Monogamy

[Romanseight2005]

Romanseight2005,

I agree fully that monogamy is the best and part of God's ideal for marriage. In fact, I believe that in a previous post I mentioned that Jesus' words, "and the two shall become one flesh," show that Jesus fully endorsed monogamy.

Not only that, but if anyone looks at cultures where polygamy is practiced, women are typically treated badly and not as God would have them treated. And as you mentioned, even in biblical polygamous relationships there are no healthy examples of such. And I'm thankful that in America monogamy is the law.

My previous posts might sound like I'm pro-polygamy, but that's not the case at all; I'm happily married to the wife of my youth and certainly desire no other. I'm a one-woman kinda man, one could say. However, when studying scripture it's important to understand what it said to the original audience as much as possible before we try to apply it to our lives today. Unfortunately, when it comes to scripture and concepts concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage we often misunderstand them because we understand them through the lens of being both Gentiles and Christians. If we were Arabs coming in as new Christians we would understand things differently. I'll write more later as I can.

Blessings,
Sherman

Just to clarify, are you saying that I am misinterpreting those scriptures? All I know is that I asked God to reveal the truth to me about this matter, and He is the one who showed me what I have shared with you. All I ask anyone to do is to ask God to reveal the truth to them. If after doing this, one thinks the scriptures reveal something else, then that is between them and God.

 

[Piedpiper123]

If polygamy is wrong or not the best then why didn't God speak against it in the Mosaic law? Many laws he gave were already probably very different from the local cultural practices?

 

[Rut]

If polygamy is wrong or not the best then why didn't God speak against it in the Mosaic law? Many laws he gave were already probably very different from the local cultural practices?

He kind of did that Deuteronomy 17:17

 

[Sojourner<><]

He kind of did that Deuteronomy 17:17

Yeah, but that same verse says that the king isn't supposed to horde wealth too. If polygamy is a sin according to this verse, then so is multiplying riches.

 

[Piedpiper123]

He kind of did that Deuteronomy 17:17

I'm familiar with that verse but in my understanding it is a law for kings.

A few pages later in chapter 21 there are laws about how a man must divide his inheritance between the sons of his different wives. There is not the slightest hint that this is wrong or not the best.

 

[ShermanN]

Just to clarify, are you saying that I am misinterpreting those scriptures? All I know is that I asked God to reveal the truth to me about this matter, and He is the one who showed me what I have shared with you. All I ask anyone to do is to ask God to reveal the truth to them. If after doing this, one thinks the scriptures reveal something else, then that is between them and God.

I wouldn't say that you misinterpreted those scriptures, because you didn't give a full exposition of any of the scriptures you mentioned. Rather, you listed several scriptures and shared what you deduced from them as you were personally led by the Holy Spirit. Who am I to argue with personal revelation?

The difficulty with personal revelation is that it is completely subject to the individual. Please don't misunderstand me; I believe in personal revelation, especially as it relates to how one leads her personal life. And one can share personal revelations as a means of encouragement to others - a very good and valid service to the body of Christ. However, doctrine needs to be based more on the exegetical interpretation of scripture as opposed to personal revelation.

In your post you quoted several scriptures and made a few statements one can not derive from those scriptures exegetically.

For example, you mentioned Mk.10.11, the context of the scripture is talking about divorce, not polygamy. And sadly, few translations accurately translate the passage as "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her." A better interpretation of this passage is "Anyone who divorces his wife in order to marry another commits adultery against her." This is a viable translation because both "divorce" and "marry" are both in the subjunctive mood in the Greek text. So it was the act of divorce for immoral reasons that was adulterous, not the act of marrying another woman.

The really radical part of this verse is the man committing adultery against his wife; the Pharisees taught that adultery could only be committed against another Jewish man by sleeping with his wife. Jesus though revealed that the adultery was against the wife in this case; it was a sin against their covenant of marriage.

I'll share more as I can.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Romanseight2005]

What I pointed out was that the very term adultery is used. Yes He is speaking of divorce. The problem with saying that it is only the divorce part that is the problem though, is that the term adultery is used. What people seem to miss here, is that adultery was only thought to be something that a wife could commit, or a man with another man's wife. In polygamous unions, as was the case in the examples given to us in the scriptures, the wife had no rights at all. The very idea that a man could commit adultery against his wife is a huge paradigm shift in the whole way marriage was supposed to work. Polygamy was allowed. As I said before, it fit in perfectly with the execution of the Genesis 3:16 curse. So rather than come out and say don't have more than one wife, Jesus did even better. He elevated women to having rights. Once you do this, the whole concept of polygamy no longer works or fits. Paul did the same thing when he said that a wife has authority over her husband's body. Again, how can this possibly fit into polygamy? As I said earlier, if you are really looking for the truth you will find it. If you are merely looking for a way to do as much as you can without technically calling it sin, then you will continue to be confused.

 

[Romanseight2005]

If polygamy is wrong or not the best then why didn't God speak against it in the Mosaic law? Many laws he gave were already probably very different from the local cultural practices?

Moses allowed divorce an a liberal manner that Jesus changed as well. Also, Polygamy was allowed as part of the curse. It was the realization of ,"Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

 

[livingword26]

For example, you mentioned Mk.10.11, the context of the scripture is talking about divorce, not polygamy. And sadly, few translations accurately translate the passage as "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her." A better interpretation of this passage is "Anyone who divorces his wife in order to marry another commits adultery against her." This is a viable translation because both "divorce" and "marry" are both in the subjunctive mood in the Greek text. So it was the act of divorce for immoral reasons that was adulterous, not the act of marrying another woman.

Sherman

I have 14 bible versions at my disposal and they all translate the discrepant word as "and" and not as "in order to", apparently your interpreting abilities are better than all of the translators of all times. Nor is there any reason to believe that the Greek word "kai", which is being interpreted as "and", would be interpreted in such a way as you imply. Sadly, this is a common tactic of false doctrines. The bible doesn't really mean what it says. Reminds me of Genesis 3:4-5.

 

[Romanseight2005]

If you read my original post carefully then you will some other very significant things as well. The very idea that Jesus brought them back to the beginning is extremely important, and not to be minimized. When He said, "He that made them at the beginning..."
He is saying that what God did at the beginning is the way it is supposed to be. So look at how He did it at the beginning. One man, one woman.
Matt 19:4-5
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
KJV
It is really very direct, and simple. It does not require complicated exegesis.

Luke 10:21

21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
KJV

 

[livingword26]

Yeah, but that same verse says that the king isn't supposed to horde wealth too. If polygamy is a sin according to this verse, then so is multiplying riches.

Luke 12:16-21

16 Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: "The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. 17 And he thought within himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?' 18 So he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul,"Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry."' 20 But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?'
21 "So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
NKJV

 

[Sojourner<><]

What I pointed out was that the very term adultery is used. Yes He is speaking of divorce. The problem with saying that it is only the divorce part that is the problem though, is that the term adultery is used. What people seem to miss here, is that adultery was only thought to be something that a wife could commit, or a man with another man's wife. In polygamous unions, as was the case in the examples given to us in the scriptures, the wife had no rights at all. The very idea that a man could commit adultery against his wife is a huge paradigm shift in the whole way marriage was supposed to work. Polygamy was allowed. As I said before, it fit in perfectly with the execution of the Genesis 3:16 curse. So rather than come out and say don't have more than one wife, Jesus did even better. He elevated women to having rights. Once you do this, the whole concept of polygamy no longer works or fits. Paul did the same thing when he said that a wife has authority over her husband's body. Again, how can this possibly fit into polygamy? As I said earlier, if you are really looking for the truth you will find it. If you are merely looking for a way to do as much as you can without technically calling it sin, then you will continue to be confused.

The only problem here is that it clearly isn't a sin. What's unclear for me is how Christians can say anything outside of monogamy is sin.

 

[Sojourner<><]

If you read my original post carefully then you will some other very significant things as well. The very idea that Jesus brought them back to the beginning is extremely important, and not to be minimized. When He said, "He that made them at the beginning..."
He is saying that what God did at the beginning is the way it is supposed to be. So look at how He did it at the beginning. One man, one woman.
Matt 19:4-5
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
KJV
It is really very direct, and simple. It does not require complicated exegesis.

Luke 10:21

21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
KJV

No offense, but let's take a look at some scripture that is direct and simple.

The word of the Lord in David's infamous rebuke from Nathan the prophet: 2 Samuel 12:8 "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things"

God doesn't change. He hates divorce, and He desires godly offspring. Large families serve that purpose.

 

[Piedpiper123]

The word of the Lord in David's infamous rebuke from Nathan the prophet: 2 Samuel 12:8 "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things"

Can't be clearer than that! Polygamy was God's initiative here!

 

[Romanseight2005]

Again, God permitted it for a specific purpose and time. If that were not the case then you would be able to find clear and simple directives like that one in the New Testament. Instead what you find in the New Testament is the opposite. You have wives owning their husband's bodies. You find nothing like that in the OT. We seem to have no problem accepting that Jesus came to restore what was lost, when it comes to Salvation, however there seems to be a stumbling block here when we can't see how Jesus came to restore the intended order for God's original design for marriage.

 

[Romanseight2005]

No offense, but let's take a look at some scripture that is direct and simple.

The word of the Lord in David's infamous rebuke from Nathan the prophet: 2 Samuel 12:8 "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things"

God doesn't change. He hates divorce, and He desires godly offspring. Large families serve that purpose.

Also, look at that specific example. Scripture tells us to judge by fruit. What was the fruit of polygamy for David? In fact what was the fruit for any polygamous set ups in the bible?

Again, what is your motive for asking this? Is it to get away with what you can? Or, are you searching to please God? The whole point of Jesus dying on a cross for us is so that we don't have to live life seeking to see what we can get away with, but so that we can be guided into all truth.
1 Cor 6:12
2 "Everything is permissible for me"-but not everything is beneficial .
NIV
Whether or not it is sinful really shouldn't even be your question. What God's will is, should be what you seek.

However, if you want to do that anyway, then let's go back to the passage where Jesus first mentions that one can commit adultery against his wife. Many want to point out that Jesus is talking about divorce, but what they are missing is that the word adultery means adultery. It does not change meanings just because we are talking about men committing it against their wives, instead of the other way around.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Also, look at that specific example. Scripture tells us to judge by fruit. What was the fruit of polygamy for David? In fact what was the fruit for any polygamous set ups in the bible?

Again, what is your motive for asking this? Is it to get away with what you can? Or, are you searching to please God? The whole point of Jesus dying on a cross for us is so that we don't have to live life seeking to see what we can get away with, but so that we can be guided into all truth.
1 Cor 6:12
2 "Everything is permissible for me"-but not everything is beneficial .
NIV
Whether or not it is sinful really shouldn't even be your question. What God's will is, should be what you seek.

My motive, as I discussed earlier, is to fully understand the defintion of marriage under God as we should accept it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Again, God permitted it for a specific purpose and time. If that were not the case then you would be able to find clear and simple directives like that one in the New Testament. Instead what you find in the New Testament is the opposite. You have wives owning their husband's bodies. You find nothing like that in the OT. We seem to have no problem accepting that Jesus came to restore what was lost, when it comes to Salvation, however there seems to be a stumbling block here when we can't see how Jesus came to restore the intended order for God's original design for marriage.

Well there is a verse in Exodus 21:8-11 that grants a betrothed woman the right to her "marital duties" with her husband. It states that if this were denied to her, she would have grounds to leave without any penalty. Of course, that's only if the husband chooses to take a different wife... it seems she's actually expected to stay with her husband along with the other wife if her basic needs are provided for.

Granted, the first marriage was monogamous. But that was in Eden, before the fall and introduction of the curse. The rules of life have changed more than just a little. In a situation where polygamy could prove to be beneficial, I fail to see how the Bible condemns it in any way. An example of this would be the conversion of Arabs and Mormons who already practice polygamy. Why break apart their families when it's clearly allowable?

 

[Sojourner<><]

However, if you want to do that anyway, then let's go back to the passage where Jesus first mentions that one can commit adultery against his wife. Many want to point out that Jesus is talking about divorce, but what they are missing is that the word adultery means adultery. It does not change meanings just because we are talking about men committing it against their wives, instead of the other way around.

I'm afraid that it's a little trickier than that. The same law which tells us not to commit adultery also includes statutes involving the marriage to multiple wives. How could a just law command no adultery in one part and turn around and assume that it is acceptable in another? It can't. Our understanding of the Biblical definition of adultery must be inadequate.

 

[ShermanN]

I have 14 bible versions at my disposal and they all translate the discrepant word as "and" and not as "in order to", apparently your interpreting abilities are better than all of the translators of all times. Nor is there any reason to believe that the Greek word "kai", which is being interpreted as "and", would be interpreted in such a way as you imply. Sadly, this is a common tactic of false doctrines. The bible doesn't really mean what it says. Reminds me of Genesis 3:4-5.

Actually, The Message translates it as "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery."

As I said, both the words divorce (apoluo) and marry (gameo) are in the subjunctive mood in the Greek text. So either the traditional interpretation "divorces and marries," or the non-traditional "divorces so that he/she can marry" are both viable interpretations. You can verify this in any Greek Grammar worth its salt, or with any Greek scholar. So when you have two possible translations, which is the best - the one that makes the most sense based on the context.

The traditional interpretation doesn't make sense to me and doesn't sound like something Jesus would say, not being focused on the motive behind the action but on an assumed combination of events - divorce and remarriage. The non-traditional makes sense to me and sounds like Jesus' other statement concerning adultery that if a man looks at a woman to lust after her, he commits adultery in his heart.