in Genesis 32:24-30. He then put idolatry out of his household (Gen. 35:2-4). God appeared to him, changed his name to ISRAEL ("Overcomer", or "Prevailer with God"), and re-confirmed the PROMISES. Then God took Rachel, his second wife (Gen. 35:19), leaving only his first and true wife, Leah.

So, following his conversion, Jacob had but his one original wife. Jacob had repented. He lived no more in polygamy after his conversion.

The difference is between a saved and called man and a carnal fleshly man.

There are two possibilities.

One is that there is total silence on the issue, in which case, you have no basis to assert a condemnation, because there is none. The other is that we take these examples at face value, and there is clear encouragement and blessing. These unions were blessed; you can tell, because they produced children. That's how God blessed unions, throughout.

I think you need to take a real good look at your 'examples"

They are full of punishments and bad consequences for the lust of theses men .

When the men repent and turn to God and away from their sin they no longer seek more than one wife.

That was the flesh not the spirit that led them.
A converted man or woman seeks Gods face first not a few new bed partners

 

[seebs]

What he did was set the son of one wife against the son of another because of jealousy so deep that it was a murderous situation .
That is the fruit of sin , not blessings.

Jealousy is indeed sin.

Onan was not married he was single that was one of the reasons for his spilling his seed. he wanted his own wife and children.

Oops, you're right; I am forgetful.

“When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger.* Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name shall not blotted out of Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)

This does not indicate any polygamy . It is the burden of the younger brother , most likely single brother.

It indicates marriage whether or not he is single. God would not command someone to take a wife because it was "most likely" that he was single, if polygamy were a sin. He would specify the exceptions.

Jacob was not a believer when he had 2 wives (which he was tricked into)
But Jacob was not yet converted. He leaned to his own understanding. He did not seek wisdom from God, nor did he seek to OBEY God. He did what seemed right to him, in his own selfish interest. So Jacob lived in polygamy with two wives, and also had children by their two personal maids.

And yet, God didn't seem to see these things as particularly sinful.

But you read of Jacob's conversion in Genesis 32:24-30. He then put idolatry out of his household (Gen. 35:2-4). God appeared to him, changed his name to ISRAEL ("Overcomer", or "Prevailer with God"), and re-confirmed the PROMISES. Then God took Rachel, his second wife (Gen. 35:19), leaving only his first and true wife, Leah.

Pure eisegesis; you've decided that you will read the story as though only one wife is "true", and you interpret the story in that light.

Jacob doesn't divorce Rachel, or put her away, or comment on how wrong he was to marry her.

So, following his conversion, Jacob had but his one original wife. Jacob had repented. He lived no more in polygamy after his conversion.

If someone converts, and his wife dies, does that mean his marriage was a sin he repented of?

Do we ever see Jacob referring to his marriage as something from which he repented, or do we read that into the story to make it say what we want?

They are full of punishments and bad consequences for the lust of theses men.

So are many of the stories of monogamy. There is nonetheless no explicit condemnation.

When the men repent and turn to God and away from their sin they no longer seek more than one wife.

This is not explicit; it is an interpretation we have brought to the text since.

It is not how the Bible was understood by God's chosen people.

That was the flesh not the spirit that led them.

Says you.

A converted man or woman seeks Gods face first not a few new bed partners

Indeed. And I have made no attempt to justify seeking "new bed partners".

But then, seeking even one bed partner as a bed partner is lust. Loving a person, and wishing to marry that person, is not the same thing. Not all polygamy is about "seeking new bed partners".

 

[rnmomof7]

I don't recall God punishing people for practicing polygamy. I recall Him punishing people for committing adultery, by taking someone else's wife.

Read the events as they occurred with the sons of many wives of David.

The Old Testament clearly shows that polygamy brings trouble into the home as a result of this particular sin.

It is seen many times in the biblical record as something that bore rotten fruit Jealousy and bitterness .

 

[seebs]

Read the events as they occurred with the sons of many wives of David.

The Old Testament clearly shows that polygamy brings trouble into the home as a result of this particular sin.

It is seen many times in the biblical record as something that bore rotten fruit Jealousy and bitterness.

Jealousy is around anyway; the Bible is full of stories with jealousy.

I don't recall seeing it shown that polygamy causes jealousy. Does it happen? Yes, sometimes. But the Bible is full of stories showing that sexual desire leads to jealousy, lust, and other things -- but we do not condemn all desire, but rather, take these as warnings of the things we must take into account when considering how to respond to our desires.

God has thoughtfully warned us about things that can go wrong with polygamy, but never once condemns it as such.

Quite simply, you need to find an explicit condemnation to claim that there is one.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument; The context of 1Cor. 11:11 is not a church setting. There is nothing mentioned about being in the midst of a church service nor is it implied. However, 1Cor.14:34 clearly is within the context of a church service(1Cor.14:26).

Also, the verse in Galations is not in the context of gender roles. The context is heirship and sonship based on faith in Jesus Christ(Gal.3:26-27).

Also, as a Hermeneuticist, you must ask yourself how the original audiences understood the words of Moses(Gen.3:16) and Paul(1Cor.11, 1Cor.14:34, 1Tim.2).

How did the men of the Old Testament treat their women based on their understanding of God's word? How did women of the Old Testament behave based on their understanding of God's word? What role did they play in ancient Isreal? How did first century Christians treat women based on God's word? What role did women play? What role are women told to play within the Church? What duties are they told to take upon themselves as women(Titus 2:4-5)? How are they commanded to behave?

Hello truth...

I wrote of this extensively in my prior post, but I will try to answer your questions again, bearing in mind I still owe some others some answers for different things. If I'm not as full in my descriptions I apologize as I am covering old ground.

In 1 Cor. Paul is talking about "traditions" (vs.2) that have been established. He end's is discussions about the traditions (vs. 16), "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God. He's talking about practices.......Church practice. If we are to take this absolutley literal, a woman's head is to be covered every time she prays correct? And how often are we to pray ..."without ceasing." (1 Thes. 5:17).

The whole of the book of 1 Cor. as to do with the misunderstandings of Pauls teaching and it's whole emphasis is on correcting spiritual (1 Cor 1-3), moral (1 Cor 5-6), relational (1 Cor 7-10), liturgical (1 Cor 10-14) and doctrinal (1 Cor 15) problems in the Church at Corinth.

It is also passing strange that we get our communion direction from 1 Cor. 11:23-29, "This cup is the new covenenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." We usually do this within a church service. Yet this mention comes well before chapter 14.

The passage in 1 Cor. 14 is addressing the misuse of spiritual gifts that started back in chapter 12. Are we to say that nothing counted as proper spritual gift use inside the church service until he actually says the words, "when you gather together?" He was addressing the proper use of spritual gifts as a whole which were known to occur when they come together. Saying that a woman can prophecy in chapter 11 is seen as entirely different than the proper spritual guidlines for prophecy in chapter 12 (vs. 8) and then those people have different rules than those of chapter 14???? Think this through, he's addressing the overall problem of proper worship. The demonstration of love in chapter 13 is just as correct inside a church even though it is mentioned well before the chapter 14 "when you gather together."

How men treated their women on the OT was in many ways a carry over from the nations that surrounded them. They played a submissive role just as the women in the adjacent societies played. I cannot be expected to cite every instance of male domination of ancient cultures and their understanding of what it meant to them. We are talking about the role of women in church today in the NT era....so let's base or understandings on what the NT documents teach us taking their context and culture into consideration.

What duties are they told to take upon themselves as women(Titus 2:4-5)? How are they commanded to behave?

This one I also addressed in my previous post.

Paul says elder women are to be "teachers of the right" in the original Greek phrase "kalodidaskalos" Strong's 2567, a teacher of the right. He suggests they start with instructing the younger women, but he does not limit them to teaching only females (Titus 2:3).

I think this is maybe what you're getting at???? In vs. 5 he says "and to be subject to your husbands, (and here's the qualifier...) so that no one will malign the word of God."

This is one that has to be addressed and understood within that culture, which I wrote extensively about already. We know this because in a few verses later (Titus 2 :9) he tells slaves to "be subject to their masters." He did not call on gender equality (although it is correct) nor slave freedom (although it is correct), and using the same qualifying phrase, "so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Saviour attractive." He could not disrupt the entire Corinthian culture by demanding that their entire economy change at his instruction. He layed down the principles within their existing culture and the love ethic took over, and eventually acheived the desired results... "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matt. 22:37) "Love your neighbor as yourself. All of the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt. 22:39,40) "There is no greater commandment than these." (Mark 12:29-33).

Eph. 3:20

 

[rnmomof7]

Jealousy is indeed sin.



Oops, you're right; I am forgetful.



It indicates marriage whether or not he is single. God would not command someone to take a wife because it was "most likely" that he was single, if polygamy were a sin. He would specify the exceptions.

Can you show me a biblical example of this being polygamy?

Jacob was not a believer when he had 2 wives (which he was tricked into)
But Jacob was not yet converted. He leaned to his own understanding. He did not seek wisdom from God, nor did he seek to OBEY God. He did what seemed right to him, in his own selfish interest. So Jacob lived in polygamy with two wives, and also had children by their two personal maids.



And yet, God didn't seem to see these things as particularly sinful.

And you know this how?

But you read of Jacob's conversion in Genesis 32:24-30. He then put idolatry out of his household (Gen. 35:2-4). God appeared to him, changed his name to ISRAEL ("Overcomer", or "Prevailer with God"), and re-confirmed the PROMISES. Then God took Rachel, his second wife (Gen. 35:19), leaving only his first and true wife, Leah.



Pure eisegesis; you've decided that you will read the story as though only one wife is "true", and you interpret the story in that light.

That seems the order of the day here..
But let me ask you, did you take time to read the scripture, or did you choose to dismiss it off hand because you do not like it?

Take time to read of Jacob's conversion.
Up until that time , God was the God of his father, not HIS God.

After his meeting and conversion he was given a new name ( like Abram to Abraham or Saul to Paul)
That name change is significant . It shows that the relationship with God has changed.
His beloved Rachel was taken from him.
The recognized marriage was the first one , even though it was not his choice and by deception.
In Jewish tradition men were buried with their wives. He was not buried with his beloved, he was buried with Leah.

After the death of rachel did he seek another wife? Another concubine?
Ask your self why?
I believe scripture speaks to the hearts of men being turned when they are converted.
Call it what you please, but unless you can prove me wrong my position stands.

Jacob doesn't divorce Rachel, or put her away, or comment on how wrong he was to marry her.

That is because God took her as he did first child of David and Bethsheba.. God is the God of life and death .

If someone converts, and his wife dies, does that mean his marriage was a sin he repented of?

Come on seebs is this the best you can do?

David sent his wives away, Jacob might have done that too, but God took her for his purposes.

Do we ever see Jacob referring to his marriage as something from which he repented, or do we read that into the story to make it say what we want?

I think the fact that he requested that he be buried with Leah and not Rachel shows he "got it"

But the bottom line is you do not know if Jacob would have done as Abraham had done or as David was to do. Put them away as his conscience prompted

Indeed. And I have made no attempt to justify seeking "new bed partners".

But then, seeking even one bed partner as a bed partner is lust. Loving a person, and wishing to marry that person, is not the same thing. Not all polygamy is about "seeking new bed partners".

A married man should not be out LOOKING for another to love should he seebs? That indicates an unfaithfulness in his heart.

There are only 15 cases of polygamy in the OT. Go and look up the first one recorded and THEN tell me it was of God .

 

[Eph. 3:20]

You assume because God protected the first wife that he approved of the polygamy .
That is not well founded.

But the truth is , once David repented his sin , he sent away his other wives and was a husband to only Bethsheba .
See that is the difference.
The punishment that came as a result of Davids lust is seen in the offspring

See II Samuel 12:9-12. "Now therefore," said God (Verse 10), "the sword shall never depart from thine house; BECAUSE THOU HAST DESPISED ME, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." Notice, David despised GOD -- not merely the commandment of God, as in Verse 9, but also the very PERSON of God! He did it by taking this woman as his wife. Therefore the sword was never to depart from his house.


The House of David, at that time consisted solely of these plural WIVES, and his children. This was a tremendous sin . God was meting out tremendous superpunishment. Now notice the next verse:

"Thus saith the Eternal, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of THINE OWN HOUSE ...." His own house included his wives and children. WHAT evil? God has just said the SWORD will now come upon his house his family. God continues: ".... and I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."

God took all his wives, leaving Bathsheba only. With David's first and only legitimate wife, Michal, probably dead (see II Sam. 6:23), God also had cleared the way for Bathsheba to become the legal wife of David. Apparently this was done, that she might be the mother of Solomon, through whom God was to keep His unconditional, dynastic promise to David -- a forefather of Jesus Christ -- and a prophet used in writing the Bible.

After that David was away from Jerusalem. But, returning there were ten concubines (his former harem). Here is what David did with them: "And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, WHOM HE HAD LEFT TO KEEP THE HOUSE, and put them in ward, and fed them, but WENT NOT IN UNTO THEM. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood" (II Sam. 20:3).

Just as David kept the ten concubines "in widowhood" -- that is, he had no relations with them, for they had been defiled -- so he put away his other wives (II Sam. 19:6) BECAUSE THEY TOO HAD BEEN DEFILED by a neighbor (II Sam. 12).

David had truly repented. He practised polygamy NO MORE! When David was becoming old, he went "fully after the Eternal" (I Kings 11:6). He was "a man after God's own heart," because his heart was right. He did repent. He had been a warrior. In his younger life he went after many women. He had sown his wild oats. BUT HE REPENTED!

His heart turned to God. His life's race ended in victory -- he "went fully after the Eternal." It is not the one who starts out with the biggest burst of speed, but the one who finishes first AT the END of the race who wins it.







.

No the line of Jesus was through Solomon, the son of a SINGLE wife. He was not polygamous at the time of Solomon's birth .

God gave this absolute COMMAND regarding future kings of Israel -- telling them they must not do as the pagan nations around them (whose kings had their harems): "NEITHER SHALL HE MULTIPLY WIVES TO HIMSELF!" Saul, Israel's first king, DISOBEYED that command. He let demons take hold of him.
That sin brought David to the throne



God deposed him, and put David in his place. David started out in polygamy, but God punished him. HE REPENTED thoroughly, and he finished his reign with his ONLY living wife. Solomon finished his life in polygamy and idolatry -- and God, in punishment, rended the KINGDOM away from his son, Rehoboam.

GOD DID NOT CONDONE POLYGAMY! He PUNISHED those who practised it! It was ALWAYS SIN! It is SIN today!
.

No it speaks of Gods long suffering.
God over looked sin in His Patience

Mat 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
It was because of the hardness of their hearts not his approval .


Incidentally, the belief that a lot of people a plurality of wives in the Old Testament is not reality . It was very uncommon to have many wives . Look at Noah, he had only had one wife. Adam had one wife. Abraham had one wife. It is true that he bore Ishmael by a concubine,but clearly as we read the scripture we see the fruit of that sin.

Isaac had one wife. Jacob had only one wife after his conversion .
Moses had one wife. Some of the kings began to have harems. They followed in the footsteps of the heathen kings.

But ordinarily in the Old Testament there was one wife. There are some exceptions, but they are really rare, as compared with the usual.We see that there was division and sin as the result of polygamy not blessings as one receives when they are in the will of God.

Matthew 19:4 it says, "Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female? For this reason a man (a man, not men) shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (not the three shall become one, or the four shall become one, or the five shall become one, because there is more than one wife or more than one husband). "The two shall become one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." That is the Biblical rule. One husband and one wife, and they become one flesh.

May I ask if you are a member of that Liberated "Christian " group that advocates polygamy and or spouse swapping?
You position seems similar to theirs

There are so many good objections here and all with great answers that I would love to get into as these are the most common objections. It's getting late here and I have things I must do. I'm afraid that the thread will be much further along before I have a chance to respond, but never the less I intend to answer each and every objection.

Thanks for taking the time to dialogue.

Eph. 3:20

 

[seebs]

Can you show me a biblical example of this being polygamy?

I don't need to. No exceptions are provided. You can't make one up! You have no basis for condemning polygamy. Your argument is totally circular; "polygamy must be bad because the cases where it was ordained wouldn't have been allowed because polygamy is bad".

And you know this how?

Total silence. Things which are a big deal get commented on.

After his meeting and conversion he was given a new name ( like Abram to Abraham or Saul to Paul)
That name change is significant . It shows that the relationship with God has changed.
His beloved Rachel was taken from him.

But not given up; taken.

The recognized marriage was the first one, even though it was not his choice and by deception.

Objection, begging the question! You presume that only one marriage is recognized, but the Bible never says that!

In Jewish tradition men were buried with their wives. He was not buried with his beloved, he was buried with Leah.

Well, it would have been messy cutting him in bits.

After the death of rachel did he seek another wife? Another concubine?

No.

Ask your self why?

Because polygamy is not something people seek for its own sake.

He never ran into anyone else he fell in love with.

Call it what you please, but unless you can prove me wrong my position stands.

Me too! You have yet to offer anything but the observation that your interpretation is largely consistent. You haven't found a single condemnation of polygamy. It goes wrong, but no one condemns it; they just point out the pitfalls and dangers. If it were a sin, it would have been condemned straight up at least once.

I think the fact that he requested that he be buried with Leah and not Rachel shows he "got it"

But that's pure eisegesis.

But the bottom line is you do not know if Jacob would have done as Abraham had done or as David was to do. Put them away as his conscience prompted

Right. We don't know. So any claim that he necessarily would have done a given thing, or any conclusion about his hypothesized repentence, is purely our invention.

A married man should not be out LOOKING for another to love should he seebs? That indicates an unfaithfulness in his heart.

Indeed. Looking for another to love would be unfaithfulness. Saying "I don't have enough wives, I must find one", would be very questionable.

But looking is not always a prerequisite to finding. Do people need to look for God before He can reveal Himself?

There are only 15 cases of polygamy in the OT. Go and look up the first one recorded and THEN tell me it was of God.

There are a number of cases of siblings in the OT. Look at the first one recorded and THEN tell me it was of God.

The Bible tells us about what goes wrong; that doesn't mean the things which can go wrong are themselves sinful. It is not a sin to have a brother, even though it can go very wrong, and lead to jealousy and even murder.