Monogamy

[Sojourner<><]

Using oddball scenarios to try to make polygamy acceptable doesn't really work very well. Certainly God hasn't joined the 5 Muslims together in the first place, so if any of the women left, it would no more be prostitution than the relationship was in the first place. More than likely most of the women would leave the relationship if they had the opportunity anyway, although the culture may cause them problems. But culture doesn't change God or His desire to make 2 into one flesh, not 5 into one flesh. (that is the way it was meant to be from the beginning) The right thing to do is the right thing to do no matter what the scenario. All that having been said, how it should be dealt with is prayerfully.

That's easily debatable. You can't know whether or not God joined those families together. According to scripture, God joined David together with his wives... why not the muslims?

And why do you call it an oddball scenario? Polygamy is a hot topic of debate in America. The Bush administration has decided to allow the importation of 7000 Iraqi refugees this year. That number could increase, especially if things get worse in the Middle East. In Europe polygamy is causing a huge boom in the Muslim population. Do you remember those riots that happened recently in Europe after those anti-Islamic cartoons were released? They blame them on the polygamous Muslims. Oddball scenario or not, I think it's an opportunity to allow these people into a life with Christ. If we just keep the doors shut in their face it can turn into a huge problem.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Did you vow to forsake all others in your wedding vows to your wife? If you did, then regardless of whether or not you can find forbidding of polygamy in scripture, you would be committing a sin. Also, in Arabic and Mormon cultures, polygamy is very hurtful to women, Honestly polygamy was always hurtful to women, and God allowed that as part of the curse. He specifically stated that her desire shall be for her husband, and he shall rule over her. It is not a natural set up. Deep inside of a woman lies the need to be captivating to her husband. The very idea that he could be captivated by another is hurtful to her. Read excerpts from Brigam Young's wives, and other such women who have lived in polygamy. They were raised in cultures where they were taught that it was good and right. The fact of the matter is that whenever a new wife came along, the bond between the man and the previous wife was broken. It is clearly not how men and women were set up to function. In the case of those already in that situation, it would have to be dealt with prayerfully. As I said before, when you see how a man is to die for his wife, etc. it would be a very difficult task to actually live out the christian walk in that scenario.

I'm not committing a sin, even if polygamy is a sin (which I don't believe it is). I'm a monogamist.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I'm not committing a sin, even if polygamy is a sin (which I don't believe it is). I'm a monogamist.

What I said was if a person makes a vow to forsake all others, then decides to become a polygamist, that person would be sinning regardless of whether or not it was allowable in scripture due to the monogamous vow taken.

 

[Nadiine]

Did you vow to forsake all others in your wedding vows to your wife? If you did, then regardless of whether or not you can find forbidding of polygamy in scripture, you would be committing a sin. Also, in Arabic and Mormon cultures, polygamy is very hurtful to women, Honestly polygamy was always hurtful to women, and God allowed that as part of the curse. He specifically stated that her desire shall be for her husband, and he shall rule over her. It is not a natural set up. Deep inside of a woman lies the need to be captivating to her husband. The very idea that he could be captivated by another is hurtful to her. Read excerpts from Brigam Young's wives, and other such women who have lived in polygamy. They were raised in cultures where they were taught that it was good and right. The fact of the matter is that whenever a new wife came along, the bond between the man and the previous wife was broken. It is clearly not how men and women were set up to function. In the case of those already in that situation, it would have to be dealt with prayerfully. As I said before, when you see how a man is to die for his wife, etc. it would be a very difficult task to actually live out the christian walk in that scenario.

Your'e absolutely right Romanseight.

I saw a documentary when they interviewed some women in a Mormon plural marriage - even tho the women were agreement of the polygamy, they admitted they had problems with jealousy and sharing the man between them all.
I honestly don't see how it promotes genuine love & growth with a wife when you're "sharing" between 2, 3 or 4 at a time.

*edit addition*
The answer is found in Matthew 19; the prototype God gave for male & female union. This prototype also refutes gay unions and any other type of union.

Mat 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" ​

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

(also seen in 1 Cor 6:16 & Eph 5:31)​

Jesus gave us the lawful model for marriage and the number: 2 people become ONE flesh. Not 3 or more. And that BECUZ God made them male & female (in the beginning as the MODEL), that those 2 become one flesh. Not 2 men or 2 women, etc etc etc. It's very clear.​

Plus, you have further evidences... when marriage is spoken of, there is no PLURAL "wives" mentioned as lawful:​

1 Corinthians 7:33
but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife (singular, not plural),
again above, Mat. 19:3​

Also in the profile of a church overseer:​

1 Timothy 3:2
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..​

To be 'above reproach' includes having ONE wife only. If it's so lawful & acceptable in the NT, then a Pastor/deacon should be able to participate in polygamy like everyone else can since it's not sin.

We also need to remember that God allowed the people to do other things that we don't hold to today. God allowed writs of divorce that are actually sinful today (in remarrying after the unlawful divorce - which was actually constituing adultery in the process, but God allowed it - same with incest in Genesis, when it's not ok later).

Anyways, polygamy is SIN and it's not promoted anywhere in the NT, and the Greek grammar is clear to use singular wife, never plural in the marriage of 1 man - notwithstanding Jesus' instructions on the prototype of marital union using Adam & Eve as His first created order.

 

[ShermanN]

Dayhiker, thanks for buying my book; I pray that it will be a blessing. And thanks for noting the fact that some women in polygamous marriages actually consider it preferable. I was actually shocked by a friend who said that years ago she had seriously considered looking for the opportunity to become another wife to a man who had multiple wives. My friend is parapalegic and really desires to be married, but realizes that she is unable to meet the needs of a husband. But, of course, American culture and law does not allow such, regardless of the reasons.

And thanks for mentioning the hurt and pain caused by missionaries that demanded converts to break up their polygamous families; it was and is a very destructive and ungodly demand. And it is not an "unusual and oddball scenario" as livingword26 has said; it's far too common in missions work.

Livingword26, I think you've misunderstood my posts; I'm not trying to "make polygamy acceptable", I've been very careful to point out that monogamy is part of God's ideal for marriage. But I also point out that the Bible does not forbid polygamy, and that marriage and family relationships are very much defined by the culture they are a part of. And apparently, God did and does recognize and even bless polygamous families. I find it facinating that God even blessed the marriage of David and Bathsheba (after their repentance and penal suffering) with a child, Solomon, who later became King.

Concerning the concept of "one flesh", it does not mean to "become like one person." It was an idiomatic, culturally specific, ancient near-eastern phrase that simply meant "family." So a man that takes a wife was to leave his father and mother, cleave to his wife and make a new family - the most basic unit of social structure. "One flesh" also carried the concept of extended family, and evey tying two families together that were seperate. That's why kings had so many wives, everyone wanted to be related to the king. Other countries would send their princesses to be a wife or concubine for the king of more powerful countries. So polygamous families were considered "one flesh" as much as monogomous families.

Romanseight2005, concerning my vows, yes I did vow to be faithful to my wife and love only her. I did and do love only my wife and certainly have no plans to do otherwise. I do not have any plans or even desires to get another wife. Not only have I've vowed such to my wife, but it's also illegal, and one wife is more than enough challenge for me.

And yes, I agree that women are typically oppressed far more in polygamous cultures than in monogomous cultures. And yes, I agree that most women do desire to be loved completely and uniquely by a man in a monogomous marriage. As I've stated before, monogomy is part of God's ideal for marriage and family as indicated biblically. Understanding Jesus' words also verify that He Endorsed monogamy. However, neither the Law of Moses, Jesus, or Paul Legislated monogamy or forbad polygamy.

So how should we live our lives? I will continue to be faithful to my wife and love her and her alone. As a missionary, if I lead someone to Christ who is part of a polygamous family, I'll encourage them to remain faithful to eachother and follow Christ with all of their hearts.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Piedpiper123]

If God permited polygamy in the OT and not in the NT then one thing we can be sure about - that there are no absolutes in morality!

 

[Nadiine]

If God permited polygamy in the OT and not in the NT then one thing we can be sure about - that there are no absolutes in morality!

yes there are. Murder is still murder if it's not warrented in protection.
Adultery is always adultery - divorce was wrong in the OT as the new, but God made allowance for it - they still gave a sacrifice for "sins of ignorance" which is what covered those types of sins.

It doesn't mean there aren't absolutes; we're simply under a grace period now, not under rigid law w/ that penalty system.
God had reason for what little He allowed - would you wanna comply w/ all 613 laws every day of your life?
Frankly, I don't know how they managed and coped with all the restriction!

 

[dayhiker]

I used to believe in absolute morality. But the more I thought about it the more I couldn't accept that the Bible teaches it.

The monogamy poly thing speaks that way to me.
Nadiine's definition of murder, except for protection, says to me that every person we have killed in Iraq was murder. I have never thought since the 1st gulf war that Iraq was a threat to Americans.

Even a person very close to me that always said she always wanted to ehar the truth confessed to me that she spent a lot of time thinking about how she should tell people things so she wouldn't hurt them. She was bending the truth to not hurt them. Then when I told her the truth about myself, she souldn't love me any more. She would have prefered a misrepresentation of the truth after all!

Also the weaker/stronger brother scritpures says to me that always speaking the truth isn't what God wants. Yes we speak the truth in love, but if we can't speak it in love, then we are to keep quiet. That's now I see it now.

In my thinking about the monogamy/poly issue. I can't make absolute statements any more. I don't seem them in the Bible. Even the idea that God has an Ideal of monogamy I find not to be lvoing. It feels loving to monogamists, but to those that monogamy doesn't work for, they hear personal condemnation when they hear that. I say God will love both the mono and the poly and each person should do their best to do the loving thing. God has an individual plan of loving God and people, not an ideal we all are to try and live. That's what it means to me to live by grace not by law.

Well, that's how I see.
dayhiker

 

[Nadiine]

I used to believe in absolute morality. But the more I thought about it the more I couldn't accept that the Bible teaches it.

The monogamy poly thing speaks that way to me.
Nadiine's definition of murder, except for protection, says to me that every person we have killed in Iraq was murder. I have never thought since the 1st gulf war that Iraq was a threat to Americans.

Hi, my time's short, so this will hafta be brief, sorry.
But Does YOUR view change God's view? NO. His stays the same. Things being "allowed" in the OT didn't make them MORAL or right or good, it was just that God ALLOWED something for His reasons.
Reasons we don't grasp. HE DOESN'T TODAY THO under grace, when full light has been given to mankind.

We as americans didn't vote TO go to war, the "blood" is on everyone who voted for war in the facts that surrounded it.
I am not going to bother going into politics - but motive for war rests on the shoulders of the ones directly involved w/ the information they had, didn't have or skewed (or not).
It may be murder for THEM - but not for all else. And IF it's murder, GOD will deal with it.

Further, what of abortions that this country allows DAILY? Legal murder by way of infanticide that even self proclaiming Christians condone as "choice".
Does it make morality relative? NO, it's sin. God will handle it. Truth isn't relative or subjective.

She would have prefered a misrepresentation of the truth after all!

TEMPORARILY, YES. Does it make lying good? NO. How is it helpful as time goes by?

Also the weaker/stronger brother scritpures says to me that always speaking the truth isn't what God wants. Yes we speak the truth in love, but if we can't speak it in love, then we are to keep quiet. That's now I see it now.

TRUTH IS LOVE. We're just to treat others like we'd want to be treated. Tell someone adultery is sin - but you don't do it while you rant & point finger's in their face etc.
However, Jesus spoke truth in love yet turned over tables in righteous anger & used a whip to move the moneychangers off the temple grounds. & Yelled at them all.
THAT WAS LOVE FOR GOD. LOVE FOR GOD ALWAYS COMES FIRST. Christ was zealous.

In my thinking about the monogamy/poly issue. I can't make absolute statements any more. I don't seem them in the Bible. Even the idea that God has an Ideal of monogamy I find not to be lvoing.

If you don't see them, then you aren't looking, or you're looking with tinted glasses.

Go read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Galations 5, and Ephesians 4-5. You'll see absolutes all over the place.

 

[ShermanN]

Nadiine, yes, Jesus' words Endorsed monogamy. He actually quoted the Gen.2 passage from the Septuagint which used the word "two" as opposed to the original Hebrew text which used the word "they". Thus concerning the then current Rabbinical debate concerning polygamy, Jesus sided with Rabbis that believed and taught that monogamy was God's ideal for marriage. So Jesus Endorsed monogamy; but one can not say that Jesus Legislated monogamy.

Also, your rationale concerning the OT being stricter and the NT being more grace based is irrational. If the OT was stricter allowing polygamy, then how can the NT be less strict forbidding polygamy. Actually, the NT does not address it directly. Jesus and Paul's words must be understood in their context (literary, social, cultural, historical, and authorial). 1+1=2 True, but that does not mean that 1+2 does Not = 3.

Doctrine needs to be based, as best we can, on what we can Derive directly From the Word, not upon what we Read Into the Word. For example, the statement "A man should be faithful to his wife" means that man should be faithful to his wife. It does not say anything pro or con about polygamy (or being single for that matter). Paul's statement concerning a leader being the "husband of one wife" is neither a statement against polygamy or singleness, though various churches take it to mean both. In fact many people use this verse to forbid women from leadership positions thinking Paul is specifying the sex of the individual too. All of these miss what Paul intended. Paul was pointing out character issues that a leader needs to exibit, and in this case pointing to the characteristics of faithfulness in relationships, especially faithful in his (her) marriage relationship(s) if he (she) is married. But of course, the issue of women in leadership is for another thread.

It's important to be careful to not make scripture say more than it actually says. And it's also important to remember to embrace the Spirit of the Law and not just the Law. The Spirit gives life, but the letter kills. Neither the OT nor the NT forbid polygamy (or polyandry for that matter); however, both endorse monogamy as what God originally intended for mankind. But because of original sin, everything is messed up and it's only by Grace that we are saved.

Another big issue to discuss is, "What authority structure (Civil, Ecclesial, Domestic, or Personal) is over Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage? As Christians we recognize that all authority comes from God, but which authority structure has He delegated to rule over (to legislate and enforse) matters concerning MDR?

One must also define exactly what constitutes a marriage relationship: Does the exchange of vows? What about sexual intercourse? What about having children together? What about a ceremony? What about witnesses? If MDR is under ecclesial authority, are marriages outside the church recognized in the eyes of God?

These are just a couple of the things that must be addressed in developing a full orbed doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. And all of these bear upon the issue of polygamy vs. monogamy.

Blessings,
Sherman

P.S. For those interested I've written a book on MDR entitled "God Is A Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness". It can be purchased on Amazon or other book retailers.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Let's look at slavery. If people came to the U.S. today owning slaves, should we change our laws for them? The bible does not expressly forbid slavery, and even gave laws as to how slavery should work. Does that mean that it is good, or that it should be legal? God went to a lot of work to free His people from slavery. We went through a lot as a country to free people from slavery. Polygamy is in essence, slavery.

 

[ShermanN]

Dayhiker,

I appreciate your openness and hadn't thought about people in polygamous relationships feeling bad when I point out that monogamy is part of the divine ideal. However, as I think about it now, it's no worse than saying that "marriage is meant to be for life" making divorce's feel bad. Pointing out what is good and right will make us all feel bad because we all sin and fall short of the Glory of God. But that doesn't meant that we shouldn't point out what is good and right.

You mentioned several things that I don't have time to address. But concerning the whole weaker brother thing, Paul was pointing out that because of his love and concern for his brother, he would limit himself and not exercise his freedom or liberality because it could cause his brother to sin against his own conscience. It wasn't that there was not something morally true, but that out of love he was willing to restrict his own practice so as not to cause another grief.

I believe there is absolute morality, absolute right and wrong; but I also believe that we are absolutely messed up and completely reliant upon the grace and forgiveness of God. I also believe that there is far more freedom in Christ than what we've ever experienced. The main thing is growing in our relationship with God and eachother.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Sojourner<><]

Let's look at slavery. If people came to the U.S. today owning slaves, should we change our laws for them? The bible does not expressly forbid slavery, and even gave laws as to how slavery should work. Does that mean that it is good, or that it should be legal? God went to a lot of work to free His people from slavery. We went through a lot as a country to free people from slavery. Polygamy is in essence, slavery.

I totally disagree with you in that polygamy should be compared to slavery. It would not harm the slave to set her free. To separate a family because of our own preferences is just wrong.

 

[Sojourner<><]

yes there are. Murder is still murder if it's not warrented in protection.
Adultery is always adultery - divorce was wrong in the OT as the new, but God made allowance for it - they still gave a sacrifice for "sins of ignorance" which is what covered those types of sins.

It doesn't mean there aren't absolutes; we're simply under a grace period now, not under rigid law w/ that penalty system.
God had reason for what little He allowed - would you wanna comply w/ all 613 laws every day of your life?
Frankly, I don't know how they managed and coped with all the restriction!

Yes, adultery is adultery. Is Polygamy adultery? That's the subject under debate and it appears that it's not.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Things being "allowed" in the OT didn't make them MORAL or right or good, it was just that God ALLOWED something for His reasons.
Reasons we don't grasp. HE DOESN'T TODAY THO under grace, when full light has been given to mankind.

Nadiine, if you can come up with a single definitive piece of concrete proof for your statement I will be satistified, and the debate will be over.

 

[jad123]

The Old Testament does seem clear that God allowed polygamy. Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had multiple wives. Speculation would seem that God allowed polygamy to grow the population since men could impregnate many women at once and to provide and look after multiple women. But in the New Testament in both 1 Timothy and Titus "husaband of one wife" is used as a requirement for spiritual leadership. And throughout the New Testament the word wife (singular) is used when speaking of the realtionship between a husband and wife, never wives, implying monagomy not polygamy.​

 

[Romanseight2005]

Are concubines not slaves?

 

[Nadiine]

Are concubines not slaves?

that's a great point romans... they were definitely "kept".

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, if you can come up with a single definitive piece of concrete proof for your statement I will be satistified, and the debate will be over.

Here's a repaste of my earlier post on scriptures that DO show polygamy is not lawful or good:
---------------
*edit addition*
The answer is found in Matthew 19; the prototype God gave for male & female union. This prototype also refutes gay unions and any other type of union.

Mat 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" ​

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

(also seen in 1 Cor 6:16 & Eph 5:31)​

Jesus gave us the lawful model for marriage and the number: 2 people become ONE flesh. Not 3 or more. And that BECUZ God made them male & female (in the beginning as the MODEL), that those 2 become one flesh. Not 2 men or 2 women, etc etc etc. It's very clear.

Plus, you have further evidences... when marriage is spoken of, there is no PLURAL "wives" mentioned as lawful:​

1 Corinthians 7:33
but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife (singular, not plural),
again above, Mat. 19:3​

Also in the profile of a church overseer:​

1 Timothy 3:2
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..​

To be 'above reproach' includes having ONE wife only. If it's so lawful & acceptable in the NT, then a Pastor/deacon should be able to participate in polygamy like everyone else can since it's not sin.

We also need to remember that God allowed the people to do other things that we don't hold to today. God allowed writs of divorce that are actually sinful today (in remarrying after the unlawful divorce - which was actually constituing adultery in the process, but God allowed it - same with incest in Genesis, when it's not ok later).

Anyways, polygamy is SIN and it's not promoted anywhere in the NT, and the Greek grammar is clear to use singular wife, never plural in the marriage of 1 man - notwithstanding Jesus' instructions on the prototype of marital union using Adam & Eve as His first created order.
------------------------

I'd also like to add this, You also need to show me where Polygamy is common and promoted in the same scriptures. This is the same problem I see with homosexuals trying to claim the gay issue; so show me ONE NT EXAMPLE OF A SPIRITUAL POLYGAMOUS marriage that God was pleased with or who worked in the church in any good light.

You also need to show SUPPORT in the NT.

 

[dayhiker]

Dayhiker,

I appreciate your openness and hadn't thought about people in polygamous relationships feeling bad when I point out that monogamy is part of the divine ideal. However, as I think about it now, it's no worse than saying that "marriage is meant to be for life" making divorce's feel bad. Pointing out what is good and right will make us all feel bad because we all sin and fall short of the Glory of God. But that doesn't meant that we shouldn't point out what is good and right.

You mentioned several things that I don't have time to address. But concerning the whole weaker brother thing, Paul was pointing out that because of his love and concern for his brother, he would limit himself and not exercise his freedom or liberality because it could cause his brother to sin against his own conscience. It wasn't that there was not something morally true, but that out of love he was willing to restrict his own practice so as not to cause another grief.

I believe there is absolute morality, absolute right and wrong; but I also believe that we are absolutely messed up and completely reliant upon the grace and forgiveness of God. I also believe that there is far more freedom in Christ than what we've ever experienced. The main thing is growing in our relationship with God and eachother.

Blessings,
Sherman

Hi Sherman,
I feel like we have a similar view about out freedom in Christ. That's probably why I enjoy reading your posts.
I wish I was as good with languages as it sounds like you are ... but God didn't give me all the abilities that I can appreachiate in others.
I see a slight differance in the divorce .. mon/poly marriage thing from you. To me the divorce is a result of how messed up we are that you mentioned. The poly/mono marriage I see as being in the variety that God has created in the human experience. Divorce speaks of failures that happen or could even be planned. Poly would be someone saying this is what works for me and if they learn to love in that situation I don't see it as messed up.

The weak/strong brother ...starts out in Romans with Paul refering to disputes. I'm willing to apply this to anyone who as a dispute me. Others I think are willing to only apply this principle to the issues Paul talked about in his time. While others would limit the list to something that is recognized as differances of denominations, distinctives ...

So I guess I'm broader than many would be about how many things can fall under this topic. I'd have no problem with the poly/mono marriage falling under this topic.

blessings
dayhiker