A discussion on the morality of polygamy

[seebs]

If sex is not the issue, they why have it??

The reason?
lusting after someone other than your spouse

Why have sex with any spouse? Because it's a way to bond.

Since we've established that God has never once condemned polygamy, and has regularly condoned it, there is no reason not to have sex with any spouse, whether or not it's your first spouse.

Retrofitting our expectations to Scripture is not appropriate. God told His people what He objected to, and never mentioned polygamy as one of those things.

 

[stray bullet]

If a man converts to Christianity already having multiple wives, I'm curious how those who think God does not allow polygamy would remedy the situation. Is the man required to divorce all but the first wife or is he allowed to keep them?

I think the argument is that he only had one true marriage, so only the first would be recognized.

 

[k]

Is a woman allowed to have multiple husbands? Does scripture even address this?

 

[SimplyMe]

I think the argument is that he only had one true marriage, so only the first would be recognized.

The problem is this is a real world problem. What happens to the wives the other wives, assuming this is a country that recognized multiple partners? They don't just magically disappear. Is there a divorce? Is there alimony? Are the wives just dumped out into the street?

 

[stray bullet]

The problem is this is a real world problem. What happens to the wives the other wives, assuming this is a country that recognized multiple partners? They don't just magically disappear. Is there a divorce? Is there alimony? Are the wives just dumped out into the street?

I suppose that depends on the situation. Obviusly he should feel obligated to help them get on their feet if he feels a divorce is needed.

 

[SimplyMe]

I suppose that depends on the situation. Obviusly he should feel obligated to help them get on their feet if he feels a divorce is needed.

Yet interestingly, there is no direct quote saying that polygamy is forbidden. There are a great many scriptues, including a quote by Jesus, that divorce is a sin. So what is the right answer?

 

[Eph. 3:20]

The problem is this is a real world problem. What happens to the wives the other wives, assuming this is a country that recognized multiple partners? They don't just magically disappear. Is there a divorce? Is there alimony? Are the wives just dumped out into the street?

You nailed it SimplyMe...

This is the problem as I see it. I'm not fighting those against polygamy because I am going to partake in the practice, I can see where we have application for it in many third world countries today.

If we follow those who contend that polygamy is not something that God desires, then the man would have to divorce all wives but the first, breaking a family, bringing hardship on the husband and abandoned wives and children. So we would have women without a husband and children without a father. In addition this new convert is told that the God of love does not allow him to love more than one...what a absurdity.

If we go with God's plan, the man is accepted into the kingdom, his wives are accepted and the new convert has the opportunity to play a Godly role to his wives and children and the family stays intact.

The choice is obvious...God knows what He is doing.

Eph. 3:20

 

[seebs]

Yet interestingly, there is no direct quote saying that polygamy is forbidden. There are a great many scriptues, including a quote by Jesus, that divorce is a sin. So what is the right answer?

There are some sins which are not directly condemned; for instance, we can make a pretty good case against slavery, although it was obviously condoned.

But... There's a lot of guidance on how to run a family, and a lot of circumstances where the morality of polygamy would come directly into play.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Present any citation that says Moses had 2 wives at the same time.
He is never listed with the polygamists because there is no scripture to support that .

Numbers 12 (NIV):

Miriam and Aaron Oppose Moses
1 Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. 2 "Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?" they asked. "Hasn't he also spoken through us?" And the LORD heard this.

So, Moses clearly had two wives, but you are correct that the scripture does not indicate he had two at the same time. Zipporah last appears in Exodus 18, she may have returned to Moses with her father, Jethro, or she may have opted to stay with Jethro; the Bible does not say. However, she was not a Cushite, and from Numbers 12:1 it's obvious Miriam and Aaron are steamed at Moses for marrying outside of the chosen people.

Hence:
Moses may have been a widower when he married the unnamed Cushite.
Moses may have been a divorcee.
Moses may have been a bigamist.
Moses may have been a polygamist.

 

[Blackmarch]

However other prophets such as Abraham did, King david also and it was counted unto him for righteusness, he sinned when he lusted after bathsheba... after having like seven wives.
If god tells you you can have another wife, it's OK (but you better make sure that it's what he's saying and that it's him..) If he tells you it is not OK then it is a sin to have more than one wife.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Sorry, it's taken me a while, but here are answers to your objections.

(Ex. 21:10) “If he takes for himself another woman..."

There were CIVIL laws , not spiritual.They were the laws of Moses .
They were laws to have an orderly society .

There is a problem when you confuse civil law with Gods law.
Civil laws regulate the sinful behavior of men to protect the innocent or the victims.

Though the Law was broken down into three catagories (Moral, Civil, Ceremonial), there is one lawgiver. All recognized law ultimately emanates from one lawgiver, God (Jas. 4: 12,) "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD
is our king; he will save us." (Isa. 33: 22). God's law is perfect and alteration is forbidden, it matters not the particular period or age (Deut. 4: 2, Rev. 22: 18, 19, 2 Jn. 9-11). To say that the law that gives provision for a man taking another wife is not applicable because it's civil law is ridiculous.

These laws were given to Moses by God. "These are the laws that you (Moses) are to set before them." (Ex. 21:1).

Again, one must ask, why would God make rules of civil conduct for a conduct He forbids? Where in these laws are the penalties for taking another wife? God gives the rules and the penalty if the rule is broken, but there is no penalty with taking another wife, only the provision for her. There was nothing wrong with polygamy in the civil realm or in the moral realm. You again must offer proof of such.

It was not a moral but a political or civil one for the good ordering of the state. Among such laws were those of tolerance or permission, which did not approve of the evil things concerned, but only suffered them for the prevention of greater evil--as when the sea makes a breach into the land, if it cannot possibly be stopped, the best course is to make it as narrow as possible..........These laws tolerated what God condemned, and that for the purpose of preventing greater evils.

You will have to show that God condemned it. In 2 Sam. 12, He calls it a blessing.


[/quote]Just as divorce for uncleanness was purely a "concession" that was necessary at that time because of Israel's "hardness of heart" and the "chaotic conditions" that resulted from their attitude. God "allowed" easy divorce and polygamy (even though both were really adultery and a violation of the Seventh Commandment) but He did not "legitimate" it.[/quote]

Divorce for specific reasons was a legitimate allowance which wa 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).

How do you deal with Deuteronomy 17:17, God specifically gave a command for the future kings of the nation of Israel: not to multiply wives to himself... This is an explicit command from God against polygamy.

This command isn't agianst polygamy per se. God warns that the kings should not multiply wives to himself, lest his heart be turned away. This is not against polygamy as such or the sexual connection, but a warning against the danger of apostasy in Israel's leaders. You most also note the same in connection with amassing horses and large amounts of gold and silver. Later we see that Israel's greatest kings married many wives and amassed great amounts great hordes of gold and silver. Both wives and riches were to said to be God's blessing. Thus this text is a warning of the dangers of having many wives and much riches. It is not a prohibition of either, but a warning to realize the dangers in each case.

Also, this is because Israel is asking for themselves a king like the surrounding pagan nations. A king which undoubtedtly served pagan gods along with the kings wives who worship those same gods. Those kings also conquered for excess, taking wives, horses and gold/silver to further increase their dominance in the region.

David sinned every time he took an additional wife - Deut 17:17

Scripture doesn't say this. In fact there is not one passage that demonstrates that when David took an additional wife it was considered sinful (except in the case of him taking the wife of a married man). Can you show me a passage that deals with David that shows God considered him reprobate in the act of acquiring another wife or concubine?

In fact David is told this by God, "AndI 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 more of such things." (2 Sam. 12:9)

In fact as stated before Scripture tells us that “David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.(1 Kings 15:5)

David sinned when he committed adultery with Bathsheba

Absolutley, this is shown in Scripture, "Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him
with the sword of the children of Ammon." 2 Sam. 12 :9

David sinned when he had Uriah killed

Yes, this is shown in Scripture, "Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him
with the sword of the children of Ammon." 2 Sam. 12 :9

David sinned when he took Bathsheba as still another wife

Yes, again in Scripture,"Now therefore 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. (2 Sa. 12:10)

Why didn't God punish David for these sins immediately ? You can not assume because there was no immediate punishment that God ordained or approved of Polygamy

God immediatly punished David for the sin with Bathsheba, the only real sin involved. He did not punish David for polygamy because there is no sin of polygamy. In fact to say, as you have, that David sinned everytime he took an additional wife is to make God the author of David's sin, for Scripture tells us, "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 more of such things." (2 Sam. 12:9)

Scripture is showing us just the opposite of what you are trying to impose upon Scripture.

Here are some other passages in connection with David:

David walks in "integrity...truth...hates wickedness,: (Ps. 26:1-12).

This is one of many passages where David makes these claims for himself, and other passages (as noted above) affirm this is true of him. What do we make of this in light of polygamy and concubinage? It is obvious that nothing about polygamy and concubinage is inconsistent with "Integrity..thruth..hating wickedness." It is man who demonizes polygamy, not God. David had countless sex partners. Yet he was a righteous man, greatly annointed and highly favore by God.

A man can "Cleanse his way by heeding God's word,"[/b] (Ps. 119:9).

If polygamy and concubinage were in any sense "unclean" then how do we make sense of this following verse? David hid God's word in his heart that he might not sin against God, (Ps. 119:11). Did God's word not enlighten him about the sin of polygamy and concubinage? Obviously these things were not "sin" and God's word gave David no hint that God was in any way displeased with his having many women.

"I restrain my feet from every evil way, that I might keep your word."(Ps. 119:101)

Was David "keeping God's word," when he had sex with his many wives and concubines? Was there no evil way in this practice?

"Through your precepts I get understanding, therefore I hate every false way" (Ps. 119:104).

God's "precepts" did not give David any "understanding" that polygamy and concubinage were, in any sense, a "false way."

I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything. I hate every evil way." (Ps. 119:128)

David did not hate polygamy and concubinage, therefore God's precepts did not provide him with an idea that polygamy and concubinage were wrong. David followed what was right in "everything." How come he did not have a clue that God did not like polygamy and concubinage?

There was a direct connection between the lust of David having many wives and his desire for Bethsheba

The only direct connection is that they were all women! David went about gaining wives legally and Bathsheba was not his to posses.

Is there any record that after He had repented that he took one more wife , or that he replaced his concubines?

The Scripture doesn't say either way. It does however show that after the birth of Solomon, there were other children born to him that were not by Bathsheba. These could be from prior wives or from new ones. They are listed in the same order in the following passages.

"And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia, and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet." (2 Sam. 5:14-16)

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel: Ibhar also, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, And Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. These were all the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines, and Tamar their sister." (1 Chron. 3:5-9)

"Now these are the names of his children which he had in Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, and Ibhar, and Elishua, and Elpalet, and Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, and Elishama, and Beeliada, and Eliphalet." ( 1 Chron. 14:5).

Is there any record that God told David to take these wives

Is this the standard now? God must individually instruct every male to take a specific wife and then name her to in Scripture to be legitamite? If so then you are making standards that even God does not require. If this is the case it will have to be proven by Scripture for God nowhere makes it his standard.

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kg. 11:3). God promised to bless Solomon if he walks in all God’s laws. But not a syllable of censure about his extreme polygamy and concubinage. The only censure is his marrying pagan women against God’s commands, (11:2 4,5), and that he turned his heart away from the Lord, (11:4,9,10,11,33, 9:4, 6) And what sense does it make to think that God was incensed about Solomon’s marriages to pagan wives and thus rebuke him for it, yet He never rebukes him for marrying multiple Israelite wives?

Could you tell me the name of his Israelite wives?

Scripture doesn't give a indication of each and every one of his wives names and their origin of birth. Again, Sccripture makes it clear that Solomon's sin was marrying pagan wives, "Solomon sinned by these things..pagan wives caused him to sin" (Neh. 13:26). His sin was not having 700 wives. It was in having pagan wives.

Israel transgressed against God by marrying pagan women (Neh. 13: 27). Because of this rebuke, they covenented with God to put these wives away, (Ezra 10: 3,11,14, 44). This has nothing to do with polygamy. They put away only the pagan wives that God's law forbade them to wed.

If polygamy itself is a sin, why did God never legislate against it and why do we not having a single example in all of Scripture, of a godly man or group of men, such as here, learning that God was displeased with multiple wives, then repenting and "putting away all of their wives but the first one?" And if polygamy is wrong, why require that these Israelites put away only the pagan wives? Why not requie them to divorce all their extra wives? This Ezra passage proves they would have done so if God had desired it. But non ever did such a thing, even though polygamy was openly practiced, even to extremedegree, God never intimated in any way, that He was displeased with such a practice.


"And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my Lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law." (Ezra 10:2)

"In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.
Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?" (Neh: 13: 23-26)

Could you tell me how God blessed this polygamy? What was the fruit of it?

If you can not see the fruit of polygamy you just choose not to see it.

Look at the problems with the off springs of these relationships.

There was hatred and jealousy in the off spring of the woman of David.

We see the same kind of jealousy in the children of Jacob.

We see plots to kill have siblings by the mother of another.

God is not the author of confusion. If this was a blessed practice , the result would not have been as hateful and violent .

One has only to look at a few monogamous relationships to see that this line of reasoning dosen't stand up to scrutiny.

As noted earlier Adam and Eve (monogamous)had Cain and Able. Cain killed his brother out of jealousy and this happened within the "quintisential" monogamous marriage.

Also Isaac and rebecca (monogamous): “Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples are quarrelling while still within you. But one shall surpass the other and the older shall serve the younger” (Gn 25:23).

Esau hated his younger brother Jacob on account of the blessing that his father had given him. Thinking that this might result in murder, Jacob was sent away to find a wife among their kinsmen in Haran where he accumulated a fortune. Esau also became a wealthy man. The two sons followed different paths of life.

The story of these twin boys would later be interpreted to represent the disputes between Judaism and Christianity. For the first one hundred years of its existence, Christianity was a sect within Judaism.

Add to this that Rebecca decieved her husband into giving the birthright unto Jacob (the deceiver) as foretold by God. And then Jacob passed his deceiving ways unto his children.

Noah's (monogamous) son Ham did some kind of sexual offense so vile (Gen. 9:21), that Noah imposed a curse upon the seed of Ham (the father of Canaan). "Cursed be Canaan! The lowsest of slaves will he be to his brothers." (vs. 25)

So you can see that families of monogamous parents have just as much strife as those of polygamous families. The more people involved whether they are spouses or children, the more possibility there is for strife. Jealousy, anger and the like are just the condition of humanity.

Because of the size of this post, I will submit the rest in a seperate post.



Eph. 3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Matt. 19:9-
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The subject of this passage is clearly divorce. The illegal practice of men ditching their wives to get a new one. This passage aligns itself with Malachi 2:14. The question itself clearly spells out the context of the passage,”Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” (vs. 3) This has nothing to do with adding more wives. It has everything to do with honoring the covenant relationship “till death do us part.”

God regulated divorce in the civil OT law, just as he did polygamy.
You can not have it both ways. Jesus points out that God allowed for the sin of men in the OT

The Matt. passage speaks directly to the issue of divorce. No matter how you try to make it fit into Jesus speaking against polygamy, it just doesn't work. The question posed to him was a question about divorce and his reply was a reply consistent with the Biblical teaching about divorce. To stretch this passage into one the deals with polygamy is using this passage in a way to meet your desired result, the Scripture does not say what you want it to say.

Lamech practiced polygyny (Genesis 4:19). Nahor, Abraham's brother, had both a wife and a concubine (Genesis 11:29; 22:20-24). Jacob was tricked into polygamy (Genesis 29:20-30),. Esau took on a third wife hoping it might please his father Isaac (Genesis 28:6-9). Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5). Michael, Obadiah, Joel, Ishiah, and those with them "had many wives" (1 Chronicles 7:3-4). Shaharaim had at least four wives, two of which he "sent away" (1 Chronicles 8:8-11). Caleb had two wives (1 Chronicles 2:18) and two concubines (1 Chronicles 2:46, 48). Gideon had many wives (Judges 8:30). Elkanah is recorded as having two wives, one of which was the godly woman Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-2, 8-2:10). David, had 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Chronicles 1:1-9; 2 Samuel 6:23; 20:3). Solomon, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-6). Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), and sought many wives for his sons (1 Chronicles 1:23). Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21). Ahab had more than one wife (1 Kings 20:7). Jehoram had wives who were taken captive (2 Chronicles 21:17). Jehoiada the priest gave king Joash two wives (2 Chronicles 24:1-3), and Jehoiachin had more than one wife (2 Kings 24:15).

Tell me how god blessed these polygamous relationships.

Let me add some more to the list, these are some of the more popular one's that have more written about them in Scripture:

Abraham- Polyamist and concubinist-no censure anywhere.
Jacob- Polyamist and concubinist-no censure anywhere.
Gideon- Polyamist and concubinist-no censure anywhere.
Samson- Polyamist and concubinist-no censure anywhere.
David- Polyamist and concubinist-no censure anywhere.

All of these men are attested to in Scripture in Hebrews 11 as examples of faith. The fact that some of God's very best servants, the "elite" among all saints practiced polygamy and concubinage with not so much as a hint of God's displeasure, weighs heavily in favor of the fact that God did not forbid it, that He even accepted it as normal among humans, just as He created it to be in the animal kingdom. The evidence that God felt otherwise about this practice does simply not exist.

Jacob’s wives both came after his conversion. “Then Jacob made a vow saying If God will be with me and keep me on this journey...then the Lord will be my God.” (Gen. 28:20) “And this stone will I set up as a pillar, will be God’s house, and of all that thou dost give me;I will give a tenth.’ (Gen. 28:22)

Nope not so .

This is not a conversion, it is "lets make a deal" . Theses are not the words of conversion.

Gen 28:20
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

Gen 28:21
So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:

It is a bargain , not a conversion

Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
Gen 32:29 And Jacob asked [him], and said, Tell [me], I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

It was from this time on that God spoke to him and led him. From then on God was the God of Jacob (Israel )

This would make your position worse! That God would, as noted in vs. 29, "Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name. And he blessed him there," bless a man that is in a polygamous relationship that He does not approve of. How do you reconcile the fact that you say that God does not approve of this behaviour, but then blesses a man participating in it without telling him of the apparent sin He disaproves of?

In fact the elders of Israel did not see it this way.

Israel's elders use the example of polygamy, to bless the marriage of Ruth and Boaz, "May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of Israel...Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah." (Ruth 4:11,12)

The elders are asking the Lord to bless the marriage of Ruth and Boaz like He has blessed the polygamous marriage of Jacob, Rachel and Leah. The elders saw no problem with the polygamous marriage and obviously it was viewed as a blessing in the eyes of the elders.

Present any citation that says Moses had 2 wives at the same time.
He is never listed with the polygamists because there is no scripture to support that

As Buzz Dixon pointed out, it can only be proven that Moses had two wives. This dosen't mean that they were at the same time and I think Buzz did a sufficient job of citing the possibilities.

Exactly so why would God ordain that additional strife in a home or family?

The only way to totally eliminate strife within a family is to never get married. God does allow us this option just as he allows us the other options.

When the world required re population , did God send a family of polygamists? Or did he send men and their ONE wives

You're missing the point here. Here's the more important issue concerning this passage; After Lamech's polygamy and after the flood, as soon as Noah and family exited the ark, God cammanded them to avoid eating blodd (Gen. 9:6), and established the death penalty for murder (Gen. 9:6). Since the whole motive for the flood was to cleanse the earth of sin and give mankind a brand new start, then why did God not also command Noah and family to avoid polygamy, especially since it was part of the human experience before the flood (Gen. 4:19). If monogamy was God's preference, why did He not make this as strong law as he did against eating blood? Did He forget? The fact that polygamy was in human experience already, yet was not even hinted at in this post flood setting, should cause us all to reflect soberly on God's real attitude on polygamy.

Are we to say that it is possible for two to become one flesh, but impossible for three? If so then Jacob and Leah were one flesh because she was his first wife. Doesn’t the Trinity claim three as one? Can we see the absurdity?

How do 3 become one flesh? Excuse my bluntness but how does a woman become one with her "sister wife" So we then to presume that a man becomes one with one and then with another and another. Other wives are not one flesh with the other wives.

The Hebrew term "one" (echad, Strong's 259) means unity, same, alike, altogether. It is the word that is used in Gen. 2:24. It is fascinating to note that the word 'one' in the Great Shema is not*the Hebrew word used throughout the rest of the Old testament to denote absolute singularity.* The Hebrew word is echad, which is used to demonstrate compound unity of oneness.* For example, here are a few of the verses* in which the Hebrew*echad is used:
* For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one [echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
* Now the whole earth used the same [echad] language and the same [echad] words. (Genesis 11:1)
* And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one [echad] people, and they all have the same [echad] language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6)
* Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We'll settle among you and become one [echad] people with you. (Genesis 34:16)
* Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one [echad] voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 24:3)
* Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single [echad] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23)

Make sense now?* So the word 'one' used in the Great Shema doesn't mean one singular, it means one plural!* and now contrast that to the word used in the rest of the OT to mean one singular: yachid.* Here are a few verses* in which*yachid is used:
* And He said, "Take now your son, your only [yachid] son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." (Genesis 22:2)
* And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, from Me." (Genesis 22:12)
* and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, (Genesis 22:16)
* When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only [yachid] child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. (Judges 11:34)
* Deliver my soul from the sword, My only [yachid] life from the power of the dog. (Psalms 22:20)

Very clear-cut.* But it goes farther.* In the Old Testament, God (Elohim in Hebrew) is never refered to as yachid!* When refering to god, the Old Testament writers always used echad!

Clearly, God is plural.* Not multiple, but plural. http://www.freewebs.com/theology/thetrinity.htm

Are you a "christian polygamist"? (a contradiction in terms to me ).

I think that polygamy is allowable "Biblically." But to answer your question, no. I am not a polygamist. This is not about me, it is about Him. It is to gain a clearer understanding of how God dealt with us in the past in respect to the relationships we have here on earth. I believe the relationships on earth are a reflection of the loving relationship we are to have with our God. I don't see how a man loving many wives goes outside of that Divine mandate. I think there are those that like to put parameters on God's love and say that He doesn't allow certain things, but when we take a closer look at Scripture, we can see that He indeed does allow for such things.

What is your churches position on this?

I don't know, probably anti-polygamy as are most churches. But again, my church, or your church does not mandate Divine law..only God does.

You like to quote Corinthians to imply that there is no sin as long as something is done in love .That is a misuse of scripture I will not go into that now. But I think we have to look at the totality of Paul to the Corinthians

That is not true. We can go into the totality of all the NT teachings that you might think represent a anti-polygamy position if you'd like.

The church is the bride of Christ. He is not a polygamist

The Church marriage to Christ is singular, but in actuality it is plural in form, in that the Church is comprised of millions of believers.

"for the Lamb [Jesus Christ] in the center of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them to springs of the water of life; and God shall wipe every tear from their eyes." (Revelation 7:17) "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready." (Revelation 19:7)
And he said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "These are true words of God." (Revelation 19:9)"

Eph. 3:20

 

[plmarquette]

I am curious about this too. In fact, I think a polygamous marriage would be the only kind of marriage I would be interested in. So why is it so darned objectionable?

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


Tts 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Polygamy had it's price .... David and Bathsheb , Soloman and his wives idolitry ,
Ahab henpecked and damned by Jezebel ...

one is sufficient ...

 

[truthnluv]

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


Tts 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Polygamy had it's price .... David and Bathsheb , Soloman and his wives idolitry ,
Ahab henpecked and damned by Jezebel ...

one is sufficient ...

Aren't all these verses talking about elders and deacons only?

truthnluv

 

[truthnluv]

A married man does not sin when he desires his wife..
but a man that desires a woman when he is already married, commits adultery on his wife.



Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The context of Matt.5:28 is a married woman. To desire a single woman is not adultery.

truthnluv

 

[truthnluv]

Women are the victims of polygamy . The lust of the husband does not make them dishonorable

However you are misusing that scripture It speaks of the Kings daughters

Psa 45:9
Kings' daughters [were] among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

Psa 45:10
Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

Your ignoring the context of this passage. It is a BENEDICTION to David. That is the context. He is being praised for the fact that he has princesses among his honorable women(v.9)! And on top of that the honorable women are being told to give him a form of worship(focus of attention, adoration, and praise v.11), and to forget their father and their father's house so king David will greatly desire their beauty(vvs.10-11)! Don't you get it? He is being praised for his multiple wives by God inspired scripture! And his wives are being encouraged to devote themselves fully to their singular husband, David!

truthnluv

 

[Eph. 3:20]

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


Tts 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Polygamy had it's price .... David and Bathsheb , Soloman and his wives idolitry ,
Ahab henpecked and damned by Jezebel ...

one is sufficient ...

I have come across this question before and I wrote this reply, allow me to repost.

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.

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 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.

Eph. 3:20

 

[rnmomof7]

I think that polygamy is allowable "Biblically." But to answer your question, no. I am not a polygamist. This is not about me, it is about Him. It is to gain a clearer understanding of how God dealt with us in the past in respect to the relationships we have here on earth. I believe the relationships on earth are a reflection of the loving relationship we are to have with our God. I don't see how a man loving many wives goes outside of that Divine mandate. I think there are those that like to put parameters on God's love and say that He doesn't allow certain things, but when we take a closer look at Scripture, we can see that He indeed does allow for such things.

No where in scripture does God endorse polygamy

The bible tells us that God is long suffering and allowed some sin because of the hardness of the mens heart..

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 .

One thing about scripture is God does not paint over the people he chose . he shows them bumps and all.
David was a murder, yet God calls him a man after his own heart.
The sons of Jacob tried to kill their brother, yet he used them to become a nation.

Because God has in the times passed overlooked sin , does not mean it is not sin .

I don't know, probably anti-polygamy as are most churches. But again, my church, or your church does not mandate Divine law..only God does.

If your church does not speak out against sin...you need a new church

You like to quote Corinthians to imply that there is no sin as long as something is done in love .That is a misuse of scripture I will not go into that now. But I think we have to look at the totality of Paul to the Corinthians

That is not true. We can go into the totality of all the NT teachings that you might think represent a anti-polygamy position if you'd like.

If a man kills his mother that is suffering that is love...it is also murder.

If a young woman loves her boyfriend and has sex ... that is done in love, but it is also fornication

love does not make all things right in the eyes of God.

The Church marriage to Christ is singular, but in actuality it is plural in form, in that the Church is comprised of millions of believers.

It is ONE Bride , one body , to try to extrapolate that is dishonest.

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.

"for the Lamb [Jesus Christ] in the center of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them to springs of the water of life; and God shall wipe every tear from their eyes." (Revelation 7:17) "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready." (Revelation 19:7)
And he said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "These are true words of God." (Revelation 19:9)"

Eph. 3:20

Trust me there will not be polygamists there


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,

 

[rnmomof7]

The context of Matt.5:28 is a married woman. To desire a single woman is not adultery.

truthnluv

Want to show me where it says that ?

Mat 5:27
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:



Mat 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.



Mat 5:29
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.unholy desires.



* * * hath committed adultery with her already in his heart--We are not to suppose, from the word here used--"adultery"--that our Lord means to restrict the breach of this commandment to married persons, or to criminal intercourse with such. The expressions, "whosoever looketh," and "looketh upon a woman," seem clearly to extend the range of this commandment to all forms of impurity, and the counsels which follow--as they most certainly were intended for all, whether married or unmarried--seem to confirm this. As in dealing with the sixth commandment our Lord first expounds it, and then in the four following verses applies His exposition ( Mat 5:21-25 ), so here He first expounds the seventh commandment, and then in the four following verses applies His exposition ( Mat 5:28-32 ).
Jamieson, Fausett & Brown




HE has committed adultery in HIS heart .

 

[rnmomof7]

Sorry, it's taken me a while, but here are answers to your objections.



Though the Law was broken down into three catagories (Moral, Civil, Ceremonial), there is one lawgiver. All recognized law ultimately emanates from one lawgiver, God (Jas. 4: 12,) "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD
is our king; he will save us." (Isa. 33: 22). God's law is perfect and alteration is forbidden, it matters not the particular period or age (Deut. 4: 2, Rev. 22: 18, 19, 2 Jn. 9-11). To say that the law that gives provision for a man taking another wife is not applicable because it's civil law is ridiculous.

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.

The bible tells us that God never changes. If that is true I assume that slavery is permissible in Gods eyes?
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 ?
God moral laws are eternal .
Civil law is mutable

For you not to be able to separate the two is what is ridicules

These laws were given to Moses by God. "These are the laws that you (Moses) are to set before them." (Ex. 21:1).

Again, one must ask, why would God make rules of civil conduct for a conduct He forbids? Where in these laws are the penalties for taking another wife? God gives the rules and the penalty if the rule is broken, but there is no penalty with taking another wife, only the provision for her. There was nothing wrong with polygamy in the civil realm or in the moral realm. You again must offer proof of such.

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.
Furthermore the fact that polygamy is not allowed under the law today would be actual proof that God no longer will tolerate it.
The civil law regarding the wives was for the protection of the innocent in this sin. The woman and the children . It was not about a moral judgment it was never called the law of God, it was called the law of Moses.

You will have to show that God condemned it. In 2 Sam. 12, He calls it a blessing.

That is a judgment chapter. God does not call the wives a "blessing" He just states the obvious that David had many wives and that Uriah had but one

Just as divorce for uncleanness was purely a "concession" that was necessary at that time because of Israel's "hardness of heart" and the "chaotic conditions" that resulted from their attitude. God "allowed" easy divorce and polygamy (even though both were really adultery and a violation of the Seventh Commandment) but He did not "legitimate" it.

Divorce for specific reasons was a legitimate allowance which wa 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).[/quote]

He breaks his covenant before God to the first wife.

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.

This command isn't agianst polygamy per se. God warns that the kings should not multiply wives to himself, lest his heart be turned away. This is not against polygamy as such or the sexual connection, but a warning against the danger of apostasy in Israel's leaders.

Nice spin but not so .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.

You most also note the same in connection with amassing horses and large amounts of gold and silver. Later we see that Israel's greatest kings married many wives and amassed great amounts great hordes of gold and silver. Both wives and riches were to said to be God's blessing. Thus this text is a warning of the dangers of having many wives and much riches. It is not a prohibition of either, but a warning to realize the dangers in each case.

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 ?

Show me where God says directly that many wives are blessings.

Also, this is because Israel is asking for themselves a king like the surrounding pagan nations. A king which undoubtedtly served pagan gods along with the kings wives who worship those same gods. Those kings also conquered for excess, taking wives, horses and gold/silver to further increase their dominance in the region.

I believe that God ordered the people killed in the conquered wives with an order not to marry them.

Scripture doesn't say this. In fact there is not one passage that demonstrates that when David took an additional wife it was considered sinful (except in the case of him taking the wife of a married man). Can you show me a passage that deals with David that shows God considered him reprobate in the act of acquiring another wife or concubine?

The bible also does not say God ordained it.

it does say He ALLOWED sin because he was long suffering
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.

In fact David is told this by God, "AndI 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 more of such things." (2 Sam. 12:9)

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.
[/quote]

In fact as stated before Scripture tells us that “David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.(1 Kings 15:5)
[/quote]
Show me where God commanded David to take many wives.
apples and oranges.

David walks in "integrity...truth...hates wickedness,: (Ps. 26:1-12).



This is one of many passages where David makes these claims for himself, and other passages (as noted above) affirm this is true of him. What do we make of this in light of polygamy and concubinage?

What we make is that David was a carnal and lust filled man. BUT God loved him and used him. This is about gods grace , not Davids worth.

It is obvious that nothing about polygamy and concubinage is inconsistent with "Integrity..thruth..hating wickedness." It is man who demonizes polygamy, not God. David had countless sex partners. Yet he was a righteous man, greatly annointed and highly favore by God.

A man can "Cleanse his way by heeding God's word,"[/b] (Ps. 119:9).

If polygamy and concubinage were in any sense "unclean" then how do we make sense of this following verse? David hid God's word in his heart that he might not sin against God, (Ps. 119:11). Did God's word not enlighten him about the sin of polygamy and concubinage? Obviously these things were not "sin" and God's word gave David no hint that God was in any way displeased with his having many women.

What was gods word at that time?
it was the law. that was it . The books of Moses.

In the end, God removed all those women from him.

There was never another wife or concubine mentioned .

Perhaps that is when God enlightened him after he felt the sting of his other sin and repented.



The Scripture doesn't say either way. It does however show that after the birth of Solomon, there were other children born to him that were not by Bathsheba. These could be from prior wives or from new ones. They are listed in the same order in the following passages.

The prior wives were taken from him, there is no other wife mentioned.

"And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia, and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet." (2 Sam. 5:14-16)

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel: Ibhar also, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, And Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. These were all the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines, and Tamar their sister." (1 Chron. 3:5-9)

"Now these are the names of his children which he had in Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, and Ibhar, and Elishua, and Elpalet, and Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, and Elishama, and Beeliada, and Eliphalet." ( 1 Chron. 14:5).

1Ch 14:2
And David perceived that the LORD had confirmed him king over Israel, for his kingdom was lifted up on high, because of his people Israel.



1Ch 14:3
And David took more wives at Jerusalem: and David begat more sons and daughters.

Before Solomon was born

Is this the standard now? God must individually instruct every male to take a specific wife and then name her to in Scripture to be legitamite? If so then you are making standards that even God does not require. If this is the case it will have to be proven by Scripture for God nowhere makes it his standard.

Scripture doesn't give a indication of each and every one of his wives names and their origin of birth. Again, Sccripture makes it clear that Solomon's sin was marrying pagan wives, "Solomon sinned by these things..pagan wives caused him to sin" (Neh. 13:26). His sin was not having 700 wives. It was in having pagan wives.

Israel transgressed against God by marrying pagan women (Neh. 13: 27). Because of this rebuke, they covenented with God to put these wives away, (Ezra 10: 3,11,14, 44). This has nothing to do with polygamy. They put away only the pagan wives that God's law forbade them to wed.

If polygamy itself is a sin, why did God never legislate against it and why do we not having a single example in all of Scripture, of a godly man or group of men, such as here, learning that God was displeased with multiple wives, then repenting and "putting away all of their wives but the first one?" And if polygamy is wrong, why require that these Israelites put away only the pagan wives? Why not requie them to divorce all their extra wives? This Ezra passage proves they would have done so if God had desired it. But non ever did such a thing, even though polygamy was openly practiced, even to extremedegree, God never intimated in any way, that He was displeased with such a practice.

"And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my Lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law." (Ezra 10:2)

"In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.
Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?" (Neh: 13: 23-26)




One has only to look at a few monogamous relationships to see that this line of reasoning dosen't stand up to scrutiny.

As noted earlier Adam and Eve (monogamous)had Cain and Able. Cain killed his brother out of jealousy and this happened within the "quintisential" monogamous marriage.

Also Isaac and rebecca (monogamous): “Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples are quarrelling while still within you. But one shall surpass the other and the older shall serve the younger” (Gn 25:23).

Esau hated his younger brother Jacob on account of the blessing that his father had given him. Thinking that this might result in murder, Jacob was sent away to find a wife among their kinsmen in Haran where he accumulated a fortune. Esau also became a wealthy man. The two sons followed different paths of life.

The story of these twin boys would later be interpreted to represent the disputes between Judaism and Christianity. For the first one hundred years of its existence, Christianity was a sect within Judaism.

Add to this that Rebecca decieved her husband into giving the birthright unto Jacob (the deceiver) as foretold by God. And then Jacob passed his deceiving ways unto his children.

Noah's (monogamous) son Ham did some kind of sexual offense so vile (Gen. 9:21), that Noah imposed a curse upon the seed of Ham (the father of Canaan). "Cursed be Canaan! The lowsest of slaves will he be to his brothers." (vs. 25)

So you can see that families of monogamous parents have just as much strife as those of polygamous families. The more people involved whether they are spouses or children, the more possibility there is for strife. Jealousy, anger and the like are just the condition of humanity.

Because of the size of this post, I will submit the rest in a seperate post.



Eph. 3:20

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.

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."

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 .

I find how vested you are in this very interesting .
May i ask why?