Scripturally, what's wrong with polygamy?

[solemn_dove]

Message deleted

 

[Carico]

Jesus's words established that polygamy is unscriptural. The ones who don't want to hear His words will keep looking until they find something different. Again, one has to use the Holy Spirit and an understanding of the fruits of the spirit in order to understand His message. The ones who don't have the spirit inside them will discern throguh the desires of the flesh. That is the chief reason there is so much misinterpretation of the bible.

 

[snerkel]

How does the definition of "cleave" infer that polygyny is comprised of unloyalty and no steadfastness?
It is quite possible to have loyalty and steadfastness in polygyny - I don't understand how you are saying that it doesn't. You are going to have to be more descriptive than that, because your interpretation is not what is natural to me.

In Scripture, human nature (flesh - what is natural to man) is noted as being apart from divine influence and prone to sin. However, it was my understanding that we were looking at what Scripture teaches, not personal feelings.

The Scripture I offered speaks of twain (Greek - duo) people becoming one, does it not? Can you offer information that changes the translation of the Greek in this passage?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Jesus's words established that polygamy is unscriptural. The ones who don't want to hear His words will keep looking until they find something different. Again, one has to use the Holy Spirit and an understanding of the fruits of the spirit in order to understand His message. The ones who don't have the spirit inside them will discern throguh the desires of the flesh. That is the chief reason there is so much misinterpretation of the bible.

You have not shown how Jesus' words established polygyny as unscriptural. Also, for your information, I have been searching hard to find justification for monogamy only, not the other way around - so your claim that those who "don't want to hear His words" will have to look hard to support polygyny is unsupported. This is one of those cases where the Bible, to me, seems pretty blatantly clear about polygyny - hence my reason for starting this thread. I can't find any support for monogamy only, and thought if so many believe it, there must be at least a little support. If you think there is, then please share.

 

[Carico]

Jesus said, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at another woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." He makes it very clear that lust is a sin. Only when it is used as God created it which is "God made them male and female, for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." He did not say that a man must leave his father and mother to become one flesh with many women. In order to truly understand Christ's message, one cannot just look for a phrase here and there. You have to understand Jesus's whole message for us which are to cultivate the fruits of the spirit, not the desires of the flesh. Jesus also said, "others have renounced marriage because of the kingodm of heaven". In other words, the less wolrdly appetites a man has, the more his desires will be spiritual rather than worldly. The concept of a man having many wives to satisfy his sexual appetites are desires of the flesh rather than desires of the spirit.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Jesus said, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at another woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." He makes it very clear that lust is a sin.

Indeed. He said whoever is angry with his brother without cause is also committing murder in his heart? Why? Murder by our definition is not thinking bad thoughts about someone, nor is it a desire to take a life - murder is acting on those desires and ending someone's life. So Jesus was saying that even desiring to take a life unjustly was murder. The sin was born with the desire, not with the fulfillment of the action.
So then, what is adultery? It is a man sleeping with another man's wife. That is the Scriptural and historical definition. So then, a man (married or not) who lusts after another man's wife has already committed adultery in his heart. After all, a plain reading of Jesus' words says even looking at his own wife lustfully is adultery in his heart. We naturally exclude that from this sin because we know that lusting after your own wife is not adultery. Therefore this passage is not a condemnation against polygyny, but rather telling us that as soon as the desire to have wicked intercourse with another man's wife we have committed adultery in our heart.

New King James translation:
"But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - as far as I can see in the greek there is no inclusion of "another woman" - it's just talking about any woman. So we don't find our interpretation of adultery in this passage, merely that Christ tells us we have committed adultery even if we just desire it.

Only when it is used as God created it which is "God made them male and female, for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." He did not say that a man must leave his father and mother to become one flesh with many women.

God did not condemn becoming one flesh with more than one woman anywhere. Nor does the singular imply a rule for everyone. There is a passage where it says something along the lines of "tell this story to your son, and your son's son". We don't infer from that that a Christian couple can have only one son. If polygyny is truly adultery, then God would have told that. As it stands, the Biblical definition of adultery, as far as I can see, does not prohibit polygyny (but it does polyandry).

In order to truly understand Christ's message, one cannot just look for a phrase here and there. You have to understand Jesus's whole message for us which are to cultivate the fruits of the spirit, not the desires of the flesh. Jesus also said, "others have renounced marriage because of the kingodm of heaven". In other words, the less wolrdly appetites a man has, the more his desires will be spiritual rather than worldly. The concept of a man having many wives to satisfy his sexual appetites are desires of the flesh rather than desires of the spirit.

You have not yet established that polygyny is sinful. If you can demonstrate that, then I will start to be able to interpret other passages in the same way. And please, stop saying that men only have multiple wives to satisfy sexual appetites - how many polygynists do you know? I don't know any, but I cannot assume automatically their motives for entering such a relationship.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

In Scripture, human nature (flesh - what is natural to man) is noted as being apart from divine influence and prone to sin. However, it was my understanding that we were looking at what Scripture teaches, not personal feelings.

It was you that made mention of loyalty and steadfastness being lacking in polygynist relationships, not me.

The Scripture I offered speaks of twain (Greek - duo) people becoming one, does it not? Can you offer information that changes the translation of the Greek in this passage?

I'm not disputing that the two become one flesh. What I am saying is that one man can become one flesh with more than one woman at the same time.

 

[Carico]

If you do not see the sin in polygamy, Tyreth, then you do not understand Christ's message, nor do you understand the concept of sin. I've already said that sin is valuing the desires of the flesh. So is polygamy.It does appear to me that you are looking for justification for polygamy because Jesus's stand on monogamy is quite clear to me.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

If you do not see the sin in polygamy, Tyreth, then you do not understand Christ's message, nor do you understand the concept of sin. I've already said that sin is valuing the desires of the flesh. So is polygamy.It does appear to me that you are looking for justification for polygamy because Jesus's stand on monogamy is quite clear to me.

It is NOT a sin for a man to desire a wife, yet this is a desire of the flesh.
How am I looking for justification? There is no Scripture that I have found that teaches monogamy only, yet numerous ones that teach polygyny is acceptable. Please, if you think the case is so clear in His words then by all means tell me.

 

[Carico]

If you do not understand Jesus's message, it's spelled out in 1Timothy, 3:2, "Now an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable..." Timothy is saying that it is not respectable to be married to more than one wife. All through 1Co. under the heading of marriage, Paul talks about a wife and her husband or a husband and his wife. He never refers to a husband and his wives and a wife and her husbands. Neither does Jesus. Again, in order to understand what is a sin and what isn't, you have to be able to understand the concept of sin. Sin is desires of the flesh, period. It is envy, pride, lust, wrath, gluttony, sloth and greed. Wanting more than one wife is lust and greed. But committing oneslef to one person and forsaking all others is love.

 

[snerkel]

It was you that made mention of loyalty and steadfastness being lacking in polygynist relationships, not me.

I defined the term cleave according to Scripture and Merriam-Webster dictionary. The definitions were not based on personal feeling or opinion.

I'm not disputing that the two become one flesh. What I am saying is that one man can become one flesh with more than one woman at the same time.

Paul addresses this issue due to questions that had been put before him:
1 Corinthians 7:1-4
1 NOW AS to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried.
2 But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [man] have his own wife and let each [woman] have her own husband.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (goodwill, kindness, and what is due her as his wife), and likewise the wife to her husband.
4 For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority and control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority and control over his body, but the wife [has her rights].
So according to Scripture, it is not possible for a man to become one flesh with more than one woman.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

If you do not understand Jesus's message, it's spelled out in 1Timothy, 3:2, "Now an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable..." Timothy is saying that it is not respectable to be married to more than one wife. All through 1Co. under the heading of marriage, Paul talks about a wife and her husband or a husband and his wife. He never refers to a husband and his wives and a wife and her husbands. Neither does Jesus. Again, in order to understand what is a sin and what isn't, you have to be able to understand the concept of sin. Sin is desires of the flesh, period. It is envy, pride, lust, wrath, gluttony, sloth and greed. Wanting more than one wife is lust and greed. But committing oneslef to one person and forsaking all others is love.

I'm getting a little tired of this. A lot of this has already been covered in this thread, and we're just going over old ground. It would be good to read through this whole thread first if you haven't already.

First things first - you said that Jesus' message was clear with what you had already quoted. It is not. I'll tell you plainly what I think:
I think that you were born into a culture that taught monogamy only. Because polygyny is so culturally unacceptable, it is in your mind repugnant. You therefore conclude that Jesus message must contain a prohibition of it. Therefore, coming from the position that polygyny must be condemned by God, you try to find passages which seem to support your position. ie, you haven't found strong support of your position, but rather you already knew what you believed before you went looking to see what the Scriptures say.
In my reading the Scriptures overwhelmingly teach the acceptability and sinlessness of polygyny. Such is testified to in this thread before you joined the conversation. Now you tell me that Jesus' words are clear - I want you to point out the clarity. You have given some passages that make just as much (and sometimes more) sense under a polygynist interpretation. There is no prohibition of polygyny that I have found.

This Timothy verse is the closest that the Scripture comes to condemning polygyny. You think the case is clear without this verse, so please demonstrate. I will point out that the Timothy verse is subject to many interpretations, but before I give you a response I have this question for you: Did Paul write "husband of one wife" specifically to outlaw polygyny? Was that the reason he put it in there?

I feel that you haven't given me any evidence. You have believed polygyny is wrong a priori, and given that you have quoted Scripture which in your interpretation speaks of monogamy only. Unfortunately you haven't realised that these passages are not a problem for polygyny either.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

1 Corinthians 7:1-4

1 NOW AS to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried.

2 But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [man] have his own wife and let each [woman] have her own husband.

3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (goodwill, kindness, and what is due her as his wife), and likewise the wife to her husband.

4 For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority and control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority and control over his body, but the wife [has her rights].

So according to Scripture, it is not possible for a man to become one flesh with more than one woman.

Where does it say a man cannot become flesh with more than one woman?
Answer me this question - with which wife was David "one flesh"? Was he an adulterer with his other wives? (excluding bathsheeba with whom it was obviously adultery)

 

[Carico]

I don't see any place where it says "wives", or "husbands" unless you're inserting them in there yourself.

 

[snerkel]

Where does it say a man cannot become flesh with more than one woman?

It is obvious in the paradox offered in 1 Corinthians 7:4. His body is not his own to 'become one flesh' with more than one woman and vice versa.

Answer me this question - with which wife was David "one flesh"? Was he an adulterer with his other wives? (excluding bathsheeba with whom it was obviously adultery)

Why is it only obvious with Bathsheeba? David violated the Law forbidding the Kings of Israel to have more than one wife.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20

 

[solemn_dove]

2 Sam 12:7-9
7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! 9 Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.
NKJV

Now, Snerkel, crystal clear in the above passage is the statement that God gave David Saul's wives, and would have given him more if that were not enough. David's sin with Bathsheba was not that he had a plurality of wives, it was that he took another man's wife and then had him killed in battle, obviously a much different scenario. I have yet to see any scripture that forbids kings to have more than one wife. I have seen the passage that forbids the multiplying of wives, but that clearly is an injunction against excess...not a command to only have a single wife. However repugnant any of us may find polygyny emotionally, the clear and unequivocal evidence of scripture is that it is not condemned. God does not give sinful gifts, He does not tolerate unrighteousness, and He does not use unrighteous means to acheive righteous ends. All of the discussion about motivations, lusts of the flesh and ramifications make for emotionally tittilating conversation, but are irrelevant scripturally.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, God even represents Himself allegorically as a polyamous husband. Many of the greatest men of faith in the bible were polygamous, and yes...many of them had problems with the family dynamics. That, again, is irrelevant scripturally. The only supportable conclusion is that polygamy is an allowable marriage institution biblically. Not exalted, not to be sought after, not a requirement, or not any better....but acceptable. That is not to say that we, in this time, should rush out to embrace polygamy. Paul also said that everything allowable is not necessarily profitable. But, it is most unwise to adjudge a thing sin where God does not.

 

[snerkel]

2 Sam 12:7-9


Now, Snerkel, crystal clear in the above passage is the statement that God gave David Saul's wives, and would have given him more if that were not enough. David's sin with Bathsheba was not that he had a plurality of wives, it was that he took another man's wife and then had him killed in battle, obviously a much different scenario. I have yet to see any scripture that forbids kings to have more than one wife. I have seen the passage that forbids the multiplying of wives, but that clearly is an injunction against excess...not a command to only have a single wife. However repugnant any of us may find polygyny emotionally, the clear and unequivocal evidence of scripture is that it is not condemned. God does not give sinful gifts, He does not tolerate unrighteousness, and He does not use unrighteous means to acheive righteous ends. All of the discussion about motivations, lusts of the flesh and ramifications make for emotionally tittilating conversation, but are irrelevant scripturally.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, God even represents Himself allegorically as a polyamous husband. Many of the greatest men of faith in the bible were polygamous, and yes...many of them had problems with the family dynamics. That, again, is irrelevant scripturally. The only supportable conclusion is that polygamy is an allowable marriage institution biblically. Not exalted, not to be sought after, not a requirement, or not any better....but acceptable. That is not to say that we, in this time, should rush out to embrace polygamy. Paul also said that everything allowable is not necessarily profitable. But, it is most unwise to adjudge a thing sin where God does not.

Yes, God gave David all of Saul's wealth. History shows the successor receives the former King's entire wealth. However, Scripture does not support the claim that David married any of those women.

 

[Carico]

God allows all of usw to sin in order to seek Him. David's many wives led him to Bathsheba. H did not make a commitment to forsake all others. Becuase he had no qualms about having sex with whomever5 he wanted, he could not resist the temptation to take Bathsheba which ultimately led to murder. Jesus does not condone polygamy. This is a perfect example of people looking for justification to do anything they want. Christ's message is lost on them.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I don't see any place where it says "wives", or "husbands" unless you're inserting them in there yourself.

And if it had said "wives" would you then have assumed that all men must have more than one wife?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

God allows all of usw to sin in order to seek Him. David's many wives led him to Bathsheba. H did not make a commitment to forsake all others. Becuase he had no qualms about having sex with whomever5 he wanted, he could not resist the temptation to take Bathsheba which ultimately led to murder. Jesus does not condone polygamy. This is a perfect example of people looking for justification to do anything they want. Christ's message is lost on them.

So then David would not have taken Bathseba if he had not taken multiple wives before hand? When does God link David's sin with Bathsheba to the multiple wives he had? You cannot make inferences like this unless you have Scripture to back it up.

We are not looking for justification to do anything - the plain fact is that polygyny is strongly supported in the Bible, and I'm having trouble finding any condemnation. Stop trying to muddy our character by saying we're stretching the words. A plain reading of the Bible with no cultural bias would lead anyone to think that polygyny is acceptable. It's monogamy only that has trouble finding any support. Surely if the Kings of Israel were in such deep sin in this regard. 2 Samuel 12:14 tells us that David's actions with Bathseeba gave their enemies cause to blaspheme. How could God tolerate daily, public, flagrant adultery by His most righteous servants? Especially considering that God likens idolatry to adultery, how would He ever tolerate this sin amongst His chosen?