OT Polygymy and NT Chastity

chingchang said:

My guess is you don't really have a problem with lust...you just misunderstand sexual desire. If you really are seeking in the area of Christian sexual ethics...then I highly recommend this book:

Amazon.com: Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition (9781553954002): Philo Thelos: Books

...you won't regret it and you WILL come to a mature and full understanding of these issues.

God Bless You!
CC

Click to expand...

Philo Thelos also wrote God is not a Homophobe: An unbiased look at Homosexuality in the Bible in which he claims that God allows homosexual relationships between consenting adults.

Suffice it to say, I think most Christian scholars and religious leaders would not agree with Mr. Thelos' opinions on both topics.

As for Biblical references that support monogamy, here are a few that I think are pertinent:

In Matthew 19, Jesus says:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (my bold).

Note that the passage says that a man is to be united to his wife; not wives and that the two; not three, four or more shall become one flesh.

In that same chapter in Matthew, Jesus also comments on Old Testament practices that seem to condone having multiple wives; here is the relevant passage in context:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now Verse 8 and 9 do not specifically state that polygamy is wrong- and a literalist might argue that a man can have another wife as long as he proclaims himself married to her, and doesn't divorce his first wife- but I don't think this is the intent of Jesus' message.

And if you think that any of this applies only to men, then Mark 10 sets us straight:

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Another passage that supports monogamy is 1 Corinthians 7:

1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. (my bold).

Again, the emphasis is on a husband having one wife, not wives; and a wife having one husband, not husbands.

As has already been stated by others, another passage that promotes monogamy is the one in 1 Timothy 3 regarding the behaviour of overseers and deacons:

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
8 In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus. (my bold).

So here Paul is providing advice for how overseers and deacons are to behave- but I would suggest that he is also promoting behaviour that all of us should aspire to live up to.

Another passage that indirectly speaks to this issue is Ephesians 5:

33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (my bold)

I would ask, especially in the context of today's society where we recognize that men and women are to be treated with equal respect, how someone that respects and loves his spouse would entertain sharing that love with another partner- especially if the spouse is not in agreement with such an arrangement; I mean, doesn't the Golden Rule, as stated so beautifully in Matthew 22 apply here:

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

How can you love your neighbour, including your wife, if you insist on sharing that love with someone else.

But for me, the strongest passage that supports monogamy is the 7th Commandment, given in Exodus 20, where God states unequivocally that:

14 “You shall not commit adultery."

Where adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife. Again, those who wish to interpret this passage for their own selfish desire will claim that having sexual relations with someone other than your first wife is o.k. as long as you proclaim yourself "married" to the second, third, etc. woman.

In all of this, I think a powerful additional source of advice comes from the Holy Spirit, who dwells in every Christian from the moment they accept Christ as their Saviour. For me, the Holy Spirit makes it crystal clear: a husband should have only one wife and love and respect her with all his heart and soul for all the days of his life. Same applies to the wife.

So when Jesus says, "Love your neighbor..." You think that he only meant love just one neighbor? After all, "neighbor" is singular. Right?

Our is it more likely that he meant love all your neighbors?

Servant,

If the argument is that "thou shall not commit adultery" is the best case against polygamy, then seems like God caused adultery directly several times in the bible..........

Interesting conversation, with good points on both sides.

I would add that the very idea of a formal, legal, officiated and vowed wedding ceremony is never stipulated anywhere in scripture. It is strictly a man-made social construct that grew out of economics. And physical labor, along with "might makes right", is why it was always men having multiple women and not the other way around.

Today, however, one would be hard-pressed to justify preserving polygamy but not polyandry. I would hope that those who support one would support the other as well. And many women have greater earning capacity than men, because our economy is now more service-oriented and values mental ability, which in spite of the stereotypes and pop psychological claims, is not greater in men than in women. In either case, I think we'd all agree that there should be no "child spouses", abuse, neglect, or favorites.

Not long ago I watched a full-length film on the horrors suffered by wives in the fundamentalist LDS churches. One wife explained the pain of hearing her husband making love to another wife in the next room. I don't care who you are or which arrangement you prefer, that has to hurt, whether people admit it or not. And it will, without exception IMHO, eventually manifest in jealousy to one degree or another. I couldn't imagine watching my beloved spouse get married again. Either there would be intense, lifelong pain or there would be less or no love.

In the NT, our marriages are supposed to be a picture of how Christ relates to the church, His Body. Does a body have multiple heads, or a head have multiple bodies? Surely Paul had a reason to use the head/body illustration. Just something to think about.

1Co 12:14
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many.
ESV

Yeah, its a great metaphor.

Lionroot said:

1Co 12:14
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many.
ESV

Yeah, its a great metaphor.

Click to expand...

And how many members illustrate "Christ and the church" between them? How many churches are there?

2thePoint said:

And how many members illustrate "Christ and the church" between them? How many churches are there?

Click to expand...

How many are in an "assembly"?

Lionroot said:

How many are in an "assembly"?

Click to expand...

You tried the "many members" thing already. But since we're going to just repeat ourselves, I'll just put this from Eph. 4:4-6:

Be one body and one spirit, just as you were also called into one hope, one Master, one faith, one immersion, one God and Father who is over, through, and in all.

Click to expand...

You asked about the word "church", indicating it as singular. The Greek word indicates rather a grouping, or an assembly. Thats not a repetition, unless of course you already know that.

2thepoint,
I agree with your thought that today of one is going to accept a man having more than one eife then a woman should be able to have more than one husband. In Bible times all the nations around the Mediterrainian Sea were patristic with the idea that the man owned his daughters and wife(s). Since that aspest isn't true any more I think a woman should have the liberty as a man.

I also agree that most woman and even men would feel uncomfortable hearing their spouce making love in the next room. But there is quite a large secular poly group in America. So these issues are being dealt with daily by that group and many find it a great expression of love to know their spouce is enjoying themself. But its a small precentage that do that. They do have conferences and local meetup. There is a great podcast on the topic as well.

2thePoint said:

Today, however, one would be hard-pressed to justify preserving polygamy but not polyandry.

Click to expand...

Certainly, purely humanistic reason would lead to such a conclusion. However, God's Law specifically defines an adulteress by what we would term polyandry. Therefore the Christian is prohibited from such a state.

I guess that the argument might be made that the Christian is not under the law, but that view of unrestrained liberty would require a thread of its own.

Lionroot said:

Certainly, purely humanistic reason would lead to such a conclusion. However, God's Law specifically defines an adulteress by what we would term polyandry. Therefore the Christian is prohibited from such a state.

I guess that the argument might be made that the Christian is not under the law, but that view of unrestrained liberty would require a thread of its own.

Click to expand...

The question was for those supporting polygamy, whether they would consistently also support polyandry. It would be hypocritical to support one but not the other.

2thePoint said:

The question was for those supporting polygamy, whether they would consistently also support polyandry. It would be hypocritical to support one but not the other.

Click to expand...

Huh?!?

Consistent with the Bible?

There it's no polyandry in the Scripture. Further there it's a death penalty associated with it.

The same cannot be said for polygyny. There are many examples, accompanied by commands in God's law regulating it.

So if one is consistent worth God's word these are not equivalent issues.

Lionroot said:

Huh?!?

Consistent with the Bible?

There it's no polyandry in the Scripture. Further there it's a death penalty associated with it.

The same cannot be said for polygyny. There are many examples, accompanied by commands in God's law regulating it.

So if one is consistent worth God's word these are not equivalent issues.

Click to expand...

You're completely missing my point.

Polygamy was never God's will, but he allowed it and regulated it. IF society had been female dominant, there is no reason to doubt that God would have allowed polyandry and regulated it.

Therefore, IF polygamy is to be tolerated and accepted in our society/churches, THEN so also should polyandry.

Your argument in favor of only polygamy is EXACTLY the same line used by pro-slavery churchmen in the past. Think about that for a while. God never abolished slavery, not even in the NT. So why is it wrong? There is no response you can make that doesn't also make polygamy wrong. So, to be consistent, if you allow one you must allow all. To be inconsistent would be hypocritical.

I hope that is clearer now.

2thePoint said:

I would add that the very idea of a formal, legal, officiated and vowed wedding ceremony is never stipulated anywhere in scripture. It is strictly a man-made social construct that grew out of economics.

Click to expand...

I agree- and, of course, in ancient times and in remote areas today, marriage licenses and other legal formalities were not possible, and therefore a couple were considered married when they lived together as man and wife. So today, I maintain the same standard applies: if a couple move in together and partake in sexual intercourse, they are married in God's eyes; and therefore, if another person enters into that relationship in either a polygamous arrangement, or as just another sexual partner, that is adultery.

In either case, I think we'd all agree that there should be no "child spouses", abuse, neglect, or favorites.

Click to expand...

Pedophilia is not specifically mentioned in the Bible- but there is hardly a society on earth where this is condoned. In other words, we all have it in our God-given psyche that pedophilia is wrong; and I think, again, if you turn to the Holy Spirit within you for guidance, you also know this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

In the NT, our marriages are supposed to be a picture of how Christ relates to the church, His Body. Does a body have multiple heads, or a head have multiple bodies? Surely Paul had a reason to use the head/body illustration. Just something to think about.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Our God is a God of common sense, not legalism.

2thePoint I have to agree with your view over Lionroot. Polygamy in the OT was the way it was because of the patriarchal society. We don't promote either patriarchal or matriarchal societies in America today. So I believe the Bible can be applied one of two ways. The current way of any sex outside of marriage by either partner is adultery. Or both partners can have other spouses.

Lionroot is right about about the death penalty for adultery in the OT. Adultery in the OT and NT times is defined as taking an other man's wife. Its stealing an other man's property with issues about who is the parent is the next child born. Today when we are married we don't say we own our spouse then adultery not stealing but cheating. Then polyamours marriages are about communication so that everyone is giving their approval about what is happening in relationships. Adultery becomes hiding what one is doing from their spouse. Indeed, most of our words about adultery today aren't property words but deceit, cheating words that come from a spouse hiding what he or she is doing with others.

dayhiker said:

I also agree that most woman and even men would feel uncomfortable hearing their spouce making love in the next room. But there is quite a large secular poly group in America. So these issues are being dealt with daily by that group and many find it a great expression of love to know their spouse is enjoying themself. But its a small precentage that do that. They do have conferences and local meetup. There is a great podcast on the topic as well.

Click to expand...

Billions of people in the world continue to be misled by the devil. A wonderful thing about our God is that He gave us in the Ten Commandments and in the Golden Rule very clear directions about how we are to lead our lives in a manner that is pleasing to him. Not only are those edicts written in the Bible, but they are also imprinted in our brains; they are a fundamental part of our psyche. He then gave us as Christians the Holy Spirit, living within us, to help guide us in the way that God finds pleasing.

Finally, he gave us Jesus Christ- who first set a perfect, sinless example of how we are to live our lives, and then sacrificed himself to atone for our sins.

All we need to do is to trust God to be our faithful guide through life, and He will always provide an answer to life's at times perplexing questions, such as what is right and what is wrong.

Very well said Servant of Jesus. The Holy Spirit has lead me now for almost 50 years. Its been a great life. I highly recommend to everyone to accept Jesus as they Lord and God.

Armistead14 said:

Thankfully they don't define any eating as they do lust, we would all starve and die out.

Click to expand...

Oh, but let's go even further:

If those same vilains who foam at the mouth against the Patriarchs and their allegedly sinful lusts dared to consider their own lust for food, they wouldn't be so gluttenously fat themselves.

BTW