Polygamy in the Bible

[Dora]

So how do you oppose the idea of modern polygamy when polygamy is obvious "ok" in the Old Testament. How do you argue that it is wrong to have multiply wives in modern society?

From my perspective polygamy puts women in a vulnerable position and is likely to result in abuse for the wife and for the children. Must create such confusion for the children. And there is always the issue of the husband preferring one wife over the other.

Just some rambling thoughts...feel free to contribute your views on the subject.

[Rhoni]

So how do you oppose the idea of modern polygamy when polygamy is obvious "ok" in the Old Testament. How do you argue that it is wrong to have multiply wives in modern society?

From my perspective polygamy puts women in a vulnerable position and is likely to result in abuse for the wife and for the children. Must create such confusion for the children. And there is always the issue of the husband preferring one wife over the other.

Just some rambling thoughts...feel free to contribute your views on the subject.

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

[Apocrypha]

So how do you oppose the idea of modern polygamy when polygamy is obvious "ok" in the Old Testament. How do you argue that it is wrong to have multiply wives in modern society?

From my perspective polygamy puts women in a vulnerable position and is likely to result in abuse for the wife and for the children. Must create such confusion for the children. And there is always the issue of the husband preferring one wife over the other.

Just some rambling thoughts...feel free to contribute your views on the subject.

The New Testament doesn't ban it either. It only is a disqualifier in the case of a pastor/bishop in the church due to the potential for family strife.

[Rhoni]

The New Testament doesn't ban it either. It only is a disqualifier in the case of a pastor/bishop in the church due to the potential for family strife.

ditto!:friend

[TK Burk]

Polygamy is not condoned in the Bible. The hermeneutic law of ‘First Mention’ establishes one man (Adam) being married to one woman (Eve). That first couple is a type of the one bride (the Church) being married to one husband (One God). Genesis 2:24 has “a man” leaving his father and mother so as to become “one flesh” with “his wife.” Such wording indicates a monogamous relationship rather than polygamous. In the past God did ignore certain things due to men’s ignorance, but because of the New Covenant, He now calls all men to repentance (See Acts 14:16, Acts 17:30; Mark 10:5). To help make this marital issue clearer, you might want to look at these: Mat. 19:5, 29; Eph. 5:31, 33; 1Tim. 3:2, 12; Tit. 1:6.

[Apocrypha]

Our stance on polygamy is really only based on 3 things

1. its illegal and we follow the laws of the land
2. the backlash society would have in its current setting if the church allowed it after fighting it so long, we would have egg on our face big time
3. many of our preacher/teachers grew up thinking its wrong because they were taught it was wrong.. and i think this forum knows how hard it is to break tradition.

but technically.. if you go only by the Word and do Sola Scriptura... no we don't have a word to say about polygamy being not ethical, scriptural, or really anything if it is ever legalized here in America. Controversial.. yes... biblical... yes.

Theres a match on the gas.. have fun with that one :)

[Apocrypha]

Polygamy is not condoned in the Bible. The hermeneutic law of ‘First Mention’ establishes one man (Adam) being married to one woman (Eve). That first couple is a type of the one bride (the Church) being married to one husband (One God). Genesis 2:24 has “a man” leaving his father and mother so as to become “one flesh” with “his wife.” Such wording indicates a monogamous relationship rather than polygamous. In the past God did ignore certain things due to men’s ignorance, but because of the New Covenant, He now calls all men to repentance (See Acts 14:16, Acts 17:30; Mark 10:5). To help make this marital issue clearer, you might want to look at these: Mat. 19:5, 29; Eph. 5:31, 33; 1Tim. 3:2, 12; Tit. 1:6.

Are you reading the same bible with the same OT laws of marriage that I do? It must be because I am using the NIV, NLT, AMP, and ESV. Im sure it reads different in your version.

[Apocrypha]

Exodus 21:10 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. (NIV)

Duet 21:15-17
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.


I missed the words "Ban" "forbid" "Abomination" "evil" "sin" "tresspass" or any simiar words in these passages in context to a man in his relationship to God. Just food for thought if you are sticking strictly to scriptures and where it discusses the rules of marriage.

One man one wife is the ideal... but theres no ban on it.

[Hoovie]

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'm not in "leadership" :dance

[Dora]

Wow! So it is a difficult stance to have if the Bible does not outright blast the idea as being an abomination.

What about people who are in some kind of wierd situation like polyamory. Living as if they are all married, but hiding it from society because of the stigma....Sort of makes me feel sick...

[Hoovie]

Wow! So it is a difficult stance to have if the Bible does not outright blast the idea as being an abomination.

What about people who are in some kind of wierd situation like polyamory. Living as if they are all married, but hiding it from society because of the stigma....Sort of makes me feel sick...

Dora, if I did not know better I would think you are asking about your own "situation"! :ursofunny


I do know our missionaries wrestle with this question on foreign soil.

[Dora]

Dora, if I did not know better I would think you are asking about your own "situation"! :ursofunny


I do know our missionaries wrestle with this question on foreign soil.

WHAT???? Gross!!!

[nahkoe]

Dora, if I did not know better I would think you are asking about your own "situation"! :ursofunny


I do know our missionaries wrestle with this question on foreign soil.

If there hasn't already, there's going to come a point when people on US soil need to address this. While still considered out there even by the alternative crowd, it's gaining popularity.

[Dora]

If there hasn't already, there's going to come a point when people on US soil need to address this. While still considered out there even by the alternative crowd, it's gaining popularity.

Why is it gaining in popularity???

[Neubill]

Forget multiple wives. It's the multiple sets of in-laws!

[nahkoe]

Why is it gaining in popularity???

Because it is in certain circles.

Why, would require a philosophy degree to get into. lol

It's seriously not as uncommon as y'all might think.

[Hoovie]

Why is it gaining in popularity???

The redefinition of "marriage" to includes same sex, groups of people and even animals.

[nahkoe]

The redefinition of "marriage" to includes same sex, groups of people and even animals.

Now, animals are still *way* out there..... I won't say it doesn't happen, or won't someday gain popularity, but that one's not considered kosher even in the most alternative of circles.

The rest, same sex and groups though, yes...

[Hoovie]

Now, animals are still *way* out there..... I won't say it doesn't happen, or won't someday gain popularity, but that one's not considered kosher even in the most alternative of circles.

The rest, same sex and groups though, yes...

I agree but I did read that somewhere... also, very young children.

[Dora]

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.

[nahkoe]

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 religious polygamy is a completely separate issue from the alternative lifestyle polygamy.

The abuse that goes on in the name of religion can be pretty astounding. Of course, abuse occurs in other situations too. I just know the people I knew who practiced this would shake their heads at the religious polygamy. It's different when it's consenting adults vs 14, 15, 18 year old girls who don't realize there is a choice to be made...that's just how it is.

[Dr. Vaughn]

So how do you oppose the idea of modern polygamy when polygamy is obvious "ok" in the Old Testament. How do you argue that it is wrong to have multiply wives in modern society?

From my perspective polygamy puts women in a vulnerable position and is likely to result in abuse for the wife and for the children. Must create such confusion for the children. And there is always the issue of the husband preferring one wife over the other.

Just some rambling thoughts...feel free to contribute your views on the subject.

In this country alone we have 8.5 million more women than we do men.... Polygamy would allow for those women to be taken care of by a husband.... and it works for some people and it is never forbidden in the scriptures... we have many Christian men in other countries with plural wives

[Monkeyman]

I couldn't deal with the multiple Macy's cards

[nahkoe]

In this country alone we have 8.5 million more women than we do men.... Polygamy would allow for those women to be taken care of by a husband.... and it works for some people and it is never forbidden in the scriptures... we have many Christian men in other countries with plural wives

One. The bolded part might cause you some trouble. lol

Two. This culture and society is not in any way supportive towards polygamy. I don't think it's a good idea to step so far outside the realm of society. Support, friendships, assistance, help, understanding do not exist when you live outside the realm of the accepted.

[Esther]

A friend of mine refers to the scripture that talks about in the last days it would be 7 women to one man.

My Mom always says "There is no Teepee large enough for more than one woman". :)

[Dora]

I'm frankly surprised at the apparent acceptance of this lifestyle by so many mainstrean Christian men.

Also, surprised that women would go for it. I guess having the actual position of "wife" would be more beneficial than just being a mistress...???

This subject blows my mind.

[Dr. Vaughn]

It has existed for centuries and works well for many people who love large families

[nahkoe]

I'm frankly surprised at the apparent acceptance of this lifestyle by so many mainstrean Christian men.

Also, surprised that women would go for it. I guess having the actual position of "wife" would be more beneficial than just being a mistress...???

This subject blows my mind.

You have to realize that polyamory encompasses more than 1 man, several women. A woman who is attracted to other women would certainly go for it, a man attracted to other men would be all right with the idea too. Not all situations include homosexuality, but quite a lot do.

And not all polyamorous groups live under one roof.

It's kind of a mind blowing subject...really. Even having been exposed to this on the level I have been, it's hard to fully wrap my brain around.

[Apocrypha]

I'm frankly surprised at the apparent acceptance of this lifestyle by so many mainstrean Christian men.

Also, surprised that women would go for it. I guess having the actual position of "wife" would be more beneficial than just being a mistress...???

This subject blows my mind.

Its been a normal part of human history longer than its been abnormal. The scriptures don't prohibit it. I would only want one wife myself, but as a minister I really don't have the ability to speak where the bible is silent or even accepting of something.

[Esther]

I'm frankly surprised at the apparent acceptance of this lifestyle by so many mainstrean Christian men.

Also, surprised that women would go for it. I guess having the actual position of "wife" would be more beneficial than just being a mistress...???

This subject blows my mind.

I just don't think I could go for that!

[Dora]

Doesn't it create serious problems for the children? Seems that it would be confusing for them.

the polyamory thing seems just out of the realm of comprehension for my small mind.

Anything that could have a detrimental effect on children - seems that this kind of behavior is just beyond anything society could ever accept as a healthy "family" situation.

[Aquila]

So how do you oppose the idea of modern polygamy when polygamy is obvious "ok" in the Old Testament. How do you argue that it is wrong to have multiply wives in modern society?

From my perspective polygamy puts women in a vulnerable position and is likely to result in abuse for the wife and for the children. Must create such confusion for the children. And there is always the issue of the husband preferring one wife over the other.

Just some rambling thoughts...feel free to contribute your views on the subject.

I think polygamy in ancient times has to be viewed in light of culture. Women were property to be stolen in war, traded, and even given as part of treaties between nations to link royal families. So it became a status symbol to have more than one wife...it expressed wealth and power. It also multiplied the number of children a man could have which was highly valued in ancient Bible culture. Marriage was primarily a contract between the man and the bride's family and not strictly between the bride and the husband. So all that a wife owned was also the husband's property...even her servants. Women had little say in how many wives a man could have...though they readily voiced their displeasure when jealous. None of this was specifically condemned by God on moral grounds...the primary concern in the Law was with kings multiplying wives with foreign women (essentially establishing too many foreign treaties) because they could turn his heart toward the gods of their native land. The Law of God required polygamy at times. For example if a man's brother were to die without having children, he was commanded to also marry his brother's widow to raise up children in his brother's name. This was a form of a social safety net because it protected the widow from exploitation, provided for her immediate needs, and insured her care in the future as her children were required to care for her into old age.

Adultery wasn't viewed so much as a moral issue as a "property" issue. If a woman were to have relations with another man, she and the man involved were stealing the conjugal rights belonging only to her husband. For example, David had more than one wife and wasn't considered an adulterer...however, when he secretly took Uriah's wife he stole from Uriah what he had no right to...and David was then an adulterer. Adultery is essentially connected to taking a woman that belongs to another man. Jesus expanded this concept by illustrating that the mere thought of taking what belongs to another man is adultery. I'd like to emphasize that Jesus isn't talking about beholding a woman's beauty....he's addressing "lust" in the context of adultery, the actual desire to peruse and take a woman that isn't one's own. Jesus isn't condemning normal attraction or interest.

Forms of marriage described in the Old Testament:

The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman, consummates the marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences between the customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of ancient Israelites.

Polygynous marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as finances allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired. The new wives would join the man and his other wives in an already established household.

Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations. Ruth 4 reveals that a man would be required to enter into a levirate marriage not only with his late brother's widow, but with a widow to whom he was the closest living relative.

A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram would have an heir.

A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife. As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought...[from] her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free." 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household. Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 describes how the army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women - all virgins -- were spared. Some of the latter were given to the priests as slaves. Most were taken by the Israeli soldiers as captives of war. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month had passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife.

A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker. A man could become married by simply taking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.

A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. In the times of the Hebrew Scriptures, Israelite women who were sold into slavery by their fathers were slaves forever. Men, and women who became slaves by another route, were limited to serving as slaves for seven years. When a male slave left his owner, the marriage would normally be terminated; his wife would stay behind, with any children that she had. He could elect to stay a slave if he wished.

And those are the most common forms of "marriage" in the Old Testament.

The New Testament's prohibition of polygamy among church elders is radical compared to the position of the Old Testament. By mandating that elders have one wife....Paul elevates a woman to being more than just property and essentially makes her equal to her husband in regards to conjugal entitlement. Paul's admonishion for every elder to have his own wife was to help in preventing sexual immorality which was very prevalent in ancient times, especially among pagan peoples. Interestingly, Paul's admonishion that a bishop be the husband of only one wife also precludes concubinage (which was also common and allowed...consider it a legal mistress) because the Greek more literally reads "man of one woman".

[Apocrypha]

Doesn't it create serious problems for the children? Seems that it would confusing for them.

the polyamory thing seems just out of the realm of comprehension for my small mind.

Anything that could have a detrimental effect on children - seems that this kind of behavior is just beyond anything society could ever accept as a healthy "family" situation.


Compared to what? Our modern day mixed families where we try to integrate the product of one or two divorces together with a web of ex-spouses and step fathers and mothers?

[nahkoe]

Doesn't it create serious problems for the children? Seems that it would confusing for them.

the polyamory thing seems just out of the realm of comprehension for my small mind.

Anything that could have a detrimental effect on children - seems that this kind of behavior is just beyond anything society could ever accept as a healthy "family" situation.

In a situation that's being handled by mature responsible adults..children are left to be children and aren't so much aware of the dynamic. To have several adults acting in parental roles is the norm through history.

But, since one can never know the long term implications, I seriously can't support this sort of thing when young children are involved. It makes me cringe. Divorce or dissolution of a relationship is horrible any time children are involved. I can't imagine having more than 2 adults in the dynamic would make that any easier.

[Aquila]

Polygamy is not condoned in the Bible. The hermeneutic law of ‘First Mention’ establishes one man (Adam) being married to one woman (Eve). That first couple is a type of the one bride (the Church) being married to one husband (One God). Genesis 2:24 has “a man” leaving his father and mother so as to become “one flesh” with “his wife.” Such wording indicates a monogamous relationship rather than polygamous. In the past God did ignore certain things due to men’s ignorance, but because of the New Covenant, He now calls all men to repentance (See Acts 14:16, Acts 17:30; Mark 10:5). To help make this marital issue clearer, you might want to look at these: Mat. 19:5, 29; Eph. 5:31, 33; 1Tim. 3:2, 12; Tit. 1:6.

I disagree. God had more in mind than accommodating man's ignorance. In fact...I'd argue that man wouldn't have been "ignorant" if God would have set rock solid standards of marriage. Instead, we see various forms of marriage not only allowed, but given circumstances, commanded in God's Law.

[Aquila]

Wow! So it is a difficult stance to have if the Bible does not outright blast the idea as being an abomination.

What about people who are in some kind of wierd situation like polyamory. Living as if they are all married, but hiding it from society because of the stigma....Sort of makes me feel sick...

Well Dora...some things are strictly between a husband and wife... and maybe we should keep it that way. lol

Here's something that my wife and I have wondered about...Sarah virtually gave Abraham another woman and God doesn't condemn Abraham for adultery. It would seem that this wasn't considered immoral or adultery because the wife knew about it (primarily her idea) and Hagar didn't belong to another man. Again it boils down to women being regarded more like property.

[Aquila]

Why is it gaining in popularity???

People have practiced open marriage in one fashion or another, discretely, since our nation began. I think it's just becoming more obvious and popular in our society.

[Aquila]

Now, animals are still *way* out there..... I won't say it doesn't happen, or won't someday gain popularity, but that one's not considered kosher even in the most alternative of circles.

The rest, same sex and groups though, yes...

For some reason I picture a man with an engagement ring in one hand and a dog biscuit in another. LOL

[Aquila]

In this country alone we have 8.5 million more women than we do men.... Polygamy would allow for those women to be taken care of by a husband.... and it works for some people and it is never forbidden in the scriptures... we have many Christian men in other countries with plural wives

Polygamy wouldn't work today because of one word....women. lol

[Aquila]

A friend of mine refers to the scripture that talks about in the last days it would be 7 women to one man.

My Mom always says "There is no Teepee large enough for more than one woman". :)

ROFL :ursofunny

[Dora]

I'm in shock here...

Obviously polygamy has been practiced throughout history, but doesn't the practic of modern polygamy put women back into the dark ages where they were considered as nothing but property - bought and sold and subjected to vile offense?

[Aquila]

I'm in shock here...

Obviously polygamy has been practiced throughout history, but doesn't the practic of modern polygamy put women back into the dark ages where they were considered as nothing but property - bought and sold and subjected to vile offense?

I think yes.

But evidently some believe that being "liberated" allows them more open marriages.

My wife once told me that if we had more than one wife in the house....at least someone would help with the house work and she could get me out of her hair more often. lol

[Hoovie]

I think yes.

But evidently some believe that being "liberated" allows them more open marriages.

My wife once told me that if we had more than one wife in the house....at least someone would help with the house work and she could get me out of her hair more often. lol

There ya go Aquila. Please keep us informed... report back as often as your time permits.

[Aquila]

There ya go Aquila. Please keep us informed... report back as often as your time permits.

Sorry bro...one's enough for me. lol

[nahkoe]

I'm in shock here...

Obviously polygamy has been practiced throughout history, but doesn't the practic of modern polygamy put women back into the dark ages where they were considered as nothing but property - bought and sold and subjected to vile offense?

The polygamy the FLDS practice? Yes. The open marriages and polyamory, maybe not. If anything it makes relationships a commodity. Not just women, but men as well. Trade them around, swap (swinging is a subset of polyamory btw), find another someone.

[LUKE2447]

Actually the prohibition against elders might not be a prohibition at all but reference he must be a husband of his first wife. As the use of the word "one" allows for such a interpretation. Otherwise he could not be divorced which would be a bad thing and not a quality of leadership in the home WHICH was points of the other qualifications.

[Sam]

I'm frankly surprised at the apparent acceptance of this lifestyle by so many mainstrean Christian men.

Also, surprised that women would go for it. I guess having the actual position of "wife" would be more beneficial than just being a mistress...???

This subject blows my mind.

Some African American men practice a form of polygamy. They say it was OK in their African heritage and that good men like Abraham, David, etc. practiced it in the Bible. They do not actually marry multiple wives but have children by several different women and stay with different ones at different times. They also say this was enforced in their culture by the white slave holders who used the men for breeding several women without marriage. It is a part of the African American culture in this country.

[Aquila]

Actually the prohibition against elders might not be a prohibition at all but reference he must be a husband of his first wife. As the use of the word on allows for such a interpretation. Otherwise he could not be divorced which would be a bad thing and not a quality of leadership in the home WHICH was points of the other qualifications.

If I remember correctly the "husband of one wife" is more literally translated out of the Greek as "man of one woman".

[LUKE2447]

If I remember correctly the "husband of one wife" is more literally translated out of the Greek as "man of one woman".


yes and if one was meant "first" then it clearly changes the meaning. Literal does not change anything conerning meaning of the author.
Also it would be very unusual to put a prohibition on someone sense it was never taught as a negative but it would make sense to make a prohibiton in the church concerning a issue of divorce or other marital issue.

[Aquila]

Luke....dude...are you married? LOL

[Dora]

So how would you counsel a couple in your church who decided to engage in polygamy or polyamory and confessed it to you in a private manner. Would you have to condone it or would you advise against such practice within the marriage.

This is just the wierdest thing I've ever heard of...can't believe I'm reading this is acceptable to so many.

[LUKE2447]

Luke....dude...are you married? LOL


Yes, and my wife agrees Polygamy is not a sin before God. Just a sin before her with the penalty of castration.

[Dr. Vaughn]

The New Testament's prohibition of polygamy among church elders is radical compared to the position of the Old Testament. By mandating that elders have one wife....Paul elevates a woman to being more than just property and essentially makes her equal to her husband in regards to conjugal entitlement. Paul's admonishion for every elder to have his own wife was to help in preventing sexual immorality which was very prevalent in ancient times, especially among pagan peoples. Interestingly, Paul's admonishion that a bishop be the husband of only one wife also precludes concubinage (which was also common and allowed...consider it a legal mistress) because the Greek more literally reads "man of one woman".

Wonderful post and I agree with everything except the paragraph in quotes above.... I don't believe Pauls instruction to the Bishops to have one wife had anything to do with elevating the woman... as Paul clarifies why he wishes for them to have only one wife was in order to better serve the church.... we find his reference that those who are married cannot give as much attention to the church...... therefore he recommends that they do NOT MARRY but if they must to only marry ONE WIFE and any more than that would be too much of a distraction from the flock of God

[Aquila]

So how would you counsel a couple in your church who decided to engage in polygamy or polyamory and confessed it to you in a private manner. Would you have to condone it or would you advise against such practice within the marriage.

This is just the wierdest thing I've ever heard of...can't believe I'm reading this is acceptable to so many.

Well Dora...

That is a strange question.

I'd advise against it. Because it's a recipe for someone to get hurt.

It seems attractive to couples who feel like "something is missing" in the bedroom. Normally these couples are in their mid 30's and entering a sort of mid-life crisis. They're adventurous and have sexual curiosities or needs not being met. On average they've been married between 7 to 12 years. They know each other and are virtually best friends along with being lovers. Most likely they also have children. Yes, while they are a Christian couple, they try to experiment by spicing things up with fantasy, erotica, etc...and then they start whispering the "what ifs". They love each other, they don't plan to leave one another, they just want to know about....what it's like to have a new flavor. So they read websites where couples meet other individuals or couples and they laugh about it. At first they feign disbelief, "Do people really do this?" They giggle at the pictures. And the thought of it electrifies them when they're alone together... they enjoy "talking" about it. Suddenly fantasy shifts into "possibility"...and they arrange to meet someone or another couple. They go out to dinner, they visit a club. They socialize for a couple hours to see if there's chemistry. They find that they have a lot in common...especially in the area of sexual curiosity. Typically one of them wants to try this more than the other...the other is apprehensive but wants the first to be happy and fulfilled. If there is "chemistry" they meet at a hotel....and then they cross the line and taste the forbidden fruit. It fulfilled the lusts of the flesh but something in their gut is sending out WARNING signals. They don't talk the entire drive home accept for a few, "Are you ok?"s...and a couple, "Yes. I'm ok. Just tired."s. They don't talk about it really. But insecurity begins to develop. While the husband is at work he can't concentrate on his job...his heart is racing. His hands are shaking. He wonders, "Is she home?" If she's working he wonders, "Is she still in the office?" Then he begins to wonder, if not...who's she with? He calls her office phone and gets the voice mail. He's heart leaps into his throat. Where is she? He calls her cell phone and it goes directly to voice mail. He frantically calls a friend of the family and nervously asks that if they hear from her they have her call him. He can't focus, he feels dizzy. He takes the rest of the day off and goes home to wait for her. She comes in shortly after 5:30pm. She's surprised he's home already, he raises his voice, "Where have you been? I tried to call you at work and there was no answer! I tried to call your cell phone and it went to voice mail. Where were you?!" She looks at him like he's lost his mind, "I was in a regional sales meeting all morning. I forgot to charge my cell phone last night and so it was dead. And I was in conference calls all afternoon with the account managers. Why didn't you leave a message? Don't you trust me?!" He didn't want to say that he was too frantic to leave a message....he feels like he's now loosing control. Emotions are overwhelming his sense of reason...he wants to trust her...in fact...he believes her...but his emotions are out of control. He doesn't want her to go to work again. He remembers how she laughed with a male colleague at an office party and every bone in his body is convinced she's going to have a rendezvous with this man. After all...the man makes far more money, has a degree, is thinner, funny and already has a marriage on the rocks. She might run away...and be with a better man....it's insecurity rearing it's ugly head. Or maybe he's home late from work and when he gets home she's so quite she doesn't speak to him. He doesn't know how to interpret what's wrong so he remains carefully quiet. Once the kids are in bed she walks up to him while he's on the computer, watching tv, or getting ready for bed and she said, "So...is she prettier than I am?" "Who?" He asks, "Rhonda, she's always working late too. I know how pretty she is. Were you with her? Just tell me the truth!" Heated words and arguments ensue. Their sex life is now non-existent. They feel they can't trust each other. They can't concentrate and enjoy one another without insecurity and fear. About a week passes and they go out of their way to re-assure one another that everything is ok. But now they are dealing with the distrust and the hurt of being distrusted. To make matters worse....they're ashamed. They don't feel they can talk to anyone. They don't know how it got out of control. Kids are asking if everything is ok. Short answers, snaps, and cold reassurances don't calm the kids. The kids begin misbehaving at school because of the tension at home. The husband has lost "moral authority" to guide his home and the wife has lost that Christian gentility. He doesn't feel like going to church any more. After all...they've blown it. Now the family is dividing over church attendance. They call in sick and fight that night. The kids are more confused than ever....

Everything is out of control and getting worse. Without much prayer, forgiveness, and counsel they're approaching certain ruin.

Fantasy can be exciting when strictly controlled by imagination....but all to often a fantasy's reality is a living Hell. I'd say such fantasies and/or interests are dangerous because they can provoke one to act upon them. I'd advise a couple with polyamorous fantasies to take a break to pray and fast. Focus on the Word together. Don't talk about the fantasy. Try to allow the fantasy to go away and find different interests...experiment with new things together, strictly with one another. I'd advise much prayer and fasting. And if they needed "spice", I might recommend things that might make a couple blush before condoning any polyamorous experiences. I'd advise that polyamory is playing with fire, and if they still insisted on trying it...I guess I'd have to brace myself to try and help them pick up the pieces of what was left after it had run it's course.

[Aquila]

Wonderful post and I agree with everything except the paragraph in quotes above.... I don't believe Pauls instruction to the Bishops to have one wife had anything to do with elevating the woman... as Paul clarifies why he wishes for them to have only one wife was in order to better serve the church.... we find his reference that those who are married cannot give as much attention to the church...... therefore he recommends that they do NOT MARRY but if they must to only marry ONE WIFE and any more than that would be too much of a distraction from the flock of God

True. I should have said an interesting social by-product was the elevation of a woman's value in the marriage relationship.

Good call bro.

[Sam]

If I remember correctly the "husband of one wife" is more literally translated out of the Greek as "man of one woman".

in other words "only one wife at a time."

[Aquila]

in other words "only one wife at a time."

Personally I believe it means, "man of one woman". In my opinion I believe this means a man who is married to (and has been married to) only one woman. I think this would disqualify any polygamous or divorced man from serving as a Bishop.

That's my personal opinion.

[MissBrattified]

Exodus 21:10 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. (NIV)

Duet 21:15-17
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.


I missed the words "Ban" "forbid" "Abomination" "evil" "sin" "tresspass" or any simiar words in these passages in context to a man in his relationship to God. Just food for thought if you are sticking strictly to scriptures and where it discusses the rules of marriage.

One man one wife is the ideal... but theres no ban on it.

God established laws to regulate a man-made practice, but He did not institute polygamy anymore than He instituted slavery. There are lots of laws that regulate the practice of slavery, and how a "master" should treat his slaves, but that doesn't mean slavery is right. And it's most certainly not a reflection of biblical ideals and principles, both OT and NT.

[MissBrattified]

Yes, and my wife agrees Polygamy is not a sin before God. Just a sin before her with the penalty of castration.

:blink




:ursofunny

[Aquila]

:blink
:ursofunny

lol

I know it sounds funny....but you'd be amazed at how many women are tolerant of the idea of polyamory or polygamy....if not in practice in theory. Most women are very quiet about their husband's sexual indiscretions, especially in religious circles.

[Rico]

Why any man would want to put up with more than one woman, especially an American one, is beyond me. :D

[Aquila]

God established laws to regulate a man-made practice, but He did not institute polygamy anymore than He instituted slavery. There are lots of laws that regulate the practice of slavery, and how a "master" should treat his slaves, but that doesn't mean slavery is right. And it's most certainly not a reflection of biblical ideals and principles, both OT and NT.

God's Law is pretty clear. He nowhere illustrates that polygamy or slavery is specifically wrong in and of itself. Abraham is never called an adulterer specifically on account of polygamy. Neither is Jacob, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, or various kings of Israel. In fact God's Law commands it in regards to Levirate Marriage. These men are praised throughout the Scriptures.

If something were absolutely sinful God wouldn't permit it at all, let alone command it for any circumstance.

Now, this doesn't mean that polygamy works. Nor does it mean that polygamy is a NT practice. Clearly by the time of the NT monogamy was held in high regard and Paul appears to uphold monogamous principles.

[Aquila]

Why any man would want to put up with more than one woman, especially an American one, is beyond me. :D

Very good point. Another reason why polygamy wouldn't work in today's society is the liberated mindset of women. In the OT women were essentially property, they could be sold, traded, married into harems, or even sold into concubinage. Women had very little say. That's why polygamy is mostly found in closed and controlled groups.

[ILG]

In the beginning, God gave Adam one wife, Eve. He didn't add Jane or Sally and tell Adam to have fun since populating the earth would be easier with more wives. :crazy Thank God for that. After that, men took the reigns and decided that they knew better than God on the subject and thought things would be better with more than one wife. (More wives equals more sex.) The Bible bears out that there is much jealousy with polygamy. I think the Bible does not condemn it or women who are in polygamous situations, yet hated, would be thrown out on their ear. I think we can view this as a protection of women and not a condoning of polygamy. Since God made Adam one wife and said that only men of one wife can be leaders, that tells you that men who have more than one wife are not leadership material and not in the perfect will of God. End of story. :)

[LUKE2447]

Why any man would want to put up with more than one woman, especially an American one, is beyond me. :D

YEP! This type of culture with it's type of laws would be bad, VERY bad!

[LUKE2447]

In the beginning, God gave Adam one wife, Eve. He didn't add Jane or Sally and tell Adam to have fun since populating the earth would be easier with more wives. :crazy Thank God for that. After that, men took the reigns and decided that they knew better than God on the subject and thought things would be better with more than one wife. (More wives equals more sex.) The Bible bears out that there is much jealousy with polygamy. I think the Bible does not condemn it or women who are in polygamous situations, yet hated, would be thrown out on their ear. I think we can view this as a protection of women and not a condoning of polygamy. Since God made Adam one wife and said that only men of one wife can be leaders, that tells you that men who have more than one wife are not leadership material and not in the perfect will of God. End of story. :)


Sorry but marriage either fails or lives by the PEOPLE in the marriage not the style.

I guess David was not a great leader or Moses or Abraham or or or..... Your logic fails!

[Baron1710]

Sorry but marriage either fails or lives by the PEOPLE in the marriage not the style.

I guess David was not a great leader or Moses or Abraham or or or..... Your logic fails!

Abraham probably remarried after Sarah died, and Hagar wasn't his wife yet we know how that relationship worked out.

To attribute to Moses 2 wives is to read into Scripture and assume that the wife that Aaron and Miriam complained about was not Zipporah.

So that leaves you with David.

However your point was well taken that leadership is not the issue.

[LUKE2447]

Baron I would disagree but it doesn't matter anyway.

[Baron1710]

Baron I would disagree but it doesn't matter anyway.

Disagree with what?

[Aquila]

Actually in time God did add additional women to the population. And yes, men took the reigns and decided to have more than one wife. But here’s the deal…God never forbade them from taking more than one wife. I think that it’s hard to understand the ancient worldview in our modern sexualized society. We by default think that polygamy is about more sex. But in reality that was a very small part of it. Again, women were viewed as property. Having more than one wife was a sort of status symbol (today we judge people by their homes or automobiles). Having many children was considered a blessing and ensured the family dynasty. Many children provided many additional workers and hands to tend crops and lands. Children were also a form of “social security”, the children cared for their aging parents. So the more children the more prosperous one’s old age would be and the less of a burden aging parents would be on their children. It also provided care and for the needs of women. A single woman couldn’t just go out and get a career and support herself. A single woman was most likely going to end up being sold into slavery or prostitution (and sadly for women there wasn’t much of a difference). I imagine that one could argue that polygamy developed out of social necessity. Today the only real “benefit” (I speak as a man of flesh and blood) that it would provide is multiple partners with which to fulfill one’s desires. I predict that if there were a massive war in which the entire world system was devastated and an agrarian clan like society developed in the ruins of our modern world we’d see a resurgence of polygamy based on necessity and survival.

God doesn’t condemn polygamy. In the Scriptures marriage wasn’t a “static institution” in ancient times. Marriage was viewed more like a contractual agreement between nations, families, and couples. The husband was to provide for necessities and protection and the woman was to provide him with conjugal rights and children. The stipulations of that contract were primarily determined by the individuals involved. For example Sarah gives her servant Hagar to Abraham. That was agreed upon by them both, therefore it wasn’t “adultery” in that it didn’t violate the marriage contract, nor did it attempt to take from another man what was his. That’s why Abraham wasn’t condemned as an adulterer. David had wives and concubines; however David is only condemned for adultery when he secretly takes Uriah’s wife; again taking property that wasn’t his. God’s concern appears to be with maintaining the marriage contract (covenant), not necessarily the forms it might take. Even concubinage was primarily viewed as a contract with limited entitlements, rights, and obligations. The stipulations of the marriage contract were determined primarily by the husband (sometimes with the participation of first wife). We have to understand how marriage was viewed, what it provided, and how it was observed in ancient times to fully understand the development and practice of polygamy in the Bible.

[ILG]

Sorry but marriage either fails or lives by the PEOPLE in the marriage not the style.

I guess David was not a great leader or Moses or Abraham or or or..... Your logic fails!

David was a great leader of his country, but of his household, he failed miserably.

[ILG]

Actually in time God did add additional women to the population. And yes, men took the reigns and decided to have more than one wife. But here’s the deal…God never forbade them from taking more than one wife. I think that it’s hard to understand the ancient worldview in our modern sexualized society. We by default think that polygamy is about more sex. But in reality that was a very small part of it. Again, women were viewed as property. Having more than one wife was a sort of status symbol (today we judge people by their homes or automobiles). Having many children was considered a blessing and ensured the family dynasty. Many children provided many additional workers and hands to tend crops and lands. Children were also a form of “social security”, the children cared for their aging parents. So the more children the more prosperous one’s old age would be and the less of a burden aging parents would be on their children. It also provided care and for the needs of women. A single woman couldn’t just go out and get a career and support herself. A single woman was most likely going to end up being sold into slavery or prostitution (and sadly for women there wasn’t much of a difference). I imagine that one could argue that polygamy developed out of social necessity. Today the only real “benefit” (I speak as a man of flesh and blood) that it would provide is multiple partners with which to fulfill one’s desires. I predict that if there were a massive war in which the entire world system was devastated and an agrarian clan like society developed in the ruins of our modern world we’d see a resurgence of polygamy based on necessity and survival.

God doesn’t condemn polygamy. In the Scriptures marriage wasn’t a “static institution” in ancient times. Marriage was viewed more like a contractual agreement between nations, families, and couples. The husband was to provide for necessities and protection and the woman was to provide him with conjugal rights and children. The stipulations of that contract were primarily determined by the individuals involved. For example Sarah gives her servant Hagar to Abraham. That was agreed upon by them both, therefore it wasn’t “adultery” in that it didn’t violate the marriage contract, nor did it attempt to take from another man what was his. That’s why Abraham wasn’t condemned as an adulterer. David had wives and concubines; however David is only condemned for adultery when he secretly takes Uriah’s wife; again taking property that wasn’t his. God’s concern appears to be with maintaining the marriage contract (covenant), not necessarily the forms it might take. Even concubinage was primarily viewed as a contract with limited entitlements, rights, and obligations. The stipulations of the marriage contract were determined primarily by the husband (sometimes with the participation of first wife). We have to understand how marriage was viewed, what it provided, and how it was observed in ancient times to fully understand the development and practice of polygamy in the Bible.

Sure, it was viewed in this way because women were viewed as property. God never meant for women to be viewed as property.

[gaaspul]

What is the punishment for 7 wives?




7 mother-in-laws!

[LUKE2447]

Disagree with what?


Example: Abraham "probably" remarried and the other speculation.

Wives - Sarah, Hagar and Keturah

"Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar." Genesis 16:1

"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Genesis 16:3

"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah." Genesis 25:1

Moses maybe as it is speculation on both parts but more support goes to he did have multiple as the text shows he did and does not change the status of the other wife.

[COOPER]

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

Women are to keep silent in the New testy church.



Could you Imagine trying shut serveral wives up in church instead of one? :ursofunny


:snapout Shut up Sue, shut up Mary, pipe down Cathy!

[LUKE2447]

David was a great leader of his country, but of his household, he failed miserably.


your point? Many husbands of one wife have that same issue. Also many view that strife as a curse do to a few failures of his.

[COOPER]

Question is; do they all share the same bed?


More than one wife is too kinky to be holy...........right?

[LUKE2447]

Question is; do they all share the same bed?


Actually it was against the law for two sisters to share the same bed at the same time with there husband. Now other wives not so.

[Baron1710]

Example: Abraham "probably" remarried and the other speculation.

Wives - Sarah, Hagar and Keturah

"Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar." Genesis 16:1

"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Genesis 16:3

"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah." Genesis 25:1

Moses maybe as it is speculation on both parts but more support goes to he did have multiple as the text shows he did and does not change the status of the other wife.


I had already conceded Hagar but the lateness of the mentioning of Keturah would indicate that this was after Sarah’s death. I do understand there is some debate on that.

But less so Moses and two wives.

[LUKE2447]

I had already conceded Hagar but the lateness of the mentioning of Keturah would indicate that this was after Sarah’s death. I do understand there is some debate on that.

But less so Moses and two wives.

ok :friend

[Aquila]

Question is; do they all share the same bed?
More than one wife is too kinky to be holy...........right?

LOL

C’mon…truth be told…most husbands and wives today have their personal “things” they do in private that might make other couples blush in embarrassment…and holiness isn’t an issue. Biblically speaking, in ancient Biblical culture, the stipulations of the marriage covenant were determined by the individuals involved. If a married couple decided to add another to the contract there was no violation. Now if one of them engaged in relations with another against their spouses will or without their knowledge, outside of the marriage covenant, it was adultery.

But in today’s society….it would be viewed as a bit too freaky. LOL

[LUKE2447]

Aquila very true. People today have there paradigm of marriage that really does not fit the model the Bible gives.

[ILG]

your point? Many husbands of one wife have that same issue. Also many view that strife as a curse do to a few failures of his.

My point is really that I fail to see why some men here are arguing for polygamy....beyond the fact that the Bible doesn't outright condemn it....I made the piont that I think God did that more for the protection of women than that he was really saying it was okay. I also made the points that God said Adam was given Eve only. God was not advocating polygamy here. He also gave the command for the bishop to have only one wife for a reason. What do you think that reason was?

[LUKE2447]

My point is really that I fail to see why some men here are arguing for polygamy....beyond the fact that the Bible doesn't outright condemn it....I made the piont that I think God did that more for the protection of women than that he was really saying it was okay. I also made the points that God said Adam was given Eve only. God was not advocating polygamy here. He also gave the command for the bishop to have only one wife for a reason. What do you think that reason was?


Well as I pointed the word "one" in context does no make sense with general understanding of the social aspects or in relationship to previous monarchs etc... So I believe Paul is speaking more to the points he made before in teh sense on one who has control of his family. Thus "one" is in reference to "first" wife not saying just one. This would be a issue of divorce or other issues that shows a break down in the covenant. Thus one who had such issues has had poor guidance or failure in the home etc... among other things and should not be in church leadership.

[ILG]

Well as I pointed the word "one" in context does no make sense with general understanding of the social aspects or in relationship to previous monarchs etc... So I believe Paul is speaking more to the points he made before in teh sense on one who has control of his family. Thus "one" is in reference to "first" wife not saying just one. This would be a issue of divorce or other issues that shows a break down in the covenant. Thus one who had such issues has had poor guidance or failure in the home etc... among other things.

Okay, that is your opinion, but again, why argue the point? Is this something you are advocating for or simply making the statement that God doesn't outright condemn it or call it an abomination? And again, when God created the earth and it made more sense for a man to have more than one wife than at any other time for the reasons of procreation, God only gave Adam one wife. The only time God actually controlled the outcome of number of wives, there was one.

[ForeverBlessed]

In the beginning, God gave Adam one wife, Eve. He didn't add Jane or Sally and tell Adam to have fun since populating the earth would be easier with more wives. :crazy Thank God for that. After that, men took the reigns and decided that they knew better than God on the subject and thought things would be better with more than one wife. (More wives equals more sex.) The Bible bears out that there is much jealousy with polygamy. I think the Bible does not condemn it or women who are in polygamous situations, yet hated, would be thrown out on their ear. I think we can view this as a protection of women and not a condoning of polygamy. Since God made Adam one wife and said that only men of one wife can be leaders, that tells you that men who have more than one wife are not leadership material and not in the perfect will of God. End of story. :)


I agree with you and Miss Brat...

I believe that in many ways people adopted the culture around them... even as we do today..not the perfect will of God... but I think the laws were given to govern.

I feel God's perfect will for man/woman is to be in the relationship as Christ is with the church... two becoming one...oneness in him.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

In that two becoming one doesn't leave room for multiples.. sorry.

[Aquila]

My point is really that I fail to see why some men here are arguing for polygamy....beyond the fact that the Bible doesn't outright condemn it....I made the point that I think God did that more for the protection of women than that he was really saying it was okay. I also made the points that God said Adam was given Eve only. God was not advocating polygamy here. He also gave the command for the bishop to have only one wife for a reason. What do you think that reason was?

I hope you don’t think I’m arguing “for polygamy”. I’m just telling what I believe is the truth about a subject as I understand it. Here’s the issue with polygamy…not only does God not outright condemn it…he commands it (in the case of Liverite Marriage and rape) and gave Moses Laws by which to govern it and concubinage. If it was morally repugnant or undesirable in God’s sight, the giving of the Law would be the opportunity to express such sentiment. God blesses, and the Scriptures even praise, men who had multiple wives. No hint of condemnation is given. And after studying ancient marriage customs I’m convinced that marriage in ancient Israel was more of a social contract to be closed or opened as the individuals in said contract felt was necessary. And as long as none violated their covenant by violating their spouse’s will or taking that which belonged to another, God issues no sanction or condemnation.

Now…fast forward to the New Testament. I believe the Bishop was to serve as an example to the church. Not only does monogamy provide more harmony in the home but monogamy better symbolizes the relationship between Christ (one Lord) and his bride (one church).

[LUKE2447]

Okay, that is your opinion, but again, why argue the point? Is this something you are advocating for or simply making the statement that God doesn't outright condemn it or call it an abomination? And again, when God created the earth and it made more sense for a man to have more than one wife than at any other time for the reasons of procreation, God only gave Adam one wife. The only time God actually controlled the outcome of number of wives, there was one.

Actually you are incorrect he told David he would have "given" him more if he would have asked than take Beth Sheba. Also God told one to take his brothers wife so his lineage would continue.

Also the law gave laws on situation concerned in polygamy. The problem you are taking the initial instance and trying to say THIS IS IT or THIS IS BEST! Well hate to bust your bubble but that logic doesn't work as God worked within polygamy many times to do what he wanted.

[LUKE2447]

Aquila of course to most of the people they think LEAVING A CHILD without a father is better than taking the woman to be his wife along with his other wife. Actually it is sickening to think about the result of the current mentality.

[ILG]

I agree with you and Miss Brat...

I believe that in many ways people adopted the culture around them... even as we do today..not the perfect will of God... but I think the laws were given to govern.

I feel God's perfect will for man/woman is to be in the relationship as Christ is with the church... two becoming one...oneness in him.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

In that two becoming one doesn't leave room for multiples.. sorry.

Hi FB! :wave

[LUKE2447]

I hope you don’t think I’m arguing “for polygamy”. I’m just telling what I believe is the truth about a subject as I understand it. Here’s the issue with polygamy…not only does God not outright condemn it…he commands it (in the case of Liverite Marriage and rape) and gave Moses Laws by which to govern it and concubinage. If it was morally repugnant or undesirable in God’s sight, the giving of the Law would be the opportunity to express such sentiment. God blesses, and the Scriptures even praise, men who had multiple wives. No hint of condemnation is given. And after studying ancient marriage customs I’m convinced that marriage in ancient Israel was more of a social contract to be closed or opened as the individuals in said contract felt was necessary. And as long as none violated their covenant by violating their spouse’s will or taking that which belonged to another, God issues no sanction or condemnation.

Now…fast forward to the New Testament. I believe the Bishop was to serve as an example to the church. Not only does monogamy provide more harmony in the home but monogamy better symbolizes the relationship between Christ (one Lord) and his bride (one church).

Actually Aquila I would disagree. The church or bride is made of many members.

[COOPER]

Actually you are incorrect he told David he would have "given" him more if he would have asked than take Beth Sheba. Also God told one to take his brothers wife so his lineage would continue.

Also the law gave laws on situation concerned in polygamy. The problem you are taking the initial instance and trying to say THIS IS IT or THIS IS BEST! Well hate to bust your bubble but that logic doesn't work as God worked within polygamy many times to do what he wanted.


Interesting indeed......

[Apocrypha]

This discussion has many implications... including divorce.

If a man remarries another woman... its not adultry in Gods eyes.. only if a woman remarries technically.

Theres a bit more gas for the fire..

[Esther]

This discussion has many implications... including divorce.

If a man remarries another woman... its not adultry in Gods eyes.. only if a woman remarries technically.

Theres a bit more gas for the fire..

I hope you are not trying to say a man has a right to remarry but a woman doesn't???

[ILG]

I hope you don’t think I’m arguing “for polygamy”. I’m just telling what I believe is the truth about a subject as I understand it. Here’s the issue with polygamy…not only does God not outright condemn it…he commands it (in the case of Liverite Marriage and rape) and gave Moses Laws by which to govern it and concubinage. If it was morally repugnant or undesirable in God’s sight, the giving of the Law would be the opportunity to express such sentiment. God blesses, and the Scriptures even praise, men who had multiple wives. No hint of condemnation is given. And after studying ancient marriage customs I’m convinced that marriage in ancient Israel was more of a social contract to be closed or opened as the individuals in said contract felt was necessary. And as long as none violated their covenant by violating their spouse’s will or taking that which belonged to another, God issues no sanction or condemnation.

Now…fast forward to the New Testament. I believe the Bishop was to serve as an example to the church. Not only does monogamy provide more harmony in the home but monogamy better symbolizes the relationship between Christ (one Lord) and his bride (one church).

"If a man find a damsel that is not betrothed and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 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" Deut 22:28,29

So, if a man rapes your daughter are you going to let the rapist buy her and marry her? Is this the kind of law you want to live your life by? When Jesus came, he said that Moses wrote some things because of the hardness of men's hearts. I believe that the liberal view towards polygamy falls under this category. I do not live by the law. I am under grace. Jesus blew a lot of things out of the water when it came to the things the Pharisees belived and practiced and He always practiced in favor of the rights of people and the needs of people. Polygamy tramples the rights of women and children in many cases, unless you are talking about men throwing away women and children they have married in polygamous cases because they no longer want to be responsible. God gave Adam one wife and he also asked that his leaders in the NT be married to only one wife (that is my view). When we are rightly dividing the Word, we need to look at the rights of people. Joseph could have had Mary stoned for fornication but instead the Bible said that because he was righteous he was going to put her away privily. Jesus did not stone the woman taken in adultery even though He was the one without sin. Think about what that means.

[Apocrypha]

i would say the scripture sure seems to imply that.

enjoy.

[Esther]

i would say the scripture sure seems to imply that.

enjoy.

Imply what?

[ILG]

Aquila of course to most of the people they think LEAVING A CHILD without a father is better than taking the woman to be his wife along with his other wife. Actually it is sickening to think about the result of the current mentality.

I think both things are sick.

[Apocrypha]

Imply what?

if you follow the chain of logic a man can have multiple wifes and be ok in gods sight if you go strictly by scripture.

if a man sends away his wife and she remarries she is in adultry.

but a if a man can have multiple wifes and he is still married in Gods eyes to the woman he divorced legally and he remarries another woman he is ok because he can have multiple wifes and not be in sin if you go 100% by the scriptures.

i threw that in there after thinking about this discussion for a hour or so last night and doing about 2 hours of research in the scripture and in history as far as biblical polygamy, divorce and sexual laws go.

[ILG]

If a man looks at a woman and lusts after her, he has committed adultery in his heart. Anybody guilty here guys?

[Esther]

if you follow the chain of logic a man can have multiple wifes and be ok in gods sight if you go strictly by scripture.

if a man sends away his wife and she remarries she is in adultry.

but a if a man can have multiple wifes and he is still married in Gods eyes to the woman he divorced legally and he remarries another woman he is ok because he can have multiple wifes and not be in sin if you go 100% by the scriptures.

i threw that in there after thinking about this discussion for a hour or so last night and doing about 2 hours of research in the scripture and in history as far as biblical polygamy, divorce and sexual laws go.

You need to research that more, that is not true for every situation.

[ILG]

You need to research that more, that is not true for every situation.

Yeah, I disagree with that too, but I need to go cook lunch. :)

[COOPER]

Wow! So it is a difficult stance to have if the Bible does not outright blast the idea as being an abomination.

What about people who are in some kind of wierd situation like polyamory. Living as if they are all married, but hiding it from society because of the stigma....Sort of makes me feel sick...

In the USA.....the sicko old men are shacking up with teen age girls.

Just Like they are doing in the Morman cults.

[Apocrypha]

If a man looks at a woman and lusts after her, he has committed adultery in his heart. Anybody guilty here guys?


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

[Apocrypha]

You need to research that more, that is not true for every situation.

as always im a open to scriptural based correction... if you can figgure out a way to work around the old testament.

[Esther]

as always im a open to scriptural based correction... if you can figgure out a way to work around the old testament.

It is in the OT that gives you the answer.

I have posted it before, although I don't think you were here then.

I don't know if I have those notes on this computer or if it was on my work computer that I no longer have. Also, not sure if it was on this board or NFCF.

But it is in Deut if I recall that gives the answer.

Maybe I can look it up for you later.

I need to get back outside picking up limbs from the storm so I can mow. :(

[ILG]

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

LOL! Wow, you guys can twist anything around. I'm glad I am not your wife. Well, see ya.

[Apocrypha]

im not twisting, i just let the scripture speak for itself.

the word in the King James is "lust" but "covet" is a better translation. You can only covet something if it belongs to someone else. In this case a married woman.

Heres a good website that addresses this.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/women_sin.html

[ILG]

im not twisting, i just let the scripture speak for itself.

the word in the King James is "lust" but "covet" is a better translation. You can only covet something if it belongs to someone else. In this case a married woman.

Heres a good website that addresses this.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/women_sin.html

So, do you check the ring finger before you lust? When guys look at porn can they say "It's good thing these women don't have a wedding ring on?" Come on, where is there any respect for women here? Or do you think that women being looked at as property is biblical?

[Apocrypha]

i'm just sola scriptura sister

i have a high respect for women, i obey the laws of our land, and i understand that in todays "real world" things are different than 20 centuries ago when christ was crucified.

but if you are gonna say its right or wrong you gotta stick with the ultimate and only 'standard' and thats the accepted cannon of scripture that we use and then interpreting it according to its original language, intent, and the history surrounding it in each time period as we are able to discern from secondary historical accounts and archeology.

and the role of women was far far different in that society that it is today. as to the question of women having a type of property status in scriptures... well... what do you think?

[ILG]

i'm just sola scriptura sister

i have a high respect for women, i obey the laws of our land, and i understand that in todays "real world" things are different than 20 centuries ago when christ was crucified.

but if you are gonna say its right or wrong you gotta stick with the ultimate and only 'standard' and thats the accepted cannon of scripture that we use and then interpreting it according to its original language, intent, and the history surrounding it in each time period as we are able to discern from secondary historical accounts and archeology.

Or your interpretation thereof. Don't forget that your view is merely an interpretation. Simply because you think it doesn't make it gospel truth.

[Apocrypha]

Or your interpretation thereof. Don't forget that your view is merely an interpretation. Simply because you think it doesn't make it gospel truth.

then lets stick to scriptures :)

show me scriptures that say we have a false intepretation.. you pick the version and lets go to the original language, intent, and surrounding history (thats called hermunetics)

[ILG]

then lets stick to scriptures :)

show me scriptures that say we have a false intepretation.. you pick the version and lets go to the original language, intent, and surrounding history (thats called hermunetics)

I already made my case showing that God gave Adam Eve and that was it. I also made other scriptural references. The truth is that if I put all that work into it and spent all that time, I doubt it if it will change your mind anyway.

[Dora]

I have to say that I think polygamy was a custom meant to populate the earth in the OT. Also, women are definitely in a vulnerable position in this deal. Using women as a means to elevate your social standing as if a woman is a Cadillac Escalade is just disgusting. The idea that a man having multiple wives is an acceptable lifestyle in modern times, just blows my mind. We're right back to viewing women as property, de-valuing their position in the family and in the body of Christ. I think the idea of polygamy as a viable family situation went out with the arrival of Christ. He treated women with respect and dignity. Polygamy is the antithesis of dignifying women. It put them in the place of a slave, animal or piece of property. I can't believe the CRUD I'm reading here! Where did you guys come from? Where are the men standing against this JUNK???

[Apocrypha]

So, do you check the ring finger before you lust? When guys look at porn can they say "It's good thing these women don't have a wedding ring on?" Come on, where is there any respect for women here? Or do you think that women being looked at as property is biblical?

What we are discussing is different than fornication. You threw a blanket statement to condemn the men for "lusting" after another woman, and i threw back a valid alternative translation of that verse that changes its intent to be more in line with the rest of the body of scripture.

[Apocrypha]

I have to say that I think polygamy was a custom meant to populate the earth in the OT. Also, women are definitely in a vulnerable position in this deal. Using women as a means to elevate your social standing as if a woman is a Cadillac Escalade is just disgusting. The idea that a man having multiple wives is an acceptable lifestyle in modern times, just blows my mind. We're right back to viewing women as property, de-valuing their position in the family and in the body of Christ. I think the idea of polygamy as a viable family situation went out with the arrival of Christ. He treated women with respect and dignity. Polygamy is the antithesis of dignifying women. It put them in the place of a slave, animal or piece of property. I can't believe the CRUD I'm reading here! Where did you guys come from? Where are the men standing against this JUNK???

I am not touching the social implications of it. Im just saying the scripture doesn't condemn it, so its not a moral issue. I am a textualist... if the bible says it I obey it.. if it doesn't i throw it into the category of personal (or in this case social/cultural) beliefs.

[Dora]

We are all one in Christ.

Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Can't believe Jesus was "for polygamy." Polygamy places women in the place of a slave. How can this practice line up with the teachings of Christ - i.e. love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others as you would have done to you, etc.??? In Christ, we are elevated to equal value - no longer subjected to the OT laws and customs. Each and every human being is highly valued in the eyes of God.

[Apocrypha]

We are all one in Christ.

Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Can't believe Jesus was "for polygamy." Polygamy places women in the place of a slave. How can this practice line up with the teachings of Christ - i.e. love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others as you would have done to you, etc.??? In Christ, we are elevated to equal value - no longer subjected to the OT laws and customs. Each and every human being is highly valued in the eyes of God.

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.

[DividedThigh]

for the record i believe any man who thinks he can please two women is just to dumb to talk to, the country song says it best, "tryin to love two women is like a ball and chain,", you get the drift, lol, dt

[Dora]

for the record i believe any man who thinks he can please two women is just to dumb to talk to, the country song says it best, "tryin to love two women is like a ball and chain,", you get the drift, lol, dt

Ha!

[Dr. Vaughn]

Actually Aquila I would disagree. The church or bride is made of many members.

The Bride of Christ is many membered.. if you speak to those who believe in Polygamy.. they do not see the women they are married to as many wives.. they seem them collectively as one wife.... a many membered wife such as Christ has

[Dr. Vaughn]

"If a man find a damsel that is not betrothed and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 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" Deut 22:28,29

So, if a man rapes your daughter are you going to let the rapist buy her and marry her? Is this the kind of law you want to live your life by? When Jesus came, he said that Moses wrote some things because of the hardness of men's hearts. I believe that the liberal view towards polygamy falls under this category. I do not live by the law. I am under grace. Jesus blew a lot of things out of the water when it came to the things the Pharisees belived and practiced and He always practiced in favor of the rights of people and the needs of people. Polygamy tramples the rights of women and children in many cases, unless you are talking about men throwing away women and children they have married in polygamous cases because they no longer want to be responsible. God gave Adam one wife and he also asked that his leaders in the NT be married to only one wife (that is my view). When we are rightly dividing the Word, we need to look at the rights of people. Joseph could have had Mary stoned for fornication but instead the Bible said that because he was righteous he was going to put her away privily. Jesus did not stone the woman taken in adultery even though He was the one without sin. Think about what that means.

If we go by your thinking... then DIVORCE is no longer allowed.. because Moses only ALLOWED it under the law but from the beginning it was not so?

If Polygamy is now wrong because of Moses ALLOWING it then so is DIVORCE

[Dora]

God did not create Adam and Eve and Tiffany and Brittany and Paris and Lindsay and... He created one man for one woman. If the NT ideal of a bishop is the husband of ONE wife, how can it be denied that God's ideal is one man for one woman?

Certainly OT Law made allowances for popular custom, but the NT ideal is obviously a New Covenant and New Law that includes women as equal in the sight of God.

[DividedThigh]

Ha!

you are right sis, it is funny, but it so true, lol:ursofunny

[Apocrypha]

Its not so obvious at all on this issue specifically.

[Dr. Vaughn]

i'm just sola scriptura sister

i have a high respect for women, i obey the laws of our land, and i understand that in todays "real world" things are different than 20 centuries ago when christ was crucified.

but if you are gonna say its right or wrong you gotta stick with the ultimate and only 'standard' and thats the accepted cannon of scripture that we use and then interpreting it according to its original language, intent, and the history surrounding it in each time period as we are able to discern from secondary historical accounts and archeology.

and the role of women was far far different in that society that it is today. as to the question of women having a type of property status in scriptures... well... what do you think?

and then the question comes in, which role was the correct scriptural role? They role of a Jezebel in Laodoceia who thinks she is equal to man or the role the played in history of understanding their position if Gods Divine Order?

[DividedThigh]

this is not a divorce thread or divorce discussion, but i tire of people with there heads in the sand that think that divorce is just unspeakable or some god awful sin, and if they have never been victimized by it they are some how above all the lowly and hurting, if you have not been touched by divorce be happy, but at the same point dont condemn and ridicule others with your tude and haughtiness, sorry my honest opinion, dt

[Dr. Vaughn]

I have to say that I think polygamy was a custom meant to populate the earth in the OT. Also, women are definitely in a vulnerable position in this deal. Using women as a means to elevate your social standing as if a woman is a Cadillac Escalade is just disgusting. The idea that a man having multiple wives is an acceptable lifestyle in modern times, just blows my mind. We're right back to viewing women as property, de-valuing their position in the family and in the body of Christ. I think the idea of polygamy as a viable family situation went out with the arrival of Christ. He treated women with respect and dignity. Polygamy is the antithesis of dignifying women. It put them in the place of a slave, animal or piece of property. I can't believe the CRUD I'm reading here! Where did you guys come from? Where are the men standing against this JUNK???

How can you say it went out with Christ? When his own Wife is MANY MEMBERED..... just as Men in Polygamy do not view themselves as having many wives.. they see several members making up the role of their WIFE just as Christ does

Why is it he can have all of us for his wife and we are commanded to have ONLY ONE HUSBAND? We cannot worship him and Buddha and Krishna.... but he can have all of the members in his Bride that he desires

[Dora]

and then the question comes in, which role was the correct scriptural role? They role of a Jezebel in Laodoceia who thinks she is equal to man or the role the played in history of understanding their position if Gods Divine Order?


I know my role and my place in God's Divine Order. Thank you, very much...
I am highly favored and God loves me just as much as he loves my dad, my brother and any other man on this earth. I am not of lesser value in the eyes of God. I have great respect for the men in my life. I give them the proper respect and honor them. But I know I am dearly loved by God. I believe He wants what is best for me...and Polygamy AIN'T it!!!

[Dr. Vaughn]

God did not create Adam and Eve and Tiffany and Brittany and Paris and Lindsay and... He created one man for one woman. If the NT ideal of a bishop is the husband of ONE wife, how can it be denied that God's ideal is one man for one woman?

Certainly OT Law made allowances for popular custom, but the NT ideal is obviously a New Covenant and New Law that includes women as equal in the sight of God.

Well Sister if we go by your thoughts then DIVORCE is now a SIN before God and not allowed because in the beginning Divorce was not allowed by God.. such as your saying in the beginning it was ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN... but Moses allowed for Divorce,,, and Polygamy.... so if Polygamy is now SIN... so is Divorce because Jesus said Divorce was not allowed from the beginning.....

[Dora]

I don't recall saying "Polygamy is now SIN." Please show me the quote...thank you.

[Dora]

Does the NT say that Divorce is "SIN?"

[Dr. Vaughn]

I know my role and my place in God's Divine Order. Thank you, very much...
I am highly favored and God loves me just as much as he loves my dad, my brother and any other man on this earth. I am not of lesser value in the eyes of God. I have great respect for the men in my life. I give them the proper respect and honor them. But I know I am dearly loved by God. I believe He wants what is best for me...and Polygamy AIN'T it!!!

Again what you believe and what the Word says might be in Contradiciton... all through scripture God recognized women through their fathers or husbands.... A woman could not enter the Covenant except by circumcision.. which could only be performed in a man... she was recognized in the Covenant through the MAN.. now we are talking about a GOD that NEVER CHANGES.... he recognizes the woman through her head.. either her Father or Husband.

Of course he loves you and he loves you when you understand his desire for women to helpers to their husbands and mothers to their children.. and worshiipers and prayer warriors.... but to say that Polygamy is somehow demeaning to a woman is failure to understand the benefits of Polygamy throughout history.. in this country alone if all the women wanted a husand it couldn't happen... their are 8 million more women than men..... and yet God tells a woman to have a husband..... how can it happen for those 8 million women? Polygamy

[DividedThigh]

oh boy now this will be fun, lol go dora, lol

[Dora]

Dr. Vaughn,

May I ask - are you a UPC minister? Just curious... Are you a licensed minister? Are you a Mormon or Branhamite???

[Dr. Vaughn]

I don't recall saying "Polygamy is now SIN." Please show me the quote...thank you.

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....

[Dr. Vaughn]

Dr. Vaughn,

May I ask - are you a UPC minister? Just curious... Are you a licensed minister? Are you a Mormon or Branhamite???

I am none of the above

[Dora]

Can we say antiquated, archaic mindset???

[Dr. Vaughn]

Can we say antiquated, archaic mindset???

Can we say liberal, feminist, anti Sola Scriptora mindset?

I am simply making the case as it is.... no matter what you have been trained to think.. if it opposes clear scriptural teachings... its Anti Word

I care about this neither way.. have one wife of 15 years and no desire for more.. but I will not be so closed minded as to promote my western mindset into the things of God.. as some are doing.... if you don't agree with it.. so be it but leave it out of the realm of it being WRONG

[LUKE2447]

The Bride of Christ is many membered.. if you speak to those who believe in Polygamy.. they do not see the women they are married to as many wives.. they seem them collectively as one wife.... a many membered wife such as Christ has

I totaly agree! It is one bride many members!

[LUKE2447]

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

That would be correct! It has nothing to do with lusting after another single woman. It is about lusting after anothers property or what another has etc.... with many other implications as well.

[LUKE2447]

Can we say antiquated, archaic mindset???


Interesting we call God's laws antiquated because it does not "fit" our thoughts! Just like the points many here acting like God's law was unjust! Also the woman did not have to marry that man it was her choice!

[LUKE2447]

Again what you believe and what the Word says might be in Contradiciton... all through scripture God recognized women through their fathers or husbands.... A woman could not enter the Covenant except by circumcision.. which could only be performed in a man... she was recognized in the Covenant through the MAN.. now we are talking about a GOD that NEVER CHANGES.... he recognizes the woman through her head.. either her Father or Husband.

Of course he loves you and he loves you when you understand his desire for women to helpers to their husbands and mothers to their children.. and worshiipers and prayer warriors.... but to say that Polygamy is somehow demeaning to a woman is failure to understand the benefits of Polygamy throughout history.. in this country alone if all the women wanted a husand it couldn't happen... their are 8 million more women than men..... and yet God tells a woman to have a husband..... how can it happen for those 8 million women? Polygamy


excellent!

[DividedThigh]

i think all the women who want to be married could find an eligible man, there are far more than 8 mill who dont want any part of marriage, dt

[MissBrattified]

Can we say liberal, feminist, anti Sola Scriptora mindset?

I am simply making the case as it is.... no matter what you have been trained to think.. if it opposes clear scriptural teachings... its Anti Word

I care about this neither way.. have one wife of 15 years and no desire for more.. but I will not be so closed minded as to promote my western mindset into the things of God.. as some are doing.... if you don't agree with it.. so be it but leave it out of the realm of it being WRONG

Dr. Vaughn,

If you give polygamy a pass based on allowances in the law and practices recorded in scripture, then mustn't you excuse divorce by the same token?

[Aquila]

If a man looks at a woman and lusts after her, he has committed adultery in his heart. Anybody guilty here guys?

This is a very deep subject. We have to define “lusting”. Is it merely enjoying a woman’s beauty or feeling physically attracted to her? Is it imagining what it would be like to be with her? If so, we’ve all done that one (unless one is a bit…well…light in the loafers). In fact, if those things are lusting every marriage today begins with lust. There is typically always physical attraction and desire for the woman you’re not married to prior to marriage, that’s normal. Lusting is when a man determines in his heart to pursue and obtain that which isn’t his. If I looked at a woman who was married to another man and set my heart on pursuing some encounter with her or to take her from her husband I will have committed adultery with her already in my heart. But if I see an attractive woman and acknowledge the attraction or my mind goes into a “dream land” for a couple minutes, I’ve not sinned as long as I prevent it from giving birth to the desire to actually pursue. If I look at a piece of art in a museum or a photo of a woman and find my self dazzled by her beauty I’ve not sinned. I might even imagine what it would be like to be with her…but I’m not in pursuit or actually desiring to “have” that woman. It’s just attraction and it’s normal.

Jesus is addressing something very dark in the male nature. He isn’t addressing the little boy who daydreams about being with his French teacher or the girl in Math class. He isn’t addressing a man’s desire for a wife or fantasy. Jesus isn’t condemning the young girl who lies awake in her bed anticipating her honeymoon and the joys of being with her beloved or the one she would like to marry. Jesus is addressing when a man looks at a woman and truly decides in his heart to pursue her, use her, and throw her away. He’s talking about that creep sitting on a bar stool that smiles to himself as he eyes a woman like some salivating and hungry wolf. Jesus is addressing a man who looks upon a woman and intends to actually act on his baser instinct by pursuing her though she isn’t his to have. He’s condemning the thrill of the hunt.

[Aquila]

So, do you check the ring finger before you lust? When guys look at porn can they say "It's good thing these women don't have a wedding ring on?" Come on, where is there any respect for women here? Or do you think that women being looked at as property is biblical?

This really might not apply to this conversation but this came to mind here…

I have to dig out a book I had. We moved and I have a ton of books boxed up in my garage. The book is an illustrated rendition of the Song of Solomon. The art work was awesome…but let me tell you...if you have any prohibitions about human relations, don’t read or look at this book. Frankly, when I was in the Army I saw Playboys (they weren’t mine) cleaner than what the Song of Solomon depicts. At one point the Shulammite gets so caught up in her desire for her beloved she breaks into an erotic dance before her kinsmen. The image is of her dancing, uncovered, with her people clapping and cheering her on. They are all virtually reveling and celebrating in her expression of her desire for her beloved. I thought it odd that none are condemned. God doesn’t send a rebuke. The reality is that they are not seeking to “take her” or to be “lude” with her. In fact it would have been considered disrespectful not to celebrate and rejoice in her expression. It was a beautiful book, if I dig it out, I’ll have to make sure I don’t leave it on a book shelf. The book (Song of Solomon) would be sold in a brown wrapper if there was a photo shoot depicting it.

I know the book is interpreted today as being an allegory of Christ an the Church…but it’s only a powerful allegory if it first actually means what it depicts and then translates to New Testament realities. The question this generated in my young newlywed mind when the book was given to me was…if erotica is absolutely sinful…why is it in the Bible? LOL OK…confession time…my wife and I both found the book fascinating. Hope that doesn’t make me a creep. Pray for me if it does. LOL

[Aquila]

I already made my case showing that God gave Adam Eve and that was it. I also made other scriptural references. The truth is that if I put all that work into it and spent all that time, I doubt it if it will change your mind anyway.

Did God originally give them clothes? LOL

My point is that we see the first man and first woman in Adam and Eve. But there isn’t a specific condemnation of polygamy there.

[Aquila]

I have to say that I think polygamy was a custom meant to populate the earth in the OT. Also, women are definitely in a vulnerable position in this deal. Using women as a means to elevate your social standing as if a woman is a Cadillac Escalade is just disgusting. The idea that a man having multiple wives is an acceptable lifestyle in modern times, just blows my mind. We're right back to viewing women as property, de-valuing their position in the family and in the body of Christ. I think the idea of polygamy as a viable family situation went out with the arrival of Christ. He treated women with respect and dignity. Polygamy is the antithesis of dignifying women. It put them in the place of a slave, animal or piece of property. I can't believe the CRUD I'm reading here! Where did you guys come from? Where are the men standing against this JUNK???

I think viewing women to elevate social standing is terrible too sis. But that’s not inherent in polygamy….that happens in monogamy as well. Men are nearly always looking for that “trophy wife” or pressuring some poor girl to try to meet their expectations to elevate their social standing.

In our society polygamy is unnecessary so men only get one thing out of it…and yes…it objectifies women. But biblical polygamy is different. It was a brutal world. I’m sure that you’d agree that polygamy is morally superior to the idea of thousands of women being sold into slavery or entering prostitution. Biblical polygamy protected women from a very brutal world.

So please don’t think I’m talking about polygamy as would be practiced today. I’m looking at it in its biblical context and expressing it’s over all value to their society. I firmly believe that if we lived in a decimated world after a global catastrophe we’d see a resurgence of the practice out of the necessity to protect women, the family heritage, and the family wealth.

[Tyk]

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.

Probably one of the better post so far. I definitely am a one woman man. I want to love her and her alone. I have no desire to be with any other woman, and fight or flee any temptation mental, physical, ect. I can not phathom having more than one wife, and wouldn't feel right in doing so.

Scriptural approach though, I can't condemn or tell anyone that is in Polygamy that they are "wrong", in "sin" , or "lost" other than a minister.

There's just not a basis for it. I happen to be a male, if I was female (due to society and conditioning of the present times) this would hurt me to hear in a way. It would make me feel less important or like a second rate being to a male. I understand that, and I'm sorry, I can't find reason/scripture to disprove it or I would. I would rather monogamy be the only and right choice according to God, but it's not about my ways.

Lastly , to remind you - I care nothing for monogamy and find it disturbing in a sense, but i'm sure that's due to my "conditioning and present time mentality". I would discourage it if someone came seeking advice or guidance, but I could not tell them it was going to cause them to miss heaven.

[Aquila]

The Bride of Christ is many membered.. if you speak to those who believe in Polygamy.. they do not see the women they are married to as many wives.. they seem them collectively as one wife.... a many membered wife such as Christ has

I wouldn't use that logic. I'm a male and part of the bride. Does that make Jesus "gay married"?

Yeewwww.

[COOPER]

Dora.....many men like the idea of having few hot wives.

Does this bother you?

[DividedThigh]

good luck on that one coop, you deserve whatever they come down on you with, lol

[Aquila]

Dora.....many men like the idea of having few hot wives.

Does this bother you?

Dude...you mean we men can be carnal?

Ok...it's true. We can be very carnal at times.

I'll be honest, I think it would be interesting in theory...but reality is a different story. I picked a good wife...she provides every thing I could ever want.

[DividedThigh]

Dude...you mean we men can be carnal?

Ok...it's true. We can be very carnal at times.

I'll be honest, I think it would be interesting in theory...but reality is a different story. I picked a good wife...she provides every thing I could ever want.

good for you aquila, god blessed me with the same, couldnt be happier, lol,dt:dance

[Aquila]

Probably one of the better post so far. I definitely am a one woman man. I want to love her and her alone. I have no desire to be with any other woman, and fight or flee any temptation mental, physical, ect. I can not phathom having more than one wife, and wouldn't feel right in doing so.

Scriptural approach though, I can't condemn or tell anyone that is in Polygamy that they are "wrong", in "sin" , or "lost" other than a minister.

There's just not a basis for it. I happen to be a male, if I was female (due to society and conditioning of the present times) this would hurt me to hear in a way. It would make me feel less important or like a second rate being to a male. I understand that, and I'm sorry, I can't find reason/scripture to disprove it or I would. I would rather monogamy be the only and right choice according to God, but it's not about my ways.

Lastly , to remind you - I care nothing for monogamy and find it disturbing in a sense, but i'm sure that's due to my "conditioning and present time mentality". I would discourage it if someone came seeking advice or guidance, but I could not tell them it was going to cause them to miss heaven.

Interesting and complex position bro. I’m not sure what to think of it.

But I’d like to revisit Dora’s question….(it really was a doosey of a question)

If a couple came to you and privately confessed or confided in you that they were mutually interested in opening their marriage to polyamory or polygamy…you’d disagree but not think they would miss heaven?

*(Sorry if I got your question wrong Dora.)

[Michael Phelps]

So how do you oppose the idea of modern polygamy when polygamy is obvious "ok" in the Old Testament. How do you argue that it is wrong to have multiply wives in modern society?

From my perspective polygamy puts women in a vulnerable position and is likely to result in abuse for the wife and for the children. Must create such confusion for the children. And there is always the issue of the husband preferring one wife over the other.

Just some rambling thoughts...feel free to contribute your views on the subject.

My conviction stems from the fact that I can't afford more than one wife, and PLUS, I dont want two or more women yelling at me for leaving my clothes in the floor.

[COOPER]

Dude...you mean we men can be carnal?

Ok...it's true. We can be very carnal at times.

I'll be honest, I think it would be interesting in theory...but reality is a different story. I picked a good wife...she provides every thing I could ever want.

good for you aquila, god blessed me with the same, couldnt be happier, lol,dt:dance

I have one smok'n hot wife too!

I love her and do not want another.

My comment is to Dora.....why is she so bent on Bible PolyGamy?:crazy

[DividedThigh]

I have one smok'n hot wife too!

I love would not want another.

My comment is to Dora.....why is she so bent on Bible PolyGamy?:crazy

cool, good for you coop, and i for the record have never met a woman who wanted to be part of a harem, least not that i knew of, lol, dt

[Aquila]

cool, good for you coop, and i for the record have never met a woman who wanted to be part of a harem, least not that i knew of, lol, dt

I've known of one...but she'd never admit it publically. I looked for at least one more and could find one. :tease

Hey, my wife and I were talking about it once and she told me it might be nice to have another woman in the house...because she'd have someone to help with the house work and I'd be out of hair sometimes. lol I thought that was a very liberated statement at first...and then I realized it was her way of saying that at times I'm an annoying slob. :( LOL

[Tyk]

I would recommend against it highly, but I could not tell them it was wrong or would cause them to go to hell, correct.

[DividedThigh]

I've known of one...but she'd never admit it publically. I looked for at least one more and could find one. :tease

Hey, my wife and I were talking about it once and she told me it might be nice to have another woman in the house...because she'd have someone to help with the house work and I'd be out of hair sometimes. lol I thought that was a very liberated statement at first...and then I realized it was her way of saying that at times I'm an annoying slob. :( LOL

well i will let that be your interpretation brother, you crack me up, at least you are honest, lol, dt

[Aquila]

I would recommend against it highly, but I could not tell them it was wrong or would cause them to go to hell, correct.

No way! LOL

[Tyk]

No way! LOL

Why is that so hard to believe? :p I'm not contradicting myself.

I just don't see how it would be beneficial or "good" so to speak. Especially here in the states in this present day.

[Aquila]

Why is that so hard to believe? :p I'm not contradicting myself.

I just don't see how it would be beneficial or "good" so to speak. Especially here in the states in this present day.

I think you're just trying shock us.

So...if you wouldn't condemn their open marriage as sinful, how do you explain that it's not adultery or fornication?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Dr. Vaughn,

If you give polygamy a pass based on allowances in the law and practices recorded in scripture, then mustn't you excuse divorce by the same token?

Miss Brattfield.... there is one difference between Polygamy and Divorce.... God himself endorsed and encouraged Polygamy.. he always forbid and condemnded divorce and remarriage... he is a God of Covenant and he sees marriage as a Covenant

[Tyk]

I think you're just trying shock us.

So...if you wouldn't condemn their open marriage as sinful, how do you explain that it's not adultery or fornication?

Er can you rephrase or explain that please?

[Aquila]

Er can you rephrase or explain that please?

If a husband and wife were mutually interested in an open or polygamous marriage wouldn't it be adultery or fornication? If not, explain why you feel it wouldn't.

[ILG]

You explain away your own lusts and the disrepect towards women using the Bible to do it. I find that shameful and sad. Remember how the Pharisees interpreted scripture to their own benefit and Jesus rebuked them and interpreted it in such a way that was righteous? The Pharisees hated Jesus, called him all manner of things and crucified him because he exposed their lusts cloaked behind religion. I find the same thing here. I find men using scripture to degrade women instead of lift them up, using it to excuse their own lusts, using it to give themselves privelege and deny the same privelege to the women.

Here is an example of a woman who escaped polygamy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJAvqc5u9KM

I know the men here for it will say it doesn't have to be that way....but the end result of polygamy, although it may not be abuse, will always leave women second class citizens with fewer rights than men and unfulfilled in their relationships. Why a God-fearing man would want that and/or promote it in any fashion is beyond me.

This is my last post on the subject because I simply find it too disturning to think that men in the Apostolic church would fight for this supposedly based on the "Bible" to back it up. You can back up anything you want if you twist your views hard enough. Like I said, I don't find polygamy a sin as in making someone hellbound, I simply find it ignorant to promote as a good thing to do and ignorant to believe that polygamy can be an ideal.

[Tyk]

If a husband and wife were mutually interested in an open or polygamous marriage wouldn't it be adultery or fornication? If not, explain why you feel it wouldn't.

I've read the whole thread, including all your posts. Didn't you already explain how it wouldn't be adultery or fornication?

If those are indeed sins in that situation, was Abraham in sin(due to his wife's handmaid)? And all the other biblical examples that have been mentioned thus far?

So do you view it as a sin?

[Aquila]

You explain away your own lusts and the disrepect towards women using the Bible to do it. I find that shameful and sad. Remember how the Pharisees interpreted scripture to their own benefit and Jesus rebuked them and interpreted it in such a way that was righteous? The Pharisees hated Jesus, called him all manner of things and crucified him because he exposed their lusts cloaked behind religion. I find the same thing here. I find men using scripture to degrade women instead of lift them up, using it to excuse their own lusts, using it to give themselves privelege and deny the same privelege to the women.

Here is an example of a woman who escaped polygamy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJAvqc5u9KM

I know the men here for it will say it doesn't have to be that way....but the end result of polygamy, although it may not be abuse, will always leave women second class citizens with fewer rights than men and unfulfilled in their relationships. Why a God-fearing man would want that and/or promote it in any fashion is beyond me.

This is my last post on the subject because I simply find it too disturning to think that men in the Apostolic church would fight for this supposedly based on the "Bible" to back it up. You can back up anything you want if you twist your views hard enough. Like I said, I don't find polygamy a sin as in making someone hellbound, I simply find it ignorant to promote as a good thing to do and ignorant to believe that polygamy can be an ideal.

All very good points.

But before judging polygamy in the Bible harshly I think we have view it in the context of biblical times...not in our modern context. Today there's no need for it. But in biblical times it was far better than the alternative that women faced.

The question that would have to be asked is what would be more degrading to women in a biblical context...polygamous marriage with rights, entitlements, and protections or being forced into slavery or prostitution? Men in the Old Testament might consider a strictly monogamous person who could marry additional women and didn't someone who didn't care enough about women to protect them from exploitation.

[Aquila]

I've read the whole thread, including all your posts. Didn't you already explain how it wouldn't be adultery or fornication?

If those are indeed sins in that situation, was Abraham in sin(due to his wife's handmaid)? And all the other biblical examples that have been mentioned thus far?

So do you view it as a sin?

I think that an open marriage could be regarded as sinful. I don't think polygamy would be inherently sinful in and of itself. The difference is Abraham took Sarah's servant Hagar as an additional "wife". This protected her socially and would have granted her entitlements being part of the family. In a very real sense Abraham and Sarah's treatment of Hagar was very harsh considering it was their idea and she was a "wife". Being a "wife" also ensured the woman's children some protections. But with open marriage, there isn't any contractual responsibility. If a couple chose to open their marriage to additional people or another woman there are no protections for that person. Also any children resulting from relations are illegitamate and are not covered by any social contract or entitlement to protection or family provisions. Even a concubine had certain rights under biblical law. So while polygamy may not be sin in and of itself...an open marriage would fail the test.

[Tyk]

I think that an open marriage could be regarded as sinful. I don't think polygamy would be inherently sinful in and of itself. The difference is Abraham took Sarah's servant Hagar as an additional "wife". This protected her socially and would have granted her entitlements being part of the family. In a very real sense Abraham and Sarah's treatment of Hagar was very harsh considering it was their idea and she was a "wife". Being a "wife" also ensured the woman's children some protections. But with open marriage, there isn't any contractual responsibility. If a couple chose to open their marriage to additional people or another woman there are no protections for that person. Also any children resulting from relations are illegitamate and are not covered by any social contract or entitlement to protection or family provisions. Even a concubine had certain rights under biblical law. So while polygamy may not be sin in and of itself...an open marriage would fail the test.

Ok well I may have misunderstood the exact terms. Yes, marriage as in taking another "wife", not just an additional sex partner, that would very much be sin in my eyes. (meaning biblicly to my understanding)

[Tyk]

This is my last post on the subject because I simply find it too disturning to think that men in the Apostolic church would fight for this supposedly based on the "Bible" to back it up. You can back up anything you want if you twist your views hard enough. Like I said, I don't find polygamy a sin as in making someone hellbound, I simply find it ignorant to promote as a good thing to do and ignorant to believe that polygamy can be an ideal.

I agree 100%

[CC1]

I have not read this thread but the bottom line is that polygmy is too expensive!!!

I can't afford to keep one woman happy must less additional ones!

(I do admit that the idea of graduating the older ones to housekeeping duty and getting a new younger one for ...er.....other activities every few years does have it's appeal - LOL!!!!)

[Dr. Vaughn]

You explain away your own lusts and the disrepect towards women using the Bible to do it. I find that shameful and sad. Remember how the Pharisees interpreted scripture to their own benefit and Jesus rebuked them and interpreted it in such a way that was righteous? The Pharisees hated Jesus, called him all manner of things and crucified him because he exposed their lusts cloaked behind religion. I find the same thing here. I find men using scripture to degrade women instead of lift them up, using it to excuse their own lusts, using it to give themselves privelege and deny the same privelege to the women.

Here is an example of a woman who escaped polygamy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJAvqc5u9KM

I know the men here for it will say it doesn't have to be that way....but the end result of polygamy, although it may not be abuse, will always leave women second class citizens with fewer rights than men and unfulfilled in their relationships. Why a God-fearing man would want that and/or promote it in any fashion is beyond me.

This is my last post on the subject because I simply find it too disturning to think that men in the Apostolic church would fight for this supposedly based on the "Bible" to back it up. You can back up anything you want if you twist your views hard enough. Like I said, I don't find polygamy a sin as in making someone hellbound, I simply find it ignorant to promote as a good thing to do and ignorant to believe that polygamy can be an ideal.

For all of these women you put a video out for.. I can show you hundreds more who love their lives and have chosen to stay

[CC1]

For all of these women you put a video out for.. I can show you hundreds more who love their lives and have chosen to stay

What do your wives think?:tease

[Rico]

I have not read this thread but the bottom line is that polygmy is too expensive!!!

I can't afford to keep one woman happy must less additional ones!

(I do admit that the idea of graduating the older ones to housekeeping duty and getting a new younger one for ...er.....other activities every few years does have it's appeal - LOL!!!!)

CC1, you are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo not right it ain't even funny! GO PRAY!

[Aquila]

I have not read this thread but the bottom line is that polygmy is too expensive!!!

I can't afford to keep one woman happy must less additional ones!

(I do admit that the idea of graduating the older ones to housekeeping duty and getting a new younger one for ...er.....other activities every few years does have it's appeal - LOL!!!!)

No way! LOL

[Aquila]

What do your wives think?:tease

My wife wants me out of her hair and somone to help with the house work. :tease

[Rico]

Any man dumb enough to marry more than one American woman at a time deserves whatever he gets come divorce time!

[Aquila]

Any man dumb enough to marry more than one American woman at a time deserves whatever he gets come divorce time!

So Rico...are you telling us that the secret is in finding a non-American woman? LOL

[Rico]

So Rico...are you telling us that the secret is in finding a non-American woman? LOL

If you are planning on having more than one, YUP! Go find you one of them Muslim women. You'll know it's time to get another one when the current one starts to grow her mustache! :D

[Aquila]

If you are planning on having more than one, YUP! Go find you one of them Muslim women. You'll know it's time to get another one when the current one starts to grow her mustache! :D

Dude....you know you ain't right. lol

[Rico]

Dude....you know you ain't right. lol

It's the truth! That's why they started making their women wear burkas! As the women folk start to age, they get as hairy as the men. :D

[Aquila]

It's the truth! That's why they started making their women wear burkas! As the women folk start to age, they get as hairy as the men. :D

I can see it now, the next romantic comedy..."I Married a Yeti".

[Tyk]

Stop pickin on the ladies.

[Rico]

I can see it now, the next romantic comedy..."I Married a Yeti".


Or "How Allah Used Electrolysis To Save My Marriage." :D

[Michael Phelps]

Miss Brattfield.... there is one difference between Polygamy and Divorce.... God himself endorsed and encouraged Polygamy.. he always forbid and condemnded divorce and remarriage... he is a God of Covenant and he sees marriage as a Covenant

Can you give me instances of sanctioned polygamy in the New Testament?

[Aquila]

Can you give me instances of sanctioned polygamy in the New Testament?

I have only heard of one reference to it. Jesus gave a parable about 10 virgins who were awaiting their groom. These are regarded by some to be a party of 10 women awaiting their marriage as was customary among women given as brides between nations, tribes, or large families. A the groom would often make an arrangement for a certain number of wives and come for them unexpectedly. Well...five were wise and prepared but five were foolish and found locked out of their wedding.

Some have said that if Christ found polygamy detestable he wouldn't have used it as an example to illustrate a righteous spiritual teaching.

[Michael Phelps]

I have only heard of one reference to it. Jesus gave a parable about 10 virgins who were awaiting their groom. These are regarded by some to be a party of 10 women awaiting their marriage as was customary among women given as brides between nations. A king or ruler would often make an arrangement for a certain number of wives. Well...five were wise and five were foolish.

Some have said that if Christ found polygamy detestable he wouldn't have used it to illustrate a righteous spiritual teaching.

That's quite a stretch there. The New Testament never sanctions polygamy, in fact, quite the opposite.

[Aquila]

That's quite a stretch there. The New Testament never sanctions polygamy, in fact, quite the opposite.

Well bro...you asked and I offered what I had read. Now...these were virgins prepared for their wedding to their groom...obviously polygamous. Christ is represented as a polygamous groom. If it were condemned in the NT would Jesus use an illustration characterizing himself as a polygamous groom? Oh well....that's in the NT.

Can you give a specific Scripture where polygamy is condemned? Yes, the virtues of monogamy are assailed...but polygamy isn't strictly condemned from what I can find.

I believe there is a purpose for this. I believe that the early church found monogamy to be proper and best. So Paul set the standard at the top knowing it would trickle down. Why didn't Paul outright condemn polygamy? It would require men already married to more than one woman in the church to have to divorce...divorce is never God's desire. It would force these divorced women into having to be prostitutes or slaves because divorced women were regarded like dogs. Paul's standard is like righteous leaven that spread through the Church making Christian marriage monogamous without bringing social upheaval or condemning those who weren't monogamous.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Can you give me instances of sanctioned polygamy in the New Testament?

Whenever you can give me instances of sanctioned Divorce and REMARRIAGE in the NT... and yes i can show you sanctioned Polygamy in the NT... Christ and his many membered Bride

[Hoovie]

The ten virgins awaiting the Bridegroom may represent the wedding party rather than the bride...

[Michael Phelps]

Whenever you can give me instances of sanctioned Divorce and REMARRIAGE in the NT... and yes i can show you sanctioned Polygamy in the NT... Christ and his many membered Bride

Well, I'm just using your own logic, DV, such as when I asked about Hosea and Gomer's story being in the OT, and you responded that certain instances in the OT must be supported by corresponding NT passages.

Otherwise, we have isogesis instead of exegesis.

So, divorce and remarriage aside, and your flimsy example of Christ and HIs many membered bride, do you have any scripture where Jesus or any of the Apostles taught anything other than polygamy?

I mean, there is that small verse about the bishop being the husband of one wife, but I"m sure you can explain that one away!

[Dr. Vaughn]

Well, I'm just using your own logic, DV, such as when I asked about Hosea and Gomer's story being in the OT, and you responded that certain instances in the OT must be supported by corresponding NT passages.

Otherwise, we have isogesis instead of exegesis.

So, divorce and remarriage aside, and your flimsy example of Christ and HIs many membered bride, do you have any scripture where Jesus or any of the Apostles taught anything other than polygamy?

I mean, there is that small verse about the bishop being the husband of one wife, but I"m sure you can explain that one away!

Phelps... I lost you on the 2nd paragraph.. are you asking me to give scripture where Jesus taught anything OTHER than Polygamy? I'm not sure what your asking for bro.. please clarify and I will respond

[Aquila]

Well, I'm just using your own logic, DV, such as when I asked about Hosea and Gomer's story being in the OT, and you responded that certain instances in the OT must be supported by corresponding NT passages.

Otherwise, we have isogesis instead of exegesis.

So, divorce and remarriage aside, and your flimsy example of Christ and HIs many membered bride, do you have any scripture where Jesus or any of the Apostles taught anything other than polygamy?

I mean, there is that small verse about the bishop being the husband of one wife, but I"m sure you can explain that one away!

I think the fact that Jesus characterizes himself as a groom of multiple virgins is significant. If it was unholy certainly he wouldn't characterize himself doing something unholy.

In regards to Paul's admonishion about only having one wife...it's only commanded of Bishops and deacons. I think we should ask a fair question....would there be a need for Paul to admonish any bishop or deacons to be the husband of only one wife if polygamy wasn't present in the early church?

[Dr. Vaughn]

i think the fact that jesus characterizes himself as a groom of multiple virgins is significant. If it was unholy certainly he wouldn't characterize himself doing something unholy.

In regards to paul's admonishion about only having one wife...it's only commanded of bishops and deacons. I think we should ask a fair question....would there be a need for paul to admonish any bishop or deacons to be the husband of only one wife if polygamy wasn't present in the early church?

b i n g o

[Dora]

You explain away your own lusts and the disrepect towards women using the Bible to do it. I find that shameful and sad. Remember how the Pharisees interpreted scripture to their own benefit and Jesus rebuked them and interpreted it in such a way that was righteous? The Pharisees hated Jesus, called him all manner of things and crucified him because he exposed their lusts cloaked behind religion. I find the same thing here. I find men using scripture to degrade women instead of lift them up, using it to excuse their own lusts, using it to give themselves privelege and deny the same privelege to the women.

Here is an example of a woman who escaped polygamy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJAvqc5u9KM

I know the men here for it will say it doesn't have to be that way....but the end result of polygamy, although it may not be abuse, will always leave women second class citizens with fewer rights than men and unfulfilled in their relationships. Why a God-fearing man would want that and/or promote it in any fashion is beyond me.

This is my last post on the subject because I simply find it too disturning to think that men in the Apostolic church would fight for this supposedly based on the "Bible" to back it up. You can back up anything you want if you twist your views hard enough. Like I said, I don't find polygamy a sin as in making someone hellbound, I simply find it ignorant to promote as a good thing to do and ignorant to believe that polygamy can be an ideal.

Thank you, ILG. Well-stated! I'm in shock!

[Aquila]

Who is fighting "for" polygamy Sis. Dora?

[TK Burk]

That's quite a stretch there. The New Testament never sanctions polygamy, in fact, quite the opposite.

Amen! I agree!!

Can you give a specific Scripture where polygamy is condemned? Yes, the virtues of monogamy are assailed...but polygamy isn't strictly condemned from what I can find.

I already gave scriptural examples....

Polygamy is not condoned in the Bible. The hermeneutic law of ‘First Mention’ establishes one man (Adam) being married to one woman (Eve). That first couple is a type of the one bride (the Church) being married to one husband (One God). Genesis 2:24 has “a man” leaving his father and mother so as to become “one flesh” with “his wife.” Such wording indicates a monogamous relationship rather than polygamous. In the past God did ignore certain things due to men’s ignorance, but because of the New Covenant, He now calls all men to repentance (See Acts 14:16, Acts 17:30; Mark 10:5). To help make this marital issue clearer, you might want to look at these: Mat. 19:5, 29; Eph. 5:31, 33; 1Tim. 3:2, 12; Tit. 1:6.

[TK Burk]

Whenever you can give me instances of sanctioned Divorce and REMARRIAGE in the NT... and yes i can show you sanctioned Polygamy in the NT... Christ and his many membered Bride

Please list where this is found.

[Hoovie]

Please list where this is found.

right... many membered, but one body. Your wife is allowed all her fingers, toes etc...


:whistle

[Aquila]

Some people just don't get it.

I think it would take transporting some of these cats backward in time for them to understand how polygamy provided protection for women in ancient culture. That doesn't mean that polygamy as practiced today is anything like it was back then or would be proper today.

Also people are proof texting without looking closely to the details. For example Jesus characterized himself as a groom receiving multiple brides (polygamous)....and Paul admonished Bishops to have only one wife (implying that polygamy had to be present in the early church to warrant this standard). Please don't think this advocates for polygamy. Paul was obviously setting a standard in leadership to provide an influencing example of ideal Christian marriage. However, Paul never condemns polygamy....but he essentially bans polygamists from leadership. This allows the practice to die out instead of breaking up established family orders.

It illustrates wisdom and compassion.

[TK Burk]

Well bro...you asked and I offered what I had read. Now...these were virgins prepared for their wedding to their groom...obviously polygamous. Christ is represented as a polygamous groom. If it were condemned in the NT would Jesus use an illustration characterizing himself as a polygamous groom? Oh well....that's in the NT.

So you think the virgins where waiting for their shared husband? Oh my. :faint

Have you ever watched Fiddler on the Roof? Remember the marriage when the townsfolk walked with the groom to meet the bride? They carried lights as they walked with him. This is the type Jewish wedding Jesus is referring to.

The parable's virgins are the female attendants of the bride. We would call them “bridesmaid” today. They were there to prepare the bride and accompany the groom to her side.

The parable of the ten virgins is speaking of being ready for the Kingdom of God. Not about a polygamous marriage between One God and multiple brides.

I suggest you read this parable in context with the other parables around it (See Matthew 25).

[Dr. Vaughn]

Aquila... folks are too close minded to even consider that anything you have said is remotely possible

[Dr. Vaughn]

So you think the virgins where waiting for their shared husband? Oh my. :faint

Have you ever watched Fiddler on the Roof? Remember the marriage when the townsfolk walked with the groom to meet the bride? They carried lights as they walked with him. This is the type Jewish wedding Jesus is referring to.

The parable's virgins are the female attendants of the bride. We would call them “bridesmaid” today. They were there to prepare the bride and accompany the groom to her side.

The parable of the ten virgins is speaking of being ready for the Kingdom of God. Not about a polygamous marriage between One God and multiple brides.

I suggest you read this parable in context with the other parables around it (See Matthew 25).

Sorry,, there was no need for the BRIDESMAIDS to be virgins... nor would they have been required to be virgin if they were not going to be his brides

[Dora]

If this is the mindset of the majority of men on this site, then I don't want any part of it.

[LUKE2447]

I wouldn't use that logic. I'm a male and part of the bride. Does that make Jesus "gay married"?

Yeewwww.

It's about contract, not sex. There is neiher male nor female. Thats the difference!

[Hoovie]

If this is the mindset of the majority of men on this site, then I don't want any part of it.

Dora, in all fairness... NO ONE is advocating polygamy on this site. No one.

[Dr. Vaughn]

If this is the mindset of the majority of men on this site, then I don't want any part of it.

Would you rather us have your mindset? The mindset that something is wrong because it doesn't set well with you even when there is NO SCRIPTURE whatsoever condemning such practices? Would you rather us just agree with you rather than say "No sister, we do not practice Polygamy not suggest it but according to Gods Word we cannot CONDEMN it neither such as you are doing"

What should we do?

[Dora]

The next thing ya know, all the women on here will be wearing pastel prairie dresses and wearing their hair in french braids and allowing their 15 yr old daughters to marry their 65 year old prophet in order to father children to propagate their twisted version of the gospel.

[TK Burk]

right... many membered, but one body. Your wife is allowed all her fingers, toes etc...


:whistle

Funny, all those fingers and toes are all connected on my one wife. Hmmm.... I didn't think I was that bad with math???

Let's see....

1 Corinthians 12:12-13
(12) For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
(13) For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Looks like ONE to me????? :whistle

[Dora]

Dora, in all fairness... NO ONE is advocating polygamy on this site. No one.

Really? That's not what I'm getting...

Dr. Vaughn thinks the 8 million single women out there would benefit from being the wife of a shiek in a harem so that they would have the status and protection of being an actual "wife." Wow! sounds lovely.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Dora, would you advocate a man forsaking a woman and her child to the mercy of the world or being responsible and taking them into the home and adding them to the family to be cared for?

Do you realize that in the majority of countries in this world Polygamy is ACCEPTABLE

[LUKE2447]

If this is the mindset of the majority of men on this site, then I don't want any part of it.

Sorry but truth does not shade away because your feelings of being lowered or whatever you issue is with polygamy. The fact is nothing is wrong with it God gave it and said nothing against it in all the times he could have said something and cursed the men of Israel and others. Yet not a Word.

Somehow you want us to ignore scripture because basically you don't like what it says and more than likely it makes you feel like if true you lose control or power. It is what it is!

[Dr. Vaughn]

The next thing ya know, all the women on here will be wearing pastel prairie dresses and wearing their hair in french braids and allowing their 15 yr old daughters to marry their 65 year old prophet in order to father children to propagate their twisted version of the gospel.

No one should be married underage,.,, although my great grandmother, grandmother and mother were..... it was rather common in those days

[nahkoe]

The next thing ya know, all the women on here will be wearing pastel prairie dresses and wearing their hair in french braids and allowing their 15 yr old daughters to marry their 65 year old prophet in order to father children to propagate their twisted version of the gospel.

Not in any way going to defend polygamy, but that is a warped version of polygamy. And absolutely no one has defended that sort of thing anywhere.

Polygamy *was* practiced in Bible times. It *is* part of the culture, customs, and history of that people at that time. I've seen some discussion about that. I've seen some discussion about non-religious polyamory (ok, so not since last night..but I haven't read every single post either). I've seen some joking around. But I have not seen one single person say that what you're talking about is something they would support or practice.

[TK Burk]

Also people are proof texting without looking closely to the details. For example Jesus characterized himself as a groom receiving multiple brides (polygamous)....and Paul admonished Bishops to have only one wife (implying that polygamy had to be present in the early church to warrant this standard).

Please, where in the Bible does Jesus do this?

[Dora]

What is really blowing my mind is that no one has pointed out that polyamory - where there are multiple partners engaging in hetero and homo-sexual relations within a marriage-type relationship is NOT acceptable biblically. Where is the objection to this? I asked a question earlier regarding this and received a few eye-opening answers that prove to me that some of the guys on here are real sickos.

[Hoovie]

Really? That's not what I'm getting...

Dr. Vaughn thinks the 8 million single women out there would benefit from being the wife of a shiek in a harem so that they would have the status and protection of being an actual "wife." Wow! sounds lovely.

I would advise you not to be tempted!

boy this is gonna get me in trouble!

Also, you look great! And no that is NOT a proposal! :)

[MissBrattified]

What is really blowing my mind is that no one has pointed out that polyamory - where there are multiple partners engaging in hetero and homo-sexual relations within a marriage-type relationship is NOT acceptable biblically. Where is the objection to this? I asked a question earlier regarding this and received a few eye-opening answers that prove to me that some of the guys on here are real sickos.

Right. :) I think a few are fantasizing about more than having two women, but also about those two (or more) women having each other.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Please, where in the Bible does Jesus do this?

TK BURKE it is the beliefs of those in Polygamy that just Jesus ONE BRIDE is made up of many PEOPLE.... that the women in their home constitute ONE BRIDE.. made up of many people..l. but together they collectively form HIS BRIDE

For Example.... a car has MANY PARTS but it is only ONE CAR.....

A Piano has many keys but its ONE PIANO

These men believe their WIFE has many members but together they create THE WIFE

[Dr. Vaughn]

Right. :) I think a few are fantasizing about more than having two women, but also about those two (or more) women having each other.

Now see you had to go there didn't you. lol

[MissBrattified]

Now see you had to go there didn't you. lol

Well, DORA wouldn't just come right out and say it!! LOL!!!

[TK Burk]

Sorry,, there was no need for the BRIDESMAIDS to be virgins... nor would they have been required to be virgin if they were not going to be his brides

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :ursofunny

Says who? You?

Brother, you are so far off base. If you knew anything of Jewish history or customs you would not be saying this. Unreal!

[Dora]

Well, DORA wouldn't just come right out and say it!! LOL!!!

Thanks for your help, Miss Bratti! LOL

[MissBrattified]

Thanks for your help, Miss Bratti! LOL

:D :whistle

[Dr. Vaughn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :ursofunny

Says who? You?

Brother, you are so far off base. If you knew anything of Jewish history or customs you would not be saying this. Unreal!

Why dont you post your vast resources for us that prove otherwise.... .you were only required to be a virgin if you were the BRIDE,,,

[CC1]

I only have one personal experience with a Pentecostal preacher who believed in polygmy. I am not going to say he was UPC because I was 13 or 14 at the time and only met him at a campmeeting and don't know if he was licensed or not.

I have told this story before on FCF or NFCF. I met this nice young 20ish preacher and his wife at a UPC campmeeting. For some reason that I cannot remember I rode with them in their car to some function. On the ride the man started talking about how pretty one of the young women at the camp was. I was shocked because he was saying things like a single guy would that was attracted to a woman and he was doing it right in front of his wife. Even though I was only about 14 I piped up and said something about him being married and being shocked he was talking about this girl like that. He then proceeded to tell me that the bible taught polygmy and he believed it was all right to have multiple wives. I was floored. I had no idea any modern person believed this and especially not a Pentecostal one and more especially not a Pentecostal Preacher!

I wish I had rememberd his name over the years since then. I would love to know what happened to him. I have a feeling he is probably not married to the same woman although she seemed in agreement with him in his belief (or too shy to speak up against it).

[Tim Rutledge]

So how do you oppose the idea of modern polygamy when polygamy is obvious "ok" in the Old Testament. How do you argue that it is wrong to have multiply wives in modern society?

From my perspective polygamy puts women in a vulnerable position and is likely to result in abuse for the wife and for the children. Must create such confusion for the children. And there is always the issue of the husband preferring one wife over the other.

Just some rambling thoughts...feel free to contribute your views on the subject.

When a Holy Ghost man and a Holy Ghost woman get married they become One Flesh. If he marries again he has 2 fleshes??

[LUKE2447]

That's quite a stretch there. The New Testament never sanctions polygamy, in fact, quite the opposite.

The NT doesn't have to SANCTION it God gave wives to David if he wanted more he asked others to take others wives etc... THe LAW was written and in the ERA of polygamy not a PEEP from God on there alleged godless act of defiling the marriage. Yet since to God the most important covenant in the Bible is marriage etc.. You would think he would have jumped all over this! Yet nothing! Then came the women wanting EQUAL time and power etc....pushing mens buttons. It went from polygamy was allowable and normal to one wife, then after that was norm she moved into the rest of the house and now to alleged equal headship.... hmmm talking about the slow slippery slope from where you came from.

[CC1]

When a Holy Ghost man and a Holy Ghost woman get married they become One Flesh. If he marries again he has 2 fleshes??

Uh...you do realize that the "one flesh" is a figurative term right?

[Dr. Vaughn]

When a Holy Ghost man and a Holy Ghost woman get married they become One Flesh. If he marries again he has 2 fleshes??

Not so brother.... if I put on one tattoo me and that tatoo have become one.. if I get another one then me and THAT tatoo become one.... we are all ONE

[Dora]

:vomitthink I'm gonna HURL!!!:vomit:vomit:vomit

[Dr. Vaughn]

Why dont we just cut to the chase...... if God is so against Polygamy... please post ONE SCRRIPTURE that says so in CERTAIN TERMS... show us where God calls Polygamy a SIN... if he doesn't call it unholy then who are we to call it unholy

[Dora]

someone is ignoring the question...

[MissBrattified]

someone is ignoring the question...

Someone? Or all of them? :ursofunny

[Dr. Vaughn]

Someone? Or all of them? :ursofunny

Which question

[Hoovie]

Dr. V, what is the point in continuing this? Are you in favor of having multiple wives? I thought you said you were not - so let it go.

[Dr. Vaughn]

It's being ignored because "been there done that bought the t shirt" no longer interested.. of course that was "back in da day"

[TK Burk]

TK BURKE it is the beliefs of those in Polygamy that just Jesus ONE BRIDE is made up of many PEOPLE.... that the women in their home constitute ONE BRIDE.. made up of many people..l. but together they collectively form HIS BRIDE

For Example.... a car has MANY PARTS but it is only ONE CAR.....

A Piano has many keys but its ONE PIANO

These men believe their WIFE has many members but together they create THE WIFE

I understand the origin of their belief, but it has no biblical basis and is therefore wrong.

The car parts and the piano keys make up ONE car and ONE piano. But the Bible does not talk of "many wives" making "one bride." It speaks of "many 'MEMBERS'" making up “His bride.” Big difference.

Nowhere does the Bible say Jesus has "many wives" or that His bride consists of "many wives".

[Tim Rutledge]

Uh...you do realize that the "one flesh" is a figurative term right?

uh.. explain.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Dr. V, what is the point in continuing this? Are you in favor of having multiple wives? I thought you said you were not - so let it go.

Bro. Hoover, excuse me.. scroll up there are many many many more in this conversation besides myself.. I did not join the conversation to very late in the thread.... no I do not propogate having multiple wives... but I cannot stand for someone to call unholy what God has not called unholy and I believe the discussion will eventually lead to at least that acknowledgment

[Dr. Vaughn]

I understand the origin of their belief, but it has no biblical basis and is therefore wrong.

The car parts and the piano keys make up ONE car and ONE piano. But the Bible does not talk of "many wives" making "one bride." It speaks of "many 'MEMBERS'" making up “His bride.” Big difference.

Nowhere does the Bible say Jesus has "many wives" or that His bride consists of "many wives".

Ok change the terms to many PERSONS.. now can you argue with that? there will be MANY PERSONS making ONE BRIDE... same in Polygamous Wives

[Dora]

It's being ignored because "been there done that bought the t shirt" no longer interested.. of course that was "back in da day"

excuse me??? explainez vous s'il vous plait...

[Dr. Vaughn]

excuse me??? explainez vous s'il vous plait...

Oh sista.. my favorite language

[LUKE2447]

As for me it doesn't matter to me. I don't favor either one higher than the other. A man might live happier one way and a woman one way. Then again one might live happier not in polygamy. God does not call it sin when he had plenty of examples of to POINT OUT SIN! Yet nothing! If it was not for the law I would not have known what sin was.... uh... polygamy...... nothing when it was rampant!

[Hoovie]

Bro. Hoover, excuse me.. scroll up there are many many many more in this conversation besides myself.. I did not join the conversation to very late in the thread.... no I do not propogate having multiple wives... but I cannot stand for someone to call unholy what God has not called unholy and I believe the discussion will eventually lead to at least that acknowledgment

I hear you, but you are scaring people.

I could also start a thread about whether it is unholy to sacrifice my children on an altar...

I dare say there are some with their emotions tied to a discussion like this, and that should mean something to you.

[MissBrattified]

Okay, Dora may shoot me for this one, BUT:

Scripture does not clearly condemn polygamy. However, I don't agree scripture supports it or, worse, recommends it. I simply think that it was allowed, in the same manner slavery was allowed, and laws were put into place to regulate the practice and keep it humane.

Polygamy is out of line with scriptural ideals in the same way that slavery is out of line with scriptural ideals. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if a slave-owner from another country and culture were converted to Christianity, even if he were a kind and fair owner, he should be encouraged to set his slaves free, in order to be in line with Christian principles.

Polygamy is confusing, it is chaos, it is not in the best interest of the children in the household, and God is not the author of confusion.

By the way, the ten virgins are not support for polygamy. They were bridesmaids who were supposed to light the way with their lamps for the groom and his groomsmen as he made his way to his bride's house. The virgins were not brides. They were unmarried women, and as such, they were virgins. I know. Novel idea. :)