• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Polygamy and Christianity

Discussion in 'Christian Philosophy & Ethics' started by Kemi K, Jan 5, 2020.

  1. Chrystal-J

    Chrystal-J the one who stands firm to the end will be saved Supporter

    +5,033
    United States
    Catholic
    Widowed
    US-Others
    I'm gonna take that as a "No, I wouldn't like that." Yet you expect another person to put up with it.
     
  2. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
    So, it's your thought that the Lord chose a means for the dead brother having an heir by way of sin, or at the very least, a marital form the Lord does not "condone," given that almost every Patriarch of our faith practiced that marital form? Did not the Patriarchs know and understand God's will and definition for marriage? Did the Lord need modern day thought, which is heavily influenced by foaming-at-the-mouth feminist dogmas, to finally reveal what He never, at any time, said to the Patriarchs, the prophets or the apostles?

    This age of "enlightenment" is something to behold, with modern man going around thinking he knows best what is in the mind of God, especially those things that are not expressly declared in scripture....and we today can twist and warp scripture to say whatever we want with the license for such having been handed over to all of mankind by that same Lord - or not.

    Sorry, but your injection of the concept for what is or is not "condoned" by God, with no textual evidence, is questionable at best.

    What? Please show us all how the Hebrew from which that verse was translated can be relegated down to the level of merely "caring for widows."

    Ever considered that J Vernon McGee was a fallible man, just like any other preacher, of which I am sure he would have agreed?

    Jr
     
  3. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
    Whatever....

    I thought we might have an actual conversation, but that appears to not be the case.

    Jr
     
  4. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +107,774
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    Aren't we all? He was an exemplary Bible teacher who loved God's Word and spoke of this very thing.

    Would you like me to try to find an excerpt from his teaching on it?
     
  5. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +8,382
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    You actually do, if you want to respect the context.

    So it is an Old Testament allowance that Jesus corrected. You asked for verses that showed this, and I provided. You are welcome.

    You went beyond that and projected ill motives on me.

    No, I'm connecting the dots between all the Scriptures in spite of what is convenient for me to believe, teach, and practice.

    But according to Matthew 19:9 it is:

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.​

    So, since I'm not going to contradict what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, I have to agree that divorcing a woman and marrying a never-married woman is the sin of adultery against the first woman. Because it is adultery rather than just abandonment, this means that a man must be sexually faithful to his wife, and acquiring a second wife violates that principle. Hence, obtaining a second wife is adultery against the first. Hence the standard of being the husband of only one wife for church leadership in 1 Timothy 3.
     
  6. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
    I appreciate your zeal for adhering to his teachings. I've admired him for many years. However, that doesn't mean I agree with everything he thought about things such as this when I can read the scriptures for myself and see what they say. And in addition to all that, he spoke many times about others who would disagree with him, and he was fine with that. He's a great man.

    Jr
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  7. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
    And yet you cannot show to me where that context says anything about polygyny. You still haven't shown to me how there is any legitimate corollary between divorce and plural marriage along the vein of polygyny, apart from declaring that connection by way your own personal authority.

    No, I asked for verses that specifically spell out a disallowance for polygyny, and you threw something out that doesn't even address that form of marriage. That's like me asking you to hand me a hammer, and instead you hand me a buzz saw.

    Not at all. The only thing I see as wrong in what you have done is to allow socially engineered theologies to enter into your belief system rather than to accept what the scriptures plainly say without all the feministic injections. I cast no aspersions your way. You have zeal for what you believe, no matter how misguided. There is an element of praise for that, but your case simply lacks the weight of evidence with this being your personal opinion without textual backing.

    Look, we have ALL been affected to varying degrees by our surrounding culture and social pressures. I personally have turned to the Lord and asked for His thoughts and His ways, no matter how much higher they are than ours. I have repeatedly asked Him to replace, in greater and greater measure, ALL that I have been taught, and replace it all with His absolute truths where I am wrong; with a complete willingness to walk away from what other men have taught. That prayer has been ongoing for many years now, and is consistent with 1 John 2:27. What greater teacher is there than Holy Spirit?


    Therein is the fallacy in your understanding. Highlighting the "adultery" portion doesn't make your case. The central theme in that context is DIVORCE, and you're trying to cast into that context the KEEPING of the first wife, when that concept is not even hinted at within the text nor the context. Your case is bankrupt. You're sitting there condemning the Patriarchs of our faith to the flames of Hell for adultery under the pretext that God simply WINKED at that sin in relation to THEIR lives, but not ours today; and you seem to feel no shame for such. That smacks of a level of subjectivism that I find highly problematic.

    I never disagreed with you about that.

    No, it does not. When a husband remains faithful to the first when taking in a second, there is no moral crisis. If it were, then we should expect to see the Patriarchs burning in the pits of Hell since it is written that adulterers will not enter into Heaven.

    I know three different families of men with plural wives, and not one of the wives feel cast aside nor adulterated. Your case is without textual backing when we disallow your injections, AND you trying to disconnect the OT from the NT, as if they do not possess a continuous flow and harmony with each other. I think it's sad that you believe there is such a separation. Did you get that from your "pastor"? If so, then he is a false teacher.

    Jr
     
  8. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +107,774
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    I didn't agree with "everything" he taught, but i did agree with "most" of it. His love for God's Word came through in his teachings, and he was so down to earth that he helped me immensely in understanding what i would've otherwise not even ventured into.

    Yes, he was a great man.
     
  9. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
    But, in the end, you alone are responsible for what you choose to believe since none of us will be allowed to stand before the Most High and point the finger of accusation against another for what we chose to believe in this life. Many may think that they can point at their "pastor" for what they chose to accept as their beliefs, but it will not matter.

    Always remember 1 John 2:27. That's not just a promise in that verse, it's the stone cold reality that no power on this earth can alter. Holy Spirit is our ultimate teacher.

    Jr
     
  10. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +107,774
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    i agree. I love J Vernon McGee, but it doesn't mean that i agree with EVERYTHING he teaches. The Bible is first and foremost my "anchor". I love Mr. McGee, but i align everything he teaches with what the Bible says too.
     
  11. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
    And, he was a man with enough integrity that he had no problem with people checking his teachings against what's written. Good stuff.

    Jr
     
  12. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +107,774
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    Exactly.

    The best-est Bible teacher ever.
     
  13. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +8,382
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    That only holds water if you throw out the definition of adultery, which I'm not going to do.

    Irrelevant. Adultery with the consent of the spouse being cheated on is still adultery.
     
  14. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
    I agree that it all violates your personal definition of adultery. You've made it clear that you have a subjective system for defining key words. (shrug) It is what it is.

    The convenience factors incorporated into your methods for defining terms and interpreting scripture, unfortunately, create far greater inconsistencies than you realize, but I will leave that between the Lord and you, because casting accusation of such a grievous sin against the Lord's established Patriarchs of our faith is something that's your problem, not mine or anyone else. Being taken out into the wood shed is something we've all experienced at various times throughout our lives.

    Jr
     
  15. BroRoyVa79

    BroRoyVa79 Member

    232
    +112
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Going to admit I didn't read through everything so I'm answering the OP.

    First, God created One man and One woman and ordained their union.

    Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them. (Emphasis mine)

    The Hebrew words here for male (zakar) and female (nĕqebah) are not in the plural form, nor is "them" in the Hebrew, but the "them" there is talking about the man and woman.

    God went on to tell them to be fruitful and multiply after blessing them (Gen 1:28). Moving on to Genesis 2, which is a detailed picture of the sixth day, more specifically a detailed picture of the creation of the first man and woman, the Hebrew for Adam (man) and Eve (woman) is not in the plural. Thus, God creates One man and One woman and Adam goes on to proclaim that because woman came from man that:

    Genesis 2: 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Emphasis mine)

    Again, the Hebrew words for man ('iysh) and woman/wife (ishshah) are not in the plural here.

    Jesus quotes and interprets both of these verses when asked about divorce:

    Matthew 19: 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    Notice here Jesus says the two shall become one flesh, not the many shall become one flesh. Not the three, not the four, not the five, but the two shall become one flesh.

    In verse 4, the Greek for man (arrēn) and woman (thēlys) are not in the plural form. In verse 5, the Greek for "a man" (anthrōpos) and "his wife" (autos gynē) are not in the plural form. So these are not translation issues, and these words should be in the singular since Jesus is quoting Genesis chapter 1 and 2.

    Now, yes, the direct subject is divorce, but within that subject is the context of marriage and Jesus states marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman, not many women and one man or many men and one woman or whatever else.

    Yes, the Bible records that in ancient times even people of God practiced polygamy just like they practiced other taboo things that people around them practiced and God worked with them despite that. God did not wholesale say, "Polygamy is okay." He didn't wholesale say "Polygamy is punishable by death or anything." Even the twelve tribes of Israel came from a polygamous marriage between Jacob, Leah, and Rachel. David also had multiple wives and so did Solomon. Yet, and here's the issue you have, as showed, when covering the subject of marriage, Jesus recites Genesis which indicates marriage was intended to be monogamous.

    Jesus further points out within the context of one man/one woman monogamy that if someone has an unjustified divorce, he was addressing men at the time, and remarries another person then they commit adultery.

    Matthew 19: 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
    Again, this statement is after He answers the first question about divorce with the context being one man/one woman monogamous marriage. Where it is translated in verse 8, "your wives" in the Greek it is in the singular form, but contextually it makes sense to translate it in the plural since Jesus is addressing a group according to Matthew 19:7 which is the same group from Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees.

    All this shows that according to God, marriage was created to be between one man and one woman. It is humanity that came along and decided otherwise. The patriarchs weren't perfect nor were 1st century Christians perfect nor Christians today. God may be lenient with imperfections, but leniency for a time to accomplish something is not the same as God ordaining polygamous marriage.

    Each time this occurred in the Bible it was through the will of the human practicing it. Jacob was tricked and thus decided he would marry Rachel. David first married Michal after being pushed by Saul to do so (1 Samuel 18:20-27) even while separated from her, he considered her to be his wife. Yet, David married Ahinoam, who may have been Michal's mother despite Leviticus 20:14. David went on to acquire more wives with the most infamous being Bathsheba in which he committed adultery with her and then murder to try to cover his sin.

    Now here's the question, especially with David. Do we say all the things, the bad things he did are "okay" because they're recorded in the Bible and God doesn't always come right out with the rebuke immediately? David was eventually rebuked by Nathan and the product of his many wives led to division in his kingdom. Same with Solomon, etc.

    At the end of the day, Jesus defined God's ideal institution of marriage as One man/One woman. God defined it this way in the beginning and then again in the New Testament. Humanity, as usual, came along with the corruption.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2020
  16. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
     
  17. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +8,382
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    I simply accept the true definition of adultery, as Jesus defined it. I leave the judgment of Abraham and David to God. Under the New Covenant, no married man or woman is to get involved romantically or sexually with a person other than their spouse, which logically eliminates the possibility of sinlessly acquiring a second spouse. To deny this is to deny the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-32 and Matthew 19:4-9 which I will not do.
     
  18. BroRoyVa79

    BroRoyVa79 Member

    232
    +112
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Since you answered my post within your quote, I hope I don't misunderstand any of your responses due to that. Also, I had to split this in two due to character restrictions.

    I said:
    You replied:
    It is a system of interpretation that deals with the context (linguistic, cultural, historical, literary etc.) of the Bible as written. It is only with the Bible that people (and other things when people want to do this, but mostly the Bible) that people like to play fast and loose with interpretations.

    Plus, what I provided was not an interpretation. It was using the Bible, what was in the text, to deduce what God's answer would be regarding polygamy.

    Your rebuttal takes Proverbs 22:6 out of context in an attempt to try to rebut Genesis 1:27 that I took in context. Especially when we already know God ordained couples to have multiple children so we know from that revelation that Proverbs 22:6 is figurative expression teaching a lesson applicable to multiple children the couple would have. Also, especially given Proverbs is poetic in genre meaning it is full of figurative expressions meant to teach lessons.

    Whereas, Genesis 1:27; 2:24-25 is establishing a fundamental definition of God's ordained union between a man and a woman.

    Also, where in scripture does God ordain, bless, whatever that specifically says that one man/many women marriages/unions, or any other different marriage/union are okay as compared to the obvious passages that shows God prefers one man/one woman marriages? Please show me.

    I said:
    You replied:
    I don't have a problem with Adam and Eve's children intermarrying early in human history to populate the earth. Nor do I have a problem with the grandchildren of Noah and his wife doing the same. But that is not the point of this topic. That is incest, which was necessary to initially populate the world and repopulate it after the flood. Once the population was at an adequate level, God dealt with it. Plus, we aren't talking about incest, we are talking about polygamy.

    I said:
    You replied:
    First, Jesus quoting Genesis says a lot. God establishes His original plan for humanity in Genesis, it is foundational to theology found throughout the rest of the Bible. In Genesis, God didn't create two women, one man, He created one man and one woman and went on to bless their union.

    Thousands of years later, God in the flesh, Jesus, when asked a question in the context of marriage reiterates the original plan God had for man and woman, that it was meant to be a one man/one woman unbroken union. I don't know how else to emphasize that point.

    Second, David's wives. Only eight are mentioned by name in scripture and only three are given great details about their involvements with David.

    Michal was given to David by Saul, her father, in an attempt for Saul to use Michal to keep tabs on David. This was after David turned down Merab, Saul's eldest daughter. It was Saul's servants who were instructed by Saul who persuaded David to marry Michal. In that entire situation, David didn't go to God once about the situation. He performed the task of killing 200 Philistines, a task Saul set because he thought the Philistines would kill David, but they didn't. Yes, the Lord protected David in all this due to who David was meant to be, but David did not go to the Lord about Michal. There was no "David you shall marry Michal" from the Lord. There's not even a strong implication. The only implication here is that God protected David from Saul's schemes to kill him and Michal loved David. That's it. Beyond that, God was with David as He had been since David's birth since God had chosen him to replace Saul. There's nothing in this text to indicate God blessed David's future polygamy. See: 1 Samuel 18-19.

    Quoted passage for emphasis:
    1 Samuel 18: 21 Saul thought, “Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David a second time, “You shall now be my son-in-law.” (ESV, Emphasis mine)

    Abigail was initially the wife of Nabal, a man who was known to be inhospitable, worthless, rude, etc. David, while away from home, tried to, in so many words, get work by sending some of his men to guard Nabal's men. Instead, Nabal's men were rude to David's soldiers. Thus, David sought to repay Nabal by killing Nabal's flock. Abigail went to David and appeased his anger. When Abigail went back to her husband, Nabal, and told him that David's army had come to kill him had she not intervened the man a heart attack and about ten days later the Lord took him away. (1 Sam:25:37-38) Afterward, it was David who sent for Abigail and married her. It wasn't God who sent her to him or him to her. See: 1 Samuel 25.

    Quoted passages for emphasis:
    1 Samuel 25: 39 When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the Lord who has avenged the insult I received at the hand of Nabal, and has kept back his servant from wrongdoing. The Lord has returned the evil of Nabal on his own head.” Then David sent and spoke to Abigail, to take her as his wife. (ESV, Emphasis mine)

    1 Samuel 25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and both of them became his wives. 44 Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was of Gallim. (ESV, Emphasis mine)
    Notice something here. Although we know Saul didn't like David, it appears Saul also didn't like David marrying another woman as he gave Michal to another man. Interesting. Yes, I know David got her back, but their story (David and Michal) is not one of peace and harmony after this.

    Bathsheba, her story with David is well known and is used to show the dangers of infidelity. Yet, we're not talking about infidelity now, we're talking about polygamy and as shown, Saul gave a wife to David then took her away when David married two other women whom David took for himself. To say God gave these women to David ignores what the recorded text tells us. Still, David saw Bathsheba, saw that she was beautiful, lusted after her then when he found out she was pregnant, he killed her legal husband to try to cover for his sins. To say God gave David Bathsheba is to say God was okaying infidelity and murder to cover one's sins. This also ignores that God sent Nathan to rebuke David immediately after this and through David's actions, his womanizing I might add, he cursed his household. So to look at this and say somehow God was alright with David's practice of polygamy when it led to this is definitely reading that into the text. See: 2 Samuel 11 and 12.

    Now beyond Abigail, Michal, and Bathsheba, the rest of David's wives are listed in genealogies. See: 2 Samuel 3:2-5 and its counterpart 1 Chronicles 3:1-3, and unnamed wives as recorded in 2 Samuel 5:13.

    Nothing in these texts indicate God wholesale said "Polygamy is alright," as I said. At the least, God worked with flawed human beings as He's always done.

    I said:
    You replied:
    The context of divorce is marriage. You can't have a divorce without being in a marriage first. Yes, it's the end of a marriage, but marriage is the beginning of a divorce. Get it?

    So the Pharisees asked about divorce. Jesus replied that marriage was never intended to be something that would be broken by quoting Genesis and stating that God made one man and one woman and for that reason a man will leave his parents and marry his wife (singular in the Greek). He didn't say a man would leave his parents and marry his wives.

    I stated the direct context, but there is also an implication there of what marriage is since Jesus reiterates the fundamental passages of Genesis that also define marriage.

    I said:
    You replied:
    Moot, we're talking about Biblical support of polygamy. One could argue God giving mankind dominion over creation allows for mankind to venture into the cosmos, but that is another topic.

    You also replied:
    Pleas show me where God commanded the taking of additional wives by the Patriarchs and that it is not the Patriarchs doing this on their own or anyone else other than God encouraging the Patriarchs to practice this. Nor can it be that later God is just using their flawed nature and flawed decisions to work good. Please show me supporting texts.

    God spoke specifically against this for kings when He established a people for Himself because He knew it would cause problems. (See Solomon)

    Deuteronomy 17:17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. (ESV, Emphasis mine)

    Just because the Bible records later or before that men and women didn't hold to God's original plan or his commands, doesn't mean He was alright with it. Just because at that moment He didn't always or doesn't always strike someone dead when they do something, doesn't mean He is alright with it.

    Numbers 14: 18 The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

    2 Peter 3: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

    To add to this, later in the New Testament, again when guidelines for his people are established, Church leaders, monogamous (one man/one woman) marriages are emphasized. I see no support in the Biblical texts to indicate God is alright with polygamy beyond the implication that He worked with flawed humanity to achieve His overall purpose which was to establish a people in which to bring the savior into the world through them.

    You also replied:
    You realize Paul is rebuking sexual immorality here on the basis that God ordained man to be with one woman which is why he quotes Genesis there. Paul is advocating people to be monogamous by quoting "the two shall be one flesh." You are twisting his words by saying otherwise.

    Sure, a man, or woman, can sleep with many people and give themselves to many people in intimacy. That is possible. That's not the point, the point is that that's not the intended reason for God creating intimacy between a man and a woman, the intention was for one man to find one woman and be intimate with her and her with him for the rest of their lives. That's the point. You're taking this verse out of context.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020
  19. BroRoyVa79

    BroRoyVa79 Member

    232
    +112
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Part Two

    I said:

    We've covered this. If you don't get that Jesus' citation of Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24-25 is a clear indication that God advocates a one man/one woman marriage union then do you support other types of marriages between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, etc.? Because that's where this starting to go if you want to ignore both Genesis and Jesus' emphasis on the one woman/one man marriage union and that that union was intended to be unbroken once established.

    It was humanity who established polygamy in Genesis 4, seven generations from Adam when Lamech took two wives according to the Bible. It wasn't God who established polygamy in Genesis 1-2. That's the point. God did not ordain polygamy, His purpose was and always has been one man/one woman marriage.

    That's not eisegesis, that's letting the text say what it says and understanding it with proper reading comprehension, literary context, linguistic context, historical context, cultural context, theological context, etc. You're the one doing theological and reading gymnastics to jump around it to get it to say it doesn't say that.

    I said:
    You said:
    First, what did I actually say that you are replying to?
    "The patriarchs weren't perfect nor were 1st century Christians perfect nor Christians today. God may be lenient with imperfections, but leniency for a time to accomplish something is not the same as God ordaining polygamous marriage."

    Nothing in that says it was adultery. I said mankind came up with polygamy when God's plan was one man/one woman marriages. God worked with sinful humanity just like He does today. If I go out and steal something am I going to get struck down in that moment, die, and go to hell? If I go out and cheat on my wife, am I going to get struck down in that moment, die, and go to hell? Even if I life a full life and die of natural causes, is there no chance for me to reconcile with God and fix an estranged relationship with him. Return to 2 Peter 3:9 above, God wishes no one to perish, yes many still do. God is longsuffering, patient, and merciful, etc.

    Look at David. He committed adultery, killed a man to cover it up, and was rebuked, but God still brought Jesus from his lineage, right?

    You also said:
    The text is in the singular when it comes to the wife issue. There's no getting around that. Again, you have to dance around it on other things to ignore the obvious indication that whenever God talks about marriage, it's a one man/one woman thing but when humans talk about marriage, even when it's recorded in the Bible, it's a corrupted institution.

    God didn't remain silent on it, you're just ignoring what He said or trying to say it meant something else or it didn't mean what it says or implies. Let's go through the thought process again. I highlighted the important parts so you could see the reality:

    1. God creates one man and one woman (not one man and multiple women, man and man, woman and woman, or one woman and multiple men) God ordains their union.
    2. Lamech (a human) comes along and takes two wives.
    3. Humanity practices polygamy. God uses these flawed humans to achieve His purpose.
    4. When God is establishing His laws for Israel, the people the Messiah would come through, He tells them that when they ask for a king that their king is not to take too many wives else it would lead them to ruin. Yes, He also establishes laws for the proper treatment of a second wife because He is God and knew His people would still practice this.
    4. Jesus comes along and when asked about divorce in the context of marriage, Jesus replies that God made one man/one woman and thus one man/one woman will get married and Moses allowed them to divorce because of the wickedness of their hearts indicating that God intended for one man/one woman to get married and for that union to go unbroken until death.
    5. As inspired by the Holy Spirit, when writing guidelines for Church leaders under the New Covenant and leaders for God's people, the Apostles advocated one man/one woman marriages for these leaders. They did not advocate one man/many women, one woman/many men, man/man, woman/woman, etc. marriages.​

    None of the above is direct support for polygamy, especially now when its not in practice in culture. When it was in practice in culture, God worked with those humans who were practicing it to achieve His purpose just like He worked with plenty of other flawed humans who were Patriarchs, Prophets, etc. and He works with flawed humans today who are Pastors, Preachers, Teachers, Christians, etc.

    I said:
    You replied:
    I showed what the text in Samuel says about how David got Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba. These were through the machinations of Saul and/or David. Yes Nathan quoted God saying "‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more." (2 Samuel 12:7-8) But we know from reading the events that God did not actively give these wives to David, God supported David because of the purpose He had for David, but that was it.

    These were the spoils of David's victory as understood in the context of that culture. In other words, God gave Saul's possessions to David which included the wives. This was common practice during ancient times when one king claimed another king's possessions for whatever reason. The wives of the losing king didn't just up and go back home, no, they became the property of the winner. That's understanding that passage through the theological, historical, and cultural context. 2 Samuel 12:8 is not a wholesale theological okay for polygamy nor is it saying God told David, "Go forth and marry multiple wives." It's saying God worked within the flawed nature of human culture at the time despite David, being an Israelite, ignoring things like Deuteronomy 17:17 among other things.

    Now you can dance around that all you like. Even if we allow that this text advocates polygamy, it's just one text in the confines of a culture that already practiced polygamy. That's it. To take this one text and try to apply it all over is bad practice. It's called cherry picking.

    I said:
    You replied:
    Through reading the entire story of David we learn a few things about him in the context of the narrative. 1) David was a lustful womanizer which led to 2) his adultery with Bathsheba which led to 3) his murder of her husband, Uriah. Thus we can conclude, if a man believes he can have multiple women then the man will act on that belief and that would inevitably cause problems for him (and the women). Everywhere in scripture where there are details of men who act on that belief or are even coerced or persuaded to do it, it caused problems for them and their families. Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, Jacob, Rebekah, and Leah, David, Solomon, etc. That's what David did and it led to his and his houses destruction.

    Yes, the final straw was what happened between him, Bathsheba, and his indirect murder of Uriah.

    Again, Deuteronomy 17:17 which was written thousands of years before David states as a commandment to Israel's future kings:

    And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.​

    To say this didn't happen to David ignores what the text records in its entirety rather than one or two verses here and there or one event here and there. The entire story of David reveals his weakness was women with the finality being his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. His son, Solomon, also suffered this weakness as did Absalom. One wonders who they got it from.

    Again, the Bible never directly encourages polygamy, it allowed it because it was in practice. That's it. There is no ordination by God for the institution of polygamy like there is for monogamy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020
  20. SwordmanJr

    SwordmanJr Double-edged Sword only

    +390
    Christian
    Private
    Yet again you not only add to scripture what isn't there, you add to what I said elements that are not there. What's the use in trying to have an honest and logical discussion with you when you refuse to properly and accurately represent what others have written? It's pointless.

    Jr
     
Loading...