Christian Polygamy

[HonestTruth]

In the New Testament Sarah is upheld as the ideal wife - she who selected mistresses and concubines for her husband.

Therefore, contrary to "Christian" teaching, a man may have more than one wife - this according to the more Mosaic/Messianic Law abiding Bible's teaching.


You have your choice = erroneous Christian teaching or divine Bible teaching. Which do you prefer?

 

[SwordmanJr]

Then I guess that feminism must rule the world then because almost every single culture and religion has rejected it as a way of life, and yet those cultures and religions are far from "feminist."

You haven't walked in their shoes either, you've heard about them second or third hand, and really the Bible stories are "warped"? That's interesting coming from a Christian. Jesus never endorsed multiple spouses. You'll find everything that Jesus said related to wife and husband - singular. Never wives. And as for your dad - great guy I'm sure, but no authority I am interested in accepting.

America and Europe are minorities in the world when it comes to polygyny.

As for feminism, what I said is that feminism is the main driving force behind it's rejection to the point of twisting scripture. I said nothing about feminism dominating the world.

I also never stated that I had walked in those people's shoes. You also don't know your scriptures, because rarely is polygyny the cause of most of the marital problems shown to us in the Bible. Gideon had "many" wives, and we're told nothing about him having issues arising from polygyny.

But, you have the right to paint all of polygyny with the black brush. That's just typical of most Westerner's reactions. It was mine too until I took the time, making the effort, to study biblical marriage on my own rather than remaining a product of the Westernized system of Christianity. If God were as opposed to that marital form as is believed by pop-christian culture, then He certainly would not have given any men plural wives in addition to what they already had.

But, please do continue slinging about your denials and misinformation pieces. You will find yourself surrounded by some folks of like mind.....with little to no knowledge about this topic apart from what they've been told by others over the years.

Been there, done that.

Blessings to you and yours

 

[SwordmanJr]

In the New Testament Sarah is upheld as the ideal wife - she who selected mistresses and concubines for her husband.

Therefore, contrary to "Christian" teaching, a man may have more than one wife - this according to the more Mosaic/Messianic Law abiding Bible's teaching.


You have your choice = erroneous Christian teaching or divine Bible teaching. Which do you prefer?

Actually, the Hebrew labels Hagar as Abraham's "wife", not mistress, according to my Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary.

 

[HonestTruth]

Actually, the Hebrew labels Hagar as Abraham's "wife", not mistress, according to my Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary.

Yes she was a slave to Sarah who bore him children and then was called "wife". But there were a number of other concubines in Gen 25.

 

[dayhiker]

Just for clarification ... Abraham had Sarah for his wife for years, then took Hagar as his 2nd wife at Sarah's suggestion. Hagar was sent away. I really think Hagar thought Abraham would move her up to wife number one since she was able to bring him an heir. She played her cards wrong.
After Sarah died, Abraham took another wife, Gen.25, Keturah. At that time he also had concubines, plural.

My take away from Abraham's marriage history isn't as most say that I'd not want a 2nd wife, look at the problems Abraham had.
Abraham apparently liked having 2nd wives as he had Keturah and concubines after that experience.

 

[HonestTruth]

Abraham apparently liked having 2nd wives as he had Keturah and concubines after that experience.

Many Old Testament patriarchs did so as well.

Bear in mind that the New Testament was written during the Roman conquest where pagan monogamy was imposed on most people. This is one reason why there is so little reference in the literature of that time to the patriarchs and their practices.

 

[dayhiker]

Yes, and in that time the Jewish leadership petitioned Rome and got the only exception to the Roman law of a man could only have one wife.
Which even for Rome didn't mean a man couldn't also have a concubine.

 

[HonestTruth]

concubinage was not addressed in the New Testament - since it was permitted (actually, it was encouraged) in Old Testament times, it is biblically permissible contrary to the teachings of so many churches

 

[HonestTruth]

concubinage was not addressed in the New Testament - since it was permitted (actually, it was encouraged) in Old Testament times, it is biblically permissible contrary to the teachings of so many churches

 

[SwordmanJr]

Yes she was a slave to Sarah who bore him children and then was called "wife". But there were a number of other concubines in Gen 25.

I don't think concubines, in God's eyes, are any different than a wife.

 

[HonestTruth]

I don't think concubines, in God's eyes, are any different than a wife.

According to Mosaic law she and her children get less of an inheritance than does the primary wife. But that's the only difference that I recall reading in the OT. No change was made in the NT.

 

[SwordmanJr]

According to Mosaic law she and her children get less of an inheritance than does the primary wife. But that's the only difference that I recall reading in the OT. No change was made in the NT.

Ah, yes. I wish I had remembered to mention that earlier.

What I can't figure out is how professing followers of Jesus credit statements and purpose to the ministry of Jesus that I can't find anywhere in scripture. I mean some people see things in the NT that heck aren't even written in the text but man oh man they can seem to see it all plain as day. They point at it yell about it expand it into some huge looming monster that when I look I don't see any of it. The words simply fail to paint the picture they claim to see so clearly.

I remember when JWs would come to our door, and my folks would invite them in to give their speel when my godfather was around, and boy oh boy, he would bring out his old books on hebrew and show them how wrong they were about what the new testament really says in the other language. They would sit there, stammering and start making excuses about the need to get to some other appointment (snicker, snicker). They always ran out of time to even finish their lemonade. He was something else to those people.

The point is that there are so many who see what they want to see in scripture. I was taught to read it for what it says and I don't see any reason to put stuff into the scriptures that ain't there. I mean, isn't that dishonest? Wouldn't that make us as bad as the islamics who read into their koran whatever they want it to say, or the jw's founder who added into their bible what he wanted it to say in spite of the hebrew?

I guess I don't get those people. It's as if they're following after or are creating for themselves a make-believe world that they like than to follow after what it true in spite of what they want.

 

[HonestTruth]

Once again, an EXCELLENT post!

As a literary scholar I have challenged the likes of Herbert W and Garner Ted Armstrong to debates about their erroneous teachings but none have ever accepted my challenges. Funny thing - you mentioned JW's and I recently got a call from them on the phone and was asked whether I would like to discuss their teachings with them which I declined after having mentioned that I'm originally from Brooklyn, NY (their former headquarters) and am well familiar with their erroneous teachings. I forgot to mention that I was thrown out of a JW meeting because I embarrassed people with my knowledge of the Bible and they could not answer the questions I posed to them!

When you see my posts here on CF I repeatedly challenge the members to READ (actually READ) the Bible to see whether their churches actually teach what is in that book. More often than not, sad to say, those churches fail to conform their teachings with actual biblical teachings.

When and if these churches ever learn to read the Bible and apply its truths, they will see that polygyny is biblical. That is and remains the TRUTH whether anyone likes it or not.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I think that can be said about a lot of doctrines that exist only here in the West when we see that they sure don't come from the Bible.

 

[HonestTruth]

I think that can be said about a lot of doctrines that exist only here in the West when we see that they sure don't come from the Bible.

I would just love to see some of these professing Christians here on this forum try to answer these challenges that you and I are making. If not, at least let's see them admit that polygyny is biblically permissible.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I would just love to see some of these professing Christians here on this forum try to answer these challenges that you and I are making. If not, at least let's see them admit that polygyny is biblically permissible.

....and that they don't know the Bible as well as they would like to imagine......because the truth be told....
https://soundcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Ffourwindsangels%2Fi-need-a-doctor-new-remix

 

[Dirk1540]

This thread is fascinating. I really would love to get to a point where I totally erase post Christianity dogma from my mind. I have been attempting to do that, for the most part I really try to only get EARLY church father material (and even early church fathers can breed man made concepts so you better be careful).

I have a couple of questions for Swordman and HonestTruth that take a different turn that what has been discussed so far. My first question is your opinion of Paul? Can you guys please explain your opinions of him? I am not well versed in my theological stances yet (I'm trying to learn), for me I have mostly (so far) been all about historic research. At a total basic level I have completely absorbed 1 Corinthians and Paul's testimony on the 'Physical' resurrection of Jesus. He knew certain basic facts that correspond with the real Jesus...in short, historically speaking, we have this spectacular witness because he is confirmed in his writing in the 50s AD!! Of course it also goes beyond Corinthians. He has definite historic links to the apostles and true knowledge of Jewish practices, Jesus, etc (although sometimes you have to be familiar with the text to appreciate his authentic witness to Jesus' resurrection). Anyway, he is a spectacular witness.

Now, theologically speaking, where do you guys stand? Do you consider him a guy who is a witness for Christ BUT a guy who flies off the rails and starts making things up? At the very least Paul has his basic knowledge, along with interaction with apostles...but, what if he was more along the lines of a church father? You know, how church fathers had great testimony YET were not gospel. Is that how you view him? Of course Paul would totally be the 'Heavy weight champ' of the church fathers for sure because of how early he is!! But still, WHAT IF he is just a fallibly church father with human interpretation? Can you guys please elaborate on your opinion on him? Do you think he 'Got carried away' and just started spitting out personal viewpoints based on his own interpretation (for instance his 'Only one wife' stance?).

My second question to you guys is about pre-marital sex. What is your opinion of a guy who has relations with his girlfriend that he is in love with and exclusive with? I often find that a lot of Christians seem to rank 'One night stand' guys along the same lines as a guy who just is intimate with someone he is dating seriously and in love with. Just wanted to get your opinion on that. Here's where my mind is at when I ask the question...I feel like it is unfair for a the Christian to 'Be full of guilt' because he is intimate with his exclusive girlfriend that he is in love with...When David was intimate with OVER A THOUSAND women and there was not even a single rebuke from God!! Just wanted your take on that. Thanks.

Swordman I love your posts about freeing yourself from made up man created traditional dogma. I mean it's almost comical when you think HOW LATE some of these Christian 'Icons' were...Martin Luther, died OVER 1,500 YEARS after the crucifixion yet some of his teachings are dogmatically ingrained into us as if it's fact. It really is pretty scary!

My goal when I started typing was not even to pick a side, but I can't help but to think of this Josh McDowell analogy...I remember one time he was talking about people who claimed that Jesus never claimed to be God. And he said something like this...

"To read the New Testament and not see that Jesus claimed to be more than a man is like looking up into the sky on a cloudless day at high noon and not seeing the sun."

I'm not even trying to cause controversy when I say that that statement seems like the 'Reverse' argument of polygamy. I feel like an argument can be made that...

"To read the Bible and claim that God rebuked polygamy is like looking up at the sky at midnight and claiming that you are blinded by the sun."

I'm sorry but I have to agree, the amount of opportunities that God had to bash polygamy was absolutely off the charts!! And He NEVER did it, EVER!!

 

[SwordmanJr]

Dirk, wow, I'm no theologian. My dad was, and I learnt much from him, but I'm not one to speak with any great authority on the early church fathers. I do agree with you that they did have a tendency to wander off into their own personal specifics that divided into various sectarian branches, from what I remember of what my dad taught me.

Paul? Well, he's a thorn in the craws of many, many people. Those who are part of the feministic theology branch hate him with a passion as being a "woman hater," which I don't see as being possible when reading ALL that he said about various women in his letters.

Your first question is a good one that I did ask my dad about many years ago, so I'll try to just give you the gist of what he shared with me. Paul, then he launched out into territory not specifically addressed by the rest of the Bible, would say clearly, "I say, not the Lord...." Just my paraphrase. He had the integrity to tell his readers that he was making a statement not directly told him by the Lord.

Now, you personally have already (or will) set the bar of your acceptance of Paul's words, but for me, I see his launching out into judgements not directly spoken to him by the Lord are based on his assessment of the totality of God's word rather than developing some new doctrine seen nowhere else, and that doesn't mesh well with other areas of the Bible. If you have a specific verse, or verses in mind, then we might be able to address your question more closely to your concern.

I'm not sure exactly how you define pre-marital sex, but if it's based on post-modern, social dogma, then it is indeed the sin of fornication when it's done to "get some" before settling into a commitment for marriage. I have no regard for marriage certificates. They mean nothing. What matters to God is what's in the heart of the couple. If they are truly committed to one another until death, then their physical union is not sin in the eyes of God, because God defined marriage in Genesis 2 once and for all. Typing all my dad's messages for him in posts really drove that home to me. There are three elements that seal a marital relationship, and anything outside that is either fornication or adultery. My dad REALLY got some people's attention when he stated that many with those certificates from the government were, or are STILL living in the sins of fornication/adultery considering the divorce and remarriage rates in this country.

Once my dad helped me to see Paul as being the Lord's true servant, I began to see even more the glory of Christ Jesus and the greatness of His salvation that He has given to us. Paul's words, although sometimes harsh, but balanced with a level of love so far above that of even the church fathers, no. I'd say he was indeed on an apostolic level of service to the Lord. His work for the Lord speaks too loudly for us to deny how great the Lord is.

It is the Lord's magnificence that inspired to me create this remix that I finished last night:
https://soundcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Ffourwindsangels%2Fmighty-salvation-remix

 

[dayhiker]

Hi Dirk, welcome to CF.

I love that your searching the scriptures, the culture and times they were written in to see what God is saying thru them to you and me.

Paul ... personally I've always loved Paul. I'm only like him in that I love God and love to seek God to know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Paul had 10x more passion than I have. He is type A. Go go go. Yet he seems to have been in relationship with a lot of people, something like 60 people he lists in his writing.
Paul never meet Jesus and so didn't tell stories from Jesus' life. But he did meet the resurrected Jesus and so that is what he spoke of.
The great thinking of the time were very fascinated with asceticism. While Paul knows people will suffer, he supports people of different views. Take 1 Cor. where he talks about the 4 factions.
He didn't do what apologist do today. He didn't evaluate each group listing what they have right and what they have wrong. He asks them to speak the same thing and not think of themselves as better than the others. Then we have those that were eating me and those that thought it was sinful to eat meet. Paul supports both groups and ask the stronger group to not put the weak in a position where they will be tempted to sin. So I see Paul as supporting those who have different secondary views.

As for pre-marital sex, I have no problem as long is its about love. That includes taking responsibility for any future things that happen from that sex.

 

[Dirk1540]

What I basically mean is pre-marital sex with someone you are nearly certain you will (or probably will) marry...not a cheap trick at all (as if you could even trick God). Great post swordman, I suppose I will pin you down now lol, do you think Paul made up his rule in Romans that a man is only to have one wife? I mean, people claim that 'Jesus never said anything negative against homosexuality only Paul did.' However that is an ignorant claim (based on the OT, and based on Jesus not needing to because his audience was well aware of that rule). But Paul's statement about a single wife can not be backed up by the Bible.

Don't get me wrong I also think Paul is an amazing defender and spreader of Christianity...but I MIGHT think he pulled that one out of left field (after reading this entire thread). I mean look how great Origen was for the defense of Christianity! His intellectual battle with Celcus was legendary apologetics. Yet he did something that made Christians totally cringe! He was just a human who got carried away.

Hello dayhiker thanks for the greeting, so far I'm liking this site. I like that they have a Christian only section and a mixed bag section (so that you can avoid the distractions on certain topics). I'm glad there are some gurus in here, quite a few posters with over 10,000 posts wow! Really wish I could just download your knowledge like The Matrix that would save me so much time lol.

...EDIT...I re-read your post swordman and it looks like you did answer my question already, sounds like you do think he pulled his marriage rule out of left field (but luckily he humbly made it aware that it was his idea and not The Lord's)