Monogamy

[Chie]

.... I thought I was replying to Romanseight because she said that I was talking about monogamy when I was really replying to your post where you were asking if it was fair that a man be allowed to marry multiple wives when women are not allowed to marry multiple husbands. So you see, my reply to your post wasn't about monogamy, it was about the difference in how society deals with equality of the sexes vs the way scripture does.

might wanna go back and reread all that I posted and answer the question in them. I am not asking about culture period. What does the Word say on the matter of men and women both and marriage. Show me the Will of God in the Word , why men can have multiple wives and women can't , why are you using the 10 virgins as an example, and why do you assume why a woman can't provide for the children, there might have been more questions.

 

[mcart909]

What about the argument from natural law? Men are wired to delight in women (plural), whereas women are programmed to be loyal to one man.

 

[mcart909]

There can be no comparison between the OT's allowance of divorce and same's allowance of polygamy. I know of no instance in which divorce was specified to be of God's will. However, there is at least one instance (namely, the case of David) in which God said that polygamy was His intention.

 

[Nadiine]

What about the argument from natural law? Men are wired to delight in women (plural), whereas women are programmed to be loyal to one man.

Are you serious?
So God made men to want to have numerous women and keep adding to his harem and He made women to just want the one man?

Basically what you're saying is, God made women to suffer while her husband is having wild orgies with 4+ more women.
And that's God original design.

Did you read the verses I posted earlier that refute this?

 

[Nadiine]

How about I ask this question - since we have some people siding for polygamy being God's design.

Does God mind if the man wants orgies with his wives all at the same time? Group sex?

Let's add something to the pot, what if he knows his first wife is against polygamy and he doesn't care, he's having his orgies anyways.

& Can she divorce him for adultery or is she stuck with a man that has sex with several women?
What if one of the wives commits adultery in the marriage??
What of aids & other diseases that can brought into the group harem?

 

[Chie]

What about the argument from natural law? Men are wired to delight in women (plural), whereas women are programmed to be loyal to one man.

You have got to be kidding , right?

 

[ShermanN]

There can be no comparison between the OT's allowance of divorce and same's allowance of polygamy. I know of no instance in which divorce was specified to be of God's will. However, there is at least one instance (namely, the case of David) in which God said that polygamy was His intention.

Actually Ezra commanded the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives and send them packing along with the children of those marriages.

 

[mcart909]

Sherman,

Could you please post the Scripture?

Thanks,

mcart

 

[Romanseight2005]

What about the argument from natural law? Men are wired to delight in women (plural), whereas women are programmed to be loyal to one man.

First of all, women aren't wired to share a man in any way. That is the whole part of this that you all don't seem to get. Furthermore, if men were "wired" so to speak, to want more than one woman, wouldn't God have created more of them to be Adam's helpers? The truth is that polygamy never entered the scene until sin was quite rampant. It is so crystal clear that polygamy was an eventual consequence to the original sin. Genesis 3;16 outlines it very well. There it is laid out that women will desire their husbands, and husbands will rule over their wives. Polygamy was meant to be a punishment, not only to women, but also to men. With polygamy, intimacy is broken, and the ability to truly value a woman is stolen. Our whole purposes in life is to Love God and be loved by Him, then to love and be loved intimately. This can't happen with polygamy. If you had a rare diamond, it would be very valuable to you. If you had many of them, each one would lose value. A man is commanded to love his wife so much, that he gives himself up for her. This kind of love is impossible when her value is decreased to one of, rather than, the one.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Actually Ezra commanded the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives and send them packing along with the children of those marriages.

I am aware of this scripture as well.

Ezra 10:2-3

2 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.

3 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.
KJV

 

[Nadiine]

Actually Ezra commanded the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives and send them packing along with the children of those marriages.

I could have used this verse help for the earlier question posed for the African man that converts and what does he do with the excess baggage, errrrrrrrrm wives that he accumulated.

I would of used these. Thanks for posting them Romans

 

[Romanseight2005]

Sojourner,
There are many parables that Jesus spoke, where He used something that people understood, to illustrate something they didn't understand. This does not indicate purity simply because it was used to illustrate. Secondly, it is my understanding that the virgins are bridesmaids as was traditional in Jewish weddings. To my knowledge there was never a multiple wedding. The weddings were always one on one. Again, showing that monogamy is marriage. How can multiple monogamy be anything more than perverted monogamy.

In the famous Nathan rebuke to David, something is clear to me that seems to get missed by most. He brings up the fact that he has many wives, and would have given him more. Why does he do this? He is showing him how the lust of the flesh can not be satisfied. The very way David had thought about women caused the whole ordeal with Bathsheba to begin with. Sexual sin gets more and more deviant. Broadening the parameters of what was acceptable sexual behavior, didn't and wouldn't have made him want to sin less. It only fed the carnal part of him, which eventually led to the overt sinning with Bathsheba. Have you ever wondered why God chose Solomon to be David's heir?

I think that it's possible that He did it for Bathsheba's sake. She was described as being Uriah's little ewe lamb. This meant that she was very precious to him. Not only was Uriah robbed of his wife, and life, but Bathsheba was robbed out of being valued in the way that she was with her husband.

 

[mcart909]

First of all, women aren't wired to share a man in any way. That is the whole part of this that you all don't seem to get. Furthermore, if men were "wired" so to speak, to want more than one woman, wouldn't God have created more of them to be Adam's helpers? The truth is that polygamy never entered the scene until sin was quite rampant. It is so crystal clear that polygamy was an eventual consequence to the original sin. Genesis 3;16 outlines it very well. There it is laid out that women will desire their husbands, and husbands will rule over their wives. Polygamy was meant to be a punishment, not only to women, but also to men. With polygamy, intimacy is broken, and the ability to truly value a woman is stolen. Our whole purposes in life is to Love God and be loved by Him, then to love and be loved intimately. This can't happen with polygamy. If you had a rare diamond, it would be very valuable to you. If you had many of them, each one would lose value. A man is commanded to love his wife so much, that he gives himself up for her. This kind of love is impossible when her value is decreased to one of, rather than, the one.

Interesting view--thanks for it.

That being said, I should ask you a question. Say you have a friend whom you love dearly. If that friend of yours befriends someone else, would that in any way invalidate the friendship the two of you had?

 

[ShermanN]

When interpreting scripture, it's important to first diligently study what it meant to the oringinal audience, how they would have understood what was said or written. Would the original audience have understood it the way we do? Unlikely!

For example, as noted in a previous post pages ago, the phrase "husband of one wife" very likely was not a referrence to monogamy, or at least that's not how the original audience, Timothy and Titus, would have understood it.

First note that in Timothy, Paul uses another similar phrase when speaking of guidelines for the church taking on the full support of a widow. She was to be the "wife of one husband"; considering that polyandry was unknown (extremely outside their cultural paradigm) in the ancient near-east, it's thus very unlikely that "husband of one wife" was in any way a prohibition against polygamy.

Not only that but both Timothy and Titus were appointing leaders in churches among the Gentile, Greco-Roman (GR) churches where polygamy was not practiced. However, the GR culture was rampant with all manner of fornication and adultery. Considering this it's likely that Timothy and Titus would have both likely understood "husband of one wife" to be a reference to the moral quality of faithfulness and not a reference to polygamy.

Sadly, some people interpret this phrase to also mean that neither singles nor women can be leaders in the church, but are either of those the point of the passage, no. Paul is speaking of general character issues that Timothy and Titus should be looking for in the leaders they select for the churches they oversee.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Sojourner<><]

Sojourner,
There are many parables that Jesus spoke, where He used something that people understood, to illustrate something they didn't understand. This does not indicate purity simply because it was used to illustrate. Secondly, it is my understanding that the virgins are bridesmaids as was traditional in Jewish weddings. To my knowledge there was never a multiple wedding. The weddings were always one on one. Again, showing that monogamy is marriage. How can multiple monogamy be anything more than perverted monogamy.

In the famous Nathan rebuke to David, something is clear to me that seems to get missed by most. He brings up the fact that he has many wives, and would have given him more. Why does he do this? He is showing him how the lust of the flesh can not be satisfied. The very way David had thought about women caused the whole ordeal with Bathsheba to begin with. Sexual sin gets more and more deviant. Broadening the parameters of what was acceptable sexual behavior, didn't and wouldn't have made him want to sin less. It only fed the carnal part of him, which eventually led to the overt sinning with Bathsheba. Have you ever wondered why God chose Solomon to be David's heir?

I think that it's possible that He did it for Bathsheba's sake. She was described as being Uriah's little ewe lamb. This meant that she was very precious to him. Not only was Uriah robbed of his wife, and life, but Bathsheba was robbed out of being valued in the way that she was with her husband.

But how could God use sin to make a point? He doesn't.

Your interpretations here seem to be very complicated. I can't see how you're getting any meaning out of these verses other than what is straight forward and obvious.

 

[Romanseight2005]

When interpreting scripture, it's important to first diligently study what it meant to the oringinal audience, how they would have understood what was said or written. Would the original audience have understood it the way we do? Unlikely!

For example, as noted in a previous post pages ago, the phrase "husband of one wife" very likely was not a referrence to monogamy, or at least that's not how the original audience, Timothy and Titus, would have understood it.

First note that in Timothy, Paul uses another similar phrase when speaking of guidelines for the church taking on the full support of a widow. She was to be the "wife of one husband"; considering that polyandry was unknown (extremely outside their cultural paradigm) in the ancient near-east, it's thus very unlikely that "husband of one wife" was in any way a prohibition against polygamy.

Not only that but both Timothy and Titus were appointing leaders in churches among the Gentile, Greco-Roman (GR) churches where polygamy was not practiced. However, the GR culture was rampant with all manner of fornication and adultery. Considering this it's likely that Timothy and Titus would have both likely understood "husband of one wife" to be a reference to the moral quality of faithfulness and not a reference to polygamy.

Sadly, some people interpret this phrase to also mean that neither singles nor women can be leaders in the church, but are either of those the point of the passage, no. Paul is speaking of general character issues that Timothy and Titus should be looking for in the leaders they select for the churches they oversee.

Blessings,
Sherman

I don't have time to go through all of this, but Timothy and Titus would have been familiar with those secnarios. In fact, Herod was married to Herodias, who was married to his brother. John the Baptist's act of pointing it out is what got him killed. The Word is living and active, and while I agree that it is good to educate ourselves on the culture of the day it was written, we can't discount what is obviously stated just because we don't think it would have been understood at the time it was written. There are some scriptures that were meant for a specific people, or person, at a specific time. However on the whole God's word is meant for us all.God knew when those words were written that they were for many people yet to come. He is perfectly capable of getting the right words down, and giving the people the understanding to comprehend it.

 

[Nadiine]

But how could God use sin to make a point? He doesn't.

Your interpretations here seem to be very complicated. I can't see how you're getting any meaning out of these verses other than what is straight forward and obvious.

I think He did use sin to make a point - He used the statement that He had to be 'lifted up'. That was a direct OT symbolism to the snake on the pole that was lifted up.
The snake represented sin - Christ would be on the cross, becoming sin for us - becoming a curse.

Sorry if that's not what you're meaning by that statement.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I don't have time to go through all of this, but Timothy and Titus would have been familiar with those secnarios. In fact, Herod was married to Herodias, who was married to his brother. John the Baptist's act of pointing it out is what got him killed. The Word is living and active, and while I agree that it is good to educate ourselves on the culture of the day it was written, we can't discount what is obviously stated just because we don't think it would have been understood at the time it was written. There are some scriptures that were meant for a specific people, or person, at a specific time. However on the whole God's word is meant for us all.God knew when those words were written that they were for many people yet to come. He is perfectly capable of getting the right words down, and giving the people the understanding to comprehend it.

Something else, the husband of one wife would not likely have been the phrase chosen to allude to faithfulness, since we are always referred to as the bride of Christ, not the husband.

 

[livingword26]

First note that in Timothy, Paul uses another similar phrase when speaking of guidelines for the church taking on the full support of a widow. She was to be the "wife of one husband"; considering that polyandry was unknown (extremely outside their cultural paradigm) in the ancient near-east, it's thus very unlikely that "husband of one wife" was in any way a prohibition against polygamy.

Blessings,
Sherman

1Ti 5:9
(9) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

This verse says what it means. There is no unclear reference to polyandry or polygamy. It is a clear and simple reference to a woman that has only been married to one man, in other words, not divorced and remarried, or remarried after the husband died. Amazing how doctrines can cloud biblical understanding.

 

[Romanseight2005]

[/color][/size][/font]

Interesting view--thanks for it.

That being said, I should ask you a question. Say you have a friend whom you love dearly. If that friend of yours befriends someone else, would that in any way invalidate the friendship the two of you had?

Now we get into the different types of love. Eros belongs only to my husband, and his eros belongs only to me. So you are saying that you wouldn't mind sharing the woman you loved with another man?