Deut. 21:15 If a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, and they both bear him children, 21:16 in the day he divides his inheritance he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the other wife’s son who is actually the firstborn. ...

This is the question. Why did God allow a man to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, yet, Jesus makes a point that a man is to have only ONE wife in the New Testament?

The reason one could say God allowed multiple wives for one man is that God specifically made a rule on how one should treat his children in the even one has multiple wives....

If my reasoing is false, what am I not understandig properly?

Thanks,
Vladimir

Today @ 07:41 PM post located here
Vladimir:

Deut. 21:15 If a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, and they both bear him children, 21:16 in the day he divides his inheritance he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the other wife’s son who is actually the firstborn. ...

This is the question. Why did God allow a man to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, yet, Jesus makes a point that a man is to have only ONE wife in the New Testament?

The reason one could say God allowed multiple wives for one man is that God specifically made a rule on how one should treat his children in the even one has multiple wives....

If my reasoing is false, what am I not understandig properly?

Thanks,
Vladimir

Multipule wives, slaves, women in submission to men, animal sacrifice, women being silent, all this was allowed , now none of it is pertinant, but modern day men want to keep these dead issues alive.

More than one wife... I have enough trouble keeping up with one...

with the Scripture I quoted is that it appears that God does not have the same Standard, that God is not 'unchanging', but does indeed change.

Again, this is not my personal belief, but it appears that God changed His requirements in the New Testament.

This is a difficult question I'm wrestling with and appreciate any help with this matter.

In Christ,
Vladimir

I think it is totally consistent for the Bible to allow particular marital conditions in one society, and then argue against them when the particularities of that culture are no longer pertinent. For example, Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and Jacob married two sisters (Genesis 29:13-30). Both of these are later forbidden by Moses (Leviticus 18:18).

Yesterday @ 11:05 PM post located here
wienerdog:

I think it is totally consistent for the Bible to allow particular marital conditions in one society, and then argue against them when the particularities of that culture are no longer pertinent. For example, Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and Jacob married two sisters (Genesis 29:13-30). Both of these are later forbidden by Moses (Leviticus 18:18).

The above is a well written example Vladimir, i agree with this post. Still, bear in mind that when the bible speaks of God not changeing, it is speaking of his inner morals, his fruit of his own Spirit, his characther, or his nature, these never change about him. However God does lift curses, he spares what he may previously intended to destroy, this shows that God is flexible, even though he is absolute. If God is flexible, then so is Christ, the living word, if the living word is flexible, then so is the written word. The bible must be simular to God also, it must span the decades of time and still remain relevant.

It must be able to be cross-cultured, bi-racial , reasonable, factual and peer relevant, or apealing to youth. One interesting example is the issue of slavery. When the bible was written, slavery was legal, now it is illegal, so we must disguard the verses that pertain to slavery. As you have mentioned, marriage to multiple wives was legal then, and in some areas of the world-- still is. If a man becomes a christian after he has already taken on multiple wives in his native land, and that be legal, should he divorce the others to adhere to the one wife standard.

Thats a very difficult situation to be in. He could reason either way and be correct, he could argue that he can only have one now, or he could argue that divorce is forbidden, keep them all and still be correct. My imagination envys such a man. I think reason must be used in each situation, common sense, respect for culture and prejudice must be disguarded, or the "fear of different cultures". Times zones in the world changes, but not cultures. A man with ten wifes can fly from his native land into a different country with different laws, but no country can legally take away his wives. Interesting though, if a person is a pastor and has this situation thrust on them, what would they advise or counsel? Do you split the family up, or leave them together, or let them decide for themselves? I tend to think in terms of not interfering. Although many people may not understand this statement; you just have to use common sense when navigateing spiritual matters that mix with fleshly matters. People have just got to learn to think for themselves.

In Africa, some missionaries have tried to convince new Christians that they have to divorce their "extra" wives. But in context, it turns out that the reason men married more than one woman is because they were widowed, and needed someone to take care of them. This is precisely the biblical mandate to care for widows and orphans!

Today @ 09:42 PM post located here
wienerdog:

In Africa, some missionaries have tried to convince new Christians that they have to divorce their "extra" wives. But in context, it turns out that the reason men married more than one woman is because they were widowed, and needed someone to take care of them. This is precisely the biblical mandate to care for widows and orphans!

This is a good example of reality. In this situation, you cannot place a overzealous hard core righteous spirit into this atmosphere, and start piously judgeing the matter as if everyone is a sinner, or an adulterer. As in this example, the man is helping the women, adding them to his household. They probally wouldnot survive without him. I can just picture the selfrighteous mind telling the widow to starve and die "in the Lord".

The biblical teaching on polygamy has already been addressed in a TWe thread http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...4982#post44982 which has links to other articles.

Interestingly, I seem to remember that Luther advised Philip of Hesse to take a second wife rather than to divorce --- he also wanted this solution kept quiet, but it instead became a bit of a scandal....





(edited to add that, in case anybody gets the wrong idea, Luther's advice here is no doubt something better left alone)

Today @ 05:27 AM post located here
pereynol:

Interestingly, I seem to remember that Luther advised Philip of Hesse to take a second wife rather than to divorce --- he also wanted this solution kept quiet, but it instead became a bit of a scandal....





(edited to add that, in case anybody gets the wrong idea, Luther's advice here is no doubt something better left alone)

I would like to know a little more of this, Luther seems to have been an egnimatic man.

Luther was very enigmatic. Oberman's Lutehr: Man Between God and the Devil is a good study of his thought.

On this subject. I would recomend anyone advocating polygammy to look at the outcome of polygammy in the Bible. Let me preface my remarks with how I came to study this issue. Five years ago I created a web site for the church I was attending at that time. I received an e-mail from someone who wanted me to explain what was wrong with teh argumetnation of a particular web stie, which advocated "Christian polygammy". After reading through the site I came to teh following method of discussing it.

Think of what Jesus said about divorce. In the OT God allowed it because of their hardened hearts. I think polygammy falls in hte same category. I ask you to look at the lives of those who engaged in polygammy in the OT. (I will summarize here but then I walked through each case listed in the OT) You had jealous wives (in all cases). You had sibling rivalries (often leading to fratricide). You had animsity towards the parents (often leading to attempted or actual patricide). You had wives leading their husbands into idolatry...

All to say they made their own beds and were miserable so whatever perceived benefeits you may see in this the familial strife will negate all of htem in the long run, and watch your back when some of you children start gunning for you after they have killed some of you other children.

GP

God allowed polygamy, because that is what people did, so he regulated it, without moving from his command to monogamy. Why did he allow it? Well, he allowed divorce for the harndess of men's hearts, perhaps he allowed polygamy for similar reasons (I see GP has just voiced this view as well)
What is interesting is that his regulation of it was in the way of preserving equity and justice in the family relationship, since a man might have taken another wife to gain an heir, or to oust a preferred heir, or whatever. In other words, he didn't let them get away with it.

Yesterday @ 02:57 PM post located here
Solly:

God allowed polygamy, because that is what people did, so he regulated it, without moving from his command to monogamy. Why did he allow it? Well, he allowed divorce for the harndess of men's hearts, perhaps he allowed polygamy for similar reasons (I see GP has just voiced this view as well)
What is interesting is that his regulation of it was in the way of preserving equity and justice in the family relationship, since a man might have taken another wife to gain an heir, or to oust a preferred heir, or whatever. In other words, he didn't let them get away with it.

It is very reasonable to assume God allowed polygamy for the same reasoning he allowed divorce, men have a heart to do certain things that God could really careless about. But the bible has spanned through some 2000 years since it was writtened, there are bound to be issues that will be ingulfed within this time, that will change, slavery being a definite example. Some things will fall into personal choice( hair styles, mixed racial marriages, ), but others things that are still personal choice will face stiff debate( speaking in tounges, ages of baptism, danceing in the spirit) mutiple wives is one of those things that is perhaps like slavery, just plain outdated, old fashion, culturely ended. But as some will not release women being silent or covering their heads, some men want to keep the old ways of many wives. If one could justify any one of these, then none of them are sin, they all came from the same era.

Well, I suppose I have to get busy. So many women to subjugate as sexual slaves, so little time.

Today @ 09:20 AM post located here
Patroclus:

Well, I suppose I have to get busy. So many women to subjugate as sexual slaves, so little time.

And i understand the tendecy to use scripture as a shoe, believing only that which fits our lives. The subjugation of women as sex slaves, is the same as subjugating them to remain silent, wear head conerings, be submissive in marriage, stay bearfoot pregnant and in the kitchen. If you accept any one of these, in my view of scripture you are quilty of them all, and may as well honestly live them in your life. If you accept the curse of thithing, you must accept animal sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, they are from the same law. If yopu accept the ten commandments as still being relevant, you must accept all 206 laws of Moses, you cannot pick and choose law, either you reject them all, or accept them all, there is no inbetween. If you accept one law governing women, you must take them all to be true and valid. Kind of what we humans call having your cake and eating it to. Christians cannot disect the bible according to their pleasure.