Polygamy in the Bible

[TK Burk]

*crickets*

You posted at 12:50 AM and lost your patience at 1:07 AM? :snapout

:ursofunny

[Evang.Benincasa]

You posted at 12:50 AM and lost your patience at 1:07 AM? :snapout

:ursofunny

They wonder why I antagonize them? :tease

[Aquila]

The old west? :ursofunny

Address the issue.

[Aquila]

You posted at 12:50 AM and lost your patience at 1:07 AM? :snapout

:ursofunny

I didn't "loose my patience". LOL I was poking fun at how quiet it got. Where'd y'all go?

[Aquila]

They wonder why I antagonize them? :tease

You're dodging the points presented.

Now I invite you to answer the questions presented in post #495.

[TK Burk]

As recently as the old west here in the US an incorrigible child could be beaten brutally by parents. And if death occurred and the child was deemed to be delinquent or a threat to society, charges were often dropped. Even up until the past couple decades "spanking" or "whipping" children made them good citizens. If a parent killed their incorrigible child today it would break the civil law of the United States and they would be prosecuted by the United States...but according to God's Law they didn't "sin". They saved society from having to execute the little devil. Biblically a parent has a greater authority over the life of their seed than the state. When the state took this right of parents....well....we get the society we're dealing with now.

So “Old West” society is a model for biblical Christianity? So are you going to next claim that Rooster Cogburn was a good saintly example?

Please, tell me, do you know the difference between SPANKING and STONING? The former is intended to CORRECT. The latter is intended to KILL.

So, from your statement I guess you believe that killing a rebellious kid is NOT a sin, right??


Israel was a theocratic nation preparing to embark on a massive military campaign to take the land from heathen nations. To provoke an Israelite to serve any of these heathen gods would be high treason in time of war. Even today we execute those who commit treason and prosecute those spread treasonous philosophical/political propaganda in time of war. Context!

I did not ask WHY God gave this Law; I asked if it should still be obeyed, and if so, is it a sin.

Now let’s see you answer the REAL question in CONTEXT with the same reasoning you have that’s pro-polygamy….

As recently as the old west it was considered ideal for the "uncle" to marry his brother's widow and care for her and sire children or raise his brother's children.

What’s with you and the “old west"? Are you the president of a Louis L'Amour fan club or something?

The old west is considered as the “wild west.” How is that connotation applicable with biblical Christianity?

Brother, these arguments are silly! AGAIN, we’re talking BIBLE. WHERE DOES IT SAY IT IN THE BIBLE?

Brother....there's nothing wrong with these Laws....unless you view them through a modernist world view and take them out of their intended context.

So there is “NOTHING WRONG” with stoning rebellious kids to death or with killing your family or close friends if they speak against Truth?

Are you for real about this? I doubt it. What you’re suffering is called “cognitive dissonance.” That is why you will actually stand behind such ignorance so long as it seems to support your view. Brother that is contrary to what’s needed to interpret biblical Truth. “Study to show thyself approved unto God…RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Truth….”

Now I invite you to answer the questions presented in post #495. :)

Coming next....

[Evang.Benincasa]

You're dodging the points presented.

Now I invite you to answer the questions presented in post #495.

I will be back tonight I have to get to a fellowship with some church folks.

The thing about the Old West was ridiculous and silly. Elder Burk asked about stoning to death, and you brought up brutal child abuse? Brutal child abuse is the same as stoning? You need to go find a church and get some ministry. All this self help Christianity you guys are into is not helping you.

[TK Burk]

Hey Aquila, so while the Christian "Old West" was beating their kids to death, how did the 'Older East' Church-folk handle rebellious kids?

Maybe that's where the phrase "GO West YOUNG man" came from?? :ursofunny

[HappyTown]

Please, answer my question (post #491).

I'll bite....;)


Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

Death for Cursing Parents

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 )



Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 )


Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….


Very!

Nowhere are these specifically said to be prohibited in the New Testament. Consequently, can (or maybe, should) a person still do them? Are they sinning if they do? What do you say?


In some parts of the world stoning someone to death is still practice and put into law. There are many biblical contradictions in fact there are 143 of them. The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors. The Bible is a compilation of 66 separate books, divided into two primary divisions, the Old Testament containing 39 books and the New Testament containing 27 books. It is believed that all of the books of the Bible were written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.



Here are just a few but I can post all if you like or send them to you?? So where does this lead us???? Whats, what in the big realm of things here??? What is sin, when is it a sin????

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28

6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19

9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14

10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

I can give them all if you like???


I believe it comes down to this, seek out your own salvation, don't depend on others for answers.

[TK Burk]

I'll bite....;)

Death for Cursing Parents

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 )

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 )

Very!

In some parts of the world stoning someone to death is still practice and put into law. There are many biblical contradictions in fact there are 143 of them. The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors. The Bible is a compilation of 66 separate books, divided into two primary divisions, the Old Testament containing 39 books and the New Testament containing 27 books. It is believed that all of the books of the Bible were written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Here are just a few but I can post all if you like or send them to you?? So where does this lead us???? Whats, what in the big realm of things here??? What is sin, when is it a sin????

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28

6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19

9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14

10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

I can give them all if you like???

I believe it comes down to this, seek out your own salvation, don't depend on others for answers.

What? So there you go; just go with whatever feels right to you. Brother, you REALLY need to study what the Bible says rather than what you think....

Who cares what CULTURES practice? Where talking about what's allowed for CHRISTIANS.

So killing children, spouses, and friends is acceptable practice for a Christian?? Are you for real?

You NEVER answered what I asked. Try going back and rereading what I actually posted....

[TK Burk]

.::BUMP::.

Here is what was ACTUALLY asked:

Here’s one for all you ‘it’s-not-prohibited-in-the-New-Testament-so-it’s-not-sin’ folk; using the same line of reasoning you’re using for polygamy, please explain how we should view the following Old Testament Laws:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….

Nowhere are these specifically said to be prohibited in the New Testament. Consequently, can (or maybe, should) a person still do them? Are they sinning if they do? What do you say?

[Dora]

It's interesting to me how guys will bend over backwards to prove that polygamy is "cool" Christian behavior, but won't do the research to prove otherwise. Just as we KNOW that slavery goes against biblical principles since it does not line up to the teachings of Christ i.e. loving your neighbor as yourself and doing unto others as you would have done to you, likewise we must conclude that objectifying women as polygamy inevitable does is incomprehensible behavior if we are pressing toward the mark to become more Christ-like.

[HappyTown]

What? So there you go; just go with whatever feels right to you. Brother, you REALLY need to study what the Bible says rather than what you think....


I never said it was right to do whatever I think, you asked I gave you scripture, I gave my opinion, it's not my place to tell you anything, your more then able to study yourself approved. I find it ironic when people want others input into matter then turn around and complain or accuse them of not study if it does not line up with their so-called ideal of truth. The fact you are so bent on what you already think why ask others???? If your not open to another way or thoughts on the matter.

Who cares what CULTURES practice? Where talking about what's allowed for CHRISTIANS.

At one time CHRISTIANS stone people to death some places it's still practice as a GODLY LAW!

So killing children, spouses, and friends is acceptable practice for a Christian?? Are you for real?

No I didn't say that, the bible does, the bible also allows rape and murder, no I don't feel it's rights, yet it's in there. We are blessed we live in a country were we go to court before a judge and jury, not stoning as once was held as law.


You NEVER answered what I asked. Try going back and rereading what I actually posted....

No answer will do, why do you care what I think only you can decide what you'll follow or practices. The bible say what it say! Do I agree with it??? No but I can walk away and not partake in it. Freedom of choice Jesus gave it to all, you can follow the law or you can follow after grace!

[TK Burk]

It's interesting to me how guys will bend over backwards to prove that polygamy is "cool" Christian behavior, but won't do the research to prove otherwise. Just as we KNOW that slavery goes against biblical principles since it does not line up to the teachings of Christ i.e. loving your neighbor as yourself and doing unto others as you would have done to you, likewise we must conclude that objectifying women as polygamy inevitable does is incomprehensible behavior if we are pressing toward the mark to become more Christ-like.

You are exactly right!

The Old Testament was the servant that lead man to the true teacher of God's Word, Jesus Christ.

I'm amazed that this is not more easily seen in this discussion.

[HappyTown]

It's interesting to me how guys will bend over backwards to prove that polygamy is "cool" Christian behavior, but won't do the research to prove otherwise. Just as we KNOW that slavery goes against biblical principles since it does not line up to the teachings of Christ i.e. loving your neighbor as yourself and doing unto others as you would have done to you, likewise we must conclude that objectifying women as polygamy inevitable does is incomprehensible behavior if we are pressing toward the mark to become more Christ-like.

Agree!

It's on the same lines as OT Law: Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear men's clothing. People will take just that one part yet reject the rest of the laws that passage entails . Gods word is very clear if you live by the law you must obey all of it and be judge according to those laws, no picking or chosen," MUST OBEY ALL OF THE LAWS". I rather follow after grace (Jesus).

[Pastor DTSalaz]

I can show you several quotes where you have equated it to sin.. you have said it is WRONG..... you have said is unthinkable to you that God is against it in the NT.... care to give me another meaning of SIN?

The argument here is that if you say Polygamy is WRONG because it wasn't so from the beginning then you must use the same textual argument for Divorce or either leave both of then alone....


Due to the progressive revelation of God we always interpret the old testament in the light of the new. It is all the Word of God. Jesus revealed Gods original intent as we read in Matthew 19

Mat 19:3 And the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

You see the Pharisees, as we, are always trying to look for loopholes around Gods intended purpose. Men were divorcing their wives just for not pleasing them in any and every way. Don't like the way you cook dinner. They asked is it lawful (or is it sin) for A MAN to put away HIS WIFE. One man and ONE WIFE not wives. This does not that this was not the case but it is not the meaning of the Question. There were two schools of thought at the time that of Shammai and that of Hillel and they were trying to trap him into siding with one or the other.

Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",

Not falling their trap he goes to what he as God told Moses to write in the Pentateuch. Once again Jesus points out male and female, not males and females. It was he who made them so he lets them know the original intention. It is through mans corruption that that original intention was distorted.

Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?

The husband and wife should be so put together in every way that it is like they are glued together. If you take one away from the other it will destroy both of them as they are now considered one flesh. You will have to tear me apart and in doing so it will destroy part of both of me and my wife. It is not only possible but necessary that a man leave his parents. Though children are from the one flesh they are separate and must leave and cleave. Take note that this is what God told Adam and Eve before there was any other children or marriages. These words were given at the first marriage ceremony.

Mat 19:6 Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Here again Jesus did not say; they are no longer three, four, eight, one hundred, or one thousand, he says they are no longer TWO. When the marriage vows are taken it is not man who unites but God so that what God joins together no man, magistrate, government, or even Moses is able to invalidate this union.

Mat 19:7 They said to Him, Why did Moses then command to give a bill of divorce and to put her away?

They understood that it went beyond even what Moses wrote and even invalidated what he wrote. Why then did God allow for a bill of Divorce?

Mat 19:8 He said to them, Because of your hard-heartedness Moses allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.

God did this because of our hard heartedness. He first began to tolerate the violation of his original intent. Then because God tolerates it, mankind then believes it is permissible. Now because it is permitted we believe this evil is permissible God must set up command to deal with the hard hearts of men. This also is to protect women from the cruelties that may be inflicted upon them by their husbands. Just because God did not condemn this practice of polygamy did not mean that this was his original intention. His mercy and grace covers our multitude of sinful behaviors. Now in the New Testament he gives the way he intended for us to live and now the Apostles carry out Gods original design into the church.

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.


This verse here tells us that young people should not be looking for a girl friend but a wife. A wife is begun before the marriage vows are pronounced. This protects women from being used and discarded. Premarital sex will even cause the one who marries that person to be committing Adultery. The union begins even before sexual union occurs. This is why Jesus can say he that even looks on woman to lust after her is committing Adultery in his heart. Even as Mary was espoused to Joseph. Once a woman is married she cannot commit fornication this is an act of sexual union between unmarried persons and even includes acts of homosexuality and beastiality. This putting away a wife begins with the covenant that begins before marriage and continues throughout the marital relationship. Adultery is what takes place in breaking the marital covenant.

We are in a covenant relationship with God at repentance but then continue to consummate the vows made at the altar of repentance by agreeing to be married at baptism. This is the public ceremony. The intimacy is actually consummated in union at Holy Ghost infilling. This is the completion and we now are one with the Lord.

Blessings
Pastor DT Salaz
Fountain of Truth Apostolic Church

[Pastor DTSalaz]

That sounds great .. and I agree monogamy is the ideal just looking at history.

But no, when it comes to polygamy Christ never taught against it, it was never forbidden in the NT except for leadership. And the OT took it as a normal part of society.

And it doesnt matter if it conflicts with your personal Jesus or the bible. its there and you gotta love it or not... because its as far away as your nearest bible in the house.

It hurts your conscience because it seems to go against your view of feminine roles in modern society.. i understand that. But once again single females with the ability to work a self determined job, or have financial independence is a fairly new thing that is less than 80 years old out of nearly 7,000 years of human history.

I can understand how this feels like a kick to the teeth for a moderate/liberal lady with a strong self image.. but in this case the scriptures say what they say... and they don't say what you want them to say on this particular issue.



Christ did teach against it.

Mt 19.3-12

BTW 6000 years of human history

Christ elevated women to the place he intended for them since the beginning.

John chapter eight gives us a picture of how men thought they can condemn women for committing adultery but give men a wink. They can condemn one but not bring the other caught in the very act. This shows that Christ tolerated mans sin as an act of mercy and compassion. No one was given what they actually deserved. Mercy= not receiving just penalty for crimes committed. Grace= receiving what we don't deserve.

[Rhoni]

Christ did teach against it.

Mt 19.3-12

BTW 6000 years of human history

Christ elevated women to the place he intended for them since the beginning.

John chapter eight gives us a picture of how men thought they can condemn women for committing adultery but give men a wink. They can condemn one but not bring the other caught in the very act. This shows that Christ tolerated mans sin as an act of mercy and compassion. No one was given what they actually deserved. Mercy= not receiving just penalty for crimes committed. Grace= receiving what we don't deserve.

:friend AMEN

[Apocrypha]

Christ did teach against it.

Mt 19.3-12

BTW 6000 years of human history

Christ elevated women to the place he intended for them since the beginning.

John chapter eight gives us a picture of how men thought they can condemn women for committing adultery but give men a wink. They can condemn one but not bring the other caught in the very act. This shows that Christ tolerated mans sin as an act of mercy and compassion. No one was given what they actually deserved. Mercy= not receiving just penalty for crimes committed. Grace= receiving what we don't deserve.

Don't see where polygamy is banned by Christ or its declared morally sinful.

Try again

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=9

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Its generally thought Jesus is talking about a man lusting after a married woman.

Mat 5:27 You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not commit adultery."
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


How many men do we have with only one eye or one hand. This was not to say that men ought to poke out their eyes or cut off their hands. We would have a lot of maimed people in church. lol This is Jesus talking about the heart condition. He can see the heart but man can only see the outward appearance. If men were to do this then we could see the real condition of man.

It is not lusting after a married woman it is women in general. The actual sin begins in the heart. Sin is usually never is instantaneous. There is always a progression. Lust not only has to do with sexual desire but desire in general.

Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted by his lusts, being drawn away and seduced by them.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin. And sin, when it is fully formed, brings forth death.

The look turns into a thought. The thought is tossed around for a while deciding how we can do this without being caught. We are then seduced by our thoughts and the conception turns into a reality. Sin. Sin is committed and we think we got away with it. Continuous sin becomes habit forming it is fully formed bondage has taken place. You cannot control it, it controls you. The ultimate result is always death. Make wise choices for every action is a seed of thought that has sprouted whether good or wrong. The harvest is coming.

Be blessed

Pastor DT Salaz

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Don't see where polygamy is banned by Christ or its declared morally sinful.

Try again

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=9


It is in Gods original intent for man. Because God tolerates sin does not make it OK. He is longsuffering not willing that any should perish.

I just began reading this post and am surprised, floored, disgusted at what some posters are writing. This is supposed to be men of God writing these things. All men ought to be men of God not referring only to what we traditionally call men of God. Pastors, ministers, leaders, the five fold ministry. I certainly hope this is not an indicator of where mens hearts lie. From the abundance of the heart. I hope it is just in discussing this post that we become so open. This certainly seems like some people are looking for some kind of justification of where they are at or where they wish they could be.

Thank God for the Holy Ghost that will lead us away from the lusts of the flesh.

Only on for a little while but will post a few more comments on Monday

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.
Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from Your presence, and take not Your Holy Spirit from me.

Be blessed
Pastor DT Salaz

[Apocrypha]

It is in Gods original intent for man. Because God tolerates sin does not make it OK. He is longsuffering not willing that any should perish.

I just began reading this post and am surprised, floored, disgusted at what some posters are writing. This is supposed to be men of God writing these things. All men ought to be men of God not referring only to what we traditionally call men of God. Pastors, ministers, leaders, the five fold ministry. I certainly hope this is not an indicator of where mens hearts lie. From the abundance of the heart. I hope it is just in discussing this post that we become so open. This certainly seems like some people are looking for some kind of justification of where they are at or where they wish they could be.

Thank God for the Holy Ghost that will lead us away from the lusts of the flesh.

Only on for a little while but will post a few more comments on Monday

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.
Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from Your presence, and take not Your Holy Spirit from me.

Be blessed
Pastor DT Salaz

Your saying the act of biblical polygamy is sinful when the scriptures don't say it is. Don't see why your disgusted or repulsed. Its illegal in America, and we follow the laws of the land, but other than that its not a moral issue using straight scripture, its a cultural issue.

Seriously if your gonna say its "sin" then show where its banned other than in church leadership.

[Apocrypha]

Mat 5:27 You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not commit adultery."
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


How many men do we have with only one eye or one hand. This was not to say that men ought to poke out their eyes or cut off their hands. We would have a lot of maimed people in church. lol This is Jesus talking about the heart condition. He can see the heart but man can only see the outward appearance. If men were to do this then we could see the real condition of man.

It is not lusting after a married woman it is women in general. The actual sin begins in the heart. Sin is usually never is instantaneous. There is always a progression. Lust not only has to do with sexual desire but desire in general.

Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted by his lusts, being drawn away and seduced by them.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin. And sin, when it is fully formed, brings forth death.

The look turns into a thought. The thought is tossed around for a while deciding how we can do this without being caught. We are then seduced by our thoughts and the conception turns into a reality. Sin. Sin is committed and we think we got away with it. Continuous sin becomes habit forming it is fully formed bondage has taken place. You cannot control it, it controls you. The ultimate result is always death. Make wise choices for every action is a seed of thought that has sprouted whether good or wrong. The harvest is coming.

Be blessed

Pastor DT Salaz

Wrong, the word "lust" actually means covet in modern english if its properly translated. Its referring to married women (once again).

Do you actually read the entire thread before you bring out the guns?

[TK Burk]

:bump ...again

Here’s one for all you ‘it’s-not-prohibited-in-the-new-testament-so-it’s-not-sin’ folk; using the same line of reasoning you’re using for polygamy, please explain how we should view the following Old Testament Laws:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….

Nowhere are these specifically said to be prohibited in the New Testament. Consequently, can (or maybe, should) a person (Christian) still do them? Are they sinning if they do? what do you say?

[Aquila]

It is in Gods original intent for man. Because God tolerates sin does not make it OK. He is longsuffering not willing that any should perish.

God doesn't "tolerate sin". If polygamy was a sin why didn't God express it at all against Abraham? Why didn't God condemn Jacob, Moses, and David. In fact, when Moses is spoken against because he took a second wife who was Ethiopian...God DEFENDS Moses. Not only that but the Bible says that Gideon had many wives who bore him 70 sons....yet God doesn't condemn or sanction him once over it. In fact, listen to how the elders of Israel bless Ruth when she marries Boaz.....


"11And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:" - Ruth 4:11

This blessing implies that Jacob's polygamy was a blessing, not a sin, not a curse, not an "allowance". You'd condemn Jacob to Hell for committing Adultery. God's Word in no way insinuates such a thing. God's word implies that Jacob's polygamous marriages were a blessing.

Elkanah has two wives and yet he's described as faithful in his worship of the Lord (I Samuel 1:3). His worship is accepted and commended. God could have easily said, "Yet in having two wives, God was not entirely pleased with Elkanah." But Elkanah is regarded as a faithful man who is commendable before God. You'd say Elkanah was in adultery. Since he never repented of this "adultery" (if it is indeed adultery) Elkanah is burning in a devil's Hell today.

David marries Michal, then Abigail and Ahinoam. David then takes Maachah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah. David then takes more wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13). Then David commits adultery with Bathsheba. Now...no where in all the marriages prior to David meeting Bathsheba does the Bible say that David "did evil in the sight of the Lord". It wasn't until Bathsheba that David is confronted for the sin of adultery. This obviously illustrates that none of the unions prior to Bathsheba can be classified as adulterous or sinful. It was David's taking of a wife that didn't belong to him that provoked God to anger. Up until then God was blessing David.

Now...here's a BIGGIE. Not only does God not speak against David's many wives...God says that HE GAVE DAVID THESE WIVES (2 Samuel 12:8). Not only that, this text has God telling David that if that had not been enough....God would have given him MORE! Certainly God isn't "tolerating sin"....because if he is...he's also the author of it.

Psalm 26:1-12, indicates that during this time David walked in "integrity...truth...and hates wickedness". If David were in sin with these polygamous marriages....this would not be true. David goes on to say, "I restrain my feet from every evil way, that I may keep your word" (Psalms 119:101). Obviously when David married his wives and spent time with them, it wasn't sinful. The only sin David is condemned for is his adultery with Uriah's wife and his having Uriah murdered. In Psalm 119:128, David says, "I esteem right all thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way". David obviously didn't hate polygamy. And God certainly didn't hate it seeing that David's wives were given to him by God.

My point is that God isn't "tolerating sin", God is the very one who has given men multiple wives, namely David. And God has also NEVER spoken against these men.

Polygmay is not a sin.

However, when addressing marriage Paul does emphasize that many of this directions were good "for their present distress". Polygamy was illegal under the Roman Empire...so Paul doesn't directly speak of it or address it. It would be unthinkable to Paul for a good Christian citizen of Rome to illegally marry more than one wife. But Paul doesn't condemn polygamy as sin...if he did...he'd be condemning the majority of the men of God in the OT and even God himself for giving wives.

Now, I think this present distress (the church sojourning in a hostile world and under secular and ungodly governments) continues today and therefore monogamous marriage is still best in the context of our place in history and dispensations. However, during the Millennium, it's possible that we will see a reassurance of polygamy as Israel receives every covenantal promise of God contained in the Law and the Prophets. Of course...I could be wrong because that would be just speculation. However, those who partake in the "resurrection" will be like the angels in Heaven neither marrying or giving in marriage.

I just began reading this post and am surprised, floored, disgusted at what some posters are writing. This is supposed to be men of God writing these things. All men ought to be men of God not referring only to what we traditionally call men of God. Pastors, ministers, leaders, the five fold ministry. I certainly hope this is not an indicator of where mens hearts lie. From the abundance of the heart. I hope it is just in discussing this post that we become so open. This certainly seems like some people are looking for some kind of justification of where they are at or where they wish they could be.

I think you're misconstruing what we are saying. I know I'm not saying I'd want another wife. I think that would be very problematic in today's world. And I believe that Paul's directions are best heeded in our present "distress" as we sojourn in this hostile world. It's not the same today as it was in Israel. That being said, I also cannot say that polygamy is a "sin" given the overwhelming biblical evidence that God allows and provides polygamy numerous times throughout the Scriptures.

Thank God for the Holy Ghost that will lead us away from the lusts of the flesh.

Again, I think you're misconstruing the points being made here. The Bible says,

Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

I think people with a one track mind see polygamy only one way, lustful, evil, etc....because those are the eyes with which they see the world. Polygamous marriages were allowed by God, provided by God, and deemed a notable blessing. In the OT culture polygamy wasn't only a blessing to the man, but a blessing to the women who came under his care. Jacob, Moses, David and others never mistreated or abused their wives. Biblical polygamy isn't abusive, abominable, or wrong. In their day, it protected women, lifted them into the royal family, and protected them from exploitation.

Only on for a little while but will post a few more comments on Monday

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.
Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from Your presence, and take not Your Holy Spirit from me.

Be blessed
Pastor DT Salaz

Amen.

I'm not saying, "Hey guys, God doesn't mind, let's party, grab as many women as you want." I'm simply defending Scripture from Puritanical Legalism that would condemn Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, Solomon, and many, many others to Hell for something that wasn't ever deemed a sin.

[Aquila]

I'm interested in hearing one of you, "David's in Hell for having many wives", types to answer post #495.

[Aquila]

So “Old West” society is a model for biblical Christianity? So are you going to next claim that Rooster Cogburn was a good saintly example?

Bro...you're missing my point. My point is that God's Law has been regarded as an acceptable standard to consider in society as recently as within the past 200 years. Your concepts and worldview are entirely post-modern 20th century.

Please, tell me, do you know the difference between SPANKING and STONING? The former is intended to CORRECT. The latter is intended to KILL.

So, from your statement I guess you believe that killing a rebellious kid is NOT a sin, right??

In context a child who curses father or mother isn't just a child who speaks evil against them. This is an incorrigible child. And while in today's world we have other ways of dealing with them...God's Law granted parents full authority to deal full justice to their child. It's therefore NOT a sin. If we were living in a post-apocalyptic world after a nuclear exchange and we had a loose agrarian clan society...we could fall back on this and be within the bounds of moral justice. In our current disposition, much grace can be granted. And children should THANK almighty God for that.

On a side note, my mom used to say, "Boy, you better straighten up and fly right. Because I brought you into this world...and I can take you out." While modern laws in our advanced society would balk at such a notion...given circumstances like those in the Bible...my mother would have been perfectly within her God given boundaries to do so.

I did not ask WHY God gave this Law; I asked if it should still be obeyed, and if so, is it a sin.

Now let’s see you answer the REAL question in CONTEXT with the same reasoning you have that’s pro-polygamy….

Yes. For example, if an Islamic cleric in the United States were to begin advocating that Americans turn from the Christian principles of a free society and adopt a Wahabist extremist faith in devotion to Allah to bring America to her knees....I'd say execute them for high treason in time of war.

What’s with you and the “old west"? Are you the president of a Louis L'Amour fan club or something?

The old west is considered as the “wild west.” How is that connotation applicable with biblical Christianity?

Brother, these arguments are silly! AGAIN, we’re talking BIBLE. WHERE DOES IT SAY IT IN THE BIBLE?

Again I'm only illustrating that the principles behind these laws would be seriously considered in society as recently as within the past 200 years. You're concepts and judgments are entirely based on a 20th century, post-modernist worldview. A society that produced some the greatest Christian culture known to man saw no issue with the principle of a man's brother taking his brother's wife in to wife. Now, I'm not saying this condones polygamy. I'm only saying there are eternal principles we can learn from in the Law.


So there is “NOTHING WRONG” with stoning rebellious kids to death or with killing your family or close friends if they speak against Truth?

You're minimalizing the context of the Laws given. Even in their Old Testament context they wouldn't permit that. We are talking about executing a child who is beyond the point of reasoning and training. Yes, personally, I think it wouldn't be wrong. I assure you that if we lived by this law in the United States today, after the first incorrigible child was executed every kid in America would be sitting straight eating their vegetables....and humbly asking for seconds.

And yes, there's nothing wrong with executing traitors of our nation.

Are you for real about this? I doubt it. What you’re suffering is called “cognitive dissonance.” That is why you will actually stand behind such ignorance so long as it seems to support your view. Brother that is contrary to what’s needed to interpret biblical Truth. “Study to show thyself approved unto God…RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Truth….”

Coming next....

You're evidently not understanding what I'm telling you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Proverbs 12:4

"A (SINGULAR) virtuous WOMAN (SINGULAR) is A CROWN (SINGULAR) to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones."

If God allowed plural wives the above scripture would appear thus.

"Virtuous women are crowns to their husband: but the one that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones."

Proverbs 18:22

Whoso findeth A WIFE (SINGULAR) findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

If God normal plan was to have plural wives the above scripture would appear as below.

Whoso findeth another wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD

Proverbs 19:14

"House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and A (SINGULAR) prudent WIFE (SINGULAR) is from the LORD."

A prudent wife is found in Proverbs 31, and she is a singular wife and represents the singular Bride of Christ. Alas those who condone NT polygomay see Proverbs 19:14 as printed below.

"House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and prudent wives are from the LORD."

Proverbs 31:10-31


"Who can find A (SINGULAR) virtuous WOMAN? (SINGULAR) for HER (SINGULAR) price is far above rubies.

The heart of her husband doth safely trust in HER (SINGULAR), so that he shall have no need of spoil.

SHE (SINGULAR) will do him good and not evil all the days of HER (SINGULAR) life.

SHE (SINGULAR) seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with HER (SINGULAR) hands.

SHE (SINGULAR) is like the merchants' ships; SHE (SINGULAR) bringeth HER (SINGULAR) food from afar.

SHE riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to HER (SINGULAR) HOUSEHOLD (SINGULAR), and a portion to her maidens.

SHE (SINGULAR) considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of HER (SINGULAR) hands SHE (SINGULAR) planteth a vineyard.

SHE (SINGULAR) girdeth HER (SINGULAR) loins with strength, and strengtheneth HER (SINGULAR) arms.

SHE (SINGULAR) perceiveth that HER (SINGULAR) merchandise is good: HER (SINGULAR) candle goeth not out by night.

SHE (SINGULAR) layeth HER (SINGULAR) hands to the spindle, and HER (SINGULAR) hands hold the distaff.

SHE(SINGULAR) stretcheth out HER (SINGULAR) hand to the poor; yea, SHE (SINGULAR) reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

SHE is not afraid of the snow for HER (SINGULAR) HOUSEHOLD (SINGULAR): for all HER (SINGULAR) HOUSEHOLD (SINGULAR) are clothed with scarlet.

SHE (SINGULAR) maketh HERSELF (SINGULAR) coverings of tapestry; HER (SINGULAR) clothing is silk and purple.

HER (SINGULAR) husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

SHE (SINGULAR) maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

Strength and honour are HER (SINGULAR) clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

SHE (SINGULAR) openeth HER (SINGULAR) mouth with wisdom; and in HER (SINGULAR) tongue is the law of kindness.

SHE (SINGULAR) looketh well to the ways of HER (SINGULAR) HOUSEHOLD (SINGULAR), and eateth not the bread of idleness.

HER (SINGULAR) children arise up, and call HER (SINGULAR) blessed; HER (SINGULAR) husband also, and he praiseth HER (SINGULAR).

Many daughters have done virtuously, but THOU (SINGULAR) EXCELLEST THEM ALL.

Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a WOMAN (SINGULAR) that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

Give HER (SINGULAR)of the fruit of HER (SINGULAR) hands; and let HER (SINGULAR) own works praise HER (SINGULAR) in the gates."

Psalm 128:3

"Thy WIFE (SINGULAR) shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table."

How would this scripture look if polygamy was God's norm?

"Thy wives shall be as a fruitful vines by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table."

The Biblical norm for marriage is one wife to one man, therefore the Apostle Paul instructed the Elders of the church to only have one wife. Just as Adam and Jesus had one wife.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Aquila]

Proverbs 12:4

"A (SINGULAR) virtuous WOMAN (SINGULAR) is A CROWN (SINGULAR) to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones."

If God allowed plural wives the above scripture would appear thus.

"Virtuous women are crowns to their husband: but the one that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones."

Proverbs 18:22

Whoso findeth A WIFE (SINGULAR) findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

If God normal plan was to have plural wives the above scripture would appear as below.

Whoso findeth another wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD

Proverbs 19:14

"House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and A (SINGULAR) prudent WIFE (SINGULAR) is from the LORD."

A prudent wife is found in Proverbs 31, and she is a singular wife and represents the singular Bride of Christ. Alas those who condone NT polygomay see Proverbs 19:14 as printed below.

"House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and prudent wives are from the LORD."

Proverbs 31:10-31


"Who can find A (SINGULAR) virtuous WOMAN? (SINGULAR) for HER (SINGULAR) price is far above rubies.

The heart of her husband doth safely trust in HER (SINGULAR), so that he shall have no need of spoil.

SHE (SINGULAR) will do him good and not evil all the days of HER (SINGULAR) life.

SHE (SINGULAR) seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with HER (SINGULAR) hands.

SHE (SINGULAR) is like the merchants' ships; SHE (SINGULAR) bringeth HER (SINGULAR) food from afar.

SHE riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to HER (SINGULAR) HOUSEHOLD (SINGULAR), and a portion to her maidens.

SHE (SINGULAR) considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of HER (SINGULAR) hands SHE (SINGULAR) planteth a vineyard.

SHE (SINGULAR) girdeth HER (SINGULAR) loins with strength, and strengtheneth HER (SINGULAR) arms.

SHE (SINGULAR) perceiveth that HER (SINGULAR) merchandise is good: HER (SINGULAR) candle goeth not out by night.

SHE (SINGULAR) layeth HER (SINGULAR) hands to the spindle, and HER (SINGULAR) hands hold the distaff.

SHE(SINGULAR) stretcheth out HER (SINGULAR) hand to the poor; yea, SHE (SINGULAR) reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

SHE is not afraid of the snow for HER (SINGULAR) HOUSEHOLD (SINGULAR): for all HER (SINGULAR) HOUSEHOLD (SINGULAR) are clothed with scarlet.

SHE (SINGULAR) maketh HERSELF (SINGULAR) coverings of tapestry; HER (SINGULAR) clothing is silk and purple.

HER (SINGULAR) husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

SHE (SINGULAR) maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

Strength and honour are HER (SINGULAR) clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

SHE (SINGULAR) openeth HER (SINGULAR) mouth with wisdom; and in HER (SINGULAR) tongue is the law of kindness.

SHE (SINGULAR) looketh well to the ways of HER (SINGULAR) HOUSEHOLD (SINGULAR), and eateth not the bread of idleness.

HER (SINGULAR) children arise up, and call HER (SINGULAR) blessed; HER (SINGULAR) husband also, and he praiseth HER (SINGULAR).

Many daughters have done virtuously, but THOU (SINGULAR) EXCELLEST THEM ALL.

Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a WOMAN (SINGULAR) that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

Give HER (SINGULAR)of the fruit of HER (SINGULAR) hands; and let HER (SINGULAR) own works praise HER (SINGULAR) in the gates."

Psalm 128:3

"Thy WIFE (SINGULAR) shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table."

How would this scripture look if polygamy was God's norm?

"Thy wives shall be as a fruitful vines by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table."

The Biblical norm for marriage is one wife to one man, therefore the Apostle Paul instructed the Elders of the church to only have one wife. Just as Adam and Jesus had one wife.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

I'm sure David considered each of those verses every time he married a wife. He found a "virtuous woman" one day and then another "virtuous woman" on another. ;)

Now please address post #495 and post #525.

[Hoovie]

Your saying the act of biblical polygamy is sinful when the scriptures don't say it is. Don't see why your disgusted or repulsed. Its illegal in America, and we follow the laws of the land, but other than that its not a moral issue using straight scripture, its a cultural issue.

Seriously if your gonna say its "sin" then show where its banned other than in church leadership.

So are you prepared to say Polyandry is a moral issue and forbidden under New Testament, while polygamy is not?

[Hoovie]

Does anyone have firsthand knowledge with the missionary that converts one with many wives? How is the church handling this? (not just Oneness Pentecostal, but the Church at large)

[HappyTown]

So are you prepared to say Polyandry is a moral issue and forbidden under New Testament, while polygamy is not?

:ursofunny I'm sorry but the first thing that comes to mind is Wife Swap....;)

Hey I really enjoyed watching you and your wife, you both carried yourself very well. I did laugh when the gal took your baby crib outside....;)

[Hoovie]

:ursofunny I'm sorry but the first thing that comes to mind is Wife Swap....;)

Hey I really enjoyed watching you and your wife, you both carried yourself very well. I did laugh when the gal took your baby crib outside....;)

:)

Talk about a MORAL issue!

[HappyTown]

:)

Talk about a MORAL issue!

:ursofunny You guys were great...;)

[Aquila]

So are you prepared to say Polyandry is a moral issue and forbidden under New Testament, while polygamy is not?

I believe that the issue is "covenant" or "social contract". The marriage covenant protects rights and entitlements of those under said contract. So under polygamy women have rights and entitlements. But with polyandry it's just "free love" and there are no rights or entitlements. There isn't any secure institution for the raising of children. Polyandry has always been morally wrong. God blessed polygamous men and families.

Now, shift to the New Testament. Paul clearly upholds monogamy. All of his statements are presuppositional. Why? Because the only legal marriage in the Roman empire was monogamy. In Paul's mind....polygamous marriages were not legal and therefore not valid. So Paul addresses marriage in a monogamous context. Like Paul, we are in a culture where polygamy isn't accepted. Also polygamy isn't necessary. So we by all means should continue embrace monogamous marriage and value it like Paul did. But notice....Paul never condemns polygamy as sin. Paul never warns us that men like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others were evil men with vile marriages not to be emulated. Paul never calls into question God's giving David his multiple wives. Paul assails monogamy...but he doesn't condemn polygamy.

[Aquila]

Does anyone have firsthand knowledge with the missionary that converts one with many wives? How is the church handling this? (not just Oneness Pentecostal, but the Church at large)

Actually yes. Missionary Bobby Wendel told a story about an Ethiopian man who had two wives and had been saved. He brought his entire family to church and they all were saved. Then the UPCI church they attended demanded that he divorce his second wife and make arrangements to determine who would raise his children. The man began to make arrangements to divorce his second wife and put her in a hotel room away from home with his children from her. But here's some background. In their community a divorced woman is regarded as a whore and treated like one. They typically end up in squalor, prostitutes, or sex slaves. This church had church the night before his divorce was to be finalized, but this man didn't show up. After the service ministers from the church went to his home and no one was home. They went to the hotel to see if the second wife might know where he was, and she was gone. At the last moment, he decided he loved his second wife too much to do that to her. They never saw the family again.

[TK Burk]

Actually yes. Missionary Bobby Wendel told a story about an Ethiopian man who had two wives and had been saved. He brought his entire family to church and they all were saved. Then the UPCI church they attended demanded that he divorce his second wife and make arrangements to determine who would raise his children. The man began to make arrangements to divorce his second wife and put her in a hotel room away from home with his children from her. But here's some background. In their community a divorced woman is regarded as a whore and treated like one. They typically end up in squalor, prostitutes, or sex slaves. This church had church the night before his divorce was to be finalized, but this man didn't show up. After the service ministers from the church went to his home and no one was home. They went to the hotel to see if the second wife might know where he was, and she was gone. At the last moment, he decided he loved his second wife too much to do that to her. They never saw the family again.

This is why Jesus said we must count the cost.... Evidently he did and it was too high.

Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right! (See Mark 8:34-38; 1Peter 4:13-16)

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Wrong, the word "lust" actually means covet in modern english if its properly translated. Its referring to married women (once again).

Do you actually read the entire thread before you bring out the guns?

I should have only responded to your post and then put my personal feelings after on another post so as not to make you think I was referring to you. Anyways give me proof that the previous verse is referring to married women when the verse explicitly says A woman. Let me show you where I get my proof for the following verse.

Excuse me? Now we interpret the Word of God according to modern day English? Here is the verse with the Strongs #s after each word. Following this is the Kings James Concordance with every instance of the word and its translation.

Jas 1:15 ThenG1534 when lustG1939 hath conceived,G4815 it bringeth forthG5088 sin:G266 andG1161 sin,G266 when it is finished,G658 bringeth forthG616 death.G2288


ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah
From G1937; a longing (especially for what is forbidden): - concupiscence, desire, lust (after).


G1939
ἐπιθυμία
epithumia
Total KJV Occurrences: 38
lusts, 22
Mar_4:19, Joh_8:44, Rom_1:24, Rom_6:12, Rom_13:14, Gal_5:24, Eph_2:3, Eph_4:22, 1Ti_6:9, 2Ti_2:22, 2Ti_3:6, 2Ti_4:3, Tit_2:12, Tit_3:3, 1Pe_1:14, 1Pe_2:11, 1Pe_4:2-3 (2), 2Pe_2:18, 2Pe_3:3, Jud_1:16, Jud_1:18
lust, 9
Rom_7:7, Gal_5:16, Jam_1:14-15 (2), 2Pe_1:4, 2Pe_2:10, 1Jo_2:16-17 (3)
concupiscence, 3
Rom_7:8, Col_3:5, 1Th_4:5
desire, 3
Luk_22:15, Phi_1:23, 1Th_2:17
desired, 1
Mat_13:17 (2)


Not once is it translated covet!!!

[Praxeas]

Can you imagine several jealous women in one household? The New Testament limits men, especially in leadership, from having more than one wife...there is good reason for that!:tease
I can imagine something worse. Several Jealous women in one household all with PMS......:ursofunny

[Praxeas]

I would not mind having a couple wives as long as the worked and supported me :friend

[Praxeas]

When I saw all the stuff going on with the Mormon polygamists, I googled information about the effects of polygamy on women and children to see whether or not it was detrimental emotionally, mentally, physically due to abuse, etc.

Couldn't find much about the negative effects.

Found lots of Pro-polygamy stuff.

There is a book written by a woman who escaped from an abusive polygamist sect where the prophet set his eyes on her and made her leave her husband in order to marry him. I'll look it up again. Sad situation.
The big issue with those groups is the kiddie/adult marriage thing.

[Hoovie]

I would not mind having a couple wives as long as the worked and supported me :friend

Yes, never mind sending pictures... :evilglee send me transcripts of your degrees!

[Apocrypha]

I should have only responded to your post and then put my personal feelings after on another post so as not to make you think I was referring to you. Anyways give me proof that the previous verse is referring to married women when the verse explicitly says A woman. Let me show you where I get my proof for the following verse.

Excuse me? Now we interpret the Word of God according to modern day English? Here is the verse with the Strongs #s after each word. Following this is the Kings James Concordance with every instance of the word and its translation.

Jas 1:15 ThenG1534 when lustG1939 hath conceived,G4815 it bringeth forthG5088 sin:G266 andG1161 sin,G266 when it is finished,G658 bringeth forthG616 death.G2288


ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah
From G1937; a longing (especially for what is forbidden): - concupiscence, desire, lust (after).


G1939
ἐπιθυμία
epithumia
Total KJV Occurrences: 38
lusts, 22
Mar_4:19, Joh_8:44, Rom_1:24, Rom_6:12, Rom_13:14, Gal_5:24, Eph_2:3, Eph_4:22, 1Ti_6:9, 2Ti_2:22, 2Ti_3:6, 2Ti_4:3, Tit_2:12, Tit_3:3, 1Pe_1:14, 1Pe_2:11, 1Pe_4:2-3 (2), 2Pe_2:18, 2Pe_3:3, Jud_1:16, Jud_1:18
lust, 9
Rom_7:7, Gal_5:16, Jam_1:14-15 (2), 2Pe_1:4, 2Pe_2:10, 1Jo_2:16-17 (3)
concupiscence, 3
Rom_7:8, Col_3:5, 1Th_4:5
desire, 3
Luk_22:15, Phi_1:23, 1Th_2:17
desired, 1
Mat_13:17 (2)


Not once is it translated covet!!!


G1937
ἐπιθυμέω
epithumeō
ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
From G1909 and G2372; to set the heart upon, that is, long for (rightfully or otherwise): - covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).

You actually meant this word in Matthew 5:28 friend. Yes, I read the word covet in there out of Strongs.

Try again.

Mat 5:28 But1161 I1473 say3004 unto you,5213 That3754 whosoever3956 looketh991 on a woman1135 to lust1937 after her846 hath committed adultery3431 with her846 already2235 in1722 his848 heart.2588 (Using Strongs #s)

[Pastor DTSalaz]

G1937
ἐπιθυμέω
epithumeō
ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
From G1909 and G2372; to set the heart upon, that is, long for (rightfully or otherwise): - covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).

You actually meant this word in Matthew 5:28 friend. Yes, I read the word covet in there out of Strongs.

Try again.


Mat 5:28 But1161 I1473 say3004 unto you,5213 That3754 whosoever3956 looketh991 on a woman1135 to lust1937 after her846 hath committed adultery3431 with her846 already2235 in1722 his848 heart.2588 (Using Strongs #s)



Either way it does not make a difference it can be lust translated desire or covet depending on the context. Covet has to do with desire. This does not change the way we interpret A Woman to be a married woman. Where are the other sources to validate this claim. Every instance below of G1937 and two instances of where it is translated covet. It still has to do with lust. In this case desiring what does not belong to you.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Covet
To long after; to try to gain.

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some COVETED after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1Ti_6:10)

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


Covet
COVET, v.t.

1. To desire or wish for, with eagerness; to desire earnestly to obtain or possess; in a good sense.

Covet earnestly the best gifts. 1 Cor 12.

2. To desire inordinately; to desire that which it is unlawful to obtain or possess; in a bad sense.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, wife or servant. Exo 20.

COVET, v.i. To have an earnest desire. 1 Tim 6.

Covet
kuv´et (אוה, 'āwāh; ζηλόω, zēlóō, “to desire earnestly,” “to set the heart and mind upon anything”): Used in two senses: good, simply to desire earnestly but legitimately. e.g. the King James Version 1Co_12:31; 1Co_14:39; bad, to desire unlawfully, or to secure illegitimately (בּצע, bāca‛; ἐπιθυμέω, epithuméō, Rom_7:7; Rom_13:9, etc.); hence, called “lust” (Mat_5:28; 1Co_10:6), “concupiscence” (the King James Version Rom_7:8; Col_3:5).

G1937
ἐπιθυμέω
epithumeō
Total KJV Occurrences: 16
desire, 4
Luk_17:22, Heb_6:11, 1Pe_1:12, Rev_9:6
covet, 2
Rom_7:6-7 (2), Rom_13:9
lust, 2
Mat_5:28, Jam_4:2
lusted, 2
1Co_10:6, Rev_18:14
coveted, 1
Act_20:33
desired, 1
Luk_22:15
desireth, 1
1Ti_3:1
desiring, 1
Luk_16:21
fain, 1
Luk_15:16
lusteth, 1
Gal_5:16-17 (2)

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Albert Barnes on Matthew 5.28

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


Adam Clarke comes closer to your sense of covet but does not still change the effect of impure desire.

Mat 5:28
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her - Επιθυμησαι αυτην, earnestly to covet her. The verb, επιθυμεω, is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. Της ΕΠΙΘΥΜΗΣΕΙ γυναικος Μασσαγετης ανηρ, μισγεται αδεως, Raphelius, on this verse, says, επιθυμειν hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundae flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.


How about Jamieson, Fausett, Brown

Mat 5:28
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her - Επιθυμησαι αυτην, earnestly to covet her. The verb, επιθυμεω, is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. Της ΕΠΙΘΥΜΗΣΕΙ γυναικος Μασσαγετης ανηρ, μισγεται αδεως, Raphelius, on this verse, says, επιθυμειν hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundae flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

The burden of proof lies in your court to prove contrary to most of the noted scholars. How is this dealing only with married women?

[Dora]

So are you prepared to say Polyandry is a moral issue and forbidden under New Testament, while polygamy is not?

What is Polyandry?

[Aquila]

What is Polyandry?

Polyandry, oh, that's one woman having more than one husband. I was thinking of polyarmory.

There's no biblical precedent of polyandry. Therefore I say it's outside of the scope of biblical sanction.

[HappyTown]

Polyandry, oh, that's one woman having more than one husband. I was thinking of polyarmory.

There's no biblical precedent of polyandry. Therefore I say it's outside of the scope of biblical sanction.


Ok kinda like the woman at the well she had more then one...:dance

[Aquila]

This is why Jesus said we must count the cost.... Evidently he did and it was too high.

Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right! (See Mark 8:34-38; 1Peter 4:13-16)

See, here's what bothers me about your conceptualization. You'd be happy that the man divorced his second wife and reduced her to prostitution or being a sex slave for the sake of your religious convictions on the issue. You'd pat the man on the back while he proudly smiled about his new found "faith". You'd shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, yep, my brother, we have to pay a price to follow Jesus." See you're thinking about sex and his loss of a second partner. He's thinking about personal advancement in the new church he's apart of. Frankly, he didn't pay a price at all....the second wife who can't find work because she's regarded as discarded trash....she's paying the price. She's the one who will be forced to desperate measures to feed herself and her kids. She's the one who will be brutalized by men who want to abuse her. She's the one who will be forced into the slave trade, transfered out of the country, and her children stolen and made to fight in some African revolutionary army as child soldiers. She paid a dear price to accommodate your convictions.

Here's my position....

Let them remain married.

Consider Christ's words...
Matthew 19:9
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.

This second wife is a legal wife and cannot be divorced unless she commits sexual infidelity. So divorce of any kind is out of the picture.

I'd explain to him that there is a cost to serving Christ. Paul explained that Bishops and Deacons may only have one wife and how that precludes him from serving in a licensed leadership capacity or on the board. I'd explain to him that the church would not conduct marriage ceremonies for him to marry more wives. I would explain that his children will never be permitted to marry more than one woman for as long as they remain a part of the church. The polygamy would stop with his generation. Also I'd suggest that if at all possible the second wife and her children live separately from him and his first wife and her children. I would advise him that he is still responsible for providing the care, needs, and all provision of both women and all children.

I feel that would be the best possible resolution of a complex situation. No women are forced into degradation, no children are abandoned and left to the whiles of an exploitive world, yet monogamy is assailed and Paul's literal commands are enforced in the church.

Jesus said something to the Pharisees that I think is relevant...

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The Pharisees were keeping the "letter of the law" meticulously. However, they had neglected justice, mercy, and faith. In my example of above, in respects to the second wife's wellbeing and her children's wellbeing, I'm trying to act in favor of justice, mercy, and faith. Because it will be this second wife and her precious children that pay the price....not this man.

[Aquila]

Ok kinda like the woman at the well she had more then one...:dance

Yes, in a very real sense she did because she became the victim of serial monogamy.

[Aquila]

This is why Jesus said we must count the cost.... Evidently he did and it was too high.

Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right! (See Mark 8:34-38; 1Peter 4:13-16)

Let's consider a very real scenario played out in churches all across the United States....

A man and his wife and kids come to church and get saved. It is discovered that she was married before and she and her first husband separated in a "no fault" divorce.

Here's the deal bro...they have an adulterous marriage. She wasn't divorced on the pretenses of sexual infidelity and so according to Jesus this man is committing adultery by living with her. Jesus said,

Matthew 19:9
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.

According to your logic....

"Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right."

Do you think the man should be forced to divorce his wife and children to end an adulterous marriage?

Frankly, this is more serious than polygamy because it's directly addressed with clear prohibition. Many would say, ....

...."Well, God forgives sin. We'll just have to pray that God puts it under the blood and help minister to them as a family."

Others would resort to "justification"....

...."Well, this second marriage was adultery so I guess she committed sexual infidelity and so that divorce is NOW valid."

Get real. The issue is that she was put away for something other than forbidden sexual relations. She was put away over "irreconcilable differences". The "adultery" is the second marriage itself, because technically she still belongs to her first husband.

So we have a choice when faced with these situations. We can acknowledge the less than favorable circumstances, pray for God's grace and forgiveness, and then move forward with what is best for all the individuals involved.....or we can demand that the letter of the law be applied and demand that this man and his wife divorce.

[Apocrypha]

Albert Barnes on Matthew 5.28

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


Adam Clarke comes closer to your sense of covet but does not still change the effect of impure desire.

Mat 5:28
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her - Επιθυμησαι αυτην, earnestly to covet her. The verb, επιθυμεω, is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. Της ΕΠΙΘΥΜΗΣΕΙ γυναικος Μασσαγετης ανηρ, μισγεται αδεως, Raphelius, on this verse, says, επιθυμειν hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundae flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.


How about Jamieson, Fausett, Brown

Mat 5:28
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her - Επιθυμησαι αυτην, earnestly to covet her. The verb, επιθυμεω, is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. Της ΕΠΙΘΥΜΗΣΕΙ γυναικος Μασσαγετης ανηρ, μισγεται αδεως, Raphelius, on this verse, says, επιθυμειν hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundae flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.


Your wasting good electrons typing in stuff that has nothing to do with the single verse we are talking about (other than cherry picking commentaries).

All Jesus was doing is adding a level of depth to our understanding of the 10th commandment. Why be so complicated by stringing together verses that have nothing to do with this one single verse? Your doing a word study when a study of the historical and cultural context of the statement gives you the proper hermunetical interpretation of the statement.

10th Commandment - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Its not rocket science friend.

Also.. think about this logically... how many single women were floating around Israel during the time of Jesus? You know.. those independent minded, self employed, lets have a slice of cheesecake while shopping at Macys type of girls? Zero to none unless they were wealthy.. and even then they were married off. Nearly every woman of marriage age was married in Israel. They didn't date... they got contractually married. So yes, logic says Jesus was saying "Dont look at your neighbors wife with lust" if you break it down with the culture. I doubt he was talking about looking at the 12 year old maidens who weren't of child bearing age yet. Nor do i think he was talking about the 45 year old widows who lived under their sons. Look at it logically though the lens of history to give yourself context.

[TK Burk]

Let's consider a very real scenario played out in churches all across the United States....

A man and his wife and kids come to church and get saved. It is discovered that she was married before and she and her first husband separated in a "no fault" divorce.

Here's the deal bro...they have an adulterous marriage. She wasn't divorced on the pretenses of sexual infidelity and so according to Jesus this man is committing adultery by living with her. Jesus said,

Matthew 19:9
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.

According to your logic....

"Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right."

Do you think the man should be forced to divorce his wife and children to end an adulterous marriage?

Frankly, this is more serious than polygamy because it's directly addressed with clear prohibition. Many would say, ....

...."Well, God forgives sin. We'll just have to pray that God puts it under the blood and help minister to them as a family."

Others would resort to "justification"....

...."Well, this second marriage was adultery so I guess she committed sexual infidelity and so that divorce is NOW valid."

Get real. The issue is that she was put away for something other than forbidden sexual relations. She was put away over "irreconcilable differences". The "adultery" is the second marriage itself, because technically she still belongs to her first husband.

So we have a choice when faced with these situations. We can acknowledge the less than favorable circumstances, pray for God's grace and forgiveness, and then move forward with what is best for all the individuals involved.....or we can demand that the letter of the law be applied and demand that this man and his wife divorce.

Wow! I never said anything like YOU indicated here. Where did I say anything about divorce? You must really be desperate to prove as a Christian you can still kill rebellious kids, your spouse, and your friends, and also have as many wives as the Old West allows. :winkgrin

To answer your question, what's done BEFORE converstion is not the same as what's done AFTER. Consider these:

2 Corinthians 5:17
(17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 6:4-6
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Colossians 1:21-23
(21) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
(22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:
(23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice. Them being "Born Again" of the water and Spirit in Jesus' name is exactly that; they died to their old ways, old sins, old lifestyle, and are then born anew into a New Creature in Christ.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Thats right.. if you owed bills before you got saved.. you don't owe them anymore... that old man is dead.. YUH RIGHT.... a Marriage Vow is a contract recognized before and after salvation... MARRIAGE is HONORABLE only for the believers.. right? Wrong. it is honorable IN ALL




Wow! I never said anything like YOU indicated here. Where did I say anything about divorce? You must really be desperate to prove as a Christian you can still kill rebellious kids, your spouse, and your friends, and also have as many wives as the Old West allows. :winkgrin

To answer your question, what's done BEFORE converstion is not the same as what's done AFTER. Consider these:

2 Corinthians 5:17
(17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 6:4-6
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Colossians 1:21-23
(21) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
(22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:
(23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice. Them being "Born Again" of the water and Spirit in Jesus' name is exactly that; they died to their old ways, old sins, old lifestyle, and are then born anew into a New Creature in Christ.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice.


ONLY PROBLEM HERE IS THIS .......Committed is PAST TENSE... if they are LIVING IN ADULTERY that is PRESENT TENSE.. no forgiveness for continual sin

[TK Burk]

The Pharisees were keeping the "letter of the law" meticulously. However, they had neglected justice, mercy, and faith. In my example of above, in respects to the second wife's wellbeing and her children's wellbeing, I'm trying to act in favor of justice, mercy, and faith. Because it will be this second wife and her precious children that pay the price....not this man.

Wow! You keep coming up with new suprises!

You believe the Pharisees were the ones who kept the "letter of the Law"?? No wonder you keep missing this stuff….

The Bible describes the Sadducees as the Conservatives, and the Pharisees as the Liberals. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘conservative’ as “one who adheres to traditional methods or views,” and ‘Liberal’ as being “not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.” The Sadducees rejected the traditions of man and embraced the "letter of the Law." The Pharisees believed in the written Torah, but interpreted them through their "traditions of the Elders" and "Oral Law." Consequently the Sadducees were more concerned with what the Word said a righteous man ‘can’t do,’ and the Pharisees were focused more on what a man ‘can do’ while yet remaining pious. We don’t find Jesus speaking against the Sadducees on many issues (some, but not much). However, we do find Him continually dealing with the doctrines of the Pharisees. As an example, look at this exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees:

Mark 7:5-13
(5) Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
(6) He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
(7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
(9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
(10) For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
(11) But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
(12) And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother;
(13) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

After AD70, the Sadducees mostly disappear, but the Pharisees survive. Later they compiled the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical commentaries on the Mishna and Oral Law. These writings specifically focus on how these traditions are to be applied to their brand of Judaism. It is these teachings that are the foundation stones on which modern Judaism is primarily built.

Brother, you are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You are neglecting God's Word and saying that if something stands in a convert's way, it is acceptable to bend the rules to accomodate them. Did you remember one of the Laws I asked about was Deuteronomy 13:6-10? Remember, it is the one that says a man is supposed to KILL his wife and children if they stands in his way of salvation. You said that was still acceptable. Now you say YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT HER AND HER KIDS??? :crazy

I guess you just post whatever is best for your case at the time???

[LUKE2447]

TK Burk

though I agree with Aquila's position for the most part on POLYGAMY you are CORRECT on the Pharisees. The traditional position of many is flawed on that aspect. The pharisees added fences and built up standards that should not have been done an negated the law of GOd for TRADITIONS of men. Jesus ripped them several times for it. Also the Sadducees would have been the more literal group. Very strict in application and reading of the Word.

[TK Burk]

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice.

ONLY PROBLEM HERE IS THIS .......Committed is PAST TENSE... if they are LIVING IN ADULTERY that is PRESENT TENSE.. no forgiveness for continual sin

Okay Doc, I’ll bite….

The Bible says:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
(28) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
(29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; BECAUSE HE HATH HUMBLED HER, HE MAY NOT PUT HER AWAY ALL HIS DAYS.

There is a LOT of folks out there who committed fornication before marrying someone else. This says the man is commanded to marry the first girl and stay with her “ALL HIS DAYS.”

So there you go Doc. Know anybody who falls into that category? If so, and if they aren't with that 'old fling,' then you better go tell them to find a good lawyer because they’re living in adultery. Imagine the divorce rate in the Church with this one!









Come on guys, your arguments are getting sillier and sillier! First it's okay to have as many wives as they did in the old west (whatever THAT means). And then its okay to kill your spouse, kids, and friends because certain cultures say it is. Now it's only certain sins are washed away? What's next???

[Aquila]

Wow! I never said anything like YOU indicated here. Where did I say anything about divorce? You must really be desperate to prove as a Christian you can still kill rebellious kids, your spouse, and your friends, and also have as many wives as the Old West allows. :winkgrin

To answer your question, what's done BEFORE converstion is not the same as what's done AFTER. Consider these:

2 Corinthians 5:17
(17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 6:4-6
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Colossians 1:21-23
(21) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
(22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:
(23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice. Them being "Born Again" of the water and Spirit in Jesus' name is exactly that; they died to their old ways, old sins, old lifestyle, and are then born anew into a New Creature in Christ.

Blah, blah, blah. You still still didn't even address the scenario given. Would you force this man to divorce his second wife, subjugating her and her children to a life of abuse, or allow him to keep her, teaching him that polygamy isn't our custom and that it stops with him?

Marriage is a covenant. It stands, even if it happened before salvation. Else....we'd have to force couples to re-marry after getting saved!

[Aquila]

Wow! You keep coming up with new suprises!

You believe the Pharisees were the ones who kept the "letter of the Law"?? No wonder you keep missing this stuff….

The Bible describes the Sadducees as the Conservatives, and the Pharisees as the Liberals. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘conservative’ as “one who adheres to traditional methods or views,” and ‘Liberal’ as being “not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.” The Sadducees rejected the traditions of man and embraced the "letter of the Law." The Pharisees believed in the written Torah, but interpreted them through their "traditions of the Elders" and "Oral Law." Consequently the Sadducees were more concerned with what the Word said a righteous man ‘can’t do,’ and the Pharisees were focused more on what a man ‘can do’ while yet remaining pious. We don’t find Jesus speaking against the Sadducees on many issues (some, but not much). However, we do find Him continually dealing with the doctrines of the Pharisees. As an example, look at this exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees:

Mark 7:5-13
(5) Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
(6) He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
(7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
(9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
(10) For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
(11) But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
(12) And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother;
(13) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

After AD70, the Sadducees mostly disappear, but the Pharisees survive. Later they compiled the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical commentaries on the Mishna and Oral Law. These writings specifically focus on how these traditions are to be applied to their brand of Judaism. It is these teachings that are the foundation stones on which modern Judaism is primarily built.

Brother, you are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You are neglecting God's Word and saying that if something stands in a convert's way, it is acceptable to bend the rules to accomodate them. Did you remember one of the Laws I asked about was Deuteronomy 13:6-10? Remember, it is the one that says a man is supposed to KILL his wife and children if they stands in his way of salvation. You said that was still acceptable. Now you say YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT HER AND HER KIDS??? :crazy

I guess you just post whatever is best for your case at the time???

Address the issue.

[Aquila]

Okay Doc, I’ll bite….

The Bible says:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
(28) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
(29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; BECAUSE HE HATH HUMBLED HER, HE MAY NOT PUT HER AWAY ALL HIS DAYS.
There is a LOT of folks out there who committed fornication before marrying someone else. This says the man is commanded to marry the first girl and stay with her “ALL HIS DAYS.”

Address the issues you were presented with. Address the points made in posts 495 and 525.

So there you go Doc. Know anybody who falls into that category? If so, and if they aren't with that 'old fling,' then you better go tell them to find a good lawyer because they’re living in adultery. Imagine the divorce rate in the Church with this one!

You're proving the point. ;)

We don't make people divorce, we don't make people marry the first person they were with. In like fashion I advocate that we were wrong to try to force this polygamous Ethiopian to divorce his second wife and abandon his children.

Come on guys, your arguments are getting sillier and sillier! First it's okay to have as many wives as they did in the old west (whatever THAT means). And then its okay to kill your spouse, kids, and friends because certain cultures say it is. Now it's only certain sins are washed away? What's next???

Excessive exaggeration is tantamount to lying.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Marriage is a covenant. It stands, even if it happened before salvation. Else....we'd have to force couples to re-marry after getting saved!

Brother, this was an awesome statement and soo true.. if the old man dies at Calvary and so do any former vows and contracts.. I suppose that applies across the board and all new believers should be married again with new vows...

[Aquila]

Marriage is a covenant. It stands, even if it happened before salvation. Else....we'd have to force couples to re-marry after getting saved!

Brother, this was an awesome statement and soo true.. if the old man dies at Calvary and so do any former vows and contracts.. I suppose that applies across the board and all new believers should be married again with new vows...

Amen. That's why I don't understand why so many think conversion automatically makes adulterous marriages "sanctified". Yet...they would argue that polygamous marriages (which aren't explicitly condemned in the NT) must be dissolved. For the sake of consistency, if they're going to break up a polygamous marriage... they should also refuse to acknowledge adulterous marriages in which a partner was previously married and put away on grounds other than fornication.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Bro. Benincasa....I think you're wresting Scripture. Spiritual principles aren't based on "math". Let's return to Scriptural examples and let me ask you....

It's all about math and it's you and your buds who can't count.
First Adam has one rib removed and is made one wife. It sets a Biblical precedent for marriage. Jesus has ONE wife for life, and that's His Bride, finishing the perfect picture of Biblical realtionship. The elders of the church are to reflect this by only having ONE WIFE.


Was not Abraham one flesh with both Sarah and Hagar?

Gen 17:15-16

"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy WIFE (SINGULAR), thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless HER (SINGULAR), and give thee a son also of HER (SINGULAR): yea, I will bless HER (SINGULAR), and SHE (SINGULAR) shall be a MOTHER (SINGULAR) of nations; kings of people shall be of HER (SINGULAR)."

Amazingly enough, God only acknowledges Sarah as Abraham's wife. Hagar is considered by God to be Sarah and Abraham's idea. Kind of a short cut to help God along, or should I say forcing God's hand.

Gen 16:2-5

"And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's WIFE (SINGULAR) took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to HER (SINGULAR) husband Abram to be his WIFE (SARAH AND ABRAHAM'S IDEA). And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram, MY WRONG BE UPON THEE: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: THE LORD JUDGE BETWEEN ME AND THEE."

The Lord judge between me and thee? Well, well, well, here we have Abraham's wife admitting that she was wrong, and that Abraham was to blame for allowing Sarah to do such a thing. God's plan was to use Abraham's wife of his youth, not some maid. The promise was only made to ONE WOMAN.


Yes or no?

Only the one wife was legit in the eyes of God. The promise of Abraham goes through Abraham's wife of his youth.


Was not Jacob one flesh with Leah, Rachel, and Bilhah?

Again here we have individuals using their own human will to get the job done.

Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah (not Jacob's intent,) and therefore he works seven more years to marry his original choice. Leah knows that Jacob didn't even like her, and since by the tradition of Jacob's people he was supposed to marry the first born, God had respect to Leah. Because Leah is the legal wife (first born daughter), Jacob knew the drill, but wanted to bypass the rules to marry the younger daughter. The father of Leah pulls the switch on Jacob.

Still you have the original wife being the first Leah, it's Jacob who agrees with Laban to gain the second choice. God honors the first and original wife by giving her the most children. Therefore showing us the blessing was upon Leah, the first and legal choice, the first born daughter.



Was not Moses one flesh with both Zipporah and the "Ethiopian woman"?

Show me where Zipporah was still alive while Moses was married to Zipporah?



Was not David one flesh with Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and Bathsheba?

David was instructed by the Torah not to do the above, and most of those marriages were done for political reasons as was the case in ancient society.

Deu 17:17

"NEITHER SHALL HE MULTIPLY WIVES TO HIMSELF, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."



Was not Jacob both a polygamist and a type of Christ?

How can he be when Jesus only has one Bride? :ursofunny



IF Jacob was an Old Testament type of Christ...would Christ be properly typified by an unrepentant man of an egregious sin like this if polygamy is indeed a sin?

IF a bullfrog hand wings he wouldn't bump his hindquarters every time he hopped.

Listen lad, maybe I need to type slower, JESUS ONLY HAS ONE BRIDE, ONLY ONE.

Yes or no?



God commanded that the Israelites take all the women as plunder...even though many of these soldiers were already married...

Deuteronomy 20:14
"14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

Are you for real? So you claim the word "TAKE" means to marry?

Elder Burk, now Mr. Aquila has added pedophila and bestiality to his polygamy wierdness. Whatever, Aquila your last name wouldn't happen to be Jeffs would it?


If polygamy is a sin and not God's will...why did God command it? Is God a sinner?

God commanded it? Where did you see that in the Bible?



....and please don't run away and leave this thread without addressing these questions. I want to know how you answer. Especially since you accuse some brethren of "wresting Scripture".

Yes, you not only wrest the scripture but you make up this doctrine as you go along. I think your mother should roll up a newspaper and walk into your bedroom while you're posting and bust you across the nose.



In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Scott Hutchinson]

Multiple wives would mean multiple maxed out credit cards.

[TK Burk]

Address the issue.

I did.

Can't handle being wrong, eh?

[TK Burk]

Address the issues you were presented with. Address the points made in posts 495 and 525.



You're proving the point. ;)

We don't make people divorce, we don't make people marry the first person they were with. In like fashion I advocate that we were wrong to try to force this polygamous Ethiopian to divorce his second wife and abandon his children.



Excessive exaggeration is tantamount to lying.

Why so angry?? I DID answer the points. If you will reread my post, you'll see I was answering Dr. Vaughn.

[TK Burk]

Blah, blah, blah. You still still didn't even address the scenario given. Would you force this man to divorce his second wife, subjugating her and her children to a life of abuse, or allow him to keep her, teaching him that polygamy isn't our custom and that it stops with him?

Marriage is a covenant. It stands, even if it happened before salvation. Else....we'd have to force couples to re-marry after getting saved!

Angry again?? Wow! :crazy

[Evang.Benincasa]

Why so angry?? I DID answer the points. If you will reread my post, you'll see I was answering Dr. Vaughn.

Elder Burk doesn't this stuff get old quick?

[TK Burk]

Blah, blah, blah. You still still didn't even address the scenario given. Would you force this man to divorce his second wife, subjugating her and her children to a life of abuse, or allow him to keep her, teaching him that polygamy isn't our custom and that it stops with him?

Marriage is a covenant. It stands, even if it happened before salvation. Else....we'd have to force couples to re-marry after getting saved!

I did....

This is why Jesus said we must count the cost.... Evidently he did and it was too high.

Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right! (See Mark 8:34-38; 1Peter 4:13-16)

You just can't handle the fact that these scriptures do not agree with your philosophy. :woot

[TK Burk]

Amen. That's why I don't understand why so many think conversion automatically makes adulterous marriages "sanctified". Yet...they would argue that polygamous marriages (which aren't explicitly condemned in the NT) must be dissolved. For the sake of consistency, if they're going to break up a polygamous marriage... they should also refuse to acknowledge adulterous marriages in which a partner was previously married and put away on grounds other than fornication.

Okay, let me get this straight…

You blast me for saying a polygamous man should leave his second wife and live only with his first wife to be saved…. Then you say if a man divorced BEFORE being saved he must divorce his second wife and return to his first wife to be saved…. And you wonder why your posts are not being answered??

:ursofunny :crazy :woot :slaphappy :heeheehee :lol :killinme :nutso

[Evang.Benincasa]

Okay, let me get this straight…

You blast me for saying a polygamous man should leave his second wife and live only with his first wife to be saved…. Then you say if a man divorced BEFORE being saved he must divorce his second wife and return to his first wife to be saved…. And you wonder why your posts are not being answered??

:ursofunny :crazy :woot :slaphappy :heeheehee :lol :killinme :nutso

Aquila your mother should bust you upside the head with her fuzzy slipper because of your wasting time on her computer.

[Aquila]

It's all about math and it's you and your buds who can't count.
First Adam has one rib removed and is made one wife. It sets a Biblical precedent for marriage. Jesus has ONE wife for life, and that's His Bride, finishing the perfect picture of Biblical realtionship. The elders of the church are to reflect this by only having ONE WIFE.

They were also naked...are you a nudist? lol



Gen 17:15-16

"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy WIFE (SINGULAR), thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless HER (SINGULAR), and give thee a son also of HER (SINGULAR): yea, I will bless HER (SINGULAR), and SHE (SINGULAR) shall be a MOTHER (SINGULAR) of nations; kings of people shall be of HER (SINGULAR)."

Amazingly enough, God only acknowledges Sarah as Abraham's wife. Hagar is considered by God to be Sarah and Abraham's idea. Kind of a short cut to help God along, or should I say forcing God's hand.

Gen 16:2-5

"And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's WIFE (SINGULAR) took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to HER (SINGULAR) husband Abram to be his WIFE (SARAH AND ABRAHAM'S IDEA). And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram, MY WRONG BE UPON THEE: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: THE LORD JUDGE BETWEEN ME AND THEE."

The Lord judge between me and thee? Well, well, well, here we have Abraham's wife admitting that she was wrong, and that Abraham was to blame for allowing Sarah to do such a thing. God's plan was to use Abraham's wife of his youth, not some maid. The promise was only made to ONE WOMAN.

Only the one wife was legit in the eyes of God. The promise of Abraham goes through Abraham's wife of his youth.

Actually you're mistaken. First, God never condemns Abraham for polygamy, God simply informs Abraham that Ishmael wasn't going to be the promised seed because God promised that seed through Sarah.

Also, Hagar is regarded as a legit wife in God's eyes. God blesses her and Ishmael, thereby ensuring that the receives an inheritance and a blessing.... it was Sarah who was being heartless insisting that a woman her her child be cast into the desert when the whole thing was her idea.

"20And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." - Genesis 17:19-21

Again here we have individuals using their own human will to get the job done.

Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah (not Jacob's intent,) and therefore he works seven more years to marry his original choice. Leah knows that Jacob didn't even like her, and since by the tradition of Jacob's people he was supposed to marry the first born, God had respect to Leah. Because Leah is the legal wife (first born daughter), Jacob knew the drill, but wanted to bypass the rules to marry the younger daughter. The father of Leah pulls the switch on Jacob.

Still you have the original wife being the first Leah, it's Jacob who agrees with Laban to gain the second choice. God honors the first and original wife by giving her the most children. Therefore showing us the blessing was upon Leah, the first and legal choice, the first born daughter.


I think you miss the point of the story...Jacob and Rachel were the victim's of Laban's deception. The marriage was originally agreed to be between Jacob and Rachel. Laban deceived Jacob by inserting Leah into the mix. Rachel was the woman Jacob loved and the woman he had worked seven years for.

Genesis 29:25
25And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?

You're siding with Laban, the deceiver, illustrates you don't know a thing about the complexity of this story. God only gave so many children to Leah because she was hated (Genesis 29:31), not because of him viewing her as the legitimate wife.

Rachel was considered the primary wife because Jacob married Leah without his knowledge....

Rabbi Eleazar further remarked: "Since Jacob had to find his wife by the well, why did he not meet there Leah, who was to be the mother of so many tribes? The answer is that it was not the will of God that Leah should be espoused to Jacob openly, and in fact he married her without his knowledge, as it is written: And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah. It was also in order to rivet his eye and heart on the beauty of Rachel, so that he should establish his principal abode with her." (Zohar, Bereishit, Section 1, Page 153a)

God's word even places her in a position of being preeminent by naming her first....

Genesis 31:14
14And Rachel and Leah answered and said unto him, Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father's house?

Those unfamiliar with ancient Middle Eastern customs will not see how this verse is so significant, but it is VERY telling.

So then, back to the story.... Jacob had to work seven more years to earn the hand of Rachel, the woman he loved. And then to add insult to injury....Leah was able to bare Jacob children while Rachel wasn't because she was hated (Genesis 29:31). All of this: her father's deception, being unable to bare children, made Rachel bitter against her father and her sister and left her heart broken. She loved Jacob...and Jacob loved Rachel. Lastly who did Rachel give birth to? Joseph was one son...and God blessed him to rule over his brethren. ;)

Show me where Zipporah was still alive while Moses was married to Zipporah?

Show me where it states she's dead.

David was instructed by the Torah not to do the above, and most of those marriages were done for political reasons as was the case in ancient society.

Deu 17:17

"NEITHER SHALL HE MULTIPLY WIVES TO HIMSELF, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

Those who are ignorant as to Eastern customs among kings fail to see what this is obviously addressing. Kings would multiply wives as part of treaties with foreign nations. These wives were pagan and stood a chance of turning the heart of the king away into idolatry (we see this happen to Solomon). What is being condemned her isn't polygamy....it's multiplying foreign wives.


Are you for real? So you claim the word "TAKE" means to marry?


When God commanded that they "take" the virgins they were to marry them per the directions given in the Law....

Deuteronomy 21:10-13
10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

TO BE CONTINUED:

[Aquila]

CONTINUED:

Also, something else is of interest in this passage....

Deuteronomy 21:15-17
15If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Here God's law codifies rights of inheritance in a polygamous marriage. God himself states that it is possible to be legitimately married to two women by using the term "two wives". If it were only possible to have one wife...maybe you should correct God...because obviously you think you know more about this than he does.

Elder Burk, now Mr. Aquila has added pedophila and bestiality to his polygamy wierdness. Whatever, Aquila your last name wouldn't happen to be Jeffs would it?

I never said any such thing and I find that HIGHLY insulting.

God commanded it? Where did you see that in the Bible?

It's a known fact that the Law commands a man to take his brother's wife and sire children in his brother's name. This was to be done even if he were already married.

Yes, you not only wrest the scripture but you make up this doctrine as you go along. I think your mother should roll up a newspaper and walk into your bedroom while you're posting and bust you across the nose.

You continue to get insulting and going personal. My mother died last year just two days before my son's first birthday. You need to stop with the personal attacks and insults and simply DISCUSS the subject with us like a man of God.

[Aquila]

Why so angry?? I DID answer the points. If you will reread my post, you'll see I was answering Dr. Vaughn.

What makes you think I'm angry? Was I typing too loudly? LOL

Only one thing has made me upset so far. And bro, you've not upset me. I've actually enjoyed talking to you.

[Aquila]

Okay, let me get this straight…

You blast me for saying a polygamous man should leave his second wife and live only with his first wife to be saved…. Then you say if a man divorced BEFORE being saved he must divorce his second wife and return to his first wife to be saved…. And you wonder why your posts are not being answered??

:ursofunny :crazy :woot :slaphappy :heeheehee :lol :killinme :nutso

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm only pointing out that you offer grace for men in what are explicitly condemned as adulterous marriages but condemn a family and risk subjecting women and their children to abuse, though polygamy is never condemned. I would extend that grace to men and women in polygamous marriages.

I wouldn't allow the polygamy to continue. It would end with that generation. My point is I would have the second wife and her children's welfare in mind while you're just following what you "think" the Bible says.

One rule I hold....I refuse to hurt a person over an "interpretation" of Scripture. If an issue is debatable, I lean toward mercy.

[Aquila]

Aquila your mother should bust you upside the head with her fuzzy slipper because of your wasting time on her computer.

She can't. She's dead.

Died July 7, 2007 of a massive heart attack at 54 tears old...just two days before my son's first birthday.

Now....please get out of the mud and personal insults and let's try to discuss this like adults.

[Aquila]

Multiple wives would mean multiple maxed out credit cards.

So true! lol

[Aquila]

God doesn't "tolerate sin". If polygamy was a sin why didn't God express it at all against Abraham? Why didn't God condemn Jacob, Moses, and David. In fact, when Moses is spoken against because he took a second wife who was Ethiopian...God DEFENDS Moses. Not only that but the Bible says that Gideon had many wives who bore him 70 sons....yet God doesn't condemn or sanction him once over it. In fact, listen to how the elders of Israel bless Ruth when she marries Boaz.....


"11And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:" - Ruth 4:11

This blessing implies that Jacob's polygamy was a blessing, not a sin, not a curse, not an "allowance". You'd condemn Jacob to Hell for committing Adultery. God's Word in no way insinuates such a thing. God's word implies that Jacob's polygamous marriages were a blessing.

Elkanah has two wives and yet he's described as faithful in his worship of the Lord (I Samuel 1:3). His worship is accepted and commended. God could have easily said, "Yet in having two wives, God was not entirely pleased with Elkanah." But Elkanah is regarded as a faithful man who is commendable before God. You'd say Elkanah was in adultery. Since he never repented of this "adultery" (if it is indeed adultery) Elkanah is burning in a devil's Hell today.

David marries Michal, then Abigail and Ahinoam. David then takes Maachah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah. David then takes more wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13). Then David commits adultery with Bathsheba. Now...no where in all the marriages prior to David meeting Bathsheba does the Bible say that David "did evil in the sight of the Lord". It wasn't until Bathsheba that David is confronted for the sin of adultery. This obviously illustrates that none of the unions prior to Bathsheba can be classified as adulterous or sinful. It was David's taking of a wife that didn't belong to him that provoked God to anger. Up until then God was blessing David.

Now...here's a BIGGIE. Not only does God not speak against David's many wives...God says that HE GAVE DAVID THESE WIVES (2 Samuel 12:8). Not only that, this text has God telling David that if that had not been enough....God would have given him MORE! Certainly God isn't "tolerating sin"....because if he is...he's also the author of it.

Psalm 26:1-12, indicates that during this time David walked in "integrity...truth...and hates wickedness". If David were in sin with these polygamous marriages....this would not be true. David goes on to say, "I restrain my feet from every evil way, that I may keep your word" (Psalms 119:101). Obviously when David married his wives and spent time with them, it wasn't sinful. The only sin David is condemned for is his adultery with Uriah's wife and his having Uriah murdered. In Psalm 119:128, David says, "I esteem right all thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way". David obviously didn't hate polygamy. And God certainly didn't hate it seeing that David's wives were given to him by God.

My point is that God isn't "tolerating sin", God is the very one who has given men multiple wives, namely David. And God has also NEVER spoken against these men.

Polygmay is not a sin.

However, when addressing marriage Paul does emphasize that many of this directions were good "for their present distress". Polygamy was illegal under the Roman Empire...so Paul doesn't directly speak of it or address it. It would be unthinkable to Paul for a good Christian citizen of Rome to illegally marry more than one wife. But Paul doesn't condemn polygamy as sin...if he did...he'd be condemning the majority of the men of God in the OT and even God himself for giving wives.

Now, I think this present distress (the church sojourning in a hostile world and under secular and ungodly governments) continues today and therefore monogamous marriage is still best in the context of our place in history and dispensations. However, during the Millennium, it's possible that we will see a reassurance of polygamy as Israel receives every covenantal promise of God contained in the Law and the Prophets. Of course...I could be wrong. However, those who partake in the "resurrection" will be like the angels in Heaven neither marrying or giving in marriage.

[TK Burk]

What makes you think I'm angry? Was I typing too loudly? LOL

Only one thing has made me upset so far. And bro, you've not upset me. I've actually enjoyed talking to you.

I am glad. Don't take what's said personally. I enjoy the talk as well....

[Aquila]

Here's something interesting....

2 Samuel 12:7-9
7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Notice something in Nathan's rebuke. God says that He gave David the multiple wives he received from the house of Saul. Notice also that God states that if it would not have been enough, God would have given him more. David isn't condemned by God for having multiple wives. He's condemned by God for taking a woman who was wife to another man and then having that man, Uriah, killed.

(Side Note: David doesn't violate the law of Deuteronomy 17:17 because these women were all Israelite. The concern of Deuteronomy 17:17 was a king multiplying foreign wives because they might turn his heart away from serving Jehovah.)

Clearly polygamy isn't a sin.

Now, is monogamy superior? I think so. I think it allows for more stability and happiness. But I see it sociologically. In an ancient agrarian culture surrounded by desert and enemies polygamy would most likely be best. It would grow families, increase wealth, and provide protection for women. But in our Western culture it's not necessary. It would create more issues than it would resolve. Therefore I believe that in modern America monogamy is superior to polygamy.

[Hoovie]

Here's something interesting....

2 Samuel 12:7-9
7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Notice something in Nathan's rebuke. God says that He gave David the multiple wives he received from the house of Saul. Notice also that God states that if it would not have been enough, God would have given him more. David isn't condemned by God for having multiple wives. He's condemned by God for taking a woman who was wife to another man and then having that man, Uriah, killed.

(Side Note: David doesn't violate the law of Deuteronomy 17:17 because these women were all Israelite. The concern of Deuteronomy 17:17 was a king multiplying foreign wives because they might turn his heart away from serving Jehovah.)

Clearly polygamy isn't a sin.

Now, is monogamy superior? I think so. I think it allows for more stability and happiness. But I see it sociologically. In an ancient agrarian culture surrounded by desert and enemies polygamy would most likely be best. It would grow families, increase wealth, and provide protection for women. But in our Western culture it's not necessary. It would create more issues than it would resolve. Therefore I believe that in modern America monogamy is superior to polygamy.


Anyway you slice it this take is troubling. It means cheating on your wife is NOT sin, as long as the woman is not married to someone else.

[joshua33]

Aquila, just wanted to thank you for keeping this debate civil and sticking to plain scripture.

From reading both sides, there is not one verse that plainly condemns Polygamy. The laws were very specific about so many scenarios.. how in the world can someone call it a sin when it is not among the many God given laws? You think they just forgot to put it in?

Can anyone provide any scripture condemning polygamy as a sin? I see multiple instances where it is practiced and God acknowledges the practice, yet no condemnation.

Also, I know adultery in the bible means 'woman that breaketh wedlock' (I looked up the biblical/Hebrew definition). So how is it 'cheating' if a man is in wedlock with more than one woman as Abraham and so many were? Again why wasn't this fairly common practice condemned if it is sin?

[Aquila]

Anyway you slice it this take is troubling. It means cheating on your wife is NOT sin, as long as the woman is not married to someone else.

That is troubling isn't it. From my studies it appears that in ancient Israel the marriage contract is primarily a social contract. The women involved were considered to belong to the men they were married to. "Adultery" wasn't so much the sex act, it was a breach in contract. If a man took another man's wife, it was adultery. The first man sinned against the second man by taking what was that man's alone. It was a patriarchal society and most of the laws were geared toward protecting the rights and property of the men involved. It also provided women protection and provision in a brutal agrarian world. That being said, when it comes to polygamy, if a husband desired more than one wife, nothing was wrong as long as these women were in covenant with him. And nothing was wrong with entering covenant with additional women if the first wife was agreeable.

It seems like Paul lifts marriage higher by saying that spouse's bodies belong to one another. But still this could be interpreted as being rather permissive given the couple.

[Aquila]

Aquila, just wanted to thank you for keeping this debate civil and sticking to plain scripture.

From reading both sides, there is not one verse that plainly condemns Polygamy. The laws were very specific about so many scenarios.. how in the world can someone call it a sin when it is not among the many God given laws? You think they just forgot to put it in?

Can anyone provide any scripture condemning polygamy as a sin? I see multiple instances where it is practiced and God acknowledges the practice, yet no condemnation.

Also, I know adultery in the bible means 'woman that breaketh wedlock' (I looked up the biblical/Hebrew definition). So how is it 'cheating' if a man is in wedlock with more than one woman as Abraham and so many were? Again why wasn't this fairly common practice condemned if it is sin?

I think people are so focused on what happens in the bedroom they don't see how the institution of polygamy strengthened the social fabric of ancient Israel. Remember, it was a culture very much unlike our own. I don't see a need for polygamy in most Western countries, but like I said, if something happened that brought civilization to it's knees....I can see it becoming the norm again for the sake of survival.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Judgment had already been pronounced on the earth due to mans erroneous ways. God destroyed the earth. They took them wives (multiple) of all which they chose. This violated Gods original intent. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. He had only one wife and children from that one wife. God Spirit began to strive with man. Why? God saw the wickedness of man.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

God has mercy on us knowing that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. It is not because it is his desire for us to have multiple marriages, his mercy covers our iniquities. His grace showers us with blessings if we are by faith trying to do our personal best in spite of our many flaws. This does not however eliminate if we do wrong we will not pay the consequence for our wrongdoing on earth. Seed time and harvest time. Our eternal destiny is based on faith in doing what we know is to be the will of God. God deals with our sin based on his covenant with Adam of a coming savior/redeemer. If we keep his type and shadow of offering an animal sacrifice to take the place of our sin He then deals with the eternal consequence of sin. This does not eliminate the immediate consequence of sin and the pain, suffering it will bring to us when the harvest comes. What happened between Sarah and Hagar, and her seed and Hagar's?

He was tolerating sin and did not immediately condemn it. Before the law of Moses was established we see God had already established LAWS. We see in the action of the Patriarchs and know that God had given them laws regarding His will. This is called Oral Tradition which later began to be written down as the Mishnah and later included the rabbinic discussions with it known as the Talmud. Even some details of this are evident in the New Testament as we find further elaboration on what was written in the Tanakh or Hebrew Word of God that was not originally in there. The Midrash also included them which is a Hebrew Commentary on the scriptures.

God began to deal with SIN orally as each sin became evident. The second (? pride 1st, anger, then murder)sin anger is dealt with by Jesus as well in Matthew 5. Not only the act of murder but what leads up to committing the actual sin. There was no written law against Adultery but Joseph knew what it was. Everyone knew they had to build an altar. Oral Law. Abraham paid tithes. The reason God did not condemn polygamy immediately was that he was striving with man. This did not make it OK God knows the progression of sin. It begins with a thought an emotion/feeling before it becomes an action.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Will continue in a moment

Blessings

Pastor Salaz

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Original intent once again is spelled out by Jesus. Not because this is Gods design but because of the hardness of our heart to hear and do the will of God.

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 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.

What was happening in the days of Noah/Noe?

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Did God tolerate sin? Yes he did! Who did Jesus go and preach to? Those that were disobedient as we see above. Disobedient in marriage. They didn't believe God, no faith, did their own will and condemned themselves. Hard hearts. The same thing that saves some condemns others. Doing Gods will and intention for us to have a blessed and prosperous life. Otherwise it brings hardships and condemnation. The ark and baptism symbols of faith and obedience. If we believe, we do what God says, if we don't we show unbelief or lack of faith.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


The Word specifically mentions this disobedience as one of the reasons why God brought judgment. It mentions as in the days of Noah so shall it be when God brings judgment again. Not by flood this time though.


Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Just because they were not born out of Gods original intent did not mean they wouldn't become men of Renown and mighty. They still were sinful and judgment came. If they had faith in God and did righteousness by trying to fulfill Gods Laws to the best of their ability God did not condemn them to hell as a sinner but their faith was counted unto them as righteousness. Hebrews 11. Just as we do not fulfill every detail of the moral law yet our faith is counted to us for righteousness. The ceremonial law is fulfilled in Jesus and we no longer have to deal with the types and shadows but we still have to fulfill the moral law to please God not to be saved. How many men of renown do we have now that are men of God but still do unrighteous deeds. I count myself in on that one. Yet my overall testimony is clearly seen because I have faith in God.

Moral Law continues, ceremonial ceases with resurrection, one day all will be fulfilled. Everyone is saved by faith both old and new testament. No one was ever saved by trying to keep the law it only showed them how they have failed and pointed for the need of a savior.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Can you imagine what God had to deal with. Not only the actual commiting of sin but every imagination of the thought? Man had evil thoughts and thought evil thoughts (imaginations) about thoughts.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

When mercy has reached it limit Judgment follows. When man no longer reaches out to Gods outstretched hand we see in Proverbs 1 what happens.

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Gen 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

All flesh included Noah but Noah found Grace by doing in faith what he knew to please God.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Multiple wives and fathers are not able to properly be a spiritual guide to them. He cannot spread himself so thin with jealousies, bickering, fighting, envies, coveting attention, etc.. It is hard enough to keep one wifes family in order much more multiple wives.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The prophets were the ones who God spoke to in order to deliver his message. Which includes Adam Through Moses up until Samuel where prophets become the ones who God primarily speaks through after this for even the priests left Gods ways and were not able to hear God and deliver his message.

The reason that God is still tolerating sin is because of his mercy not because he is always pleased with our action. He will not condemn us if we are trying to do his will though we fail miserably. This was the intent of the law, to guide us into his moral nature and show us that we cannot be saved by that (it condemns us), but also to give us ceremonial laws that hinted of his mercy. Otherwise can you imagine the endless list of laws that God would have to create. Just read what he gave and tries to deal with all our wickedness. These would be of no avail for they cannot save us but condemn us. God had to deal with the sin that was being committed already especially in marriage and relationships.

God though Jesus' words gives us his original intent. The law had to deal with our wayward actions and reconcile our relationships without destroying the lives of those already involved in our misguided judgments. Such as Sarah and Abraham. The deed was already done Abraham fathered a child out of Gods original intent. God still had mercy on Hagar and honored Abraham's seed, but this seed was always going to be against every man. Even though God made a great nation out of him and from him came twelve princes. This came through Abraham hearkening to the voice of Sarah. Sound familiar?

Gen 16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

So much more. I will address some individual posts as I go back and read through some of them. I may have to come back and go more into detail om this as it is picked apart.

Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?


Blessings
Pastor D.T. Salaz

[LUKE2447]

ORAL LAW or Rabbinical teaching NEVER was God's Word. You my friend have called something that is not God's Word his Word! Any basic teaching on Hebrew elements of scriptures and traditions would teach you that these two are not the same and the Law of Moses is one thing and the others are added ON TOP of that. Jesus ripped them negating God's laws.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

ORAL LAW or Rabbinical teaching NEVER was God's Word. You my friend have called something that is not God's Word his Word! Any basic teaching on Hebrew elements of scriptures and traditions would teach you that these two are not the same and the Law of Moses is one thing and the others are added ON TOP of that. Jesus ripped them negating God's laws.

What law was given to the patriarchs? A written law?

Much of what is in the oral law is true though it is not God inspired word.

Same goes for the Apocrypha. Though it is not the inspired word of God many truths are expounded there. We don't accept them because during that time there was no word from God through a prophet as such called the silent years. Ever heard of the Maccabees?

Where do we get the culture and customs from? Many writings that are historical records. We study these though they are not the word of God. Do you have Josephus or Eusebius the father of church history on your book shelve. These are a good study though you should not equate them to the Word of God.

Tell me where the additional detail comes from that is added to the New Testament that not found in the Old. You probably have never studied that.

[LUKE2447]

What law was given to the patriarchs? A written law?

Much of what is in the oral law is true though it is not God inspired word.

Same goes for the Apocrypha. Though it is not the inspired word of God many truths are expounded there. We don't accept them because during that time there was no word from God through a prophet as such called the silent years. Ever heard of the Maccabees?

Where do we get the culture and customs from? Many writings that are historical records. We study these though they are not the word of God. Do you have Josephus or Eusebius the father of church history on your book shelve. These are a good study though you should not equate them to the Word of God.

Tell me where the additional detail comes from that is added to the New Testament that not found in the Old. You probably have never studied that.

The Mishnah, Talmud, and others are not God's Word nor inspired! You cannot claim the law the Patriarchs had or was given was that of the Mishnah and others. Not even Messianic Jews would say that. What is true in the Oral Law is pure speculation on our part.

Your point on Revelations is your own speculation. There is plenty of historical precedents that Revelations is authentic. If you want to argue 2 Peter, Esther or 3rd John as noncanonical then I might give you a ear.

[LUKE2447]

What law was given to the patriarchs? A written law?

Much of what is in the oral law is true though it is not God inspired word.

Same goes for the Apocrypha. Though it is not the inspired word of God many truths are expounded there. We don't accept them because during that time there was no word from God through a prophet as such called the silent years. Ever heard of the Maccabees?

Where do we get the culture and customs from? Many writings that are historical records. We study these though they are not the word of God. Do you have Josephus or Eusebius the father of church history on your book shelve. These are a good study though you should not equate them to the Word of God.

Tell me where the additional detail comes from that is added to the New Testament that not found in the Old. You probably have never studied that.


Also don't ASSUME anything with me. You know nothing of my background nor of my studies!

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Also don't ASSUME anything with me. You know nothing of my background nor of my studies!

I am sorry that for questioning your background but I don't understand if you have studied biblical criticism how you do not realize the different forms that are available to validate the written Word.

As I said I do not equate the oral tradition that we have today as the original. The only original we do have is that which was given to Moses as the Genesis account. In it we can see that there is many laws that were given, as they observed them.

Source criticism

Core principles

* Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narrratives.
* A given source may be forged or corrupted why strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.
* The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened
* A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, that is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.
* If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
* The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
* If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

[LUKE2447]

I am sorry that for questioning your background but I don't understand if you have studied biblical criticism how you do not realize the different forms that are available to validate the written Word.

As I said I do not equate the oral tradition that we have today as the original. The only original we do have is that which was given to Moses as the Genesis account. In it we can see that there is many laws that were given, as they observed them.

Source criticism

Core principles

* Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narrratives.
* A given source may be forged or corrupted why strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.
* The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened
* A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, that is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.
* If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
* The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
* If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.


Yes, and everything is STILL assumption for the most part. Sure these type of rules are fine as safe guards and logical scientific method to find the truth but in the end it comes down to measured speculation for the most part. I have studied quite a bit in this area but to what degree in compared to anyone I would not give a answer. I can only answer for myself. I am very critical on what we TODAY consider canon as you might have guest from my other post.

[LUKE2447]

Also the core principle you mentioned are good guides but as you know each of those have failures inherent to themselves. By adding more and more rules it possibly makes the probability higher but in the end it still is a guess.

[Aquila]

I’d like to address some of the points made in the posts above by Bro. Salaz to add some insight from this side of the discussion….

God has mercy on us knowing that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. It is not because it is his desire for us to have multiple marriages, his mercy covers our iniquities. His grace showers us with blessings if we are by faith trying to do our personal best in spite of our many flaws. This does not however eliminate if we do wrong we will not pay the consequence for our wrongdoing on earth. Seed time and harvest time. Our eternal destiny is based on faith in doing what we know is to be the will of God. God deals with our sin based on his covenant with Adam of a coming savior/redeemer. If we keep his type and shadow of offering an animal sacrifice to take the place of our sin He then deals with the eternal consequence of sin. This does not eliminate the immediate consequence of sin and the pain, suffering it will bring to us when the harvest comes. What happened between Sarah and Hagar, and her seed and Hagar's?

He was tolerating sin and did not immediately condemn it. Before the law of Moses was established we see God had already established LAWS. We see in the action of the Patriarchs and know that God had given them laws regarding His will. This is called Oral Tradition which later began to be written down as the Mishnah and later included the rabbinic discussions with it known as the Talmud. Even some details of this are evident in the New Testament as we find further elaboration on what was written in the Tanakh or Hebrew Word of God that was not originally in there. The Midrash also included them which is a Hebrew Commentary on the scriptures.

God expressly stated through the prophet Nathan that He gave David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addition God also stated that he would have been more than willing to give David even more of these same things if David so desired. Yet David still chose to commit Adultery with Bathsheba. What is interesting here, is that God not only expresses that he gave David multiple wives and that he would have even given David more…but God only rebukes David for his sin with Bathsheba. Lastly even the Law of God allows for more than one wife and illustrates inheritance rights for the wives and children.

Here’s the deal….if polygamy is sin God sinned in giving David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addiction if God was only “tolerating sin” it was on his own account…because God himself never rebuked man for polygamy.

Also, you mention the Mishnah and the Talmud. I find that VERY interesting. Because my wife is from a Jewish family and I’ve sat and talked with two rabbis (Rabbi Press and Rabbi Kopmar) on more than one occasion. I firmly believe that this will make your argument far MORE complex. First, because these are not the, “Word of God”; second, because both the Mishnah and the Talmud both express strong rabbinical opinions in favor of polygamy explaining it’s ethics, especially in regards to in heritance rights. So you’re citing sources that agree with us! LOL

[Aquila]

Original intent once again is spelled out by Jesus. Not because this is Gods design but because of the hardness of our heart to hear and do the will of God.

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 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.

I believe we should do our best to speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where they are silent. In the above text you reference Jesus is specifically condemning the Pharisees for what is known as, “serial monogamy”. You see, the Pharisees (and men in general) were marrying only one woman…but then divorcing her and marrying another as though women were disposable objects. Jesus wasn’t addressing polygamy but rather divorce. Jesus NEVER directly addresses polygamy. However, Jesus was questioned by the Sadducees about Liverite Marriage, a marriage in which a man’s widow was married off to his brother (even if that brother were already married). The Sadducees asked about what would happen in the resurrection (which they didn’t believe in) if a man died and his wife were married off to his six brothers, each of them dying in turn until she finally died. They wanted to know who’s wife she would be in the resurrection. Here was ample opportunity for Jesus to say, “Men often received his brothers wife in addition to his own, but I say unto you that from the beginning it was not so. For a man should have one wife.”, but Jesus didn’t. Jesus nowhere rebukes the implicated idea of polygamy in this text. However, Jesus does answer their question by stating that those who take part in the resurrection will not marry or be given in marriage because they will be like the angels in heaven.

[Aquila]

What was happening in the days of Noah/Noe?

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Did God tolerate sin? Yes he did! Who did Jesus go and preach to? Those that were disobedient as we see above. Disobedient in marriage. They didn't believe God, no faith, did their own will and condemned themselves. Hard hearts. The same thing that saves some condemns others. Doing Gods will and intention for us to have a blessed and prosperous life. Otherwise it brings hardships and condemnation. The ark and baptism symbols of faith and obedience. If we believe, we do what God says, if we don't we show unbelief or lack of faith.

I think you missed what Jesus was actually saying. Jesus wasn’t addressing sin. Jesus was addressing preparedness. There is nothing wrong with eating or drinking. There is nothing wrong with marrying a wife or giving one’s daughter in marriage. What Jesus is pointing out is that at the end of the world people will be going about their lives like they’ll live forever in spite of the signs and the warnings. People will be celebrating, marrying, and planning families in spite of the Bible’s warnings to be ready (just as those rebellious souls were doing in the days of Noah).

There isn’t any reference here to “marital sin”.

[Aquila]

The Word specifically mentions this disobedience as one of the reasons why God brought judgment. It mentions as in the days of Noah so shall it be when God brings judgment again. Not by flood this time though.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Just because they were not born out of Gods original intent did not mean they wouldn't become men of Renown and mighty. They still were sinful and judgment came. If they had faith in God and did righteousness by trying to fulfill Gods Laws to the best of their ability God did not condemn them to hell as a sinner but their faith was counted unto them as righteousness. Hebrews 11. Just as we do not fulfill every detail of the moral law yet our faith is counted to us for righteousness. The ceremonial law is fulfilled in Jesus and we no longer have to deal with the types and shadows but we still have to fulfill the moral law to please God not to be saved. How many men of renown do we have now that are men of God but still do unrighteous deeds. I count myself in on that one. Yet my overall testimony is clearly seen because I have faith in God.

First, I’d like to point out that this text’s interpretation has been highly debated for thousands of years.

To properly understand it, the term “sons of God” has to be properly defined.

Some claim that the Hebrew for the term “sons of God” is used throughout the Hebrew Scripture for angels (namely the book of Job and the Psalms). The “Jewish oral traditions” prior to the first century hold the interpretation that these “sons of God” were fallen angels who materialized (as they do occasionally throughout the OT) and took the “daughters of men” in unholy marriages. Their children (giants, the men of renown) were regarded as being half human and half devil having supernatural powers. The book of Enoch explains that these fallen angels taught mankind witchcraft, grand scale warfare, and general mysticism. In addition, since these “daughters of men” aged and the fallen angels didn’t, they taught women how to make themselves look younger and more attractive by using what we call “make-up” (this would explain that there is a demonic origin to make-up). With this demonic invasion of earth violence and debauchery began to fill the earth and Hell was attempting to thwart the birth of the Messiah by poisoning the human line with demon/human spawn. However, Noah was righteous and pure in his “generations”, meaning he was faithful and pure bred. So God sets out to preserve the line of the Messiah, and the only option God has is to save Noah and destroy the earth to thwart Hell’s attempt to derail God’s plan of salvation. God sends a flood and the “sons of God” (the angels that left their first estate) are bound in chains of darkness to await the day of judgment. However the giants, or men of renown, are left to die in the flood. But there is an issue confronting Heaven. These men of renown are part devil and part human. Since these fit nowhere in the paradigm of creation their spirits are left to roam the earthly plane and today are known as “demons” and “unclean spirits”. These spirits desire to live in body again to live out their sinful nature but their only way of doing so is through “demonic possession”. When a man or woman sins it tempts these spirits to congregate in their lives. When the person opens themselves up spiritually these spirits entrench themselves like an unholy infestation in the human psyche and spirit. It goes deeper from here….but you get the point. Not only to ancient Jewish sources hold this view, but even the historian Josephus illustrates that it was the preeminent view in mystical Judaism during the time of Christ. This subject alone could lend itself to an interesting discussion.

And yet others interpret the “sons of God” as being the righteous line of God’s people and the “daughters of men” being the daughters of the unrighteous or ungodly. It is argued that the “sons of God” took the “daughters of men” all of which they chose. The issue according too sources that hold this view isn’t that the sin was polygamy….it was being unequally yoked. When the godly marry the ungodly sin will result because the ungodly will influence the godly to do wickedness. If polygamy was a sin, God would have done well to rebuke mankind for the practice quickly instead of enabling man’s sin and even giving wives as blessings as he did in the case of King David. However, this interpretation also doesn’t explain why their children were unique. Nor does it agree with the most ancient sources of Jewish teaching.

My point? My point is that this isn’t as “cut and dry” as you presuppose that it is. And by bringing Jewish oral tradition into the mix....you're going to make this very complex and find that your sources oppose your position.

[Rico]

I am surprised that this thread has made it to page 60. :lol How many different ways can you show that the Bible isn't against polygamy?

[LUKE2447]

Rico, how long does it take people to realize that God never says it is and also involves himself in giving more than one wife. Why? Because it is not a sin. All the opportunity he had he never gives a iota or jot against it. Yet, let's ignore all that, say God is a liar and changes his opinion all the time and really meant "this" which he never said. Talking about adding to God's Word and putting words in God's mouth. The argument against polygamy is about as liberal of a interpretation as one can get.

[Aquila]

Rico, how long does it take people to realize that God never says it is and also involves himself in giving more than one wife. Why? Because it is not a sin. All the opportunity he had he never gives a iota or jot against it. Yet, let's ignore all that, say God is a liar and changes his opinion all the time and really meant "this" which he never said. Talking about adding to God's Word and putting words in God's mouth. The argument against polygamy is about as liberal of a interpretation as one can get.

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.

[LUKE2447]

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.


Yep, I would agree!

[Pastor DTSalaz]

I’d like to address some of the points made in the posts above by Bro. Salaz to add some insight from this side of the discussion….



God expressly stated through the prophet Nathan that He gave David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addition God also stated that he would have been more than willing to give David even more of these same things if David so desired. Yet David still chose to commit Adultery with Bathsheba. What is interesting here, is that God not only expresses that he gave David multiple wives and that he would have even given David more…but God only rebukes David for his sin with Bathsheba. Lastly even the Law of God allows for more than one wife and illustrates inheritance rights for the wives and children.

Here’s the deal….if polygamy is sin God sinned in giving David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addiction if God was only “tolerating sin” it was on his own account…because God himself never rebuked man for polygamy.

Also, you mention the Mishnah and the Talmud. I find that VERY interesting. Because my wife is from a Jewish family and I’ve sat and talked with two rabbis (Rabbi Press and Rabbi Kopmar) on more than one occasion. I firmly believe that this will make your argument far MORE complex. First, because these are not the, “Word of God”; second, because both the Mishnah and the Talmud both express strong rabbinical opinions in favor of polygamy explaining it’s ethics, especially in regards to in heritance rights. So you’re citing sources that agree with us! LOL

Where you are quoting from does not explicitly state that God gave David Sauls wives to be his own. No where do we find that David married them or took them into his palace. There are a small minority of scholars that believe that Davids sixth wife Eglah might have been a wife or concubine of Saul, however we find no proof of this. You are carrying this to an extreme to say that God would have Given him even more wives. Where is the proof in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. Are there any scholars that have held this view. If So Who.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary
2Sa 12:8 I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives--The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

I also have a brother in law who is Jewish and have conversed with him and have gone to their synagogue for their children's celebrations. I have talked with their rabbis in the San Fernando valley near Reseda on several occasions. The Mishnah and Talmud are discussions like we are having here expressing various points of view. In many synagogues this is how they kept track of genealogies of the families through the centuries. My sister didn't convert to Judaism as he wanted her to, as she was raised Apostolic, but backslid and she would have had to deny Jesus was God.

I don't know who pointed out that the Pharisees were the more liberal and the Sadducee's more conservative. Being that the Sadducee didn't believe in the resurrection they were more liberal and lived for the here and now. They were the priestly line and more aristocratic. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. The Sadducee believed in a more literal view of the Torah and the Pharisee's belief in the oral Torah by which they interpreted the Torah hermeneutically. For this reason the Sadducee held to a more strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the Torah The Pharisee was to find the intent of what the passage meant.

Thanks for the insight from your side

Pastor Salaz

[Aquila]

Where you are quoting from does not explicitly state that God gave David Sauls wives to be his own. No where do we find that David married them or took them into his palace. There are a small minority of scholars that believe that Davids sixth wife Eglah might have been a wife or concubine of Saul, however we find no proof of this. You are carrying this to an extreme to say that God would have Given him even more wives. Where is the proof in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. Are there any scholars that have held this view. If So Who.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary
2Sa 12:8 I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives--The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

I also have a brother in law who is Jewish and have conversed with him and have gone to their synagogue for their children's celebrations. I have talked with their rabbis in the San Fernando valley near Reseda on several occasions. The Mishnah and Talmud are discussions like we are having here expressing various points of view. In many synagogues this is how they kept track of genealogies of the families through the centuries. My sister didn't convert to Judaism as he wanted her to, as she was raised Apostolic, but backslid and she would have had to deny Jesus was God.

I don't know who pointed out that the Pharisees were the more liberal and the Sadducee's more conservative. Being that the Sadducee didn't believe in the resurrection they were more liberal and lived for the here and now. They were the priestly line and more aristocratic. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. The Sadducee believed in a more literal view of the Torah and the Pharisee's belief in the oral Torah by which they interpreted the Torah hermeneutically. For this reason the Sadducee held to a more strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the Torah The Pharisee was to find the intent of what the passage meant.

Thanks for the insight from your side

Pastor Salaz

Pastor Salaz,

That’s a valid interpretation of 2 Samuel 12:8, but the commentator admits that oriental custom was for a king’s wives to be passed on to his successor. No “marriage” was required and the successor would be perfectly within his rights to have relations with them if he so desired. This is part of the offense Absalom inflicted upon David when he took and had relations with David’s concubines publicly. By doing this he was essentially declaring himself successor and victor over his father. And God would have granted David more riches and wives (perhaps through conquest). But David did evil in the sight of the Lord, again, not by having multiple wives and concubines…but because he took a woman who was married to Uriah and had then had Uriah killed.

Why is it at every instance where God could make his will perfectly known by rebuking men like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and various kings of Israel….God is silent? God quickly rebukes other sin. Read through the Psalms, look at how many times David is portrayed as walking in his integrity and being righteous. If polygamy is a “sin” the Psalms may be one of the largest chronicles of religious hypocrisy in Holy Scripture. Also, if it is a “sin”, David died in his sins and is currently in Hell. Why does Paul never speak against those in the OT who had multiple wives?

I believe that monogamy is a superior arrangement compared to polygamy. I believe it better provides for the needs of the family physically, emotionally, and spiritually. But I still just don’t believe that polygamy was or is a “sin”. Again, this is because marriage in the OT wasn’t so much a romantic affair like we see it today. It was like a business contract binding upon its participants. The participants set the boundaries of that contract and multiple contracts were legal. So legal, in fact, that God codified rights of inheritance in the Law in a polygamous framework. God recognized it.

So if one were to argue that monogamy is superior to polygamy by presenting examples of how it better meets physical, emotional, and spiritual needs, I’d probably agree. But what’s happening here is that men are not going that deep. They just want to say that it is a “sin” to perform a “quick sweep” on the issue. I don’t believe the men of the OT were in adulterous marriages. Abraham wasn’t an adulterer, nor was Jacob, or Moses. David’s only adultery was in relation to Bathsheba, God is silent about his multiple wives. Certainly if David were in sin prior to Bathsheba God would have confronted him as quickly as he did after Bathsheba.

[Rico]

Rico, how long does it take people to realize that God never says it is and also involves himself in giving more than one wife. Why? Because it is not a sin. All the opportunity he had he never gives a iota or jot against it. Yet, let's ignore all that, say God is a liar and changes his opinion all the time and really meant "this" which he never said. Talking about adding to God's Word and putting words in God's mouth. The argument against polygamy is about as liberal of a interpretation as one can get.


I have but one word for you..................... AMERICA. Us Americans like to think everyone and everything should be the way we think they should be. Anything that doesn't fit into our American way of thinking needs to be reshaped and remolded into our image.

[Dora]

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.

I can't for the life of me believe that so many of you guys buy into the idea that polygamy is NOT sin.

I also believe that owning slaves is sinful. Degrading human beings to the point of equating them to the value of so much livestock is dispicable.

Polygamy does the same thing to women - it devalues them. It places them in a vulnerable position and subsequently the negative results trickle down to their children.

Countries and cultures that still condone the practice are NOT, I repeat NOT Christian countries. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. still engage in this practice. Mormons have created their own religion to enable this practice.

In cultures that practice polygamy, abuse of women is rampant. What religion is it where they practice female castration? Why would men want to strip women of their ability to enjoy sex? Could it be that they want to suppress their desire to have sex with partners other than their husbands? Just more examples of men coming up with great ideas like chastity belts, etc. Crazy stuff!!!

How can you say that polygamy is "ok" with God? I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that God is pleased with placing women in a situation where they are subjected to abuse, neglect, and where they are objectified like cattle. If slavery is wrong, it stands to reason that polygamy is also wrong.

When Jesus set forth His principles for living and how to treat your neighbor, OUT went the idea that a human being can be bought and sold or that one person's worth is greater or lesser than another's.

[Aquila]

I can't for the life of me believe that so many of you guys buy into the idea that polygamy is NOT sin.

I also believe that owning slaves is sinful. Degrading human beings to the point of equating them to the value of so much livestock is dispicable.

Polygamy does the same thing to women - it devalues them. It places them in a vulnerable position and subsequently the negative results trickle down to their children.

Countries and cultures that still condone the practice are NOT, I repeat NOT Christian countries. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. still engage in this practice. Mormons have created their own religion to enable this practice.

In cultures that practice polygamy, abuse of women is rampant. What religion is it where they practice female castration? Why would men want to strip women of their ability to enjoy sex? Could it be that they want to suppress their desire to have sex with partners other than their husbands? Just more examples of men coming up with great ideas like chastity belts, etc. Crazy stuff!!!

How can you say that polygamy is "ok" with God? I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that God is pleased with placing women in a situation where they are subjected to abuse, neglect, and where they are objectified like cattle. If slavery is wrong, it stands to reason that polygamy is also wrong.

When Jesus set forth His principles for living and how to treat your neighbor, OUT went the idea that a human being can be bought and sold or that one person's worth is greater or lesser than another's.

Dora, when you say the word "polygamy" you picture in your head the abuse that women are enduring in Asia and Africa. When you say the word "slavery" you picture the horrendous abuse inflicted on slaves by America and many other nations in the slave trade.

"Biblical polygamy" and "biblical slavery" wasn't like these more recent institutions. In the Bible wives had far more rights and entitlements than the women in modern polygamous nations. In fact, if "biblical polygamy" were practiced in those nations they'd come light years forward in regards to respecting women and even a woman's right to conjugal enjoyment, ownership of property, etc. Remember, women in polygamous marriages in biblical times had their own servants and even had a right to own and operate their own trade, bringing a living into the family.

In addition, if principles of "biblical slavery" were observed the slave trade in early America wouldn't have been as terrible as it was and most slaves would have only experienced slavery as a gateway to citizenship and freedom. In a way, "biblical slavery", is more akin to what we might call "indentured servitude" today. Remember when poor English and the Irish imagrants would sell themselves into servitude for a period of time to gain passage to the new world and their eventual freedom? That is more in keeping with the institution of slavery.

You're comparing apples to oranges. If I believed for a minute that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others treated their wives like so many men treat their multiple wives in Asia and Africa today, I'd agree with you whole heartedly sis. But the Biblical institutions are far different from what we've seen practiced in our non-Hebraic cultures.

[TK Burk]

Would one of you brethren that believe polygamy is NOT a sin please explain this:

Matthew 19:8-9
(8) He saith unto them, Moses BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS SUFFERED YOU TO PUT AWAY YOUR WIVES: BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO.
(9) 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.

(1) What did the “hardness” of their “hearts” have to do with that Law being added?

(2) What did Jesus mean by “SUFFERED you”?

(3) How was Moses’ Law different than what was first taught?

(4) Was what Jesus said to them different than what was written by Moses?

(5) Does different mean God does change His will in certain circumstances?

(6) If Jesus’ position is different than Moses’, would it be sin to NOT do as Jesus commanded and instead do as Moses allowed?

(7) Since the New Covenant removes a “stony heart” and gives a Born Again believer a “fleshly heart,” if a man uses this Law to divorce his wife, would it be a sin?

[Pastor DTSalaz]

I believe we should do our best to speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where they are silent. In the above text you reference Jesus is specifically condemning the Pharisees for what is known as, “serial monogamy”. You see, the Pharisees (and men in general) were marrying only one woman…but then divorcing her and marrying another as though women were disposable objects. Jesus wasn’t addressing polygamy but rather divorce. Jesus NEVER directly addresses polygamy. However, Jesus was questioned by the Sadducees about Liverite Marriage, a marriage in which a man’s widow was married off to his brother (even if that brother were already married). The Sadducees asked about what would happen in the resurrection (which they didn’t believe in) if a man died and his wife were married off to his six brothers, each of them dying in turn until she finally died. They wanted to know who’s wife she would be in the resurrection. Here was ample opportunity for Jesus to say, “Men often received his brothers wife in addition to his own, but I say unto you that from the beginning it was not so. For a man should have one wife.”, but Jesus didn’t. Jesus nowhere rebukes the implicated idea of polygamy in this text. However, Jesus does answer their question by stating that those who take part in the resurrection will not marry or be given in marriage because they will be like the angels in heaven.

You sidestepped the question of original intent. Jesus did the same. lol He ignored the divorce trap they were trying to set and went back to what he set up in the beginning in Mt. 19. In Mt 22 he once again ignores the question and now speaks about the ends. Talk about cosmology and Teleology In heaven we neither marry or are given in marriage but are like the angels. The issue was sanctioned by God in the Law for the preservation of women and continual family care, but the real issue our relationship to God and eternity. Here is another portion of scripture that happened before the law.

Gen 38:1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.
Gen 38:2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
Gen 38:3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.

First off Judah marries? a Canaanite woman and has children. While he is with the Canaanites he takes a wife for his firstborn. The Lord slays him. His father tells his second son to go in to her and marry her and bear children to his Brother.

Gen 38:6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
Gen 38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

God did not sanction this did he? Yet what he did displeased the Lord. Took his brothers wife or spilled semen onto the ground?

Was this a God ordained union or a common practice during patriarchal times.

Why would God put this into the annals of human history in the middle of Josephs account of being sold into slavery and of his keeping himself pure from Potiphars wife. There was no law prohibiting Adultery at the time was there? Joseph eventually married the daughter of an Egyptian priest (royalty). Judah married a Canaanite woman and caused his sons to do the same. Judah lost his wife and went into a supposed harlot. His daughter in law No law prohibiting this was there? Sin or Ok? Kind of a strange passage that God instructed Moses to record.

[Aquila]

Would one of you brethren that believe polygamy is NOT a sin please explain this:

Matthew 19:8-9
(8) He saith unto them, Moses BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS SUFFERED YOU TO PUT AWAY YOUR WIVES: BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO.
(9) 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.

(1) What did the “hardness” of their “hearts” have to do with that Law being added?

Because so many men would become bitter and desire to be separated from a wife, Moses expanded the stipulations of the writ of divorcement to spare the woman abuse at the hands of hard hearted and potentially abusive men.

(2) What did Jesus mean by “SUFFERED you”?

Jesus meant, "allowed you to divorce your wives".

(3) How was Moses’ Law different than what was first taught?

God never intended for the marriage contract to be broken.

(4) Was what Jesus said to them different than what was written by Moses?

Yes and no. The Law of God states....

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.


Both Jesus and the Law of God allows for divorce. Christ stipulates that the only proper grounds of divorce is for sexual infidelity. This was the original intent of the law. The "uncleanness" was meant to indicate her infidelity. However, Moses allowed divorce for less serious infractions in his application of the Law. Christ doesn't give them anything new. Christ clarifies bringing into focus the true meaning behind the original intent of the Law.

(5) Does different mean God does change His will in certain circumstances?

No. Jesus brought clarification to that which "Moses" confused by his being too lenient.

(6) If Jesus’ position is different than Moses’, would it be sin to NOT do as Jesus commanded and instead do as Moses allowed?

Christ's position is more strict than that of "Moses'" (a fallible man), but not different from the Law of God itself. Again, Christ clarified the Law that Moses was lax upon. Since Christ brings into focus the original intent of the Law of God we should obey Christ over Moses' allowances.

(7) Since the New Covenant removes a “stony heart” and gives a Born Again believer a “fleshly heart,” if a man uses this Law to divorce his wife, would it be a sin?

Again, the issue isn't the Law, it was the allowances made by Moses in regards to this law. God never intended this law to be expanded to include the petty things they used as grounds for divorce.

You will notice that this passage is about divorce not polygamy. This reveals that God never intended a man to divorce his wife (or wives) for any other reason than adultery.

[Aquila]

You sidestepped the question of original intent. Jesus did the same. lol He ignored the divorce trap they were trying to set and went back to what he set up in the beginning in Mt. 19. In Mt 22 he once again ignores the question and now speaks about the ends. Talk about cosmology and Teleology In heaven we neither marry or are given in marriage but are like the angels. The issue was sanctioned by God in the Law for the preservation of women and continual family care, but the real issue our relationship to God and eternity. Here is another portion of scripture that happened before the law.

Gen 38:1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.
Gen 38:2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
Gen 38:3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.

First off Judah marries? a Canaanite woman and has children. While he is with the Canaanites he takes a wife for his firstborn. The Lord slays him. His father tells his second son to go in to her and marry her and bear children to his Brother.

Gen 38:6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
Gen 38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

God did not sanction this did he? Yet what he did displeased the Lord. Took his brothers wife or spilled semen onto the ground?

Was this a God ordained union or a common practice during patriarchal times.

Why would God put this into the annals of human history in the middle of Josephs account of being sold into slavery and of his keeping himself pure from Potiphars wife. There was no law prohibiting Adultery at the time was there? Joseph eventually married the daughter of an Egyptian priest (royalty). Judah married a Canaanite woman and caused his sons to do the same. Judah lost his wife and went into a supposed harlot. His daughter in law No law prohibiting this was there? Sin or Ok? Kind of a strange passage that God instructed Moses to record.

That is a VERY complex story. A simple description is that God struck Onan dead because he refused to honor Er, his brother, by raising children up in Er's name. This is part of Liverite Marriage,

Deuteronomy 25:5-6
5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

So Onan's sin was in refusing to raise up children in his brother's name...not spilling his seed upon the ground.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

That is a VERY complex story. A simple description is that God struck Onan dead because he refused to honor Er, his brother, by raising children up in Er's name. This is part of Liverite Marriage,

Deuteronomy 25:5-6
5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

So Onan's sin was in refusing to raise up children in his brother's name...not spilling his seed upon the ground.


This occurred 430-500 years before the law ever existed. It pre-existed the Levirate Marriage in the Law of Moses.

[Dora]

I still can't believe the ratio of pro-polygamy versus anti-polygamy here. What is it 6 pro vs 2 anti? Crazy!

[Aquila]

This occurred 430-500 years before the law ever existed. It pre-existed the Levirate Marriage in the Law of Moses.

I never really thought that much about it, but very interesting point Pastor Salaz.

Perhaps Moses embodied an ancient principle in the Law of Israel?

For example, we know that Abraham tithed his war spoils from Sodom to the King of Salem. From my understanding, in ancient times, it was customary to give a 10% peace offering to local rulers. This linked the two in covenant like an alliance. The lesser served the greater and the greater provided protection and provision for the lesser. We also see Jacob vowing to give God a tenth of his increase if God would bless him. Abraham and Jacob obviously understood this principle long before the Law required a regular tithe from the increase of the land.

[Aquila]

I still can't believe the ratio of pro-polygamy versus anti-polygamy here. What is it 6 pro vs 2 anti? Crazy!

It shocked me too Dora. I didn't always believe this. I used to believe that it was absolute sin and adultery. I viewed Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon and all of them as slimy, smarmy men who were in deep set adultery....until I realized the implications of that line of reasoning. Then I began studying the social fabric of their society. I discovered that "biblical polygamy", while violating modern sensitivities, provided an umbrella of protection for wives in a world that would have brutalized them mercilessly. In God's order, women could find themselves in the home of a righteous man, loved, provided for, protected, entitled to certain rights and privileges, and even permitted to engage in trade and business in the authority of her husband's name. These women, especially the first wife, even had female servants of their own who attended their needs and care. In a world of brutality, abuse, and objectification "biblical polygamy" lifted women from their less than human condition in an evil and worldly society. Women living in the home of a godly man lived like queens compared to women in other cultures. The only issue was...people are human. Jealousies abounded, especially if one wife had more time with the husband or was able to raise up heirs and children to the husband. Remember, marriages were covenantal arrangements, often arranged by parents. The marriage covenant wasn't as romantic as we view it. It was an institution. Becoming a patriarch's wife was like becoming a partner in King David Inc., and your share of stock was determined by the number of children you could provide. Children were viewed as a blessing in so many ways. Not just being emotional joys to raise and care for. Children were heirs that ensured the family dynasty. Children tended to be the most trustworthy of workers caring for the family crops or flocks. Children also were charged to care for their parents as their parents aged, meaning the more children you had the better your retirement and care would be. Children were "social security". A blessing indeed. I'm not saying that there wasn't love and romance, but I want to properly describe that this institution was more than a "marriage" as we understand it today.

Dora, wives belonging to godly men were not abused. A godly man would love his wives and seek to provide for them and treat them equally and fairly.

While I may not entirely agree with some of the points given, I think the following article from GotQuestions.org offers a rather excellent answer to this polygamy question...

Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

Answer: The question of polygamy in the Bible is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy / bigamy in the Bible was Lamech in Genesis 4:19, “Lamech married two women…” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status) according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered. (1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? (2) How does God view polygamy today? (3) Why did it change?

(1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. The best anyone can do is “informed” speculation. There are a few key factors to consider. First, there has always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5% of the world population are women, with men being 49.5%. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatalities. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to the patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. Fourth, the significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable (to say the least) situation.

So, it seems that God allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, starvation, etc. In addition to the protection / provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period…causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only able to produce one child each year.

(2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes)” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring the having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. Please read - http://www.gotquestions.org/husband-one-wife.html. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach ... temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Ephesians 5:22-33, speaking of the relationship between husbands and wives, when referring to a husband (singular) always also refers to a wife (singular). “…for the husband is the head of the wife (singular) … He who loves his wife (singular) loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (singular), and the two will become one flesh … each one of you also must love his wife (singular) as he loves himself, and the wife (singular) must respect her husband (singular).” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy is allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church), and the husband-wife relationship, falls apart.

(3) Why did it change? It is not as much God disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God restoring marriage to His original intent. Even going back to Adam and Eve (not Eves), polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it was God’s desire for the problem never to have occurred. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves – removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws that the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.

Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps…but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.

So, I firmly believe that polygamy isn't a sin. It may not be ideal or necessary in today's world.... but it isn't a sin.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

I never really thought that much about it, but very interesting point Pastor Salaz.

Perhaps Moses embodied an ancient principle in the Law of Israel?

For example, we know that Abraham tithed his war spoils from Sodom to the King of Salem. From my understanding, in ancient times, it was customary to give a 10% peace offering to local rulers. This linked the two in covenant like an alliance. The lesser served the greater and the greater provided protection and provision for the lesser. We also see Jacob vowing to give God a tenth of his increase if God would bless him. Abraham and Jacob obviously understood this principle long before the Law required a regular tithe from the increase of the land.


I believe that God delineated some of the things that he gave as a command to Adam. Others were given as Adam talked directly with God. We never hear explicitly of God requiring an animal sacrifice though we see that God clothed them with animal skins. Why this detail?

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

This showed the death of an animal had to take place as we see this further elucidated in the progressive revelation of God. We next see that this was taught to their children though no written record was ever found. This is what we call the oral tradition. God speaks to Adam and Adam speaks to his descendants. As God spoke to Adam he let his descendants know what God had commanded him. He lived a long time in the most perfect of environments so what God commanded him he was able to speak for a very long time. Thus God did not have to repeat it to each succeeding generation.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Noah built an altar as well and offered sacrifices to God. He also knew how to distinguish between clean and unclean animal. No written law yet. God gives him the law of retribution, restriction of eating blood, value of life, covenant with Noah. The first time we see that man can eat of every living thing that moveth, no longer only the plant life, herb and fruit bearing seed.

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
Gen 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;


After the flood man was only able to live the average God limited man to, 120 years. After this we see God repeating his commandments and covenants to each generation. He makes a covenant with Abraham, repeats it to Issac, then once again repeats it to Jacob. Due to their shorter life spans he does not want to be misinterpreted. Jacob repeats Gods covenants to his children. The next time we see God speaking directly to man is to Moses.

Exo 18:15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Exo 18:16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.

This occasion is before the written law was ever given and Moses is informing them of Gods laws and statutes?

How did man know of Gods laws and statutes before the written law? The oral traditions passed down from generation to generation. Each man is going to be judged according to the light they received and shall be judged by it.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The written law did not save us but condemn us. This finally revealed the will of God and is shown by the written moral and ceremonial laws. It is here that God had to deal with all the deviations that man had committed. Paul shows us that God tolerated sin as there was no written law by which to condemn man. During this time of ignorance God winked at sin. He overlooked many things not because he approved of them but because his progressive revelation had not been given.

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Jesus is Gods ultimate full revelation so no we don't have an excuse

Blessings

Pastor D.T. Salaz

[Dora]

I got a PM from the wife of one of AFF's prominent pro-polygamy posters today. Apparently, she is adamantly OPPOSED to polygamy and would not tolerate the practice in her home. She thinks it is perverted and twisted. I must say I agree wholeheartedly. God bless her! Think there's gonna be a "come to Jesus" meeting right here directly. LOL

[ILG]

I got a PM from the wife of one of AFF's prominent pro-polygamy posters today. Apparently, she is adamantly OPPOSED to polygamy and would not tolerate the practice in her home. She thinks it is perverted and twisted. I must say I agree wholeheartedly. God bless her! Think there's gonna be a "come to Jesus" meeting right here directly. LOL

I can't resist posting to your post, Dora. I really feel for the wives of these guys. You can't help but wonder what is going on in their hearts. You can't help but feel the grief and pain their wives must be feeling if they know what they are writing (and if they don't, their attitudes will come out elsewhere). Very sad. You guys need to really think about the damage you are doing to your relationships with the blatant disrespect for women being propogated here. Fine already that it was practiced for economic reasons or whatever. Too many of you make it sound like you wished you lived in a polygamous country.

[Dora]

BTW, thanks to Pastor DtSalaz for all the good anti-polygamy posting. I'm still just on the floor in complete SHOCK that Christian men actually condone polygamy and think it is not against Christian principles. The practice of polygamy does NOT line up with the teachings of Jesus Christ concerning how we are to treat our fellow human beings.

Polygamy was NEVER the ideal situation. Even though the OT LAW provided conduct guidelines for the practice of slavery, it was NEVER God's ideal. Israelites were given guidelines for conducting themselves as slaves while they were in bondage. God's people, of ALL people knew how it felt to be in the position of "SLAVE" and I can't believe they felt on top of the world being in bondage no matter how well they were treated.

Likewise, I can't believe that women throughout history "enjoyed" being part of a harem of wives - custom or no custom. Women have been subjected to any number of debasements throughout history. Stripped of dignity, respect and value throughout history, it's no wonder women have fought to have their basic human rights recognized and given true significance. It's no sin to desire the basic privilege of being respected as a human being as opposed to being viewed as a piece of property, as a lesser being, as a person with impaired intellect due to her sex, etc., etc.

[LUKE2447]

Yes, Lord save us from the wretched truth seeking polygamists that give clear Biblical principle and teaching. Also keep those who ignore basic simple clear teaching and live through the distorted paradigm of now and like to distort what true love is in "any" type of marriage with those godless men that have no love but of themselves. Amen!

Love,
Typically Irrational

[LUKE2447]

I can't resist posting to your post, Dora. I really feel for the wives of these guys. You can't help but wonder what is going on in their hearts. You can't help but feel the grief and pain their wives must be feeling if they know what they are writing (and if they don't, their attitudes will come out elsewhere). Very sad. You guys need to really think about the damage you are doing to your relationships with the blatant disrespect for women being propogated here. Fine already that it was practiced for economic reasons or whatever. Too many of you make it sound like you wished you lived in a polygamous country.


Oh Yes! These men must have lust written all over them. Who cares whether they seek truth, your paradigm is truth, right!?!?!? Yes, the damage of truth how can we dare break out of the chains of ignorance!
Oh yes my wife is so in pain to see what the Bible really says(actually she sees the truth of the matter for what it is putting her personal wants or opinion out of the equation which is how we should all be toward anything)

Oh Yes, we are disprespecting our women! How dare God do that! My goodness also Paul telling women to be like the women of old calling them Lord. What reprobates!


hmmm seems I could say the same of your so stern intents! Seems I could easily argue for women being selfish and not abiding in the role God placed them in relationship to there husband! Don't like another woman gett'n in on your territory huh? The case can be made about why you believe like you do while negating clear teaching on the subject. You basically call God a sinner! A God that goes against his own nature because he gave wives to David and others only because he had not given ALL or CLEAR revelation of his true feeling or intents which somehow he never revealed to be a sin. Yet though we did not know it was sin and God did, he did it anyway. yeaaaahhh riiiight

[Aquila]

***Enter weepy violin music***

I can't resist posting to your post, Dora. I really feel for the wives of these guys. You can't help but wonder what is going on in their hearts. You can't help but feel the grief and pain their wives must be feeling if they know what they are writing (and if they don't, their attitudes will come out elsewhere). Very sad. You guys need to really think about the damage you are doing to your relationships with the blatant disrespect for women being propogated here. Fine already that it was practiced for economic reasons or whatever. Too many of you make it sound like you wished you lived in a polygamous country.

ILG,

I love my wife very much. She knows I have no interest inother than her. I don’t fool around or do anything stupid. For the most part I work a lot, go to church, and I’m home with her and my son or on the computer (posting here lol).

This is a “theological exercise”. This isn’t a campaign to push for polygamy. Maybe women get emotionally involved and loose sight of the difference. We also discuss “war” and if it’s biblical for Christians to engage in war. Some (such as David K. Bernard, Bro. Urshan, Bro. Grey, and others) have stated in their writings that “war” was permissible under the Old Covenant because God dealt with a nation while it isn’t permissible under the New Covenant because God is dealing with individual people. Others will explain why they think the Old Testament examples of war justify Christians engaging in war to defend the state. The discussion is an “theological exercise” on the intellectual level only. No one is campaigning for war or for pacifism. It’s just a discussion. Some discuss the use of alcohol in the Bible with one side believing in moderation and the other side believing in abstinence. It’s just a discussion.

That being said…it’s a little offensive that you insinuate that something is “going on” in our hearts. That’s an unfair and unjust judgment against us. We’re only talking about polygamy on a “theological” level. If we can’t have an intellectual discussion on the theological implications of difficult subjects without being judged…where does that leave us?

As for my wife, my wife comes from a Jewish family. She’s well aware of polygamous practices in the Bible and she and I believe the same about it on a theological level. We both believe that it wasn’t a sin and that it was an institution in an ancient culture that has outlived its relevance and necessity in western society. We both agree that monogamy is far superior. You’re assuming that my wife thinks like you and that I’m somehow victimizing her with my opinions is also offensive.

I think you’re being overly emotional about what is only a theological discussion.

Some men here “may” wish that they had more than one wife. I firmly believe that after the honeymoon they’d change their minds. LOL

You’re viewing this through different eyes than we are. We’re men. Some of us have looked through the sights of an M16, sighted a man running across a stretch of desert, fired upon him (pop-pop-pop, your ears ring and the smell of gunpowder is burned into your memory), and watched his lifeless body drop like a rag-doll. You feel nauseous…and yet strangely hyper. You wonder…Did he have family? Did he have a wife and children? Who will wail and weep when they hear he doesn’t come home? What will his children feel when they realize daddy isn’t going to ever tell them he loves them again? Will God still love us even though we’ve done this…or perhaps… worse.

My point is that some of us wrestle with far more serious issues in our hearts than the theoretical aspects of a theological discussion about polygamy.

From a male perspective…I wish a few of you ladies could just talk about a subject without getting emotional, taking it personal, and judging our hearts. With all due respects, some of us see life very differently than you do and we won’t pander to you like other men do. We know the way life is, was, and why things were the way they were. We’re thankful things have changed. But please…don’t judge us.

Women have had it really good for about 150 years. Don’t forget that things weren’t always this good for women. And don’t forget that if you were in ancient Israel surrounded by Canaanites, Hittites, and Moabites….becoming one of a godly man’s wives would be something you’d hope for…. considering the alternative.

So please don’t judge us, the men in the Bible, nor the women who were in those unions. It was all necessary at that time.

[Aquila]

BTW, thanks to Pastor DtSalaz for all the good anti-polygamy posting. I'm still just on the floor in complete SHOCK that Christian men actually condone polygamy and think it is not against Christian principles. The practice of polygamy does NOT line up with the teachings of Jesus Christ concerning how we are to treat our fellow human beings.

If the world were to degenerate into a chaotic world as brutal as it was in Old Testament Israel, I assure you, polygamy (if re-embraced) would be an institution providing social stability and protection for women. It certainly wouldn’t be Christian to allow a woman to be brutalized just to keep her out of a polygamous union.

Polygamy was NEVER the ideal situation. Even though the OT LAW provided conduct guidelines for the practice of slavery, it was NEVER God's ideal.

We might be able to agree somewhat here. Perhaps polygamy wasn’t God’s ideal…however…it’s also not a sin. Should we aim for the ideal with the fullness of revelation that we have? Yes. But the issue is was it “sin” or not. I just vote that it wasn’t ideal, but it also wasn’t sin.

Israelites were given guidelines for conducting themselves as slaves while they were in bondage. God's people, of ALL people knew how it felt to be in the position of "SLAVE" and I can't believe they felt on top of the world being in bondage no matter how well they were treated.

Actually I think you have your chronology confused. The Israelites were set free…and then God gave the Law. The Law taught them out to properly treat their own slaves. And remember Dora….biblical slavery wasn’t anything like slavery as practiced in early America. It was more like indentured servitude. They only served 7 years and earned money to cover their expenses upon gaining their freedom. Read God’s Law regarding slaves and you’ll see that God was rather compassionate and ethical in how He commanded slaves to be treated.

Likewise, I can't believe that women throughout history "enjoyed" being part of a harem of wives - custom or no custom. Women have been subjected to any number of debasements throughout history. Stripped of dignity, respect and value throughout history, it's no wonder women have fought to have their basic human rights recognized and given true significance. It's no sin to desire the basic privilege of being respected as a human being as opposed to being viewed as a piece of property, as a lesser being, as a person with impaired intellect due to her sex, etc., etc.

Dora….in context, polygamy was a step up from abuse in biblical times. Don’t judge those women until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes. If your choices were between being a godly man’s third or fourth wife and selling yourself, or being brutalized unspeakably and sold into slavery….I think you’d choose to live under the roof of a godly man who would protect you, love you, care for you, and allow you much freedom other women didn’t enjoy. Again, notice women in biblical polygamy had their own servants and attendants. You’d live like a queen and have more respect and freedom than most unmarried women in your ancient Israeli community.

Dora, I think you have more serious issues underlying your position.

Odds are...if you listed each "abuse" you believe is present in polygamy we'd agree that said abuse is absolutely wrong. However, you'd not find those abuses in the homes of godly men who practiced biblical polygamy in ancient Israel.

[Dora]

So funny! I believe polygamy is WRONG so I'm usurping the authority of men in my life. Ridiculous! I know my place and believe in headship and honoring authority. I still believe that polygamy is WRONG WRONG WRONG. It's twisted, sick and degrading to women. No matter how you twist it, it's wrong in this dispensation. Jesus revealed the error of adhering to the LAW for the wrong reasons, i.e. trying to earn your way to heaven through works. The Law was imperfect in that it made allowances for the ignorance of mankind and their mixed up ways. Man is constantly trying to create a counterfeit for God's perfected plan. Man comes up with their own schemes to circumvent God's ideal. It always results in total chaos, exploded relationships and messed up human lives in the end.

[Aquila]

So funny! I believe polygamy is WRONG so I'm usurping the authority of men in my life. Ridiculous! I know my place and believe in headship and honoring authority. I still believe that polygamy is WRONG WRONG WRONG. It's twisted, sick and degrading to women. No matter how you twist it, it's wrong in this dispensation. Jesus revealed the error of adhering to the LAW for the wrong reasons, i.e. trying earn your way to heaven through works. The Law was imperfect in that it made allowances for the ignorance of mankind and their mixed up ways. Man is constantly trying to create a counterfeit for God's perfected plan. Man comes up with their own schemes to circumvent God's ideal. It always results in total chaos, exploded relationships and messed up human lives in the end.

I can agree with a lot of what you said. You said that it is "wrong", and you then specified "in this dispensation".

I can respect that and that's very close to my position. Is polygamy necessary today? No. Is it ideal? No. Was it God's original intent? Perhaps not. Can it then be said to be "wrong"? Yes. But is it a "sin", a damnable offense, something that is detestible to God? No.

I don't want a polygamous marriage.
Don't need one.
Wouldn't perform one.
And would only allow a pre-existing one in extinuating circumstances in a foreign culture as described above.

I'm not "pro-polygamy". My point is that it wasn't a "sin". If you wish to say it was a cultural allowance in the previous dispensations but isn't ideal and is improper today, I'll agree. But to say it's a "sin" has great implications that even brings serious judgment upon God as being complacent in sin and for allowing it, offering it, and regulating it.

Now Dora, I have the feeling that you have deeper issues in the realm of biblical marriage than the subject of polygamy. Relax. Take a deep breath.

I feel I have to say this. Dora, I don't know if this is meant for you or someone else. I don't know who, what, when, where, or anything like that, but...they tried to justify their actions by citing polygamous passages. They were wrong. I just felt I had to say that.

[Dora]

I can agree with a lot of what you said. You said that it is "wrong", and you then specified "in this dispensation".

I can respect that and that's very close to my position. Is polygamy necessary today? No. Is it ideal? No. Was it God's original intent? Perhaps not. Can it then be said to be "wrong"? Yes. But is it a "sin", a damnable offense, something that is detestible to God? No.

I don't want a polygamous marriage.
Don't need one.
Wouldn't perform one.
And would only allow a pre-existing one in extinuating circumstances in a foreign culture as described above.

I'm not "pro-polygamy". My point is that it wasn't a "sin". If you wish to say it was a cultural allowance in the previous dispensations but isn't ideal and is improper today, I'll agree. But to say it's a "sin" has great implications that even brings serious judgment upon God as being complacent in sin and for allowing it, offering it, and regulating it.

Now Dora, I have the feeling that you have deeper issues in the realm of biblical marriage than the subject of polygamy. Relax. Take a deep breath.

I feel I have to say this. Dora, I don't know if this is meant for you or someone else. I don't know who, what, when, where, or anything like that, but...they tried to justify their actions by citing polygamous passages. They were wrong. I just felt I had to say that.

WHAT??? HUH??? You are speaking cryptically here. What on earth are you trying to insinuate?

[Sherri]

I hate the idea of polygamy, and I don't think it's God's plan for us. But I will say that in African communities where it's practiced (and yes, even by Christians), the women seem content and happy for the most part. Many of them actually like the other wives and form lifelong friendships with them. They are almost like partners in work - they farm together, cook together, raise their kids in each other's huts, etc. The children call all of them "mother" or "second mother", etc.

I cannot even remotely imagine liking another woman who was a "second wife" to Eddie. It's beyond my realm of imagination. But alot of it is cultural and you just accept what you are raised with.

I still don't think it's what God wants, but I wouldn't say that all women in the situation are unhappy. Some actually thrive in that environment, as weird as that may seem to me.

[OP_Carl]

So funny! I believe polygamy is WRONG so I'm usurping the authority of men in my life. Ridiculous! I know my place and believe in headship and honoring authority. I still believe that polygamy is WRONG WRONG WRONG. It's twisted, sick and degrading to women. No matter how you twist it, it's wrong in this dispensation. Jesus revealed the error of adhering to the LAW for the wrong reasons, i.e. trying to earn your way to heaven through works. The Law was imperfect in that it made allowances for the ignorance of mankind and their mixed up ways. Man is constantly trying to create a counterfeit for God's perfected plan. Man comes up with their own schemes to circumvent God's ideal. It always results in total chaos, exploded relationships and messed up human lives in the end.

You are correct.

You are also viewing this from a perch atop the pinnacle of female liberation. Western women have more choice and control over their destiny than any class of women in history. However, the extreme feminists, the ones who drive the political agendas, continue to push for more and more favor and privilege for women. I'm sure that you can see that the flip side of this coin is that there exists less favor and privilege for men. Western civilization has handed over the keys to the traditional family to women. The entire spectrum of family and gender law is nowadays institutionally biased against men. Women are societally encouraged to be self-absorbed, to seek self-fulfillment and romantic, unrealistic, ideals in relationships.

In light of the twin facts that boys raised by single mothers are far more likely to end up in jail, and approximately 75% of divorce is initiated by women these days, how would you evaluate the civilizational impact of taking women's liberation to the other extreme?

[Aquila]

Op Carl, you make some very good points and ask some provocative questions.

I once had a sociology professor open a discussion on politics, culture, women, and the right to vote. He asked how the political landscape would look and what American culture would be like if women were never granted the right to vote. Even the liberals in the discussion (who were slightly taken aback at the notion) admitted that many, if not most, of the "social issues" (that worry conservatives) facing America today would be non-existant or seriously deminished. For example, where would the Pro-Choice movement be...if women didn't vote?

[OP_Carl]

Op Carl, you make some very good points and ask some provocative questions.

I once had a sociology professor open a discussion on politics, culture, women, and the right to vote. He asked how the political landscape would look and what American culture would be like if women were never granted the right to vote. Even the liberals in the discussion (who were slightly taken aback at the notion) admitted that many, if not most, of the "social issues" (that worry conservatives) facing America today would be non-existant or seriously deminished. For example, where would the Pro-Choice movement be...if women didn't vote?

Yikes you did NOT just open that enormous can of worms! :faint

I have seen the analysis of the various elections/issues that show the influence of women voters as a bloc, but I must say that most of our present troubles originated with FDR and LBJ. The civil rights voting act of 1964 rescinded the bill of rights and the republic, and replaced them with group identity and and democracy, both of which we were warned against by the founders. The "Great Society" war on poverty demolished the progress and upward mobility that had just begun in the lower income classes and minority groups. Fathers were replaced by the nanny state, and incentive to acheive was immensely hampered. Many of the things that I, as a conservative, take issue with would not be if we had continued governance as a representative republic during the past 45 years, instead of mob rule (aka the tyranny of the majority). A great thinker observed that democracies only last until the people realize that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. We're approaching vertical on that particular infernal slippery slope! :ranting

[Nina]

The "Great Society" war on poverty demolished the progress and upward mobility that had just begun in the lower income classes and minority groups. Fathers were replaced by the nanny state, and incentive to acheive was immensely hampered.


I live in Selma where a lot of History was made.

The fatherless children are so sad.

Definitely a mission field!

[Dora]

It is sad what our Western culture has done to the male population. Have you heard of the book called "Save the Males?" The author was featured on Laurie Ingraham's talk show. Interesting discussion. I'd like to read the book.

[OP_Carl]

It is sad what our Western culture has done to the male population. Have you heard of the book called "Save the Males?" The author was featured on Laurie Ingraham's talk show. Interesting discussion. I'd like to read the book.

If you'd really like to understand what is going on in our culture vis-a-vis men and women, you should read a book by Steve Moxon called The Woman Racket (http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Racket-Science-Explaining-Society/dp/1845401506/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218709166&sr=8-1). Don't let the title deceive you, it's mostly a book on biology.

There is another book, in a similar vein to the Kathleen Parker book you mention, called Women: Theory and Practice (http://www.amazon.com/Women-Theory-Practice-Bernard-Chapin/dp/0595443605/ref=pd_sim_b_2), that offers a far more profound view on the topic of the cultural war against masculinity. A lot of it simply lays out in an orderly progression things that we have been vaguely aware of all along, but there are some cutting edge insights, perhaps even some revolutionary concepts for some.

[LUKE2447]

You are correct.

You are also viewing this from a perch atop the pinnacle of female liberation. Western women have more choice and control over their destiny than any class of women in history. However, the extreme feminists, the ones who drive the political agendas, continue to push for more and more favor and privilege for women. I'm sure that you can see that the flip side of this coin is that there exists less favor and privilege for men. Western civilization has handed over the keys to the traditional family to women. The entire spectrum of family and gender law is nowadays institutionally biased against men. Women are societally encouraged to be self-absorbed, to seek self-fulfillment and romantic, unrealistic, ideals in relationships.

In light of the twin facts that boys raised by single mothers are far more likely to end up in jail, and approximately 75% of divorce is initiated by women these days, how would you evaluate the civilizational impact of taking women's liberation to the other extreme?


I agree Carl! The current situation is really sad and most contrary to God will.

[ILG]

If you do some searches on the connection between polygamy and child abuse/wife abuse you will find a lot of material. Those people who are saying that children and women are better off in polygamous families rather than fatherless or husbandless are, once again, all wet. Again, this may be somewhat true in certain cultures, in extreme circumstances, but only to keep people from starving. I might rather starve. :)

[LUKE2447]

ANY relationship is only as good as the people in it! Stop trying to make one worse than the other!

[ILG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_%28film%29

An Iranian Movie...made in a culture that accepts polygamous marriages on the tragedy of such.

Leila (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Leila

Directed by Dariush Mehrjui
Produced by Dariush Mehrjui
Written by Dariush Mehrjui, Mahnaz Ansarian
Starring Leila Hatami,
Ali Mosaffa,
Jamileh Sheikhi,
Mohamad Reza Sharifinia,
Turan Mehrzad,
Amir Pievar,
Shaghayegh Farahani,

Release date(s) 1996
Running time 102 minutes
Language Persian
IMDb profile
Leila is an Iranian movie directed by Dariush Mehrjui.


[edit] Plot synopsis
Iranian filmmaker Dariush Mehrjui (Gaav) directed and co-wrote this tale of a woman's dissolving marriage in contemporary Iran. Leila (Leila Hatami) meets her future husband, Reza (Ali Mosaffa), when a friend brings him to a family event. Two months later, they're married, and things seem to be blissful. The middle-class couple has a playful and loving relationship, but their happiness is jeopardized when they discover that Leila cannot bear children. As the couple tries various tests and alternate methods of conception to no avail, Reza continually reassures Leila that it's not important to him to have children -- only to be with her. But Reza is the only male child in his family, and his mother (Jamileh Sheikhi), an old-fashioned woman, is determined for him to have a son to continue the family line. She continually harangues Leila, telling her that Reza desperately wants a child, even if he insists to Leila that he doesn't. Eventually all the pressure from Reza's mother and her own feelings of inadequacy get to Leila, and she agrees to allow Reza to take a second wife who can have his child. As the couple grow more despondent and uncertain as to how to please one another, Reza, unable to assuage Leila's guilt, reluctantly agrees to meet several women his mother has selected as potential second wives. At first, Reza and Leila joke about the unsuitability of the women he's fixed up with, and rediscover some of the joy in their own loving marriage, but eventually their resistance wears down, and they both give in to his mother's wishes. ~ Josh Ralske, All Movie Guide

[Apprehended]

After seeing this thread for a long time but not opening it, I asked the wife what she thought about polygamy. She said, "Sure, why not. But what would you do?"

The girl didn't get the point. LOL... :lol:

[LUKE2447]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_%28film%29

An Iranian Movie...made in a culture that accepts polygamous marriages on the tragedy of such.

Leila (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Leila

Directed by Dariush Mehrjui
Produced by Dariush Mehrjui
Written by Dariush Mehrjui, Mahnaz Ansarian
Starring Leila Hatami,
Ali Mosaffa,
Jamileh Sheikhi,
Mohamad Reza Sharifinia,
Turan Mehrzad,
Amir Pievar,
Shaghayegh Farahani,

Release date(s) 1996
Running time 102 minutes
Language Persian
IMDb profile
Leila is an Iranian movie directed by Dariush Mehrjui.


[edit] Plot synopsis
Iranian filmmaker Dariush Mehrjui (Gaav) directed and co-wrote this tale of a woman's dissolving marriage in contemporary Iran. Leila (Leila Hatami) meets her future husband, Reza (Ali Mosaffa), when a friend brings him to a family event. Two months later, they're married, and things seem to be blissful. The middle-class couple has a playful and loving relationship, but their happiness is jeopardized when they discover that Leila cannot bear children. As the couple tries various tests and alternate methods of conception to no avail, Reza continually reassures Leila that it's not important to him to have children -- only to be with her. But Reza is the only male child in his family, and his mother (Jamileh Sheikhi), an old-fashioned woman, is determined for him to have a son to continue the family line. She continually harangues Leila, telling her that Reza desperately wants a child, even if he insists to Leila that he doesn't. Eventually all the pressure from Reza's mother and her own feelings of inadequacy get to Leila, and she agrees to allow Reza to take a second wife who can have his child. As the couple grow more despondent and uncertain as to how to please one another, Reza, unable to assuage Leila's guilt, reluctantly agrees to meet several women his mother has selected as potential second wives. At first, Reza and Leila joke about the unsuitability of the women he's fixed up with, and rediscover some of the joy in their own loving marriage, but eventually their resistance wears down, and they both give in to his mother's wishes. ~ Josh Ralske, All Movie Guide

As pointed out before FLAWED LOGIC! You are comparing apples with oranges. Let's get a documentary of the the spouse abuse in America that has been rampant for year and happens under monogamy! Doesn't mean monogamy is bad! According to your logic it is!

[ILG]

As pointed out before FLAWED LOGIC! You are comparing apples with oranges. Let's get a documentary of the the spouse abuse in America that has been rampant for year and happens under monogamy! Doesn't mean monogamy is bad! According to your logic it is!

This movie isn't even about spousal abuse. Maybe you should watch it.

[Aquila]

If you do some searches on the connection between polygamy and child abuse/wife abuse you will find a lot of material. Those people who are saying that children and women are better off in polygamous families rather than fatherless or husbandless are, once again, all wet. Again, this may be somewhat true in certain cultures, in extreme circumstances, but only to keep people from starving. I might rather starve. :)

LLG, I really think you’re mistaken. Abraham wasn’t a child abuser. Neither was Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, or the countless other godly men of the Bible who I could list here. Remember, we’re talking about “biblical polygamy”. Most modern polygamists don’t practice “biblical polygamy”. They’re typically part of a “cult” that has very distorted views of the Bible. And since cultic polygamy is illegal they live in secrecy, this creates a secretive environment that becomes a seedbed for abuse. One cannot compare “cultic polygamy” that we see today to “biblical polygamy”.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

After seeing this thread for a long time but not opening it, I asked the wife what she thought about polygamy. She said, "Sure, why not. But what would you do?"

The girl didn't get the point. LOL... :lol:

HA HA Sure she did. Maybe the women need more men to give them a better lifestyle. lol How would the men like that. Taken from the opposite perspective, How many men would you allow your wife to have? Not quite the same from the other side. Huh?

[Aquila]

HA HA Sure she did. Maybe the women need more men to give them a better lifestyle. lol How would the men like that. Taken from the opposite perspective, How many men would you allow your wife to have? Not quite the same from the other side. Huh?

Now this is moving from a discussion on polygamy to something more akin to polyandry or swinging.

[Dora]

As pointed out before FLAWED LOGIC! You are comparing apples with oranges. Let's get a documentary of the the spouse abuse in America that has been rampant for year and happens under monogamy! Doesn't mean monogamy is bad! According to your logic it is!

OH! Give me a break! From the get-go of this thread we have been emphasizing that we are discussing the MODERN practice of polygamy - not disputing the OT or ancient practice of polygamy used to "be fruitful and multiply" the human population.

We're talking about God's IDEAL here and lining up marriage and the treatment of women as becomes a CHRISTIAN.

If you can't get that...then you are full of HOOEY!!!

[LUKE2447]

not all have! Also your view does not make what BECOMESa Christian! Polygamy is not any less ideal IMO than monogamy! It depends on the person and individual! Just like anything some people work better in different situations.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Now this is moving from a discussion on polygamy to something more akin to polyandry or swinging.

You already know my position on this. I was just poking a little fun at what apprehended said.

His wife responded to his question of what she thought about polygamy. Sure why not but what would you do?

We have been looking at it from the mans perspective of having many wives. What about a monogamous relationship of a woman having many husbands? I don't think I would like that very much either. I don't think thats Gods position either. I would rather believe what Jesus said to be Gods original intent.

Would it be polyandry or swinging Aquila?

[ILG]

OH! Give me a break! From the get-go of this thread we have been emphasizing that we are discussing the MODERN practice of polygamy - not disputing the OT or ancient practice of polygamy used to "be fruitful and multiply" the human population.

We're talking about God's IDEAL here and lining up marriage and the treatment of women as becomes a CHRISTIAN.

If you can't get that...then you are full of HOOEY!!!

Don't forget, Dora, that in the beginning, when people needed to be fruitful and multiply the MOST.....at the outset in the garden of Eden, that God gave Adam ONE wife. I stand by my original statements that the men here arguing for polygamy are just arguing based on their own fleshly lusts and simply hiding behind what they wish was biblical precedent in support of it.

Luke2447 won't even say that monogamy is ideal. He thinks polygamy is just as good. Ignorance on this list never does cease. Too bad God didn't give Adam Eve, Sally and Bessy. Then he might have a case. But God knew what he was doing. He actually cares about the needs of women rather than run roughshod over them.

[LUKE2447]

Don't forget, Dora, that in the beginning, when people needed to be fruitful and multiply the MOST.....at the outset in the garden of Eden, that God gave Adam ONE wife. I stand by my original statements that the men here arguing for polygamy are just arguing based on their own fleshly lusts and simply hiding behind what they wish was biblical precedent in support of it.

Luke2447 won't even say that monogamy is ideal. He thinks polygamy is just as good. Ignorance on this list never does cease. Too bad God didn't give Adam Eve, Sally and Bessy. Then he might have a case. But God knew what he was doing. He actually cares about the needs of women rather than run roughshod over them.

I never said ANY are IDEAL it depends on the individual! God did give wives to David so it MUST have been ideal. So don't act like it wasn't God's will or someone forced his hand. Just as God gave Adam his wife and possibly wives according to some Jewish beliefs so did God give David his. Stop trying to make your idea of IDEAL marriage a must when the Bible does not say what is and can only be speculation on your part. Also it is IDEAL that we do many things that we DON'T do but should that are not salvation issues but each does according to there OWN will. Usually women are the majority of ones to make a fuss because in most cases is a matter of pride and lusts of there own flesh. They want there own power and not to have to deal with other women as we all know how those cat fights go.

[LUKE2447]

Don't forget, Dora, that in the beginning, when people needed to be fruitful and multiply the MOST.....at the outset in the garden of Eden, that God gave Adam ONE wife. I stand by my original statements that the men here arguing for polygamy are just arguing based on their own fleshly lusts and simply hiding behind what they wish was biblical precedent in support of it.

Luke2447 won't even say that monogamy is ideal. He thinks polygamy is just as good. Ignorance on this list never does cease. Too bad God didn't give Adam Eve, Sally and Bessy. Then he might have a case. But God knew what he was doing. He actually cares about the needs of women rather than run roughshod over them.

DORA, See my above comments THAT NOT EVERYONE IS arguing the same point as you!!