• 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.

The unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God. What does this tell us about polygamy?

B

Bartato

Seasoned Member
Male
I noticed something today when reading 1st Corinthians 6:9-10.

The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. This includes the sexuality immoral and the adulterer (among others).

If polygamy was adultery or sexual immorality, then lifelong unrepentant polygamous men such as Jacob, Gideon, and David would not be saved.

Hebrews 11 includes all three of these men, and tells us that they were commended for their faith. All three have already inherited the kingdom of God!

Therefore their lifelong polygamy wasn't adultery or sexual immorality. They were not the unrighteous.

Of course I already knew that, but this is just one more large rock to add to the mountain of evidence.

Maybe I'm just slow, and you guys always knew this. 🤔
 
Last edited:
[Mat 8:11 NASB95] "11 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline [at the table] with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;"

[Gen 26:5 NASB95] "5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."

Abraham kept all His commands, the unrighteous do not inherent the kingdom, Abraham had multiple concubines.

[Gen 25:6 NASB95] "6 but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east."

It's really not complicated until you try to force monogamy-only onto the scriptures.
 
biblemarriages said:
[Mat 8:11 NASB95] "11 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline [at the table] with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;"

[Gen 26:5 NASB95] "5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."

Abraham kept all His commands, the unrighteous do not inherent the kingdom, Abraham had multiple concubines.

[Gen 25:6 NASB95] "6 but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east."

It's really not complicated until you try to force monogamy-only onto the scriptures.
Click to expand...
Wondered how long it was going to take you to come around to joining. Welcome aboard.
 
biblemarriages said:
[Mat 8:11 NASB95] "11 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline [at the table] with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;"

[Gen 26:5 NASB95] "5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."

Abraham kept all His commands, the unrighteous do not inherent the kingdom, Abraham had multiple concubines.

[Gen 25:6 NASB95] "6 but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east."

It's really not complicated until you try to force monogamy-only onto the scriptures.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, concubines are quite complicated. A quick search for the verse that defines what they are and how they differ from wives will reveal that.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Unfortunately, concubines are quite complicated. A quick search for the verse that defines what they are and how they differ from wives will reveal that.
Click to expand...
The detail is beside the point. Concubines are wives (complicated detail only defining precisely what type of wife they are), and @biblemarriages simply used them to illustrate that Abraham had multiple wives.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Maybe, but then the proper word to use would have been “wives”.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but then you run the risk that an objection to the classification derails the discussion, not that we know anything about derailing discussions around here. 🤓
 
The Revolting Man said:
Maybe, but then the proper word to use would have been “wives”.
Click to expand...
So this is entirely a pointless derail into a debate about which words to use. His point was clear. There's no need to go yet again into the concubinage topic that is so dear to your heart just because someone said the magic word. :)
 
The Revolting Man said:
Unfortunately, concubines are quite complicated. A quick search for the verse that defines what they are and how they differ from wives will reveal that.
Click to expand...

I agree concubines isn't something that's really explained clearly, I've seen the debates on here and other places around that topic.

However that's what the verse says they were and it at least implies that the sons were his, so sex with concubines/women producing sons, regardless of what concubines are or are not (wives/lower wives/servant wives/etc) it's still clear that they were his women, who he slept with, and produced children with, and it was not in any violation of God's commands ... That's my take at least.
 
steve said:
Maybe, but then you run the risk that an objection to the classification derails the discussion, not that we know anything about derailing discussions around here. 🤓
Click to expand...
I had to look up what that phrase meant. The whole concept is completely foreign to me and I’m frankly incensed and insulted that you would so casually and callously fling such wild aspersions in such indiscriminate fashion!

Besides, in the rare instance that happens it’s always @julieb ’s fault.
 
biblemarriages said:
I agree concubines isn't something that's really explained clearly, I've seen the debates on here and other places around that topic.

However that's what the verse says they were and it at least implies that the sons were his, so sex with concubines/women producing sons, regardless of what concubines are or are not (wives/lower wives/servant wives/etc) it's still clear that they were his women, who he slept with, and produced children with, and it was not in any violation of God's commands ... That's my take at least.
Click to expand...
Apparently no one wants to have this dance again at the moment unfortunately. It is one of my favorite fights, mostly because I get to mount my high horse and stage a lone charge into the densely packed ranks of error and wage a glorious one man rout of a relentless but completely over matched sea of enemies. I don’t know why they don’t want to participate this time.

From a practical standpoint you are correct though, Abraham fathered sons with multiple women and it was not sin.

Now excuse me while I go put my bugle away and unsaddle my horse. He is going to be very disappointed.

 
The Revolting Man said:
Now excuse me while I go put my bugle away and unsaddle my horse. He is going to be very disappointed.
Click to expand...
Just give him the carrots, the lack of battles lately has left him too fat for the extra oats.
 
The Revolting Man said:
It is one of my favorite fights, mostly because I get to mount my high horse and stage a lone charge into the densely packed ranks of error and wage a glorious one man rout of a relentless but completely over matched sea of enemies. I don’t know why they don’t want to participate this time.
Click to expand...
They don't want to get beaten again.

I completely understand as there are some topics I'm in same position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top