OT Polygymy and NT Chastity

[BeforeThereWas]

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.

Some people excel at being ignorant. That Thelos fella needs a visit to the wood shed.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

And physical labor, along with "might makes right", is why it was always men having multiple women and not the other way around.

A woman having plural husbands violates the word of God, so "might" has nothing whatsoever to do with polyandry being the sin of adultery.

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.

I never said men today should run out and acquire multiples wives. Most men today can't handle just one, and two or three won't make things any easier for those men.

Some have also made the mistake of trying on polygyny as they would a pair of pants, just as couples are doing who are living together as husband and wife, but only on a trial basis...ready to head off into the sunset should it not work out.

Rabid feminism thinks polyandry is a viable solution, but in the end leads only to spiritual death.

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.

Yes, we've all heard the horror stories.

Now, head on down to your local Women's Shelter and listen to all THEIR horror stories right from the broad shelf of MONOGAMY......

YIKES! You mean to say that monogamy, by way of sheer numbers, is riddled with more horrors than polygyny? Gee whilakers. That's not fair...not while I'm trying to bash a marital form that's condemned by the same society that allows the killing of unborn and partially born babies.

By keeping our feet on the ground, we can then begin to gain ground on this topic.

Look, every form of anything at which you can point your finger has its share of horrors. After all, sinful, fallen humanity is involved in it all.

So you can point your finger of accusation at the cult of findamental mormonism. So what? That same finger can also point at athiests, buddhists, muslims, jehovah's witnesses, et al.

In other words, there's nothing revealing in what you're saying because it's all an across-the-board reality that's unremarkable when brought forth individually.

The problem here is in your lack of understanding God's definition of adultery.

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.

Well, I happen to personally know several polygynous families where those horrors are NOT a reality. What I suggest is that you find some families living a more healthy form of polygyny and find out for yourself that assumption about something you've never lived, like most anything else, most generally leads to error on your part, as it has done here.

I couldn't imagine watching my beloved spouse get married again.

Which is fine for you, but because you can't fathom the idea of your spouse taking in another wife doesn't mean that all other women think as you, or that your man hasn't found the thought of having a second wife appealing.

Now, don't get curious and go ask him about it. Upon being asked by their one wife, most men will deny ever having entertained the idea, and found it appealing, of having a second wife, but then, the rest of us know better.....

It's interesting, however, that you would fall headlong into the trap of painting all of polygyny with the broad brush strokes of your assumption simply because of a TV program with an agenda.

I suppose you voted for Obama....?

No. Never mind. I don't want to know.

In the NT, our marriages are supposed to be a picture of how Christ relates to the church, His Body.

Are you referring to the same Christ Jesus who had Israel AND Judah as His wives, and now the Church?

Does a body have multiple heads, or a head have multiple bodies?

Dragging only that particular imagry, at the exclusion of the other marital form within which God directly involved Himself, speaks only to your lack of understanding and your agenda.

If you really want to understand this topic more deeply, then we can certainly talk about it. But one thing I can assure you is that approaching this with the closed mind of feministic theology will completely blot out those keys that lend credibility to the very actions and words of the Lord, as recorded within scripture.

Surely Paul had a reason to use the head/body illustration. Just something to think about.

And do you suppose his reason was left open for you to subjectively insert whatever you personally think should go there? One can make Paul say just about anything they want so long as its removed from context. Heck, I know feministic women who have judged Paul a woman-hater by doing that very thing.

There's nothing new under the sun.

BTW

 

[2thePoint]

A woman having plural husbands violates the word of God, so "might" has nothing whatsoever to do with polyandry being the sin of adultery.

Completely.
Missing.
The Point.

I never said men today should run out and acquire multiples wives. Most men today can't handle just one, and two or three won't make things any easier for those men.

Judging by your other responses in this comment, it seems it's okay for YOU to use your personal preferences as Biblical commands, but not anyone else. To argue against polygamy ONLY because "men can't handle just one" is exactly that-- not to mention a slam on all women as something men have to "handle".


Terms like "Rabid feminism" serve only to confirm your misogyny, and there's no use responding to you further.

But at least we agree that "there's nothing new under the sun". Sheesh.

 

[dayhiker]

Some people excel at being ignorant. That Thelos fella needs a visit to the wood shed.

BTW

Having read 3 books by Philo Thelos, I find he makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[dayhiker]

2thePoint ... while we view this differently, I love the way you think about it.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Judging by your other responses in this comment, it seems it's okay for YOU to use your personal preferences as Biblical commands, but not anyone else.

But we're talking about contradictory points. Both sides can't be right, so the object should be to find the truth, especially if we're both wrong.

To argue against polygamy ONLY because "men can't handle just one" is exactly that-- not to mention a slam on all women as something men have to "handle".

Talk about missing the point.....

I wasn't arguing against polygyny for today. I simply stated that most men today can't handle it. At no point did I ever say ALL.

Terms like "Rabid feminism" serve only to confirm your misogyny, and there's no use responding to you further.

You seem to enjoy flattering yourself with misrepresentations of me as a person and my statements.

That I recognize the fact that there are such people as rabid feminists in our culture says nothing about my being a woman-hater. My dislike of the thinking of people like Patricia Ireland doesn't mean that I'm therefore guilty of misogyny.

What's YOUR agenda here?

BTW

 

[Lionroot]

Polygamy was never God's will,

Nice spin. Essentially, the same answer Martin Luther gave when pressed for an answer. He found that the Bible does not forbid it.

but he allowed it and regulated it.

Don't forget that He also modeled, facilitated, and in some cases commanded polygyny.

IF society had been female dominant, there is no reason to doubt that God would have allowed polyandry and regulated it.

Okay, now your just making stuff up. Unless you can justify such a position with the Scripture.

God did regulate polyandry, with the death penalty. That makes your supposition little more then wishful thinking.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

The knee-jerk reaction I received as a response to my questions appears to be the extent of her willingness to converse, on a reasonable level, about a topic like this. As you can see, she resorted to ad hominem, so be ready to duck.....

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I find myself sometimes marveling at how easily so many assume alleged particulars about God's will for mankind, and they do so without one shred of evidence (or any twinge of conscience) from scripture apart from eisegetical interpretation.....an interpretational model those same people reject when utilized by mormon and jehovah's witness apologists.

The end result is to attack the opposition with an anaylsis of their character, or some other nonsensical garbage tactic, rather than to answer the counterpoints offered in defense of the biblical position.

What I'd like to know: Isn't there ANYONE out there who can answer the questions asked without resorting to inferior tactics that do little more than to avoid dealing with the issue head-on?

Anyone?

I mean, yes, chastity is absolutely important, but I have yet to see anyone establish that the Patriarchs had violated God's will for mankind in the midst of possessing multiple wives. One in this thread went so far as to claim that the Patriarchs repented for having had plural wives, but that individual disappeared, never offering any substance as backing for what he stated.

Where are the intellectuals with the ability to deal reasonably, without knee-jerk emotionalism and character bashing accusations based solely upon a comment about a small segment of the population that happens to harbor extreme views - both theologically and socially (rabid, extreme feminists, for example)?

Hopefully, everyone can avoid the cromagnon man approach.....

BTW

 

[dayhiker]

BTW ... I don't think there are any arguments beyond beyond saying God created Adam and Eve and two that Jesus and Paul spoke/wrote about a husband and a wife. Ya, that is true. But the context of the OT doesn't give us the the authority to go further and say so its wrong to have more than one wife or husband. First, there just isn't any command that those are wrong or out sided of God's will. Secondly, we have verses where God is for his people having more than one wife. Then there is the fact that many of God's great men of faith were poly with Heb.11 saying there are a cloud of witness.
Now how are you going to get someone who has a valid Biblical argument against poly relationships? Its just not there.

It is interesting how many are willing to stand up and say so these days. 20 years ago I didn't know anyone who was mainstream Christian who said these things. Maybe some quietly held this belief. I don't know.

 

[Spiritlight]

A man that has more than one wife probably has problems with his hearing and memory.

Just kidding I couldn't resist it!

 

[Reithaonline]

My goodness! (Bad pun ) This thread has been an interesting read!

I have a couple of points I need to outline, for my own piece of mind. (Normally I ‘m just content to watch the sparks fly, these kinds of debates make my day )

First – All doctrines and beliefs as a Christian should be based on what the Bible says, not what it doesn’t say. Just because the bible:-
‘doesn’t say you shouldn’t’ doesn’t mean you should
or
‘the bible doesn’t say it’s wrong’ well, does it say it's right?

Are we in agreement?


Second – All scripture is related, and should be taken as a whole unit (not one point solely under its own merits)
1st Timothy 3:16 – All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (ESV)

Notice how ALL scripture is inspired by God, not just the parts you chose to notice/outline. I take this to mean that every nook, cranny and strange saying is in there for a reason. Even if God is the only one who knows why, I have good reason to suspect there is a purpose behind them; I just have to do a bit of extreme digging.

Keeping the above points in mind, I would like to say that that:-
While I have yet to see any verse that specific says something like ‘thou shalt not marry more than one woman or you will die’, I have reason to believe that the bible does say that God’s will is for marriage to consist of one man and one woman only.
I also believe that all the people in the bible practicing otherwise are either 'wrong', ‘ignorant’ or are purely an 'exception', not the rule.

So, how did I reach these conclusions?

So first off, did you know that David, Solomon and various other kings were actually breaking the torah (the LAW for goodness sake) when they married multiple wives?

Consider Deuteronomy 17:14-17
14"When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' 15you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' 17And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. (ESV)


Hello…. Did verse 17 just say that any King over Israel should not have ‘many’ wives? (I take this to mean more than one) Lest his heart be turned away? Now I believe that is exactly what happened to Solomon (no matter how you look at it, he had many wives).

Another point to consider, people have already mentioned how the bible requires the leaders/deacons in the Church to have only one wife, among other things. 1 Tim 3.2 and Titus 1.6
But from my understanding, doesn't the bible also ask both the leaders to be a Godly example (follow God’s will), and for us the followers, to follow that example?
Some verses to look at are - Phil 3.17; Phil 4.9; 1 Thess 1.6-7; 2 Thess 3.7-9; 1 Tim 4.12; Tit 2.7; 1 Pet 5.3; 1 Cor 4.6; 1 Cor 11.1.

So unless there is a specific scripture that says to practice Polygamy, I will continue to strive for a Monogamous relationship, by doing what the bible says and following any ‘Godly’ examples of my leaders. (Which, conveniently is marrying only one wife)


Regarding various people's rebuttals regarding polygamy and adultery; I would like to add the below, written by Glen Miller from christianthinktank.com

Pushback: Glenn, I just read your reply to a reader regarding polygamy in the New Testament. I must differ with you. The Bible is most certainly clear that polygamy is not only authorized, but in many cases it was demanded by God. How do you explain your position of saying it is adultery?
Good question, friend.
What must be understood is that God's allowance of something and even His requirement of it in exceptional circumstances is NOT incompatible with it being "wrong" in the vast majority of cases.
Obviously, polygamy was 'authorized' (the Mosaic law specifically refers to it) and 'demanded' (especially in the case of levirite marriage), but this doesn't mean that it is something God wants us to do, except in extreme situations (e.g., the provision of a supportless-widow of kin, in a specific society tied to a genealogically-based land inheritance economy).
A good way to illustrate this is from a very similar marital topic--divorce.
Divorce was "authorized" in the Mosaic Law (Deut 24), and "demanded" in the case of the returned exiles (Ezra 10). But it is crystal clear that divorce is:

• Hated by God (Mal 2.16)
• Prohibited by Jesus, except in extreme situations (Matt 19).
• Permitted by God because of human failings (i.e., hardness of heart--Mt 19.8).

What this means for OUR discussion is that one must look at the more "principle-like" statements about a topic, for guidance as to what the will and heart of God is about a subject, rather than the exceptions in history (e.g., permissions, extreme circumstances). The statements of principle about polygamy (discussed above)--like the statements of principle about divorce-- indicate the behavioral norm that we are to follow. The exceptions in history to those overarching statements of principle and life are just that--exceptions, called forth by either extreme situations or called forth by our own moral weakness (e.g. hardness of heart).

---

I am sure some people are already forming a rebuttal to this post, and I look forward to reading their replies.

May God bless your earnest searching of his scriptures.

With all due respect,
Reithaonline


and Spiritlight, that's what my old man always says

 

[dayhiker]

Hi Reitha,
Welcome to CF. You picked an interesting topic for your 1st post.
I agree with your points on scripture. That's why I feel God doesn't have any problem with poly relationships.

No, I didn't know that OT kings were breaking the law by having more than one wife. God never said they were. Nathan when he confronted David about his adultery with Bathseba didn't also say, "Oh why we are talking about this adultery, you got too many wives." No Nathan the prophet of God said to David if the wives you have aren't enough just pray and God would have given you more. 2 Sam.12

Now lets look at Dt.14:14-17 closer. you talked about many wives. What do you also think about multiply horses, wives, gold and silver. So if not multipling wives means one wife, then you must equally say its as wrong for David to have more than one horse and more than one silver coin and more than one gold coin. I just know since you hold scripture in such high regard that you only keep one dollar bill in your wallet.

A specific scripture to practice poly. We have many poly men set up and examples of faith that we are to follow in Heb.11. So it seems you have a contradiction in your approach to scripture.

Then you quote Glenn who takes a teaching about divorce in the Bible and says it applies to a topic (poly in this case) that the Bible never applies it it to. This in direct opposition to what he knows the Bible teaches because he has just acknowledged those verse that teach it. He said poly was authorized and demanded. Sounds like double speak. We know what James said of a double minded man.

So I agree with your 1st two points. Lets hold the Bible high and not let the teachings of men turn us away from God's word to accept the traditions of men. After all that's what followers of Jesus do.

Again, Welcome to CF. Enjoy your time here.

 

[Lionroot]

Thanks dayhiker,

Your last post was excellent. While men are sometimes double minded, God it's not. Those that hold a view that God is somehow or someway against polygyny really have an up hill battle to prove their case.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

BTW ... I don't think there are any arguments beyond beyond saying God created Adam and Eve

Yes, and that creation points to monogenism (the belief that all mankind originated from the same two parents).

Nowhere throughout the Bible did the Lord reference Adam and Eve as a rule that all men are to have only one wife. This statement is evidenced in the fact that the Lord actively gave David two wives in addition to the wives he already had at that time.

Therefore, the Adam and Eve argument falls flat as a defense for the idea that the Patriarchs had violated anything in the mind of the Most High by having plural wives.

and two that Jesus and Paul spoke/wrote about a husband and a wife.

What many fail to understand is that, for example, Jesus also talked about offering up burnt offerings on an altar. I doubt anyone here does that, but some seem to think they're qualified to pick and choose from Jesus' words what applies today and what doesn't.

But the context of the OT doesn't give us the the authority to go further and say so its wrong to have more than one wife or husband.

I will point out that for anyone to apply a contextual limitation upon the topic of marriage creates for them serious problems in ANY system of interpretation. Doing so would force one to apply that concept subjectively, given various scenerios of doctrine. Subjectivity simply is an unacceptable system upon which to rest any legitimate interpretation.

Secondly, we have verses where God is for his people having more than one wife. Then there is the fact that many of God's great men of faith were poly with Heb.11 saying there are a cloud of witness.
Now how are you going to get someone who has a valid Biblical argument against poly relationships? Its just not there.

My objective is to try and get people who vehemently stand on the side of monogamy-only for all mankind to finally stand up and provide legitimate backing in support of their arguements.

Everything I've seen thus far fall pretty much within the tactical and intellectual fallacies of -

Inuendo
Slight-of-hand
Misrepresentation
Out-of-context
ad hominem
ad hoc
ad absurdum
Historic revisionism
Eisegesis
Hit-and-run

...and a number of other fallacies I don't want to take up space listing.

None of these tactics provide an honest and consistent foundation for the monogamy-only dogma for all mankind.

Thanks for your input.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

First – All doctrines and beliefs as a Christian should be based on what the Bible says, not what it doesn’t say. Just because the bible:-
‘doesn’t say you shouldn’t’ doesn’t mean you should
or
‘the bible doesn’t say it’s wrong’ well, does it say it's right?

Are we in agreement?

To a point, although I don't see how that applies to the topic of polygyny. Not only did the Lord GIVE some men plural wives, He also governed polygyny and He directly involved Himself within that model of marriage.

If example after example doesn't serve as good indicators of the fact that polygyny is one of two acceptable forms of marriage in the mind of the Lord, then how do you, for example, apply that to the topic of us flying to get where we want to go? The Bible doesn't say we can or that we cannot get to a destination by way of flight.

So first off, did you know that David, Solomon and various other kings were actually breaking the torah (the LAW for goodness sake) when they married multiple wives?

Consider Deuteronomy 17:14-17
14"When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' 15you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' 17And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. (ESV)

Hello…. Did verse 17 just say that any King over Israel should not have ‘many’ wives? (I take this to mean more than one) Lest his heart be turned away? Now I believe that is exactly what happened to Solomon (no matter how you look at it, he had many wives).

I see. So, how do you define "many"? 50? 100? 2? 4? What?

Are you going to say that it's wrong for a man to have two horses, four horses, what? Should that also hold true for today? Is it wrong for a man to own two cars, or four cars?

Hello...

Please do enlighten us as to how you think those verses you quoted actually apply to this topic and to us today.

Thanks.

Another point to consider, people have already mentioned how the bible requires the leaders/deacons in the Church to have only one wife, among other things. 1 Tim 3.2 and Titus 1.6

But from my understanding, doesn't the bible also ask both the leaders to be a Godly example (follow God’s will), and for us the followers, to follow that example?
Some verses to look at are - Phil 3.17; Phil 4.9; 1 Thess 1.6-7; 2 Thess 3.7-9; 1 Tim 4.12; Tit 2.7; 1 Pet 5.3; 1 Cor 4.6; 1 Cor 11.1.

Are you saying that every aspect of those men's lives is to be the example to us? Are we all therefore to lead the Church as they lead? Are we all now leaders? After all, if every allowance and every limitation placed upon them applies to all the rest of us as what it means to be godly, then that makes ALL of us leaders of the Church.

Where do you draw the line, and by what external standard (one that's not under your personal control) do you define where that line should be placed?

Do you suppose that the leaders being limited to one wife has something to do with.....being a leader? Do you think those men could serve as effective leaders in the midst of having more than one wife?

Probably not, but I still would like to see what standard, outside of subjectivity, applies in how you interpret those verses.

So unless there is a specific scripture that says to practice Polygamy, I will continue to strive for a Monogamous relationship, by doing what the bible says and following any ‘Godly’ examples of my leaders. (Which, conveniently is marrying only one wife)

I would encourage you to retain your one wife and not seek another to add on. As I said before, most men couldn't handle more than one.

Regarding various people's rebuttals regarding polygamy and adultery; I would like to add the below, written by Glen Miller from christianthinktank.com

I'm not surprised that he resorted to drawing a parallel between divorce and polygyny. I've seen this fallacy before. Were I to dare draw the same line of comparison between divorce and monogamy, the outcry would be deafening.

The level of integrity measured between both parallels is completely equal (meaning that there is NO integrity in the two parallels).

If you disagree with that, then I'd be interested in seeing why you think I'm wrong.

That fella failed to drive his point to its logical conclusion, because if he were correct, then we should expect to see the Patriarchs, at best, losing a great deal of their Heavenly reward, and, at worst, burning in the pits of Hell.

After all, after Abraham's death, a man who had several wives, was praised in glowing terminology by the Lord for the life he lived. I dare say that anyo one of us would LOVE to have the Lord say the same about us that He said about Abraham in Genesis 36 after his death.

That's not a life-review the Lord would give to a man who lived even close to the line of sexual or marital immorality in the context of plural wives.

BTW

 

[Reithaonline]

Hello Again everyone!

Sorry I took so long to get back to you're posts (if you call 2 days a long time...) You're posts had a lot of good points, and I was forced to reconsider my views and do a bit more research into WHY.

Before I post a proper response to the posts replying to mine or go further into why I believe what I believe, I just wanted to know one thing.

What are we debating now?

At first it was 'does the bible say polygamy is wrong?' the answer reached (from what I can tell) was NO!

So are we asking, 'why should one enter a polygamy relationship in today's society?' or are we asking 'is polygamy morally wrong?'

By morally wrong, what I mean is did God promote/condone the actions that David/Solomon/Abraham etc did? or did he tolerate them as a necessity?

My earlier post addressed neither of the above, and was instead the reasoning behind my own convictions (why I search for marriage with a single person)

Onto the replies!

Concerning Hebrews 11

A specific scripture to practice poly. We have many poly men set up and examples of faith that we are to follow in Heb.11. So it seems you have a contradiction in your approach to scripture.

Just so you know... I have never once considered Abraham, Moses, David etc as examples for me to follow when it comes to relationships. I have read about their lives, and unfortunately found a lot of the things they did with woman wanting.

Why? because they followed the views regarding woman of their time (for example, woman treated like property etc). It is no longer then, it is now, and woman are treated in a completely different manner, the culture is completely different.

When it comes to faith however, (which in context Hebrews 11 is talking about) I agree with the author in saying they are truly Godly men, and should be considered as such. I do try to show as much faith as they did.

Now lets look at Dt.14:14-17 closer. you talked about many wives. What do you also think about multiply horses, wives, gold and silver. So if not multipling wives means one wife, then you must equally say its as wrong for David to have more than one horse and more than one silver coin and more than one gold coin. I just know since you hold scripture in such high regard that you only keep one dollar bill in your wallet.

Concerning the reasoning behind my views of Deuteronomy 17:17, I have always believed a king should only keep what he needs to survive, and then the rest should be given to further the kingdom (not his own coffers). What is to multiply or have many, but to have more than you need? to build up for the sake of having? As such Deuteronomy reads to me 'a king should only keep what he needs'

Does a king need more than 1 horse (or car)? you tell me, you know you're own circumstance.
Does a king need more than one wife? (the only times I can think off is when it is a necessity, such as to finalize a politically needed treaty, even then I see it as a last resort)
Does a king need more than one dollar? (well, do you trust God to meet you're needs? and can any money you receive from God truly be called yours? in fact as a king you cannot truly call taxpayer money yours)

I honestly cannot say that David or Solomon stuck to this scripture. If my interpretation is incorrect, than again I will have to reconsider.

Concerning money. I have never considered what is in my wallet as belonging to me, instead it is God's to use. (with this logic, i can actually quite happily say that I do not even keep a dollar of my own money in my wallet)

However this is extremely hard to live out, and I have been a bad Stewart with his money. I have on many occasions spent it on things I have neither asked him for permission to buy, and nor do I need it.

Regarding the 'leadership and other parts'.
Give me a week, and I may have a functional reply.
I guess I never saw an issue with it.

To a point, although I don't see how that applies to the topic of polygyny. Not only did the Lord GIVE some men plural wives, He also governed polygyny and He directly involved Himself within that model of marriage.

If example after example doesn't serve as good indicators of the fact that polygyny is one of two acceptable forms of marriage in the mind of the Lord, then how do you, for example, apply that to the topic of us flying to get where we want to go? The Bible doesn't say we can or that we cannot get to a destination by way of flight.

I spoke about only basing doctrine on what the bible says, because it seems to be couple of people were basing believes on what the bible 'didn't say'. when the bible is silent on a matter, we are only left with our own conjectures to reach a decision.
This is such as case. At no point does the bible actually give authority on any inherent 'goodness' concerning polygamy. And neither does God forbid it. The only instances mentioned are historical recordings, times of necessity or existing circumstances that God puts rules in place for.

God also commands the people multiple times 'wipe out every man, child woman whatever' when Israel was fighting their enemies. Does this mean that God condones killing? Again, it is allowed as a necessity but is not necessarily the preferred method.

I'm not surprised that he resorted to drawing a parallel between divorce and polygyny. I've seen this fallacy before. Were I to dare draw the same line of comparison between divorce and monogamy, the outcry would be deafening.

The level of integrity measured between both parallels is completely equal (meaning that there is NO integrity in the two parallels).

If you disagree with that, then I'd be interested in seeing why you think I'm wrong.

Excuse me BeforeThereWas, would it be possible to reword this? I not able to make any sense of what you are actually saying. It is likely just me, after all I'm not sure what you mean by 'integrity' and how it fits in the equation.

Looking forward for more to come.
Reithaonline

 

[BeforeThereWas]

What are we debating now?

At first it was 'does the bible say polygamy is wrong?' the answer reached (from what I can tell) was NO!

That's somewhat correct. We also covered where the Bible portrays God having involved Himself in that model with Israel and Judah as His wives (plural), His governing the model, and even commanding it in the lives of some.

So are we asking, 'why should one enter a polygamy relationship in today's society?' or are we asking 'is polygamy morally wrong?'

Both.

I don't speak for everyone else here, but my answer to the former is no, but only in relation to MOST men today. I know several men right now who have plural wives and they're living blessed lives with none of the problems portrayed by popular media. Jealousy can exist even in monogamous marriages, etc. All the sins of the flesh are possible within polygyny just as they are in monogamy.

As to the latter, I'd say that too is a question that's been brought up by some, but they did the usual tactic of hit-n-run rather than stick around and try to defend their premises to the conclusion they've chosen for their narrow viewpoint.

By morally wrong, what I mean is did God promote/condone the actions that David/Solomon/Abraham etc did? or did he tolerate them as a necessity?

If you believe it was a matter of mere tolerance, then I'd like to see your reasoning behind that assumption. We do know that the Lord gave David at least two of his already plural wives, so if you have something to counter that, then it would be interesting to discuss.

My earlier post addressed neither of the above, and was instead the reasoning behind my own convictions (why I search for marriage with a single person)

And I applaud anyone who exclusively desires monogamous marriage for themselves rather than to vascilate between the two forms, because doing so does indicate a dimension of unhealthy lust, which is seriously problematic for both forms and the people involved.

Concerning Hebrews 11
Just so you know... I have never once considered Abraham, Moses, David etc as examples for me to follow when it comes to relationships. I have read about their lives, and unfortunately found a lot of the things they did with woman wanting.

Why? because they followed the views regarding woman of their time (for example, woman treated like property etc). It is no longer then, it is now, and woman are treated in a completely different manner, the culture is completely different.

Umm, can you show me from scripture where those men looked upon women as property? Where is that stated from their thoughts or words, or even their actions?

Many have made the assumption that the traditions practiced by the men of that day were akin to women being property, doormats, etc., etc., etc.

That's problematic because such a viewpoint is predicated upon the assumption that our modern social constructs are superior to that of the ancients. I've asked many times for proponents of that mindset to defend such an assumption, only to be met with, "Well, duh! Who today would want to go back and live in that kind of culture." (crickets chirping, silence from everywhere else)

What may have seemed a no-brainer to them is actually a blind indifference to the glaring problems with our modern cultures and societies. Today, for example, we allow the killing of millions of our unborn, but back then, that was unthinkable (except for that wierd, religious crowd that sacrificed their children to Molech to try and bring rain when there was a drought).

So, it will be interesting to see your side of this.

When it comes to faith however, (which in context Hebrews 11 is talking about) I agree with the author in saying they are truly Godly men, and should be considered as such. I do try to show as much faith as they did.

Perhaps Solomon is the ONLY exception when it comes to the marital expression he lived. He did indeed violate not only God's command against "many" wives, but also in his relationship with the Most High considering that he, in his latter years, turned to the idolotry of his pagan wives.

Apart from that, and David's adultery with another man's wife and murder of her husband, and Abraham's obedience to his wife Sarah in the taking of Hagar as another wife (even though he had several other wives already, none of whom we hear about as being a problem), I'd like to see why you think those men's marital lives create any problems in how one views the polygynous model of marriage.

Concerning the reasoning behind my views of Deuteronomy 17:17, I have always believed a king should only keep what he needs to survive, and then the rest should be given to further the kingdom (not his own coffers). What is to multiply or have many, but to have more than you need? to build up for the sake of having? As such Deuteronomy reads to me 'a king should only keep what he needs'

That's still nebulous. Why point at Deut. 17 without conveying a concrete understanding of what was actually being said in those passages? Where do those passages say anything about the "bare necessities" without you violating the rules for interpretation?

Are you saying that you never acquire things for which you don't have absolute need...that everything you have are necessities rather than luxuries?

Granted, there's a distinct line between luxury and outright gluttony.

What about God's desire for men? The Lord obviously thought it right and proper for David to have 5+ wives.

You see, most assume that men having plural wives was strictly a matter of their own personal desires rather than that of God. In the realm of polygyny, far too many people think themselves instant authorities over God's own thinking and ways, even though He said that His thoughts and His ways are above ours as the heavens are above the earth.

Hypocrisy seems the mainstay of many who profess to follow Christ Jesus. The only thing I can't figure out is which christ they follow. Are they following one of their own making, or are they trying to grapple with the ways of the One, TRUE Lord and Savior Who is beyond their control and powers of definition.

Does a king need more than 1 horse (or car)? you tell me, you know you're own circumstance.

YES. NOW you're beginning to hit in the right target area.

Now, tell me: Is marriage merely a matter of necessity? Is there a dynamic of desire in marriage?

Be careful, now, in how you answer that.

Does a king need more than one wife? (the only times I can think off is when it is a necessity, such as to finalize a politically needed treaty, even then I see it as a last resort)

You're doing the same thing many others do as a matter of routine. You're ignoring the fact that the Lord, for example, GAVE to David plural wives because it was God's good pleasure to do so. We can argue till that Ahab in the White House confesses his errors (which will be never in this life) about whether we think David NEEDED that many wives, but I fail to see where political expediency has any comparison to the wondrous elements of TRUE marriage where love permeates every facet.

Love IS a necessity. That's what makes a marriage successful. Perhaps you personally are incapable of loving more than one wife, but then, YOU are not all other men, and neither am I.

If you plan to marry even ONE wife on the basis of mere necessity, then I suggest you remain single. Avoid marriage at all costs, because assuming necessity has any merits in relation to marriage is to make marriage a matter of convenience moreso than a loving relationship.

However this is extremely hard to live out, and I have been a bad Stewart with his money. I have on many occasions spent it on things I have neither asked him for permission to buy, and nor do I need it.

Then you need a healthy dose of scripture:

Deut 12:20 When the LORD thy God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.

The Bible is replete with verses and exmaples of the Lord calling upon men to satisfy what their souls "lusteth" after.

Now, please don't push my words to the extreme. There's a distinctive line between gluttenous lust and simply lusting after what is within reasonable bounds, all of which are beyond mere necessities.

You're not going to appear to the Lord as being more holy by possessing ONLY the necessities. Whoever taught you that living on the basis of bare necessities clearly has blinders on both sides of his eyes. That may be fine for the bear in Jungle Book, but it has no place in the life of a believer.

The Lord at no time expected us to go through life as stoics who squeek by with only what keeps us alive. Those who religiously refuse to go beyond that are living a dynamic of life never imposed upon us by a loving God. This earth is here for our pleasure, our benefit, and our stewardship.

Look at what so-called church-goers do: Many of them hand over their primary, largest portion giving to their institution...assuming that doing so is the same as giving to God. They routinely turn a blind eye to the fact that they're reaping direct benefit from their own alleged giving, and they have no problem with that. What I give to the man down the street who lost his job due to layoff, and needs to support his family, I reap no material benefit on this earth in return, but the Lord is blessed, and I store treasure in Heaven.

There is SO much we could say on that topic, but not in this thread.

This is such as case. At no point does the bible actually give authority on any inherent 'goodness' concerning polygamy. And neither does God forbid it. The only instances mentioned are historical recordings, times of necessity or existing circumstances that God puts rules in place for.

Can you show me from scripture where Abraham, Gideon, David, or any other of the Patriarchs having plural wives was strictly a matter of necessity or circumstance? Where did you get that?

God also commands the people multiple times 'wipe out every man, child woman whatever' when Israel was fighting their enemies. Does this mean that God condones killing?

YES! He DOES condone killing in some instances. What He commanded against was, "Thou shalt do no MURDER."

There's a VAST difference between killing out of necessity and outright murder, which is ALWAYS unjustified.

Preference sometimes has no outplay in the course one must choose. When a burglar has a weapon he's about to draw and use against me, I will remove him from this earth because he has forfeited his right to live on this earth any longer. I will send Him to the One who CAN and WILL judge him for his actions.

Uzzah, even though his intentions were good when placing his hand upon the Ark to keep it from falling off the cart, he was struck dead irregardless. Life is such that we make choices. There's obedience, and there's desire. What makes the difference is creating a healthy balance between the two.

Uzzah chose the extreme of desire over obedience, and he lost his life on this earth as a result. We're given the lattitude of acquiring what our hearts lust after. The heathy balance is avoiding the extremes (sins) of gluttenous living.

BTW

 

[Lionroot]

I love the presentation that God cannot or does not oppose some evils. Somehow we are to believe that polygyny is some unopposed evil that the patriarchs were rampant to commit. Meanwhile, God sits on his hands, or. Just forget to mention it to these prophets.

It is interesting that these same present a restriction under grace, that was never spelled out, hinted at, or punished under the law. How is it that grace is now more restrictive than the law?

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Lion,

That's one of those toughies that'll remain unanswered by those who promote it. They don't like to think about where their dogmas lead. It's too comfortable to amble along the same, broad ol' path upon which the majority of the religious masses of our culture march.

Polygyny is one of those great tools that helps set people free from the dark-age style worship of socially engineered theologies. Some folks have opened their eyes and finally seen the Patriarchs in a way they had never seen before. The faith of those great men is contagious if only people would let go of their dogmatic adherence to the usual drone of deadness institutions dole out more faithfully than they meet genuine needs.

Wow. We just had an earthquake here in the center of the country. That's totally new for around here. I wonder if it had something to do with what I just wrote.....

BTW