Enforced Polygamy

[Earth_is-]

Contrary to the Western Christian world - polygamy is enforced in certain circumstances:

Deuteronomy 25:5-7
5“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him

- Modern Christians will say this is the Mosaic law. But Paul says that the Mosaic law, which was given by God, is still Holy and Good. The law exposed us as sinners and need of a savior. Not that the law itself was bad.

Furthermore, hundreds of years before the Mosaic Law - Jacob’s Son, Judah, had his 2nd son marry his first son’s wife, because his first son died and left no son. So even before the mosaic law - polygamy was enforced through this teaching from the Creator. And when Jesus was asked about this by Jewish men (they asked whose wife she becomes in the resurrection), Jesus didn’t say this commandment has been nullified or deemed a grave offense, but explained to them in the resurrection they become like angels and they are ignorant of the power of God.

 

[Bartato]

The seduction of a virgin also requires the man to marry her (unless the father of the girl prohibits it). If the man who seduced was already married (happens sometimes), then this law would require polygyny.

Martin Madan's book "Thelyophthora" argues that Christians are still morally obligated to follow this Law (and I agree even though I'm not a TK guy).

 

[Earth_is-]

Of course because the law itself is Holy and Good:

Romans 7:12

But still, the law itself is holy, and its commands are holy and right and good.

Also:

2 Timothy 3:16
It's profitable for teaching and training in righteousness. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.

Therefore, we have the Holy Law from God in terms of what we should do in certain circumstances. The Heavenly Father and King Jesus say that if a virgin gets seduced then the man should marry her. Regardless if he's already married. If he doesn't marry her, and she sleeps with other men then the man has caused the virgin to become a whore; and contributed to the land becoming full of wickedness:

Leviticus 19:29
Do not contaminate thy daughter, causing her to commit fornication, lest the land be prostituted, and the land become full of wickedness.

Only way the marriage can't happen, of course, is if the girl's father denies the marriage.

But if you take this doctrine to the modern christian - they would likely get offended by this. The land all around them is turning wicked, and they've been deceived that nothing from the old testament applies to them - and Jesus did it all on the cross - and they can do whatever they please.

Matthew 11:6
"And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”

 

[Bartato]

Of course because the law itself is Holy and Good:

Romans 7:12

But still, the law itself is holy, and its commands are holy and right and good.

Also:

2 Timothy 3:16
It's profitable for teaching and training in righteousness. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.

Therefore, we have the Holy Law from God in terms of what we should do in certain circumstances. The Heavenly Father and King Jesus say that if a virgin gets seduced then the man should marry her. Regardless if he's already married. If he doesn't marry her, and she sleeps with other men then the man has caused the virgin to become a whore; and contributed to the land becoming full of wickedness:

Leviticus 19:29
Do not contaminate thy daughter, causing her to commit fornication, lest the land be prostituted, and the land become full of wickedness.

Only way the marriage can't happen, of course, is if the girl's father denies the marriage.

But if you take this doctrine to the modern christian - they would likely get offended by this. The land all around them is turning wicked, and they've been deceived that nothing from the old testament applies to them - and Jesus did it all on the cross - and they can do whatever they please.

Matthew 11:6
"And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”

Our land has been filled with wickedness because we as a people have not obeyed God.

Jesus did it all on the cross, and because He did, we His sheep, can, must, and will obey Him.

 

[Mark C]

There is yet a third Biblically-mandated scenario where a man must take an additional wife:
(and, ironically, it's essentially "new testament" )

I Corinthians 7:10-11.

"...wife is NOT to depart from her husband," but if she does ANYWAY, and he takes another wife in the meanwhile, but eventually makes t'shuvah and returns...ponder the implications.

 

[Earth_is-]

There is yet a third Biblically-mandated scenario where a man must take an additional wife:
(and, ironically, it's essentially "new testament" )

I Corinthians 7:10-11.

"...wife is NOT to depart from her husband," but if she does ANYWAY, and he takes another wife in the meanwhile, but eventually makes t'shuvah and returns...ponder the implications.

Yes - the husband can easily add another wife if she leaves; and the commandment from the LORD is that he can not divorce her; but he can allow the divorced wife to come back into his family unit through re-marriage. However, if she laid with another man after she divorced him than it becomes tricky, and would be considered an abomination if the man takes her back. But the man is allowed to lay with another woman through marriage, and still bring back his divorced wife. It's not an abomination.

Today we've got Christian "experts in faith" travel to remote places to spread the Christian faith; and tell men they need to 'repent of adultery' for having multiple wives. Thereby, causing the men to sin against Christ Jesus by breaking wedlock, and perhaps causing their divorced wives to commit adultery by laying with other men.

Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

Imagine how many divorces and the epidemic of mental depression in the youth could had been avoided if churches taught the truth in terms of the Biblical family unit? The doctrine that a man must first destroy his first family to start a 2nd family comes straight from the adversary. It has nothing to do with the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Issac. If our God was a monogamous God - why even continue after Adam and Eve? Why allow most men the ability to reproduce/start families into their 70's and beyond? But for most women it stops around the age of 40. Our Heavenly Father describes himself as a polygamist in the old testament, and his Son likely did as well in a parable. After all - the Son can only do what he sees the Father doing.

 

[Mark C]

Yes - the husband can easily add another wife if she leaves; and the commandment from the LORD is that he can not divorce her; but he can allow the divorced wife to come back into his family unit through re-marriage. However, if she laid with another man after she divorced him than it becomes tricky, and would be considered an abomination if the man takes her back.

Sorry. Problems:

Yes - the husband can easily add another wife if she leaves;

So far, so good...

and the commandment from the LORD [sic] is that he can not divorce her;

"should not" is not CAN not...she has already abandoned him.

but he can allow the divorced wife to come back into his family unit through re-marriage.

No "re-anything" is necessary; she remains his wife, unless he gave her a get.

However, if she laid with another man after she divorced him than it becomes tricky, and would be considered an abomination if the man takes her back.

No, she would have committed adultery, and might be deserving of death, but he can forgive her, and choose how to proceed. (The only such stricture is IFF he gives her a get, and THEN she "becomes another man's."

 

[Earth_is-]

Sorry. Problems:

So far, so good...

"should not" is not CAN not...she has already abandoned him.


No "re-anything" is necessary; she remains his wife, unless he gave her a get.


No, she would have committed adultery, and might be deserving of death, but he can forgive her, and choose how to proceed. (The only such stricture is IFF he gives her a get, and THEN she "becomes another man's."

Regarding the divorce - I was referring to the husband’s 2nd wife that he presumably takes after the first wife divorced him. If the first wife wishes to come back - he can not divorce his new 2nd wife in order to make room for his 1st wife that divorced him. Thereby, we have a clear scenario of polygamy in the New Testament.

And yes - the first wife is still married to the husband even after the divorce in God’s eyes. That’s why if the husband is the one that breaks wedlock for any reason besides sexual immorality - then he is responsible for her committing adultery if she sleeps with another man. They are still married in God’s eyes.

 

[Mark C]

And yes - the first wife is still married to the husband even after the divorce in God’s eyes.

It does not say that.

 

[steve]

Regarding the divorce - I was referring to the husband’s 2nd wife that he presumably takes after the first wife divorced him. If the first wife wishes to come back - he can not divorce his new 2nd wife in order to make room for his 1st wife that divorced him. Thereby, we have a clear scenario of polygamy in the New Testament.

And yes - the first wife is still married to the husband even after the divorce in God’s eyes. That’s why if the husband is the one that breaks wedlock for any reason besides sexual immorality - then he is responsible for her committing adultery if she sleeps with another man. They are still married in God’s eyes.

Women didn’t/couldn’t divorce a man.

 

[Bartato]

Imagine how many divorces and the epidemic of mental depression in the youth could had been avoided if churches taught the truth in terms of the Biblical family unit? The doctrine that a man must first destroy his first family to start a 2nd family comes straight from the adversary.

A man taking an additional wife isn't starting a second family. He is expanding his existing family.

The new marriage doesn't constitute a new family. There is one family, with the father at the center, the wives and children around him.

 

[Joleneakamama]

It's kind of a second family.....I mean if one wife and children are a family, the second wife and her children would just as well qualify. The children from another mom are not related to the first wife. I might love them as much as my own, but they did not come from me.

But technically, family could even extend to servants and is used of even coworkers in a company in a figurative sense....or businesses under single management.

 

[Earth_is-]

Women didn’t/couldn’t divorce a man.

Yes, they could. If the man was physically abusive or not providing - why can't she leave him and go back to her father? She would just have to remain un-married as long as the man is living. There is zero scripture that the woman is forbidden from divorcing her husband. The problem with today's divorces is they are mostly done based on un-biblical reasons.

A man taking an additional wife isn't starting a second family. He is expanding his existing family.

The new marriage doesn't constitute a new family. There is one family, with the father at the center, the wives and children around him.

Of course - we know it's still one family unit, because Biblically speaking one husband can have multiple wives. But in the viewpoint of the modern christian man - it's a 2nd family he wants to create. The first family he's indoctrinated he must destroy through divorce (living separately); in order to start anew with a whole new wife and children.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Regarding the divorce - I was referring to the husband’s 2nd wife that he presumably takes after the first wife divorced him. If the first wife wishes to come back - he can not divorce his new 2nd wife in order to make room for his 1st wife that divorced him. Thereby, we have a clear scenario of polygamy in the New Testament.

And yes - the first wife is still married to the husband even after the divorce in God’s eyes. That’s why if the husband is the one that breaks wedlock for any reason besides sexual immorality - then he is responsible for her committing adultery if she sleeps with another man. They are still married in God’s eyes.

It would help if you restricted the use of the word “divorce” to situations where the husband caused a bill of divorce to put in to the woman’s hands. Not giving her a certificate of divorce should be called something else, frequently “putting away” gets used. If you treat those two things as separate instances with separate rules and regulations then things get clearer.

 

[steve]

Yes, they could. If the man was physically abusive or not providing - why can't she leave him and go back to her father? She would just have to remain un-married as long as the man is living. There is zero scripture that the woman is forbidden from divorcing her husband. The problem with today's divorces is they are mostly done based on un-biblical reasons.

That’s not a divorce, it’s merely a separation.
Show me scripture where a wife gives her man a bill of divorcement.

 

[Earth_is-]

That’s not a divorce, it’s merely a separation.
Show me scripture where a wife gives her man a bill of divorcement.

1 Corinthians 7:10

The word "Separate"

5563 xōrízō (from 5561 /xṓra, "open, vacated space") – properly, separate, divide ("put asunder"), i.e. depart, vacate; create "space" (which can be very undesirable or unjustified).

5563 /xōrízō ("vacate"), as in the papyri, refers to divorcing a marriage partner who vacates the relationship in soul or body (cf. Moulton-Milligan, 696).

I stand corrected. It's not proper for the wife to give her husband a certificate of divorce. She can only separate from him - and remain un-married/no fornication as long as he's living.

 

[MeganC]

Contrary to the Western Christian world - polygamy is enforced in certain circumstances:

The word "enforced" is inaccurate here. Required or mandated would be a more accurate term because it is quite clear that polygamy is discouraged and not enforced in the Western Christian world.

 

[FollowingHim]

Note too that many of the punishments given in the Mosaic law were not "enforced". David was not stoned for sleeping with Bathsheba. Stoning was just - but the just punishment was not enforced. There is a big difference.

In every situation where you describe polygamy as "enforced", what you actually show from scripture is that it is "mandated". Whether that mandate is actually enforced or not is an entirely separate matter, and there may be circumstances when actually enforcing it would be inappropriate.

This distinction is important, because we're not about "forcing" women into polygamy - and the word "enforced" carries that connotation. Rather, scripture shows us what is right, and we encourage people to choose to act in the way scripture says is right. Nobody is going around with a big stick enforcing anything though, and it would be highly debatable if anyone has the authority to.

 

[MemeFan]

Note too that many of the punishments given in the Mosaic law were not "enforced". David was not stoned for sleeping with Bathsheba. Stoning was just - but the just punishment was not enforced. There is a big difference.

David's child with Bathsheba has died one week after being born. And violence inside his House was also punishment.

In this case it would be better to say that Lord has changed sanctions instead of not punishing them both.

 

[Joleneakamama]

David's child with Bathsheba has died one week after being born. And violence inside his House was also punishment.

In this case it would be better to say that Lord has changed sanctions instead of not punishing them both.

I heard too it was the habit of men going to war to write a divorce paper in case they did not return.
David may not have been technically guilty, and that was what contributed to him doing something he didn't want to own openly (stealing a technically free wife...from one of his mighty men of war) and then finding himself in a pickle with no easy out. He was guilty of coveting ....and adultery in his heart....and then murder.

An excellent lesson in how something you might try and rationalize can blow up and get out of hand.