Polygamy in the Bible

[Apocrypha]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

So, is it a sin to murder someone?

God established cities of refuge on the OT for people to flee to if they killed someone, and as long as they stayed there, they were safe.

Is that how we should operate in 2008?

Come on, Brother, you should be a bit more adept at the Word that this!

Jesus, Himself, taught and said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He also said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Now, if you believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, you have to believe that He (God) changed some rules! And, He was still God. And He wasn't a liar. And He didn't vacillate.

So, polygamy WAS accepted and approved in the OT, but I don't find ANY scripture in the NT where God sanctioned multiple wives, only you guys and your misinterpreted sheen of scripture wrapped around your flimsy philosophy.

And, I say that in the nicest possible way!

The City of Refuge in a given area was made for people that committed a accidential death. The law taught that if a man committed murder he had no protection from the city. They dragged him out and killed him.

The City of Refuge was there to protect innocent but unlucky people from a blood avenger from the wronged family, clan or tribe when it was time to "get even".

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

If so, when Paul commanded every man to love his "WIFE" as Christ loved the "CHURCH", singular, not plural, that Paul was in direct defiance to God?

Nice and Simple!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by erikwebster

The City of Refuge in a given area was made for people that committed a accidential death. The law taught that if a man committed murder he had no protection from the city. They dragged him out and killed him.

The City of Refuge was there to protect innocent but unlucky people from a blood avenger from the wronged family, clan or tribe when it was time to "get even".

That would be correct!

Originally Posted by erikwebster

The City of Refuge in a given area was made for people that committed a accidential death. The law taught that if a man committed murder he had no protection from the city. They dragged him out and killed him.

The City of Refuge was there to protect innocent but unlucky people from a blood avenger from the wronged family, clan or tribe when it was time to "get even".

You would think they had known that

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Nice and Simple!

and how many people make up that WIFE?

[Tyk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Nice and Simple!

This isn't so much pertaining to this topic but -
You must have been raised in the upc im presuming. I don't see how anyone who wasn't a political official in the "upc" could tell your anything you might consider trying to understand...

I was raised UPC too for the record...

[Rico]

This is hilarious! You guys really do pick and choose what's convenient for you, don'tcha? When it's convenient to use OT to back your precious standards, you scream OT scriptures at the top of your lungs. When the OT contradicts your position, you demand NT scriptures and will only accept NT scriptures. The scriptures aren't there to be used at your convenience and ignored when it isn't convenient.

[Tyk]

Originally Posted by Rico

This is hilarious! You guys really do pick and choose what's convenient for you, don'tcha? When it's convenient to use OT to back your precious standards, you scream OT scriptures at the top of your lungs. When the OT contradicts your position, you demand NT scriptures and will only accept NT scriptures. The scriptures aren't there to be used at your convenience and ignored when it isn't convenient.

That was kind of my point in my last post... sheesh...

You said it better.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Evangelist quite simply,., in all fairness we are just asking for you to support your doctrine that Polygamy is sin with ONE NT scripture that forbids it

Mat 5:31-32

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife (singular), let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife (singular), saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her (singular) to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her (singular) that is divorced committeth adultery."

The above scriptures proves more the case of a singular wife than a teaching for plural wives.

Jesus first tells the doctors of the Law, this;

Mat 19:3-6 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them MALE (SINGULAR) and FEMALE (SINGULAR), And said, For this cause shall a man (SINGULAR) leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife (SINGULAR) : and they twain (Watch close DOCTOR, 1+ 1 = 2) shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain (1+1=2) , but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together (JUST TWO) , let not man put asunder."

The command that Jesus stresses in Matthew 9 is the same one commanded in Genesis. One man was to join with one woman and the two should never be separated. Jesus with His ONE WIFE.

Jesus never had a teaching for plural wives.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Stop! Don't you see what you just said here? If you have even one shread of honesty in your body. You will explain what you mean by IDEAL UNION.

Polygamy brought with it jealousies and strife. It is ideal that a home be in harmony and peace. This is more easily achieved in monogamous marriages. A leader in the church was to have his home ruled well, his children in subjection, and a good report without. Polygamy doesn’t facilitate this very easily. We see how polygamy brings jealousies and strife throughout the Old Testament. However, it was NEVER condemned as “sin”.

Roman Law in the fist century plural marriage was illegal, Paul was a Roman citizen. Paul stated that he never offended in the law of the Jews or the Romans. Roman Law forbid plural marriage, and the Gospel shows Jesus and one Bride, Adam and one wife is the first mention, and therefore sets the perfect example of man and subjected wife. If the man is the head, then the wife is his singular body. One God and One Temple, that Temple is the one Body. Biblical doctrine, and proven by the whole Bible. If a man has more than one wife he will die in his sins.

Very true. It should be noted that many radical groups who broke with Rome and practiced polygamy anyway. That’s why there is some debate between theologians on this subject. It would have been criminal for Paul to allow for polygamy and Paul admonished Christians to obey every ordinance of man. I think it’s fair to ask, if Roman hadn’t banned polygamy…would Paul have set such standards with church leaders? Is Paul keeping church leaders in compliance with Roman law to maintain propriety…or is Paul condemning God, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sampson, David, Solomon, and most of the land owners of Israel as sinners destined for a devil’s Hell because they had a hand in polygamy?

That again is making a doctrine out of could-be and might-be, your argument is based on conjecture.

No. Paul specifically set the standard for Church leaders. It’s there in black and white. Paul doesn’t mention laity or those who are not bishops or deacons. Now Paul’s statement clearly would preclude divorced bishops and polygamous bishops. You bring up a good point. Paul’s standard also would be ensuring that church leadership remains compliant with Roman law.

Roman Law forbade plural wives, and Paul is writing to Gentile churches, so why would Paul teach on something that is prohibited in Asia Minor?

To keep them compliant with Roman law in a day when ascetic groups who deplored Rome’s rulership were in rebellion to Roman law. One of Paul’s concerns is that these leaders keep a good report with those who were outside the church.

Are you confused? Aquila, stop you are making no sense.

Example for what? If the Bible accepts plural wives and you say, then why the example? This doctrine is shot in the head.

Abraham wasn’t an adulterer. Neither was David…until he took Uriah’s wife. Though both had polygamous marriages. If polygamy is a “sin”…you have to admit that those who died before returning to monogamy died “in sin” and are currently burning in Hell.

But you do bring up a point to consider. Roman law didn’t allow for polygamy. So Paul’s statements should be viewed in that historical context. Paul was big on admonishing Christians to obey the ordinances of man and honoring Roman authority. So it would stand to reason that Paul would admonish monogamy without strictly condemning polygamists like the Patriarchs and the Kings of ancient Israel as you’re doing.

We'll never know how Paul would have dealt with this had Rome not outlawed polygamous marriages.