• 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.

seeking you thoughts

A

Aussies

Member
Male
Just because we are relatively new to this site, We would like to understand the scriptural foundation that members personally use in accepting polygamy for today. We are not in any way questioning the rightness of polygamy as hopefully you have seen from our previous posts. We will gladly explain our thinking on the matter, but we would like to hear from other members too. We would just like to see if there are other scriptural aspects that we have not considered. In other words whats your best scriptural argument for polygamy. We feel that only by considering the thoughts of many can the strongest unified scriptural argument be made. And that is important due to the opposition placed against us in this matter.
Remember "a good teacher makes the complicated simple and truth is always simple its the lie that is complicated".
Looking forward to your comments.
 
It's in the law given by YHWH.

Exodus 22: 16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins."
Dueteronomy 25: “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."

It never says unless the man is already married.
If it was a sin, or something that YHWH just didn't want us doing, then He would never have commanded in His law for others to do it. Even if you believe the law no longer applies, you know that it once did and YHWH is the same then, now, and always.
 
@Aussies, there's a wealth of scripture reference on the website on and under our Biblical Resources page. Particularly, you might want to look at the Introduction page.

It's important to step back and look at the framing of this issue. The question is not "What is the biblical argument for polygamy?", the question is "What is the biblical argument against polygamy?". Where is polygamy prohibited in scripture? Where is polygamy even criticized in scripture? It's not up to us to prove that polygamy is approved; it's up to the religious police to make a case why it should be prosecuted.

That's why most of our "scriptural arguments" aren't really arguments FOR polygamy as much as they are REBUTTALS of the specious but widespread pseudo-biblical arguments AGAINST polygamy.
 
Aussies said:
In other words whats your best scriptural argument for polygamy.
Click to expand...

Aussies said:
Remember "a good teacher makes the complicated simple and truth is always simple its the lie that is complicated".
Click to expand...

My attempt at tailoring a response for this particular request would be:

"Inasmuch as the patriarchs practiced it before the law, and it was codified within the law, and it was prophesied to be a practice in the future, inasmuch it is no sin and has never been called a sin, what is there against polygamy that can be seen in the bible?"

Which I would follow up with the thought.

"The father calls the celibate to be celibate in a Christlike way, and the married to be married in a Christlike way. The issue should not be whether it is permissible; but since it is obviously permissible, how ought one behave in a polygamous marriage? One eats meat and another eats vegetables, but they alike must partake by giving thanks for their food and answer to their own consciences in the sight of God.
 
We agree with every comment above.
andrew said:
It's not up to us to prove that polygamy is approved; it's up to the religious police to make a case why it should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
When it comes to a court of law the onus is indeed on the accuser. But to successfully argue our position to the average man or woman down the street the onus falls back on us and if we ever want to be accepted not just in a court of law but in the community, then our arguments need to be both scriptural, solid and unbeatable before the average man and woman. Once that happens then the courts will follow.

Looking forward to any more expressions.
 
Aussies said:
We agree with every comment above.

When it comes to a court of law the onus is indeed on the accuser. But to successfully argue our position to the average man or woman down the street the onus falls back on us and if we ever want to be accepted not just in a court of law but in the community, then our arguments need to be both scriptural, solid and unbeatable before the average man and woman. Once that happens then the courts will follow.

Looking forward to any more expressions.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, Aussies, Andrew's response is pretty much the most succinct if you are dealing with an audience of believers. It's pretty much what I would have said, but he got to it first ;)

"Where is it outlawed in scripture, and where is it explicitly condemned?" Put the onus on the skeptic. Just give the challenge to someone and give them two weeks. The responses will usually be filled with blatant, culturally derived eisegesis or a reliance on "its against the laws of our land, and we must respect the law" (I've debated pastors, and it's laughable at how they've exhibited all of these tendencies). At that point, you could resort to a historical perspective and show them when and how the Church changed its opinion (ex: RCC followed pagan examples of Rome/Greece).

You will probably have better luck in convincing a secular progressive, though. "It's a freedom of choice for consenting adults...pure and simple." The homosexuals opened the floodgate and it's hard to argue otherwise.
 
Aussies said:
But to successfully argue our position to the average man or woman down the street the onus falls back on us
Click to expand...
No, if you accept that the onus is on you to prove it is ok, you'll just get into debates and never persuade anyone. People usually only come around to this when they work it out for themselves. The best response is almost always "please show me where God forbids polygamy in scripture". Discuss whatever they come up with, pointing them back to scripture. If they say they know it's in there but can't remember where right now, just state that you didn't realise it was prohibited and hadn't found that verse before, you'd love to read it, could they find it and let you know next week?

It's not your job to persuade anyone. The Holy Spirit will do that. And not everyone needs to be persuaded either, only those for whom this is relevant for their lives. Life is much calmer when you aren't out debating contentious matters with everyone.
 
If the "where is it condemned" challenge is too hands off for you, one tried and true resource is Dr. William Luck. His writing style is theological and scholarly enough to engage a seasoned student of scripture, but practical enough for the average pew warmer to appreciate and digest.

https://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view

Pay special attention to chapter 14.
 
nevertheless it is important that we contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) and have an answer for every man that asks (1Pet 3:15).

How about jots and tittles? The law could not change until all was fulfilled (crucifixion).
Therefore there cannot be a single gospel reference before the crucifixion that changes Moses' commandments to practice polygamy in certain circumstances, as already noted above.

Matt 5:17-18, just a few verses before vv 31-32
Luke 16:16 immediately before v17
so hardly out of context!

That only leaves the monogamy only brigade the epistles, which they will approach having lost round 1.
And leaving the epistles means nothing said about the gospels need be regarded as controversial, since no self-respecting Christian believes they disagree with the Apostle Paul...
 
Quartus said:
nevertheless it is important that we contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) and have an answer for every man that asks (1Pet 3:15).

How about jots and tittles? The law could not change until all was fulfilled (crucifixion).
Therefore there cannot be a single gospel reference before the crucifixion that changes Moses' commandments to practice polygamy in certain circumstances, as already noted above.

Matt 5:17-18, just a few verses before vv 31-32
Luke 16:16 immediately before v17
so hardly out of context!

That only leaves the monogamy only brigade the epistles, which they will approach having lost round 1.
And leaving the epistles means nothing said about the gospels need be regarded as controversial, since no self-respecting Christian believes they disagree with the Apostle Paul...
Click to expand...
Although veering slightly off topic, many of us here would contend that even the crucifixion doesn't annul the jots and tittles, Moses or Torah. The NT specifies that it is necessary to understand our sin and guilt and leads us into holy living. Jesus said he did not come to destroy the Law. The crucifixion actually fulfilled the perfect sacrifice portion of Torah(see Hebrews, and other epistles), but the need for atonement as codified in OT has not changed, and never will. A perfect, spotless Lamb was still offered, according to the scriptures.

Personally, I take the approach that none of scripture conflicts and so we don't really need to distinguish between OT and NT to advocate for plural marriage.

BTW-denigrating Paul has become popular nowadays...justvsaying
 
Just to make it clear I never said they were annulled but only that nothing changed before the crucifixion.
therefore Jesus in the days of his flesh is in line with Moses not Paul (and would have been killed earlier by the Jews who were out to entrap him if he had not been in line with Moses).
So, for instance, people to say that Jesus overrode Adam and Eve being evidence of monogamy is not an argument I would expect to stand up to scriptural scrutiny
 
Sorry that should have been
for instance, for people to say that Jesus' comment on Adam and Eve's marriage is evidence for monogamy (and not be in line with polygamy commanded by Moses) would not be an argument that I would expect to stand up to proper scriptural scrutiny
 
an example of change after the crucifixion is the Levirate marriage. Paul teaches that a widow is free to marry, only in the Lord. That is either a change to the law, or the change in the definition of "brother" replacing a natural brother with a spiritual brother. Either way, its not the same after the crucifixion as it was before it.
 
Aussies said:
When it comes to a court of law the onus is indeed on the accuser. But to successfully argue our position to the average man or woman down the street the onus falls back on us and if we ever want to be accepted not just in a court of law but in the community, then our arguments need to be both scriptural, solid and unbeatable before the average man and woman. Once that happens then the courts will follow.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your zeal and understand what you're trying to do. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree.

For the record, I've been doing this 20 years and have had 100s of these conversations. I'm not trying to convince the average man or woman down the street of anything. And I'm accepted in my community.

Frankly, I'm not trying to win an argument with anyone. Couldn't care less. The ones with ears to hear will hear; the ones without, won't.

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Co 2:4-5)​

The logic of Christian plural marriage is ascertainable by anyone with an open mind within a couple of hours. It's not a sophisticated argument; it's an exercise in pointing out the emperor very obviously isn't wearing any clothes. You either get it or you don't.

Beyond that, the best argument for Christian plural marriage is a good example. Live the life, show them what it looks like, and let the Spirit do the rest. Often, it takes time. Lots of time.

Jesus said, "By this will all men know that you are my disciples, by the eloquence of your rhetoric." Oops, my bad, that's not what he said at all....

A loving plural family is the best argument we have. A shipwrecked plural family is a counter-argument. It's the doing that's going to influence people, not the talking.

Be the love. Be the incarnation of the Spirit of Christ. And sure, answer the questions you're asked to the best of your ability (1 Pe 3:15). Just don't frame this as an argument that we need to be prepared to have (and win) with everyone we meet. That's not how this works.
 
Quartus said:
an example of change after the crucifixion is the Levirate marriage. Paul teaches that a widow is free to marry, only in the Lord. That is either a change to the law, or the change in the definition of "brother" replacing a natural brother with a spiritual brother. Either way, its not the same after the crucifixion as it was before it.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to study this out further, but my immediate reaction to the Pauline admonition on widows was for widows beyond their reproduction years. Remember that levitate marriage was designed to raise up seed for the dead man's property and inheritance and to provide children to take care of the widow later (every law had practical purposes too). If the widow in Paul's example was not going to reproduce, and had children already, levirate marriage would not be necessary.

But even so, this does not conflict with the proposition that OT and NT are in harmony. Paul did not remove polygyny as an option or say it was nullified. If anything, he expanded choices for us (as Grace is so apt to do).
 
I'm not sure how I ever gave the impression that I think Paul did away with polygamy. I don't believe he did.
What I am suggesting is that it seems to me that those who want to argue that only monogamy is allowed now should, as a first step, be brought to realise that the only scriptural arguments that can possibly support their case are confined to writings after the crucifixion.

I have simply argued that two simple straightforward references (Matt 5:17-18 and Luke 10:16) mean that it is doctrinally unsound to try and prove that any part of the gospels prior to the crucifixion contradict polygamy.
Therefore, in the days of his flesh, Jesus cannot be the champion of monogamy that many Christians make him out to be.
 
Thank you Andrew. Your right , there is no one so blind as he that will not see.
May also say thank you all for every comment made, we are of the same mind.
The reason I raised this was to see the strength of argument that is put forward.
The reason I have a bee in my bonnet is due to the lies and deceptions that we have been taught since birth. Even more so due to the slander that has come against Christ due to the teaching that only monogamy is acceptable before God. We see it this way; 430 yrs before Jesus, God gave direction through Malachi to adhere to the laws and standards as given to Moses. 400 yrs before that, the Romans were already worshiping their gods of marriage, Juno and Jupiter. Juno being the queen of Heaven and Jupiter being a Baal god that was worshiped as the supreme god of all other gods. So when Jesus spoke, he had to either stand with his Father and adhere to the standards of the Mosaic law and thus accept polygamy, concubinage and monogamy OR stand with the queen of heaven (Juno) and a Baal god (Jupiter) and require only monogamy with the total rejection of polygamy and concubinage. Deuteronomy 13 clearly shows that if any man led the people to follow other gods then that man was a sinner and was to be put to death. Thus with Christendom teaching that Christ stood with the queen of heaven and a Baal god, they attempt to negate the sacrifice of Christ and, even if unknowingly, call him a sinner worthy of destruction. Both the queen of heaven and the Baal gods have stood against Gods people since before the days of Solomon and now the worship of these two has induced the vast majority of Christendom to follow them in this matter. To us this is not just about polygamy but rather it is about which god or God we worship and whether or not we call Jesus Christ a sinner. I see the requirement for monogamy and the total rejection of polygamy when presented as a teaching of Christ, as the most demonic, disgusting, deceptive, manipulative lie that has even been placed against the Christian faith. And as much as we are monogamous at this time, we will back the right of any to be part of a polygamous marriage not as a matter of law, not from a moral stance, but as a matter of worship.
Polygamy is only the pawn that has been used to slander Christ and as long as others see the rejection of polygamy as a direction of Jesus for Christians, then that same slander will continue. As Christians we are under Christ not some disgusting pagan god and goddess.
(Michelle typing now, for me I struggled with the concept till I saw the input of a false god and it became so clear when i saw it from a worship viewpoint as well as the Law and standards of our Creator.)
I'll get off my soapbox now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top