Is polygamy truly unBiblical?

[Swordman]

Greetings everyone.

Before I say anything else, please allow me to point out that I was raised Southern Baptist and have not changed since. I am not a Mormon. Besides, Mormons did not invent polygamy.

Now, I was wondering if anyone has ever found a Biblical teaching that truly limits a man to only one wife? The reason I am asking this is because I have heard some Biblical arguments against a man having more than one wife, but closer examination of the Biblical passages involved were proven to be without merit where polygyny is concerned. Too many people are prone to pulling verses out of context in order to mesh them into the theological tapestry of their own making. I would welcome your input if you have one. I only ask that your response be thoughtful, intellectual and Biblically based.

I will make mention of those three verses in Titus and 1 Timothy, "husband of one wife." Different versions of the Bible have translated those verses differently. Also, if one studies the Greek word "mia" translated as "one" in those verses can be shown to be gramatically inconsistent in relation to other verses. The best rendering in those verses for "mia" is actually "first wife," not "one wife." Such rendering demonstrates God's dislike of church leadership being divorced. I can demonstrate this to those of you who would like to see it. There are some translations of the Bible that render "mia" as "first", which is consistent with other passages.

Another observation I have made in this quest is that there are MANY socially engineered theologies within our Western Christian mindset. We are more Greco-Roman in our thinking than most people are willing to admit.

Another popular argument some have put forth concerning a man having more than one wife is that we are instructed by Paul of Tarsus to obey the laws of the land. However, it is only illegal to acquire more than one marriage license at a time. That piece of paper from City Hall is not God's definition of marriage. It is strictly a legal maneuver with its own benefits and problems. God defined marriage once and for all in Genesis. He never relinquished His authority over marriage to mankind. The absence of that piece of paper from City Hall does not constitut sin. If anyone thinks it does, then I would have to see it from the word of God. There is no law in my state that requires a couple to have a license in order for them to be married in accordance with God's definition of marriage. This love affair our churches have historically demonstrated for that license is out of keeping with the word of God. No nation has the right to redefine marriage through its laws or otherwise. Do not get me wrong. I am not opposed to a couple acquiring a license, but I do take great exception to anyone who declares that another couple is "living in sin" simply because they do not have that piece of paper from City Hall. One will search in vain to find that in the word of God. Talking about some nonexistent law concerning that license is nothing but outright dishonesty, or downright ignorance.

I mentioned these things in this posting that will hopefull put to rest some of the support for monogamy-only idealism that really have no substance when one considers what is written, or not written in some cases, in the word of God.

I will give due consideration to all the input I receive as long as it is offered in love rather than anger. Hopefully I will be able to keep up with it all. This issue is not worth becoming angry over. This issue is important to me because it has shown me just how little I knew about the word of God.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in answering this question.

Don

[Bill the Cat]

1Co 7:2 But because of the desires of the flesh, let every man have his wife, and every woman her husband.


Some commentaries on the verse state:

Albert Barnes:
Have his own wife - And one wife to whom he shall be faithful. Polygamy is unlawful under the gospel; and divorce is unlawful. Let every man and woman, therefore, honor the institution of God, and avoid the evils of illicit indulgence.

Adam Clarke:
Let every man have his own wife - Let every man have one woman, his own; and every woman one man, her own. Here, plurality of wives and husbands is most strictly forbidden; and they are commanded to marry for the purpose of procreating children.

John Gill:
let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; that is, let every man that has a wife enjoy her, and make use of her, and let every woman that has an husband, receive him into her embraces; for these words are not to be understood of unmarried persons entering into a marriage state, for the words suppose them in such a state, but of the proper use of the marriage bed; and teach us that marriage, and the use of it, are proper remedies against fornication; and that carnal copulation of a man with a woman ought only to be of husband and wife, or of persons in a married state; and that all other copulations are sinful; and that polygamy is unlawful; and that one man is to have but one wife, and to keep to her; and that one woman is to have but one husband, and to keep to him.

John Wesley:
1Co 7:2 - Yet, when it is needful, in order to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. His own - For Christianity allows no polygamy.

Note the Bible also distinguishes between people with a wife and wives.

[Swordman]

Thanks for your input.

I would like to point out that I have a problem with your application of 1 Cor. 7:2 to and the interpretations of those commentaries. The context of those verses had nothing whatsoever to do with what a man is limited to by way of the number of wives. The context has to do with avoiding fornication and the desires of the flesh, not the number of wives to which a man is limited. Commentaries are very prone indeed to interjecting popular bias and social dogma into their interpretations of various key passages. If this were not true, then commentaries would not portray the vast differences in interpretation of various verses throughout the Bible. They disagree in numerous places. If they did not, then there would be no need for so many on the market.

If I were to carry the commentaries and your reasoning to its logical conclusion, then all believers are limited to having only one son in our families. After all, when Proverbs encourages a man to raise up his "son" (singular) in the admonition of the Lord, then we are therefore limited to having only one son, and no more. This is consistent with the misapplication of 1 Cor. 7:2.

I too was caught up in this line of thinking until I was shown that singularity and plurality in language cannot be applied with such broad brush strokes, especially when the context clearly is being violated as has happened with 1 Cor. 7:2. If I have not understood the context, and it really does address a limitation in the number of wives to which a man is limited, then please quote it to me from your version of the Bible. I do not wish to miss anything that may be of value in answering this question.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Don

[Bill the Cat]

Wow, I never knew that it was a misapplication. Anyway, I rely on commentaries because the people who give them are a bit more educated in Greek and Hebrew than I am. All of the ones I listed agree that this verse in context forbids polygamy. We have to draw logical conclusions from the whole of the text. God only made Adam one wife, and they are the model family, so we should do the same. Jesus has only one Bride as well.

The whole context of 1 Cor 7:1-9 describes a relationship between a man and his wife that is true. But in terms of application, it seems natural to the flow of the argument to apply it to one wife.

In terms of polygamy, in EVERY instance of polygamy listed in the Bible, something negative occurs.

Also note that the first to practice polygamy was of the lineage of Cain.
Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Lastly, Jesus' admonition in Matthew
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

To marry someone else while legally married is adultery. Jesus spells it out quite plainly.

[Woman]

I don't know the answer to your question, but it does raise another. Is there any Biblical teaching which disallows a woman having more than one husband?

It seems to me that in a modern society, this might be much more logical. Given the physical difference in men and women, this would be much more equitable. Having two or more incomes would insure that mother and children could live well. And given the population problems world-wide, this would provide a natural slowing of growth without violating any prohibitions against birth control.

:yipee:

[Jaltus]

Genesis 2

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, 'for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

This allows only one partner for each.

Matthew 6:24

24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

This limits each man to one wife.

:wink:

Seriously, though, the Genesis command has been seen as the definition of marriage throughout the last 2000 years for the church. It was by mingling with pagan cultures that the Isralite culture allowed polygamy. It was the downfall of the greatest king of Israel, making David greater than Solomon when it should have been the other way around.

Now, Solomon is a byword for someone who had it all and lost it. Why did he lose it? He married 700 wives and had 300 concubines. Nearly all of them were foreign, and each had her own gods. solomon chased pretty skirts and instead found pagan gods. Instead of being faithful to the one who had given him everything, he turned his back on the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to fulfill his own stupid carnal needs. Seriously, who could deal with 1000 mates? He probably did not even know all their names. One can only hope that folly like that is not repeated, but of course other kings did the same thing.

[Sozo]

When did he have time to write? :zzz:

[Swordman]

Thanks for your response, Bill.

> God only made Adam one wife, and they are the model family, so we should do the same. Jesus has only one Bride as well.

Where it is true that God gave Adam one wife in paradise, it is also true that Adam ran around naked in paradise. I think we can both agree that such a reality certainly is not a model for the rest of us. We cannot legitimately pick and choose from the paradise story what fits our personal fancy. What one man was given is not a measure of what all others should have. God gave Adam one wife, but He gave king David at least two of his plural wives. What we CAN deduce from Adam's having been given one wife is the fact that we are all of one blood since we all came from the same pair of parents, not two. That he was given one wife in paradise is of no great signifigance considering that God gave another man more than one wife AFTER paradise.

> The whole context of 1 Cor 7:1-9 describes a relationship between a man and his wife that is true. But in terms of application, it seems natural to the flow of the argument to apply it to one wife.

However, the author did not establish that application. Forcing meaning into the text what clearly is not there is a common practice, even among commentators.

> In terms of polygamy, in EVERY instance of polygamy listed in the Bible, something negative occurs.

The same thing could be said of the monogamous marriages in the Bible. No marriage is perfect. David's sin was not the result of his having more than one wife. His sin was adultery and murder. The problems that existed with Jacob's wives was the result of his breaking God's Law by marrying two women who were sisters. Ahab had only one wife, and we can see the problems in his marriage and in his leadership. Therefore, your observation is an argument from silence.

> Also note that the first to practice polygamy was of the lineage of Cain.

What if your lineage is of Cain? If this is true, does that make you a bad person? No. Again, to say that it is sin for a man to have more than one wife is to accuse God Himself of sin when He gave King David a plurality of wives. Where it is true that David was a king, that status in life does not mean that he is allowed the "pleasure" of ANY sin that is sin for the rest of us.

> Jesus' admonition in Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I am not sure how you are trying to apply this verse. If I understand your application correctly, then you are now accusing Abraham, Solomon, Jacob, David, Moses and many others of having died without repenting for the sin of fornication.

> To marry someone else while legally married is adultery. Jesus spells it out quite plainly.

Again, you have condemned most of the patriarchs of the Old Testament to Hell for having died in the sin of adultery. The word of God says that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

The Biblical definition of adultery is a man desiring and having sexual relations with another man's wife.

I hope this helps to answer your questions and observations.

Don

[Swordman]

Woman....of the world said:

> I don't know the answer to your question, but it does raise another. Is there any Biblical teaching which disallows a woman having more than one husband?

Yes. A woman having more than one husband violates two main establishments the Lord has put forth for all mankind:

1) Such a marriage is adultery since adultery is defined within the Bible as a man desiring and having sexual relations with another man's wife. In other words, the second man would be having sexual relations with another man's wife, and vice versa.

2) Such a marriage would violate the headship within the family. A woman can have only ONE head, not two or three or four..... No nation can survive with two kings.

There are other reasons as well, but I think this will suffice.

> It seems to me that in a modern society, this might be much more logical. Given the physical difference in men and women, this would be much more equitable. Having two or more incomes would insure that mother and children could live well. And given the population problems world-wide, this would provide a natural slowing of growth without violating any prohibitions against birth control.

Actually, your observation is backwards from the demonstratable model that does exist within this country. I have a dear friend who has three wives. They live in a huge new home, and they are debt free. One of the wives home schools the children while the other two and the husband work outside the home. They are indeed a remarkable family to observe.

Thanks for your input.

Don

[dizzle]

Dear Swordman:

I will reiterate this point because you did not adequately address it...

Jesus' admonition in Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

To which you said,

I am not sure how you are trying to apply this verse. If I understand your application correctly, then you are now accusing Abraham, Solomon, Jacob, David, Moses and many others of having died without repenting for the sin of fornication...
Again, you have condemned most of the patriarchs of the Old Testament to Hell for having died in the sin of adultery. The word of God says that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Actually the New Testament says that God in times past have overlooked the sins previously committed but now is calling men everywhere to repent.

But despite that, you have failed to adequately explain what Jesus' words DO mean, you just countered with an emotive argument.

Jesus said that if you divorce a woman unbiblically and remarry, you are committing adultery. This would make no sense if a man was permitted to have multiple wives. You also have made nonsense of Jesus' teaching about becoming one flesh. The TWO become one flesh, not the three, or the four or the so on and so forth. You also have simply brushed away Paul's words about the requirements for leadership of a man being the husband of ONE wife. You cannot also get around that.

[Woman]

Swordsman: I have a dear friend who has three wives. They live in a huge new home, and they are debt free. One of the wives home schools the children while the other two and the husband work outside the home. They are indeed a remarkable family to observe.

Thanks for your input.

Hmmm, well - at least we know where you're coming from. Out of curiousity, where does this fellow with three wives live? Or are they not really wives, and he's just living in sin with 2 or more of them?

I think many men fantasize about such a set-up. But I seriously doubt many men could handle it or many women would tolerate it. Since it's forbidden in virtually all of the new world, I'd say that society has decided it's just kinky!

:dufus:

[Swordman]

> Genesis 2

> 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, 'for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

> This allows only one partner for each.

However, God never declared Adam's having been given one wife in paradise to be the model for all the rest of mankind. Adam also ran around naked, but we believers do not apply that to all mankind down through all the ages. What is your basis of authority as to which parts of the paradise story can be applied to all mankind and which cannot? What defines the placement of that line? Do you have one, or are you going along with what others have taught you? I am asking because I am genuinely interested in how one can know for sure what applies to all of us and what does not. What we call "common sense" does not always suffice when you consider our many liberal denominations and what they believe to be relevant today. Therefore, we must have an external authority to ourselves that can authoritatively determine what is relevant and what is not.

> Matthew 6:24

> 24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

> This limits each man to one wife.

A wife is not a master in the home, so this really makes no sense to me. The context of this has nothing to do with the number of wives a man may have. This is completely out of context, and is therefore a gross misapplication. However, it is humorous when considering the undertone involved. (wink)

> Seriously, though, the Genesis command has been seen as the definition of marriage throughout the last 2000 years for the church.

If this is true, then why is it that most of the patriarchs completely missed it? You would think that the Lord would have said SOMETHING to at least ONE of those men at SOME point for having missed his "command" in Genesis.

> It was by mingling with pagan cultures that the Isralite culture allowed polygamy.

We are not told that Abraham took another wife because of the pagans all around him. To tell the truth, God made governing provision in His written Law for a man to have more than one wife. There is even one place where He commanded it in the case of the brother who dies without an heir. To say that the Israelites did this because of the pagan nations is really more conjecture than real fact. I do not know of any such revelation within the word of God, unless you can give me a reference. If you know of one, please give it to me. This would be a fascinating topic indeed.

> It was the downfall of the greatest king of Israel, making David greater than Solomon when it should have been the other way around.

Polygamy was not the downfall of solomon. We are told that he turned away from the Lord in his old age because of his following after the strange gods of his wives. Ahab had only one wife (Jezebel), and he followed after her strange gods. David's fall was also not the result of having more than one wife. David's sin was adultery and murder, not polygamy. After all, it is God who gave David at least two of his 12+ wives.

> Seriously, who could deal with 1000 mates?

It is true that multiplying wives to himself was a clear violation of God's Law. However, be careful with that word "multiply," because it does not mean what many think it to mean.

Thanks

Don

[Swordman]

> I will reiterate this point because you did not adequately address it...

> “ Jesus' admonition in Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ”

I was never talking about a man putting away his wife. My question dealt strictly with a man having more than one wife. The verse above has to do with divorce, not having more than one wife. Polygamy and divorce are not at all the same thing. Does that answer your question?

> Actually the New Testament says that God in times past have overlooked the sins previously committed but now is calling men everywhere to repent.

What sins was He talking about? Can any of us know for sure what sins He was referring to? It would be mere assumption to lump polygamy into any list one would think God to be referring to in the verse to which you are referring. Again, if it were a sin for a man to have more than one wife, then God Himself was involved in sin when He gave David several of his wives.

> But despite that, you have failed to adequately explain what Jesus' words DO mean, you just countered with an emotive argument.

Jesus' words were directed at divorce. That is what His words mean. Any divorce outside of Biblical allowance is wrong. I agree with you, but your bringing this up in the midst of a discussion on polygamy is nebulous at best. I was simply dumbfounded as to what divorce had to do with polygamy.

> Jesus said that if you divorce a woman unbiblically and remarry, you are committing adultery.

I agree with you.

> This would make no sense if a man was permitted to have multiple wives.

Not at all. It makes great sense. What makes no sense is trying to lump the issue of divorce into the issue of polygamy. A man does not have to divorce his first wife in order to marry another.....unless you are talking our LEGAL system of marriage. When I speak of marriage, the perspective I am coming from is from God's definition of marriage, not man's definition of marriage. God never gave man the authority to redefine marriage, even though mankind has thought himself to be authorized by God to define marriage through his petty licenses, ceremonies. and various other traditions we practice today.

Now, if I have still missed your point, then please elaborate further. I will be more than happy to answer you.

> You also have made nonsense of Jesus' teaching about becoming one flesh. The TWO become one flesh, not the three, or the four or the so on and so forth.

Not at all. The "one flesh" aspect of marriage is a spiritual visualization, not a physical one. We are all joined together into one body through Christ Jesus. We are one in Him, and yet we are still MANY individuals. When you consider that each wife is joined together into ONE family through the husband, the imagry is cinsistent between Christ and his Church and the husband with more than one wife. To say that the spiritual imagry it is not consistent is to assume a level of knowledge about spiritual things that you have never seen with your own eyes. When I say that they are consistent, I speak from a viewpoint of what ALL scripture has to say on this subject. If a man could not be one with more than one wife, then God certainly would not have given king David several.

> You also have simply brushed away Paul's words about the requirements for leadership of a man being the husband of ONE wife. You cannot also get around that.

I would never try to get around it. I have a good answer to it. However, since your words to me appear to be more accusatory than discussion, I think it best to stop here and move on.

In Christ Jesus

Don

[dizzle]

Dear Swordman:

I was never talking about a man putting away his wife. My question dealt strictly with a man having more than one wife. The verse above has to do with divorce, not having more than one wife. Polygamy and divorce are not at all the same thing. Does that answer your question?

No it does not. And you still have not explained the quandry this puts you in. If a man were allowed more than one wife, Jesus' statement would make no sense. Why would he be committing adultery if he married again? Wasn't he permitted to marry as many times as he wanted to?


What sins was He talking about? Can any of us know for sure what sins He was referring to? It would be mere assumption to lump polygamy into any list one would think God to be referring to in the verse to which you are referring.

It is mere assumption to say that it is not. You raised an emotive argument and I countered it. You still have not explained how what Jesus said made any sense in the paradigm you are advocating.




Not at all. It makes great sense. What makes no sense is trying to lump the issue of divorce into the issue of polygamy. A man does not have to divorce his first wife in order to marry another.....unless you are talking our LEGAL system of marriage.

And no one said that. You have yet to explain how a man would be committing adultery if he married again after divoricing his wife. The whole principle of that statement is that Jesus is stating that the man is STILL married to that woman he allegedly divorced and because he is STILL married, he cannot marry another. It is crystal clear and unavoidable.
Not at all. The "one flesh" aspect of marriage is a spiritual visualization, not a physical one.

And I repeat it is the TWO that are to become ONE, not the the more than TWO. You have not dealt with that. And you make an assumption that the one flesh is a spiritual visualization only, you have not proven that, and certainly I would say that Jewish tradition disagrees with you. BOTH aspects are in view. Your analogy of the Church is in error. There is just ONE Church. One BRIDE, one Husband.

I would never try to get around it. I have a good answer to it. However, since your words to me appear to be more accusatory than discussion, I think it best to stop here and move on.

If you mean that I am "accusing" you of mishandling that passage, yes I am. It is not met as a personal slur but rather a firm statement of conviction.

[Socrates]

Yeah, monogamy is definitely the Biblical ideal, while polygamy was at best tolerated, never encouraged, and was always negative. This has been covered well here, esp. by the points about the original institution of marriage in Genesis which Christ endorsed in Mt. 19 and Mark 10.

AiG has an article Does the Bible clearly teach monogamy? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4074.asp) and Tekton has Polygamy in the Bible (http://www.tektonics.org/polygamy.html) refuting a village atheist and A Look at a "Christian Polygamy" Site (http://www.tektonics.org/truthmasher.html).

[dizzle]

I forgot about those Tekton articles. I will have to refresh my recollection of them. Thank you for the links. I am not sure if I ever read that AiG one before.

[Swordman]

I said:

Polygamy and divorce are not at all the same thing. Does that answer your question? ”

You said:

> you still have not explained the quandry this puts you in. If a man were allowed more than one wife, Jesus' statement would make no sense. Why would he be committing adultery if he married again? Wasn't he permitted to marry as many times as he wanted to?

I still say that the confusion rests strictly in your own misunderstanding of Jesus' words. Jesus was talking about a man DIVORCING his wife for non-Biblical reasons and THEN taking in another wife. He was addressing men divorcing their wives for any and every cause they could think of for whatever motive that moved them to do so. God hates DIVORCE, not plural marriage. When a man took a second or third wife, he was NOT DIVORCING his first wife, therefore the confusion you speak of is in your trying to align the taking of a subsequent wife with divorce. There is no basis of comparison between the two, thus no confusion when the two cannot be compared together. If a man divorces a woman outside of Biblical allowances, he is committing sin regardless, and if he marries another woman, then he has committed adultery. If he divorces his first wife for Biblical reasons and marries another, then he is in the clear. If he marries a second wife without divorcing his first wife, then he again is in the clear so far as I can see from the scriptures. If that is not clear enough for you, then I really am at a loss as to how to make it more plain.

You said:

> You have yet to explain how a man would be committing adultery if he married again after divoricing his wife. The whole principle of that statement is that Jesus is stating that the man is STILL married to that woman he allegedly divorced and because he is STILL married, he cannot marry another. It is crystal clear and unavoidable.

Yes and no. The key element Jesus was addressing is DIVORCE. Taking on a second wife after DIVORCING the fisrt for non-Biblical reasons is what Jesus was addressing. Jesus did not make any changes to the Biblical definition of adultery. The reason the man would be guilty of adultery is because he would be causing his first wife to commit adultery by marrying another man when she is still his wife. The other man is a partaker of her adulteries and the first husband is the CAUSE of her adultery, therefore his own guilt being well established. However, if he is faithful to his first wife by not sending her out, thus forcing her to commit adultery through remarriage, then he is not guilty of adultery, unless his second wife is actually the non-Biblically divorced wife of another man. You have to remember that DIVORCE is the key issue behind Jesus' words. If a man DIVORCES a wife without just, Biblical cause, then he is guilty of his first wife's adultery when she remarries EVEN IF he does NOT take on another wife, and for him to then take a second wife, he is THEN committing adultery BECAUSE of DIVORCE. Now, you can refuse to accept this and continue to ride the train of a nonexistent dilemma, or you can read my words for what they say, and the words of scripture, and THEN point out the error.....if there is any. It is the definitions of key words that appears to be the real problem here, as well as the misassociation of concepts that is confusing you.

You said:

> And I repeat it is the TWO that are to become ONE, not the the more than TWO. You have not dealt with that.

Yes I did in another posting in this thread. You can read the other threads to get your answer rather than my having to repeat myself.

You said:

> And you make an assumption that the one flesh is a spiritual visualization only, you have not proven that, and certainly I would say that Jewish tradition disagrees with you. BOTH aspects are in view.

My wife and I are not physically one flesh. We are still two distinct people physically, so the one flesh issue is in fact spiritual since it cannot be physical. The sex act is simply the physical representation of that spiritual union of one flesh. If you are physically attached to your husband, then I suggest you see a doctor to have that malady corrected. (grin)

You said:

> Your analogy of the Church is in error. There is just ONE Church. One BRIDE, one Husband.

In error? In other words, you refuse to accept the fact that the Church is STILL comprised of a PLURALITY of individuals? When we get to Heaven, we are not going to be absorbed into some giant female being. We will always remain individuals in the literal sense, and at the same time joined together into an allegorical, unified body. Placing the allegorcial above the literal is less than honest when dealing with scripture. Psalms talks about God allegorically covering us with His wings. Does that mean that He is a literal chicken? Because you choose to ignore the literal does not make my statements false. You are entitled to your opinion. I prefer to accept not only the allegorical, but also the literal, or realistic if you will. The two are inseperable.

In Christ Jesus

Don

[dizzle]

Dear Don:

You still have not adequately addressed my main point. I do not mind repeating it and explicating further.

I still say that the confusion rests strictly in your own misunderstanding of Jesus' words. Jesus was talking about a man DIVORCING his wife for non-Biblical reasons and THEN taking in another wife. He was addressing men divorcing their wives for any and every cause they could think of for whatever motive that moved them to do so. God hates DIVORCE, not plural marriage.

Jesus was taking about principles of MARRIAGE of which DIVORCE is a subcategory, thus the verse, and its implications are directly applicable here, no matter how hard you try to avoid them.

When a man took a second or third wife, he was NOT DIVORCING his first wife, therefore the confusion you speak of is in your trying to align the taking of a subsequent wife with divorce.

No the confusion is entirely yours so I will repeat myself. Jesus stated that if a man unbiblically divorces his wife and marries another woman, that man is committing adultery HIMSELF. Now your system utterly fails at explaining WHY that would be. If that man was free to marry as many women as he chose to, there is no reason why his “still valid in the eyes of God” marriage to the allegedly divorce woman would PLAY ANY FACTOR at all in an additional marriage. You have to deal with this, and have not.

There is no basis of comparison between the two, thus no confusion when the two cannot be compared together. If a man divorces a woman outside of Biblical allowances, he is committing sin regardless, and if he marries another woman, then he has committed adultery.

Of course he has, but you have not explained how that is possible in your system.

If he divorces his first wife for Biblical reasons and marries another, then he is in the clear. If he marries a second wife without divorcing his first wife, then he again is in the clear so far as I can see from the scriptures.

Not according to Paul, and not according to the principles implied by Christ who immediately prior to this teaching talked about the man cleaving TO HIS ONE WIFE and the TWO becoming ONE flesh.

The key element Jesus was addressing is DIVORCE. Taking on a second wife after DIVORCING the first for non-Biblical reasons is what Jesus was addressing. Jesus did not make any changes to the Biblical definition of adultery. The reason the man would be guilty of adultery is because he would be causing his first wife to commit adultery by marrying another man when she is still his wife. The other man is a partaker of her adulteries and the first husband is the CAUSE of her adultery, therefore his own guilt being well established. However, if he is faithful to his first wife by not sending her out, thus forcing her to commit adultery through remarriage, then he is not guilty of adultery, unless his second wife is actually the non-Biblically divorced wife of another man.

The passage says NOTHING about any remarriage of the put away woman, it only speaks of the remarriage of the man. So your point here is completely wrong.

You claim to have addressed the issue of ONE flesh but you have not. You claim that the connotation is solely spiritual which of course is negated by the fact that the word FLESH is used, not spirit. Do you not think that Jesus could have said that the two would become ONE spirit? But He did not. And even if it were for sake of argument referring solely to a spiritual reality, that does not help your case. You cannot become reciprocally ONE spirit with more than ONE other person unless this whole harem becomes all spiritually intermingled as ONE flesh (spirit) with one another. Jesus does not at all state or imply or otherwise teach any such thing.


In error? In other words, you refuse to accept the fact that the Church is STILL comprised of a PLURALITY of individuals? When we get to Heaven, we are not going to be absorbed into some giant female being. We will always remain individuals in the literal sense, and at the same time joined together into an allegorical, unified body.

And you refuse to accept the fact that the Church is still ONE Bride, not multiple brides, so your analogy fails. In order for your analogy to pass muster these alleged allowed plural wives would have to somehow be mystically joined into one wife for the man and they all then become ONE flesh. And that is patently biblically absurd. And if you want to press this analogy that far, I would remind you that the church is composed of women AND men. If your misuse of this concept allows polygamy, then it could support bisexuality.

[Swordman]

> Yeah, monogamy is definitely the Biblical ideal, while polygamy was at best tolerated, never encouraged, and was always negative.

Can you demonstrate that polygamy was "always negative"? Also, God never "tolerated" sin after His written Law was brought into existence. His written Law makes governing provision for a man to have more than one wife. Now, if not one jot or tittle has passed from the Law, how do we so easily cast aside his allowance of polygamy in His Law.

> This has been covered well here, esp. by the points about the original institution of marriage in Genesis which Christ endorsed in Mt. 19 and Mark 10.

You are pointing to Jesus' words concerning divorce. He said nothing about polygamy.

> AiG has an article

Yes, they do. However, AiG does not lay any claim to being infallible. I have met Ken Ham in person, and he will openly admit to fallability.

[dizzle]

Now, if not one jot or tittle has passed from the Law, how do we so easily cast aside his allowance of polygamy in His Law.


Do you keep a Kosher home?

[Bill the Cat]

Dee Dee,
Thanks for taking this one for me.

I think I proved God's model in the Garden fairly well. When Adam and Eve fell, God did not give Adam another wife to accept polygamy, but He did make them clothes to cover their nakedness, so the argument of selecting which part of paradise to apply is void. If God allowed polygamy and nakedness for fallen man, then He would have given Adam another wife or wives but not clothes. But it was the other way around. God covered their nakedness but left them as a couple.

[dizzle]

And Bill I would also add that Eden represents the "ideal." And God did create many wives for Adam, and He certainly could have, He created ONE. If they had not fallen, they would have continued in that state. God's redemptive plan is restore what the curse has robbed, and that restoration, which God's people are supposed to reflect would include the fidelity between ONE man and ONE woman, just as Christ has ONE Bride.

[Bill the Cat]

Agreed. I think this gentleman is trying to fit the verses into his paradigm of accepting polygamy. It is crysal clear that a marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Any other combination is fornication.

[Kevin W. Graham]

Hello Jaltus. I'd like to respond to a few of your comments.

Seriously, though, the Genesis command has been seen as the definition of marriage throughout the last 2000 years for the church. It was by mingling with pagan cultures that the Isralite culture allowed polygamy. It was the downfall of the greatest king of Israel, making David greater than Solomon when it should have been the other way around.

This is simply false. The crime of Solomon was not polygamy, but pride.

Now, Solomon is a byword for someone who had it all and lost it. Why did he lose it? He married 700 wives and had 300 concubines.

Which is entirely about pride, not polygamy which requires only two wives.

Nearly all of them were foreign, and each had her own gods.

This is irrelevant really.

Seriously, who could deal with 1000 mates? He probably did not even know all their names.

I'm sure you're right, but this is irrelevant really.

One can only hope that folly like that is not repeated, but of course other kings did the same thing.

True. And never once did God condemn it. Richard Abanes recently made the argument that:

Hebrew kings specifically were warned against multiplying wives because it would turn their hearts away from God (Deut. 17:17).

However, this, along with the context, only proves my point:

"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

The sin was pride. Or in other words, "multiplying" his wives, which is not the same thing as polygamy. It involves polygamy, but it doesn't define it. Having two wives (polygamy) was no more a crime than having two horses. And God seemed more concerned with the multiplicity of horses than he was with his wives. Abanes also argued that Jacob's wives were a nuisance, but then again so were his sons. Did this have any bearing on the commandment to multiply?

Even more exasperating is the fact that God actually gave him his wives, took them away, and then gave them to his neighbor:

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom...Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." (2 Sam 12:8,11)

Ouch. It seems to me that one has a hard case to argue if they intend to show that God condemned, or merely "tolerated" polygamy. Could you imagine God taking away a man's pornography and then giving it to his neighbor?

Dee Dee brought up a good point with Matthew 19:9. She asks,

== If a man were allowed more than one wife, Jesus' statement would make no sense. Why would he be committing adultery if he married again? Wasn't he permitted to marry as many times as he wanted to?

How exactly this phrase should be rendered is debatable at best, mainly because the key phrase that makes her argument is missing in some manuscripts. Hence, the American Standard Version of Matthew 19:9 (also NJKV):

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery."

These other manuscripts reflect the qualification found in Matthew 5:32:

"But I tell you, Whoever dismisses and repudiates and divorces his wife, except on the grounds of unfaithfulness (sexual immorality), causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a woman who has been divorced commits adultery."

Since it is well accepted by scholarship that first century polygamy was common, which would make more sense: That this phrase was added or deleted? Obviously it was done for some purpose, and the only issue it appears to effect is monogamy vs. polygamy. The fact that Matthew 5:32 reinforces the former, should mean something. Jewish polygamy stood strong until Rabbi Gershom denounced it (about l000). Thousands of years of Jewish polygamy withstood the test of time without one single rebuke by either God in the OT or Christ in the NT. One could also make an argument that the parable of the ten virgins doesn't help the anti-polygamist case either.

Furthermore, I agree that Paul did say "one wife" as opposed to "first wife," but if Paul thought polygamy was a sin then why did he narrow this suggestion (one wife) to Deacons and Bishops only? It seems as though Paul did this because these overseers (men of authority) were not going to be able to handle the demands required from plural marriage. They were commanded to take long trips throughout the world and preach the gospel. This is why Paul had at times discouraged marriage altogether. The simple fact that Paul had to make such a suggestion in the first place, to the Christians (worthy of leadership) around 60 ad no less, offers strong evidence that he did so because it was common practice. It would make more sense that he condemn polygamy in general as opposed to qualifying it.

More food for thought is found in 1 Corinthians 5:1, "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife."

Don't have sex with your Father's wife? Wouldn't that be his Mother? I remember reading an interesting commentary on this verse which argued quite convincingly that "father's wife" commonly referred to one of his father's plural wives who wasn't his biological mother.

Anyway, there is my debut. Hope it doesn't stir a hornets nest.


Kevin :smile:

[Swordman]

Perhaps the best way to answer your question is with a question since deffinitive answers do not seem to satsify you. Persistence in asking the same question in different ways regardless of the answers leaves both sides in a quagmire of insoluble difference.

If the reality of divorce and remarriage outside Biblical allowances being adultery were cast into oblivion simply by a man taking a subsequent wife (wives), then why would God Himself give mutiple wives to David? Your question implies that even God Himself was in error for allegedly violating His own moral absolutes.

In Christ Jesus

Don

[dizzle]

Swordman, definitive answers do satisfy me, but you have yet to give one on that passage. You cannot deflect me by bringing in other passages until you have dealt with the one at hand. The fact is that it is irreconciable within your system. And it is definitely problematic when one brings in the OT to trump the NT. You must deal with the NT passages and principles I brought up. You have not. Kevin acknowledged that you had not. I do not accept Kevin's explanation but he acknowledged my point and the quandry it puts your position in. I will deal in more depth with Kevin's response as I get time to look into his answer more fully.

[Swordman]

Greetings, Kevin.

I liked your posting. One thing I would like to address is your statement about "one wife" versus "first wife". The Greek word "mia", which is translated "one" in the three verses is Titus and 1 Timothy within most translations, actually SHOULD be translated as "first wife" when you consider that all the other verses where this same grammatical construct appears, it is ALWAYS translated as "first". "The FIRST day of the week," etc., would make no sense if the translators had applied the same bias to this verse as they had in Titus and 1 Timothy. I can expound upon this in more detail if anyone would like to see this in more detail.

Now, if Paul had deffinitely intended for those verses to be rendered "one" rather than "first", then he could have used the Greek word "heis" (which absolutely means "one") rather than "mia". Writing down "heis" would have left no question whatsoever. He uses the same Greek word "mia" where widows are concerned.

To go one step further, why would Paul address the issue of polygamy in the leadership to those living in the Greco-Roman provinces where polygamy was not at all practiced? Monogamy was the rule among the Roman pagans, so addressing something to them that was not sin, and not practiced is even more ludecrous.

Thanks for your great posting.

Don

[Swordman]

> Do you keep a Kosher home?

Do you believe God's word? Do you think that Jesus was lying when He said that the Law will not pass away until ALL has been fulfilled? We are not talking about the ceremonial or the social aspects of the Law. We are talking about the MORAL LAW that will not pass away until ALL heas been fulfilled. Paul himself declared (after the cross) that if it were not for the Law we would not know what sin is. Does any of this have any meaning to you? Can you so easily cast aside that which the Lord and His apostles always referred to as being the "scriptures"? What brand of christianity so easily takes stabs at that which the Lord and His apostles pointed to as "it is written"?

I am sorry, but I cannot help but to be amazed at those who appear to cast shadows upon any part of the book that has proven its authority, stability, authenticity, fidelity, and its supremecy regardless of all the liberal nonsense we see all around us in today's "churches". The terms "church" and "christian" today are so relative that one can only wonder when faced with much of today's theology. Please explain where you are coming from with your statement above. Do you think that God's moral Law has passed away?

Don

[dizzle]

Dear Don:

With all due respect you have a lot of explaining to do with the issues I raised. And Jesus did not qualify his words or separate the law into moral and ceremonial. There is a bigger issue there that also defeats your points.

[Swordman]

> Swordman, definitive answers do satisfy me, but you have yet to give one on that passage. You cannot deflect me by bringing in other passages until you have dealt with the one at hand.

Any student of the Bible knows that one must take what ALL scriupture has to say about a particular subject rather than just one limited verse.

> The fact is that it is irreconciable within your system. And it is definitely problematic when one brings in the OT to trump the NT.

I did not trump the New with the Old. They go hand in hand. There is yet another principal among Bible students that is insurmountable. "There is no right answer to the wrong question." Your question, to begin with, is a sophism. What was sin in the OT times is sin today. God's moral absolutes have not at all changed. Jesus did not change God's moral absolutes. If you think His coming changed the timeless moral absolutes of God's word, then you would have to show me such a verse.

I am amazed that anyone can so easily disallow evidence that clearly refutes their assumptions. I would venture to say that if we were in a court of theology with a panel of unbiased judges, not even they would say that only the second half of the book can be used when addressing an issue that is covered from the first chapter to the last.

Don

[Swordman]

> With all due respect you have a lot of explaining to do with the issues I raised. And Jesus did not qualify his words or separate the law into moral and ceremonial. There is a bigger issue there that also defeats your points.

Then you would have to demonstrate them for any of us to understand your point.

Thanks

Don

[dizzle]

Yet you still have not dealt with the passage within your own paradigm. Your refusal to cogently do so is speaking volumes to its devastating effect upon your position. You posited a system. I provided a refutation. You keep pointing to other passages, but never dealing with my points on the one at hand. Kevin, with whom I have profound disagreement, understood my point and it relevance, and tried to deal with it. You have sidestepped the main thrust which is the fatal blow to your proposition. That will not do. You must coherently assimiliate the passage I brought up into your system.

[Swordman]

> With all due respect you have a lot of explaining to do with the issues I raised. And Jesus did not qualify his words or separate the law into moral and ceremonial. There is a bigger issue there that also defeats your points.

On second thought, maybe I should take a stab at this. I do not have my Bible or my software on this system at work, but if my memory serves me right, Jesus never made reference to the ceremonial Laws nor to the social Laws when dealing with the issue of divorce or worship. He always dealt strictly with the moral. In other words, He never talked about how the sacrifices were not being made properly at the temple, or that the culture around Him was violating the social Laws. He seemed to always deal only with the moral Law, such as adultery, worship, and sin in general. I also pointed out where Paul in Romans (I think) mentioned our not being able to know what sin is apart from the Law. Now, we HAVE to exercise some measure of intelligence to discern that he obviously was not referring to the ceremonial Law that dealt with such things as the animal sacrifices, the heave offerings, tithes, etc.

That is a general coverage of my point, but I will have to await your response in order to understand where you are coming from in disallowing certain evidence simply because it comes from a portion of the Bible that you appear to not like.

Don

[dizzle]

Dear Don:

I am not moving forward until you deal with the NT passage I brought forward. And soon with my points on the Timothy and Titus passages now that you have brought forth your arguments on those. You must deal with Jesus' words. You have not. You have tried to deflect them, and I am not letting that go.

He seemed to always deal only with the moral Law, such as adultery, worship, and sin in general.

That does not help you for Jesus said that a man who marries another woman while still married commits adultery. You must deal with that. That is the point here. I am tenacious about following the point. This point until disposed of will not be dropped.

[Socrates]

Swordman:I liked your posting. One thing I would like to address is your statement about "one wife" versus "first wife". The Greek word "mia", which is translated "one" in the three verses is Titus and 1 Timothy within most translations, actually SHOULD be translated as "first wife" when you consider that all the other verses where this same grammatical construct appears, it is ALWAYS translated as "first". "The FIRST day of the week," etc., would make no sense if the translators had applied the same bias to this verse as they had in Titus and 1 Timothy. I can expound upon this in more detail if anyone would like to see this in more detail.Sorry, but you seem to have been bluffed by some Liebearer's polygamy website, and this person just hasn't a clue about Greek. The usual word for "first" is protos :doh: In the case of "first day of the week", this meaning of eis is a Hebraism because they used the cardinal number and the Greek just carried it through. This starts even in Genesis 1, where it's literally "Day One" then ordinals (second, third, etc.) for the other days. So in the Greek it is also literally "day one of the week" but that is their idiom for what we would call "the first day of the week". This specific Hebraism cannot be a justification for a blanket claim that eis means first in other contexts.

Now, if Paul had deffinitely intended for those verses to be rendered "one" rather than "first", then he could have used the Greek word "heis" (which absolutely means "one") rather than "mia". Writing down "heis" would have left no question whatsoever. He uses the same Greek word "mia" where widows are concerned.And here, Liebearer is even crasser, because he doesn't realise that heis is the MASCULINE and mia is the irregular FEMININE of the SAME WORD meaning "one" :dufus:

Really, you'll need to find some reliable sources.

[Kevin W. Graham]

The theme in these verses is clearly adultery, not polygamy. To argue against adultery and then just "out of the blue," throw in an anti-polygamy clause that, for one reason or another, should be understood independently, seems unnatural to say the least. The question that needs to be answered is this. Is it adultery simply because he "shall marry another," or is it adultery because he married another while divorcing his first wife unlawfully ? Personally, I'm reluctant to divorce three word phrases from their contexts, especially in light of the fact that its implications have no parallel anywhere in scripture.

"And I say unto you, (a) Whosoever shall put away his wife, (b) except it be for fornication, (c) and shall marry another, (d) committeth adultery: and (e) whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

I would look at it this way. Consistency demands that if phrases (a) and (b) have no qualifying meaning for phrase (d), then neither does pharse (b) qualify (a). I think we can all agree that (b) qualifies (a), so why wouldn't we apply this rule evenly throughout?

I'm hard pressed to come up with any scholarly material on this verse which discusses the implication of monogamy or polygamy. Scholars don't seem to have considered this, probably for the reasons above. This issue of monogamy vs. polygamy seems to be completely alien to the context.

Dee Dee reasserts her interpretation: "Jesus said that a man who marries another woman while still married commits adultery."

That is certainly one way to look at it I suppose. But this synopsis excludes what may be a an essential qualifying element. Technically, Jesus said it is adultery to remarry while putting away a wife for unlawful reasons. Now the question is this. Was his point that a man has no business marrying multiple wives, or that he has no business remarrying if can't obey the law of marriage the first time around? I would go with the latter given the examination above. The former seems way too anachronistic.

Further, being a Latter-day Saint, I must say I've come up against many arguments forwarded that intend to show polygamy to be anti-biblical. However one verse has never really been reconciled among them. Is anyone able to reconcile the fact that God gave Solomon his wives?

[jpholding]

Hey folks,

I'll just butt in for a mo to welcome by bud Kevin. He is of the LDS persuasion and lives in my neck of the woods. We share a liking for small dogs and he has helped me defend against the Skeptics now and then. Treat him with kid gloves and if he gets obnoxious let me know because I know how to calm him down. :brow: His bark is worse than his bite, trust me.

Welcome aboard, bud!

[Bill the Cat]

Well, Kevin, I'd like to point you to Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's explanation:

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

[dizzle]

Just a quick comment then too, if we are going to use that statement to say that God condoned/sanctioned polygamy, then we must also say that he also thought mass adultery was a great thing too since they were after all, another man's wives.

[Bill the Cat]

Oh, and by the way, the verse sayd David received from Saul, not Solomon
:yipee:

[dizzle]

And sincerely welcome Kevin.. I do hope you got my welcome email. I will try to respond to your further comments and original ones this weekend if I can.

[Bill the Cat]

And a bit further down, The Lord says:
2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

She was widdowed then, and perfectly able to be married again, but David murdered her husband, and from the statement here, she is still called Uriah's wife

[Kevin W. Graham]

Hello Bill, thanks for sharing that commentary with me. Of course I disagree with it, but I would hope for reasonable reasons. The problem I have immediately is that nowhere does the verse say anything about "providence." While this may involve providence, I find no reason to believe God would ever condemn something he gave mankind - even under the umbrella of providence. Furthermore, his providence would also include other possessions such as his multiplicity of horses and concubines, but it is said that God only gave him his wives. It doesn't say God gave him horses or concubines.

Dee Dee: Just a quick comment then too, if we are going to use that statement to say that God condoned/sanctioned polygamy, then we must also say that he also thought mass adultery was a great thing too since they were after all, another man's wives.

But wouldn't they be his wives no longer if God took them from him? This response, on the surface, only makes the issue more complex. It doesn't really reconcile the fact that God gave him his wives. Let us set aside the thought that God may have condoned or sanctioned it. This is really beside teh point I'm trying to make. Let us instead deal with the suggestion that God condemned it, and then let us reconcile these verses with that proposal. But of a quagmire eh?

== And sincerely welcome Kevin.. I do hope you got my welcome email. I will try to respond to your further comments and original ones this weekend if I can.

Thanks Dee Dee. Tomorrow is our first wedding anniversay, so my wife and I will be heading to Miami for vacation. It'll probably be a week before I post again anyway.

== Treat him with kid gloves and if he gets obnoxious let me know because I know how to calm him down.

Awe, come on Dad. :smile:

== His bark is worse than his bite, trust me.

Only because I just had a root canal. :argh:

[dizzle]

Dear Kevin:

Actually no not a quagmire at all, especially when we take the NT witness. I keep noticing that the proponents of this position balk away from the NT witness which is a telling clue. The NT is the authorative intepreter of the OT. You cannot use OT narrative passages to over-ride clear didactic NT doctrinal passages. We cannot glean principles from a narrative to over-ride clear doctrine, and that is exactly what you are doing. Jesus refocuses the issues quite clearly, and yes I will be going back there for it is the deadly wound.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== Actually no not a quagmire at all, especially when we take the NT witness.

Even with the NT witness, we find no support for a condemnation of polygamy. You're arguing from assumption which is supported by one ambiguous NT verse.

== I keep noticing that the proponents of this position balk away from the NT witness which is a telling clue.

Not me. In fact, I think I've listed more NT verses in support of polygamy than I have OT verses. Citing every case of polygamy in the OT is redundant, and proves nothing really. We all know the OT prophets were polygamous. There is no need to stack the deck with every example, so I refrained from doing so. But so far none of the NT verses I provided have been dealt with.

== The NT is the authorative intepreter of the OT.

While I might agree with you here in some cases, from a logical standpoint we merely beg the question. I'm a firm opponent to any thought that there is one universal NT doctrine that is without ambiguity. Unless we can come up with a universal interpretation of the NT, it can hardly be used as an "end all - be all" rosetta stone for the OT. I maintain also that some instances require the OT to interpret the NT - such as John 10:34.

== You cannot use OT narrative passages to over-ride clear didactic NT doctrinal passages.

I don't intend to, but you have failed to demonstrate "clarity" in anything regarding polgamy, and even the didactic passages are bound by context. I've already demonstrated that this verse has problems in both interpretation and in the textual evidence.

== We cannot glean principles from a narrative to over-ride clear doctrine, and that is exactly what you are doing.

That is exactly what I'm not doing. You're speaking as though the NT rejects polygamy, case closed! Therefore whatever the OT says, it must mean something else because it conflicts with a presupposed interpretation of the NT. So far I've seen only one verse and it requires a rejection of context to even come close to an anti-polygamous conclusion. Aside from this, doctrinally speaking the NT doesn't change anything about the OT aside from the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, which had nothing to do with polygamy.

Even if you somehow reconcile this obstacle in Matt 19:9, you're still going to face a brick wall of History and scholarship that have already concluded polygamy to be readily accepted in first century Judaism. I could dig up some Evangelical comments if you like. Believe it or not, my presentation was inspired by a Catholic apologist named Mark Shea, who offers what is perhaps the best defense of biblical polygamy I've read in some time.

[dizzle]

Dear Kevin:

Again I will respond further (hopefully) this weekend if not, I will eventually.. I do have some other debates I have promises in as well. But I can assure you that I am not the one with the tremendous problem with Matthew 19, it is you, and I will demonstrate it, and it is not limited to that one verse, it is the entire context of that chapter so your statement of me being anti-contextual is... well let's just say, ironic.

[Kevin W. Graham]

:smile:

[Swordman]

That does not help you for Jesus said that a man who marries another woman while still married commits adultery.

No. Wrong. Jesus said that the man who DIVORCES his wife, except for the cause of fornication, and THEN marries another is THEN guilty of adultery. You are trying to cast out the DIVORCE aspect of Jesus' words in order to add validity to your question. This is where your question is rendered meaningless. You claimed, if I recall correctly, that divorce is a "subcategory" of marriage. Such idealism has no Biblical basis whatsoever. Divorce is the ANTITHESIS to marriage, not a subcategory of it. Divorce is OPPOSED to marriage, not a part of it. Divorce is the catalyst of which Jesus made SPECIFIC mention. The central theme of that passage is DIVORCE. Jesus did not at all refute the commandment that the dead man's brother was to marry the widow in order to provide an heir if there was none. There was no distinction made as to the living brother having to be single. Now, if I remember correctly, that was the opening subject to the entire dissertation.

You must deal with that. That is the point here. I am tenacious about following the point. This point until disposed of will not be dropped.

Then please make a valid point that is consistent with what is written. You have thus far tried to cast aside the fact that Jesus was specifically addressing divorce, not plural wives when the man is still faithfully married to the first. If you can prove from the text that Jesus was not in fact foremost dealing with the issue of divorce, then I welcome your meticulous treatment of the actual text rather than blanket statements and questions that fail to deal with the actual text itself.

Remember, the tone of my input is strictly conversational. I love others too much to allow peripheral differences to divide. :brow:

Your brother in Christ Jesus

Don

[Bill the Cat]

from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html

"But even if polygamy was permitted by tannaitic halakhah, other halakhic systems counseled otherwise. During the Second Temple period, monogamy was preferred even on the conceptual plane by, above all, the Dead Sea Sect whose halakhah explicitly prohibited polygamy. In the reworked version of the statutes of the king in the Temple Scroll, it is stated: "he shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life" (LVII 17-8). In the Damascus Covenant, criticism is leveled against the 'builders of the wall' (Pharisees?) in the following terms: 'they shall be caught in fornication twice; once by taking a second wife while the first is still alive...' [HI:JWGRP:85]

[Bill the Cat]

You still haven't handled the one bride issue of Christ. The one bride is the Church as a corporate whole. One Bride, One Bride Groom. Jesus came to restore us to our 'Garden of Eden" relationship with God and each other. Notice only 1 wife for Adam!!!

[Swordman]

Well, Kevin, I'd like to point you to Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's explanation: 2Sa 12:8 - I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives--The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Any time we rely strictly upon commentaries, we subject ourselves to possible error. Not all commentators are Hebrew and/or Greek scholars, nor are they always historians. Where it is true that the Bible does not specifically mention that David "laid" with those women who were once Saul's wives, the evid Bible student knows that lack of mention does not always constitute absolute knowledge. The terminology "in they bosom" is absolutely intimate within the Hebrew texts wherever you may find it. Therefore, the idea that those women were merely the property of David, if I understand your application of this commentary, is second guessing at best. No commentary is immune to social bias, therefore infallible.

[Bill the Cat]

An interesting point to ponder...

Whereas polygamists, in order to justify their polygamy, are forced to look backwards to Torah, Christians are supposed to be moving into a monogamy mindframe with the ultimate goal of moving out of literal marriage altogether. Jesus Himself confirms this:
"You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Mt.22:29-31, NKJV)

So as Christians, we move away from polygamy of the law to monogomy of the NT to unmarriedness of eternity. It's a natural progression. I may be jumping to conclusions here, but it seems to fit really well with the texts.

[dizzle]

Yes you are right Bill, those points have not been dealt with, which I will of course keep bringing up. And I appreciate you digging up that Jewish information... It seems there is some of having one's cake and eating it too. On one hand it is alleged the polygamy was the standard accepted fare of the first century Jewish world, and then on the other it is alleged that Paul could not have been addressing polygamy in his letters to Titus and Timothy. It cannot be had both ways. And it will not do to say Paul's audience were Gentile... Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism during those days and there were great numbers of Jewish converts mixed in the Gentiles in Paul's audience.

[Bill the Cat]

so can I get my spam points taken away??:teeth:

[dizzle]

God because of the hardness of their hearts permitted divorce. It does not make it an ideal. Also there is the paradigm of Christ loving His Bride the Church as His own self, and placing her above all others. Now a man with plural wives, cannot do that. His loyalties will always be divided. And anecdotal stories will not be convincing.

[Bill the Cat]

This may be an interesting article to look at:
http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/son_of_houdini/

Made me alter my perception a bit. I may be wrong for altering my stance, but it seems an extremely plausible argument.

[dizzle]

There were some good points made Bill, but the problem is that whole article is a strawman. It is written by a person in favor of polygamy in such a way that it set himself up for his own rebuttal. He wrote the rebuttal you see....

[dizzle]

Here is the full cite from that ThinkTank article. Glenn drives home the same point I did about Jesus' words. They are inescapable.

The question of polygamy in the NT is rather straightforward...


We have NT data from Jesus and from Paul, and we have information on the attitude of the early church to it from the Fathers.



But first the historical setting:


1. Polygamy was NOT practiced in Greek and Roman societies of the time:


"Even though we may find numerous traces of polygamy and polyandry in the Gk. myths, monogamy predominated in the Gk. world in the historical period. Morality within marriage was strict. The Homeric hero had one wife, who was faithful and inviolable, a good manager of the home and mother. Gk. marriage was monogamous. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]


"Polygamy was not practiced in the Roman world outside Palestine, though illegal bigamy and certainly adultery were. [EBC: in.loc. 1 Tim 3]




2. Polygamy was practiced somewhat in 1st century Palestinian Judaism (by the government/aristocratic leaders):


"In the Second Temple period, Jewish society was, at least theoretically, polygamous, like other oriental societies of the time but in contrast to the neighboring Greek and Roman societies...."[HI:JWGRP:85]

"There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]




3. Among the Jews, it was not accepted by the prestigious school of Hillel (above), nor by the strict Dead Sea Sect (Qumran), and was not widely practiced, esp. among the rabbi's:


"But even if polygamy was permitted by tannaitic halakhah, other halakhic systems counseled otherwise. During the Second Temple period, monogamy was preferred even on the conceptual plane by, above all, the Dead Sea Sect whose halakhah explicitly prohibited polygamy. In the reworked version of the statutes of the king in the Temple Scroll, it is stated: "he shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life" (LVII 17-8). In the Damascus Covenant, criticism is leveled against the 'builders of the wall' (Pharisees?) in the following terms: 'they shall be caught in fornication twice; once by taking a second wife while the first is still alive...' [HI:JWGRP:85]

"it was known in Jewish society as represented in rabbinic literature, polygamy was not widespread in practice, especially not among the sages themselves." [HI:JWGRP:86]



So, polygamy was present only in a particular subset of Palestinian Judaism (not in Roman society, Greek society, Diaspora Jewish communities, the Hillel-school, or Dead Sea Sect), and generally confined to the aristocracy.



Now the New Testament Data:

1. The clearest verse comes from Jesus in His teaching on divorce:


Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9, pp. Mark 10.1-12)


The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.



"The saying is hyperbolic-that is, it has exaggerated, intensified force: because God does not accept divorce as valid, any man who divorces his wife is not really divorced, and if he marries someone else, he commits adultery. No one else in antiquity spoke of divorce in such strong terms. (Because most Jewish teachers allowed polygamy, they would not have seen marrying a second wife as adultery, even if they had agreed that the man was still married to the first wife. But Jesus eliminates the double standard; a man consorting with two women is as adulterous as a woman consorting with two men.) [BBC, in.loc. Mark 10:11.

"The school of Shammai ... did not permit divorce except for the wife's unfaithfulness (whether successful or attempted), but they did not consider remarriage afterward adulterous. Jesus is more consistent: if one divorces one's spouse without valid grounds , the marriage is not truly dissolved and subsequent marriage is adulterous." [BBC, in. loc. Mtt 19.9]





2. Paul, in Romans 7, actually uses the same principle, but applies it to the wife:


So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. (Rom 7)

Notice that a polyandrous relationship would also be adultery.





3. There is another, more general argument expressed in the New Testament, concerning the example of godly leaders.


It is clear (as the questioner notes) that those in Church government/leadership are to be monogamous (the 'husband of one wife' clause shows up in both statements of elder/deacon qualifications: 1 Tim 3.2 and Titus 1.6).

But these leaders are told to be examples to the flock, and the believers are told to follow the example of the apostles, disciples, and leaders. [Phil 3.17; 4.9; 1 Thess 1.6,7; 2 Thess 3.7,9; 1 Tim 4.12; Tit 2.7; 1 Pet 5.3; 1 Cor 4.6; 1 Cor 11.1]

Therefore, in the absence of other NT instruction, ALL believers are to emulate the purity and scripturally-mandated characteristics of our elders--including the monogamous one (2nd in each list!).

In fact, one measure of the 'godliness' of a widow, worthy of welfare support from scarce church funds, was that she be a "wife of one husband" (the exact same phrase turned around)--I Timothy 5.9. The reference to polyandry shows that monogamy was important for general believers as well.



The NT data is rather clear--for both forms of polygamy: polygyny and polyandry--that monogamy is important to God's will, and that entering into polygamy is committing adultery.

[This, the commentators quickly point out, does not mean that existing polygamous marriages in foreign cultures are supposed to be dissolved through multiple-divorce! That is not the same thing, according to most, as entering into one as a Christian.]




We might also point out that the post-NT church was likewise anti-polygamy:


1. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:


"Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob." [ANF, vol. 1, p. 266]



2. Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:


"Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..." [ANF, vol. 1, p.353]



3. Tertullian (c.207) was also explicit:


"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife)




4. Methodius (cf.290) was clear on the issue, arguing that it had stopped at the time of the Prophets:


"The contracting of marriage with several wives had been done away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, 'Do not go after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites'...And in another place, 'Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.' This plainly forbids a plurality of wives." [ANF, vol. 6, p.312]




5 The Pseudo-Clementine Literature boasts about how St. Thomas taught the Parthians [i.e., an Iranian culture] to abandon polygamy:


"But I shall give a still stronger proof of the matters in hand. For, behold, scarcely seven years have yet passed since the advent of the righteous and true Prophet; and in the course of these, inert of all nations coming to Judaea, and moved both by the signs and miracles Which they saw, and by the grandeur of His doctrine, received His faith; and then going back to their own countries, they rejected the lawless rites of the Gentiles, and their incestuous marriages. In short, among the Parthians-as Thomas, who is preaching the Gospel amongst them, has written to us-not many now are addicted to polygamy; nor among the Medes do many throw their dead to dogs; nor are the Persians pleased with intercourse with their mothers, or incestuous marriages with their daughters; nor do the Susian women practise the adulteries that were allowed them; nor has Genesis been able to force those into crimes whom the teaching of religion restrained. (ANF 8: "Book IX: Chapter XXIX.-The Gospel More Powerful Than 'Genesis.'"]



6. The Council of Neocaesarea a.d. 315 (circa) refers to a 'purification period' for polygamists. By that time, sinners had to 'sit out' of Church activities until they had demonstrated reformation. If a sin showed up on this list of canons, it was considered a 'bad sin'--and polygamy shows up here:


"Ancient Epitome of Canon III. The time (for doing penance and purification) of polygamists is well known. A zeal for penance may shorten it." [ANF]



7. Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea, mentioned it a number of times in his letters, generally concerning the period for exclusion from church for polygamists, calling it 'limited fornication'(!):


"IV. In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance. [ANF: (Canonica Prima.)To Amphilochius, concerning the Canons. Letter CLXXXVIII written c.347.]



The data for the NT seems rather clear. Although it was already a minority practice (outlawed in many countries), the stance of Jesus, Paul, and the early church is emphatically condemnatory towards it. Monogamy is upheld as God's design, His will, and His expectation for His people.


......................................................................................................................

Pushback: Glenn, I just read your reply to a reader regarding polygamyin the New Testament. I must differ with you. The Bible is most certainly clear that polygamy is not only authorized, but in many cases it was demanded by God. How do you explain your position of saying it is adultery?


Good question, friend.


What must be understood is that God's allowance of something and even His requirement of it in exceptional circumstances is NOT incompatible with it being "wrong" in the vast majority of cases.


Obviously, polygamy was 'authorized' (the Mosaic law specifically refers to it) and 'demanded' (especially in the case of levirite marriage), but this doesn't mean that it is something God wants us to do, except in extreme situations (e.g., the provision of a supportless-widow of kin, in a specific society tied to a genealogically-based land inheritance economy).


A good way to illustrate this is from a very similar marital topic--divorce.


Divorce was "authorized" in the Mosaic Law (Deut 24), and "demanded" in the case of the returned exiles (Ezra 10). But it is crystal clear that divorce is:


Hated by God (Mal 2.16)
Prohibited by Jesus, except in extreme situations (Matt 19).
Permitted by God because of human failings (i.e., hardness of heart--Mt 19.8).
What this means for OUR discussion is that one must look at the more "principle-like" statements about a topic, for guidance as to what the will and heart of God is about a subject, rather than the exceptions in history (e.g., permissions, extreme circumstances). The statements of principle about polygamy (discussed above)--like the statements of principle about divorce-- indicate the behavioral norm that we are to follow. The exceptions in history to those overarching statements of principle and life are just that--exceptions, called forth by either extreme situations or called forth by our own moral weakness (e.g. hardness of heart).


Hope this helps your study,

Glenn Miller
July 23, 1999

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with the term strawman. I see it used here by the better arguers and have tried to distill it's meaning. I have a good idea but would like a precise definition for my own mental file cabinet. My wife says my head is so full of useless junk, so I figure, why not add more stuff up there!! :thumb:

As far as the article goes, it does make some good points. I am still very opposed to polygamy for the reasons I listed above. I just don't think it was as discouraged in Jesus' time as I had thought. I assumed it was totally done away with after the Exile.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== You still haven't handled the one bride issue of Christ. The one bride is the Church as a corporate whole. One Bride, One Bride Groom.

Not sure how this is an issue at all. Aside from similar terminology, there is nothing identical in concept. It is an analogy, nothing more. Just as the parable of the bridegroom and the ten virgins.

== Jesus came to restore us to our 'Garden of Eden" relationship with God and each other. Notice only 1 wife for Adam!!!

But Christ is (metaphorically) married to a Church that consists of thousands if not millions of individuals. But this is an apples and lemons comparison. The argument is based on a particular interpretation of an analogy. And while it is true that the Jewish Essenes discouraged polygamy (they also did many things contrary to Christian practice), it is also true that Josephus testifies of first century Jews who were indeed polygamous. It wasn't a big deal at all because it was tradition.

These are a few facts that need to be reconciled.

1) Fact: The Old Testament testifies of dozens of prophets who practiced polygamy. - reconcilable only through the assumption that God merely "tolerated it." This is begging the question.
2) Fact: Never once does God condemn them for this practice - irreconcilable.
3) Fact: God gave David his wives - irreconcilable.
4) Fact: Jews practiced polygamy up until 1000 AD.
5) Probable: NT scriptures (1 Tim 3:2,12; Titus 1:6;1 Corinthians 5:1) imply plural marriage was at least accepted within the NT Church. - reconcilable only through anti-polygamy interpretation which begs the question.
6) Fact: Paul admits that when he gives counsel on marriage, it is not by commandment (1 Cor 7:6).
7) Probable: The first sign that polygamy was explicitly rejected in the NT Church was within the church fathers themselves. - reconcilable only in the sense that church fathers tend to label anyone who disagreesw ith them as "heretic." This is usually enough for traditional christians, but it again begs the question.

I cannot see how an anti-polygamy argument from the Bible is based on anything short of a logical fallacy. It relies strictly on private interpretation of one or maybe two ambiguous passages, all the while downplaying the unambiguous texts which undermine it.

[dizzle]

Ah ah -

5) Probable: NT scriptures (1 Tim 3:2,12; Titus 1:6;1 Corinthians 5:1) imply plural marriage was at least accepted within the NT Church. - reconcilable only through anti-polygamy interpretation which begs the question.

No, no, no. Not so fast. The Timothy passages and Titus if anything speak out explicitly against such a practice, and it is your interpretration of them that is completely forced. Second, the 1 Cor 5:1 passage says nothing of the kind about acceptance. At the VERY best for you, it merely testifies to the existence of the practice amongst certain PARENTS, not accepted in the Church. Let's be frank with the texts here. For you to say that the Timothy and Titus passages shows an acceptance of polygamy, is simply not being honest with those texts, and to then say it is a monogamy only interpretation that is forced only compounds that error.

And Matthew 19, out of the mouth of Christ Himself, is still the strongest testimony. And Miller elucidated it perfectly.

[Bill the Cat]

we see from Glen Miller's article that polygamy "among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus" Notice it was not common practice at Jocephus' time, especially for the laymen, but for the aristocrats. Jesus really didn't have a lot to say to them anyway, nor did Paul. They dealt on a majority with the laypeople who didn't practice it. The main dealing Jesus had was the Sadducees' comment about the 7 brothers.

The ten virgins were the bridesmaids anyway, not the bride, so that flies out the window...

[Swordman]

Sorry, but you seem to have been bluffed by some Liebearer's polygamy website, and this person just hasn't a clue about Greek.

Oh, this looks like it is going to be fun..... :rofl:

The usual word for first is protos.

Hmm. Someone better go and tell all those translators that they got it all wrong. Let's see, there are actually several Greek words translated "first" in the NT. The first occurance is "proton", which is neuter in Matt. 5:24 and many other places throughout the NT, then there is "protos", which is actually a contracted superlative of "pro". Then there is "mia", which is irregular feminine, and does not show up until MAtt. 28:1. Then there is "anothen", which is derived from "ano", but is used little at all. Then there is "deuteroprotos", which has specific reference in regard to the Sabbath. Then there is the neuter forn of "protos" as an adverb in Acts 11:26. Then there is "arche" in Acts 26:4, and we have the neuter of "proteron" in Galatians 4:13, etc., etc. We could go on and on. Now, "mia" appears 8 different places translated as "first" throughout the NT.

In the case of "first day of the week", this meaning of "eis" is a Hebraism because they used the cardinal number and the Greek just carried it through. This starts even in Genesis 1, where it's literally "Day One" then ordinals (second, third, etc.) for the other days. So in the Greek it is also literally "day one of the week" but that is their idiom for what we would call "the first day of the week". This specific Hebraism cannot be a justification for a blanket claim that "eis" means first in other contexts.

Now, we see in the case of Titus 3:10 that "mia" refers to the first in a succession of admonitions, but in Titus and 1 Timothy you and the rest of our culture, commentators and most translators, think that you all can apply inconsistent rules in those three verses simply because of the implications of remaining consistent. Paul could just as well have been referring to the possibility of the leaders in the Gentile churches having a succession of wives, just as the useage in relation to days and admonitions, therefore remaining consistent with the use of "mia" in relation to a plurality of wives.

People seem to forget that when Paul planted a new church in Greco-Roman provinces, it does not seem plausible that he left them leaderless since a newly converted heathens would certainly not be qualified to be elders or bishops. Hmm, maybe there were a number of Jews from the church in Jerusalem who stayed with those newly planted churches in order to provide needed direction. Maybe some of them had more than one wife, and Paul wanted to make sure that they stayed married to their first wife rather than to put her away in order to take on others. Who knows for sure. I am simply stating possibilities here, not establishing some new hostorical "facts".

Where it is true that polygamy was not widely practiced in Greco-Roman cultures like it was among the Hebrews, it certainly cannot be ruled out. (Please do not stretch this statement to the extreme.) My good friend Dr. Richardson at the University of Chicago is very well versed in that era of history, and he has confirmed that the Greco-Roman cultures were the first to practice monogamy predominantly. However, it did still exist. Along with their mostly monogamous culture was the constant divorce and remarriage. Each man was just another notch in the belt of many of the affluent women of Rome. After all, it comes as no surprise that ungodly cultures like Rome would do that which is unseemly where marriage is concerned, but many in our churches are following after Rome with all the marriage, divorce, and remarriage for unBiblical reasons. Serial polygamy is rampant in our churches, although such is STILL adultery. Yes, we are certainly superior to Rome with our being monogamy-only, are we not? Yes, sir. It is very easy for us to sit back with a feeling of smugness, all the while thinking that we have acquired a superior mindset about marriage in our culture, and yet still be just as ungodly in our churches as the average, unbelieving Roman citizens. What a witness!

It is astounding to me that anyone can think that marriage to a plurality of wives, practiced by many of the Patriarchs, is somehow no longer allowed, even though there is not one injunction against it for the non-leading believer. Yes, for the moment I will grant you that the best translation for "mia" is "one" in Titus and 1 Tomothy. So what. That is making direct reference to a specific function within the church. All those centuries of the OT, and God said not one thing to any of the prophets or patriarchs about their having more than one wife. Since sin was not redefined with the coming of Christ, those who see hainvg a plurality of wives as being sin must declare the many patriarchs as having died in non-repentent sin. What a statement indeed. Yes, we are so intelligent that we cannot (will not) observe what ALL scripture has to say about this matter since it is so emotionally charged with our rampant feminism that has gained such a strong hold in our culture. Yes, many have told me that polygamy is the ultimate form of spouse abuse.

It is sad that seemingly intelligent Bible students will declare that we must take in what ALL scripture says about such things as divorce and adultery in order to know the balanced truth about those subjects, and then turn right around and utilize the tactic of focusing only on one or two verses without taking in what ALL scripture has to say about the subject of polygamy, all because they do not like the idea that they may be proven wrong. What is pathetically funny is when people try to point at the few problems within polygamous families they can find in the OT, and that somehow proves that monogamy is allegedly superior to polygamy. They do this at the expense of completely ignoring the wife-beating, verbal abuse, and a plethora of other problems that exist even in their own marriages.

No, not one person has yet demonstrated monogamy to be superior to polygamy. Christ has one bride, and yet that bride is comprised of many individuals who are JOINED to Christ in order to be a unified people, therefore being called a singular bride. We have the literal and we have the allegorical. But more than that, we have the pride that fools most into thinking that they are living out that which is superior to the way Abraham, Moses, David, Jacob, and many others lived out their family lives. Yes, I will have to remember that when I again see the updated statistics concerning the divorce rate within our churches, knowing full well that MOST of those divorces are perpetrated on the grounds of "incompatability". I for one choose NOT to close my eyes to the obvious.

Yes, we are certainly a shining example to the world, are we not? That man who has three wives and a loving family, well, we cannot have that! Nope. Those few examples of problems within polygamous families fully casts polygamy into a negative light. Yes, sir. Never mind the numberless examples of horrific immorality in our monogamous marriages in America and our churches, monogamy is simply superior.....just because it is. Why, in a matter of just six mothns we have thus far had more than four pastors in different churches caught in wife-swapping rings right here in my city, and that number is growing almost every year since. :whip:

There. I had to unload that off my chest. Thanks for your patience.

I hope we can still be friends.

Don

[Socrates]

I pointed out
The usual word for first is protos.

Then Swordman replied:Hmm. Someone better go and tell all those translators that they got it all wrong. Let's see, there are actually several Greek words translated "first" in the NT. The first occurance is "proton", which is neuter in Matt. 5:24 and many other places throughout the NT, then there is "protos", which is actually a contracted superlative of "pro". Then there is "mia", which is irregular feminine, and does not show up until MAtt. 28:1. Then there is "anothen", which is derived from "ano", but is used little at all. Then there is "deuteroprotos", which has specific reference in regard to the Sabbath. Then there is the neuter forn of "protos" as an adverb in Acts 11:26. Then there is "arche" in Acts 26:4, and we have the neuter of "proteron" in Galatians 4:13, etc., etc. We could go on and on. Now, "mia" appears 8 different places translated as "first" throughout the NT.Notice that this is all complete bluff. I said USUAL word, not ONLY word. All Swordman's paragraph is totally irrelevant to the case at hand. Especially as he ignores my point that heis is the MASCULINE and mia is the irregular FEMININE of the SAME WORD meaning "one".

[Cible]

03-25-2003 @ 11:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44879#post44879)
Swordman:


Where it is true that God gave Adam one wife in paradise, it is also true that Adam ran around naked in paradise. I think we can both agree that such a reality certainly is not a model for the rest of us. We cannot legitimately pick and choose from the paradise story what fits our personal fancy. What one man was given is not a measure of what all others should have. God gave Adam one wife, but He gave king David at least two of his plural wives. What we CAN deduce from Adam's having been given one wife is the fact that we are all of one blood since we all came from the same pair of parents, not two. That he was given one wife in paradise is of no great signifigance considering that God gave another man more than one wife AFTER paradise.



ok, i didn't have time to completely read through this post and i found out about this site threw a list on yahoo groups, but you're comparing the perfect to the imperfect. when adam was running around butt-naked, he was also perfect. there was no reason for clothes because lust DID NOT exist. so, when he fell, there was a need to cover himself (or, at least set the example, since no other women beside his wife was around), because it simply brought him one step closer to sinning against his wife if the chance arose.
another point to bring up is that adam did live in paradise when he had only one wife, like you said. and, sadly, people like him got tempted and fell. this means that if adam had more than one wife (which, as far as i know he didn't) he would have been doing so in a non-perfect world, which means that it would be suggestable that it would still be a sin.
when god says, "no adultery," he means simply that you're not supposed to have sex with more than one person. in god's eyes, you're married to a person when you have sex with them. once this has happened with one person, you are one flesh with them. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adultery turned out "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse." as the first definition for adultery. obviously, if you're having sex with somebody other than the one and only person god intended for you, you're sinning because you're not following gods will not to commit adultery. for this reason, i would logically conclude that in an imperfect world, we're called to follow god's will. if it's god's will that we not have sex with anybody else than our spouse, we are sinning. and aside from being recognized as married by the gov't, not being recognized as so and not being officially married makes it all the easier to simply break up the relationship if something goes foul. every person is held accountable to god's will and must follow it as an act of obediance.
oh, and i forgot to go over the king david thing... yes, god gave david two wives, but is it not clear that god did not agree with david having two wives? david paid a horrible price for going against god's will (e.g. having only one wife) by losing family and being horribly depressed. i don't believe that god actually GAVE david his wife; he more or less allowed david to do so because god doesn't force anyone to do anything; he allows sin to happen, and he allows us to do it.

johnny

p.s. if i have repeated things here that have already been said above, i'm sorry. didn't have time to read through the whole thing cause i'm busy doing websites and stuff :-p. see yall later!

[dizzle]

Nope this verse will not just go away….

Okay I am writing some of this remotely, meaning I do not have access to the Net and to the specific objections, so I am going back over the points that defeat this position…

Matthew 19:3-12 – The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

Okay the Pharisees ask him a question on divorce. I had previously said that divorce was a subset of marriage, and it was objected that is not true because divorce is not a part of God’s plan for marriage, etc. That missed my whole point. If a person was going to compile an index of ideas and things and have major categories, and then put under them related categories, divorce is a subset of marriage. Without marriage, the idea of divorce is irrelevant. Divorce presupposes a marriage. So when the question of divorce comes up, it is immediately a discussion about at least one aspect of marriage… it’s severability or not. This is not a point to dispute, it is obvious. Moving on…


And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ ? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus has just proven my point above as He, before answering the divorce question, gave a quick primer on what marriage was supposed to be, and this is the first death blow to polygamy. Jesus refers back to the IDEAL created order, to Paradise, for how man was specifically created to live. One man, one woman. This is unavoidable. The first case of recorded polygamy is of a vilely sinful man. God did not create man to be that way. He created man to have bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh relationship with one woman. It is impossible for a man and multiple women to be one flesh, and nowhere is it said that multiple women become one flesh with each other, which would be required if this conglomerate harem were to be one flesh. A man cannot be one flesh (and I am speaking not only physically but spiritually for certainly the sex act can be done with many partners) with multiple women. In so thinking he needs or should have multiple wives, he is speaking that he knows better than God in His original created plan. If you guys continually want to bring up the OT to trump the NT, that is the sour pickle you will need to chew on.

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

Notice, just like in this thread, the Pharisees are appealing (and I would say with more justification than those present here since they are under the Law) to the OT to justify their immoral practices. And yes, you heard me, polygamy is immoral. I make no bones about that.

He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Now Jesus acknowledges that divorce was permitted, and He clearly describes it as a concession to their hard hearts. So here is a clear example of God making provision in His law for a situation that He did not approve of, but did so as a concession and as a way of protecting persons in situations He knew was going to happen. A similar case could be had for the cases of servitude in the OT. This also is in the Law. Are the proponents of polygamy also proponents of indentured servitude? Why not? I can explain why I am not without making God a propagator of sin or being woefully anachronistic.

Now though here is the kicker, and where I am afraid, the critical thinking skills in some of the participants of this thread have gone out the window….

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Now some issues were raised about the proper translation of this verse… here is a good sampling of the various rendering (the above is NKJV) –

(ALT) "But I say to you*, whoever divorces his wife not for sexual sin and marries another commits adultery, and the one having married the one having been divorced commits adultery."

(ASV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

(BBE) And I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife for any other cause than the loss of her virtue, and takes another, is a false husband: and he who takes her as his wife when she is put away, is no true husband to her.

(CEV) I say that if your wife has not committed some terrible sexual sin, you must not divorce her to marry someone else. If you do, you are unfaithful."

(Darby) But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery.

(DRB) And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

(GNB) I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman."

(GW) I can guarantee that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than her unfaithfulness is committing adultery if he marries another woman."

(ISV) I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

(KJV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

(KJV+) And1161 I say3004 unto you,5213 Whosoever3739, 302 shall put away630 his848 wife,1135 except1508 it be for1909 fornication,4202 and2532 shall marry1060 another,243 committeth adultery:3429 and2532 whoso marrieth1060 her which is put away630 doth commit adultery.3429

(LITV) And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.

(MKJV) And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

(WEB) I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery."

(Webster) And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.

(WNT) And I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery."

(YLT) `And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'

There is no controversy here. The rendering is straightforward and accurate, so I repeat the NKJV rending:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Now let’s put it plainly. A man divorces his wife because he does not like her cooking, and sends her away. For all intents and purposes to the world, he is single. He marries another woman. Jesus says that such a man is committing adultery. Okay, what is adultery?

Dictionary.com defines it as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

So the only way that this man is committing adultery is because he is still married. Now if plural wives were allowed the fact of his still being married would be completely [b]irrelevant to the legitimacy of his further marriage, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a man to commit adultery with a woman he was married to (unless of course that woman was already married to someone else – not an issue in this part of this verse). He would still be guilty of sinning against his other wife for improper divorce, but how in the world is he committing adultery? That makes absolutely NO sense. Also notice the parallel, Jesus does not speak only about the subsequent remarriage of the man, but also of the woman and declares the sin to be the SAME – adultery. His adultery is of the same nature as hers. And Jesus bases ALL of this on His appeal to the original created order.

Now as for the rationalization that Jesus was merely saying that those who could not get marriage right the first time do not get a second shot is a blatant importation of one’s presuppositions onto the text, and makes no sense at all. It does not explain why this man is an adulterer. Jesus did not say he was unqualified to marry because He screwed up, He said he was an adulterer. This makes inane nonsense out of Jesus’ words.

His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Notice they mentioned it is the case with a man with his wife (singular). And why is it better not to marry? Because it is a one shot thing. If polygamy was the thing to do, why the big problem? The man improperly divorcing a wife may have ten others at home, what is the big deal if he cannot marry again? The disciples understood exactly the type of commitment that Jesus was speaking of. A commitment to just one woman for life!! The violation of which constituted adultery.

But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Jesus then extols the virtues of celibacy!! Hardly appropriate in a context where allegedly men had multiple wives. Jesus underscores the commitment to one woman that was required and offers the alternative of celibacy NOT adultery by polygamy.
Now on to Timothy and Titus….

1 Timothy 3:1 – This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 – Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:5-6 – For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

The passages seem plain enough, but of course the pro-polygamists must get around them and propose various options.

Explaining Away Option Number One – The phrase should be translated “first wife.”

Well let’s look at this logically before even getting into the translating issues. If a man has many wives, and that is allowed, obviously he has a first wife. This is a completely inanity. It is like saying wherever you go, there you are. Now perhaps, as it has been suggested, Paul is stating a man must still be married to his first wife. That also makes no sense. Would Paul disqualify someone because they had a Biblical divorce from their first wife but NOT from subsequent wives? Aren’t unbiblical divorces from other wives important (see again Jesus’ words)?? Does that make any sense at all? If the person had a nonBiblical divorce, they are still married to the divorced woman as per Jesus and Paul’s words once again make no sense in the context of polygamy.

Now this same phrase appears in relation to women….

1 Timothy 5:9 – Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man.

Now if the pro-polygamist is going to be consistent, he would have then to state that the implication here is that a woman could have more than one husband which all of us agrees is wrong.

These verses are clearly teaching against both polygamy and adultery by way of unbiblical divorce. There are no other options which maintain the sense of the passages.

Now onto the translation issues… let me once again say that if the phrase is to be translated “first wife” then the pro-polygamist must then translate the later phrase “fist husband,” and I doubt he is willing to do that.

I am not going to say it any better than Miller so here is his comments on this issue from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygamo.html:

This [that the person making this assertion must not know a thing about Greek] is IMMEDIATELY apparent from the bizarre assertion that mia is not heis...they are the SAME EXACT word in the Greek ('one')...mia is the FEMININE form of the numeral heis. For example, in the lexicons words with variable gender endings are always listed in the Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter forms (e.g, heis, mia, hen).

1. The normal word for 'first' is protos, not heis. Out of 343 occurrences in the NT, heis is only translated as 'first' eight times (almost all dealing with calendar time--see below). Protos, on the other hand, is translated 'first' 54 times out of 60.

2. If you wanted to say 'first' in the Greek NT, you would use protos. Examples:
"The first one married and died without leaving any children" (Mr 12.20)
"but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first" (John 20.4)
"I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia" (Acts 20.18)
"because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now" (Php 1.5)
"I am the First and the Last" (Rev 1.17)
"The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox" (Rev 4.7)

3. Eis means 'one' NOT 'first', but it is translated as 'first' only in cases of time (i.e., first day of the week), because of the Hebrew idiom underlying that phrase.


a. Biblical Hebrew did not have ordinal numbers (i.e., first, second, third, etc.) it only had cardinal numbers (i.e., one, two, three). When it needed to say 'the first day of the week' it would have to say 'week, day one'. When this was translated into Greek, they preserved the idiom and said "day one of the week"--meaning first, but actually saying 'one'!


b. This is the way this usage is described in the standard Greek Grammar textbooks.

"Hebraistic is its use w. expressions denoting time instead of the ordinal number: the first (eis mian sabbaton) on the first day of the week Mt 28:1; cf. Lk 24:1; Mk 16:2; J 20:1, 19; Ac 20:7... 1 Cor 16:2. (BAG, s.v. 'eis')
"The first day of the month or week is designated in the NT as in the LXX, not by prote, but by mia...The model was Hebraic where all the days of the month are designated by cardinals." (Blass/Debrunner/Funk, topic 247, 'syntax of numerals").


c. And prote is even used once for this itself! (Mark 16.9)



4. It is difficult to make eis even mean 'first' in most cases. Consider some of these, substituting 'first' for the words in bold:


"These men who were hired last worked only one hour." (Mt 20.12)
"'He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?'" (Mk 2.7)
"He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all" (Mr 12.6)
"On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues" (Lk 13.10)
"So he called in each one of his master's debtors" (Lk 16.5)
"since there is only one God, who will justify..." (Rom 3.30)


5. There are two exceptions where heis is sometimes translated as 'first' instead of 'one' (Rev 6.1 and 9.12), but this is for readability only--'one' makes the same sense, but sounds more 'wooden'. (So, NIV does this, but not NAS and NRSV in both cases).

[6. One minor point: what would 'first' mean in the elder-qualification lists under this scenario: "the husband of a first wife"? (Or more accurately, "a first-wife kind of man"?] Would this require elders to be polygamous?]

Explaining Away Option Number Two – Yes the term means “one wife” but it is only a nonpolygamous requirement for leaders, not laity, due to the demands upon their time.

This at least deals frankly with the Greek text but since we are to emulate our leaders, and the rest of the list for their qualifications has to do with moral fitness and not pragmatics, this is simply am imposition of one’s desired doctrine unto the text. Additionally, there is the problem of the synonymous phrase being used for women later on in the text. And as a matter of fact, Paul when speaking of concerns of ministry with regards to marriage recommends celibacy as a way of avoiding distractions…

1 Corinthians 7:33 – But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife.
And notice, Paul automatically presumes ONE wife. Wouldn’t he discuss the even greater distraction of having ten???

Moving on to some other loose threads….

Jaltus also said,

In terms of polygamy, in EVERY instance of polygamy listed in the Bible, something negative occurs.
And Swordman responded:

The same thing could be said of the monogamous marriages in the Bible.
Blatantly untrue. Jaltus was clear to say EVERY.


Since sin was not redefined with the coming of Christ…..

Matthew 5:27 – You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

And where does it say THAT in the Old Testament? Examples can be multiplied. Sin was clarified.


yes, we are so intelligent that we cannot (will not) observe what ALL scripture has to say about this matter since it is so emotionally charged with our rampant feminism that has gained such a strong hold in our culture. Yes, many have told me that polygamy is the ultimate form of spouse abuse.

I am no feminist, but nice straw-woman to erect. It is abusive, and I will tell you why. Any man in this thread who is married think about how you would feel if you knew that your wife had sexual desires for another man to the extent that she would like to have relations with him in addition to you. Or (egad!!) was actively courting another man. Well frankly, bluntly, and candidly, you are delusional if you think women do not feel the same way. Any woman who tells you otherwise is either not being candid or is not normative. Women feel the same jealousies and desires to be the only one that men do. I can tell you that I am worthy of being cherished ALONE. Now if you want to say that is just too bad because that is the way God set it up fine, but don’t you dare try to deny that this is painful for a woman and not what she would ultimately desire. I deem it emotionally abusive, and I made no apologies for that. Polygamy is a thief and a robber. I do not know you guys and can make no judgments upon you specifically, but I suspect that oftentimes this is a convenient smokescreen for men who have a problem righteously controlling their sexual appetites.

No, not one person has yet demonstrated monogamy to be superior to polygamy.

When God created the perfect unfallen world, Adam had one wife. That is conclusive for me, too bad it is not for you.

Christ has one bride, and yet that bride is comprised of many individuals who are JOINED to Christ in order to be a unified people, therefore being called a singular bride.

ONE bride. You have proven my point. No polygamist says he has one wife made of several different women. This is ridiculous. You cannot love your WIFE as Christ loved the Church if there is more than one…..

As Jaltus said:

Matthew 6:24 – No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.


Yes, we are certainly a shining example to the world, are we not? That man who has three wives and a loving family, well, we cannot have that! Nope. Those few examples of problems within polygamous families fully casts polygamy into a negative light. Yes, sir. Never mind the numberless examples of horrific immorality in our monogamous marriages in America and our churches, monogamy is simply superior.....just because it is. Why, in a matter of just six months we have thus far had more than four pastors in different churches caught in wife-swapping rings right here in my city, and that number is growing almost every year since.

Ugh. I have heard the same arguments advanced by proponents of same sex marriages. And what does a group of immoral pastors have to do with the price of tea in China? Please don’t be ridiculous. I have more respect for men than what you are advancing here with the insinuations of that statement.


There. I had to unload that off my chest.

Me too.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== No, no, no. Not so fast. The Timothy passages and Titus if anything speak out explicitly against such a practice, and it is your interpretration of them that is completely forced.

And I say it is your interpretation that you refuse to accept it. This is the only plane where we are even. You have your interpretation and I have mine - but I have provided several other facts that you've completely ignored or downplayed. For this reason I listed this point not as a "fact" but simply "probable." Because it is not beyond dispute. The other points however, are beyond dispute. Your entire anti-polygamy argument hangs on one subjectively interpreted verse. But it should be interesting to note that my interpretation is on par with at least one church father. St Jerome: “’The text quoted by the objector, ‘a bishop must be the husband of one wife’ /I Tim 3.2, 12, Titus 1.6/, admits of quite another explanation. The apostle came of the Jews and the primitive Christian church was gathered out of the remnants of Israel. Paul knew that the Law allowed men to have children by several wives, and was aware that the example of the patriarchs had made polygamy familiar to the people. Even the very priests might at their own discretion enjoy the same license. He gave commandment therefore that the priests of the church should not claim this liberty, that they should not take two wives or three together, but that they should each have but one wife at one time’ (Epistle 69 ad Oceanus)

== Second, the 1 Cor 5:1 passage says nothing of the kind about acceptance.

Your interpretation demands that it doesn't, but I am not compelled to believe your interpretation over my own andymore than you are mine.

== At the VERY best for you, it merely testifies to the existence of the practice amongst certain PARENTS, not accepted in the Church.

Then you have the burden of proof to show that Paul was speaking about non-Christians within his letter to a Christian Church. There is absolutely no indication that this is the case. You're fishing for reasons to deny the obvious. Which is fine I suppose, but it isn't convincing for anyone who is not predisposed to condemn polygamy with the Bible.

== Let's be frank with the texts here. For you to say that the Timothy and Titus passages shows an acceptance of polygamy, is simply not being honest with those texts, and to then say it is a monogamy only interpretation that is forced only compounds that error.

Accusing me of dishonesty won't help you here. I have not dealt with the texts deceptively, but unlike others, who obviously don't like what it says, I am attempting to deal with them in both their cultural and historical contexts. The texts clearly imply that polygamy was accepted by first century Christianity. You have yet to explain your stretch of reasoning that Paul would somehow point out a practice that is, according to you, so disgusting that (30 years after Christ established his Church) he has to counsel his leadership (Bishops/Deacons) not to indulge in this. Paul is constantly counseling the Saints in the manner of Christian living, yet he NEVER rejects polygamy as a Christian practice in any single instance. How do you reconcile this fact? You have failed to explain any sense of these passages in light of these questions, the historic data and the logical implications they demand.

== And Matthew 19, out of the mouth of Christ Himself, is still the strongest testimony. And Miller elucidated it perfectly.

Miller is fishing as well, he ignores the immediate context and he did not deal with the overall debate on polygamy. This is nothing but circular reasoning if we're going to rely on frivilous web articles that support our positions. Further, a quick reading of the text suggests that you don't get one wife at a time, but one wife *period* (with *possible* exceptions being if a wife dies or commits adultery, although this is not clear.) So I must ask is you believe you can remarry following a divorce that was not occasioned by gross sexual immorality?

The Law of Moses requires polygamy under the case of levirate marriage, was Jesus also explicitly denying that portion of the Law of Moses (as well as divorce law)?

There seems to me to be a severe inconsistency in declaring that Genesis reflects a practice of strict monogamy, when its author (Moses) was a polygamist. There is the known fact that levirate marriage was a requirement under Mosaic law (and that the Jews still recognize this requirement in the form of halitzah today - it is codified in the current Israeli legal system).

“No single culture has become the Christian culture, just as no man has become a perfect follower of Christ: none of us. We are all ‘pagans’ trying, sometimes, to become Christians... Josephus, the Jewish historical writer of the first century, mentions in two places that this custom still existed among his people. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (ca 165 AD), also gives witness to the existence of simultaneous polygamy among the Jews of that time. In 212 AD the lex Antoniana de civitate, while reaffirming the law of monogamy for Roman marriage, tolerated polygamy among the citizens who were Jews. This toleration was rescinded in 285 by Diocletian and Maximian, but the continuation of polygamy among the Jews later gave rise to a special law, issued in 393 by Theodosius, against the custom. Still, the practice survived until the eleventh century among the Jews of northern Europe” (Eugene Hillman, C.S. Sp, Polygamy Reconsidered. African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches (Orbis Books 1975). Foreword, by Bernard Haring. p.20-21)

“Did not the Jewish levirate marriage in the time of Jesus amount to a form of compulsory polygamy, and is this not still a normal practice in the Coptic Church of Ethiopia?” (p.6)

“In the Jewish communities of that time polygamy was still practiced" (George H. Joyce, Christian Marriage (1948): 570-1; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (1967): 90-94, 369; L.W. Barnard, Justin Martyr (1967): 46; Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 14 volumes (1937 ff.): II: 223-229. )

“Karl Barth says, ‘we can hardly point with certainty to a single text (of the New Testament) in which polygamy is expressly forbidden and monogamy universally decreed’ (Church Dogmatics, III-4 (1961): 199.)

George Crespy wrote: ‘It has not been pointed out often enough that there is not one word in the Bible against polygamy’” (169, note 1, citing Crespy, “The Grace of Marriage,” in Marriage and Christian Tradition, ed. Crespy, Paul Evdokimov (Illinois 1968): 19).

Of course I could provided many more, all of whom supercede the presumed authority of Mr. Miller.


(Sunburned and edgy, but I'm back)

[dizzle]

Kevin, do you know how to use the "quote" feature?? You do not have to, but it makes posts enormously easier to read. I can get you a link that explains the VB codes so you can format you posts if you like.

[cromis]

Well, Kevin invited me to stop in and make a few comments myself, rather than just limiting it to our personal email correspondence. So, here goes.

Dee Dee writes:Jesus refers back to the IDEAL created order, to Paradise, for how man was specifically created to live.
Without getting into a discussion over the Garden of Eden, how can you make such a statement? We don't live under the same conditions of Adam and Eve. I don't believe that it can be maintained that God intended for Adam and Eve to remain in the garden (since he previously planned for a redemption from the Fall, and depending on your own theological bent either he couldn't have created them any differently, or he did in fact want them to fall). Jesus never once (or anyone else in the New Testament for that matter) holds up Adam and Eve by name or by reference as a model for behavior. And, as Kevin pointed out, there is still the fact that the author of Genesis (assuming it was Moses) was a polygamist.
God did not create man to be that way. He created man to have bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh relationship with one woman. It is impossible for a man and multiple women to be one flesh, and nowhere is it said that multiple women become one flesh with each other, which would be required if this conglomerate harem were to be one flesh. A man cannot be one flesh (and I am speaking not only physically but spiritually for certainly the sex act can be done with many partners) with multiple women. In so thinking he needs or should have multiple wives, he is speaking that he knows better than God in His original created plan.
One of the other posters here brought this up without actually thinking through the implications. First, your description of polygamy is something that appears more akin to an orgy than the institution that it is/was. The issue isn't whether a man and multiple women can be "one flesh", but whether a man can be "one flesh" with more than one woman. (Of course, if God had really wanted us to all have a "bone of our bone ..." relationship, he would put all of the men into a deep sleep, remove a rib, create the perfect wife, .... I don't think that I really agree with your description there. And if we take your position, then there are some further implications of the Matthean text. If we accept the text as being accurate (I personally do not agree with the UBS or the KJV on this verse - more on that later), then serial polygamy is not allowed. And this same denial of serial polygamy should then be viewed as a commentary on what "one flesh" means. Dee Dee's position then, in light of the context, is that even if there is divorce, that a man cannot be "one flesh" with a second woman. The exception is noted when the woman severs herself from that relationship - and then they are no longer "one flesh". The problem with this is that the method of severing this relationship is adultery/fornication (and not a spiritual separation - more on that in a moment). And the strong implication is then that the woman has become "one flesh" with someone else. This is of course problematic because it reduces the marital state to a simple statement of sexual relations. And if being "one flesh" is only a matter of sexual relations, then it is clear that a man could be "one flesh" with multiple women without it violating an interpretation of Genesis. The argument collapses in on itself. Your suggestion that "one flesh" includes a spiritual as well as a physical component is hardly adequate since you don't make a case for why a man cannot have both a spiritual and a physical relationship with more than one woman. Additionally, if there is a spiritual component which was just as essential as the physical component, then why doesn't Jesus allow for divorce after the spiritual death of the relationship?
So here is a clear example of God making provision in His law for a situation that He did not approve of, but did so as a concession and as a way of protecting persons in situations He knew was going to happen. A similar case could be had for the cases of servitude in the OT. This also is in the Law. Are the proponents of polygamy also proponents of indentured servitude? Why not?
There is a great deal of difference between the concept of divorce in the Old Testament and the concept of polygamy. God never once in Mosaic Law makes divorce mandatory under any circumstances. Mosaic Law does make polygamy mandatory under specific circumstances. So I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. On the idea of indentured servitude, that concept has been replaced in our society with bankruptcy court. Mosaic Law did allow for people to pay for their debts (not for other reasons) to become "indentured servants" - yet, this servitude was also highly regulated, came with a list of specific rights and perogatives, etc. The practice according to Mosaic Law was far different from the indentured servitude we are generally more familiar with that occured in the modern era and in the founding period of our country. Would I vote for it? It is hard to say. Certainly that system favored him who was owed money as opposed to the one who owes.
Now some issues were raised about the proper translation of this verse.
Yes indeed. In fact, there was a substantial paper written on this subject in 1990 in the Journal of Biblical Literature by Michael Holmes. Among the early manuscript evidence are no less than nine, and probably ten (one from a fragmentary manuscript) different versions of this single verse. It is also highly significant to me that you neglect to quote the NIV - which does not use the same base text as most of the translations which you do quote, and which presents in the second half, a radically different text. However, it is also worth noting that the patristic fathers (the early church fathers) almost exclusively quote a version of the verse represented in some early manuscripts but not in any translation today. That version reads:whoever divorces his wife, unless it is a matter of fornication, makes her commit adultery; and the one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This of course then puts Matthew 19:9 squarely in line with the comments in Matthew 5:32. (By the way, for a complete survey of the citations of this passage in the patristic writings, see H. Crouzel, "Le texte patristique de Mattheu V 32 et XIX 9," NTS 19 (1971-72) pp. 98-119.) At the very least, this indicates that the early church Fathers were not aware of the implications of this passage (assuming that the KJV represents a faithful text).
He would still be guilty of sinning against his other wife for improper divorce, but how in the world is he committing adultery? That makes absolutely NO sense.
Exactly. If on the other hand, the text from Matthew 5:32 presents the preferred meaning, this is taken care of.
And why is it better not to marry? Because it is a one shot thing. If polygamy was the thing to do, why the big problem? The man improperly divorcing a wife may have ten others at home, what is the big deal if he cannot marry again? The disciples understood exactly the type of commitment that Jesus was speaking of. A commitment to just one woman for life!! The violation of which constituted adultery.
For starters, the limit (under rabinnic interpretation) of the number of wives a man was allowed to have was four. Not ten, not an unlimited amount. While it might be a stretch, we could certainly read the text in that fashion - that is, that if you divorced someone to replace them (whether you are polygamous or not) is not justifiable. On the other hand, it is precisely this point that you argued against a moment ago. You can't say that Jesus "saying that those who could not get marriage right the first time do not get a second shot ... makes no sense at all" and yet here insist that marriage is "a one shot thing." There seems to me to be an awareness on the part of the apostles that even if the "spiritual" aspects of the marriage have died, that divorce is not an option under this interpretation of the Law which Jesus offers. And which is the worse sin? Being the adulterer (for the woman)? Or causing the woman to be an adulterer (for the man)? Clearly Matt. 5:32 is still in force independantly of how you read this verse.

Ben

[dizzle]

Because I alternate between debates, and writing responses taking me a bit, it will be a little bit before I am back here, but I will be back. In the meantime, I through out a general challenge to anyone else who can spot the gigantic bait and switch contained above.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== I through out a general challenge to anyone else who can spot the gigantic bait and switch contained above.

You're not dealing with our arguments point by point as you pretend to be. Relying on rhetorical devices as the one above, while perhaps impressive to the choir, won't make the Bible say what you want it to say. Nor will it erase all the historical/cultural evidence that undermines your own eisegesis.

[dizzle]

I have been and will continue to be dealing with your points on a point by point basis. I leave it to the choir to be their own judge. There is an enormous bait and switch in that post, at least that I can see, and I am curious if it is as obvious to anyone else. And I find it funny that a "rhetorical" advice is answered with a "rhetorical" device. Funny how that works ain't it?

[cromis]

By the way, I wanted to point out for the record that I am not a proponent of polygamy today. But, I think that making a statement to the affect that polygamy is immoral is a real problem, because, it suggests that the Jewish faith (in its entirety) has codified immorality as a part of both their religious faith and their secular legal system. This is the reason that I defend the Old Testament practice of polygamy. I think that the New Testament may offer additional insight, and certainly Mormons, who tend to discuss the Old Testament in the defense of their past practice generally recognize that the practice of polygamy instituted by Joseph Smith, while related to Old Testament practices (and possbily justifed by it) certainly was not based on the Old Testament model.

Ben

[Bill the Cat]

There seems to me to be a severe inconsistency in declaring that Genesis reflects a practice of strict monogamy, when its author (Moses) was a polygamist.

Well hate to jump in on just one point, but I must disagree here. I know tradition says Moses married 2 women, but I disagree and am backed up by some others too:

for there is no reason to believe he was married before he went to Midian; nor was this some Ethiopian woman he had married since, and but lately, Zipporah being dead or divorced, as some have fancied; but it was Zipporah herself, as Aben Ezra, Ben Melech, and so the Jerusalem Targum, which represents her not as truly an Ethiopian, but so called, because she was like to one; indeed she was really one; not a native of Ethiopia, the country of the Abyssines, but she was a Cushite, a native of Arabia Chusea, in which country Midian was, from whence she came; hence the tents, of Cushan, and the curtains of Midian, are spoken of together, Hab_3:7.

So Moses was married to Zipporah, a Midianite from Cush.

[Socrates]

Bill, that's interesting and makes sense, but where does it come from?

Soc :huh:

[Swordman]

Greetings. I have been very busy and was not able to return until now. It is good to see everyone.

"But even if polygamy was permitted by tannaitic halakhah, other halakhic systems counseled otherwise. During the Second Temple period, monogamy was preferred even on the conceptual plane by, above all, the Dead Sea Sect whose halakhah explicitly prohibited polygamy.

This is beside the point. I was never dealing with the beliefs of various sects. The Sadducees also did not believe in the resurrection. Do we then give that some measure of validity simply because they were Jews? Besides, feminism is not at all a new phenomenon. Even the ancient Israelites at times fought the extremes of feminism. What is REALLY at issue here is the written word. Jesus never pointed to any sect of Judaism, He pointed only to what was written in the Torah.

Thanks for your comments.

Don

[dizzle]

Dear Swordman:

I am sure then you saw that I dealt in depth with the points raised here. I hope to have more to add soon to Kevin's further comments.

[Swordman]

You still haven't handled the one bride issue of Christ. The one bride is the Church as a corporate whole. One Bride, One Bride Groom.

Yes, allegorically the bride is spoken of as one entity. However, every time anyone elevates the allegorical above the LITERAL, they get into trouble. The bride is still comprised of MANY individuals. BOTH are valid when dealing with believers, however the allegorical does not become more real than the literal simply because it is convenient to ignore the literal. When we get to Heaven, we will not be LITERALLY absorbed into some monstrous entity. We always have been and always will be individuals, not a singular walking mass of heavenly, fleshly woman. That sounds more like a Godzilla movie than merely allegorical.

Jesus came to restore us to our 'Garden of Eden" relationship with God and each other. Notice only 1 wife for Adam!!!

Yes, in paradise Adam had only one wife. He also ran around naked in paradise. You cannot pick and choose those aspects of paradise that happen to fit your argument, and ignore ALL the rest of the imagry we see within the Garden. Suppose Adam had been given more than one wife. Think about the level of racism that would have existed down throught the ages. Yes, Adam was given one wife, other men were given several. Elijah was given power that Abraham was not. So what? What God was REALLY showing us with Adam having been given one wife is MONOGENISM, not monogamy. (For those of you who do not know what monogenism is, it is the belief that we all came from the same parents.) In other words, we are all of one blood no matter what color our skin may happen to be. If God intended for monogamy to be message behind Adam's having been given one wife in paradise, then He certainly was completely silent about it.

Thanks for your comments.

Don

[Swordman]

Whereas polygamists, in order to justify their polygamy, are forced to look backwards to Torah, Christians are supposed to be moving into a monogamy mindframe with the ultimate goal of moving out of literal marriage altogether. Jesus Himself confirms this:
"You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Mt.22:29-31, NKJV)

Are you then going to walk away from your spouse in your latter years in order to move toward the heavenly reality? Somehow I doubt that you will ever act out what you have stated above. In this world, the distinctions are still valid and real. Jesus' words were not meant to override the realities He created in this world. In this world, and in our families, the distinctions are real and valid. There ARE male and female, and always will be to those of us who are still alive in this world. I do not have to go back to the Torah to justify that. It simply is. You still have not shown me one verse that clearly makes any change to God's governing provision for a man to have more than one wife. Your application of scripture is most unusual. What various sects have taught and what will become a reality AFTER we are gone from this earth still do not alter that which many here have been programmed to dislike.

So as Christians, we move away from polygamy of the law to monogomy of the NT to unmarriedness of eternity. It's a natural progression. I may be jumping to conclusions here, but it seems to fit really well with the texts.

This progression you speak of does not disallow polygamy in THIS life in THIS world. God's Law has not changed. Until you can show me where a change has been made concerning a plurality of wives, then I simply cannot accept your application of scripture. This seeming dislike of the Old Testament seems to be quite pervasive throught all the churches I have ever visited. Nothing in the Old Testament Law has been rendered invalid except in the minds of those who do not like how it simply does not mesh with the world around us. It is the world that must change, not the word of God.

Don

[Swordman]

God because of the hardness of their hearts permitted divorce. It does not make it an ideal.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with a man having more than one wife. Your observation is a non-issue where polygamy is concerned.

Also there is the paradigm of Christ loving His Bride the Church as His own self, and placing her above all others.

Allegorically, yes. Literally that bride is STILL comprised of MANY individuals. Does that mean that Christ's loyalties are divided? According to your style of reasoning, Jesus is guilty of split loyalties since the LITERAL reality of the beride is many individuals. We do not cease to be individuals simply by the use of an allegorical picture of our being a unified, singular bride. The United States is ONE NATION, but we are STILL individuals. How people can so easily overlook the literal when it suits their fancy is quite beyond me.

Don

[dizzle]

Hey Don, please do not split up your posts like that. Thank you!!

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=56231#post56231)
Socrates:

Bill, that's interesting and makes sense, but where does it come from?

Soc :huh:

John Gill's commentary on Numbers 12:1

[Bill the Cat]

SWORDMAN wrote
This is beside the point. I was never dealing with the beliefs of various sects. The Sadducees also did not believe in the resurrection. Do we then give that some measure of validity simply because they were Jews? Besides, feminism is not at all a new phenomenon. Even the ancient Israelites at times fought the extremes of feminism. What is REALLY at issue here is the written word. Jesus never pointed to any sect of Judaism, He pointed only to what was written in the Torah.

Thanks for your comments.

Don

Jesus had a field day with the various sects.(Sadducees and Pharisees) All I was trying to show was that not ALL of judaism practiced polygamy at the time of Jesus, which is what some of the postings earlier seem to put forth. The old "everybody's doing it" bit.

Then SWORDMAN wrote:
Yes, allegorically the bride is spoken of as one entity. However, every time anyone elevates the allegorical above the LITERAL, they get into trouble. The bride is still comprised of MANY individuals. BOTH are valid when dealing with believers, however the allegorical does not become more real than the literal simply because it is convenient to ignore the literal. When we get to Heaven, we will not be LITERALLY absorbed into some monstrous entity. We always have been and always will be individuals, not a singular walking mass of heavenly, fleshly woman. That sounds more like a Godzilla movie than merely allegorical.

Well, if we're gonna take it literally, then Jesus will be wed to men as well and thus be a same sex marriage. It HAS to be allegorical or it doesn't work. And BTW, I like the old Godzilla movies. Where else can Tokyo get destroyed 15 times and the adults still don't know it's Godzilla coming. It's always the little boy who figures it out first. :thumb:

Later SWORDMAN wrote:
This seeming dislike of the Old Testament seems to be quite pervasive throught all the churches I have ever visited. Nothing in the Old Testament Law has been rendered invalid except in the minds of those who do not like how it simply does not mesh with the world around us. It is the world that must change, not the word of God.

Don

Well, a whole lot of things are not practiced from the Torah. I could quote the many verses from Leviticus that talk about stoning women found to not be virgins, or caught in the act of adultery. Things like that Jesus did away with. It's the spirit of the Law not the letter of the law. And another thing that was brought to my attention. There is not one mention of a polygamous marriage in the NT.

John Gill notes on his commentary of Matt 19:4
have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? This may be read in Gen_1:27 and from thence this sense of things collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark expresses it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is therein, and particularly "man", as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel supply it here, made the first parents of mankind, male and female; not male and females, but one male, and one female; first, one male, and then, of him one female, who, upon her creation, was brought and married to him; so that in this original constitution, no provision was made for divorce, or polygamy. Adam could not marry more wives than one, nor could he put away Eve for every cause, and marry another: now either the Pharisees had read this account, or they had not; if they had not, they were guilty of great negligence and sloth; if they had, they either understood it or not; if they did not understand it, it was greatly to their reproach, who pretended to great knowledge of the Scriptures, and to be able to explain them to others; and if they did understand it, there was no need for this question, which therefore must be put with an evil design.
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Notice Gill here disagrees with you in that polygamy was not condemned by Jesus.

Next issue, to argue that Paul never properly says "No Polygamy" is ridiculous. He also never says "No Bestiality" but that is still frowned upon. Paul gave the qualifications for a leader to be declared "Blameless" and that was a man of one wife. Now did that preclude unmarried men? No because the text says nothing about Timothy being married. Does this preclude those who marry after being widdowed? No because after death, the widdowed spouse is allowed to marry again. Does this preclude those who are married to multiple women? Yep it sure does.

[Swordman]

Here is the full cite from that ThinkTank article. Glenn drives home the same point I did about Jesus' words. They are inescapable.

"Inescapable" is extremely strong terminology when you have never proven the vailidity of Jesus' words as ever having anything to do with polygamy. You are the one who drew the parellel where it simply does not exist in the text.

We have NT data from Jesus and from Paul, and we have information on the attitude of the early church to it from the Fathers.

This smacks of a suggestion that the NT somehow invalidates or overshadows the OT. Such thinking invariably ends up demonstrating the shameful lack of real understanding on the part of the claimant.

1. Polygamy was NOT practiced in Greek and Roman societies of the time:

So? God never called us to pattern our lives and our understanding after the Greek or Roman cultures. Pointing to ungodly cultures like those is nothing but just another "straw man" as you called it. So you see, you are guilty of the very same form of argumentation of which you have accused Bill.

Even though we may find numerous traces of polygamy and polyandry in the Gk. myths, monogamy predominated in the Gk. world in the historical period. Morality within marriage was strict.

This is pure garbage. One will search in vain to find the Greeks being concerned about God's morality where marriage or anything else in their lives is concerned. They were pantheistic, for crying out loud. There were also some good things in Sodom before it was destroyed, but the "leaven" was bad enough that God still destroyed them. I am sure there were families where the members took good care of one another, but they were not at all a model for the rest of us to follow. Yet another "straw man".

Besides, Homer's writings are never alluded as being something that we are model our lives after. These "straw men" are really fun to burn with nothing more than a mere spark. This detraction from what the word of God teaches is most interesting. The lack of proof from either OT and the NT is very telling indeed. Resorting to pantheistic cultures as the model for professing believers is most disturbing, if not typical, to say the least.

Polygamy was not practiced in the Roman world outside Palestine, though illegal bigamy and certainly adultery were. [EBC: in.loc. 1 Tim 3]

The Romans, like the Greeks, also had temples full of "vestial virgins" (what a joke) where were actually prostitutes for deities like Diana. Many of those wonderfully monogamous men spent time in the arms of one of those prostitutes. Did your history study point this out, or was it strategically left out? Pointing at one particular aspect of cultures that were literally FULL of immorality is hardly an exercise in an honest treatment of the scriptures.

2. Polygamy was practiced somewhat in 1st century Palestinian Judaism (by the government/aristocratic leaders):

And just how limited was this observation? Did Josephus actually go around all the different provinces of Judea and do a statistical, scientific study of just exactly who was practicing polygamy? Forcing an absolute, all-encumpassing meaning upon a general statement made by Josephus Josephus is yet another act of what appears to be desperation. I simply am looking for what the word of God teaches, not ungodly cultures like the Greeks and Romans, and general statements made by a man who was simply writing down what seemed aparent to him without there being any indication of his ever having done ANY in-depth study on the matter. Any GENUINE historian knows that what we read from historical accounts must be taken in with a grain of salt. When you look around you in this culture of ours, your understanding of ALL the facts is limited. Your level of education has nothing to do with your ability to study EVERY aspect of what you record. No man has ever had that level of education and understanding. Solomon was perhaps the ONLY man who ever had anywhere NEAR that level of wisdom, and HE HAD MANY WIVES. Josephus is a whimpering school boy compared to Solomon. Now before you try to detonate that statement in my face, I am not saying that Solomon was right for having that many wives. No man can have that many wives and have any level of depth to his relationship with THAT many women. Besides, Ahab had only one wife, and she led him astray into idolotry without there having to be 1000 of them.

In the Second Temple period, Jewish society was, at least theoretically, polygamous, like other oriental societies of the time but in contrast to the neighboring Greek and Roman societies

Again, this is meaningless nonsense. We are not dealing with theories or ungodly cultures. Let us deal with the word of God apart from all these other straw men.

3. Among the Jews, it was not accepted by the prestigious school of Hillel (above), nor by the strict Dead Sea Sect (Qumran), and was not widely practiced, esp. among the rabbi's:

Yes, and they also had other beliefs and practices that we would never accept unless it was beneficial to our cause of proving something outside the authority of God's word.

I could go on quoting and commenting this article ad infinitum, but suffice it to say that it fails to deal with the ONE authority over the Faith. Jesus dealing with a man DIVORCING a woman and THEN taking on another wife is just s traw man attack upon an aspect of marriage that clearly has nothing to do with divorce. I agree with what Jesus said. If a man divorces his first wife apart from Biblical allowances and takes on a second wife, then he is clearly guilty of the sin of adultery. However, Jesus was not at all dealing with a man taking on a second wife while remaining faithful to his first wife. The polygamist has not DIVORCED his first wife in the scenario I am speaking of. The dynamic of adultery ONLY has to do with his DIVORCING his first wife. DIVORCE is the issue that Jesus declared to not be so "from the beginning."

Declaring that this fails to deal with Jesus's words is a practice in "kicking against the goad" if you cannot break that verse down and show me how it applies to polygamy. Your casual disregard of what ALL scruipture has to say on this matter is most telling indeed. Limiting your perspective to ONLY that which seems agreeable to your own way of thinking is indiciative of a serious problem that I cannot and will not deal with over the internet. I wish we could meet face to face in order to hash this matter out where adultery is concerned. My typing time is moslty limited. Every now and then I have time to come in here to see a little of what is being said and comment upon it. Fortunately I am a fast typer, although I will at times not be able to proof-read my work, so typos are a deffinite possibility. :juggle:

Thanks for your input though.

Don

[Swordman]

Hey Don, please do not split up your posts like that. Thank you!!

How do you control where your post ends up? I am looking at the screen and I cannot see any way of controlling where my post is located when it is saved in the system.

Please help.:bonk:

[Bill the Cat]

Swordman wrote
I could go on quoting and commenting this article ad infinitum, but suffice it to say that it fails to deal with the ONE authority over the Faith. Jesus dealing with a man DIVORCING a woman and THEN taking on another wife is just s traw man attack upon an aspect of marriage that clearly has nothing to do with divorce.

Well, that's where I disagree. If you'll look at the "fine print", what is it that makes it adultry? Adultry is defined as sexual relations with someone other than your spouse. Jesus said that any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultry. How? Unless he has relations with someone else, how can it be adultry. Let me pose a question. Why would Jesus say that divorcing your wife for other than adultry was incorrect? Because Biblically you are still married. Whether you like it or not, unless she fools around and breaks the marriage bond, you are still married to her. Thus, if you are still married to her, you can't marry someone else. It's adultery.

I agree with what Jesus said. If a man divorces his first wife apart from Biblical allowances and takes on a second wife, then he is clearly guilty of the sin of adultery.

How? this makes no sense unless you are trying to justify it like the caliphs did with their harems. The "first wife" has all the rights.

However, Jesus was not at all dealing with a man taking on a second wife while remaining faithful to his first wife.

How can you remain faithful to the first wife if you marry another wife and have sex with her too. Faithfulness means "forsaking all others"

The polygamist has not DIVORCED his first wife in the scenario I am speaking of. The dynamic of adultery ONLY has to do with his DIVORCING his first wife.

Not true. It has to do with the fact that he is not really single. He is still married whether he likes it or not.

DIVORCE is the issue that Jesus declared to not be so "from the beginning."


Because there was only one woman Adam could marry in the beginning. Polygamy was impossible when there was only one man and one woman.

I think the thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that we don't disagree that some of the patriarchs were polygamous. Also note when God saved Noah and his family, Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth were all monogamous. God blessed the Patriarchs, sometimes dispite their sin. We say that the original design of one man one woman is the preferred method as stated by Jesus. See my reference to John Gill above

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 08:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60245#post60245)
Swordman:



How do you control where your post ends up? I am looking at the screen and I cannot see any way of controlling where my post is located when it is saved in the system.

Please help.:bonk:

Hey... if you are posting to one person primarily keep it all within one post. If you see at the bottom of the reply box there is a character meter that tells you how you are doing with post length with our 24K max which is actually pretty large. It is the consequetive posting that I was speaking of. Does that clarify things?

[dizzle]

Now I am back to continue dealing with these points. Kevin on another thread made some misc. comments which need to be dealt with more appropriately here.

Absolutely. You have failed to deal with anything regarding the logical implications. The big kicker is that I've provided commentary from several non-LDS scholars, Catholic apologists, and even St. Jerome who basically said the same exact thing regarding these scriptures and polygamy. All you have done is cut and paste an entire web article from someone who simply reiterates the same fallacious argument as presented on this forum. I guess the scholars are being "dishonest," and so was Jerome. Right?

I want the careful and attentive reader to read again my post located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=49244#post49244

and read again Kevin's statement. I have often noted his penchant for exaggeration and this is another prime example. He has claimed that I "have failed to deal with anything regarding the logical implications." Untrue as any cursory reading of just that one post (nevermind the numerous other ones on this thread) will show. Also, he states that "ALL that you have done is cut and paste an entire web site article who simply reiterates the same fallacious arguments as presented on this forum." Really now. That is ALL I have done. :rofl: Let's see. In just that one last post (nevermind my numerous other posts on this thread) there were 3788 words used. Out that 603 words were a quote of Miller's article. Exaggerating a tad bit aren't we Kevin? And technically Miller isn't reiterating anything... his article way predates even the existence of this forum, nevermind this thread. And you know what? I would hold Miller in as high esteem as almost any other scholar. Anyone who has read his site (even if you disagree, as I do disagree with Miller on several points) will see why. He is a scholar and a thinker of the utmost caliber.

You have also taken an extreme view and chosen to be offended over my statement that I do not believe that you are handling certain texts honestly. I made it clear to you before that I was not using it in the strongest sense of the word as in accusing you of deliberate and premeditated deceit, but rather just not dealing properly and forthrightly with that one text. You choose instead to milk it for offense when none was intended... your choice. You accuse the same of me just without using the same words. A rose by any another name...

Hence, you're inability to handle dissent without accusing someone of dishonesty. This is uncalled for, and I thought you apologized for this. Giving with one hand and taking away with the other are we?

Funny, I debate a lot of people who don't agree with me on a lot of things and seem to have an ability to debate a lot of them without saying that. I thought you said I was unable to do so. Another case of Exaggeration Syndrome?? And no I never apologized for telling you that you were not being honest with the text. I do not apologize for things that I mean, so you can be sure when I do so, I mean it. Please quote for me where I apologized for that. All I did was clarify that I was not slandering your character. And here is the context of my original charge.... You had claimed...

5) Probable: NT scriptures (1 Tim 3:2,12; Titus 1:6;1 Corinthians 5:1) imply plural marriage was at least accepted within the NT Church. - reconcilable only through anti-polygamy interpretation which begs the question.

And I once again state that for you to claim that the Timothy and Titus passages imply that polygamy was accepted in the NY church is simply a dishonest handling of the text. Period. It is the polygamous interpretation that begs the question so bad that someone threw it a biscuit and patted it on the head.

Now back to the comments made here on this thread...

Your entire anti-polygamy argument hangs on one subjectively
interpreted verse.

:rofl: ditto on everything stated above..... My entire argument eh?? :rofl:

And here is where it gets really smelly...

But it should be interesting to note that my interpretation
is on par with at least one church father. St Jerome: "'The text quoted by the
objector, 'a bishop must be the husband of one wife' /I Tim 3.2, 12, Titus 1.6/,
admits of quite another explanation. The apostle came of the Jews and the
primitive Christian church was gathered out of the remnants of Israel. Paul knew
that the Law allowed men to have children by several wives, and was aware that
the example of the patriarchs had made polygamy familiar to the people. Even the
very priests might at their own discretion enjoy the same license. He gave
commandment therefore that the priests of the church should not claim this
liberty, that they should not take two wives or three together, but that they
should each have but one wife at one time' (Epistle 69 ad Oceanus)

And you have the chutzpah to say that this agrees with you!! I would suggest you read my last substantive post once again. Jerome is perfectly in accord with what I said which was, "These verses are clearly teaching against both polygamy and adultery by way of unbiblical divorce. There are no other options which maintain the sense of the passages."


== Second, the 1 Cor 5:1 passage says nothing of the kind about acceptance.

Your interpretation demands that it doesn't, but I am not compelled to believe
your interpretation over my own anymore than you are mine.

I said nothing of interpretation in that statement, I spoke of verifiable facts. It is a FACT that the passage says nothing about acceptance. That is indisputable. You must import acceptance into the passage by other means, and I must do the same for disapproval, but my original observation remains, which you utterly missed.

Then you have the burden of proof to show that Paul was speaking about
non-Christians within his letter to a Christian Church. There is absolutely no
indication that this is the case.

You are denying that Paul speaks often of nonbelievers, and are suggesting that because the letter was to a (messed up by the way) Christian church that the persons mentioned within are all Christians by default :rofl: ? That passage is extraordinarily weak and susceptible of multiple other much more reasonable interpretations, such as speaking of a stepmother etc. There is no indication that the parents were believers, and in fact, in light of the times, great probability that they were not, and that they were not even Jewish (!) which blows out of the water the other pro-polygamy argument attempted here that Paul in his letters to Timothy could not have been condemning polygamy since the Gentiles did not practice it. Oh, inconsistency thou bitter foe! And Paul spoke very disapprovingly of much of what was going on in the Corinthian church so to cite such a passage as support is irresponsible.

You have yet to explain your stretch of reasoning that Paul would somehow point out a practice that is, according to you, so disgusting that (30 years after Christ established his Church) he has to counsel his leadership
(Bishops/Deacons) not to indulge in this. Paul is constantly counseling the
Saints in the manner of Christian living, yet he NEVER rejects polygamy as a
Christian practice in any single instance.

Come on now Kevin. Read that again. You say that you cannot believe that Paul has to counsel the leaders not to engage in this practice and then ask me why Paul never rejected polygamy. Do you not see the disconnect? Paul did, in the very passage we are speaking of. :duh: And Paul also never condemns Roman slave ownership or bestiality just as an aside. Don't you think that was disgusting? And you never answered the logical consistency questions I posed in light of the parallel example of the widows. And in that vein, I have another passage to call to the stand...

1 Corinthians 7:1-4 - Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

Wow, since there was immorality each man should have his own wife (singular)… with the reciprocal and unavoidable parallel of the woman. There is no room for polygamy here. The whole passage screams a underlying presupposition of monogamy otherwise it is nonsensical, just as are the other passages I mentioned. And while I am at it, let me bring up yet another one from the lips of the Lord... (though I will say right up front there is a textual variant that may come into play)

Matthew 19:29 - And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Wow, look at all those plural words... houses, brothers, and sisters. And okay father and mother are singular, that is understandable, a person typically only has one each of those... but what is this? Wife? Singular? Ouch.


Miller is fishing as well, he ignores the immediate context and he did not deal
with the overall debate on polygamy.

I dealt with both as did Miller.

Further, a quick reading of the text suggests that you don't get one wife at a time, but one wife *period* (with *possible* exceptions being if a wife dies or commits adultery, although this is not clear.) So I must ask is you believe you can remarry following a divorce that was not occasioned by gross sexual immorality?

Not without committing adultery. That was easy. (and I add the caveat that Paul gave one other circumstance - and I would state that this is a commandment to believers)

The Law of Moses requires polygamy under the case of levirate marriage, was Jesus also explicitly denying that portion of the Law of Moses (as well as
divorce law)?

Anachronistic pendantisism. And as Miller has stated elsewhere:

What must be understood is that God's allowance of something and even His requirement of it in exceptional circumstances is NOT incompatible with it being "wrong" in the vast majority of cases.
Obviously, polygamy was 'authorized' (the Mosaic law specifically refers to it) and 'demanded' (especially in the case of levirate marriage), but this doesn't mean that it is something God wants us to do, except in extreme situations (e.g., the provision of a supportless-widow of kin, in a specific society tied to a genealogically-based land inheritance economy).

A good way to illustrate this is from a very similar marital topic--divorce.

Divorce was "authorized" in the Mosaic Law (Deut 24), and "demanded" in the case of the returned exiles (Ezra 10). But it is crystal clear that divorce is:
·
· Hated by God (Mal 2.16)
·
· Prohibited by Jesus, except in extreme situations (Matt 19).
·
· Permitted by God because of human failings (i.e., hardness of heart--Mt 19.8).

What this means for OUR discussion is that one must look at the more "principle-like" statements about a topic, for guidance as to what the will and heart of God is about a subject, rather than the exceptions in history (e.g., permissions, extreme circumstances). The statements of principle about polygamy (discussed above)--like the statements of principle about divorce-- indicate the behavioral norm that we are to follow. The exceptions in history to those overarching statements of principle and life are just that--exceptions, called forth by either extreme situations or called forth by our own moral weakness (e.g. hardness of heart).



There seems to me to be a severe inconsistency in declaring that Genesis
reflects a practice of strict monogamy, when its author (Moses) was a
polygamist.

And Moses was born in a fallen world, and the ideal Edenic state was monogamy, which Christ reinforced in His teaching on marriage. And as has been pointed out here, there is nothing in the Bible that teaches that Moses was a polygamist, but that would be irrelevant to begin with. Moses was also a murderer.

And as to the rest… so? Some Jews practiced polygamy. Tell me something I don’t know.

One of the other posters here brought this up without actually thinking through the implications. First, your description of polygamy is something that appears more akin to an orgy than the institution that it is/was.

No, not at all, but the requirement of the permanence and physicality of the one flesh would bring those implications in to have the Biblical ideal followed. Rather than criticizing the logical implications, it is the polygamous foundation that is rotten.

Moving on to some other comments..

Your suggestion that "one flesh" includes a spiritual as well as a physical component is hardly adequate since you don't make a case for why a man cannot have both a spiritual and a physical relationship with more than one woman.

Sure it does since the “one fleshedness” is reciprocal. As much as the man is “one FLESH” (and it does not say one SPIRIT, though the spiritual implication is certainly there) with the woman, she is ONE flesh with him… and that would entail being ONE with all that he is, which if polygamy were the intended order, would include the other wives, which are simply a wedge in this arrangement. If you deny that, then you are grossly ignorant of female nature, and as I said before, I will say again, it would not surprise me if you could find some women who would disagree, and I would say that aberrations do not define the norm.

Additionally, if there is a spiritual component which was just as essential as the physical component, then why doesn't Jesus allow for divorce after the spiritual death of the relationship?

Because the two go hand in hand. One implies the other. And the Bible recognizes a far different definition of love and commitment then we as modern oftentimes too.

Yes indeed. In fact, there was a substantial paper written on this subject in 1990 in the Journal of Biblical Literature by Michael Holmes. Among the early manuscript evidence are no less than nine, and probably ten (one from a fragmentary manuscript) different versions of this single verse. It is also
highly significant to me that you neglect to quote the NIV –

No more significant than the fact that e-sword does not contain the NIV… and the NIV rendering does not support your contention as it reads, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Which is the same thing that I have been saying. There is no major translation which supports your position. In fact the New RSV, based on another textual tradition, eviscerates the part of the verse you are enamored with reading…” And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” And never even mentions the subsequent remarriage of said woman.

which does not use the same base text as most of the translations which you do quote, and which presents in the second half, a radically different text. However, it is also worth noting that the patristic fathers (the early church fathers) almost exclusively quote a version of the verse represented in some early manuscript but not in any translation today. That version reads:” whoever divorces his wife, unless it is a matter of fornication, makes her commit adultery; and the one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

No, you have done a blatant bait and switch for that is quoted from Matthew 5:32, a different verse altogether. You have assumed that they must say the same thing, and have pointed to your assumptions as your proof. That is circular.

This of course then puts Matthew 19:9 squarely in line with the comments in Matthew 5:32. (By the way, for a complete survey of the citations of this
passage in the patristic writings, see H. Crouzel, "Le texte patristique de
Mattheu V 32 et XIX 9," NTS 19 (1971-72) pp. 98-119.) At the very least, this
indicates that the early church Fathers were not aware of the implications of
this passage (assuming that the KJV represents a faithful text).

What a nice leap you just made, and I sure hope you had a net. That foreign text deals with Matthew 5:32 not citations of Matthew 19:9. And you then make a jump that this then says something about the Fathers’ understanding which is pulled out of thin air, at least from the documentation that you have provided here.

For starters, the limit (under rabbinic interpretation) of the number of wives a man was allowed to have was four. Not ten, not an unlimited amount.

I was being satirical, but if we follow your lead, let’s just take the OT example and allow hundreds. Oh yeah, those are some close marital relations there, that is what I want for my daughter.. silly me for wanting a husband to actually know her name. (yes, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek, but you cannot pick and choose your polygamists).

While it might be a stretch, we could certainly read the text in that fashion - that is, that if you divorced someone to replace them (whether you are polygamous or not) is not justifiable.

The text does not say that, and this is simply the forcing of doctrine upon the text, and badly so.


Yes, allegorically the bride is spoken of as one entity. However, every time anyone elevates the allegorical above the LITERAL, they get into trouble. The bride is still comprised of MANY individuals.

How literal do you want to get? There are men and women, not just women, and there is not going to be any literal sexual union. The allegory is clear. Just as Christ has ONE bride to whom He has sacrificed all, so the man, and it is impossible for a mere man to sacrifice ALL to more than one. A man cannot serve two masters.. the same principle applies here.

Yes, in paradise Adam had only one wife. He also ran around naked in paradise. You cannot pick and choose those aspects of paradise that happen to fit your argument, and ignore ALL the rest of the imagery we see within the Garden.

I have not ignored a thing. Nakedness without sin was also God’s ideal. I do not deny that. You are comparing disparate concepts. In order to be doing likewise, I would be affirming that guilty shamefacedness is God’s ideal.

Suppose Adam had been given more than one wife. Think about the level of racism that would have existed down through the ages. Yes, Adam was given one wife, other men were given several. Elijah was given power that Abraham was not. So what? What God was REALLY showing us with Adam having been given one wife is
MONOGENISM, not monogamy. (For those of you who do not know what monogenism is,
it is the belief that we all came from the same parents.) In other words, we are
all of one blood no matter what color our skin may happen to be. If God intended
for monogamy to be message behind Adam's having been given one wife in paradise,
then He certainly was completely silent about it.


Nice justifying, but Jesus points to Adam and Eve as the consummate ideal for marital relations. The two concepts are tied… And God was not silent for He made the one flesh comment that we have spent a considerable amount of time on it. And when God was commenting on what man needed, He created ONE wife. You have just found a convenient way to import an alternate understanding to excuse lusts forbidden by the NT.

Others in support of monogamy said…

Well, a whole lot of things are not practiced from the Torah. I could quote the many verses from Leviticus that talk about stoning women found to not be virgins, or caught in the act of adultery. Things like that Jesus did away with. It's the spirit of the Law not the letter of the law. And another thing that was brought to my attention. There is not one mention of a polygamous marriage in the NT.

Amen!

John Gill notes on his commentary of Matt 19:4
have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and
female? This may be read in Gen_1:27 and from thence this sense of things
collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark
expresses it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is
therein, and particularly "man", as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew
Gospel supply it here, made the first parents of mankind, male and female; not
male and females, but one male, and one female; first, one male, and then, of
him one female, who, upon her creation, was brought and married to him; so that
in this original constitution, no provision was made for divorce, or polygamy.
Adam could not marry more wives than one, nor could he put away Eve for every
cause, and marry another: now either the Pharisees had read this account, or
they had not; if they had not, they were guilty of great negligence and sloth;
if they had, they either understood it or not; if they did not understand it, it
was greatly to their reproach, who pretended to great knowledge of the
Scriptures, and to be able to explain them to others; and if they did understand
it, there was no need for this question, which therefore must be put with an
evil design.
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

So, do we want a war of the experts? Don brought in some he claimed trumped Miller, well I say Gill trumps his.

Notice Gill here disagrees with you in that polygamy was not condemned by Jesus.

Yes, I noticed that too. :thumb:

And I have noticed that although Swordman keeps brushing off the implications of Matthew 19 they continue to stick like tar on a beach. My points thoroughly remain unrefuted. The context of Jesus’ teaching in the chapter is MARRIAGE and the improper dissolution of same. The overriding theme is the ONENESS between TWO people, not more than two people. Jesus’ points make no sense in the light of polygamy, and no one here has raised a serious textual challenge, and the very idea that such a challenge is raised is strong evidence to the force of my statements as to the text as it now stands. It is fatal (thank God!) to polygamy as are the other passages I relied upon. The NT is extraordinarily clear.

[Swordman]

Dee Dee Warren said:

And I have noticed that although Swordman keeps brushing off the implications of Matthew 19 they continue to stick like tar on a beach. My points thoroughly remain unrefuted. The context of Jesus’ teaching in the chapter is MARRIAGE and the improper dissolution of same. The overriding theme is the ONENESS between TWO people, not more than two people. Jesus’ points make no sense in the light of polygamy, and no one here has raised a serious textual challenge, and the very idea that such a challenge is raised is strong evidence to the force of my statements as to the text as it now stands. It is fatal (thank God!) to polygamy as are the other passages I relied upon. The NT is extraordinarily clear.

It appears as though you are upholding your idea concerning those passages as some sort of trophy, but that trophy was "won" from a non-event, a non-sport, if you will. The strength of your observation rests upon our translations that render key words in the singular rather than the plural. If you are going to apply this rule of interpretation, then you are inevitably going to get into trouble in other places. Commentaries are notorious at disagreeing with one another, so they are not at all the basis from which we can legitimately derive an absolute understanding of what is being said.

Suppose I applied your rule of interpretation of the singular wording to other places in the scriptures that are comparable? What then? Are you going to back-pedal and assume that you can legitimately utilize a system of shifting rules, governed only by your own personal slant on a given set of passages? Theology 101 teaches that the rules of interpretation must ALWAYS be consistently applied. The same goes for exegesis and all other methods with their governing rules that assist in discovering the true intent of the wording.

Don

[dizzle]

And that did nothing to diffuse a thing, but merely was a post to make it look like he actually had something to say.

[Swordman]

Yesterday @ 11:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176859#post176859)
Dee Dee Warren:

And that did nothing to diffuse a thing, but merely was a post to make it look like he actually had something to say.

Well, Dee Dee, I am not the one who seemed to rest my case upon the assumption that Gill, or any of the other expositors, were infallible, therefore not subject to social bias. You happen to agree with the majority of the expositors, but that does not mean that your belief is consistent. I do wish I could have sat down with John Gill and disucssed this issue, but he is long since gone.

You are perhaps right. Maybe I was trying to make it look like I had something to say. That only reflected that I was trying to comment upon your comments that also said nothing of any real count. A double negative, would you not say?

Dr. Don Dean

[sprky777]

04-12-2003 @ 08:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64304#post64304)
Dee Dee Warren:


Matthew 19:29 - And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Wow, look at all those plural words... houses, brothers, and sisters. And okay father and mother are singular, that is understandable, a person typically only has one each of those... but what is this? Wife? Singular? Ouch.

Actually, the greek word for 'wife' is the same as used for 'women' or 'wives'. GUNE
Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside WOMEN and children. same word GUNE
The greek language did not differentiate singular or plural in either of those two (and many other) verses.

Also for
1Cor 7:2
1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have "his own1438" wife, and let each woman have "her own2398" husband. 3Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

The greek words used for "his own" and "her own" in that verse are different, and not in gender, therefore allowing for the possibility that different rules apply to the different sexes, as polygamists suggest. In fact, the greek for "her own" in this passage is used in Romans 14:2 to represent a servant and "his own2398" master. Same word. This shows that Paul could have used the SAME WORD TWICE in 1 Corinthians 7:2, but CHOSE NOT TO. And it also shows that a man belongs to his wife in the same sense as a master belongs to his servant. A servant can have only one master, and a master can have many servants. In the same way, a woman can have only one husband, but a man can have many wives.

[dizzle]

Don, I did not first bring up Gill. BTC did, and then you tried to get into a battle of authority, so your last statement is pretty ironic.

PS: I am going on vacation soon and not sure when I will be able to comment on this once again.

[John Reece]

sprky777:

Actually, the greek word for 'wife' is the same as used for 'women' or 'wives'. GUNE
Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside WOMEN and children. same word GUNE
The greek language did not differentiate singular or plural in either of those two (and many other) verses.

The singular form gunh (what is meant by “GUNE” above) does not occur in Matthew 14:21. The plural form gunaikwn (= “WOMEN”) is the form of the word in Matthew 14:21. sprky777’s comment is thus demonstrably false regarding the Greek language.

sprky777:
Also for
1Cor 7:2
1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have "his own1438" wife, and let each woman have "her own2398" husband. 3Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

The greek words used for "his own" and "her own" in that verse are different, and not in gender, therefore allowing for the possibility that different rules apply to the different sexes, as polygamists suggest. In fact, the greek for "her own" in this passage is used in Romans 14:2 to represent a servant and "his own2398" master. Same word. This shows that Paul could have used the SAME WORD TWICE in 1 Corinthians 7:2, but CHOSE NOT TO. And it also shows that a man belongs to his wife in the same sense as a master belongs to his servant. A servant can have only one master, and a master can have many servants. In the same way, a woman can have only one husband, but a man can have many wives.

Utter nonsense.

[themuzicman]

Dumb thought, but, if the two become one flesh, how many "fleshes" does a man have to become one with?

Seems to me that in polygamy, the man would have to split himself to become one with many women, thus violating the "becoming one" with the first one, since he is no longer one, but many.

Michael

[sprky777]

1Cor6
15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh."[2] 17But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

becomming 'one body' refers to joining in intercourse. GOD intended that to be part of marriage. After that, they should not be seperated. So, a married man that has sex with a harlot is 'one flesh' with both his wife and the harlot at the same time.


In respect to my interpretations of greek language, I can only rely on internet concordances. I will try to verify from multiple sources to ensure accuracy.

[dizzle]

Michael I discussed that in depth earlier but of course it was danced around and considering the preoccupation with satisfying overly active sexual appetites, suprisingly de-emmphasize the sexual aspect of the "one flesh" situation, and try to make it simply spiritual.

They will also try to say that since Christ and the Church is analogized, as husband to wife, and since the church has many members, that is an endorsement of polygramy, which frankly is quite sick.

The church is ONE BODY - that is the analogy, Christ has ONE BRIDE. If the polygamists want to press the analog they would have to claim that all these various wives become ONE wife which then become ONE with the man. Also of course the Church is made of men and women. The point of the passage analogizing the church to marriage is to emphasize the ONE with ONE of it, thus the marriage principle. The Church is a corporate SINGULARITY.

[themuzicman]

I would think Paul's commentary on uniting with prostitutes would be helpful, here.

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=183798#post183798)
sprky777:

In respect to my interpretations of greek language, I can only rely on internet concordances. I will try to verify from multiple sources to ensure accuracy.

If you are dependent on internet concordances, you do not have an ability to read the Greek New Testament. And if you are not able to read it for yourself, multiple sources will not necessarily insure accuracy.

[Jaltus]

sprky777:

becomming 'one body' refers to joining in intercourse. GOD intended that to be part of marriage. After that, they should not be seperated. So, a married man that has sex with a harlot is 'one flesh' with both his wife and the harlot at the same time.

Wow, horribly off here. First, since Paul is quoting from Genesis, I recommend you look at those verses first.

Genesis 2:24 states, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

This verse is actually translated a little weakly. The word "become" actually means "to exist." Thus, the literal translation would be that "and they exist in one flesh." However, since the literal rendering seems a little strange, the "to" is changed into a metaphor marker, and thus you have the translation above.

That is one mark againt your argument.

Second, this is an either or set up, as you can tell by the particle for or being at the beginning of the second verse. You cannot be one flesh with two people. Either you are united with one or united with the other (think about the two masters argument that Jesus makes, as much of the language is the same).

In respect to my interpretations of greek language, I can only rely on internet concordances. I will try to verify from multiple sources to ensure accuracy.

I recommend you stop using Strong's, which is horribly outdated, and build yourself a library if you really want to work in the Greek text. There is nothing worse than someone partially informed in Greek sounding off, for it just means they know enough to be dangerous to the body of Christ and not enough to really make valid points.

sprky777:

Actually, the greek word for 'wife' is the same as used for 'women' or 'wives'. GUNE
Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside WOMEN and children. same word GUNE
The greek language did not differentiate singular or plural in either of those two (and many other) verses.

As stated above, this is just horribly false. I would love to see some quotes backing this up. BDAG disagrees with you, as do all other reference works I have (and I have quite a few). If gunh was neuter you might have a point (since neuters have weird properties), but this is feminine and therefore acts like any normal noun.

The greek words used for "his own" and "her own" in that verse are different, and not in gender, therefore allowing for the possibility that different rules apply to the different sexes, as polygamists suggest. In fact, the greek for "her own" in this passage is used in Romans 14:2 to represent a servant and "his own2398" master. Same word. This shows that Paul could have used the SAME WORD TWICE in 1 Corinthians 7:2, but CHOSE NOT TO. And it also shows that a man belongs to his wife in the same sense as a master belongs to his servant. A servant can have only one master, and a master can have many servants. In the same way, a woman can have only one husband, but a man can have many wives.

This is also a horribly false and misleading statement. First, the words are not different in gender because eaotou is reflexive and therefore always carries the gender of the noun it refers to, in this case the man. The second word is idion which is a normal adjective, meaning that it takes the gender of what it modifies, in this case it is modifying man. Thus, it makes sense for their to be the same gender used since both are stressing the responsibility of the man in this relationship.

What I find humorous, though, is your attempt to note that the word used on behalf of the woman also refers to slaves.

The word is used most often for God and Christ (ast least 40 of the 103 times it occurs in the NT, I stopped looking after a while, it was boring) and it also refers to the relationship between a person and their body (I Cor 6:18). There is only one occurrence of the word reflecting the relationship between the master and servant, that being I Timothy. In every single other case it refers to one's own work or self or else God.

In other words, your argument is fundamentally flawed on this point.

[dizzle]

Thank you Jaltus.

[themuzicman]

Don't you just hate it when someone who is cognescente of the subject comes in and destroys someone's argument so completely like that? :teeth:

[sprky777]

Still, I contend that the servant-master relationship in reference to the choice of words by Paul is a direct parallel to the wife-husband relationship. Thus the choice of that context.
The husband is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the church.

[Jaltus]

I agree that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, so let me know when you plan on getting crucified.

[Bill the Cat]

Just checking my ability to do this....Carry on!!

[David O]

Hows this for crucifixion; I haven't seen my kids for 2 years now. I'm letting her do it. I'm not taking her to court because she claims to be a Christian. My last church was willing to do nothing about it. They let me be a youth leader though. Catch 22 and she wins. I still pray for her sometimes. The last thing I said to my son was, "obey your Mom and Step Dad, I'm not cool with not seeing you, but they are the boss of you.

By your logic we wouldn't have to love our wives if they were insubordinate. No woman I know is signing up for that.

[dizzle]

Today @ 10:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185833#post185833)
sprky777:

Still, I contend that the servant-master relationship in reference to the choice of words by Paul is a direct parallel to the wife-husband relationship. Thus the choice of that context.
The husband is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the church.

That does not give you justification for going and finding modifying possesive words, determining that in one context it means more than one, and then transporting it into a different context, where it completely speaks against your interpretation. Considering that sexual immorality is at stake here, a very serious category of sin, you oughta be really considered that you have to play such games. It is no different than the twisting that those who are in favor of "Christian" homosexuality do. Plus you have taken your presuppositions and floated them over multiple texts, and then pointed to your presuppositions as your proof. The direct analogy between Church and Christ is as a marriage, ONE on ONE. There is but ONE Bride for the ONE Christ.

[sprky777]

just to be sure,

Christian polygyny and the structural order of responsibility,
God over Christ,
Christ over man,
husband over wife,

none of this means the husband has no responsibility to NOT love his wife or wives. Christ said to love others as you love yourself. You are to love your wife as your own body. You are joined as one with your wife or wives. You should not cause her harm or stress. you should communicate with her, learn her feelings and desires. Take their input on decisions. But in the end, it is the husband that is responsible for his or his families actions. He is the shield over them. They should feel secure under his guidance and leadership. He should provide a godly and spiritual example.

There should be no abuse (physical or mental), mistreatment, overt domination, condecension.

The wives are not there to be servants to the husbands every desire. He is not there to crack the whip and have them kiss his feet. They are spiritual equals given to our care. God have mercy on anyone that believes he marries to gain a slave.

I have said it so often I should just program a hot key so I won't have to type it again...
Polygamy (polygyny) is not for sex. it is not an orgy. It is not kinky, lustful, lesbian, menaj-e-tua?, slavery, incest, child sex, arranged marriages, immorality.

Marriage is much more than the physical contact between a man and woman, anyone that is married knows that. Sex, although important in marriage, is a very small part of the relationship. Polygyny is an opportunity for growth, spiritual sharing, sharing of household responsibilities, expansion of child care, increase of household income, giving shelter to a widow, giving a woman a good choice in husbands not whoever is left.


I wish a poly wife would join the forum to voice her concerns.

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:
That does not give you justification for going and finding modifying possesive words, determining that in one context it means more than one, and then transporting it into a different context, where it completely speaks against your interpretation.
continuity. you must accept examples of context, lifestyle, word usage... from different parts of the bible to understand what is meant in other parts. You can not look at the bible through a pinhole, see one verse, and say you understand the whole.
Remember the blind men describing an elephant... one holds the tail and says 'an elephant is like a rope' another holds the trunk and says 'an elephant is like a hose' the last holds the leg and says 'an elephant is like a tree'. Each in his part may be right but unless you combine the parts, see the whole, your impression is incomplete and mostly wrong.
Dee Dee Warren:
The direct analogy between Church and Christ is as a marriage, ONE on ONE. There is but ONE Bride for the ONE Christ.
Even though we as Christians are one in Christ, we are still individuals responsible for ourselves. We are free to marry. Because a woman is a Christian, and a man is a Christian (both one in Christ) they cannot marry? Because two men are one in Christ they are homosexuals? Does one man having two wives make each individual less than 'one in Christ'? What bearing does whether a person is married or not have on their individual relationship with Christ?

Although it was specifically stated in law that a man was not to lay with a man as a man lays with a woman. That is an abomination and they are to be put to death. The prohibition on homosexuality was quite clear. Not a gray area.

[dizzle]

Your post made no sense with my comments. You seem to not deal directly with the points made.

And to downplay the sexual nature of marriage is disengunous. I could have all that "sharing" with a bunch of roomates. The one flesh aspect certainly is sexual, and you never dealt with that amongst heaps of other points you did not. And Paul instructed us not to marry (or at least the Church then) unless we could not control our lusts. And he in that passage mentioned ONE spouse both ways. (and there are homosexuals, who use your same tactics, who do not agree that the Scriptures are clear against homosexuality). The level of clarity that the NT has against homosexuality is the same as it has against the immorality of polygamy, yet you accept one and not the other. Quite inconsistent of you.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 02:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=184020#post184020)
Jaltus:

Wow, horribly off here.

Sure is. One must resort to egregious eisegesis to find polygyny condoned for the Christian era.

First, since Paul is quoting from Genesis, I recommend you look at those verses first.

I totally agree. Jesus Himself quoted from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 when teaching about marriage (Matthew 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9).

Genesis 2:24 states, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

This verse is actually translated a little weakly. The word "become" actually means "to exist." Thus, the literal translation would be that "and they exist in one flesh." However, since the literal rendering seems a little strange, the "to" is changed into a metaphor marker, and thus you have the translation above.

I understand that the Hebrew idiom for "become" is the verb "to be" (hayah) with the proposition "to" (le). So maybe it's not so weak. This is also an argument against the ludicrous "gap theory" which reams a huge gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, by translating the latter as "The earth became without form and void" instead of "was". But in this verse, the necessary preposition "to" is absent, so this translation is grammatically impossible.

[tyreth]

I've read through this whole thread, and it's big. I've seen the troubles presented by Matthew 19:9, and I understand dee dee why you are so strong to push it. I will talk about that later.

First I'd like to say that I think there's more evidence in Scripture for a doctrine of salvation by works than there is for a doctrine of monogamy. Sure, there are three or four verses that *might* be used to support a change to monogamy only, but for reasons I will mention, I think it's too little too late. It seems far far less than sufficient as grounds for a change in something practiced by some of God's most loved men.

Bill the cat
---
God blessed the Patriarchs, sometimes dispite their sin.


The patriarchs were never reprimanded for polygamy. By what rule do you judge them to have been living in sin because of polygamy? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Gideon and more - all these men had multiple wives, and they were greatly blessed and used by God. Yet in what part of Scripture did God look lightly at adultery? He considered idolatry to be commiting adultery against Himself. Did any of these righteous men make much use of divorce? No. Yet Jesus saw fit to make divorce a thing not to be practiced.
I just don't understand how you can say that these men lived in sin when not even God accused them of it? I consider adultery to be one of the sickest sins someone can commit - it makes me angry and sad to even imagine it. I think that this is a fair attitude, since idolatry is one of the worst sins, and God likens idolatry to adultery. I cannot possibly imagine, under any circumstances, how God would tolerate such blatant and public adultery by His most loved chosen. How can you say they were living in such sin? To say that our righteousness excels that of the patriarchs seems the height of arrogance.


dee dee
---
Sure it does since the ?one fleshedness? is reciprocal. As much as the man is ?one FLESH? (and it does not say one SPIRIT, though the spiritual implication is certainly there) with the woman, she is ONE flesh with him? and that would entail being ONE with all that he is, which if polygamy were the intended order, would include the other wives, which are simply a wedge in this arrangement. If you deny that, then you are grossly ignorant of female nature, and as I said before, I will say again, it would not surprise me if you could find some women who would disagree, and I would say that aberrations do not define the norm.


First off - not all women are incapable of polygyny. Ask swordman, because he has a dear friend with three wives, which he mentioned earlier in this thread (or another one on this forum). A key principle of polygyny, it is only practiced by a very few. It only ever has been practiced by a few. By far the majority of people will live monogamously. It doesn't matter if 99/100 women hate the thought of polygyny, because that's still 1/100. And don't presume to judge their character merely because they have a different emotional level to you, unless you want to slander the patriarch's wives also (though some were undoubtedly of less than desirable character, can you judge all merely because they are polygynous?). Anyway, what I'm saying is - polygyny was never, and never will be, the norm. It will always be practiced by a few, and therefore it should surprise noone that it will be only a few women who do not find it abborant.
Second, I feel that you are missing a key principle of the nature of polygyny. I'm not sure what your position on this particular topic - but I believe that God made the male as the head of the household, and society in general. The Father is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. Therefore, the woman's master is her husband. The husband's master is Christ. No-one can then use the scripture about being unable to serve two masters in order to rebuke polygyny. In a polygynous relationship, in fact, the leadership of the man is reinforced - you simply cannot have two leaders. That scripture however can be used for rebuking polyandry, since no one can serve two masters.
Now I think you see marriage or relationship like a puzzle with two pieces. They join together to form one image. There is no room for more pieces to fit in, without grabbing some scissors and unnaturaly cutting in another connection. That's not how I see marriage though. I see it more like a tree, where the man is the trunk and the wife is a branch. There may be one branch or there may be many branches, all grafted onto the one person. It all depends on your image of how relationships work. Given my different imagery, I see no such "wedge" as appearing in a relationship where a second or subsequent wife joins.


dee dee
---
How literal do you want to get? There are men and women, not just women, and there is not going to be any literal sexual union. The allegory is clear. Just as Christ has ONE bride to whom He has sacrificed all, so the man, and it is impossible for a mere man to sacrifice ALL to more than one. A man cannot serve two masters.. the same principle applies here.


What swordman is saying is this: The literal is that there are many individuals. You, me, and many others. The allegory is that we are all one bride together. Imagine it this way - you work in an organisation, that organisation is called AMP, but it is made up of many individual workers.
Swordsman's use of this is a very powerful illustration to polygyny. You are picking on the bride of Christ being male and female unecessarily. We *are* called the bride of Christ. This has nothing to do with our human gender, but it has everything to do with our relationship with Christ. It is irrelevant that I am male, because before God I am a wife. I do not have "sex" with Him, but I think it is *very* reasonable to assume that our relationship with Him, when unfallen, is precisely like a marriage. As a wife is to a husband, so are humans to Christ. We were made in His image - why else would He call us His bride if our relationship were not like a marriage? And why then call idolatry adultery?
Our human gender of male and female is irrelevant to the fact that before God our relationship is that of a wife. Many wives. One bride. I am not you, you are not me, yet together we form the bride of Christ.
I don't know how to explain this more, but the bride of Christ is a perfect analogy to polygynous relationships.
Why do you keep saying man cannot serve two masters? That is true, but it's got nothing to do with this. Our Master is God Himself - one Master, not two. If a man has more than one wife He does not have two masters, but one - God. 1 Corinthians 11 teaches us this for sure.


dee dee
---
Michael I discussed that in depth earlier but of course it was danced around and considering the preoccupation with satisfying overly active sexual appetites, suprisingly de-emmphasize the sexual aspect of the "one flesh" situation, and try to make it simply spiritual.


This is downright offensive. Polygyny ultimately has nothing to do with sexual appetites, and it's ignorance to teach otherwise. I have no doubt that there are some or many men who dream of multiple wives merely for their sexual appetites. You cannot accuse all of being subject to the same vice, just because it fits your convenient stereotype of those who would practice it. There are other reasons why a man would practice it apart from sexual appetite.


dee dee
---
The church is ONE BODY - that is the analogy, Christ has ONE BRIDE. If the polygamists want to press the analog they would have to claim that all these various wives become ONE wife which then become ONE with the man. Also of course the Church is made of men and women. The point of the passage analogizing the church to marriage is to emphasize the ONE with ONE of it, thus the marriage principle. The Church is a corporate SINGULARITY.


Again the fact that we are made up of men and women is irrelevant. Men are the bride of Christ. Our relationship towards our wives is male - as the leader. Our relationship towards God is female, as the wife and servant, He is our Master. The fact that the bride of Christ is made up of men and women is irrelevant to the use of this analogy in support of polygyny.

Now as promised, some comments on Matthew 19:9. First of all, some early manuscripts translate it the same as Matthew 5:32. Primarily manuscript C (can't recall it's full name). I am loathe however to appeal to a manuscript that wasn't chosen as the true translation.
So I'll explain my confusion. The correct definition of adultery according to the ancient Hebrew is "usually of a man, always with the wife of another". That is what was forbidden in the 10 commandments, in the moral law that is still in place today.
...There's been a break here in my writing. As I was reading the verse again, I realised with fresh impact just how much Matthew 19:9 is a problem for polygamists. I'll describe first what I realised. The definition of adultery is what I said above. So Matthew 19:9 shows a case where something is called adultery but it doesn't fit in the definition above. Meaning that adultery encompasses more than a man sleeping with another man's wife, but also _appears_ to describe a man who has taken a second unmarried woman to be his wife as committing adultery against his first wife. The reason why this is a great problem is because of the definition of divorce - divorce being merely a written word that says the two are no longer bound. The principle we obtain from Jesus' words is that though men declare a couple to now be separate, before God they are in fact not separate. So that Matthew 19:9 is saying that the reason why it's adultery is because the man is still joined to his first wife, causing him to commit adultery against her.
And so, I was contemplating it a while, I realised my greatest problem was in the definition of adultery. The Biblical definition seems to quite clearly be usually a man, always with another man's wife (according to "The Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon"). This seems to fit very well with the testimony of the OT. So I wondered how Matthew 19:9 could be adultery, because it's simply not. It's like saying "you are guilty of murder" when you haven't actually taken someone's life. And I think that's key. The answer is not to redefine adultery to include a man taking a second wife. The answer I found on another website, and the key is of course Matthew 5:32.
Here is what I beleive it says - when a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery according to Matt. 5:32. Matthew 19:9 imputes the guilt to the husband. We know adultery does not include a man with a second unmarried woman (though I believe another guilt lies there in breaking his promises to his first wife) - so then what Matthew 19:9 is saying is when he causes his first wife to commit adultery he holds the blame. Much like saying you leave a friend in dangerous hands, you are to blame for their murder. He commits adultery against her - he is guilty of the adultery just as much. I hope that makes sense. It probably sounds like reaching for excuses to you, but to me it really makes sense. It fits perfectly with the biblical definition of adultery, it's in line with Jesus' words about committing murder in your heart, and it makes perfect sense that it be imputing the guilt of her adultery to him because he divorced her. I know the verse says that it only is adultery if he marries another - and that makes perfect sense. If he did not marry another, then his divorce was almost certainly for good reasons. If he marries another then he was discarding his first wife in favor of another, therefore leaving her without recourse. And I think that is a fair interpretation - after all, we are assuming in Matt. 5:32 that the divorced woman remarries, otherwise she would not be guilty of adultery. So I think it is fair to interpret Matt. 19:9 this way in order to fit with the proper definition of adultery, rather than to redefine the word 'adultery'. My main difficulty in interpreting Matthew 19:9 is not that it appears to condemn polygyny, but rather that it doesn't fit with the actual meaning of adultery. Ah, as an afterthought, I hasten to add that I think my interpretation is fair under light of Mark 10:11 where it describes the man as committing adultery against her.

Now I want to add very clearly that my view of adultery does not mean I give liberal sexual license to men. They must commit to any woman they have intercourse with. It is what is owed to them. If a man marries a woman and promises to love her alone and no other, then he does a wicked sin to take a second wife and betray her trust and emotions. If he tries to persuade his wife to let him take a second wife and she is unwilling, then he sins to push her in this thing.

Now on this topic again - my biggest problem is a lack of proper discontinuation of polygamy in the New Testament. Reading the Bible from beginning to end, it seems like God permitted polygyny, and felt no need to revisit it in the New. The verses you have used to counter polygyny from the NT are nebulous at best. And, even more importantly, none seem to be given in regards to polygyny. The topic is never addressed! All seem to be written about different topics, and from them we are making uncertain inferences about a practice which seemed encouraged, and was certainly practiced by those men we are supposed to look up to, those men who gave us much wisdom. It's a matter of perspective. Coming from the perspective of polygyny allowed and encouraged (and God even explains Himself as a bigamist (Ezek 23)), there is little or nothing to persuade one that it ceased in the NT. Only coming from a monogamist position do the verses seem to support that position. In summary, if I was to read the Bible through cover to cover, having never been taught monogamy or polygamy, I am almost 100% certain that I would find monogamy to be a strange doctrine.

As a final note: I will say that I don't much like to use Moses as an example of a polygamist. I have read the arguments, and it seems to me very probable that he was a polygamist, but not certain. And almost is not good enough - I think we have sufficient witness in the other patriarchs not to push that.

[T.J. Maxx]

Some time ago this discussion was brought up and Kevin and Cromis demonstrated that Dee Dee was the one "mishandling" and "not being honest with" the scriptures (edited by moderator). Not sure exactly where this thread is though. Maybe the Mormonism one?

Dee Dee was never able to explain why God would give anyone his wives if it were a sin. She insisted that everyone must play by her rules and deal with the prized scripture in Matt 19, which they did quite effectively. All she could do was offer her own interpretation of the Bible, without explaining why her interpretation should be preferred over anyone else's. Excuses were made up why God didn't condemn it as expected. Excuses were made up why God helped someone "sin" by commanding them to do it.

All these scriptures being used against polygamy are ridiculous. Adam marrying one wife says nothing. When the Bible commands to "have child" does it mean we cannot have more than one?

Saying polygamy was "tolerated" is a crazy argument that begs the question. With this sort of rationale taking control, one could pretty much read any doctrine imaginable into the Bible. Allegedly, adultery and polygamy are the same thing. Yet, we are to believe that amidst the multiplicity of anti-adultery sermons found in the OT, nobody there was hip to the fact that they were already practicing it with polygamy. :shrug:

The anti-polygamy arguments are mind-numbing, and I'm amazed how many people are falling for them. Here is what the Jews have to say about it:

http://www.polygamy.com/Jewish/index.htm

[Bill the Cat]

TJ, if you have an issue with Dee Dee, please take it to the locker room.

[dizzle]

And every single issue raised by TJ was answered in my posts on this thread and exegeted and explained. Nice tantrum though. If TJ ever wants to actually deal with my points rather than stomping his feet (or maybe just post Kevin's answers for him) I will be here.

[dizzle]

I just saw Tyreth's post. I will be back to it as time permits.

[sprky777]

Polls indicate that polygamy is becoming more recognized and a greater number of people are either accepting it through tolerance or being a valid moral choice.
I saw no indication of religious basis to responses.

personally, I don't see how society can be more accepting of gay unions than polygamous relationships. At least the poly groups are biologically correct. :huh:

[dizzle]

My computer crashed and a number of other concerns including dealing with a heresy I despise more than polygamy (hardly think that is possible but it is) came up. I did start working on a response and will get back to it when the backlog of site work gets done since I had that downtime.

[David O]

Today @ 10:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206531#post206531)
Dee Dee Warren:

My computer crashed and a number of other concerns including dealing with a heresy I despise more than polygamy (hardly think that is possible but it is) came up. I did start working on a response and will get back to it when the backlog of site work gets done since I had that downtime.


David and Moses were heretics? That's a strong accusation from someone who wrote none of the Bible.

[dizzle]

Let me reword my statement for I see that adjectives pointed in the wrong direction. First, I reserve the term heresy for a denial of the essentials of the faith, thus I would not technically use it for polygamy. The heresy descriptive was meant to apply only to the other item occupyng my attnetion at present.

However, it is beyond deviant for a professing Christian to advocate polygamy. I despise the doctrine almost as much as I despise the heresy of which I was speaking, which is saying a wole lot since I despise that one particular heresy with every single fibre of my being.

That clarifies my statement. Polygamy is not heresy in the strict sense that I use the word, though it certainly is in the wide sense of anything that deviates from what is correct. In the wide sense we all hold a heresy or two. However, it is the gross advocation of sexual immorality in the Body of Christ, and sexual sins are particularly grievous in the sight of God.

[David O]

I don't hold to any heresies.

[tyreth]

I can appreciate your strong language Dee Dee, because I feel passionate about a few others - but it makes me wonder if it is stopping you from thinking more objectively.

No one is asking you to practice polygyny, or indeed forcing it on anyone else. I've read plenty of stories of the abuses seen in Mormon circles and elsewhere, and I would not wish anything like that on any woman. I wonder how you can hate it so strongly when there are cases when people live in such a relationship and are genuinely happy.

Though I suppose it's possible for you to claim that they are just deceiving themselves into being happy, but that's very very hard to prove.

Out of interest, your footnote says you are orthodox. I know very little about that. Does the orthodox teachings hold as strongly as the Roman Church in Monogamy only?

Also, what is this other heresy that you hate so viciously (not something I consider a bad trait, I think zealousness for the truth is to be admired).

[dizzle]

Tyreth, I am having to reconstruct my computer programs... eek!!! As for the heresy I despise, check out the link in my sig line. And "orthodox" simply means that I hold to the essentials of the faith as articulated in the Apostle's creed, not "O"rthodox with a Capital O, as in the Eastern Orthodox church.

And no my revulsion has not clouded my thinking. My thinking led to my revulsion. I am also revulsed by homosexuality even thuogh no one is asking me to be a lesbian. I have been very able to not let that cloud my thinking, and have been successful in separating the distaste for the behaviour, from a distaste for the person. I am revulsed by sexual immorality in general. That was a very poor argument.

I wonder how you can hate it so strongly when there are cases when people live in such a relationship and are genuinely happy.



I will explore that further in my response which I have been working on... but I do hope you are consistent and allow that argument by homosexuals as well. They point to happy gay partnerships. Your reasoning is not very systematic.

In fact, there are some happy swingers.

Your comment was akin to "what's right for you may not be right for me" relativism.

[dizzle]

David O, so you think. I bet you do. I bet I do.

[David O]

I believe in the Bible. It is enough. If God gave David multiple wives, He must have done it in accordance with His law. You don't need to call the doctrines that you don't like or understand heresy. It's important not to accuse God- see Job.

[dizzle]

Today @ 11:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206677#post206677)
David O:

I believe in the Bible. It is enough. If God gave David multiple wives, He must have done it in accordance with His law. You don't need to call the doctrines that you don't like or understand heresy. It's important not to accuse God- see Job.


And I have shown that the NT teaches agaisnt polygamy. Apparently you don't like that. And I understand polygamy perfectly. Can I call a denial of the deity of Christ heresy?

[tyreth]

I will explore that further in my response which I have been working on... but I do hope you are consistent and allow that argument by homosexuals as well. They point to happy gay partnerships. Your reasoning is not very systematic.

In fact, there are some happy swingers.


Nay, I will be inconsistent :) I made the assumption that your revulsion was in part because you see it as abuse of women in all cases (since that's a common argument, and reasonable in many circumstances), so I was anticipating an argument you may not hold and responding to it.

The reason why I made that assumption is because revolt is such a strong word. I know of a few heresies that don't revulse me, but I still hate. Revulsion seems to involve more than just a doctrinal and intellectual disagreeance, more than even a 'in practice' disagreeance.

Anyway, excuse me if my assumption was wrong - I do not use the same argument for homosexuals.

[David O]

The New Testament doesn't teach against polygyny, except for Elders. The New Testament clearly states more than once that women should be silent in church. Do you understand that clear teaching? Have you seen the part where it says that a woman should not teach a man? Have you seen the prophecy that in the future 7 women will take hold of one man and beg him to take them as his wives?

[dizzle]

Today @ 07:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207475#post207475)
David O:

The New Testament doesn't teach against polygyny, except for Elders.

Ahh that is an admission that others here have been unwilling to make. And the requirements for elders are MORAL ones, and we are to imitate our leaders. They are to be above reproach, and we are to follow them. You have just sold the farm with that admission. Care to interact with my other numerous points or just to hear yourself talk some more?


The New Testament clearly states more than once that women should be silent in church. Do you understand that clear teaching?

Yes it is also says they are to pray and prophesy. Are they supposed to do those in mime? Are you only so wooden when it suits you. Additionally, there is a very interesting thread here on that verse which I will dig up and post here. And if you haven't noticed, this is not a church.

ADDED: here is the thread:

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2375



Have you seen the part where it says that a woman should not teach a man?

And have you ever taken the time to dissect that passage with the whole of Scripture? Was Priscilla disobedient to that? I suspect you simply canot answer my points, and are proving my point that at least some of polygamist thought is a nonBiblical subjection of women. I am not lobbing that at Tyreth, but at your comments. If you do not wish for me to "teach" you, don't answer my posts. If you do answer, try interacting with the points made. You always have the escape hatch that you will not answer because you will not let a woman "teach" you. That pretty much silences female discourse on this subject..... you ought to be ashmed of yourself for abusing that verse in that manner.

Have you seen the prophecy that in the future 7 women will take hold of one man and beg him to take them as his wives?

Hahaha, why don't you post that verse so that I can get an even better chuckle.

[David O]

Your demeanor is reproachful, but here's the verse so you can laugh at God's Word;

Isaiah 4
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
2 In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

[dizzle]

It is not God's word I object to, but your spin on it to advocate immorality in Christ's church, and your shameless attempt to silence me. Since I hold God's Word in the utmost respect, if anyone ever interpreted any of my words to be disrespectful of it, it is not, and I would repent of that impression. I do however despise our men advocating immorality. It is in those times especially when God will use a woman to bring reproach upon the men who should know better. I notice very few men here zealous in advocating of morality, if there were, I would not need to speak so strongly. But since none are, here I am, and here I will remain.

[David O]

Was David immoral? Was Moses immoral. The same God who went to the trouble to tell people not to seethe a kid in it's mother's milk and not to take a mother bird with it's eggs was afraid to tell Moses that He didn't like Polygamy? That same God marries and divorces 2 women? Do you respect God's claim to have given David his wives? You don't seem to respect God's clear instructions in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians.

I am zealous about the Bible. You are careless in your accusation of all the men in here. I respect some of them a lot.

God used a donkey to rebuke Balaam. That wasn't how things are supposed to operate. Deborah is not even mentioned in Hebrews. She knew it was shamful. Sarah called Abraham Lord, adn God credits her for it in Peter's book. He says you should be like her.

[tyreth]

Today @ 12:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207475#post207475)
David O:
The New Testament doesn't teach against polygyny, except for Elders.


I deliberately did not present the argument as you just did, for the reasons Dee Dee mentioned. If that is the behaviour expected by our elders, then we know for certain that it is the way all of us ultimately should aim for.

My interpretation of this scripture follows in lines of what has been presented previously, that the word "one" means first. That makes far more sense to me in light of the OT and also historical context. It seems strange that polygamy should be condemned in the New Testament only here, and in such a way that can be so easily interpreted as "first wife". Anyway, I have some more thoughts on this passage, but I'll leave it for now.


The New Testament clearly states more than once that women should be silent in church. Do you understand that clear teaching? Have you seen the part where it says that a woman should not teach a man?


As Dee Dee points out, this is not a church. I believe that the authority of the church should lie in the hands of males. We have been ordained with this role by God, and in many ways are better equipped for it. This is not saying, however, that all women are incapable. There are quite clearly exceptional women who excel above others in their wisdom and zealousness for the teachings of our Lord. I still believe that they are not to lead the church in the role of pastor or elder, but I would not prohibit them from teaching, correcting, or rebuking a man in a private setting (such as after church, in houses, bible studies, etc). Men and women both make mistakes :)


Have you seen the prophecy that in the future 7 women will take hold of one man and beg him to take them as his wives?

When I read this passage it sounds like the women are not interested in being his wives sexually. It sounds like they just want to take on his last name so that they won't be reproached. ie, they are not interested in performing the duties of a wife, but furthering their own interests and forgetting about the name of the man they have "married". I think it says very little about the right or wrong of polygyny, but rather something about the times in which that event will occur. I haven't studied it much. The context seems to be more praising than I am permitting, but I'm still skeptical. Might require some further thought :)

Edit: on second reading, that part about 7 wives clearly continues on from the curses in previous verses. It says little about polygamy, and a lot about the deplorable conditions that these women will live in, so much so that they will take hold of a man and beg him to let them use his name.

[tyreth]

Today @ 02:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207559#post207559)
Dee Dee Warren:

It is not God's word I object to, but your spin on it to advocate immorality in Christ's church, and your shameless attempt to silence me. Since I hold God's Word in the utmost respect, if anyone ever interpreted any of my words to be disrespectful of it, it is not, and I would repent of that impression. I do however despise our men advocating immorality. It is in those times especially when God will use a woman to bring reproach upon the men who should know better. I notice very few men here zealous in advocating of morality, if there were, I would not need to speak so strongly. But since none are, here I am, and here I will remain.

I assume by men zealous to advocate morality you are referring to men opposing polygyny?

I am very saddened by today's immorality. I despise divorce, denounce homosexuality, and believe firmly in the commitment of marriage until death. Young people should avoid sex before marriage, but if they do not restrain themselves then consider themselves bound and be married.

I oppose pornography (a sickening industry), and our culture's constant use of sexuality to sell products. I oppose group sex, paedophelia, necrophelia, sodomy, and all manner of sexual immorality.

My only difference between traditional western culture is that I accept polygyny as permissible, though usually not advisable, because most men will do it for greed and deplorable motives. It is a rare man, I suspect, who would be able to offer his duty properly to more than one wife.

If you disagree with me on any of these other issues of morality, or want to question me, then go ahead. I am very curious (which is why I ask) to see where my idea of morality stacks up against yours in other areas.

[David O]

The Bible would praise something that it wouldn't permit? You arbitrarily decide that those women aren't interested in sex with their husband? Nothing in the text would indicate that. Marriage isn't for sex, in the ible. Sex is appropriate within the confines of marriage, but it is not the most important thing about marriage. Marriage is about property. God bought Christ's bride with a price. We are His Bride/Slave. It is an honor. God is to Jesus, as Jesus is to the church, as the man is to the woman.

God would want ust to conform to commandments He gave only to the Elders? He was afraid to just tell us openly?

I'm guessing that DeeDee talks in her church. She can talk here, but can not teach, according to the Bible, unless you perform that sleight of hand that is easily used to also support gay bishops.

"What he Really meant was..."

[tyreth]

Well, I don't know for certain that those women did not sleep with the man. I think it's fair though, because the Scripture shows the women explaining that they will keep to themselves for all things, but just want to be called by his name.

Either way, it's in the context of adverse, undesirable conditions. These seven women need to have this man let them use his name because of their reproach. I'ts not a desirable situation, and not an example of positive polygyny. It's like saying "Lamech had wives, so it must be ok".

I don't really want to discourage you David O, but I also don't like to encourage arguments I think are inaccurate.

I've seen one website trying to claim that "a man has his father's wife" (1 Corinthians 5:1) is proof of polygyny in the church! They say that because the man sleeps with his father's wife, that the way it's worded means that this was not his mother. They say, therefore, that it must be a polygynous father and the man is sleeping with one of his father's two+wives. The problem with this, of course, is that the father could have divorced and remarried, or the man's mother died and his father remarried, etc.

I think polygyny has a very strong case without needing to introduce spurious arguments.


God would want ust to conform to commandments He gave only to the Elders? He was afraid to just tell us openly?


He did tell us openly. Yet just because a man divorces does not mean he loses his salvation. It just means he is not suitable for the role of elder. All the attributes described for elders and deacons are to be pursued by us all. However, we are all sinful, and some God will not strengthen enough to act righteously enough for those positions. So, since we see that all the other attributes are good things that ultimately should be practiced by all Christians (as revealed by other Scriptures), if it were demonstrated that "one wife" was prohibiting polygyny, then it would be a serious argument against.

I think that a translation of "first" rather than "one" is superior anyway. Even if I did believe in monogamy only, given what I've seen now I would consider "first" wife to be a superior translation. "one wife" implies a prohibition against polygamy but not divorce, while "first wife" implies a prohibition against divorce and not polygamy - which given the historical context makes far more sense for both those who support polygyny and those who support monogamy only.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 10:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207633#post207633)
tyreth:

Well, I don't know for certain that those women did not sleep with the man. I think it's fair though, because the Scripture shows the women explaining that they will keep to themselves for all things, but just want to be called by his name.

Either way, it's in the context of adverse, undesirable conditions. These seven women need to have this man let them use his name because of their reproach. I'ts not a desirable situation, and not an example of positive polygyny. It's like saying "Lamech had wives, so it must be ok".

Good point, and one that I was going to say. You spared me the trouble.

I don't really want to discourage you David O, but I also don't like to encourage arguments I think are inaccurate.

Commendable.

I've seen one website trying to claim that "a man has his father's wife" (1 Corinthians 5:1) is proof of polygyny in the church! They say that because the man sleeps with his father's wife, that the way it's worded means that this was not his mother. They say, therefore, that it must be a polygynous father and the man is sleeping with one of his father's two+wives. The problem with this, of course, is that the father could have divorced and remarried, or the man's mother died and his father remarried, etc.

Commendable again. This very point was attempted in this very thread.



He did tell us openly. Yet just because a man divorces does not mean he loses his salvation. It just means he is not suitable for the role of elder. All the attributes described for elders and deacons are to be pursued by us all. However, we are all sinful, and some God will not strengthen enough to act righteously enough for those positions. So, since we see that all the other attributes are good things that ultimately should be practiced by all Christians (as revealed by other Scriptures), if it were demonstrated that "one wife" was prohibiting polygyny, then it would be a serious argument against.

I think that a translation of "first" rather than "one" is superior anyway. Even if I did believe in monogamy only, given what I've seen now I would consider "first" wife to be a superior translation. "one wife" implies a prohibition against polygamy but not divorce, while "first wife" implies a prohibition against divorce and not polygamy - which given the historical context makes far more sense for both those who support polygyny and those who support monogamy only.

That has been dealt with thoroughly in this thread. Your assessment is utterly incorrect.

[dizzle]

And David sidesteps my points as usual. Yes I "talk" at church. I greet people, I discuss the Bible, I sing, I pray, and I fellowship. You never did answer about Priscilla which of course is using your own argument against you. She was never condemned and she taught men. If you say it was okay because her husband oversaw her, my husband oversees me, and both my partners in this website are male. The ultimate authority at this website is male.

[David O]

I don't believe that Priscilla was disobedient to Paul's commandments. Either she did not teach, or she was disobedient to Paul's (the Holy Spirit through Paul) teaching and God used her anyway. The Holy Spirit used the errant Saul to prophesy, and a donkey to rebuke Balaam. If the Bible says it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in church, I believe it. It also says that it is a disgrace for a man to lie with a man as he would with a woman. Your same licentious logic could be used to afford the Episcopalian church those gay Bishops.

The treacherous overseer clause is how my old church got to allowing women to teach men. "Under authority" is not a license to disobey God's commandments.

[dizzle]

Well David you still skirted my points (and notice how your own argument can be used against you in this thread) - but at this piont I request that if you wish to discuss whether or not women should participate on debate boards, start a new thread. This thread is not about that topic. I will not discuss if further here with you. You apparently have an issue with women expressing theological opinions and that is not helping your polygamy cause. I am sure Tyreth is wishing you would not try to silence female discourse on this issue.

Christianity 201 would be a perfect place for you to try to silence the women of Tweb. Please do not sidetrack this thread further.

[David O]

T Web is not church. I answered your questions. Any sidetracking would have to be due to your line of questioning.

My cause is The Bible.

[tyreth]

That has been dealt with thoroughly in this thread. Your assessment is utterly incorrect.


This is a big thread now, do you recall which post or where?


I am sure Tyreth is wishing you would not try to silence female discourse on this issue.

I'm not particularly anguished by his words. I'm hoping that we are all able, or at least you and I Dee Dee, to look past what is not rational to see if it's still true or not. It's entirely possible for people to make bad arguments in defense of the truth. I've been told many times, when arguing creationism, about other creationists who are not like me - others who argue absurd things in defence of a literal 7 day creation, 6000 year old earth. All I do is explain the same model as AiG and other groups, yet they seem surprised at what I say. Just because others have been unable to grasp the creation model does not mean it's false.

So anyway, that's my hope. I showed this thread to a friend of mine, and he thinks the conversation has degenerated a bit. It seems to be getting a bit personal on both sides.

I don't ask questions unless I think they may have an effect on me, either immediately or in the future. Polygyny is bound to become more of an issue in our world in the future. Our western society is collapsing morally, and it's causing people to consider things they wouldn't normally. This, while usually leading to a degeneration and more evil, can sometimes be a source of good change. I'm not interested in winning this discussion about polygyny. I'm looking to be persuaded fully either way. I have set myself a time, the end of this month, to make a decision. The reason being, I think I've seen enough to fully persuade me, but I want to make sure - not hurrying into a decision. A person, once he or she has decided what they believe, is much harder to sway than before they had an opinion.

I've been reading and thinking about this particular questions for 8 months or so. It's just one of many questions I have considered in the past, and there will be many more in the future. However, I must make up my mind then move on.

So I'm not interested in levelling personal attacks at anyone. Rather, I want to understand on a Scriptural level why I should reject polygyny. I've asked a good number of people, and this is one of a few places I've been. I like to seek wisdom from a number of people. Dee dee, you say you reject polygyny for Scriptural reasons, so I am very keen to understand your arguments, but I can't wait forever.

[dizzle]

Tyreth... I have presented numerous arguments already here, and my time is limited. I apologize but I cannot operate under your timetable, and the search for truth has a stubborn way of ignoring our timetables. I believe enough in God's sovereignty that I am not stressed by any delays I have in responding, for He reveals His truth in many different ways to all who are seeking. He doesn't need me. It may be well over a week before I even finish the response I am in the middle of composing, it could be more. I am ill now, and other things take priority.

[tyreth]

Sure, I'm not demanding anything, but just more to let you know where I'm coming from. I realise in retrospect that my post implied I was demanding your time. That wasn't my intention...though for some reason my true motives is hidden even from me. I suspect it was more to show you more about myself than anything else.

Afterwards, I'll still be open to arguments, but the nature of the discussions will be slightly different. I hope I'm still open to listening.

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209074#post209074)
tyreth:

I'm not particularly anguished by his words. I'm hoping that we are all able, or at least you and I Dee Dee, to look past what is not rational to see if it's still true or not. It's entirely possible for people to make bad arguments in defense of the truth. I've been told many times, when arguing creationism, about other creationists who are not like me - others who argue absurd things in defence of a literal 7 day creation, 6000 year old earth. All I do is explain the same model as AiG and other groups, yet they seem surprised at what I say. Just because others have been unable to grasp the creation model does not mean it's false.

It's a shame that the pro-polygyny side isn't consistent with its hermeneutics. DD and I use the same hermeneutical method as AiG to reject polygamy and affirm monogamy as the created intention for mankind. See AiG's article Does the Bible clearly teach monogamy? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4074.asp) I fail to see the point of rehashing the clear biblical arguments.

[tyreth]

Today @ 12:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209630#post209630)
Socrates:



It's a shame that the pro-polygyny side isn't consistent with its hermeneutics. DD and I use the same hermeneutical method as AiG to reject polygamy and affirm monogamy as the created intention for mankind. See AiG's article Does the Bible clearly teach monogamy? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4074.asp) I fail to see the point of rehashing the clear biblical arguments.

I'm sorry, but how was I being inconsistent with my hermeneutics? It sounds like you are saying that I am being inconsistent because I respect AiG for their creation arguments but reject their thoughts on polygygny. To me there is nothing wrong with believing that people can be right about some things and wrong about others.

At any rate, I've seen all the arguments in that AiG argument before, and if that is a full defence of the monogamy only position, then I won't be persuaded.

If you think there's any useful arguments to add to the AiG article, I'd love to hear it.

If you want me to respond to the article point by point, I'd be happy to.

[dizzle]

I wanted to put out a comment here on second by itself so it isn't lost in the shuffle. There have been insinuations and outright comments that my anti-polygamy reaction is strictly emotional because I have strongly and will continue to strongly express my utter disgust for the practice.

That being said... I will also post further elucidation on the Scriptural case and my disgust is completely Biblical within the conclusions I have reached. If I am correct, then this the promotion of rank immorality in the Body, and it would be improper not to react with disgust. And without any personal offense to the persons here, anyone practising it in the New Covenant or advocating it should be put from the corporate body. Paul was very strict on sexually immoral brothers. Sexual immorality is not to be tolerated. It will be a sick day indeed (and I agree with Tyreth it will happen) when polygamy is legalized in this country, and even worse widely accepted, and the church must put out such from her midst.

[tyreth]

Today @ 02:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209701#post209701)
Dee Dee Warren:

It will be a sick day indeed (and I agree with Tyreth it will happen) when polygamy is legalized in this country, and even worse widely accepted, and the church must put out such from her midst.

Which country is that? I'm guessing America, but that's not where I live. I'm from Australia, but in many ways similar culture.

I believe that some of the battle for this will be won or lost here.

For you to be so strongly persuaded makes me wonder what I am missing when I read the Scriptures. I really cannot see this strong condemnation you see. It feels like you are comming with the presupposition that monogamy is the only truth, then finding texts to support that position. Whereas I feel that if we began without bias for either doctrine then one could not help but come up with a doctrine of polygyny.

I could show many verses that make it look like we need works to be saved, but ultimately the protestant position is that we are saved by grace apart from works. In other words, those Scriptures are understood in light of each other. Comparing the testimony of polygyny, including God Himself (Ezekiel 23), with a few verses that are dubious at best does not seem to make a convincing case.
The verses I've seen seem to make a monogamous only case only if monogamy is first established elsewhere. ie, they are not strong enough to stand on their own, but require the victory to be won elsewhere before they are called up.

(btw, when I talk about monogamous position as opposed to the polygynous one, I am not suggesting every man should be polygynous...far from it. Populations level out at around 49:51, depending on the country).

[dizzle]

Today @ 10:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209715#post209715)
tyreth:



Which country is that? I'm guessing America, but that's not where I live. I'm from Australia, but in many ways similar culture.

I believe that some of the battle for this will be won or lost here.

America, I am referring to.

For you to be so strongly persuaded makes me wonder what I am missing when I read the Scriptures. I really cannot see this strong condemnation you see.

Then you have missed my point in my post. It is not difficult. Start for one second and assume for the sake of argument that I am right. What then should be the reaction of those who teach monogamy to those who advocate polygamy? Separation becuae then it would be immorality and the Scripture is clear what the Church is to do with immorality. That was my sole point.

It feels like you are comming with the presupposition that monogamy is the only truth, then finding texts to support that position. Whereas I feel that if we began without bias for either doctrine then one could not help but come up with a doctrine of polygyny.

And you are incorrect, and nice spin for your own view. I will not psychologize at this point with you, though I have some suspicions of my own.

I could show many verses that make it look like we need works to be saved, but ultimately the protestant position is that we are saved by grace apart from works. In other words, those Scriptures are understood in light of each other. Comparing the testimony of polygyny, including God Himself (Ezekiel 23), with a few verses that are dubious at best does not seem to make a convincing case.

I have answered that once already. I would be utterly careful before you ascribe sexuality to God.

The verses I've seen seem to make a monogamous only case only if monogamy is first established elsewhere. ie, they are not strong enough to stand on their own, but require the victory to be won elsewhere before they are called up.

Not at all. I say it your biases that are overwhelming your judgment.

(btw, when I talk about monogamous position as opposed to the polygynous one, I am not suggesting every man should be polygynous...far from it. Populations level out at around 49:51, depending on the country).

I will deal with that more in full in the much promised rebuttal. I have had enough for a while, as I say, sexual sin disgusts me.

[tyreth]

Today @ 03:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209721#post209721)
Dee Dee Warren:
Then you have missed my point in my post. It is not difficult.


I am doing my best to be polite, do not mock me. I understood your point because, as you say, it was not difficult. I understand fully why you say you are reacting so strongly.
I was merely adding to that thought, that if you are so strong against polygyny to the point of outcasting those who practice it, then you must have pretty persuasive reasons for rejecting it - because I would not be quick to excommunicate anyone unless I was sure I was right in my condemnation.


And you are incorrect, and nice spin for your own view. I will not psychologize at this point with you, though I have some suspicions of my own.


Please don't share them unless it will help with building each other up and persuading me of your position.


I have answered that once already. I would be utterly careful before you ascribe sexuality to God.


I believe that I answered this one also, if I'm thinking of the right time when you brought it up.


Not at all. I say it your biases that are overwhelming your judgment.


I never claimed I don't have biases. I said that it seems if one comes from an unbiased position that they will support polygyny. That's how it appears from my perspective - that's not a claim of objectivity, it's just me saying that as far as I can tell, working as best I can around my biases, that it seems the correct Scriptural view is polygyny. I was also saying that I think if one began a doctrine of sexuality without any cultural bias that it seems to me one would come to a doctrine of polygyny. It's all my opinion, and it's bound to have it's bias.


I will deal with that more in full in the much promised rebuttal. I have had enough for a while, as I say, sexual sin disgusts me.

Very well then. It seems hard to have a conversation and be persuaded in such a manner.

My view of anger and war is that it's a reaction that's given after all other means are exhausted. You do not make war until persuasion has failed. Then, when you do make war, it is not with the intention of persuading, but rather to destroy the opposing view - you have found them unwilling to change, now it is your duty to remove the abhorrant view from the earth.

For you to respond to me or any of us with anger makes it feel like you have already given up on persuasion. I would rather a conversational tone, because I'm much more inclined to change my view that way, and much less likely to throw up defences.

[sprky777]

The male/female ratio may be 49/51 at birth but consider that males have a higher infant mortality rate. Additionally, males have higher accidental death rates and deaths from military causes. Also, there are typically age differences at marriage. With an increasing population and a nearly even gender difference then, for example, females at 21 will outnumber males at 26 by a much larger margin than birth rates alone.

females are most fertile between puberty and 23. Child bearing after age 35 is risky unless the woman has had children at a regular interval before that. Males are fertile almost their entire life span. So if a male age 40 wanted to marry and have children he would choose a female less than 35 years of age. If he wished to have many children then he would choose from a younger age group so the female would be in her fertile range for a longer period of time.

growth rate 2% per year.
infant mortality rate 8/100,000 female
infant mortality rate 10/100,000 male
accidental deaths 2/1000 female
accidental deaths 3/1000 male
military deaths 10/100,000 male

rough example: initial population 1,000,000.
year one
510,000 females
490,000 males
year five
561,000 females
539,000 males
year ten
617,100 females
592,900 males

using simple math the results show a 62/49 female/male ratio if the marriage were to a female 10 years younger.
So if every man took a wife then there would be 130,000 females that would have to stay single. Or, every 4th man could marry two women.
even using a zero age difference at year 10 would result in 24,200 women being forced into a single lifestyle.

[tyreth]

Those figures don't coincide with the actual figures I've seen for my country, do you have a local statistics beauro where you can check that?

The greatest significant difference in population numbers seemed to be in the older age group (40+) where women outweighed men at any significant number.

[sprky777]

The figures used were only estimates. Not actual statistics. The only point was to show that under realistic conditions the ratios between marriageable persons would support polygyny without condemning some men to bachelorhood.
The current monogamy system does condemn women to either a single life or become a divorcee. That also doesn't include the number of males that choose to stay single to be as dee dee calls 'horn-dogs'. Which of course plays into the single female roles of prostitution or single mothers. But of course, with promiscuity as it is today, how do prostitutes stay in business?

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209701#post209701)
Dee Dee Warren:

I wanted to put out a comment here on second by itself so it isn't lost in the shuffle. There have been insinuations and outright comments that my anti-polygamy reaction is strictly emotional because I have strongly and will continue to strongly express my utter disgust for the practice.

Nothing wrong with that. God calls homosexual activity an "abomination" and we can't dismiss His disgust as mere emotion. Sin should disgust a believer because it is sin.

[dizzle]

I am doing my best to be polite, do not mock me. I understood your point because, as you say, it was not difficult. I understand fully why you say you are reacting so strongly.

I was not mocking you, that is the way I speak. Believe me if I were mocking you it would not be subtle. Don't be so quick to take offense. I don't countenance thin-skins, especially when I perceive it to be a debate tactic, which is in fact what I perceive here a bit.


I was merely adding to that thought, that if you are so strong against polygyny to the point of outcasting those who practice it, then you must have pretty persuasive reasons for rejecting it - because I would not be quick to excommunicate anyone unless I was sure I was right in my condemnation.

And I have articulated those reasons ad nauseam. But of course this is once again a red herring to provoke an emotional reaction to the reader and to cloak your position with the indica of unjust persecution IMHO. The sheer point of my post was IF I am right, THEN what follows, nothing more, nothing less, thus your continued posturing on this point is not going to receive a good reception on my part.

Please don't share them unless it will help with building each other up and persuading me of your position.


It is not my job to convince you, that is the Holy Spirit's job. My job here is to fight the advocation of sexual immorality, if you happen to be convicted as well, that is good. And I will share them if you do not cease in your psychologizing of me. In fact, I will continue in my assertions of what drives sexual immoratlity to begin with in my further post.

I never claimed I don't have biases. I said that it seems if one comes from an unbiased position that they will support polygyny. That's how it appears from my perspective - that's not a claim of objectivity, it's just me saying that as far as I can tell, working as best I can around my biases, that it seems the correct Scriptural view is polygyny. I was also saying that I think if one began a doctrine of sexuality without any cultural bias that it seems to me one would come to a doctrine of polygyny. It's all my opinion, and it's bound to have it's bias.


Then you were posturing and your original comment was unnecessary. I could say the same of me and all we are doing is stating the obvious for each other's perspective. The Jews coming from their own cultural perspective (without even the benefit of the NT clear teaching) were eschewing polygamy, so I am not buying it. Sorry.


Very well then. It seems hard to have a conversation and be persuaded in such a manner.

I will never conceal my disgust for the mistreatment of women, though that surely is not your intention of course, or her subjugation, or the promotion of sexual sin. Never. I will put this in a way that you can relate to. I am not trying to claim that what you are claiming is the same as this, I am using an example I know will work. If you were a pedophile from NMBLA, even a very nice and congenial one, who had your pro-pedophilia ideas, I would not cease from expressing my disgust. Oh, and they use cultural handwaving too to explain disgust BTW... (I am finding it ironic how the propolygamistst are using some of the same arguments as the pedophiliacs and homosexuals) - and I AM NOT equating polygamy to be the SAME as either of those two, just making an observation.



For you to respond to me or any of us with anger makes it feel like you have already given up on persuasion. I would rather a conversational tone, because I'm much more inclined to change my view that way, and much less likely to throw up defences.

Nice switheroo, and switcheroos make me angry. I cannot tolerate passive aggressive tactics. I did not say anger in the post in question, nor am I angry towards YOU as a person. I am DISGUSTED with the perversion you are advocating. That is disgust of an IDEA not a PERSON. I am sure this clear shifting you have done constitutes a fallacy of some kind.

Now, I have in some posts made comments about PERSONS, ie. That inappropriate LUST is the reason behind most of this. I stand by that. That is again though criticizing more of an action or feeling than the whole person, though I did expand that with my sarcastic use of horn dog.

[tyreth]

I think I'm going to leave talking and wait for your response - staying on the issue at hand. Dealing with my psychology and yours is producing undesired effects. I'm not communicating properly with you what I'm saying, resulting in misunderstandings by us both which are only causing troubles. In other words, I'm not going to respond to what you've said, because I don't think it's conducive to the conversation for me to continue it.

So I'll wait patiently for your response.

[dizzle]

In the interim here is an interesting anti-sexual immorality article I found that makes some great points. I was going to simply incorporate them but decided the original author makes them better than I so I am allowing him to speak for himself which will be later followed up by my post...

*****
God does reveal His will, character, and intentions not only
in direct commands, but also by the way He acts in creation
and history, as well as through the form and even "literary style"
His revelation is expressed. In order to understand the meaning and purpose of our being, it is most important to look at the account of creation. That is when our maker gave the paradigm for our living.

We read in Genesis 1 [the very first chapter of the Bible]:

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
the livestock according to their kinds,
and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,
in our likeness,
and let them rule over the fish of the sea
and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth,
and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase
in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish
of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living
creature that moves on the ground."


Do you see the Hebrew poetic structure of emphasis, the parallelism in verse 27? There "in the image of God" corresponds to "male and female". Man(kind) is 'one' [created HIM], but God sees the need to make two different and complementary beings in order to adequately represent Himself in His image. This verse is also a strong pointer towards a "relationship character" (plurality) of the nature of the ONE God, which is supported by the rest of Holy Scripture....

Not "what the image says about the source", but what meaning andintention the source gives to the image, i.e. us in our relationship as men and women.

We are together to reflect the "nature of God". Marriage is a creation ordinance of the highest calling. God has created us as men and women in order that we in godly marriages reflect some of his own nature, that we be a a visualization of his glory.

Because our own very being and the way we do relate as husband and wife is so bound up with the character of God, therefore marriage is such an awesome and holy institution in Christianity....

While the above is the summary statement of the meaning of creation of man as male and female, in chapter two of Genesis more details are given.

Genesis 2:

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the
field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see
what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living
creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and
all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was
found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he
was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place
with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of
the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called `woman,' for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Whole books have been written about the depth of meaning in this passage. Just a few thoughts here. The creation example God himself gives is that of "one man, one women, to become one flesh", together representing the image of their creator and rule in His place over creation as His representative / vicegerent...

From this passage and creation event in 2:21-23 the conclusion is drawn that a man [general case - not just Adam, since he didn't even have any parents] will ... be united to his wife [NOT wives], and they will be ONE flesh. Even in this very passage, the creation of one woman for one man is concluded with a remark that declares this as the normative pattern. It is the goal of marriage to become one. They do not become one just
by having sex. This is a lifelong process of working on truly develop a oneness of mind, soul and spirit, which is a intended as a truly God-glorifying relationship [his image].

This intention is impossible to fulfill if a husband cannot fully devote all his marital love to his one wife, because he has several of them that demand his devotion. Also, because this "unity" of husband and wife [one flesh] is the express purpose of the creation of mankind as male and female,
therefore divorce, is such a serious subject. When some religious people came to Jesus with a question on what reasons are enough to divorce one'swife, Jesus responded not with pointing to the divorce laws given in the Torah of Moses, nor did he quote a number of cases where divorce is reported in the scriptures, but he pointed back to this above passage to establish
the meaning of marriage from its creation ordinance. He taught us that God puts a man and woman together in marriage, and what God has joined together man has no authority to separate.

The temptation is to argue that in Genesis God only joined together Adam and Eve -- two individuals. But this argument resists the teaching of Christ, who insisted that Adam and Eve were a paradigmatic couple. When God joined
them together, He was joining together every man and woman who has ever come together sexually in a covenant bond. And this paradigm was: One man and one woman.

As important as it is to look at God's way of creating the first marriage, it is also important to see how the first incidence of polygamy is reported in the Bible. After the original fall into sin is reported in chapter 3 of Genesis, then chapter 4 reports the escalation of sin in mankind that is set against God. From the first rebellion against God's command by Adam and Eve, the next step is the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, and then several generations down the line from this brother murderer Cain,
Lamech is born. Two things are noted about Lamech: 1) He married TWO women, and 2) he proudfully boasts to his wives "Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I HAVE KILLED a man for wounding me, a
young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times."

This man is not only going against the principle of justice by killing for an injury [instead of 'eye for an eye...'], he even boast about it. Also, the escalation of revenge and sin is clear from the seven to the seventy- seven. It is THIS man who is reported to first marry two wives, probably as expression of his power and strength/wealth. But certainly not because of his piety.

Note: Neither his boasting of murder nor his polygamy are expressedly condemned in this passage. Both are just reported as matters of fact. But the whole composition of the text in chapters 3-4 clearly describes the increase and escalation of sinfulness on the earth. I hope it is not lost on you that one of the two points mentioned about this "pinnacle"
of sinfulness [since Lamech is the last of the chain] are murder and polygamy. I agree that polygamy is not on the level of murder as a criminal act - it isn't even a "criminal" act at all. But it is significant that the issue of polygamy in the Bible is FIRST introduced in the context of the increasing development of sinfulness being the rebellion against thewill of God. And Biblically it belongs there because it is part of the corruption of God's initial intention of what marriage should be.

This insight that marriage is an image of God's nature/character is not restricted to the first two chapters. This is a theme that runs through the whole Bible. Both positive and negative. What is the part of God's nature that we can know/experience? It is His relationship with us. And that is where this image of a marriage is used over and over again. Positive: God is the "husband" of Israel which is a picture for his love and faithfulness, his care and provision, ... and negative: The idolatery of the people of God is time and again likened to adultary and prostitution.

Let me just include two paragraphs from a Bible dictionary.

***************
MARRIAGE

iii. Figurative Use

Frequently the relationship between God and his people
is depicted as that between husband and wife. This
imagery is particularly developed in the prophets,
which often employ the entire history of a marriage
relationship (Jer. 3:1-14; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1-3).
Among the points so illustrated by the prophets are:
the good that befalls the homeless or childless
woman when her husband receives her (Isa. 54:1-3;
Ezek. 16:8-14); unfaithful wife's entering into
prostitution, a metaphor for idolatry (Jer. 3:1-2;
Hos.1:2); the unfaithful spouse's misuse in her
prostitution and adultery of the good things
provided by her faithful spouse (Ezek 16:15-26,
30-34; Hos. 2:8); the unfaithful spouse's desire
to remain on friendly terms with her spouse without
becomimg faithful herself (Jer. 3:3b-5); the rejection
of the unfaithful one (God's judgment of his people -
Ezek. 16:27, 35-63; Hos. 2:2 [which contains the text
of a bill of divorce], 3-13); the true lover's seeking
for his unfaithful beloved (Jer. 3:6-14; Hos. 2:14-20;
3:1-5). and reconciliation, restoration, and rejoicing
(Isa. 54:1-8; 62:4-5).

At Eph. 5:22-30, within the context of the ethical
code of the ideal household (cf. Col. 3:18-19;
1 Pt 3:1,7), the husband-wife relationsbip is
metaphorically applied to the relationship of
Christ and the Church; Gen. 2:24 is cited as the
foundation for the unity of Christ and the Church
(Eph. 5:31-33). At Rev. 19:7-9 the messianic banquet
of Christ at the end of the age is depicted as a wedding
feast in which the marriage of the Lamb (Christ) and his
bride (the Church) is celebrated (cf Matt. 22:2-14,
Luke 14:15).

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Allen C Myers (rev. editor),
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987, pp694-95
*****************

And yet another inclusion:

*****************
The New Testament clearly teaches that marriage is
a lifelong union between one man and one woman,
one flesh. This is more than a man and a woman
agreeing to live together sexually, even with the
consent of their society. It is the exclusive
commitment of a man and a woman to each other in
a lifelong companionship of mutual love and care,
until death parts them. Its exclusive nature rules
out polygamy as an option for the Christian.

In their teaching on marriage, Jesus and Paul pointed out that this was God's purpose from the beginning. Clearly, God tolerated attitudes to marriage among his ancient people which fell short of his own ideal, because of 'the hardness of their
hearts'. Even so, the Old Testament records some bitter experiences of rivalries, jealousies, conspiracies and murders, which were the direct outcome of the polygamous marriages of some of the key personalities in the Old Testament.

----
From the article "Polygamy" by Gottfried Osei-Mensah in
Exploring the Christian Faith
A Contemporary Handbook of What Christians Believe and Why
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996, p. 206
*****************

Let me specifically quote in full the relevant passage of Ephesians 5:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the
church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to
their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
himself up for her
26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through
the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or
wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own
bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for
it, just as Christ does the church--
30 for we are members of his body.
31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the
church.
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself,
and the wife must respect her husband.

Without getting into a deep discussion of what all this means in detail, it should be clear to everybody that our roles and expectations for our marriage relationship are defined by the relationship of Jesus Christ to his bride, the Church. And it is a sacrificial, costly love.

And the important thing is not that our marriage relationship is taken as a symbol to understand the relationship of Christ with his church [even though this is true, but we are weak and sinful and hardly everhave perfect marriages] but it is the other way around, we are to orient our marriage life at the character of Christ. We are called again, to reflect the divine image in our natural relationship of husband and wife. And this is yet again, bound together with the creation story, of "one man, one woman, one flesh". This is THE fundamental paradigm.

And there is only one bride of Christ. Even though she is looking very divided on the outside of her "organizational sturctures" in the inside she is one, the true believers of all churches have always recognized that we belong together. And the Bible only speaks of one bride, of one church all the way through. And the prayer for unity is formost on Jesus agenda.

See for example his own prayer in John 17 [and John 13:34-35], but also in many other passages. The impact of the church comes from the divine love in the life of the believers that becomes visible to the world, expressed in a clear unity. The fact that Christians often have been disobedient and in disagreement and unloving is judgment on ourselves, but does not detract
from the command given and the principles we are supposed to live out.

And our marriages are supposed to be an image for the world to see of how God loves us, how Christ cares for the Church. And a polygamous marriage would distroy this image we are called to display to the world of God's love and power in the transformation of lives. To display the ONE church monogamous marriages are the only way. Hence we cannot allow polygamy for
Christians if being Christian means to follow God's will for our life as revealed in his holy word.

The law of Moses was regulating divorce and polygamy as problems of life which are real and have to be dealt with. We are the redeemed of God and no longer under the law, that was given to restrain evil. We are not only on the path of avoidance of evil, but on the path of positively seeking God's highest will and calling and to live out the ideal as best possible in the power and grace that he gives.

Just as divorce was allowed because of the general sinfulness
of man, but not as God's original plan, so polygamy for a time had its place in a world that is in general far from God. It might have been at times the lesser evil given the context and circumstances. But because it wasn't as God intended it, even though he allowed it, so it was often the cause of much heartbreak as is clearly seen in many records of these
polygamous situations in the Bible, but the Church has also the specific calling of exemplifying God's restoration. We are a new creation. [2 Cor. 5]

And as such we are to orient ourselves at what God intended not what he allowed due to the sinfulness in this world. Our sin has been dealt with on the cross and our life here now should be a display of his redemption and the new spirit that he has given us to live our life as He wishes it.

God's power to live differently. We are no longer bound by those laws which only regulated and restrained the evil in this world, but are to set positive examples of what God intended this world to be and what he intended marriage to be. The Christian Church has the calling to display the values and behaviors of God's kingdom and of his character. We are called to orient ourselves on the image God gave us of what marriage was supposed to be, not what God for some time allowed itto be. We are called to live the higher standard, not the easy way out.....


I want to look at one more passage, since this was brought up in the polygamy discussion... and false conclusions were drawn from it.

1 Timothy 3 explicitely forbids polygamy for church leaders. Let me try to clear up some of the problematic reasoning in regard to this passage with an analogy.

If you read in your car manual in the chapter that describes the maintainance of the transmission system that you have to be very careful that no water gets into the transmission oil would it be reasonable to conclude that since there is no mentioning of of being careful that no water gets into the gas tank, it is perfectly okay to pour water in the gas tank? Everybody knows
that this would be a completely inappropriate conclusion. Even if nowhere in the manual is a mentioning of not pouring water in the gas tank, this doesn't mean it is okay.

In a similar way we have to first realize that this is not an exhaustive treatment on polygamy [it isn't a treatment of polygamy at all], but this is a list of qualifications for leadership. If it were a paragraph where different issues related to polygamy are treated then stressing that it is forbidden for leaders and otherwise silence might imply that it is not forbidden for others. But since this is not about polygamy but about leadership requirements a comment on OTHER people is not expected in this
passage and if we don't find what we can't even reasonably expect to find then saying "that it is not forbidden means it is allowed" is a very weak argument indeed and as reasonable as the above way of reading the car manual. With these remarks as background let us now look at this passage.

1 Timothy 3:1-15 (in excerpts):

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an
overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above
reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled,
respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness,
not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money...
He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will
not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise,
are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine,
and not pursuing dishonest gain... They must first be tested; and
then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons....
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife ...
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these
instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people
ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church
of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Basically ALL the requirements listed are clearly characteristics
EVERY true believer should strife to work for [temperate, gentle,
self-controled, honest, not a drunkard, ...] Should we conclude
since it is not explicitely mentioned that these are virtues for
all it is okay to be drunk, to be greedy, to be violent etc?
This would surely be a very sick way of reasoning. Why then should the command to monogamy be the only part of that list which is for leaders ONLY? Is there anything to indicate that this requirement has a special role in this list and while all other requirements are virtues for everybody to strive after, this one is only for leaders and the other people can disregard it if they wish?

No, all the listed characteristics are for all the believers
but many are maybe young believers, maybe weak people and have not yet reached the progress in character necessary to be a
rolemodel. But the goal is the same for all. These are the common
standards, but they are the absolute requirements for leadership.
Why? The last sentence gives the answer: "I am writing you these instructions so that, ..., you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church, ..." Even though it is express requirement for the leaders, the purpose is that all people from these instructions know how the people of God should live.

The final goal is not just for the leaders, but explicitely for all
Christians [people in God's household, the church]. Why then are the leaders singled out specifically? Because it is their role as those to whom the others look to learn. That is why they have to be "able to TEACH", since their main function will be to teach the other believers to grow in faith and obedience. But it is clear that you cannot effectively teach what you don't live yourself. The word and the life has to be in congruence. If your life contradicts your words, then your words will not have much effect. Leaders cannot teach the principles of a Biblical marriage if they themselves are not good examples. This function as rolemodels is clearly stressed in the New Testament. The elders do set a pattern for the other believers we are explicitely exhorted to follow the pattern of lived faith of our elders. (Hebrews
13:7,17). The stress for the standard of monogamy for the leaders in the church is because they are to exemplify the will of God for all of God's people in word, deed, character, and behavior.

[One more general remark. Usually polygamy is only an option for the more affluent, for the influential, the successful, who are already leaders in the business world, for those who are the natural leaders of the community. The fact that for those who might be the easiest able to have polygamous marriages it is forbidden is another hint that it actually is envisioned as the general rule. For others it isn't even an option. So there would not be a reason to forbid the impossible.]

The original can be found here:http://answering-islam.org/Q-A-panel/marriage.html

The edited parts were specifically geared towards Muslims and not pertinent here.

[tyreth]

An interesting article no doubt, but (perhaps unsurprisingly) it has not persuaded me. In fact, on some points it has persuaded me more strongly that polygyny has not been forbidden by God.

I am guessing that will sound like a stubborn heart to you, but I just can't help you to understand it the way I do, just like I cannot do the same to you.

I'm not sure if you want me to respond now, or when you follow up with more if you said, or not at all. I'll give the prerogative to you on that issue - you let me know when you are ready for me to respond (if at all).

I would like you to understand that it is not in my nature to accept things because they sound good. I have in the past changed my mind dramatically from issues that people typically spend their whole lives stubbornly adhering to. It is not past me to do this again. I am quite willing to admit when I am wrong (though it is harder if the person I argue with is stubborn, such as a particular person I know - not you). It is my nature to understand all things.

I guess I can't make it any clearer than that. Anyway, I'll wait for you to tell me how you'd like to take the next step - me replying at some stage, or waiting for your continued treatise, or something else.
I described how far I am on this question of polygyny to someone else like this: if it was a one mile journey before I knew for sure, there are but a few meters remaining before I believe I have studied the scriptures enough to be sure of God's will.

Thanks

[Jaltus]

"09-10-2003 @ 09:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207603#post207603)
tyreth:
I deliberately did not present the argument as you just did, for the reasons Dee Dee mentioned. If that is the behaviour expected by our elders, then we know for certain that it is the way all of us ultimately should aim for."

I agree totally with that. Remember that to want to be an elder is an admirable thing for all.

"My interpretation of this scripture follows in lines of what has been presented previously, that the word "one" means first. That makes far more sense to me in light of the OT and also historical context. It seems strange that polygamy should be condemned in the New Testament only here, and in such a way that can be so easily interpreted as "first wife". Anyway, I have some more thoughts on this passage, but I'll leave it for now."

Wow, this is an incredibly unsound argument. The word for first in Greek is protoV. The word in the passage is mia. Greek has entirely different words for numbers versus signifiers. In other words, there are different words for first than for one, and therefore this argument makes no sense.

"As Dee Dee points out, this is not a church. I believe that the authority of the church should lie in the hands of males. We have been ordained with this role by God, and in many ways are better equipped for it. This is not saying, however, that all women are incapable. There are quite clearly exceptional women who excel above others in their wisdom and zealousness for the teachings of our Lord. I still believe that they are not to lead the church in the role of pastor or elder, but I would not prohibit them from teaching, correcting, or rebuking a man in a private setting (such as after church, in houses, bible studies, etc). Men and women both make mistakes :)"

I could buy into that, maybe.


"When I read this passage it sounds like the women are not interested in being his wives sexually. It sounds like they just want to take on his last name so that they won't be reproached. ie, they are not interested in performing the duties of a wife, but furthering their own interests and forgetting about the name of the man they have "married". I think it says very little about the right or wrong of polygyny, but rather something about the times in which that event will occur. I haven't studied it much. The context seems to be more praising than I am permitting, but I'm still skeptical. Might require some further thought :)"

Actually the point is about money. Since women were not allowed to work or own land in many societies, they had to be married in order to live. This is what the passage is referring to, they wanted to be married in order to survive.

"Edit: on second reading, that part about 7 wives clearly continues on from the curses in previous verses. It says little about polygamy, and a lot about the deplorable conditions that these women will live in, so much so that they will take hold of a man and beg him to let them use his name."

You are getting closer, but the name issue is truly irrelevent.

[Bib Lit Major]

I've seen arguments for polygamy that miaV should be translated first. All of them pointed to the idiomatic phrase in Greek, e.g. ones like John 20:1, mia twn sabbatwn which literally means: "one of the weeks," but is translated "first day of the week." The fact is, this is the exception that proves the rule. It is such an odd prhase because it's an idiom, i.e., something that doesn't always translate literally from one language to another. An English example might be "Hold on," (a person who speaks another language would probably ask "Hold on to what?!") which really means something like "wait." I don't think there are any more examples of mia meaning first. The only reason it does here is because of the idiom.

[tyreth]

Yesterday @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=212104#post212104)
Jaltus:
Wow, this is an incredibly unsound argument. The word for first in Greek is protoV. The word in the passage is mia. Greek has entirely different words for numbers versus signifiers. In other words, there are different words for first than for one, and therefore this argument makes no sense.


You are, it seems, right about this point. I decided to look even further into the scriptures and the greek (which I admit I am novice at best, but not without all knowledge).
Having looked, I couldn't seem to find any reasonable precedence for translating mia as first. Though it was for days (as mentioned by the person who posted after you, can't see the name atm) sometimes translated as first, it didn't seem ample to translate it as first in timothy regarding wives.

So I did some further reading. The reason why I cannot accept this as a prohibition of polygyny is because it makes no sense. Out of the whole of the New Testament is not a word breathed against polygyny - nor do we have reason to believe it was much practiced at that time. Then suddenly, out of the blue, Paul says "one wife only", and then silence. It's just so...odd.

Anyway, I came across this URL which had some interesting thoughts, and showed me a further reason why it couldn't be translated as first wife:
http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIA.html

I appreciate all these thoughts.

[sprky777]

Most people with whom I have discussed this issue agree that even if polygyny were scriptural, because it is illegal in the united States then it should not be accepted by Christians. Their reasoning is that it is sinful to go against the laws of the government.

I will have to take these discussions up with them again in the future after the supreme court has found the anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional. It seems that polygyny will have much more support after it becomes legal and the criminal stigma is removed.

[dizzle]

Kinda like the prohomosexual argument I see. NAMBLA has the same hopes. That whole cultural thing. Sorry no matter what laws are ever passed here:

Polygamy is wrong
Homosexuality is wrong
Pedophilia is wrong

Laws do not make right. Public acceptance or nonpublic acceptance do not make right.

Abortion is legal
Slavery was legal

[tyreth]

Today @ 10:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217296#post217296)
sprky777:

I will have to take these discussions up with them again in the future after the supreme court has found the anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional. It seems that polygyny will have much more support after it becomes legal and the criminal stigma is removed.

Are you referring to some pending court cases or something that you believe will show anti-polygyny laws as unconstitutional? I haven't heard about them, so I'm interested to hear more.

[tyreth]

Today @ 10:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217298#post217298)
Dee Dee Warren:

Kinda like the prohomosexual argument I see. NAMBLA has the same hopes. That whole cultural thing. Sorry no matter what laws are ever passed here:

Polygamy is wrong
Homosexuality is wrong
Pedophilia is wrong

Laws do not make right. Public acceptance or nonpublic acceptance do not make right.

Abortion is legal
Slavery was legal

Though that's not what he was saying. He was saying that a common argument brought up against polygyny is that it's illegal. ie, it was their only argument against it.

No-one says homosexuality is wrong purely because it's illegal. Being legal does not stop one from condeming it. However, if people's only reason for condemning polygyny is legality, then those people will have to reconsider their position.

[dizzle]

Ahem, my friends who cannot be satisfied with one woman though that was God's created order who must not have given the best for Adam......

It is not polygyny that will be legalized, it is polyGAMY, so all the immoral women who cannot be satisfied with one man will have their shot too. This is equal opportunity immorality here folks.

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217313#post217313)
tyreth:



Though that's not what he was saying. He was saying that a common argument brought up against polygyny is that it's illegal. ie, it was their only argument against it.

No-one says homosexuality is wrong purely because it's illegal. Being legal does not stop one from condeming it. However, if people's only reason for condemning polygyny is legality, then those people will have to reconsider their position.

And I am going to continually point out that half of the arugment made in favor of multiple legalized immorality are the same made by the homosexual lobby and the pedophilia lobby.

[tyreth]

Today @ 10:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217317#post217317)
Dee Dee Warren:

Ahem, my friends who cannot be satisfied with one woman though that was God's created order who must not have given the best for Adam......


I didn't understand this sentence, sorry.


It is not polygyny that will be legalized, it is polyGAMY, so all the immoral women who cannot be satisfied with one man will have their shot too. This is equal opportunity immorality here folks.

Sure. As you said before, legalising it doesn't make it right. All this will mean is that a righteous activity (imo) and a sinful one (polyandry) will simultaneously be made legal.
Just like many things are legal to allow good things to be practiced, but they also give opportunity for legal sin.

Today @ 11:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217318#post217318)
Dee Dee Warren:
And I am going to continually point out that half of the arugment made in favor of multiple legalized immorality are the same made by the homosexual lobby and the pedophilia lobby.

And those would be...?

The argument he just made, though used by homosexuals, is in this case valid. Even if homosexuality were legal, there is still ample scriptural evidence against it, so it wouldn't solve their problems.

On the other hand, if polygyny were legal, then for those who only argue from a legal perspective, will have nothing more to say.

Unlike the homosexual arguments, polygynyists have ample precedence in Scripture for their beliefs.

It's not like the homosexuals are saying "If homosexuality were legal then you would have no more reason to condemn it". We most certainly would.
Of course, I know that you believe there is ample Scriptural evidence to oppose poygyny, but he was talking about people who think there is only a legal obstacle, and already don't think there is a Scriptural one.

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217321#post217321)
tyreth:

I didn't understand this sentence, sorry.

God made Eden. He found man in an undesirable condition. In perfection, in Eden, there was monogamy. Any desire for anything else is perversion plain and simple or God did not give the best to Adam. That is discussed in the article I already posted here.



Sure. As you said before, legalising it doesn't make it right. All this will mean is that a righteous activity (imo) and a sinful one (polyandry) will simultaneously be made legal.
Just like many things are legal to allow good things to be practiced, but they also give opportunity for legal sin.

Righteous! Please. It is unrighteous to not give a woman what is due her. I ask you again, if you can feel in your heart how you would feel knowing your wife was having sexual relations with another man, you are seriously deluding yourself if you think women feel any differently. And knowing that, if you still advocate immorality, you have a deep problem. If any woman claims this is not an issue, there are two options. One, she is being dishonest iwth herslef as many women have self esteem issues. or Two, she is a deviant, and is any man who would say he would not have an issue with his wife having sexual relations with another man. This is the cut to the chase, and you are advocating it. No matter how you may want to hide your face from this, the same way those who cloak the murder of children in nice terms such as choice etc, it is the utter fact.



And those would be...?

Ones you have made yourself... shall I provide quotes?

I object because of my culture

There are happy poly-wives

Same arguments made by pedophiles and homosexuals.

[tyreth]

Today @ 11:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217323#post217323)
Dee Dee Warren:
Righteous! Please. It is unrighteous to not give a woman what is due her.


I am still waiting for your promised large reply...so until you provide it can you please not use statements like "Righteous! Please." which are designed to appeal on an emotional level (such as empathising readers) rather than a rational one. Without hearing your actual response, snide remarks like this seem quite meaningless, and only designed to irk me.

If any woman claims this is not an issue, there are two options. One, she is being dishonest iwth herslef as many women have self esteem issues. or Two, she is a deviant, and is any man who would say he would not have an issue with his wife having sexual relations with another man.


Please provide evidence for this. There are polygynous women who would claim to be in neither of those categories. What proof can you offer to me that they are, in fact, belonging to one of your two categories? I'm looking for evidence. And until then, all this comment of yours is saying "I cannot accept that polygyny is sinless, therefore I can never accept that people will be happy with it. I will then find any excuse possible to say that it's unhealthy and leads to unhappiness for women, no matter how irrational it may look."
You've just made a statement that, as far as I can see, cannot ever be proven or falsified.


This is the cut to the chase, and you are advocating it. No matter how you may want to hide your face from this, the same way those who cloak the murder of children in nice terms such as choice etc, it is the utter fact.


When you can provide evidence for your above statement (that every woman who says she is happy polygynously is either deceiving herself or is a deviant) then I can begin to consider what you are saying here as true. Until then it's just slander - since you liken my beliefs to that of advocating abortion or homosexuality, thus defaming my name and character without evidence.


Ones you have made yourself... shall I provide quotes?


Yes, please.


I object because of my culture


Not sure about what argument this is referring to.


There are happy poly-wives


Valid as a counter-argument to your claims that no-one can ever be happy polygynously as a wife unless she is either a) deceiving herself, or b) a deviant. It is not valid, I agree, on it's own as evidence for the sinlessness of polygyny. I would never accept it as an argument supporting polygyny - I have only used it as a counter for the above mentioned, but when I last used it the context wasn't clear so it came across wrong (my fault). I only ever meant to use it as a counter-argument to claims that polygyny necessarily results in unhappiness in the end.

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217325#post217325)
tyreth:



I am still waiting for your promised large reply.

I have already posted one large article which dealt with most of my points and have posted numerous other times on this thread which you indicated you don't want to go back to. I am not writing at this point, since I have already provided abdundant points, both Scriptural and otherwise, for the benefit of the pro-immorality camp, but for the edification and education of others reading who may be swayed. I have already provided the arguments here, and will provide them again as I get time. This is not my top priority since the information is already here.


..so until you provide it can you please not use statements like "Righteous! Please." which are designed to appeal on an emotional level (such as empathising readers) rather than a rational one.

Let's get this straight. Tyreth, this is not personal against you... however, you are here on this board promoting gross immorality and emotional absue of women. I am not going to play nice about that, but fight it profusely and call it a spade since it is one. This is an attack against your immoral beliefs not you as a person. And you have made a false dichtomy between emotions and reason, and have simply handwaved emotional abuse. You have not dealt with my point for it shows the monstrosity of your position for what it is. Your handwaving is duly noted. And next time someone comes up with a real pragmatic and "rational" reason for your wife to have sex with another man, don't you dare get all emotional about it. Pluhease. We are talking aobut human marital love and bonding and you have the chutzpah to handwave away emotions.



Without hearing your actual response, snide remarks like this seem quite meaningless, and only designed to irk me.

They are designed to bring home the truth of what you are advocating. If you are irked because I will not cloak the emotional abuse of women and immorality with the inidice of credibility, you can be irked. It is not designed to do so, it is designed to be brutally honest. Just as brutal as the heartbreak of infidelity, whether legally sanctioned or not.



Please provide evidence for this. There are polygynous women who would claim to be in neither of those categories.

Please. There are homosexual people who would make similar claims, and so would pedophilias. Who now is making an emtional argument? It is not normal for a woman to have no issue with a man having sex with another woman. If you cannot see that, you are beyond reason and have no grip in reality or your reason has been over-run by your immoral desire to have multiple women. But I am putting it in your face. The exact same way you would feel about your wife having sex with another man is the exact same way that the majority of women would feel vice verse. Don't like that? Want to point to exception to prove a rule? That is not good practice, and it is not good law, and it is not good morality.


What proof can you offer to me that they are, in fact, belonging to one of your two categories? I'm looking for evidence.

How abut I piont to some men who don't care if their women do the same. Prove to me your "feelings" are "normal." This is simple common sense, which is you are unwilling to concede have shown great deficit.



When you can provide evidence for your above statement (that every woman who says she is happy polygynously is either deceiving herself or is a deviant) then I can begin to consider what you are saying here as true.

Common sense my friend, unless you are willing to concede that it is not deviant for a man to feel the same way.


Until then it's just slander - since you liken my beliefs to that of advocating abortion or homosexuality, thus defaming my name and character without evidence.

Nonsense. The arguments you use are similar, and all three are immoral. I have no issue defaming the immoral beliefs. Proabortionists claim I defame them by saying that they advocate the murder of children.

[sprky777]

tyreth,
In searching for articles referencing recent court cases relative to polygamy, I found many including this one that sums them up.

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/article.php?id=0004

Utah constitution specifically states that 'polygamy is forever prohibited' even though the largest polygamist population is currently in Utah... There are polygynous familys in nearly every state, perhaps all states.

There are over 80,000 polygamists in the united States.

Laws are funny things... you can make something illegal and increase its practice. Or legalize it and reduce it purely because there are some that just want to break the law because its there.

Just like the speed limit is 65 in most states, 75 in others, yet they manufacture and advertise sports cars that can exceed 150 in very few seconds. Most people do not drive 150 just because their car can do it. Most people drive the speed limit or close to it just because it is practicle and safe. If the speed limit were to be raised to 100mph then there are a few people that may try it but few would always drive that way knowing it is very dangerous.

When polygamy is legalized, there will be a rush of people to try it and it will have some chaotic effects. Then after the initial interest is dampened it will reach a mangable, self imposed level. People will know what works for them and what does not. Child abuse, wife abuse, slavery, forced marriage, arranged marriages, statutory rape, incest and all of the other immoral and illegal abuses of humanity will STILL be prosecutable.

Legalizing polygamy will give no new license to illegal behavior. Consensual ADULTS can make their own decisions based on their own understanding of scripture. The interpretation of scripture is not under the responsibility of government.

The interpretation of scripture is not under the responsibility of government. (worth saying twice)

[dizzle]

Legalizing polygamy will give no new license to illegal behavior. Consensual ADULTS can make their own decisions based on their own understanding of scripture. The interpretation of scripture is not under the responsibility of government.


And if you think that is the crux of the issue, you are being simple. I sure hope you gave your stamp of approval to homosexual marriage. What aobut mothers marrying sons if they agree to be sterilized so no malformed babies can result.

By the way, irony of ironies, proabortionists make the same argument. There is a religious "prochoice" group that says that the government should stay out of this painful decision that is between a woman and her god.

[sprky777]

Actually, if homosexuals want to get married I really don't think the government should stop them. But that doesn't mean I don't think it is an abomination. God will punish them for actions clearly prohibited in his law. Besides being unscriptural, it is unnatural.

Incest is illegal both by government law and prohibited in scripture. If for some reason government makes incest legal then I'm sure there are some that will take opportunity to practice it. That still doesn't make it allowable under scripture.

[dizzle]

Well then my friend you are a socially libertarian relativist. I do not believe that is Biblical, and you have shown great simpleness in understanding the source of law. Are you under the impression that laws are morally neutral? In allowing homosexuality, the government IS making a moral choice, so then, who's morality is advocated.

Today @ 08:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217367#post217367)
sprky777:

Actually, if homosexuals want to get married I really don't think the government should stop them.

Sorry but I think that is Biblically sad, but that is another discussion. At least you are consistent. What about abortion?



But that doesn't mean I don't think it is an abomination. God will punish them for actions clearly prohibited in his law. Besides being unscriptural, it is unnatural.


Really? I know many homosedxuals who will tell you it is perfectly natural for them, and that homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. Who are you to say it is unnatural? Polygamy is unnatural for women. I wouldn't be making this argument if I were you. It may force you to rethink your immorality.

Incest is illegal both by government law and prohibited in scripture.

Do you really want to go there? Incest was commanded by God in Genesis. Hmm, that kind of shoots that whole polygamy must be okay because it was in the OT thing in the foot.


If for some reason government makes incest legal then I'm sure there are some that will take opportunity to practice it. That still doesn't make it allowable under scripture.

Then you shuold not be brining up this whole issue of whether or not polygamy will be legal for you have just proven yourself that it is a red herring.

[robert65]

why would you want more than one?

[dizzle]

I cannot speak for the men participating here, but I would say generally, because of inordinate lust and a difficulty maintaining fidelity. Of course this will be denied. Of course in Eden God in His perfect wisdom when He saw that it was not good for man to be alone, gave him ONE woman.... sexual sin warps things, including arguments.

[tyreth]

Today @ 01:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217356#post217356)
Dee Dee Warren:
I have already posted one large article which dealt with most of my points and have posted numerous other times on this thread which you indicated you don't want to go back to. I am not writing at this point, since I have already provided abdundant points, both Scriptural and otherwise, for the benefit of the pro-immorality camp, but for the edification and education of others reading who may be swayed. I have already provided the arguments here, and will provide them again as I get time. This is not my top priority since the information is already here.


Well that's not how I understood it. I made a post that said:


Tyreth:
I think I'm going to leave talking and wait for your response - staying on the issue at hand. Dealing with my psychology and yours is producing undesired effects. I'm not communicating properly with you what I'm saying, resulting in misunderstandings by us both which are only causing troubles. In other words, I'm not going to respond to what you've said, because I don't think it's conducive to the conversation for me to continue it.

So I'll wait patiently for your response.


Then you responded with the article you posted, and you began that post saying:

Dee Dee Warren:
In the interim here is an interesting anti-sexual immorality article I found that makes some great points. I was going to simply incorporate them but decided the original author makes them better than I so I am allowing him to speak for himself which will be later followed up by my post...


To which I responded (the article) with:


Tyreth:
An interesting article no doubt, but (perhaps unsurprisingly) it has not persuaded me. In fact, on some points it has persuaded me more strongly that polygyny has not been forbidden by God.

I am guessing that will sound like a stubborn heart to you, but I just can't help you to understand it the way I do, just like I cannot do the same to you.

I'm not sure if you want me to respond now, or when you follow up with more if you said, or not at all. I'll give the prerogative to you on that issue - you let me know when you are ready for me to respond (if at all).

I would like you to understand that it is not in my nature to accept things because they sound good. I have in the past changed my mind dramatically from issues that people typically spend their whole lives stubbornly adhering to. It is not past me to do this again. I am quite willing to admit when I am wrong (though it is harder if the person I argue with is stubborn, such as a particular person I know - not you). It is my nature to understand all things.

I guess I can't make it any clearer than that. Anyway, I'll wait for you to tell me how you'd like to take the next step - me replying at some stage, or waiting for your continued treatise, or something else.
I described how far I am on this question of polygyny to someone else like this: if it was a one mile journey before I knew for sure, there are but a few meters remaining before I believe I have studied the scriptures enough to be sure of God's will.


And I was waiting still for your long reply - you did not comment on whether I should respond to the article's points, or wait until the post you promised saying "I am allowing him to speak for himself which will be later followed up by my post". Hence my confusion now when you say I am not writing at this point, since I have already provided abdundant points, both Scriptural and otherwise, for the benefit of the pro-immorality camp, but for the edification and education of others reading who may be swayed.

Actually, I just realised now, when you said "later followed up by my post" you may have in fact been referring to your comments at the end of the posted article...whereas the wording made me think you would create a separate post that you would submit at a later (undetermined) time.

[tyreth]

Today @ 01:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217356#post217356)
Dee Dee Warren:
Let's get this straight. Tyreth, this is not personal against you... however, you are here on this board promoting gross immorality and emotional absue of women.


I disagree...of course.


I am not going to play nice about that, but fight it profusely and call it a spade since it is one.


You can call it a spade if you like, but I'd like to see that backed up. Which I'm thinking will probably frustrate you to hear me say. Perhaps I will now respond to the article's points, since I've realised that that was your response.


And you have made a false dichtomy between emotions and reason, and have simply handwaved emotional abuse. You have not dealt with my point for it shows the monstrosity of your position for what it is. Your handwaving is duly noted. And next time someone comes up with a real pragmatic and "rational" reason for your wife to have sex with another man, don't you dare get all emotional about it. Pluhease. We are talking aobut human marital love and bonding and you have the chutzpah to handwave away emotions.


After commenting on my distaste of using the word "please", you have used it at least twice again in this response. Anyway, just a side note.
I have not separated emotion and reason, which I will elaborate more fully later on...


They are designed to bring home the truth of what you are advocating. If you are irked because I will not cloak the emotional abuse of women and immorality with the inidice of credibility, you can be irked. It is not designed to do so, it is designed to be brutally honest. Just as brutal as the heartbreak of infidelity, whether legally sanctioned or not.


My ire had nothing to do with your arguments about the emotions of wives. You cannot translate my mention of being 'irked' to a new context. I was irked because you resorted to irrational appeals in words like "Righteous! Please." when I felt that this was premature, given that I do not accept your arguments raised against polygyny. ie, taking such a righteous stance with these words only serves to alienate me from you, making me put up defences that prohibit me from listening so rationally to your arguments.


Please. There are homosexual people who would make similar claims, and so would pedophilias. Who now is making an emtional argument?


Not me! I don't know what you are talking about here. You make the unprovable claim that all polygynous wives who say they are happy are either: a) deceiving themselves, or b) deviant. I ask you to provide evidence. I say that there are women who would claim to be in neither of those categories. Where is the emotional argument?


It is not normal for a woman to have no issue with a man having sex with another woman. If you cannot see that, you are beyond reason and have no grip in reality or your reason has been over-run by your immoral desire to have multiple women.


Now this is an emotional claim into things which I doubt you have facts and figures for me. Please point me to any research that has delved into the emotional attachment differences in males and females - and show me that it proves that wives are just as jealous for their husbands, as husbands are for their wives.
Unless you have access to that research, then your statement is pure conjecture based on your own personal experience. Just because you feel jealousy at the thought of your husband taking another woman does not mean that everyone does.
Now you can discard me if you like with general statements that I am "beyond reason and have no grip in reality." But assume for a moment that polygyny is acceptable. This is what we would expect to see:
* few men living polygynously, most monogamously, and a few celebant
* many of the wives of these polygynous husbands not being filled with jealousy
That's what we'd expect if, before God, polygyny is not sinful. And that's what we *do* see. So your arguments that these are deviant behaviours is a deduction based on the premise that polygyny is wrong - it's not an argument itself, it's the result of another argument. Ie, it's not persuasive at all. It's a peripheral issue. We need to first decide if polygyny is sinful or not, and only *then*, when we agree, can we understand the emotional reactions of men and women properly.

But I am putting it in your face. The exact same way you would feel about your wife having sex with another man is the exact same way that the majority of women would feel vice verse. Don't like that? Want to point to exception to prove a rule? That is not good practice, and it is not good law, and it is not good morality.


Polygyny was always an exception, just as wealth is an exception, just as leadership is an exception. These are rare things, and as such you'd expect only a rare number of people to be happy with such a relationship. Most men don't even want multiple wives!
Have you ever felt as a man the jealousy for his wife? I have never been a woman. How can you prove to me that the emotional reaction is the same? This is all unimportant to the core question - is it Scriptural? And until that's answered, speculation on emotional arguments is going to provide confusion and frustration.


How abut I piont to some men who don't care if their women do the same. Prove to me your "feelings" are "normal." This is simple common sense, which is you are unwilling to concede have shown great deficit.


I can point to Scripture, pure and simple, to show that it is sinful to give your wife to another man. That's the difference.

Do you feel so comfortable standing as an accuser against Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Gideon and others? Do you feel comfortable saying their wives were all either a) self deceived, or b) deviants? And do you feel comfortable believing that God would allow (in your opinion) such a sickening wickedness to be committed abundantly by His most beloved and chosen servants?

I shall respond to the article now if I have time, and if not then later.

[dizzle]

I did not say that article was my full response, I did say it raised numerous points that I raise. I cannot believe you can say your answer above with a straight face. I guess that is what has to be done to advocate the emotional abuse of women. For if you understood that the feelings of infidelity are the same, you would have to face the facts of what you are advocating, the same way that if pro-aborts faced the facts of the humanity of the child, they could not support it, so they find any way around that, the same way you are finding anyway around my points.

You must think incest is okay right? Or would you be standing in judgment of the first humans? The fact is all the men above were sinners, and I don't revere them as sinless, and God made allowances (Matthew 19) due to the hardness of hearts. That whole argument has been done ad nauseam, and now it is you resorting to emotional pleas.

You can find some deviants who don't care about the marital infidelity of their partners, and use that to carve away a rule for morality.

And until that's answered, speculation on emotional arguments is going to provide confusion and frustration.


Please (yes I said it again) becuase your handwaving again deserves that repsonse. This is not confusing whatsoever, and the only frustratoin is that I am forcing you to face the stark reality of what this does to the female heart and spirit.

These are rare things, and as such you'd expect only a rare number of people to be happy with such a relationship. Most men don't even want multiple wives!


And you questioned me for calling it deviant... that is the definition of deviant. You want to make a moral rule by the exeption and based upon whether some deviants and can be happy with such an arrangment.

It is not good for man to be alone declared God. Thus God gave him ONE WIFE, and Jesus pointed back to that in face of the men in front of him who were trying to abuse women. And I point back to the same place to you.

[tyreth]

Today @ 03:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217447#post217447)
Dee Dee Warren:

I did not say that article was my full response, I did say it raised numerous points that I raise. I cannot believe you can say your answer above with a straight face.


What, exactly, do you mean by that? Why exactly do you have difficulty believing I said what I did with a straight face? You should be unsurprised that I am not persuaded by this particular comment.


I guess that is what has to be done to advocate the emotional abuse of women. For if you understood that the feelings of infidelity are the same, you would have to face the facts of what you are advocating, the same way that if pro-aborts faced the facts of the humanity of the child, they could not support it, so they find any way around that, the same way you are finding anyway around my points.


This is really tiring me. Here's the challenge, the gauntlet so to speak. Prove to me with whatever research necessary, using the scientific method, that the emotional response to infidelity that the female feels is identical to the males. Then I can accept your argument. You can't just pretend you've made a powerful argument while providing no evidence!


You must think incest is okay right? Or would you be standing in judgment of the first humans?


This is not a good comparison at all. It is my belief that incest is prohibited because of health reasons, not because of some mystical closeness in relationship. Adam & Eve's children were not at all sinful in marrying each other. It was only outlawed at a later date, probably as genetic mutations became more rife. That makes sense. We can see why it should be permitted once and not later. The same cannot be said of polygyny.


The fact is all the men above were sinners, and I don't revere them as sinless, and God made allowances (Matthew 19) due to the hardness of hearts. That whole argument has been done ad nauseam, and now it is you resorting to emotional pleas.


The point is, that while God condemned all other wicked sins, He managed to let this one 'slip by'. And not just that, but He praised these men who, in your view, committed public adultery - the very sin which God's heart hates when we do to Him. What other sin are we accused of doing against God when we rebel but adultery? So if He should hate this one sin so much, why would He find it good to have pleasure in the most adulterous men history has ever seen? That's not just foolish, it's plain unacceptable in my view, and seems on the verge of heresy.


You can find some deviants who don't care about the marital infidelity of their partners, and use that to carve away a rule for morality.


For the nth time, I am not using it as a justification for polygyny!!! I am simply using it as a counter-argument to your claim that all women burn with the same jealousy that a husband feels for his wife. That is all. Don't translate my arguments to contexts where I didn't use it.


Please (yes I said it again) becuase your handwaving again deserves that repsonse. This is not confusing whatsoever, and the only frustratoin is that I am forcing you to face the stark reality of what this does to the female heart and spirit.


As the above challenge, prove it with research. I never claimed all women will not feel jealousy. I don't know what start reality you are trying to make me see, other than what I already know - most women will feel jealousy, and rightly so as they have been promised their man for themselves alone. I would feel jealous if I was promised a job and then it was given to someone else. However, I would not feel jealous if I was never promised the job and it was given to someone else.


And you questioned me for calling it deviant... that is the definition of deviant. You want to make a moral rule by the exeption and based upon whether some deviants and can be happy with such an arrangment.


That is not the definition of deviant I understood us to be working under. Deviant doesn't just mean different, it has a connotation of something depraved in most circumstances. If I call someone a deviant, it is a derogatory comment. It implies not only something different, but also something unacceptable. Tell me I misunderstood the use of the word...because I agree with you completely that wives of polygynous husbands are rare. It's a redundant statement and nothing to do with reality unless you imply something about it.

[dizzle]

It is rare because it is abnormal, thus deviant. If it were so wonderful and natural, it would be common. If you need research to prove common sense, I will let the reader be left with that on your part. I do hope that you whisper an apology to women wounded by infidelity since their feelings are obviously inappropriate jealousy, and you require "research" to prove that women have such analogous feelings, despite having lived life. If life has not shown you this fact, you need to get out more. You are turning a cold heart to a fact of life, but I suppose that is a needed coping mechanism when you are advocating such a practice be considered moral.

God hates divorce, yet commanded it in one case and made laws regulating it. Hmm, sound familiar? And we are all living in open adultery, for Christ has shown that none can keep themselves pure. If you deny that you have ever looked lustfully at a woman not your wife (and judging by this conversation, I doubt you can deny it, you seek to legitimize it by making these others potential wives) you are lying, as I would be lying if I said I never had inappropriate thoughts. Adulterers, you and I both.

And if you say well God never condemned their adultery that is begging two questions... first, that the NT is not in fact condemning their adultery through progressive revelation as Jesus Himself revealed concessions to hardness of heart, and two, the idea of the lesser evil.

[tyreth]

Today @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217465#post217465)
Dee Dee Warren:

It is rare because it is abnormal, thus deviant. If it were so wonderful and natural, it would be common.


No. 'uncommon' and 'deviant' do not mean the same thing. They have similarities but are not the same.
I don't disagree with you that it is uncommon for women to not feel jealousy. More on this misunderstanding below.
Deviant as a noun, based on the WordNet definition: "a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior." That is how I understood it. Not just as something uncommon, but also the connotation that it is unacceptable.

There are many things which are uncommon, but are not to have their value as good things to be enjoyed deprecated as a result. Certain fine foods are uncommon, but certainly not sinful to taste.


If you need research to prove common sense, I will let the reader be left with that on your part. I do hope that you whisper an apology to women wounded by infidelity since their feelings are obviously inappropriate jealousy


I *never* said a woman will feel no jealousy, you are changing my words. Any woman whose husband promises to live for and love her alone, and then acts unfaithfully, sins. I will stand with her, comfort her, and tell her she feels jealous righteously, because that which was promised to her and belongs to her has been taken away.


, and you require "research" to prove that women have such analogous feelings, despite having lived life.


I need evidence to prove your unsubstantiated claim that the jealousy felt by husbands for their wives is of the same nature and intencity of that for wives for their husband.

If life has not shown you this fact, you need to get out more. You are turning a cold heart to a fact of life, but I suppose that is a needed coping mechanism when you are advocating such a practice be considered moral.


Is this how you are going to remember our conversation? All these misunderstandings of our position, so when someone else asks you, you will say "I talked about this with some fanatics on the internet. They had to resort to all kinds of absurdities like claiming that women didn't feel jealousy." And the person will reply, "Wow, I didn't realise that polygynists were so stupid. No wonder it's sinful." Or are you going to take care not to misuse my arguments and present our position honorably?
I never claimed women won't feel jealous, nor did I say they don't have a right to. They should be given everything that was promised to them, and are right to feel jealous when that is taken from them and given to another.


God hates divorce, yet commanded it in one case and made laws regulating it.


Where did He command it? I know He permitted it in the NT when He gave the exepting clause of "sexual immorality".


Hmm, sound familiar? And we are all living in open adultery, for Christ has shown that none can keep themselves pure. If you deny that you have ever looked lustfully at a woman not your wife (and judging by this conversation, I doubt you can deny it, you seek to legitimize it by making these others potential wives) you are lying, as I would be lying if I said I never had inappropriate thoughts. Adulterers, you and I both.


And I suppose you are saying it is sinful for me to look at an unmarried virgin, find her body and personality appealing, and have a desire born to take her as my wife monogamously?
This lust is more than you make it sound to be - a man who is married must keep to his promises. His lustful desires for the woman mentioned above have nothing to do with love or commitment, just a betrayel of his wife's trust.

It's interesting to see how you think that our everyday lust for another is just as sinful as when a man actually does go and have intercourse with another man's wife. I can tell you, that I would dislike another man to think lustful thoughts about my wife, but I would hate him to act on them.
It is sin to lust for these evil things, but it is not as great as acting on them. I would much rather live in a world where men dreamed of adultery only, than in a world where men not only dreamed about it but acted on it.


And if you say well God never condemned their adultery that is begging two questions... first, that the NT is not in fact condemning their adultery through progressive revelation as Jesus Himself revealed concessions to hardness of heart, and two, the idea of the lesser evil.

And where did He condemn them of adultery through progressive revelation? Through Matthew 19:9 perhaps? We've already talked about this. The NT goes on to describe these men as righteous and faithful, and says absolutely nothing about your claimed adulterous lifestyles.

[dizzle]

Is this how you are going to remember our conversation? All these misunderstandings of our position, so when someone else asks you, you will say "I talked about this with some fanatics on the internet. They had to resort to all kinds of absurdities like claiming that women didn't feel jealousy." And the person will reply, "Wow, I didn't realise that polygynists were so stupid. No wonder it's sinful." Or are you going to take care not to misuse my arguments and present our position honorably?

:violin:

Please, that was really nice. The martyr touch always adds that special something. You are claiming you need proof that women feel the same intensity of emotion and hurt you would feel. Frankly I find that request disgusting. If you were not doubting the emotions of women you would not be demanding empircal proof of something impossible to be proven in that sense.

[tyreth]

Today @ 04:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217486#post217486)
Dee Dee Warren:
:violin:

Please, that was really nice. The martyr touch always adds that special something. You are claiming you need proof that women feel the same intensity of emotion you would feel. Frankly I find that request disgusting. If you were not doubting the emotions of women you would not be demanding empircal proof of something impossible to be proven in that sense.

Why is it so disgusting that I require proof to believe something unprovable. That's like saying you and I feel the same amount of anger towards abortion. How can that ever be measured? It can't! It's a fiction, an invention of measurements, a complete fabrication. You can never claim that the passion and intencity of feelings of jealousy that men and women have is identical. It was a useless argument, and that's what I'm pointing out.

I can point you to women who don't feel the same jealousy as I believe I would feel, that proves my side. You then point me to women who feel more jealousy than I would, and that proves your side. How can you have the audacity to claim that the level of emotion of jealousy in this context is the same for men and women? I can't see any way you could ever make that claim. You say it can't be empirically proven. I say it can't be proven by any method: empirically, philosophically, Scripturally, etc. Prove me wrong.

[tyreth]

My "martyr" touch was so that next time you tell someone about how stupid we polygynists are, you are reminded of my comments and hopefully wonder if you really did understand me properly or not.

After all, you thought that I was saying that women don't feel jealousy, or if they do that it's unrighteous - which was way, way off target.

[Note: I refer to myself as a polygynist in the sense that I am almost fully persuaded that it's not sinful, not because I practice it myself]

[dizzle]

I would appreciate you not telling me what I thought. I understood you perfectly which is why I took your comment in the way I did. I am certainly not misrepresenting you, that was a red herring thrown in. You do not believe that women feel the same intensity that men do when their mates are involved with someone else sexually or that female feelings of jealosy and infidelity run as strong or deep. You demand "proof" which I see as a spit in the face to women, frankly. I say, sir, you have a lot of nerve. I NEVER said you deny women any jealousy but you couched in weak terms, and certainly do not accord it the respect that you accord male jealousy. In your first statement you made it seem unrighteous, in you next you clarified you did not mean that, and I never brought that point up again.... but you most certainly deny (or refuse to affirm) the reality of the depth of female emotion on this issue or potential heatbreak. You want "research."

[tyreth]

It is amusing to say the least that in the same post that you say I would appreciate you not telling me what I thought, you proceed to tell me what I think.

I have just reread through the history of this part of the conversation, and must apologise because I misunderstood what you were claiming, in part. I replied against one of your arguments, while quoting another portion.

When you said It is not normal for a woman to have no issue with a man having sex with another woman I should have replied with something explaining that I agree. I believe that any woman who has been promised this man alone should and will feel jealousy, and will certainly have righteous issues. Instead, I replied with a response like the below, which was very badly placed by myself.

I was unfortunately responding to your other part where you claimed that the response that a male has to infidelity is identical to that of a female. That is a completely unprovable claim by any measurement, and is therefore completely inadequate as an argument against polygyny. I was reacting to your statement that The exact same way you would feel about your wife having sex with another man is the exact same way that the majority of women would feel vice verse.
That is something that you cannot ever prove so far as I can see, so you cannot use it as an argument against polygyny. It's like the inverse of this 'happiness' argument you are so delighted to accuse us of - that just because it's happy it's right. You are saying here that just because some women are unhappy in it, that it's wrong. Even saying that though, you say "most" women, but disregard them with other generalised statements that they are deceiving themselves or deviants.
(btw, are we clear on the word deviant yet? if you meant it in the sense that it's uncommon, I couldn't agree more, and it's completely redundant to mention. If you mean deviant in the sense of something unacceptable, then I disagree and don't see how you can prove it. She is deviant because she feels no jealousy, and she feels no jealousy because she is deviant.)

Edit: I should also add, that I'm not actually convinced either way, that either women feel the same intensity, or they don't. I don't have an opinion, since it is an unprovable claim.

[sprky777]

One of the problems with the jealousy question is cultural. People in the united States and many other countries for that matter, are raised with a monogamy only view. Therefore when they see a polygamous relationship they apply their own rules to it and believe the other women should also feel as they do.

People of muslim, islam faith have a different mindset. The women of india and africa also are raised differently.

QUOTE:

"By Islamic law, men are allowed to practice polygamy. A man has the right to marry up to four wives if he can support them emotionally and financially. If a man wants another spouse and the first one disapproves, she has the right to divorce him when the second wife moves into the home. This usually doesn't occur because it is often the wife who pressures her husband to marry again in order for her to receive some company and an extra set of hands." Women in Islamic Society

A person can be a Christian and also understand the ability to share love. A husband does not divide his love between wives, the love is doubled just as a mother doesn't divide her love between two children. Each is loved as much as the other.

And as for the issue of sex, a marriage is much more than sex. It is a sad testimony that some people will reduce it to that matter. I would hope that sex is not the most important part of their marriages. I have more respect for women than to see marriage as that simple. If that were the case, men could just have mistresses and prostitutes. Why take on the responsibility of marriage.

Christ said the most important things are to love GOD and to love others as themselves. A poly marriage should be about love, respect and how each can benefit from the relationship.

When poly marriage is legal, why would women marry someone that already has a wife if they did not accept it as moral? Why would she join with a man into a relationship if it was 'abusive'? Why do women marry 'abusive' men in monogamous relationships? Why don't women leave 'abusive' marriages? Can't they leave an 'abusive' poly marriage if they wish? If a man is a good husband and can set the example, it is he that will draw more wives. The bad husbands will lose their ability to keep wives or ever get them. What if they truely love their husband and wish to stay in the poly marriage by choice? There are many that do not want women to have that choice. Polygynous marriages do not give men more choices, only women. Women gain the choice of a good husband in a limited field. Women gain the choice of family and career options, not just one or the other. If they don't want the choice, don't take it.

Are women so weak that we must legislate to restrict their choices to keep them from making decisions that may or may not be suitable for them?

I am a Christian and a Libertarian. I believe adults should have the ability and freedom to be responsible for their own lives.

[Sher]

This is sick ...

It's not about sex? Then why do the majority of these "marriages" involve multiple wives ... and not multiple husbands?

It is totally about sex.

[tyreth]

Today @ 01:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218181#post218181)
Sher:

This is sick ...

It's not about sex? Then why do the majority of these "marriages" involve multiple wives ... and not multiple husbands?

It is totally about sex.

I cannot see this logic. Because we don't allow polyandry...then it must be all about sex? How does that follow?

Polyandry is forbidden because of the differences in role given by God. The wife is a helper for the husband - the woman was made for man, not man for the woman (1 Corinthians 10). Therefore, the husband is her master. We all know the words of Christ, that you cannot serve two masters, because you will love one and hate the other. Polyandry is forbidden for so many reasons.

Not to mention the practical side - a woman can only ever be pregnant to one man at a time. If she has five husbands, to which does she bear children for? How does she know which of them is the father of the child? It's quite obviously wrong, on a Scriptural and a natural level.

[dizzle]

It is amusing to say the least that in the same post that you say I would appreciate you not telling me what I thought, you proceed to tell me what I think.

No, I reiterated what you said here. You posited a straw man :flaming:, boo hoo speculative boogeyman of how I going to malign you to someone unknown future audience I may have. And as your next statement goes on to say, I did not misrepresent you for you feel the need to clarify. The fact that you feel the need to clarify goes to show there was no misrepresentation (which would be the only valid complaint in me "telling you what you think" - an accurate summary is not an issue) but since you claim a misunderstanding that you are taking accountabiity for, your first statement is fluff. I, however, do not think I misunderstood the bottom line anyways but I can see that you wish to give it a more positive spin.

I have just reread through the history of this part of the conversation, and must apologise because I misunderstood what you were claiming, in part. I replied against one of your arguments, while quoting another portion.

Fine, misunderstandings happen on fora, it would be unusual for them not to happen.

When you said It is not normal for a woman to have no issue with a man having sex with another woman I should have replied with something explaining that I agree. I believe that any woman who has been promised this man alone should and will feel jealousy, and will certainly have righteous issues.
Wow, nice switch there Houdini. This has nothing to do with promises but with nature!! The fact that you are willingly blind to this, when I know you are not an unintelligent person, tells me that you are not being ruled with your head. It is a FACT that even mistresses, who have no promise of fidelity, who in fact are the "other woman" become jealous of their rival. This is BASIC HUMAN NATURE. I find it sad that you equivocate and deny this. A man who has not been promised a woman, who has received no assurances, still feels jealousy when she gives her attention to another! This is not high philosphy but horse sense. Women in simple courting relationships, or even far off admiration of a man who has not yet given her the time of day, get supremely jealous of another catching his eye. Are you really this ignorant of the ways of men and women?

Instead, I replied with a response like the below, which was very badly placed by myself.

Things happen.


I was unfortunately responding to your other part where you claimed that the response that a male has to infidelity is identical to that of a female. That is a completely unprovable claim by any measurement, and is therefore completely inadequate as an argument against polygyny.

Patookey. If life has not shown you this, please get out more. You are :ostrich: because you do not want to come to emotional terms about what this reality means for what you are advocating. And you do undertand hyperbole don't you? The feelings are equivalent, they do not require exactness. If my hyperbole confused you, consider this my clarification. If anything it is worse for the women who few would deny are much more emotionally seated, and have deep needs for love, to the extent that she will comprimise her best interest and subject herself to abuse in one quarter to get it in another. You are losing credibility with each denial.

I was reacting to your statement that The exact same way you would feel about your wife having sex with another man is the exact same way that the majority of women would feel vice verse.
That is something that you cannot ever prove so far as I can see, so you cannot use it as an argument against polygyny.
"The exact same way" was hyperbole. You got my drift. You already acknowledged that women are hurt by infidelity you just tried to make it only real or perhaps only valid when there is a promise given, and anyone living in this world amongst real men and women is not buying it. And you dodge the issue anyway, assume for the sake of argument that I am right. Would that make a dent in your resolve?



It's like the inverse of this 'happiness' argument you are so delighted to accuse us of - that just because it's happy it's right.
Not at all since you are using a minority argument. The happiness of a deviant minority makes it okay to foist an immoral practice into public acceptance resulting in increase of licentiusness and the demeaning of the God-ordained model for marriage. There is something in law we call presumption, either rebuttable or unrebuttable. Something so basic as emotional and marital needs that are felt by the majority of a class of person has the presumption of normalcy and validity which can only be rebut by significant contrary evidence. Again, this is Real World 101, not abstractions. Ideas have consequences, and the social consequences for marriage and females of what you are advocating are immoral and abusive.
You are saying here that just because some women are unhappy in it, that it's wrong. Even saying that though, you say "most" women, but disregard them with other generalised statements that they are deceiving themselves or deviants.

This is basic common sense. For instance, MOST women like the company of children. It is NATURAL to them. I don't particularly care for the company of children. I am abnormally deviant in that regard. I am deficient. I lack a good thing. I do not try to normalize my deviant condition.


(btw, are we clear on the word deviant yet? if you meant it in the sense that it's uncommon, I couldn't agree more, and it's completely redundant to mention. If you mean deviant in the sense of something unacceptable, then I disagree and don't see how you can prove it.
Then I do hope you don't try to say pedophilia or homosexuality is unacceptable. You cannot prove it. And I do mean it in the negative sense. It is abnormal and immoral. It is wrong to foist acceptance based upon a deviation. This individualistic mindset is foreign to Biblical thought BTW.

She is deviant because she feels no jealousy, and she feels no jealousy because she is deviant.)

So? A pervert molests children because he is deviant and he is deviant because he molests children? Got a problem with that?

Edit: I should also add, that I'm not actually convinced either way, that either women feel the same intensity, or they don't. I don't have an opinion, since it is an unprovable claim.

It is unprovable that you feel anything. It is unproveable that you love your wife. Your equivocation on this is absurd. Technically it is unproveable that you even exist and are not a figment of my imagination.

[tyreth]

Please excuse my arguments changing. I am learning from this as much as I am explaining what I have already learned. As such, I talk here about jealousy in a way that I haven't before. I think it is the natural conclusion of my previous thoughts that I had not considered beforehand.

Today @ 03:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218214#post218214)
Dee Dee Warren:
No, I reiterated what you said here. You posited a straw man :flaming:, boo hoo speculative boogeyman of how I going to malign you to someone unknown future audience I may have. And as your next statement goes on to say, I did not misrepresent you for you feel the need to clarify. The fact that you feel the need to clarify goes to show there was no misrepresentation (which would be the only valid complaint in me "telling you what you think" - an accurate summary is not an issue) but since you claim a misunderstanding that you are taking accountabiity for, your first statement is fluff. I, however, do not think I misunderstood the bottom line anyways but I can see that you wish to give it a more positive spin.


I find this entire paragraph confusing. "I did not misrepresent you for you feel the need to clarify" is especially confounding. Did you miss "do not" in there?


Wow, nice switch there Houdini. This has nothing to do with promises but with nature!! The fact that you are willingly blind to this, when I know you are not an unintelligent person, tells me that you are not being ruled with your head. It is a FACT that even mistresses, who have no promise of fidelity, who in fact are the "other woman" become jealous of their rival. This is BASIC HUMAN NATURE.


But here is the problem. You say it is natural for a woman to feel jealousy. I say that there are some women who are not jealous in a polygynyous relationship. I do not believe that the presence of jealousy is a sign that something is wrong. Unfortunately for me, you disregard the witness of women who do not feel jealousy, whichh i'll comment on below. But more on jealousy and promises...


I find it sad that you equivocate and deny this. A man who has not been promised a woman, who has received no assurances, still feels jealousy when she gives her attention to another! This is not high philosphy but horse sense. Women in simple courting relationships, or even far off admiration of a man who has not yet given her the time of day, get supremely jealous of another catching his eye. Are you really this ignorant of the ways of men and women?


What is so strange here? The woman has affections for this man who made no promises. She entertained hopes and aspirations that he might turn his interests towards her. When she did not, she felt jealousy because that which she hoped to obtain someone else had.
What I believe, is that a woman who enters a polygynous relationship willingly, by choice, or by expectation through culture from birth, is able to overcome the jealousy. I believe this is possible for three reasons:
1. Things I have felt jealous about in the past I no longer do - so I know that jealousy can fluctuate
2. There are women who are not jealous in polygynous relationships
3. We sometimes (such as in your above example) feel jealous about things we ought not to
You tell me I need to get out more. If I get out more, then surely I will meet these women who are not jealous, and my view will be vindicated.


Patookey. If life has not shown you this, please get out more. You are :ostrich: because you do not want to come to emotional terms about what this reality means for what you are advocating. And you do undertand hyperbole don't you? The feelings are equivalent, they do not require exactness. If my hyperbole confused you, consider this my clarification. If anything it is worse for the women who few would deny are much more emotionally seated, and have deep needs for love, to the extent that she will comprimise her best interest and subject herself to abuse in one quarter to get it in another. You are losing credibility with each denial.


This whole discussion has sprouted from your claim that the jealousy we feel is identical. Your words were:

It is not normal for a woman to have no issue with a man having sex with another woman. If you cannot see that, you are beyond reason and have no grip in reality or your reason has been over-run by your immoral desire to have multiple women. But I am putting it in your face. The exact same way you would feel about your wife having sex with another man is the exact same way that the majority of women would feel vice verse. Don't like that? Want to point to exception to prove a rule? That is not good practice, and it is not good law, and it is not good morality.


I do not believe that the jealousy that a woman in a polygynous relationship feels is identical to the jealousy of a woman promised her husband alone monogamously, and a husband for his wife. Jealousies can change. You said yourself that "the majority or women" feel the same. Sure, I can see how that's possible, but I don't know for sure. I do know that jealousies can change, so I do not believe it is an indication of right or wrong. What you said above is that we are not talking about promises but nature. By that view then, we should find the jealousies just as strong around the world in all cultures, if it is by nature. ie, in cultures where polygyny is expected and the women grow up knowing their husband will do this, we would expect to find their jealousies run just as strong as a western woman who has been promised by her husband that he will live for and love her alone. I believe that our jealousies are integrally connected not just to nature but also to promise.


"The exact same way" was hyperbole. You got my drift. You already acknowledged that women are hurt by infidelity you just tried to make it only real or perhaps only valid when there is a promise given, and anyone living in this world amongst real men and women is not buying it. And you dodge the issue anyway, assume for the sake of argument that I am right. Would that make a dent in your resolve?


I hope my view on jealousy has been clarified above.


This is basic common sense. For instance, MOST women like the company of children. It is NATURAL to them. I don't particularly care for the company of children. I am abnormally deviant in that regard. I am deficient. I lack a good thing. I do not try to normalize my deviant condition.


Prove to me, then, Biblically, that it is a bad thing for a woman in a polygynous relationship not to feel jealousy. Not all abnormal situations are bad. I do not believe that Solomon's untold riches were sinful just because he was the exception to the rule. Some exceptional men do not desire to be marriedand have children, and that is considered a good thing by God. There are times when the abnormal behaviour is still good.


Then I do hope you don't try to say pedophilia or homosexuality is unacceptable. You cannot prove it. And I do mean it in the negative sense. It is abnormal and immoral. It is wrong to foist acceptance based upon a deviation. This individualistic mindset is foreign to Biblical thought BTW.


When I said I don't see how you can prove it, I meant because you used circular reason as I mentioned, and will comment on next. Circular reason is not needed to prove that pedophilia or homosexuality is deviant behaviour in the sense that it's unacceptable both Scripturally and naturally.


So? A pervert molests children because he is deviant and he is deviant because he molests children? Got a problem with that?


Yes I do! The only argument you have offered that a woman is deviant is because she feels no jealousy. And she feels no jealousy because she is deviant. You offered nothing else.
However, in the case of a pervert who molests children, we know he is a deviant because we know that molesting children is unacceptable. It is not sufficient to say "He molests children because he is a deviant, and he is a deviant because he molests children." We first establish that molesting children is deviant, unacceptable, sinful, then we can enter this reasoning. We have not established between us in agreement that polygyny is unacceptable Scripturally, therefore it is premature for you to claim that women who feel no jealousy in that situation are deviant. That is something I can consider only once I agree that the situation is sinful.


It is unprovable that you feel anything. It is unproveable that you love your wife. Your equivocation on this is absurd. Technically it is unproveable that you even exist and are not a figment of my imagination.

Good. So don't use unprovable arguments to support your position.

[sprky777]

I came across an interesting quote that deals more with cultural differences and hypocrisy than polygamy.

This quote has NOTHING to do with polygynous marriage. It is actually embarrasing, worldly, immoral behavior.

My point in posting this is to show the hypocrisy of 'moral', 'advanced' cultures like the united states criticizing foreign cultures for their polygamy.

QUOTE:

"An African institution that has been clobbered in Western feminist discourses is polygamy. Often, in one imperial gesture, Western feminists rebuke African men (polygamists) for their male chauvinism and pity 'helpless' African women for 'sharing' their men. The truth of the matter is that from the pulpit (Swaggart, etc.) to the presidency (Kennedy, Clinton, etc.) and the critical mass in between, there is enough 'man sharing' to go around. Donna Rice (of Monkey Business 'fame'), Camilla Parker-Bowles, Jennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky are no momentary flukes ('bimbo eruptions'); they are marks of a more permanent and pervasive phenomenon that transcends ethnic, geographic, and cultural boundaries. Beautiful, intelligent, loving wives are not antidote to roving eyes! Clarence Thomas was let off the hook because none of the senators at the Thomas/Hill hearing dared to cast the first stone."

Africa Update Volume V. Issue 2 (Spring 1998)

[dizzle]

Beautiful, intelligent, loving wives are not antidote to roving eyes!

No Christ is. Ten wives are not the antidote either.

[sprky777]

Today @ 07:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=228986#post228986)
Dee Dee Warren:



I am convinced you are simply lustful.

I stand in awe of your debate skills. Perhaps I should pass your comments on to the author of the quote, I'm sure the insight would be enlightening, inspiring and appreciated.


The point of the QUOTE was that america was criticizing a foreign culture when we are corrupt. We should focus our efforts to correct our own immorality first. We see the MOTE in their eye while overlooking the BEAM in ours.

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:

No Christ is. Ten wives are not the antidote either.

I think the point of the QUOTE was that americans are attacking cultural beliefs in other countries when we are corrupt in this country. We should focus our efforts on ourselves first. We see a mote in their eye and overlook the beam in our own.

Back to back posts to the same user are not allowed. Please use the edit button to append your post if you have more to add.Thank you

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=229345#post229345)
sprky777:



I stand in awe of your debate skills. Perhaps I should pass your comments on to the author of the quote, I'm sure the insight would be enlightening, inspiring and appreciated.

That would be relevant if I said that I thought the author was such, but in reading your posts here and elsewhere, that was my assessment of your issue. You wish to justify your lust. That is how I see it.

and I understnad that alleged PIONT of the article (irrelevant - there are cultures that accept pedophilia, but your thinking on this has not been particularly clear), but MY POINT was danced over, as usual.

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:

....but MY POINT was danced over, as usual.

Your point was a personal attack. I have been trying to avoid such nonsense and have tried to stay focused on a reasonable debate.
1. As to your 'point', I am married to ONE wife and we both believe polygyny is scripturally acceptable. I am not justifying anything but a point of view.
2. Incest, pedophilia, beastiality, rape, fornication, adultery, abuse, taking a mother and daughter for wives, homosexuality... are all clearly prohibited. I make no endorsements of these actions.
3. Focusing on being faithful to Christ is the solution to many problems. 10 wives would be an entirely different type of problem. Two should be enough.

[dizzle]

Today @ 08:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=229698#post229698)
sprky777:



Your point was a personal attack.

And aren't we in the victim culture? You are claiming I am wrong, that is a personal attack. Everything boils down to a personal attack, but yes this one is more personal since from what I have seen you seem to think that men are inordinately lustful (so you should not have such an issue with me granting to you that which you think is more universal, though you would not call it lust as I do), you fall into that category. I do not get the same impression from Tyreth. He has not advocated sexually immorality to keep promiscuity down (way to curb sin BTW, just declare it no longer sinful and POOF, less sin!!!) nor has he brought up men's roving eyes and the fact that if such a man had more women at home to lust over, he would not look outside the home.




I have been trying to avoid such nonsense and have tried to stay focused on a reasonable debate.

So far you have used arguments that have been used to justify almost any sexual sin, thus they are useless, for once that fatal flaw is pointed out you retreat. Then don't use them to begin with.



1. As to your 'point', I am married to ONE wife and we both believe polygyny is scripturally acceptable. I am not justifying anything but a point of view.

And are you so beknighted to thik that points of view do not result in actions and that ideas do not have consequences.



2. Incest, pedophilia, beastiality, rape, fornication, adultery, abuse, taking a mother and daughter for wives, homosexuality... are all clearly prohibited. I make no endorsements of these actions.

I never said you did, I siad your arguments cut many ways, and if they are such great arguments, I sure hope you are consistent in applying them across the board. You are not a very clear thinker in this regard.

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:

...yes this one is more personal since from what I have seen you seem to think that men are inordinately lustful (so you should not have such an issue with me granting to you that which you think is more universal, though you would not call it lust as I do), you fall into that category. ...brought up men's roving eyes and the fact that if such a man had more women at home to lust over, he would not look outside the home. ...

Again you have misinterpreted my point.

American culture is 'inordinately lustful' and that is wrong.

If a person seeks a second wife to satisfy lust, that is also wrong.

A marriage is not about sex. A second wife is not about sex.

Anyone that endorses polygamy on the basis of increased sexual gratification is being selfish and disrespectful to women.

Now before you try to quote me, yes, having a second wife gives the opportunity for increased sexual intimacy, perhaps. But that is not the reason or intentions of polygyny. Anyone that views it as such is being unjustly shallow.

Polygyny can reduce SIN by placing more women in ligitimate marriages and thereby leaving fewer single women to 'play the field' or resort to prostitution to support themselves. Also, those men that would also 'play the field' would need to improve their behavior to attract a wife of their own from a reduced supply. Just like a free market economy, more demand and reduced supply can result in higher quality between competition.

Polygyny should not be reduced to a simple issue of sex.

[dizzle]

Wow, let's see your logic again..... Quality women could attract MORE husbands.... wow, that poor reasoning works both ways.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=228986#post228986)
Dee Dee Warren, replying to:

SPRKY77: Beautiful, intelligent, loving wives are not antidote to roving eyes!

No Christ is. Ten wives are not the antidote either.

Yeah, why should wives put up with a husband sharing his love with another woman just to satisfy selfish lust? Roving eyes are a form of adultery in the heart, so beware! :shocked:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Dee Dee,

Somehow your new picture doesn't appear to be saying "Don't you DARE think about having sex with me."

This thread is for theists only. Please familiarize yourself with the forum rules. Thank you.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 09:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=229833#post229833)
Socrates:
Roving eyes are a form of adultery in the heart, so beware! :shocked:

Men can learn to appreciate a woman's sensuality, while allowing prudent dissipation of our hardwired command: "Them are good genes---you WILL find a way!"

It's my observation that what men most-desire from an attractive woman is not so much something physical as much as merely some measure of approval.

The suppression of sexual ideation and its equation with abject guilt and shame promote a sensual immaturity which impels emotionally harmful and/or compulsive thoughts and acts.

It seems suppression of sexual ideation can be just as impossible (and possibly harmful?) as the suppression of dreaming in sleep.

Maybe that's why declaring "lusting in the heart" as proof of one's "wickedness" is such a ubiquitous tool in erecting the gallows which "convict conscience". It's akin to convincing people their flatulence is proof; it's normal, it's healthy, and everyone does it.

Suppress it and you get what you tithe for.


See mod notice above

[Queen]

Socrates says:

Roving eyes are a form of adultery in the heart, so beware!

Oh man, I do live a sinful life..... :help: :rofl:

Some things disturb me. Polygamy is in our nature (we are after all primates), because we are monogamous there is adultery. We consider our partner often as possession, but we are all individuals who have the right to live the life we want (as long as we not hurt others intentionally). People panic when someone is unfaithful. That is jealousy and insecurity to me. Polygamous relationships work as long as all who are involved agree.

I am my own person, I am the one who decides what I do with my life......as long as I respect people around me. My husband does not agree with me sleeping with other men and women and I respect that, but I still have my dreams and my fantasies.....in your soul/mind you can be truly free, without being judged. The most powerful sex organ is the brain. If he wants to make love to another woman or share a marriage with another woman as well, I will not stop him, because it is his choice. He knows how I feel, and he loves me anyway... :love:

No mammal lives a monogamous life....why should the mammals, Homo sapiens sapiens live it?

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen
(Hmm.....I am very liberal :grin: )

Ditto

[Lazy Agnostic]

You are very liberal.

Intimacy in the arms of desperation can be pathetic.
Intimacy in the arms of mutual respect can be growthful and reassuring.
Intimacy in the arms of mature committed love is as close to perfection as humans are allowed.

ditto too

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=229890#post229890)
Queen:

Oh man, I do live a sinful life..... :help: :rofl:

A do we all.

Some things disturb me.

So?

Polygamy is in our nature (we are after all primates),

This presupposes that we are merely primates without self-control.

... because we are monogamous there is adultery. We consider our partner often as possession, but we are all individuals who have the right to live the life we want (as long as we not hurt others intentionally).

Why not? After all, if we evolved from pond scum, then there has been plenty of hurt on the way as "survival of the fittest" worked itself out.

People panic when someone is unfaithful. That is jealousy and insecurity to me. Polygamous relationships work as long as all who are involved agree.

Find someone who truly agrees.

I am my own person, I am the one who decides what I do with my life......as long as I respect people around me. My husband does not agree with me sleeping with other men and women and I respect that, but I still have my dreams and my fantasies.....in your soul/mind you can be truly free, without being judged. The most powerful sex organ is the brain. If he wants to make love to another woman or share a marriage with another woman as well, I will not stop him, because it is his choice. He knows how I feel, and he loves me anyway... :love:

For now anyway.

No mammal lives a monogamous life....why should the mammals, Homo sapiens sapiens live it?

Primates rape, so why shouldn't humans, by this "reasoning"? Two evolutionists, Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhil,l even wrote a book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press), claiming that rape was in men's genes, as a means to aid their propagation.

(Hmm.....I am very liberal :grin: )

There are other words too.

Soc, as this is in response to a modded post, if you would like me to split it into a new thread in an acceptable forum, please PM me and let me know.

[Bill the Cat]

Please remember this forum is for theists only. If you desire to continue this discussion in a non-theist thread, please PM me and I will move the posts to a new thread and link it here. Thank you

[Queen]

Rape in nature has other reasons.....

By the way, I am a rape survivor so keep these remarks to yourself and think twice before you say something like that. I never intend to hurt anybody, I merely expressing my opinion. But you are hurting me with these remarks. Humans rape not for sex or procreation, but out of power to humiliated their victim. I was raped twice, I had to endure a attempted "gang-bang" which I escaped off. These things happened many years ago and I still suffer from it...I have got a life long sentence...these men walk free, I was too ashamed to report them. I am a biologist so I know these things about rape.....

You got personal.....that is not very nice. You probably didn't know and I am not angry with you, but still I am hurt a lot by it. Free sex is quite different from forced sex....both things have nothing to do with each other.

Why is that anyway, that when someone expresses their opinion, just being honest about their feelings, you (I bumped onto this a few times in the short while I am here) use crimes that are awful as comparison? Is that because you can't come up with a positive argument to defend your believes? I never used the word rape, I never said you had to live my life, I never said you were wrong. I just stated my opinion. An honest opinion...

And yes, my husband loves me and he will love me more, because I am honest and he appreciates honesty above sneaky behavior. Why should I hide my feelings about males and females? He respects me, I respect him and I would never do anything without his approval. Love is about that, accepting your partner for what he/she is.......if you want to change your partner, then love will ends, because they both have to live a lie....

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Queen]

Oops....sorry.....missed that...my apologizes for entering this thread.

[dizzle]

Queen, Lazy Agnostic etc check your PMs later (I will cc you Bill) as I would like to explain some of the reasoning behind this area of the forum so you can stay within the guidelines... thanks....

[tyreth]

What was with all the removed posts? Was it personal attacks, something off topic or what?

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:

Wow, let's see your logic again..... Quality women could attract MORE husbands.... wow, that poor reasoning works both ways.
It has already been pointed out that scripture does not allow a woman to have more than one husband. Please try to keep your counterpoints at least somewhat scriptural.
Socrates:

Yeah, why should wives put up with a husband sharing his love with another woman just to satisfy selfish lust? Roving eyes are a form of adultery in the heart, so beware! :shocked:
Yes, you are right! Lust should not be the reason for additional wives. Just as lust should not be the reason a man chooses a first wife. Such marriages are doomed to failure.

[dizzle]

Okay now I am going to respond to Tyreth, but reading back through the thread, I see that I have already pretty much answered the same arguments, and they are simply being restated with possibly a slightly different angle. One thing I will give Ty is that he understands and admits the ramifications of Matthew 19:9 as I presented them, not that he necessarily accepts my presentation.

First I'd like to say that I think there's more evidence in Scripture for a doctrine of salvation by works than there is for a doctrine of monogamy.

Meaningless. An Arian would say the same about the Trinity.

Sure, there are three or four verses that *might* be used to support a change to monogamy only...

I actually provided exegesis to the extreme contrary. There is no "might" about it. If the polygamist proponent has an issue with an alleged contradiction or tension between the OT and NT, he has to do more than hand-wave or propose nonsensical ways of explaining away the passages as has been done.



Red herring :red: and already dealt with. All of God's men are sinners and practiced a lot of wrong things. I already dealt with this prior. Here again is the quote from Miller:

What must be understood is that God's allowance of something and even His requirement of it in exceptional circumstances is NOT incompatible with it being "wrong" in the vast majority of cases.


Obviously, polygamy was 'authorized' (the Mosaic law specifically refers to it)
and 'demanded' (especially in the case of levirite marriage), but this doesn't
mean that it is something God wants us to do, except in extreme situations
(e.g., the provision of a supportless-widow of kin, in a specific society tied
to a genealogically-based land inheritance economy).


A good way to illustrate this is from a very similar marital topic--divorce.


Divorce was "authorized" in the Mosaic Law (Deut 24), and "demanded" in the case
of the returned exiles (Ezra 10). But it is crystal clear that divorce is:


Hated by God (Mal 2.16)
Prohibited by Jesus, except in extreme situations (Matt 19).
Permitted by God because of human failings (i.e., hardness of heart--Mt 19.8).
What this means for OUR discussion is that one must look at the more
"principle-like" statements about a topic, for guidance as to what the will and
heart of God is about a subject, rather than the exceptions in history (e.g.,
permissions, extreme circumstances). The statements of principle about polygamy
(discussed above)--like the statements of principle about divorce-- indicate the
behavioral norm that we are to follow. The exceptions in history to those
overarching statements of principle and life are just that--exceptions, called
forth by either extreme situations or called forth by our own moral weakness
(e.g. hardness of heart).





The patriarchs were never reprimanded for polygamy.

And Moses was not reprimanded for allowing divorce that God only permitted due to the hardness of men's hearts. And the fact is that the NT forbids leaders from the practice. The polygamy proponents have to deal with that. I recognize both realities and harmonize the two. God's law back in the Old covenant which was a shadow of the New was written on stone tablets, and men's hearts were stony. But in the time of the New Covenant redemption, His law is on the hearts of flesh that He gave for our hearts of stone. I also stated here:

They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce,
and to put her away?"

Notice, just like in this thread, the Pharisees are appealing (and I would say
with more justification than those present here since they are under the Law) to
the OT to justify their immoral practices. And yes, you heard me, polygamy is
immoral. I make no bones about that.

He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you
to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Now Jesus acknowledges that divorce was permitted, and He clearly describes it
as a concession to their hard hearts. So here is a clear example of God making
provision in His law for a situation that He did not approve of, but did so as a
concession and as a way of protecting persons in situations He knew was going to
happen.



By what rule do you judge
them to have been living in sin because of polygamy? Abraham, Jacob, David,
Solomon, Gideon and more - all these men had multiple wives, and they were
greatly blessed and used by God.


Let's see. Abraham was also a teller of half-truths, Jacob was a conniving manipulator, Solomon became an idolater, Gideon died in shame... To repeat..... the rule I judge them by is the standards given in the NT. God provided for the exigencies of that culture and circumstances in the OT. He forbore, but now with the perfection that has come in Christ and the Holy Spirit to do His will, He reveals His plan to return us back to our ideal as modeled in Eden, which is what Christ turned men's attention to in His discourse on marriage.

Also David had concubines. Is anyone of the pro-polygamists here suggesting that is okay? I do not see an explicit denial of this, and are you DARING to say that DAVID was immoral for that? If you are going to say it was immoral, fine, but the FACT still is that they were greatly blessed and used by God, so your argument falls flat. And if you don’t think it was about sex…. I am sure you are going to tell me about the real meaningful bonding of friendship that David and Solomon were seeking.

Yet in what part of Scripture did God look
lightly at adultery?

In that part that Jesus spoke to in Matthew 19:9 where He explained that God permitted divorce. If divorce causes adultery, then God was allowing potential adultery to occur due to the hardness of men's hearts.


He considered idolatry to be committing adultery against
Himself. Did any of these righteous men make much use of divorce? No. Yet Jesus
saw fit to make divorce a thing not to be practiced.

Oh "not much" eh? A little adultery is apparently okay. Actually that statement made no sense. I read it a couple of times and cannot get a coherent argument out of it to rebut.


I just don't understand how you can say that these men lived in sin when not
even God accused them of it?

You are begging the question. If the NT takes a stand against polygamy, which is does in spades, then that is the accusation that God passed over.

I consider adultery to be one of the sickest sins
someone can commit - it makes me angry and sad to even imagine it.

Apparently not since you are condoning it here. I find the idea of lusting after multiple women to be one of the sickest things that a married man can do. Oh I know, I know, you are trying to sell the bill of goods it isn’t about lust. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.



I think that
this is a fair attitude, since idolatry is one of the worst sins, and God likens
idolatry to adultery. I cannot possibly imagine, under any circumstances, how
God would tolerate such blatant and public adultery by His most loved chosen.
How can you say they were living in such sin? To say that our righteousness
excels that of the patriarchs seems the height of arrogance.

All of our righteousness is equal. Equally filthy rags. And I dealt with this concept of God's forbearance above.



First off - not all women are incapable of polygyny. Ask swordman, because he
has a dear friend with three wives, which he mentioned earlier in this thread
(or another one on this forum). A key principle of polygyny, it is only
practiced by a very few.

And where in Scripture is this "key principle"?


It only ever has been practiced by a few.

Thank God if true.



By far the
majority of people will live monogamously. It doesn't matter if 99/100 women
hate the thought of polygyny, because that's still 1/100.

Oh please. There is 1/100 women who don't mind their husbands frequenting prostitutes. Inane argument. I hear the same from the homosexual activists who tell those who have normal natural desires not to judge those who have abnormal unnatural ones. Please. You don't create rules by the exceptions.



And don't presume to
judge their character merely because they have a different emotional level to
you, unless you want to slander the patriarch's wives also (though some were
undoubtedly of less than desirable character, can you judge all merely because
they are polygynous?).

Nice deflection. There is no indication that this is the situation that they would have preferred in an ideal world or would not have been more valued and loved in a different situation. Additionally there are extreme cultural issues at play. I do make a character assessment on any woman who does not feel it is her right to be valued and cherished alone. She is abnormal in some way, lacking self worth or having some other deviance (admitted already by you since you conceded this is "rare" thus "deviant form the norm"). I am sure you could find some trophies to parade before me that would swear up and down that is not the case. The majority of women know in their heart that is patently false. Rules are not made by abnormal exceptions.



Anyway, what I'm saying is - polygyny was never, and
never will be, the norm. It will always be practiced by a few, and therefore it
should surprise noone that it will be only a few women who do not find it
abborant.

Major clue there. Too bad you don't get it.




Second, I feel that you are missing a key principle of the nature of polygyny.
I'm not sure what your position on this particular topic - but I believe that
God made the male as the head of the household, and society in general. The
Father is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of
woman. Therefore, the woman's master is her husband. The husband's master is
Christ. No-one can then use the scripture about being unable to serve two
masters in order to rebuke polygyny. In a polygynous relationship, in fact, the
leadership of the man is reinforced - you simply cannot have two leaders. That
scripture however can be used for rebuking polyandry, since no one can serve two
masters.

They are both equally disgusting. That one argument was not mine originally, and one I would not need to hang my hat on, and it was partly said tongue in cheek since the men know who really rules the roost. But the PRINCIPLE there is still true. A man’s heart cannot have divided loyalties.


Now I think you see marriage or relationship like a puzzle with two pieces. They
join together to form one image. There is no room for more pieces to fit in,
without grabbing some scissors and unnaturally cutting in another connection.
That's not how I see marriage though. I see it more like a tree, where the man
is the trunk and the wife is a branch. There may be one branch or there may be
many branches, all grafted onto the one person. It all depends on your image of
how relationships work. Given my different imagery, I see no such "wedge" as
appearing in a relationship where a second or subsequent wife joins.

That may be how YOU see it, but it is patently unscriptural and illogical. The one flesh is reciprocal. I have stated this here:

Jesus has just proven my point above as He, before answering the divorce question, gave a quick primer on what marriage was supposed to be, and this is the first death blow to polygamy. Jesus refers back to the IDEAL created order, to Paradise, for how man was specifically created to live. One man, one woman. This is unavoidable. The first case of recorded polygamy is of a vilely sinful man. God did not create man to be that way. He created man to have bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh relationship with one woman. It is impossible for a man and multiple women to be one flesh, and nowhere is it said that multiple women become one flesh with each other, which would be required if this conglomerate harem were to be one flesh. A man cannot be one flesh (and I am speaking not only physically but spiritually for certainly the sex act can be done with many partners) with multiple women. In so thinking he needs or should have multiple wives, he is speaking that he knows better than God in His original created plan. If you guys continually want to bring up the OT to trump the NT, that is the sour pickle you will need to chew on.

This is downright offensive.

Too bad. Your advocating of female-demeaning immorality is downright offensive.


Polygyny ultimately has nothing to do with sexual appetites, and it's ignorance to teach otherwise. I have no doubt that there are some or many men who dream of multiple wives merely for their sexual appetites.

Read the cognitive dissidence there. On one hand it has NOTHING to do with sexual appetites (yet Paul sees it differently and sees marriage have a GREAT deal to do with sexual appetites), and then you concede that there are many men who would want that for such a purpose. I am sorry but this is disgusting, and no matter how much perfume you pour on it, it still stinks. Funny that you even concede that most woman have a natural abhorrence to the idea yet this is a good thing. When something is good only for an extreme minority they are rightly called deviants.



You cannot accuse all of being subject to the same vice, just because it fits
your convenient stereotype of those who would practice it. There are other
reasons why a man would practice it apart from sexual appetite.

And I daresay such would be rare. If a man truly values a woman, he would value her alone. That is how God created her.


Now as promised, some comments on Matthew 19:9. First of all, some early
manuscripts translate it the same as Matthew 5:32. Primarily manuscript C (can't
recall it's full name). I am loathe however to appeal to a manuscript that
wasn't chosen as the true translation.

Good because the whole context points to the correctness of the view I have been stating, i.e. Christ’s pointing back to the original created order.


So I'll explain my confusion. The correct definition of adultery according to
the ancient Hebrew is "usually of a man, always with the wife of another". That
is what was forbidden in the 10 commandments, in the moral law that is still in
place today.

No. Israel, personified as a woman in the OT is frequently called an adulteress. The NT speaks of adulteresses. The Bible does not make the distinction that it is “usually of a man.”


...There's been a break here in my writing. As I was reading the verse again, I
realized with fresh impact just how much Matthew 19:9 is a problem for
polygamists.

Good for you. There is hope. This is more frankness (and you have generally been more frank with a lot of the texts than the others) than the other pro-polygamists have shown.


I'll describe first what I realized. The definition of adultery is
what I said above.

And I Biblically disputed.


So Matthew 19:9 shows a case where something is called
adultery but it doesn't fit in the definition above.

Since I already disputed it we already are off on a false premise.


Meaning that adultery
encompasses more than a man sleeping with another man's wife, but also _appears_
to describe a man who has taken a second unmarried woman to be his wife as
committing adultery against his first wife.

Okay that is an accurate summary of what I have been arguing.



The reason why this is a great
problem is because of the definition of divorce - divorce being merely a written
word that says the two are no longer bound. The principle we obtain from Jesus'
words is that though men declare a couple to now be separate, before God they
are in fact not separate. So that Matthew 19:9 is saying that the reason why
it's adultery is because the man is still joined to his first wife, causing him
to commit adultery against her.

Again, that is an accurate summary of the problem. Good job on that. Swordman never grasped that point.


And so, I was contemplating it a while, I realized my greatest problem was in
the definition of adultery. The Biblical definition seems to quite clearly be
usually a man, always with another man's wife (according to "The Brown Driver
Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon").

I already disputed that. Are you then suggesting that if a married man has sex with a single woman he is not committing adultery? Or are you suggesting that is what the Bible intended to teach? The NT speaks of adulterers and adulteresses, and does not teach that such have to have as their object of immorality another married person….

This seems to fit very well with the
testimony of the OT. So I wondered how Matthew 19:9 could be adultery, because
it's simply not. It's like saying "you are guilty of murder" when you haven't
actually taken someone's life. And I think that's key. The answer is not to
redefine adultery to include a man taking a second wife. The answer I found on
another website, and the key is of course Matthew 5:32.
Here is what I believe it says - when a man divorces his wife, he causes her to
commit adultery according to Matt. 5:32.

You just shot your own argument. How can “she” commit adultery if adultery is “quite clearly be usually a man, always with another man's wife”? If it is not, your whole objection goes down the toilet.

Matthew 19:9 imputes the guilt to the
husband.

Nope. Matthew 19:9 says far too much for that.

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

The requirement for the husband to commit adultery is “marries another” which would be irrelevant in your scheme.

I know the verse says that it only is adultery if he marries another - and that makes perfect sense. If he did not marry another, then his divorce was
almost certainly for good reasons.

Says who? That is a total nonsequiter. A man with a broken heart very often will find another. This is completely pulled out of whole cloth.


If he marries another then he was discarding
his first wife in favor of another, therefore leaving her without recourse. And
I think that is a fair interpretation - after all, we are assuming in Matt. 5:32
that the divorced woman remarries, otherwise she would not be guilty of
adultery.

Totally different situation in that Matthew 19 makes it explicit that the adultery is tied to the husband’s marrying another. Plus you are ignoring the high context setting of Matthew 5. A divorced woman had no recourse, she must remarry. Single women generally didn’t survive.



So I think it is fair to interpret Matt. 19:9 this way in order to fit
with the proper definition of adultery, rather than to redefine the word
'adultery'.

And I have shown your whole premise to be flawed in that is an improper definition (even Matthew 5 says it is the woman who commits adultery) and contradicts yourself.




difficulty in interpreting Matthew 19:9 is not that it
appears to condemn polygyny, but rather that it doesn't fit with the actual
meaning of adultery. Ah, as an afterthought, I hasten to add that I think my
interpretation is fair under light of Mark 10:11 where it describes the man as
committing adultery against her.


I am glad you brought up Mark 10:11. You apparently didn’t read it properly for it defeats your point:

So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

The “her” in the passage is the prior wife. And it is the man committing adultery, not having the prior wive’s remarriage imputed to him.



Now on this topic again - my biggest problem is a lack of proper discontinuation
of polygamy in the New Testament. Reading the Bible from beginning to end, it
seems like God permitted polygyny, and felt no need to revisit it in the New.

I have shown numerous places where he did in fact revisit it in the New. This is the circular argument that you guys have put forth like this. God does not change His mind so any mention in the NT that may seem like it is against polygamy cannot be, and since it is not mentioned in the NT, He didn’t revisit it.

The fact is that concubines were permitted in the OT as well. David had them. Jacob had them. And God does revisit sexual practices. Incest was commanded and blessed in the early chapters of Genesis.

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:

Red herring and already dealt with. All of God's men are sinners and practiced a lot of wrong things. I already dealt with this prior. Here again is the quote from Miller:


And the quote from Miller was on how God hates divorce and divorce was permitted in OT. So Miller thinks differerent times call for different acceptable behaviours.

Why is it that anytime you try to point out that polygyny is wrong in the OT the result is to point out that divorce was wrong in the OT. They are two separate issues.

I guess because divorce is obviously not what God intended. Polygyny must have been overlooked and God just forgot to prohibit it as clearly as divorce.

We have many examples of Gods chosen men having more than one wife, how many examples are there of divorces? Was it such a big issue that we had to have many verses making it clearly wrong? Yet not one single verse CLEARLY making polygyny wrong? And I don't mean splitting hairs on differences in interpretation or transliteration or translation. Divorce is clearly against Gods intentions for marriage.

[dizzle]

If that even remotely dealt with my post I would comment. I am fully convinced sparky that nothing would convince you that I will say as you seek to justify your sexual immorality.

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:

Okay now I am going to respond to Tyreth, but reading back through the thread, I see that I have already pretty much answered the same arguments...

Tyreth:

Did any of these righteous men make much use of divorce? No. Yet Jesus saw fit to make divorce a thing not to be practiced.



Actually that statement made no sense. I read it a couple of times and cannot get a coherent argument out of it to rebut.



Tyreths statement is clear, do you run away from the question? I have also asked the same question, always to be 'overlooked'.
edited-just to clarify,
there are many examples of polygyny: no condemnations
there are no examples of divorce: many condemnations

[dizzle]

And I have posted reams of informatoin that you cherry pick. Oh, and when are you going to want ot bring back concubinage? Do yolu think that is okay too? Why not? Are you daring to accuse the patriarchs of sexuality immorality after God blessed them so much?

[sprky777]

And another expert dodge.

As to the concubine question, I have not studied the origins or classifications defining a concubine. Until I understand the circumstances and culture relative to that practice, I cannot make a fair evaluation as to its acceptability.

Slavery also was common then but I don't see how that is relevant to polygyny now either. There is also the cultural issue of 'class' and race. Perhaps their culture didn't consider someone from a foreign land to be considered a wife automatically. But then Moses did consider the Ethiopian woman to be his wife.

The issue of the moment though is the intensity which Jesus taught against divorce and the original intentions for marriage to be a lifetime commitment. Was divorce a common problem? It seems to any reader of the old testament that polygyny was common, divorce was rare. So why not teach on polygyny?

Of course, Jesus did not bring up the topic, he was only responding to a SPECIFIC question on divorce.

[dizzle]

Today @ 04:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=237208#post237208)
sprky777:

And another expert dodge.

As to the concubine question, I have not studied the origins or classifications defining a concubine. Until I understand the circumstances and culture relative to that practice, I cannot make a fair evaluation as to its acceptability.


Well considering your interest in multiple women, you may be ripping yourself off. I would look into it. This is directly on point, but you got all emotional about how DARE something against the partriachs. You kinda gotta answer that one.

Slavery also was common then but I don't see how that is relevant to polygyny now either. There is also the cultural issue of 'class' and race.

And there were cultural issue with polygamy that I raised, but you are dodging then whether things can change with culture. God commanded incest in Genesis and outlawed later on. We would be sexually immoral if we engaged in it today, but Adam's direct children were not. It is directly relevant to progressive revelation.


Perhaps their culture didn't consider someone from a foreign land to be considered a wife automatically. But then Moses did consider the Ethiopian woman to be his wife.

Irrelevant.

The issue of the moment though is the intensity which Jesus taught against divorce and the original intentions for marriage to be a lifetime commitment. Was divorce a common problem? It seems to any reader of the old testament that polygyny was common, divorce was rare. So why not teach on polygyny?

He did. I showed that in spades.

Of course, Jesus did not bring up the topic, he was only responding to a SPECIFIC question on divorce.

Irrelevant.

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:

God commanded incest in Genesis and outlawed later on. We would be sexually immoral if we engaged in it today, but Adam's direct children were not. It is directly relevant to progressive revelation.



Adam had no choice but to marry who was essentially his own clone in female form. Adams children also had no other choices but to marry siblings. Likewise for their offspring to only marry first cousings or siblings. This is not the issue. This is one of your redirects, but useful.

You mention 'progressive revelation'. So the patriarchs had multiple wives and the mosiac law included guidelines on that behavior. Just as it was not sinful for Cain to marry his sister, it was not sinful for Abraham to have more than one wife.

As you see it, a 'progressive revelation' eliminated the option of more than one wife and restricted christians to monogamy. I guess in that view, I would have to agree with you. But that still relies on a single interpretation of Mat 19. with no examples of anyone being reprimanded for having a second wife.

Oh, by the way, the 'expert dodge' I was refering to was your skillful dodge of the 'jesus teaching/divorce/no examples' comment you avoided 3 posts back.

[dizzle]

I don't dodge irrelevancies, I ignore them, but BTW, I did answer that question implicitly when I dealt with the whole context of the chapter, which you expertly dodged. I am still waiting on your concubine answer. Just think, another whole harem that you can have.

[sprky777]

Ok, I'll bite (a second time)

First, define 'concubine', then I'll respond once I'm sure of what you are asking.

[dizzle]

You never "bit" the first time. Go to the Bible, research concubine, and you tell me. The ancient practice of concubinage is pretty much women kept for the sole purpose of sexual pleasure.

[leifwright]

Actually, concubinage is pretty well undefined in the Old Testament. I was always pretty uncomfortable with it because of that undefined nature.
Some concubines are treated as wives, some are treated as little better than servants (then again, so are some wives.)
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, so maybe I should say here that I only have one wife.
But I have some interest in this subject (as I do in most subjects), though I'll state here that I'm not interested in being polygamous, polygynous or any other poly. I am, however, interested in the nature of progressive revelation and the nature of law in the Old Testament and the New.
I'm going to think about this for a while and comment.

[dizzle]

Leif that still proves my point. Is then sparky in favor of this undefined sexual relationship today? If not is he accusing the partriachs of immorality? Does he think it just peachy if I give my maid to my husband if I cannot have children, and she will not be a "wife" but merely a spare womb?

[Tobias Reiper]

Another popular argument some have put forth concerning a man having more than one wife is that we are instructed by Paul of Tarsus to obey the laws of the land. However, it is only illegal to acquire more than one marriage license at a time. That piece of paper from City Hall is not God's definition of marriage. It is strictly a legal maneuver with its own benefits and problems. God defined marriage once and for all in Genesis. He never relinquished His authority over marriage to mankind. The absence of that piece of paper from City Hall does not constitut sin. If anyone thinks it does, then I would have to see it from the word of God. There is no law in my state that requires a couple to have a license in order for them to be married in accordance with God's definition of marriage. This love affair our churches have historically demonstrated for that license is out of keeping with the word of God. No nation has the right to redefine marriage through its laws or otherwise. Do not get me wrong. I am not opposed to a couple acquiring a license, but I do take great exception to anyone who declares that another couple is "living in sin" simply because they do not have that piece of paper from City Hall. One will search in vain to find that in the word of God. Talking about some nonexistent law concerning that license is nothing but outright dishonesty, or downright ignorance.


I don't know how to respond to the polygamy issue, but I do have something to say about marriage liscences.

It was the very verse you alluded to that changed me. Over the winter my fiancé and I were decieved into believing that our marriage began at the loss of my virginity, and we considered ourselves husband and wife. Then a friend pointed out Titus 3:1.

The wheels started turning, and eventually I reached the conclusion that since the magistrates (government) say you have to have a liscence to be married, and the Bible says to obey the magistrates, then to call ourselves married when the government says we're not is a violation of that command.

Now if the Bible says that to disobey the laws of the land is a sin, then wouldn't calling yourselves married without following the governments regulations be a sin?

[sprky777]

Ahh, but the requirement is only to receive recognition and benefits of a state licensed marriage. Not required outright.

A license is prior permission to do what is otherwise prohibited.

You don't see the state breaking down the doors of a man and woman cohabitating and having children 'out of wedlock' for violating the license laws.

Try driving down a highway without a license and you will see a response from the 'state'.

The difference is being recognized by God or by the 'state'.
Marriages under the 'state' are easily dissolved with another piece of paper. Marriages under God are not to be broken.


DeeDee, I haven't forgotten you, I'm still researching what is proving to be a difficult topic to clarify. I would agree as Leif stated above, it is not clearly defined.

[charis9]

Haven't had time to read all the posts, but thank you Don for bringing forward a Scriptural topic very few seem to have studied soundly.

Nice to see that some believers can actually discuss this without wetting their pants. LOL

Have recently suffered at the hands of my Bible study group because I hold the view that polygamy is allowed by God. Yes, that includes today.

Most refutations given me followed the usual lines:
1. Gen.2:24. The two shall be one flesh.
2. Never spoken of favourably.
3. Always some unfortunate consequence of polygamy.
4. Not consistent with God only having one wife (OT), or Christ having one bride.
5. Matt.19:9 Christ forbad divorce.
6. 1 Cor.7:2. Let each man have his own wife.

I think it was Don who clearly stated that so far as SIN is concerned God declares it and I have yet to read from God's Word, where polygamy is branded as sin. Doctrine should be soundly pinned upon the Word of God rightly divided not hung from the fears and prejudices of tradition.

If polygamy were a sin, and an obviously serious one as far as "Christianity" is concerned, then our God is strangely silent in my view.

So for the sake of the truth, I invite you all to post those verses where GOD declares polygamy a sin. Quite a simple exercise really.

Now just to make sure we have the task clearly in our minds. We are to post verses in which polygamy is condemned as sin. I am not interested in commentaries, denominational dogmas, passages about divorce, or even references from the National Enquirer.

Let God's Word speak for God regarding this matter.

Where does the Bible declare polygamy a sin? You are free to quote either the Old or New Testaments in whatever version you prefer.

Brian

[dizzle]

I have already done that Brian, in principle and explicitly. I refuse to follow your self imposed rules which is no better than a Unitarian insisting that if God were really triune (I mean what could be more important than knowing the nature of God) give me a verse that say that He is One Essence and Three Persons. I am not interested in verses about Jesus' relationship with God etc etc.

If you wish to simply handwave and define away all the verses already presented and stack the deck have fun!

[dizzle]

And sparky you have forgotten quite a bit in your cherry picking responses to me. Swordman and Tyreth are the only ones who have attemtped any systematic rebuttal.

[charis9]

Dee Dee.

Then it should not be difficult to post one or two specific verses where polygamy is condemned as a sin.

Just one would do.

Brian

[tyreth]

Well, it's been a little while since I've checked this thread.

Dee Dee, I read your response to my very old post. I must say it's continuing to frustrate me. You say that you've already answered point x or point y, but proceed to give a response anyway. Then I feel frustrated because I've already (imo) countered your response elsewhere - and so I am required to post yet another reply.

So I'm going to end this circle now. I came here trying to see if I could understand why polygyny is now considered a sin. I think I have found out - and I don't consider them sufficient grounds, for all the previously mentioned reasons. Dee Dee, you often seem to assume the worst motives for us permitting polygyny - but that's simply unfair. There are many things I'd love to believe, but I don't because there is insufficient basis in Scripture. I am not usually one who is prone to follow the teaching that itches my ears. It just seems that you are bent on the idea that one cannot permit polygyny without being deviant (in the sense of something bad, not just something uncommon).
I shouldn't need to remind you that celibacy is rare and good, yet you often made references to the argument that because polygyny is rare that it's an indication that it's sinful:


Anyway, what I'm saying is - polygyny was never, and
never will be, the norm. It will always be practiced by a few, and therefore it
should surprise noone that it will be only a few women who do not find it
abborant.

Major clue there. Too bad you don't get it.

It amazes me that you will go to such great pains to outline your perceived parallels between polygyny arguments and homosexuality arguments - yet you fail to see here that by this "clue" you also condemn celibacy. Rare does not necessarily mean sinful.

If polygyny were truly a sin, I would have expected Jesus to reprimand the flagrant adultery that His most beloved servants lived. The Bible is written right now exactly how I would expect it to be if polygyny were not a sin. I have never seen such a flimsy mainstream justification for an unbiblical doctrine as I do for monogamy only.

Dee Dee, you are clearly intelligent, but it feels as though you are used to being right. At the start of this year I began considering the question of monogamy and polygyny from the perspective of not knowing whether it was sinful or not. I was not interested in being biased. I don't feel like you have given the topic the same honesty. As such, everything you said is with the intention of being right. If you can find something stronger than Matthew 19:9 (which I believe is your strongest Scriptural support), then that's exactly what I was looking for - the missing Scripture that explained our ingrained monogamy only culture. It hasn't been presented.

[dizzle]

I have presented numerous Scriptures. Are you also condoning concubinage? Good question. Otherwise are you daring to accuse the partriachs of sin?

As far as not answering points, I ansered every single one of yours abundantly. I answered your additonal arguments on Matthew 19 in my last post. You never fully answered mine. I gave a ton of support in the Timothy passages which you never dealt with except to concede that your alternate translation was not correct.

And if you should ever go down this sinful path, I hope your church has the fortitude to put you out. Such has no place int he Body of Christ.

As far as your misplaced celibacy argument, you missed your own clue. You conceded most women will find it abhorrent. Rightly so. While some guys may cross their legs in disbelieve at celibacy, it is not held in abhorrence in any great number. You need to think a bit more clearly.

[dizzle]

Today @ 08:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=246287#post246287)
charis9:

Dee Dee.

Then it should not be difficult to post one or two specific verses where polygamy is condemned as a sin.

Just one would do.

Brian

Did you read my post? I am wiating for you to post one or two undisputed verses that say God is one in Essence and three in Person. Surely that is not too difficult for you to do.

Since you have ignored my point, and the abundant Scriptural evidence I presented by continuing to try to stack the deck, have fun.

[charis9]

Dee Dee,

The topic in this thread is polygamy. I am sure the "God is one in Essence and three in Person" discussion, is adequately addressed elsewhere.

This discussion can be concluded with a simple post of those Scriptures which clearly indicate polygamy is a sin, and I have not read any in this thread thus far. I have read lots of arguments about divorce and the husband of one wife et.al., but I want to see where God's Word (the only arbiter of faith and practice) condemns polygamy.

If such Scriptures can not be presented then only one conclusion can be drawn and that is, Polygamy is not a sin.

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247060#post247060)
charis9:

Dee Dee,

The topic in this thread is polygamy. I am sure the "God is one in Essence and three in Person" discussion, is adequately addressed elsewhere.


This discussion can be concluded with a simple post of those Scriptures which clearly indicate polygamy is a sin, and I have not read any in this thread thus far. I have read lots of arguments about divorce and the husband of one wife et.al., but I want to see where God's Word (the only arbiter of faith and practice) condemns polygamy.

If such Scriptures can not be presented then only one conclusion can be drawn and that is, Polygamy is not a sin.

Asked and answered. You are not a clear thinker. By your conclusion if you cannot provide me with a Chalcedonic verse that clearly spells out homoousia etc, then only one conclusion can be drawn. The Trinity is false.

I have gored you on your own horn.

And I have presented abundant Scriptural evidence. Instead of fallaciously stacking the deck (ie only a yes or no answer please, Did you stop beating your wife?) - deal with it. This tactic is beyond cheap.

[tyreth]

As far as your misplaced celibacy argument, you missed your own clue. You conceded most women will find it abhorrent. Rightly so.

I knew you would pick up on this very point.

If you read what I said carefully, it was that they would consider it abhorrent because it was rare.

Did I neglect to address the Timothy verses? If I did that was an oversight. I did agree that translating "mia" as first was not good. I then recall posting a URL to which no one replied. So as far as I remember, I did not neglect them.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 09:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247235#post247235)
tyreth:



I knew you would pick up on this very point.

If you read what I said carefully, it was that they would consider it abhorrent because it was rare.

then you are incorrect. Women do not find it abhorrent because it was rare, you are self-deluded. They find it abhorrent for the very reasons I expressed my abhorence. I know you realize this. And the same women do not find celibacy abhorrent no matter how rare. You are scrambling.


[quote[Did I neglect to address the Timothy verses? If I did that was an oversight. I did agree that translating "mia" as first was not good. I then recall posting a URL to which no one replied. So as far as I remember, I did not neglect them. [/QUOTE]

That is not the only one you neglected, you neglected my Corinthians arguments and my further argument on your Matthew 19 issues. Posting a URL is not an argument. I do not go elsewhere, and argument by URL is against the rules. Points are to be made here, not elsewhere. I can elucidate for you all the points you missed, did not answer, or inadequately answered, failed to properly followup etc.

[tyreth]

They find it abhorrent for the very reasons I expressed my abhorence. I know you realize this. And the same women do not find celibacy abhorrent no matter how rare. You are scrambling.


I am not scrambling. Women usually find the idea of themselves practicing polygyny as abhorrent - though when I used that word I shouldn't have, because I meant it as something that they really don't want to do - something undesirable. Anyway, I don't care about this argument. Some find the idea of marriage abhorrent. I am quite comfortable believing that it's possible that many are disgusted with polygyny for purely cultural reasons. I don't trust the human heart to distinguish between the good and the abominable.


That is not the only one you neglected,


The point is that I did not neglect the timothy passages.


you neglected my Corinthians arguments


I don't recall any corinthians arguments, which verses were those again? no need to present the argument, if you post the verse references then I should remember the discussion if there's been any.


and my further argument on your Matthew 19 issues.


Intentionally - because I knew we would dance around in circles if I did address them. I've quite honestly given up on this thread now, so I'm abstaining from any real arguments.


Posting a URL is not an argument. I do not go elsewhere


You never mentioned that - how was I to know that you hadn't? I do not read minds.


, and argument by URL is against the rules.


When I posted it, it wasn't really an argument but I was offering an alternative explanation for discussion. A subtle difference. Either way, I'm not really interested in making the argument myself. That is repetitious, and as I said I think I've bled this topic dry enough for myself. Perhaps if I cut and paste the website verbatim, as you did with an article by another previously? Would that be acceptable?

[dizzle]

Today @ 11:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247898#post247898)
tyreth:



I am not scrambling. Women usually find the idea of themselves practicing polygyny as abhorrent - though when I used that word I shouldn't have, because I meant it as something that they really don't want to do - something undesirable. Anyway, I don't care about this argument. Some find the idea of marriage abhorrent. I am quite comfortable believing that it's possible that many are disgusted with polygyny for purely cultural reasons. I don't trust the human heart to distinguish between the good and the abominable.

You had conceded that most women find the idea abhorrent. Too bad you regret using an accurate word. It is abhorrently disgusting.

The point is that I did not neglect the timothy passages.

The fact is that you did. Posting a URL is not dealing with an argument.



I don't recall any corinthians arguments, which verses were those again? no need to present the argument, if you post the verse references then I should remember the discussion if there's been any.

You can look back through the read as well as I. I will presenting a summary when I get a chance. I am probably going to be writing a substantive article on this.



Intentionally - because I knew we would dance around in circles if I did address them.

Nice deflection. Suit yourself. The fact is I defeated your arguments, but if you want to concede you would dance around that okay.


I've quite honestly given up on this thread now, so I'm abstaining from any real arguments.

:nc: If you would abstain from advoating sexual sin you would be doing much better.



You never mentioned that - how was I to know that you hadn't? I do not read minds.

If it is against the rules, there is no presumption that anyone would go there. If it is your argument, not simply a possible argument from some nebulous other person than make it.



When I posted it, it wasn't really an argument but I was offering an alternative explanation for discussion.

Then you perosnally did neglect them. I wanted your explanation not someone elses. They are not here.


A subtle difference. Either way, I'm not really interested in making the argument myself.

Then you personally neglected it. I am speaking with you not some website.


That is repetitious, and as I said I think I've bled this topic dry enough for myself. Perhaps if I cut and paste the website verbatim, as you did with an article by another previously? Would that be acceptable?

That would certainly be within the rules. I don't post things that I have not assimilated into my own view and am not prepared to defend as if it were my own. When I write my article, I will distill those ideas in Jochin's article into my own words and thoughts.

[tyreth]

The fact is that you did. Posting a URL is not dealing with an argument.

Did you even read what I said? I said I posted that URL for discussion, not for argument!! Can you really not understand that it is possible for someone to participate in a discussion in a forum to gain more understanding, not just to win arguments? I've stated before, I came here hoping to find out why people consider polygyny sinful. Therefore some points I wanted to argue, some I wanted to discuss.
Dee Dee, I find you incorrigible, and I simply can't argue against that. You engage in circular reasoning.
If you guys were not going to follow a link, you could have easily said "I don't follow links - please post the URL verbatim here". End of story. Why just silence?!? And then you have the gall to accuse me of not addressing it? I didn't know you had ignored it - I thought perhaps you would address it a month later as you have for other responses of mine. It was a long article, and it would lose all the formatting if I copied it. Not to mention that it's probably illegal without the original author's consent. A link is the far superior option in almost every way.

Anyway, I'm starting to get pretty angry about this whole thing. I find it very frustrating when we just go in circles. But what makes me even angrier is the way it feels that you are not extending the courtesy of evaluating the arguments reasonably. You seem bent on proving that poygyny is immoral based on an a priori assumption.

I have many more things to say, but your responses are increasingly making me angry. I get angry in arguments when I feel that the other person is not listening. Much like trying to smash down a brick wall with my bare fists. When reason has been cast aside, and blind obedience to one's beliefs rules the day.

And very worst of all is your arrogant claims:
The fact is I defeated your arguments, but if you want to concede you would dance around that okay.

If that is really what you believe, then I certainly have no interest in talking any more. You defeated my arguments?!? What a bitter sweet victory you have won. All those who believe that polygyny is sinful will affirm you in this statement. All those that polygyny is not sinful will stand by me, believing I have won. What a useless battle, for both sides stand with full numbers. You have won in your own mind. I am far from convinced, but I won't put the monogamy only arguments in the waste bin just on account of my great annoyance with the way you argue - I'll still give them a fair chance if I can find one who can discuss without letting circles be drawn, or without rising the ire of those asking or arguing.

[dizzle]

Today @ 11:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=248806#post248806)
tyreth:

Did you even read what I said? I said I posted that URL for discussion, not for argument!!

I am not going to argue with you on semantical distinctions between "discussion" and "argument." This is a debate board. This is a debate thread. We are having a debate.


Can you really not understand that it is possible for someone to participate in a discussion in a forum to gain more understanding, not just to win arguments?

Nice way to paint me, but we were having a debate. And I do not see that great of a distinction in this context. The fact remains that posting urls to prove a discussion point or faciliate discussion is against the rules. My error for not sayinkg so when it was done.



I've stated before, I came here hoping to find out why people consider polygyny sinful. Therefore some points I wanted to argue, some I wanted to discuss.
Dee Dee, I find you incorrigible, and I simply can't argue against that. You engage in circular reasoning.

I challenge to provide these numerous (they must be for you to make such a blanket statement) of ciruclar reasoning. You have made a statement now pony up the proof. Any of my reasoning which you may label as ciruclar is following the same reasoning as yoru have provided. And the main subject which has been the Biblical text I have not engaged in anythign which may be even remotely ciruclar.




If you guys were not going to follow a link, you could have easily said "I don't follow links - please post the URL verbatim here". End of story. Why just silence?!?

My mistake.



And then you have the gall to accuse me of not addressing it? I didn't know you had ignored it - I thought perhaps you would address it a month later as you have for other responses of mine. It was a long article, and it would lose all the formatting if I copied it. Not to mention that it's probably illegal without the original author's consent. A link is the far superior option in almost every way.

Links to prove a point or discussion or whatever are against the rules. You personalloy did not address the point. YOu even stated that this was just an interest point and perhaps not even the argument you woujld use thus irrelevant. You personally failed to address it along with numerous other points.

Anyway, I'm starting to get pretty angry about this whole thing. I find it very frustrating when we just go in circles.

I find it frustrating that a professed Christian would argue for sexual immorality in the church. I find it disgusting that you would say that any desire my husband may have for another woman is only wrong to the extent that he has promised to be faithful olnly to me. This is demeaning, disgusting, and damaging to women. You have failed to own up to the implications and outworking of what you are advocating.




But what makes me even angrier is the way it feels that you are not extending the courtesy of evaluating the arguments reasonably. You seem bent on proving that poygyny is immoral based on an a priori assumption.

You may say that, and that is your right, but I have examined the polygamy case, and found it lcaking both biblically and sociologically. You seem bent on proving that it is fine, and though you deny a bias, we all have them. I doubt you are the only unbiased person on the planet.

I have many more things to say, but your responses are increasingly making me angry. I get angry in arguments when I feel that the other person is not listening.

I have engaged every single on of your arguments which requires someone to listen. I addressed your latest adultery argument and proved it was incorrect b y showing where adultery was applied to women. Your comment about why you didn't address is was that we would both dance around the issue. I did no dancing, I have addressed it correctly so your comment was inaccurate portrayal of the way that Biblical texts have been dealt with here.



Much like trying to smash down a brick wall with my bare fists. When reason has been cast aside, and blind obedience to one's beliefs rules the day.

I have given reasons and reasoning for each thing I have stated. It is an inaccurate portrayal you are making once again. I have been upfront with you that I despise the sexual immorality you are advocating. I do not despise you. But I will not be congenial to a doctrine advocating such an abhorrence to intrude into the sanctity of the God-ordianed family.

If that is really what you believe, then I certainly have no interest in talking any more. You defeated my arguments?!?

Of course I believe you have. Are you equally arrogant in saying I have not? You again are not thinking consistently and applying the same standards to your comments.


What a bitter sweet victory you have won. All those who believe that polygyny is sinful will affirm you in this statement. All those that polygyny is not sinful will stand by me, believing I have won.

That is typical of a lot of debates. HOwever, I have had enough people writ eme on various issues over the years that I believe minds get changed.



What a useless battle, for both sides stand with full numbers.

You hav eno way of knowing that. I could use your tactic and demand that your prove this statistically.


You have won in your own mind.

And that is all anyone can do. Even if there was a vote, that proves nothing, for popular vote does not determine truth.




I am far from convinced, but I won't put the monogamy only arguments in the waste bin just on account of my great annoyance with the way you argue - I'll still give them a fair chance if I can find one who can discuss without letting circles be drawn, or without rising the ire of those asking or arguing.

If I raise the ire of those advocating abhorrence toward women, that is something I can live with. One thing I do know, no matter how you feel about me, you have had to face the emotional implciations of what you are advocating. If you ever get to see the fruit of this, you will remember me. I pray God changes your mind, that is never my job. I am more concerned with the less-grounded who would read what you were advocating and be swayed. I have made no ciruclar biblical arugments whatsoever. You may say some of the ones dealing with the emotins of women are, but all such arguments always contain a bit of subjectivity and have to be based upon common experience common sense.

It is your choice to continue or not. I have said numerous times, that though I think you have failed to address points, you have addressed points far more than anyone else, and had fortrightness with some that no other propolygamist has had, which I credited to you on multiple occasions, especially to sparky has not accomplished nearly what you have.

[tyreth]

Our discussion here was about the scriptural case for or against polygyny. I go elsewhere to learn about the emotional damage or problems - from people with experience, not hypotheticals. Both those who have been damaged through it, and those who find it a great blessing.

My last post was a departure one - I will probably read whatever replies come, but I am no longer participating. When my anger reaches the level it has, it is no longer fruitful. Arg...so many things to say, but I'll hold my tongue.

[sprky777]

Yesterday @ 02:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=248874#post248874)
Dee Dee Warren:
I find it frustrating that a professed Christian would argue for sexual immorality in the church.



That is the issue in debate. Some people find polygyny is scripturally accepted and therefore not sinful.


I find it disgusting that you would say that any desire my husband may have for another woman is only wrong to the extent that he has promised to be faithful olnly to me. This is demeaning, disgusting, and damaging to women.



Only damaging to you as you expected to be the only wife. Other women that accept polygyny are not offended by the husband having another wife and showing the other wife love.

There are 4 kinds of women in this area.
1. Women that find polygyny abhorrent, disgusting, deviant.
2. Women that find polygyny undesirable for themselves but OK for others.
3. Women that find polygyny OK for themselves but wives are not to interact.
4. Women that find polygyny OK and the wives may interact.

I find that the majority of women are not in the first class after they have been exposed to unbiased information on polygyny.


I could use your tactic and demand that you prove this statistically.



You should have a poll to your registered members to find what their position is on this subject.

[dizzle]

Today @ 12:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249152#post249152)
tyreth:

Our discussion here was about the scriptural case for or against polygyny. I go elsewhere to learn about the emotional damage or problems - from people with experience, not hypotheticals. Both those who have been damaged through it, and those who find it a great blessing.

My last post was a departure one - I will probably read whatever replies come, but I am no longer participating. When my anger reaches the level it has, it is no longer fruitful. Arg...so many things to say, but I'll hold my tongue.


Again that is your choice. I will let you know here (or personally if you want) if and when I get my article written. It will be beyond space limitations here so I will ask a friend at a ministry I support to host it. Your statement above was also baseless, I am sure that you do not require such about emotional damage for pedophilia etc. And our discussion was primarily about the Scriptural case, you accused me of ciruclar argument without any proof for the accusation in the Biblical case. I have to take then your accusation as baseless. Not that this is typical for you, but it is rather typical in debate to simply lob around names of fallacies once one does not want to answer any more. I am not doubting you are ticked as well, but I do doubt you put much thought into that accusation. If you are referring to circularity in the emotional case, since you conceded that is not the primary case to begin with that was a red herring (my lobbing of a fallacy), irrelevant, and things focusing on emotion since they appeal to universal human experience can always be subject to that criticism.

[dizzle]

Today @ 02:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249188#post249188)
sprky777:



That is the issue in debate. Some people find polygyny is scripturally accepted and therefore not sinful.


Sparky I do not have this much time if you refuse to think logically. Despite whatever issues I had with Tyreth he was the best one on this subject.

Some people find Unitarianism scriptually accepted. That is not the point. Follow closely..... IF I am correct, THEN such people should be put out of the Church (meaning those who practice sexual immorality - and I would say those that vocally advocate it). A person advocating homosexuality would be put out of my church. I am sure on that issue you would agree that is the proper protocol. This is no differnet. Most people advocating "gay Christianity" think i tis scripturally accepted. I have met many people who genuinely and honestly believe that.



I have been done this road with Tyreth. I am not repaving it with you. I pray that one day God gives you a sense of Godly shame.

[quote]There are 4 kinds of women in this area.
1. Women that find polygyny abhorrent, disgusting, deviant.
2. Women that find polygyny undesirable for themselves but OK for others.
3. Women that find polygyny OK for themselves but wives are not to interact.
4. Women that find polygyny OK and the wives may interact.

I find that the majority of women are not in the first class after they have been exposed to unbiased information on polygyny.

I am not going to indulge your lewdness. I no longer wish to speak with you on the subject. Of course I cannot ask you not to comment, this is an open debate board, but I will for the most part not be responding directly to you. I am finding something disturbing in your posts, and I cannot in good conscience continue the discussion. I may have misjudged you, but I have to follow my conscience.

Tyreth, if he is no longer angry, is someone I would continue to discuss things with.

[sprky777]

Dee Dee Warren:

I find it frustrating that a professed Christian would argue for sexual immorality in the church....Follow closely, IF I am correct, THEN such people should be put out of the Church (meaning those who practice sexual immorality - and I would say those that vocally advocate it.

If you understood your own statement, you were frustrated that a Christian would argue FOR sexual immorality in the church. That is what I was disagreeing with. I would never advocate churches acceptance of immorality such as homosexual marriage or other such specifically prohibited activites. What is the issue of debate though is that some believe polygyny is not immoral. If it is deemed to be immoral then it should be put away. If it is deemed scripturally accepted, then the churches should accept it. Even if it is acceptable it is still up to individuals to choose to practice it or not.

You never did elaborate on whether 'progressive revelation' allowed the patriarchs to practice polygyny but it was later made sin.(if that be the case) You insist the patriarchs were unrepentant sinners in that area.

As for concubines, I found many examples of the practice. The only consistancy among them was they were not formally given by their fathers as in the case of a wife. The case of the levite priest and his concubine, the circumstances were not clear even if he had a wife at home. The concubine was his travelling companion. Concubines in some circumstances were treated more as property than persons in many cases. Also in many cases the concubines may just have been virgins in reserve but not 'sex slaves' as you called them.

In other cases, the example shows the concubine to have born children to the master. Now whether she had rights as a wife after that were not specified. Hagar was a handmaiden, given as a wife to bear a child. I guess that could be considered a 'surrogate womb'. But she is refered to as a wife. Still, the dispute(jealousy) between her and Sarah caused her to flee. God commanded her to return to Sarah and Abraham. God blessed her son Ishmael to be the father of 12 nations.

I don't see how the practice could be continued today. A woman is either a wife or she is not. It was not wrong for the patriarch to have wives and concubines, they were not condemned for it. Just as in that time there was no condemnation for having slaves/servants. Would a woman today, taken and forced to be a wife involuntarily be considered a concubine? That would violate Christs commandment to love one another as we love Christ and ourselves. If a woman was voluntarily a wife, there is no violation.

[Bill the Cat]

The discussion between sparky and Queen has been moved. It can be found here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12311)

Please remember this area is for theist discussion.