Polygamy or Polyamory

[Ave Maria]

What do you all think of Polygamy or Polyamory? It is not specificially condoned or condemned in the Bible right? If it is, please specify where including book, chapter, and verse. I personally believe that God will bless such a relationship if it is focused on Him. What do you think?

 

[.Mikha'el.]

You are wrong. It is condemned. Paul wrote, in 1 Corinthians 7:2 "Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."

That is taken from the New King James Version.

 

[Ave Maria]

I fail to see how that condemns polygamy or polyamory.

[bible]1 Corinthians 7:2[/bible]

If you ask me, that verse is merely saying that men and women should get married in order to avoid fornication. Basically it's saying get married so you won't fornicate.

 

[PaladinValer]

Do you see a plural? I don't.

And both have been against Christian orthodoxy since Day One historically anyway.

 

[Ave Maria]

Do you see a plural? I don't.

And both have been against Christian orthodoxy since Day One historically anyway.

No I don't see a plural. But I think that is reading too much into the verse anyway. Here is the same verse in the English Standard Version:

2But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Basically it is saying that in order to avoid sexual immorality one should have a spouse. It doesn't necessarily mean that one needs to have only one spouse.

 

[PetticoatLace]

Looking at 1 Corinthians Chapter 7:

1: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
2: But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3: The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
4: For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
5: Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
6: I say this by way of concession, not of command.

By looking at this as a whole: the last statement is something which I feel makes intentions clear of the above "I say this by way of concession, not of command"
So I personally take this as not a command, just different ways one can keep from sinning by lust. To me love or commitment isn't about lust, but love.

Also- I truely believe that Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and many others were not sinning when involved in a plural marriage, and believe that God blessed them with their wives.

 

[Ave Maria]

Looking at 1 Corinthians Chapter 7:

1: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
2: But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3: The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
4: For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
5: Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
6: I say this by way of concession, not of command.

By looking at this as a whole: the last statement is something which I feel makes intentions clear of the above "I say this by way of concession, not of command"
So I personally take this is not a command, just different ways one can keep from sinning by lust. To me love or commitment isn't about lust, but love.

Also- I truely believe that Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and many others were not sinning when involved in a plural marriage, and believe that God blessed them with their wives.

Good post! As you say, the last verse says it all. It is not a command!

 

[porcupine]

When asked about the subject of marriage, Jesus reached back to the creation of it and said:

Matthew 19:4-5
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Jesus reference to the origins denoted God's purpose. Not only did God not create "Adam and Steve," He did not create Adam, Eve, Georgette, Becky, and Alice. Jesus says they "twain" (two) are made one flesh. I think this should tell us something.

As an aside, When Mark Twain debated a Mormon, the Mormon challenged Twain to produce a single Bible verse that opposed polygamy. "That's easy," remarked Twain, "'No man can serve two masters'!"

 

[Ave Maria]

When asked about the subject of marriage, Jesus reached back to the creation of it and said:

Matthew 19:4-5
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Jesus reference to the origins denoted God's purpose. Not only did God not create "Adam and Steve," He did not create Adam, Eve, Georgette, Becky, and Alice. Jesus says they "twain" (two) are made one flesh. I think this should tell us something.

As an aside, When Mark Twain debated a Mormon, the Mormon challenged Twain to produce a single Bible verse that opposed polygamy. "That's easy," remarked Twain, "'No man can serve two masters'!"

Then why were there so many polygamous relationships in the Old Testament? King David was polygamous! And isn't he listed as one of the most righteous men in the Bible?

 

[TheDag]

Then why were there so many polygamous relationships in the Old Testament? King David was polygamous! And isn't he listed as one of the most righteous men in the Bible?

Following your logic here Holly it must be ok to get drunk because Noah did and it mentions that in the bible. Just because people did things and it was mentioned in the bible doesn't mean it was right. I believe David was considered very righteous because he was open to God telling him he'd done the wrong thing and as a result would repent. He admitted he stuffed up but always repented. Sin is sin in Gods eyes. It is us who likes to classify some sins as being worse than others. People often see lying as a small sin alittle harmless white lie but in Acts we read how two people were struck down because they lied about something which they didn't need to lie about in the first place.

 

[porcupine]

Then why were there so many polygamous relationships in the Old Testament? King David was polygamous! And isn't he listed as one of the most righteous men in the Bible?

This was something God, I think, allowed because of the "hardness of men's hearts" as He did with divorce. Remember that Paul even told those at Mars Hill that God "winked at" some idolatry in the OT, but now was calling men to repent. God has authority not to call every practice into full accountability at one time, and later begin to press the requirement.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You are wrong. It is condemned. Paul wrote, in 1 Corinthians 7:2 "Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."

That is taken from the New King James Version.

Speaking of wrong, you are trying to utilize a reflexive pronoun as being a numeric limiter, which cannot at all be shown to be the intent within the text. Not one of the interpretational disciplines would ever buy into your misapplication of the rules for interpretation. Also, you have violated the context of that verse. The number of wives to which a man is limited is not at all the object of the context.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Do you see a plural? I don't.

The plural is not used when a father is instructed to bring up his son (singular) in the admonition of the Lord. Does that then mean that we are limited to having only one son? Come on. Let's at least be honest by not picking and choosing obscure weaknesses within the text to create an entire system of doctrine on such shabby grounding.

And both have been against Christian orthodoxy since Day One historically anyway.

Fortunately, christian orthodoxy is not a TRUE believer's source of doctrinal authority. Referring to orthodoxy is a referral to that which is subjective since they all have their own bent upon scripture, as is evidenced in each denomination's disagreement with one another on various scriptural issues.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I truely believe that Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and many others were not sinning when involved in a plural marriage, and believe that God blessed them with their wives.

Very good point. As a matter of fact, God gave to David at least two of his already plural wives. What does that say about God's mind on plural marriage? Quite a bit, actually, but most people today are left with nothing but knee-jerk reactionism on this issue because most have never relied upon any personal study of this subject, but rather rely mostly upon their own socially dictated assumptions.

BTW

 

[alabaster jar]

If you read the OT stories the wives fight all the time and have hard feelings for each other, even banning some outright from the family. Each wife favors her own blood. Wives who are barren are especially vexed to see the other wives producing heirs. To me the bible itself shows the hardships of polygamy. It isn't all about pleasure and happily ever after.

I notice with each wife they do seem to get younger, too, as the man gets older. The first wife, of course, has the most authority. I know I wouldn't be too keen on having another woman boss me around. But each to her own I guess.

Must be fun, too, to be around a house full of PMSing women!

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Jesus reference to the origins denoted God's purpose. Not only did God not create "Adam and Steve," He did not create Adam, Eve, Georgette, Becky, and Alice. Jesus says they "twain" (two) are made one flesh. I think this should tell us something.

Relying upon what Adam was given is not a measure for all mankind in a fallen world. Adam lived within a ideal environment, we do not. So what?

What we see is that God gave to Adam one wife, but He gave to king David several wives. So, what exactly is your point?

Adam was given one wife from whom all mankind was to come forth. It was God's perfect wisdom to NOT create yet another reason for racism to exist. Imagine the wars and genocide if mankind had come forth from more than one woman. We would have had the Evites, and Maryites, the Ellenites, etc.

Also, Adam was given a wife who originated from his own side. I was not. Does that mean I was short-changed? Was it not God's perfect will for my wife to come only from my side since that is where Adam's was taken? Come now, let us not bounce off into nonsensical reasonings that have little to nothing at all to do with allegedly defining God's will for all mankind.

As an aside, When Mark Twain debated a Mormon, the Mormon challenged Twain to produce a single Bible verse that opposed polygamy. "That's easy," remarked Twain, "'No man can serve two masters'!"

Yes, well, this makes for a good rib-tickler, but hardly authoritative. It also pokes fun at a very real problem of so many men being spineless.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Following your logic here Holly it must be ok to get drunk because Noah did and it mentions that in the bible.

That's not what she was saying. God gave David several wives. God also portrayed Himself as having more than one wife. If it were wrong, then I think we have good reason to believe that the Lord would never have aligned Himself with what He considers to be evil. What another mere man did was not at all an issue with Holly. If you read what she actually said, then this would have been clear.

Just because people did things and it was mentioned in the bible doesn't mean it was right. I believe David was considered very righteous because he was open to God telling him he'd done the wrong thing and as a result would repent. He admitted he stuffed up but always repented. Sin is sin in Gods eyes. It is us who likes to classify some sins as being worse than others. People often see lying as a small sin alittle harmless white lie but in Acts we read how two people were struck down because they lied about something which they didn't need to lie about in the first place.

Yes, but having more than one wife was not a sin, because if it were, then God Himself stands accused for His having given to David plural wives.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

This was something God, I think, allowed because of the "hardness of men's hearts" as He did with divorce.

Really? Where is that in the Bible? If you think it, then what authority are you relying upon as foundation for that thought?

Remember that Paul even told those at Mars Hill that God "winked at" some idolatry in the OT, but now was calling men to repent.

Are you then accusing God of sin? You can't have it both ways.

God has authority not to call every practice into full accountability at one time, and later begin to press the requirement.

This strikes at the heart of nothing we can deffinitely place our finger upon. Having more than one wife is far removed from one having to account when we observe the many examples throughout the scriptures, some of which directly involved the Lord Himself.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

If you read the OT stories the wives fight all the time and have hard feelings for each other, even banning some outright from the family.

If this could be any further from the truth, then we would have a grandiose example of that which is beyond infinity. Can you show me where any one of Gideons many wives fought at all? How about Abraham's other wives besides Sarah and Hagar? Did any of them fight? We are not told that they did. What about the many other men who had more than one wife, of whom we never hear of any strife?

Each wife favors her own blood.

Is this a professional opinion? Quite frankly, I do not accept this or any other stereotyping of all women. It's too convenient.

Wives who are barren are especially vexed to see the other wives producing heirs.

Not in every culture. It is dishonest to take a few examples and smear them across the world as being the norm.

To me the bible itself shows the hardships of polygamy. It isn't all about pleasure and happily ever after.

Are you saying that it doesn't portray hardshhips in monogamy? Adam and Eve had perhaps the most brazen hardship of all, which has affected all our lives since. What version of the Bible do you read? I have yet to see a version that does not portray harships in BOTH arenas of marriage. There may be a Good-Ship LollyPop Version I have not yet seen, but what I have seen lays out for us all to see that fallen humanity is riddled with hardship no matter what area of life we may observe. Look at all the hardships in monogamy all around us on a daily basis. I mean, who is fooling who here?

I notice with each wife they do seem to get younger, too, as the man gets older. The first wife, of course, has the most authority. I know I wouldn't be too keen on having another woman boss me around. But each to her own I guess.

It varied from family to family.

Must be fun, too, to be around a house full of PMSing women!

This is somewhat strange coming from a woman.

BTW

 

[Ave Maria]

This was something God, I think, allowed because of the "hardness of men's hearts" as He did with divorce. Remember that Paul even told those at Mars Hill that God "winked at" some idolatry in the OT, but now was calling men to repent. God has authority not to call every practice into full accountability at one time, and later begin to press the requirement.

Do you have Biblical evidence to back this up? I want clear Biblical evidence to back this up before I believe it. Besides, God gave some of the people their plural marriages!

If you read the OT stories the wives fight all the time and have hard feelings for each other, even banning some outright from the family. Each wife favors her own blood. Wives who are barren are especially vexed to see the other wives producing heirs. To me the bible itself shows the hardships of polygamy. It isn't all about pleasure and happily ever after.

I notice with each wife they do seem to get younger, too, as the man gets older. The first wife, of course, has the most authority. I know I wouldn't be too keen on having another woman boss me around. But each to her own I guess.

Must be fun, too, to be around a house full of PMSing women!

And you don't think that monogamous marriage can be difficult too? Look at the divorce rate! I think that speaks for itself about the difficulty of monogamous marriage which is the "norm" here in America.

And besides, just because something is hard doesn't mean it can't be done. Any serious relationship can and will be hard at times. But that isn't a good reason to not have a serious relationship.