• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Moses As A Polygamist

eye4them said:
Point out that in most cases (states), biblical polygyny it is simply not against the law
Click to expand...
Bingo!
The supreme court has already ruled that two or more consenting adults can live together. So cohabitating, under whatever arrangement you make, is not a violation of the law.
Judge Wadups had it right when he ruled that "marry or purport to marry should be interpreted in the narrow legal sense" because the state only has authority over what it creates.

In the case of a legal marriage it is a contract between two people, overseen by the state, that is actually a third party.
 
Kevin said:
Thats exactly what i saw earlier and pointed out to several of the staff of a Mens Ministry. Now, i had one guy kinda flip flop on me and quoted Romans 13:13-14
...
Click to expand...
That's when it's good to call *pause*.
Especially in a group setting. I like to say "OK wait fellas, I'm happy to change gears and discuss another point you may have but first I need to be sure we are all square on the issue you raised before. It's clear now right? Have I satisfactorily demonstrated from scripture this other thing is valid?
If yes we can move on to another issue like legality from the secular authority. If not, let's just stay on this point for now so we don't get lost in point soup.
Make 'em cede the point or be sure at least the group sees he is unwilling/unable to cede it.
Chances are this guy is unwilling to see things your way so you are really fighting for the group in these situations.
If it's 1 on 1 and someone is unwilling to cede a point where it's obvious they've been overwhelmed by scripture I call it a day. Let the ruach have time to work on them. If there's an audience however, they can't be allowed to get away with that; for the sake of the group.
It's also possible the guy isn't aware that he's just point jumping so you can also help him (maybe) be keeping control of the flow of the conversation.

The cherry-picking accusation is absurd. You pointed out numerous cases where it's demonstrated the secular authority doesn't matter; maybe kindly pointing out to them that a society which has offered it's children to molech to the tune of 52 million abortions (according to the CDC),approves gay marriage, allows rapists to go free, etc. may not have the high moral authority to make decisions regarding biblical plural marriage.

Give it your best fight but be ready emotionally for rejection.
If you win the day barukh Hashem! If they just refuse to see then at least you won't be so disappointed when that happens.
 
If the person is a regular Christian type i.e. not a torah keeper, I like to remind them of 1 Timothy 3:12
Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (ESV)

I see the implication to be that in those days it was normal to have tons of children since people often took brides at age 14. A polygamous family could have a TON of children so it seems to me to be Paul's concern that if a guy has 25 kids, well that's a small congregation already so maybe he doesn't need to be a deacon/bishop/whatever.

There are many opinions on this verse and what it means. You may have some success though in demonstrating that Paul was aware of Polygamy in the Christian church and at any rate is addressing this situation to whatever circumstance Timothy was dealing with where he was at.
Many people are not aware of this verse. Some try to argue that it means the person never divorced etc. but that's twisting the text. We always take the p'shat (Plain meaning) of biblical text first and if it fits great.

My other go to verse is when Nathan confronts King David regarding the Bathsheba affair.
2 Samuel 12:8
‮וָאֶתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית אֲדֹנֶ֗יךָ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁ֤י אֲדֹנֶ֨יךָ֙ בְּחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וָאֶתְּנָ֣ה לְךָ֔ אֶת־בֵּ֥ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וִֽיהוּדָ֑ה וְאִ֨ם־מְעָ֔ט וְאֹסִ֥פָה לְּךָ֖ כָּהֵ֥נָּה וְכָהֵֽנָּה

"And did I not give you your lord's house [Saul] and your lord's women (wives) to your bossom, and did I not give to you the house of Israel and Judah? And if it were too little then I would have given to you such as that and that (feminine referring back to women/wives)"
So G-d himself via Nathan the prophet is telling David "Why did you commit adultery and murder? If you wanted more women all you had to do was ask and surely I would have given them to you!"

I quoted this verse to an assistant pastor at a very large Calvary Chapel church over a decade ago in a private meeting. His face turned red and he blurted out "well we don't believe in that here!". I said "you don't believe in what? What G-d told King David, the man after His own heart who wrote part of our sacred bible?" Anyway the conversation did not end well.
I'm not welcome there any more but the scripture is irrefutable. G-d Himself would have given David more women.
 
Last edited:
Kevin said:
Then he quoted Romans 13:1-7 and i pointed out several instances where disobedience was approved by God.
Click to expand...

I always turn that around on them. I ask "If monogamous marriage became against the law, would you obey the law, or would you reason that government has over stepped its bounds?"

Another amusing point on this: the legand of Saint Valentine (whether true or not) is about a Christian who married Christians despite opposition to Christian marriage by the Roman government during a time of persecution of Christians. Was this a good thing or a bad thing? Should they have obeyed the law and not gotten married?

Remember forbidding marriage is in itself a sin (1 Timothy 4:3) and the Bible word for polygamy is "marriage" so I would argue that forbidding polygyny would be a sin, or in this case an evil perpetuated by the government. Obedience to government is not absolute.
 
cnystrom said:
I always turn that around on them. I ask "If monogamous marriage became against the law, would you obey the law, or would you reason that government has over stepped its bounds?"

Another amusing point on this: the legand of Saint Valentine (whether true or not) is about a Christian who married Christians despite opposition to Christian marriage by the Roman government during a time of persecution of Christians. Was this a good thing or a bad thing? Should they have obeyed the law and not gotten married?
Click to expand...
haha awesome!
 
IshChayil said:
If the person is a regular Christian type i.e. not a torah keeper, I like to remind them of 1 Timothy 3:12
Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (ESV)

I see the implication to be that in those days it was normal to have tons of children since people often took brides at age 14. A polygamous family could have a TON of children so it seems to me to be Paul's concern that if a guy has 25 kids, well that's a small congregation already so maybe he doesn't need to be a deacon/bishop/whatever.

There are many opinions on this verse and what it means. You may have some success though in demonstrating that Paul was aware of Polygamy in the Christian church and at any rate is addressing this situation to whatever circumstance Timothy was dealing with where he was at.
Many people are not aware of this verse. Some try to argue that it means the person never divorced etc. but that's twisting the text. We always take the p'shat (Plain meaning) of biblical text first and if it fits great.

My other go to verse is when Nathan confronts King David regarding the Bathsheba affair.
2 Samuel 12:8
‮וָאֶתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית אֲדֹנֶ֗יךָ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁ֤י אֲדֹנֶ֨יךָ֙ בְּחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וָאֶתְּנָ֣ה לְךָ֔ אֶת־בֵּ֥ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וִֽיהוּדָ֑ה וְאִ֨ם־מְעָ֔ט וְאֹסִ֥פָה לְּךָ֖ כָּהֵ֥נָּה וְכָהֵֽנָּה

"And did I not give you your lord's house [Saul] and your lord's women (wives) to your bossom, and did I not give to you the house of Israel and Judah? And if it were too little then I would have given to you such as that and that (feminine referring back to women/wives)"
So G-d himself via Nathan the prophet is telling David "Why did you commit adultery and murder? If you wanted more women all you had to do was ask and surely I would have given them to you!"

I quoted this verse to an assistant pastor at a very large Calvary Chapel church over a decade ago in a private meeting. His face turned red and he blurted out "well we don't believe in that here!". I said "you don't believe in what? What G-d told King David, the man after His own heart who wrote part of our sacred bible?" Anyway the conversation did not end well.
I'm not welcome there any more but the scripture is irrefutable. G-d Himself would have given David more women.
Click to expand...
I know several Calvary Chapel folks, and even a pastor. They're not known for studious approaches to scripture. They study just what's written in English. They are great folks and friends, but critical, original-language based, deep hermeneutical analysis is not a strong point. No offense to any Calvary Chapel attendees, but I think I'm not too far off.
 
Kevin said:
Thanks that's exactly what I've been looking for.

I have a few guys who admit that polygamy is never condemned and therefore not a sin, but a couple still want to argue that is was never seen as right in the eyes of the Lord. I'm still gonna point this out to them. Two of them are pastors and will in private admit polygamy is not a sin, but are challenging me to show how it glorifies God. They're stance is that even if it isn't a sin if it doesn't Glorify God then it shouldn't be done.
Click to expand...
How does most of modern, Western pastoring glorify God? Most pastors spend inordinate amounts of time doing things not even remotely related to activities laid out in scripture. How many weddings have they "officiated" over? Is that sciptural? Building a congregation is not always glorious, and it takes up time that could have been spent doing other "glorifying" things.

Side note: I've had discussions with a pastor friend about polygyny in the past. He's talked about it as sin. I asked the standard "where is it described as such..." He's tatted up, and I told him that there is at least one pretty clear verse against tattoos. He said he is under Grace. I said, the same could be said of a polygynist. End of conversation.:cool:
 
Mojo said:
How does most of modern, Western pastoring glorify God? Most pastors spend inordinate amounts of time doing things not even remotely related to activities laid out in scripture. How many weddings have they "officiated" over? Is that sciptural? Building a congregation is not always glorious, and it takes up time that could have been spent doing other "glorifying" things.

Side note: I've had discussions with a pastor friend about polygyny in the past. He's talked about it as sin. I asked the standard "where is it described as such..." He's tatted up, and I told him that there is at least one pretty clear verse against tattoos. He said he is under Grace. I said, the same could be said of a polygynist. End of conversation.:cool:
Click to expand...
**** I'm not slamming anyone who has tattoos, it's just a kind of funny story for someone in a Judaica store to inquire about so please read in context ****
****please don't feel bad if you have tats this is just a story that's kind of funny in context since they are forbidden in Judaism and Kabbalah is so cool now***

Years ago I was teaching an Aramaic class in a Judaica shop and some hipster interested in Kabbalah said he wanted to tattoo such and such on his arm in Classical Hebrew. One of my students with beautiful writing said he'd help him. This student was quite a joker and a tsadiyk and he gave me a smile so I decided to let it go.
The student later reported back that he'd written beautifully for him "Naval anochi" (I'm a fool).
 
Mojo said:
I know several Calvary Chapel folks, and even a pastor. They're not known for studious approaches to scripture. They study just what's written in English. They are great folks and friends, but critical, original-language based, deep hermeneutical analysis is not a strong point. No offense to any Calvary Chapel attendees, but I think I'm not too far off.
Click to expand...
Ha! I remember I used to bring my Greek grammar book to that church with me in case the sermon was too boring.
I got real good at reading something, looking up to watch the preacher, nod in agreement so it wouldn't be obvious I was studying, then back to the grammar.
 
I did a year of evening classes with a pentecostal denomination. Learnt heaps, usually the opposite of what was being taught. My Catholic flatmate and I spent the time whispering in the back row "that's not right, look at this scripture, hey that's a really interesting verse on the next page... what's he talking about now?". I ended up getting one of the highest marks in the class by answering what they wanted to hear, then refused to accept the certificate because I didn't agree and wanted no recorded association with their views. They were shocked and deeply offended... :) I had tried to discuss scripture with them on various occasions but they had a curriculum that was unarguable and perfect in every detail...
 
Last edited:
I feel your paino_O We spent almost 4 years in an assembly that was decent as far as a lot of the basic doctrines but was so dead that often we would be heading home after services asking ourselves what are we doing attending here.

We continued attending strictly because I didn't have peace to leave. Looking back, it was probably the most accelerated period of personal learning and growth in my Christian life. I learned so much during that time but was constantly frustrated partly because I had a very limited outlet for my studies and partly because I didn't understand why we couldn't go elsewhere.

When it was time to finally go, it was so obvious and easy on us. We were able to leave civilly and with a clear conscience though the pastor really tried hard to get me to say things that he could use to badmouth me.

Now, a couple of years later, God is doing so much with us and I can clearly see His providence in those 4 years. I'm glad it's over, but I still wouldn't trade it for anything.
 
Not everything that calls itself church is church....

Corporations formed under the laws of a state government are departments of the secular government. If they are given special tax favors (with a quid pro quo, of course) from the federal government as a 501 (c)(3) organization, that actually makes it worse.

Where two are three humans are gathered in Christ's name, he has promised to show up. Where religious corporations promote programs and events for consumers of religious programs, it's debatable what exactly Christ thinks about that....
 
Mojo said:
Burger King Christians....remember the old commercials? "Have it your way......"

Consumer driven Christianity sux.
Click to expand...
true that.
I heard about a tsirkov v'lesu' (church in the woods) outside Moscow one time; these guys had really weathered the storm.
No building, just the woods, even in the winter time they met and they stand throughout the whole service.
I wish I had visited then but the guy who invited me to go invited me in the winter and I grew up in a much warmer climate. I was still quite a wimp about that level of winter.
I wasn't that hard core yet. I like my congregation comfy, climate controlled, massage chair running and perfect lighting / ambiance, coffee when you walk in ... for free :p, wifi :)

I wish I had gone to that church in the woods in the winter.
A pure example of human imagers of G-d refusing to bend to all forms of oppression; government and elemental.
 
Hence the need for the Kingdom based on true gifts and callings rather than the appointments or elections of men.

Judges 21:25
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

2 Tim. 3:14
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Having the leadership of 'elders' is a start but the recognition of Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers among them is better.

1 Cor. 12:28
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Any gift or calling functions best when recognized; even to function as a family requires this.
 
IshChayil said:
If the person is a regular Christian type i.e. not a torah keeper, I like to remind them of 1 Timothy 3:12
Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (ESV)

I see the implication to be that in those days it was normal to have tons of children since people often took brides at age 14. A polygamous family could have a TON of children so it seems to me to be Paul's concern that if a guy has 25 kids, well that's a small congregation already so maybe he doesn't need to be a deacon/bishop/whatever.

There are many opinions on this verse and what it means. You may have some success though in demonstrating that Paul was aware of Polygamy in the Christian church and at any rate is addressing this situation to whatever circumstance Timothy was dealing with where he was at.
Many people are not aware of this verse. Some try to argue that it means the person never divorced etc. but that's twisting the text. We always take the p'shat (Plain meaning) of biblical text first and if it fits great.

My other go to verse is when Nathan confronts King David regarding the Bathsheba affair.
2 Samuel 12:8
‮וָאֶתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית אֲדֹנֶ֗יךָ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁ֤י אֲדֹנֶ֨יךָ֙ בְּחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וָאֶתְּנָ֣ה לְךָ֔ אֶת־בֵּ֥ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וִֽיהוּדָ֑ה וְאִ֨ם־מְעָ֔ט וְאֹסִ֥פָה לְּךָ֖ כָּהֵ֥נָּה וְכָהֵֽנָּה

"And did I not give you your lord's house [Saul] and your lord's women (wives) to your bossom, and did I not give to you the house of Israel and Judah? And if it were too little then I would have given to you such as that and that (feminine referring back to women/wives)"
So G-d himself via Nathan the prophet is telling David "Why did you commit adultery and murder? If you wanted more women all you had to do was ask and surely I would have given them to you!"

I quoted this verse to an assistant pastor at a very large Calvary Chapel church over a decade ago in a private meeting. His face turned red and he blurted out "well we don't believe in that here!". I said "you don't believe in what? What G-d told King David, the man after His own heart who wrote part of our sacred bible?" Anyway the conversation did not end well.
I'm not welcome there any more but the scripture is irrefutable. G-d Himself would have given David more women.
Click to expand...


I don’t think Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:12, is restricting deacons to only having one wife. In 1 Timothy 5:9 (just two chapters later in the same letter) Paul uses almost the same phasing in reverse to show what type of widow should be cared for by the church. There is a big difference though. Paul uses a word that specifically means the number 1. The word used in 3:12 is mia and can be translated several different ways, one of which is “a” as in, a wife, which seems to fit what Paul is saying, better than “one wife”. It seems the reason they should be married is that the chuch can see clearly that they are managing their own households well... how much better qualified would a man, with three wives and many children who managed his house well, be? There is no passage anywhere in scripture leading up to what Paul says (at least none that i have found) that deems a man with more than one wife as being somehow unfit for leadership... in fact i find the opposite.
 
I see IC's reasoning as the fallback position. I can discuss the situation and explain why I think the indefinite article "a" is the best translation for mia in that passage, but ya can't convince everybody. When somebody is is really dug in on "one" wife, then it comes back to practical reasons why Paul might have said that (such as IC argues), and the absurdity of having to list it as a requirement if having more than one is a sin.
 
andrew said:
I see IC's reasoning as the fallback position. I can discuss the situation and explain why I think the indefinite article "a" is the best translation for mia in that passage, but ya can't convince everybody. When somebody is is really dug in on "one" wife, then it comes back to practical reasons why Paul might have said that (such as IC argues), and the absurdity of having to list it as a requirement if having more than one is a sin.
Click to expand...


If you wanted to go more in depth with your thoughts on this, it would be appreciated. I would like to deepen my understanding of this particular set of verses, if you have an interest in explaining farther.
 
Yeah @Asforme&myhouse I'm aware of the various perspectives on this verse. I'm not using the verse to say polygamists are unfit for congregational leadership (otherwise Moses was unfit, David unfit [writer of half the psalms unfit to be a deacon/bishop haha]). Your take on it may be right as well as @andrew 's.

My focus is not on that issue but merely on what seems to be Paul acknowledging polygamists in those times.
I was only pulling out the verse in the context of having a conversation with someone who seems to think polygamy died with the new testament; viola, here is a verse where it seems Paul is talking about polygamous guys for whatever reason; and he's not ruling them out as sinful (as @andrew mentioned).

since we're talking about it :)
Here is why I *think* he's talking about polygamy in that one isolated situation...

I'm skeptical of εἷς (eis) being used as an indefinite article. I think this is more of a modern Greek development. I'm not certain though.
In the LXX it maps to אחד echad (1, united, unified) almost every instance (569 times according to my Hebrew/Greek LXX dictionary).
There are a handful of exceptions but I looked at them and none of them seem to produce something as loosely coupled as an indefinite article.
There is a place in 1 Samuel 14:28 where the Hebrew says "ish mey-ha-am" (a man from the people) and the Greek gives us
εἷς ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ "one from the people" where you can kind of get the sense it's getting weakened to "a man from the people" though "man" is left out.

I am *not* saying this verse excludes biblical polygamists from ministry; I think it's a scoping issue particular to what was happening in that specific community at that time. A blunt Messianic guy I know loves to pound his hand on the desk regarding certain Pauline scriptures saying "we're reading someone else's mail!". The meaning is not that it's not inspired, just that Paul can be quite hard to exegete as often he is addressing various cultural issues in differing geographies of the day. I hope I'm not about to start a "Paul's scripture is just as important as the gospel" fire here.

Also Paul seems to qualify my understanding of mega-family (i.e. Bin Ladin size family) disqualifier in that situation with the end of the verse "...managing their children and their own households well". That's what scoped it for me; i.e. the 40 kid household may not have time to manage a congregation.

I may also be wrong with my take on "eis" here as my Greek prowess is a work in progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top