OT Polygymy and NT Chastity

[Lionroot]

Does it bother anyone that the monogamy limitation is called "traditional marriage"? Why not "Biblical marriage"?

Is this a reflection of the love we have for tradition, and the disregard for Holy Scripture?

Just curious what you guys think...

Rev 5:5
5 And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."
? ESV

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Does it bother anyone that the monogamy limitation is called "traditional marriage"? Why not "Biblical marriage"?

Is this a reflection of the love we have for tradition, and the disregard for Holy Scripture?

Just curious what you guys think...

Rev 5:5
5 And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."
? ESV

Good one, Lion.

Now, let's see if I can preempt the rationale of modern, churchianity leaders...

I suppose they'd demand that modern understanding about traditional marriage IS Biblical marriage.

Well, in one respect they'd be right.

However, the inordinate fixation on tradition is the very strength of many man-made organizations that see themselves as being creations of God...as if the Lord allegedly directed the creation of a clergy class to exercise ecclesiastical oversight for the benefit of all the sheeple.

Well, we can see how far afield that leadership has tromped from the straight and narrow. The stone, brick and wood they've swooned the masses into letting them build as monuments to their avarice and pride...all in the name of God, of course, are the objects to which they've joined themselves.

Where's the marital purity and personal chastity in that?

No, no. Now stay with me on this.

If we're the collective bride of Christ Jesus, and yet devote so much of our energies and resources toward those edifices (all of which will perish with this earth when it's destroyed) and their pet, traditional dotrines that condemn the Patriarchs to the pits of Hell, why the TRADITIONAL practice of infidelity toward those things within the word of God that happen to violate their sensibilities?

In other words, when I see someone pointing the charge of infidelity in the direction of the Patriarchs for the biblical, marital form of marriage they practiced, it makes perfect sense that those accusors are heaping back upon their own heads many times the glowing, red coals of guilt they hoped would singe men they've never met.

It's those same kinds of people who assume God allowed sin in the lives of the Patriarchs simply because they lived during OT times. That one is among some of the worst beliefs anyone could yammer about, but it's parrotted everywhere. I even hear that nonsense fom people like that goofball David Jeremiah. I've heard him spew that filth as if it were scriptural rote.

I see many, many biblical teachings and examples coming under increasing fire, which sets the stage for that great turning away spoken about in scripture.

All that's left is the final catalyst that will solidify the ugly, religious mass into that battering ram that will ultimately be used against the truly faithful.

It'll be the dark ages all over again, but more dark than anything ever seen before, and I suspect the blind followers of islam will play a key role in that battering.

Being witnesses of the TRUTH is therefore of utmost importance in these times.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Martin Luther wrote:

I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the Word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.
Martin Luther

Letter to Chancellor Gregory Bruck, January 13, 1524
(De Wette II, 459, pp. 329, 330)

The bold is my own emphasis - BTW

 

[dayhiker]

Hello Again everyone!
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.

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.

I don't think we are to separate faith from relationships here. I do think most of history had pretty simple words to explain the dynamics of relationships. Today we often use words developed in the last 2 centuries that we learn officially in classes like psychology, sociology, anthropology ect. Not to mention their everyday usage.

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)

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.

I've come to the place were much of this talk about the difference between my money and God's money with the idea of stewardship is mostly semitics.
The living by just our what we need thing. The poor of the world live that way. I really doubt that anyone in the west is living even close to just basic needs.
And to be frank, I don't see the Bible teaching we are to live with just the bare minimum.

I guess this can even play into to poly argument. The phrase people like to use marriage is one man to one woman for life. That would be the minimalist view again. But this isn't phraseology from the Bible. If that was indeed God's plan from the beginning and so many of God's men had more than one wife why didn't God have his prophets speaking these words back then? I just don't think how many relationships we have is much of a concern to God. What is a concern to God is how we treat each person we meet and have a relationship with.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

The phrase people like to use marriage is one man to one woman for life. That would be the minimalist view again. But this isn't phraseology from the Bible. If that was indeed God's plan from the beginning and so many of God's men had more than one wife why didn't God have his prophets speaking these words back then?

Therein lies one of many quandaries that trips up the monogamy-only camp. They love harping on the "silence" issue not being indicative of God's approval. Meanwhile, under their very noses is their own family members, friends, and fellow churchgoers divorcing (in most cases) for the reason of incompatibility, which clearly isn't allowed by scripture, and yet not specifically condemned either..... See where this is leading?

The serial polygamy currently practiced within every denomination in existence literally screams FOUL and HYPOCRITES.

Generally speaking, my only aim in all this is drive people back to the scriptures, read them for what they say, and use that knowledge to filter everything they hear from pulpits, Sunday school classrooms, radio, TV, ministry pamphlets and flyers, books, magazines, et al.

Good input, dayhiker.

BTW

 

[dayhiker]

Yup, they don't realize how much they are reading into the Bible. I know for years even tho I knew I wasn't suppose to read into the Bible I did a lot of reading into it. Then I started to say in my SS class that we often think this and it may be true, but the Bible doesn't actually say it. Will be interesting if just a few see thru it as I'm sure there always have been a few, or if now with information being available to more people on the web if things will start to change.

 

[Lionroot]

Generally, silence equals consent.

I wonder if someone will have the moral fortitude to confess their error, or if they have rather covered their ears and reached for stones.

We shall see...

Rev 5:5
5 And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."
? ESV

 

[dayhiker]

Probably most figure we are a lost cause! lol

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Generally, silence equals consent.

Thank you. That's precisely my point.

It's interesting (and hypocritical) how the monogamy-only crowd does many, MANY things every day on the very foundation of God's allowances through His silence, and then turn right around and demand that God's silence in condemning polygyny is not in any way indicative of His approval...never minding His command for, involvement in, and provision of plural wives. Some go so far as to create a principle stemming from Adam having been given one wife as some sort of silent command for all mankind.

What I don't understand is why folks can't figure out that, although the sin of dishonesty is bad enough, the sin of different is even worse. The consequences emanating from that latter sin touches far more lives because of its absence from any resemblance to concern for TRUTH.

Being dishonest is, as I said already, bad enough, but being dishonest AND indifferent toward TRUTH when one is brought face to face with it, well, what excuse possibly exists to justify such a heart-set?

I wonder if someone will have the moral fortitude to confess their error, or if they have rather covered their ears and reached for stones.

Indeed, we shall see...

We shall see...

BTW

 

[Reithaonline]

I would like to apologize for several things
1. Entering into a subject I knew a lot less than I thought I knew.
2. Failing to completely defend my position. I just cannot find satisfactory answers to your questions.
3. Refusing to compromise my believes. I guess I have 'hardened my heart' to the thought that polygny may be Godly.

If you can give me an example of a current day polygamy where they entered into it while following Matthew 22:37-40, than I guess I will have no choice but believe it to be possible.

 

[brightmorningstar]

BeforeThereWas,

God's silence in condemning polygyny

Christ's NT teaching affirms only faithful man/woman union or celibacy/ the rest is calls sexual immorality. There is no silence. Christians dont look for some specific condemnation of something that has been excluded from what is countenanced. Disciples of Christ seek to follow Jesus NT teaching, not create straw men and look for loopholes.

 

[dayhiker]

No loop holes .. yup, just going with Jesus' teaching. I'd say Jesus put celibacy 1st on His list. There were men with multiply wives walking around. Jesus didn't condemn any of them. And we know God was for Moses and David having extra wives. Plus the Law says a brother should raise up children for his brother if he dies. Jesus never said the OT was wrong. Paul even said the Mosaic Law was righteous good and true. That's what I affirm.

 

[dayhiker]

Reitha,
Hey, we have all thought we knew more than we did when we 1st entered into discussions about the Bible. Plus the church I found did a poor job preparing me for many topics in life. But because the Holy Spirit was with me as He is with you, don't sweat it. We can't answer everything in a few hours of study. Its taken me a life time to get to wear I am today. Some of my questions weren't answered for for years. So you know so much about Christ. This one little things don't change any of that. I put the things I don't understand on a back burner and let them simmer for years. I start to collect data and ideas. Eventually, God will put it back together again.

I accept your apology. But I don't see that you did anything wrong. Even tho a few men had several wives in the OT. Most men had one. Quite a few men were so poor I suspect they couldn't even afford a wife. We live in a very different world than they did. So our experience with Christ will have some differences as well. Continue to enjoy the love you have for Jesus.

Thanks for posting. your welcome to comment any time.

I would like to apologize for several things
1. Entering into a subject I knew a lot less than I thought I knew.
2. Failing to completely defend my position. I just cannot find satisfactory answers to your questions.
3. Refusing to compromise my believes. I guess I have 'hardened my heart' to the thought that polygny may be Godly.

If you can give me an example of a current day polygamy where they entered into it while following Matthew 22:37-40, than I guess I will have no choice but believe it to be possible.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I would like to apologize for several things
1. Entering into a subject I knew a lot less than I thought I knew.
2. Failing to completely defend my position. I just cannot find satisfactory answers to your questions.
3. Refusing to compromise my believes. I guess I have 'hardened my heart' to the thought that polygny may be Godly.

Compromising one's beliefs isn't at all what this is about. What this has to do with is verifying what scripture says in relation to traditional teachings. I think we can both agree that tradition doesn't always equate to truth.

If you can give me an example of a current day polygamy where they entered into it while following Matthew 22:37-40, than I guess I will have no choice but believe it to be possible.

Those passages of scripture apply to all facets of a believer's life.

What level of evidence would it take that's not already in the subjective realm of the impossible? It's easy setting impossible levels for proof that can't be verified through a computer screen to another.

The aim is to drive folks back to the word of God after having learned to remove the blinders from their eyes, and therefore honing their critical thinking skills to the extent that the pulput (and all those other sources mentioned before) no longer holds such a powerful sway over believers before they verify everything they hear.

This is about taking responsibility for what you believe by checking it all out for yourself.

ANY marriage that doesn't align itself with those verses is problematic, whether it be monogamous or polygynous.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

BeforeThereWas,

Christ's NT teaching affirms only faithful man/woman union or celibacy/ the rest is calls sexual immorality.

Reference please.....WITH explanations as to why you think the text says that.

There is no silence.

This appears to be true only for those who fill in the silence with their own man-made doctrines, but I'm willing to consider your defense of what you're saying, if you're willing to offer it.

Christians dont look for some specific condemnation of something that has been excluded from what is countenanced.

Countenanced? Are you using that term in the place of tolerated? I've never seen where the Lord tolerated or countenanced sin, so please explain.

Disciples of Christ seek to follow Jesus NT teaching, not create straw men and look for loopholes.

Was it a straw man when the Lord actively gave men plural wives, and when He commanded to taking of an additional wife in some circumstances? Was it a straw man when the Lord stated after Abraham's death that had obeyed His statutes, commands and Laws, even though Abraham had several wives at the time he died to this world?

Please explain in more detail.

Thanks

BTW

 

[Archaenfel]

From what little I know of it, polygamy is not condemned. Neither is it uniquely blessed, as some particularly radical divisions believe that it would be.

It is not a sin, nor is it holy.

It is entirely possible that many traditions seek to consider it a sin to spare people the conflict which often ( though not inevitably ) occurs when one seeks to share love among many. Jealousy in affection is common; by forming a tradition which avoids that conflict.

 

[Lionroot]

It is not a sin, nor is it holy.

I cannot find a verse that says marriage is holy, however it is to be held in honor by all.

English Standard Version Hebrews 13:4 4
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

 

[BeforeThereWas]

From what little I know of it, polygamy is not condemned.

Some forms of polygamy are condemned, such as a woman having more than one husband.

It's unfortunate feminists see women's not being allowed to have multiple husbands as some sort of measure for superiority, with which it has nothing to do.

Neither is it uniquely blessed, as some particularly radical divisions believe that it would be.

Perhaps that depends how you define you use of that term (blessed).

It is not a sin, nor is it holy.

Just as Lionroot said, no marriage form is declared holy anywhere in the Bible. If marriage had ever been declared holy, then no unbeliever could ever have been deemed married in God's eyes.

It is entirely possible that many traditions seek to consider it a sin to spare people the conflict which often ( though not inevitably ) occurs when one seeks to share love among many.

I wish that were the case, because at least they would be forced into an honest admission when a direct question about polygyny is asked of them.

However, the cold, hard fact remains that the belief systems of most church-goers are nothing more than outplays of socially engineered theologies. Any social theology is as evil, if not moreso, than outright denials of Christ Jesus.

Jealousy in affection is common; by forming a tradition which avoids that conflict.

Is hat in incomplete sentence, or are you assuming monogamy avoids the conflict of jealousy?

I can say, from other's experiences, jealousy is only one of many things that can crop up in polygyny just as they can within monogamy.

It does seem odd how so many don't realize that anything within which fallen mankind is involved is always riddled with all manner of potential for sin.

BTW

 

[Archaenfel]

Jealousy in affection is common; by forming a tradition which avoids that conflict.

( bows ) Please forgive my most unworthy self. I was obviously distracted for a moment, and thought that I had completed the statement. Please allow me to complete the thought now.

Jealousy in affection is common; by forming a tradition which avoids that conflict, sins rooted in that jealousy could be avoided.

 

[dayhiker]

Interesting point you bring up, Arch.

So which tradition do you think will have the most jealousy issues. The that teaches anyone who thinks about more than one wife is lusting and sinning. Or one ther has some of its members involved with multiply partners in a loving respectful way?