-
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.
Things Christians Say About Polygamy
- Thread starter NeoPatriarch
- Start date
Concerning the parable of the virgins/bridesmaids: As I am currently in the midst of Biblical Studies through University, I came across an interesting slant. According to the "Biblical Scholars" ( I'll explain the quotation marks in a moment ), in ancient times, the people were very superstitious, and lamp-wielding virgins would surround the bride as she went to the groom, in order to protect her from dark forces as she passed through the danger zone between the authority/protection of her father into the authority/protection of her husband-to-be.
As to the quotation marks above: During these University/"Scholarly" Biblical Studies which I have endured with a pained grimace... I've been presented with such insanely inaccurate information that anyone with half a brain who has ever read the Bible or knows anything about the religions surrounding it would gasp aloud! For example, the one course kept going on and on about the great Jewish festival of Easter... and that if people didn't want to celebrate communion the traditional Christian way, they might as well go celebrate Easter with the Jews...
Anyway. in my opinion Biblical Scholarship ( at least in some circles ) is nothing more than a denomination in it's own right, with it's own doctrines and interpretive traditions at best, without necessarily being overly informed about the actual Bible.
Although one cannot say that people in ancient Israel never engaged in superstitious practices, for this argument to hold true, one would have to assume that the Messiah is discussing a superstitious practice, and even with that assumption, one would further have to designate one of the otherwise indistinguishable virgins to be the bride, and the rest to be bridesmaids... when it could have been two or three brides surrounded by bridesmaids, and even with all those assumptions, even if one refuses to see this as a valid argument for polygyny, a fair minded person cannot ignore the mountain of Scriptural evidence that the practice is totally valid.
As to the quotation marks above: During these University/"Scholarly" Biblical Studies which I have endured with a pained grimace... I've been presented with such insanely inaccurate information that anyone with half a brain who has ever read the Bible or knows anything about the religions surrounding it would gasp aloud! For example, the one course kept going on and on about the great Jewish festival of Easter... and that if people didn't want to celebrate communion the traditional Christian way, they might as well go celebrate Easter with the Jews...
Anyway. in my opinion Biblical Scholarship ( at least in some circles ) is nothing more than a denomination in it's own right, with it's own doctrines and interpretive traditions at best, without necessarily being overly informed about the actual Bible.
Although one cannot say that people in ancient Israel never engaged in superstitious practices, for this argument to hold true, one would have to assume that the Messiah is discussing a superstitious practice, and even with that assumption, one would further have to designate one of the otherwise indistinguishable virgins to be the bride, and the rest to be bridesmaids... when it could have been two or three brides surrounded by bridesmaids, and even with all those assumptions, even if one refuses to see this as a valid argument for polygyny, a fair minded person cannot ignore the mountain of Scriptural evidence that the practice is totally valid.
I don't think the monogamist argument around Matthew 19:9 is that polygamy is equivalent to divorce. I'll try and think like a monogamist for a minute. Let's have a look at the verse.Cow fam said:
Monogamist thinking
This verse says that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Now adultery is generally taken as a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband, and that fits the usage of the word virtually everywhere. But here Jesus says that the man is committing adultery by marrying another woman. He isn't sleeping with someone else's wife, yet he is committing adultery. What is he doing that is called adultery?
The simplest reading is that it is the act of "marrying another" that is called adultery. The man must be supposed to be married to the wife he has put away unjustly, and is cheating with her by taking this other wife. Therefore, having an additional wife must be adultery. Therefore polygyny is wrong.
Any disagreement with the Old Testament must be because Jesus is making the law tougher. Just as he said if you hate your brother you have committed murder, if you look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery, here he is tightening up the law and saying if you have a second wife, even if you have divorced the first, you commit adultery.
Polygamist thinking
To be honest, I think this sounds very logical at first glance. It however has two major problems when you consider it more deeply:
1) It contradicts the rest of scripture on the matter. Now Jesus could have contradicted the rest of scripture and introduced a new law here, but this wasn't what he tended to do. He usually just explained the old laws with a different emphasis. For instance, the Old Testament also essentially says it is a sin to look on a married woman with lust (tenth commandment), Jesus explained it slightly differently. Did Jesus introduce any teachings that were tougher than Moses' laws on any other issue?
2) It is very shaky to conclude a whole new change in theology based on logical reasoning from a single proof-text that isn't even about the topic. This is like doing a scientific experiment and finding the crop yields when you use 10, 20 and 30 kg/ha of a fertiliser, drawing a line through the points and presuming you can predict a massive yield when you apply 500 kg/ha. You actually have no idea, because it is outside the known range. That amount of fertiliser might be beneficial, or it might actually kill the crop and give you no yield, you cannot tell from the known range of data you have. The known range of Jesus' opinion here is "divorce", "polygamy" is something entirely different which we should be very cautious drawing conclusions on from this passage.
So this isn't a good way to understand the passage. But it does say that a man is committing "adultery" in this situation. How is he committing adultery, if not by taking a second wife?
Adultery is most fundamentally something that breaks the marriage bond. A woman who is unfaithful breaks her bond to her husband by stepping outside his authority and going to a different man. This is an act of rebellion against his headship. It is equated with idolatry in many places, because idolatry is an act of rebellion against God.
Now in this situation, if the woman has already been unfaithful, the husband is justified in divorcing her. She has already broken the marriage bond herself through her adultery, the husband is simply following through with what she has started by sending her away. The wife is guilty of adultery.
If however the wife is faithful, and her husband sends her away, it is the husband who has broken the marriage bond. This breach of the marriage must here be also termed adultery by Jesus. So it is the husband who is guilty of adultery.
This way of looking at the passage is entirely consistent with the rest of the Bible's teachings on marriage. It may have one small issue however. Jesus says that the man commits adultery by putting away one wife AND taking another. So what does taking another wife have to do with it, if simply putting away the first unjustly is adultery? Maybe taking another wife as her replacement shows his full rejection of her and confirms his heart as adulterous? I am not sure about this.
Does that help anyone understand what the issue is with Jesus' teachings on divorce, and how they are theoretically linked to polygamy?
Was listening to "grace to you this morn" and mr MacArthur got down on polygamy bad......in the old test setting.
Had a great message going and then just went all monigomalistic for no reason. I sent him a letter. Got a quick responce, but it was an out of office auto reply thing....My letter:
John MacArthur
May The Lord richly bless you.
You are talking circles on your May 4th 2013 broadcast.
You are giving your views on polygany, not Gods. God never condemns
polygany. In fact he set laws to control it, and commanded it in a few places thats much easier to find, and a lot less rambling than I heard this morning.
You called Elkanah a polygamist like he was a sinner (and I use the term in this letter as living a lifestyle that is in blatant disrespect to God, I.e. continuing in sin ((like homosexuality)..we all are born sinners)), even in his culture.
So I have to assume Moses was a sinner in your eyes? Moses was the gent that God used to establish "the law", i.e. what is and is not adultery.
I then can I assume, you, like Aaron and Miriam don't approve of Moses marrying that Egyptian woman? And should I also assume God was wrong for "coming down" on them, in your eyes? Whose side do you want to be on, sir?
You are assuming things about Elkanah's love for Peninnah that you contradicted in your own message when you mentioned that children secure a husbands love for a woman. By your definition he did indeed love Peninnah.
The bible does not say he does not love Peninnah, simply states he does love Hannah.
If Elkannah's lifestyle offends you personally, I understand, that's our tradition here and ingrained in our culture, and it could have been dropped at that.But you shouldn't add to the word of God.
But the rest are "idle words" that otherwise colored you sermon biased. Idle words....is it worse to call something that is sin righteous or is it worse to call something sin that God doesn't declare sin? Probably the same in our Lord's eyes.
Hannah was a great woman & mother of faith.
If you needed to dig up "dirt" to make your story "exciting", it was right in print. You could have embellished on Peninnah's disrespect & rebellion to her husband, selfish attitude, & disregard for her own blessings. Jealousy, envy....that's sin, I'm sure we can agree on.
Peninnah had no reason to treat Hannah bad. Again, this contradicted the "reasoning" in your sermon. You said maybe Peninnah was the 2nd wife brought in because Hannah was barren. If that was the case, Hannah should have been the trouble maker. The fact of the story, one was rebellious and proud, an the other was sad an humble.
I'm Not suggesting that you preach a pro-polygamy Platform in our culture. I'm suggesting you don't put words in God's mouth. You could exercise "grace" on the things you don't understand, or are personally distasteful to you.
My point, you were wrong to apply our standards and traditions (which is an entirely different argument) to a man and his family living righteously before The Lord God in the time and culture you were referring to.
In His love, and with much respect,
Xxxx xxxxxx
Had a great message going and then just went all monigomalistic for no reason. I sent him a letter. Got a quick responce, but it was an out of office auto reply thing....My letter:
John MacArthur
May The Lord richly bless you.
You are talking circles on your May 4th 2013 broadcast.
You are giving your views on polygany, not Gods. God never condemns
polygany. In fact he set laws to control it, and commanded it in a few places thats much easier to find, and a lot less rambling than I heard this morning.
You called Elkanah a polygamist like he was a sinner (and I use the term in this letter as living a lifestyle that is in blatant disrespect to God, I.e. continuing in sin ((like homosexuality)..we all are born sinners)), even in his culture.
So I have to assume Moses was a sinner in your eyes? Moses was the gent that God used to establish "the law", i.e. what is and is not adultery.
I then can I assume, you, like Aaron and Miriam don't approve of Moses marrying that Egyptian woman? And should I also assume God was wrong for "coming down" on them, in your eyes? Whose side do you want to be on, sir?
You are assuming things about Elkanah's love for Peninnah that you contradicted in your own message when you mentioned that children secure a husbands love for a woman. By your definition he did indeed love Peninnah.
The bible does not say he does not love Peninnah, simply states he does love Hannah.
If Elkannah's lifestyle offends you personally, I understand, that's our tradition here and ingrained in our culture, and it could have been dropped at that.But you shouldn't add to the word of God.
But the rest are "idle words" that otherwise colored you sermon biased. Idle words....is it worse to call something that is sin righteous or is it worse to call something sin that God doesn't declare sin? Probably the same in our Lord's eyes.
Hannah was a great woman & mother of faith.
If you needed to dig up "dirt" to make your story "exciting", it was right in print. You could have embellished on Peninnah's disrespect & rebellion to her husband, selfish attitude, & disregard for her own blessings. Jealousy, envy....that's sin, I'm sure we can agree on.
Peninnah had no reason to treat Hannah bad. Again, this contradicted the "reasoning" in your sermon. You said maybe Peninnah was the 2nd wife brought in because Hannah was barren. If that was the case, Hannah should have been the trouble maker. The fact of the story, one was rebellious and proud, an the other was sad an humble.
I'm Not suggesting that you preach a pro-polygamy Platform in our culture. I'm suggesting you don't put words in God's mouth. You could exercise "grace" on the things you don't understand, or are personally distasteful to you.
My point, you were wrong to apply our standards and traditions (which is an entirely different argument) to a man and his family living righteously before The Lord God in the time and culture you were referring to.
In His love, and with much respect,
Xxxx xxxxxx
Ooopss!!!
The point I was making...the guy brought an un needed awareness to polygamy....maybe a good thing.
Somebody had to ask themselves "why is he making such an issue of this...that's what they did back then"
My experience with folks is that for one reason or another it was RIGHT then and WRONG now.
Cecil, I'll talk in your language
Jack Mac was vamping along in a 12 bar blues pattern, key of E, all majors....he shifts to a waltz in C....mid stream...and the folks that came to hear the blues don't know if they like the waltz or not....but now they are gonna have to think about it
The point I was making...the guy brought an un needed awareness to polygamy....maybe a good thing.
Somebody had to ask themselves "why is he making such an issue of this...that's what they did back then"
My experience with folks is that for one reason or another it was RIGHT then and WRONG now.
Cecil, I'll talk in your language
Jack Mac was vamping along in a 12 bar blues pattern, key of E, all majors....he shifts to a waltz in C....mid stream...and the folks that came to hear the blues don't know if they like the waltz or not....but now they are gonna have to think about it
jwh said:Jack Mac was vamping along in a 12 bar blues pattern, key of E, all majors....he shifts to a waltz in C....mid stream...and the folks that came to hear the blues don't know if they like the waltz or not....but now they are gonna have to think about it
Love it! Waltz Schmaltz! Phooey on it! Let's get back to the blues!
jwh, we're going to HAVE to get together at a retreat and do this, tape it, and publish it on youtube! :lol: :lol:
I second that! Record away!
The Dividing Line
Dr. James White
602-973-4602
Mon-Fri 10am to5pm
Show phone:877-753-3341 (in phoenix 602-973-4602)
Mon @ 11am (MST), Thu @ 4pm (MST)
This show aired April 23, 2013
Dr. White is playing excerpts from a Rob Bell interview in which he is being questioned about same sex marriage.
11:45
Dr. James White: Do you think it is sinful for one man to have sex with another man? Is that really a bad question? Is that, is that mean? Ah, As you hear Rob Bell is not overly happy about it.
Rob Bell: I would begin with I am for monogamy. I am for fidelity. I am for commitment.
Dr. James White: Now. You know what I immediately started doing when he said that while I was riding? I was listening to this while riding as normal. I was on the Bent yesterday, and ah I am so glad I was.
Um. Why? I started going, "Why"? Why are you for monogamy? Because monogamy, faithfulness, commitment...there's there is Biblical stuff behind that, but your just going to go, well its just your interpretation. What about a person that doesn't think that monogamy is the thing. I mean there are lots of people. I know lots of Mormons that argue for polygamy. And what about bisexuals? I mean the culture is going that way. Right? So the culture is saying that is okay too, and your wired that way, and so you need to have a man and a woman and so, so it cannot be monogamy. It has to be at least bigamy. In a sense. I guess. You'd have three partners, two other partners. However you would describe that. Anyway, ah, Why not?
These guys just seem to think they can get away. Andrew Sullivan, I'm for monogamy. Why? Well, cause when you have polygamy you have one guy that has all the women. Really! No, that's not how it works. That's the only thing; so one guy doesn't have all the women. That's the only reason you're for monogamy? Seriously? Amazing.
Rob Bell: ...and I think the world needs more of that. And I think promiscuity is dangerous.
Dr. James White: Why? Why?
Rob Bell: ...and promiscuity is destructive.
Dr. James White: Why?
Rob Bell: ...and some people are gay, and want to share their life with someone.
Dr. James White: Why?
Rob Bell: ...and they should be able to. And that's how the world is, and we should affirm that.
Dr. James White: Why? I mean, this is just stream of consciousness. Throw statements out. Don't substantiate them...don't provide any Biblical foundation. Just throw them out there, and say, I think this, I think that. And in the end we should all just take the Lords supper together, and just sing cumbaya . and don't as me why, because that is just BEEP. If you ask me its BEEP. That's that's...
Rob Bell: and we should affirm monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, both gay and straight.
Dr. James White: Biblically there is no such thing as gay fidelity and commitment. Biblically! Because the Bible defines what the word marriage means, and what its direct object is. It is a covenant, with specific roles for husband, and wife. Not husband, husband and wife and wife. You are changing the meaning of the word; you're changing the covenant.
If you changed the covenant, that describes the work of the triune God at the cross that brings about redemption, and stuck Michael the arch-angel in, and Bob the plumber. You would change the nature of the covenant. So you can't...He's he is just like everybody else it is just words are things you can plug into different places, and as long as it sounds good, its okay. Whether it changes the meaning doesn't matter.
Dr. James White
602-973-4602
Mon-Fri 10am to5pm
Show phone:877-753-3341 (in phoenix 602-973-4602)
Mon @ 11am (MST), Thu @ 4pm (MST)
This show aired April 23, 2013
Dr. White is playing excerpts from a Rob Bell interview in which he is being questioned about same sex marriage.
11:45
Dr. James White: Do you think it is sinful for one man to have sex with another man? Is that really a bad question? Is that, is that mean? Ah, As you hear Rob Bell is not overly happy about it.
Rob Bell: I would begin with I am for monogamy. I am for fidelity. I am for commitment.
Dr. James White: Now. You know what I immediately started doing when he said that while I was riding? I was listening to this while riding as normal. I was on the Bent yesterday, and ah I am so glad I was.
Um. Why? I started going, "Why"? Why are you for monogamy? Because monogamy, faithfulness, commitment...there's there is Biblical stuff behind that, but your just going to go, well its just your interpretation. What about a person that doesn't think that monogamy is the thing. I mean there are lots of people. I know lots of Mormons that argue for polygamy. And what about bisexuals? I mean the culture is going that way. Right? So the culture is saying that is okay too, and your wired that way, and so you need to have a man and a woman and so, so it cannot be monogamy. It has to be at least bigamy. In a sense. I guess. You'd have three partners, two other partners. However you would describe that. Anyway, ah, Why not?
These guys just seem to think they can get away. Andrew Sullivan, I'm for monogamy. Why? Well, cause when you have polygamy you have one guy that has all the women. Really! No, that's not how it works. That's the only thing; so one guy doesn't have all the women. That's the only reason you're for monogamy? Seriously? Amazing.
Rob Bell: ...and I think the world needs more of that. And I think promiscuity is dangerous.
Dr. James White: Why? Why?
Rob Bell: ...and promiscuity is destructive.
Dr. James White: Why?
Rob Bell: ...and some people are gay, and want to share their life with someone.
Dr. James White: Why?
Rob Bell: ...and they should be able to. And that's how the world is, and we should affirm that.
Dr. James White: Why? I mean, this is just stream of consciousness. Throw statements out. Don't substantiate them...don't provide any Biblical foundation. Just throw them out there, and say, I think this, I think that. And in the end we should all just take the Lords supper together, and just sing cumbaya . and don't as me why, because that is just BEEP. If you ask me its BEEP. That's that's...
Rob Bell: and we should affirm monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, both gay and straight.
Dr. James White: Biblically there is no such thing as gay fidelity and commitment. Biblically! Because the Bible defines what the word marriage means, and what its direct object is. It is a covenant, with specific roles for husband, and wife. Not husband, husband and wife and wife. You are changing the meaning of the word; you're changing the covenant.
If you changed the covenant, that describes the work of the triune God at the cross that brings about redemption, and stuck Michael the arch-angel in, and Bob the plumber. You would change the nature of the covenant. So you can't...He's he is just like everybody else it is just words are things you can plug into different places, and as long as it sounds good, its okay. Whether it changes the meaning doesn't matter.
Wretched Radio airs Monday through Friday 3-5pm
You can contact them through:
email: idea@wretchedradio.com
Beeptalk: 877-282-2337 (Leave a message for broadcast)
WR2012-0731-HR1
34:00
Todd Friel
34:00 Todd: Hey, here's a shock as we keep sliding right down that slope. What do you know what's going down. Sister Wives stars, apparently that was a show. Sister Wives stars sue Utah. Say polygamy ban is unconstitutional.
Now where did they get an idea like that? Cody Brown and his four wives (shuffles papers) yep Cody Brown and his four wives...
Hey, speaking of four wives, Great Britain has got themselves into a little bit of a problem. They ban polygamy in Great Britain. Whew, that one still in place, however if you come to Great Britain, immigrate to Great Britain. Is it "immigrate"? You come into. You immigrate into Great Britain and you've got multiple wives, that's okay. Now here's the kicker, they tried to rewrite some of the laws for benefits, now each one of your wives can get benefits too. Isn't that nice? Great Britain is going to be paying for that. (snickers)
Cody Brown and his four wives want what their, what any family wants. Huh? Well, for starters, not four wives, as a rule. They want to live in privacy of their own home free from government intrusion.
Hey that was the argument right there. "Get your laws outta my bedroom." I guess it applies to polygamy too.
And out from the threat of criminal prosecution for just loving each other. Hey! Cant we just let people love? Well just make people people plural, because that's what its headed for now.
Stars of the TLC show, Sister Wives, sued Utah and the country they fled from hoping to persuade a federal judge to overturn the states bigamy laws as unconstitutional. The case could potentionally decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of self described Mormon Fundamentalists.
Hmm Hmm Hmm What a shocker.
Hey! Don't compare polygamy to bestiality. (switches to dumb voice) Okay. I guess you missed the point. (voice returns to normal)
In the meantime, in Sweden they are moving toward "transgender marriage". Now I'm shocked again, because who'd a thought that it would move in this direction, because once you get the camel nose under the tent he just keeps himself out. Like that.
You can contact them through:
email: idea@wretchedradio.com
Beeptalk: 877-282-2337 (Leave a message for broadcast)
WR2012-0731-HR1
34:00
Todd Friel
34:00 Todd: Hey, here's a shock as we keep sliding right down that slope. What do you know what's going down. Sister Wives stars, apparently that was a show. Sister Wives stars sue Utah. Say polygamy ban is unconstitutional.
Now where did they get an idea like that? Cody Brown and his four wives (shuffles papers) yep Cody Brown and his four wives...
Hey, speaking of four wives, Great Britain has got themselves into a little bit of a problem. They ban polygamy in Great Britain. Whew, that one still in place, however if you come to Great Britain, immigrate to Great Britain. Is it "immigrate"? You come into. You immigrate into Great Britain and you've got multiple wives, that's okay. Now here's the kicker, they tried to rewrite some of the laws for benefits, now each one of your wives can get benefits too. Isn't that nice? Great Britain is going to be paying for that. (snickers)
Cody Brown and his four wives want what their, what any family wants. Huh? Well, for starters, not four wives, as a rule. They want to live in privacy of their own home free from government intrusion.
Hey that was the argument right there. "Get your laws outta my bedroom." I guess it applies to polygamy too.
And out from the threat of criminal prosecution for just loving each other. Hey! Cant we just let people love? Well just make people people plural, because that's what its headed for now.
Stars of the TLC show, Sister Wives, sued Utah and the country they fled from hoping to persuade a federal judge to overturn the states bigamy laws as unconstitutional. The case could potentionally decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of self described Mormon Fundamentalists.
Hmm Hmm Hmm What a shocker.
Hey! Don't compare polygamy to bestiality. (switches to dumb voice) Okay. I guess you missed the point. (voice returns to normal)
In the meantime, in Sweden they are moving toward "transgender marriage". Now I'm shocked again, because who'd a thought that it would move in this direction, because once you get the camel nose under the tent he just keeps himself out. Like that.
Wow! We should affirm monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, both gay and straight, huh? THAT'S sure Biblical! *shaking head*
But I'm insulted. They only acknowledged Mormon polygamists!
Have you noticed that no-one wants to acknowledge that there is a growing body of believers, conventional to their denominations in every other way, who simply believe that the Word is valid in this area?
I was recently in discussion with a couple of well-known SDAs on Facebook and made the statement that there is a growing body ... They immediately called me to task over it, saying, Oh yeah? Where are these Christians who believe as you do? I posted the link to BibFam. Discussion abruptly ended. *sigh*
But I'm insulted. They only acknowledged Mormon polygamists!
Have you noticed that no-one wants to acknowledge that there is a growing body of believers, conventional to their denominations in every other way, who simply believe that the Word is valid in this area?
I was recently in discussion with a couple of well-known SDAs on Facebook and made the statement that there is a growing body ... They immediately called me to task over it, saying, Oh yeah? Where are these Christians who believe as you do? I posted the link to BibFam. Discussion abruptly ended. *sigh*
can we find it interesting (not to mention important) that the enemy is fighting this so hard??
i have no idea why it is such a big deal to the Almighty, but it obviously is.
i am very interested in what He will expose in the future about how it fits into His plans. until then, the servants job is to go in the right direction w/out knowing the "why".
i have no idea why it is such a big deal to the Almighty, but it obviously is.
i am very interested in what He will expose in the future about how it fits into His plans. until then, the servants job is to go in the right direction w/out knowing the "why".
Oreslag
Member
Or perhaps even more simply, the husband who unjustly divorces his wife is committing adultery against his head: God.FollowingHim said:
I realize this is not a popular way to interpret this verse, but it is entirely consistent with the remaining witness of scripture. In particular, God calls the *men* of Israel and Judah adulteresses on more than one occasion (e.g. Jeremiah 3). In the specific case of Matthew 19, a husband unjustly putting away his wife is being unfaithful by breaking his bond to his God by stepping outside His authority and following a different god; he is playing the harlot with other "gods." Such a man commits adultery "over" his wife.
Indeed, looking at the Greek for the related passage in Mark 10:11-12 you will see that the word translated against in "And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” can actually be translated over instead. I believe it is translated this way in English translations primarily to support the false idea that a man can commit adultery against his wife in any way. Adultery springs from the idea of adulteration, or of mixing something pure with something else that spoils its purity. This is obvious in the case of a a womb and two kinds of seed. It should also be obvious in the case of a man and two kinds of beliefs, but it is often not recognized as such.
Thus, it is so much simpler than the twists and contortions that are necessary to make this verse apply in any way to polygyny. Indeed, I believe that the dirt-poor exegesis of this passage the church has suffered under for so many years results from a need to find at least one place in scripture that supports the preconceived false notion that God condemns polygyny.
http://fortherecordapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/04/does-bible-approve-of-polygamy-genesis.htmlFrom a local brother in Christ, with whose family we have considered starting a home church:
One excerpt:
" Accounting for the existence of polygamy in the Scriptures is a true challenge for the apologist. However, it is not an impossible challenge. In response to the problem of polygamy in the Scriptures, this writer will make five points: 1) Monogamous marriage, God’s desired standard, was instated before the fall of man, 2) Both the Old and New Testaments support and prefer monogamous marriage, 3) A lack of direct Biblical condemnation does not automatically give license for an act, 4) Scriptural instances of polygamy usually result in undesirable consequences for the participants, and 5) Polygamy is best understood as an "allowed" practice rather than an "approved" practice. These five points should eliminate most secular and Mormon arguments for God’s approval of polygamy."
I can easily tear apart this article, its errant suppositions, and even internal contradictions. The question is whether or not to bring up the topic to this brother and risk what I see as the inevitable conclusion, that being the loss of a friend. We have never discussed the issue, and though he knows we left a local church due to doctrinal conflict, he has not attempted to figure out what that doctrine was.
This brother comes to me from time to time for advice on Biblical orthopraxy and regarding his hope to marry some day. We have discussed some of the problems with his home church and their cultural reinterpretation of Biblical mandates in a few areas. We are not close, but I do appreciate this brother and don't want to confront him unnecessarily. Does a blog post from him (ironically predating my own public "outing" on plural marriage) constitute good reason to bring up the topic? Is it wise to avoid the topic knowing we disagree? I am up for any productive insight, and hope to talk things over with some of you at the upcoming BF retreat next weekend in Scranton, PA.
One excerpt:
" Accounting for the existence of polygamy in the Scriptures is a true challenge for the apologist. However, it is not an impossible challenge. In response to the problem of polygamy in the Scriptures, this writer will make five points: 1) Monogamous marriage, God’s desired standard, was instated before the fall of man, 2) Both the Old and New Testaments support and prefer monogamous marriage, 3) A lack of direct Biblical condemnation does not automatically give license for an act, 4) Scriptural instances of polygamy usually result in undesirable consequences for the participants, and 5) Polygamy is best understood as an "allowed" practice rather than an "approved" practice. These five points should eliminate most secular and Mormon arguments for God’s approval of polygamy."
I can easily tear apart this article, its errant suppositions, and even internal contradictions. The question is whether or not to bring up the topic to this brother and risk what I see as the inevitable conclusion, that being the loss of a friend. We have never discussed the issue, and though he knows we left a local church due to doctrinal conflict, he has not attempted to figure out what that doctrine was.
This brother comes to me from time to time for advice on Biblical orthopraxy and regarding his hope to marry some day. We have discussed some of the problems with his home church and their cultural reinterpretation of Biblical mandates in a few areas. We are not close, but I do appreciate this brother and don't want to confront him unnecessarily. Does a blog post from him (ironically predating my own public "outing" on plural marriage) constitute good reason to bring up the topic? Is it wise to avoid the topic knowing we disagree? I am up for any productive insight, and hope to talk things over with some of you at the upcoming BF retreat next weekend in Scranton, PA.
Of the above points, some quick notes:
1) Monogamous marriage, God’s desired standard, was instated before the fall of man,
2) Both the Old and New Testaments support and prefer monogamous marriage,
3) A lack of direct Biblical condemnation does not automatically give license for an act,
4) Scriptural instances of polygamy usually result in undesirable consequences for the participants, and
5) Polygamy is best understood as an "allowed" practice rather than an "approved" practice
1-This statement is presupposed rather than exegeted from the text. While there are arguments to consider on this issue, simply stating an opinion as fact does not make it factual but rather demonstrates the lack of careful study of the topic, rather leaning on presuppositions.
2- Both Testaments actually speak of monogamy and polygamy as marriage, thus creating a false dichotomy that is only found when one presupposes the conclusion rather than searching the text for a definition of marriage.
3- I actually agree on this point. Principially, we have all we need from the Scripture (sola scriptura) and we are not lacking in the discussed situations. Regarding the deception of Jacob and Rebekah, we fall back on the Biblical rules regarding lying/deception and wifely submission to her husband. Rebekah subverts her husband's headship, tells her son to lie to his father, etc. These are express in the Scripture, whether or not they are discussed in the text in question is not necessary. Lot's supposed selfishness is subjective, as Abraham tells Lot to choose. Lot is thus accepting the gracious blessing of his uncle, not being selfish. Would we be seen as selfish to accept grace and blessings from God, or is this a predisposed notion (like that of Lamech elsewhere in this text) tainting the view of the reader outside the Biblical text?
4- Here we see the ad hominem attacks that generally show the true weakness of any argument. How we interpret Lamech's proclamation might be what our brother states here, or he could be a fervent patriarch who defends his family and facilitated an environment of music, industry, and faithfulness. I guess it depends on who you ask, or what you read into the text. Abraham's wives didn't cause the strife in the family, although I find it ironic that taking Hagar was Sarai's idea, for the stated purpose of procreation, and then she gets mad when her plan works. :roll: It's also pretty funny that we all hold up Song of Solomon (dedicated to his 141st or so wife) and disregard the righteousness of David with all his other wives, the only exception being Bathsheba, which was of course specifically condemned due to the 7th, 8th, and 10th commandments.
5- So God "allowed" polygamy, but we are able to disapprove of it based on what? The ambiguous interpretation of "mia" in 1 Tim. and Titus? Maybe the totally different words used in 1 Cor 7 (cited within). Comparing divorce to marriage is self contradictory, as one is the antithesis to the other. One might ask if a "Mormon polygamist" (evidently the only people who would consider having more than one wife) was to repent and be saved, how would his family be treated in the local church. Would he be told to choose, thus separating what God has put together, in contradiction to what Jesus actually said in Matthew 19? I would think you would have to say the second marriage was just adultery and therefore doesn't count as marriage. I have yet to hear an intelligent discussion of this idea in light of the Biblical documentation of multiple wives. This of course, neglects the fact that most of those faithful men in Hebrews 11 had multiple wives.
I have gone on further than I planned, but thanks for humoring me, folks!
1) Monogamous marriage, God’s desired standard, was instated before the fall of man,
2) Both the Old and New Testaments support and prefer monogamous marriage,
3) A lack of direct Biblical condemnation does not automatically give license for an act,
4) Scriptural instances of polygamy usually result in undesirable consequences for the participants, and
5) Polygamy is best understood as an "allowed" practice rather than an "approved" practice
1-This statement is presupposed rather than exegeted from the text. While there are arguments to consider on this issue, simply stating an opinion as fact does not make it factual but rather demonstrates the lack of careful study of the topic, rather leaning on presuppositions.
2- Both Testaments actually speak of monogamy and polygamy as marriage, thus creating a false dichotomy that is only found when one presupposes the conclusion rather than searching the text for a definition of marriage.
3- I actually agree on this point. Principially, we have all we need from the Scripture (sola scriptura) and we are not lacking in the discussed situations. Regarding the deception of Jacob and Rebekah, we fall back on the Biblical rules regarding lying/deception and wifely submission to her husband. Rebekah subverts her husband's headship, tells her son to lie to his father, etc. These are express in the Scripture, whether or not they are discussed in the text in question is not necessary. Lot's supposed selfishness is subjective, as Abraham tells Lot to choose. Lot is thus accepting the gracious blessing of his uncle, not being selfish. Would we be seen as selfish to accept grace and blessings from God, or is this a predisposed notion (like that of Lamech elsewhere in this text) tainting the view of the reader outside the Biblical text?
4- Here we see the ad hominem attacks that generally show the true weakness of any argument. How we interpret Lamech's proclamation might be what our brother states here, or he could be a fervent patriarch who defends his family and facilitated an environment of music, industry, and faithfulness. I guess it depends on who you ask, or what you read into the text. Abraham's wives didn't cause the strife in the family, although I find it ironic that taking Hagar was Sarai's idea, for the stated purpose of procreation, and then she gets mad when her plan works. :roll: It's also pretty funny that we all hold up Song of Solomon (dedicated to his 141st or so wife) and disregard the righteousness of David with all his other wives, the only exception being Bathsheba, which was of course specifically condemned due to the 7th, 8th, and 10th commandments.
5- So God "allowed" polygamy, but we are able to disapprove of it based on what? The ambiguous interpretation of "mia" in 1 Tim. and Titus? Maybe the totally different words used in 1 Cor 7 (cited within). Comparing divorce to marriage is self contradictory, as one is the antithesis to the other. One might ask if a "Mormon polygamist" (evidently the only people who would consider having more than one wife) was to repent and be saved, how would his family be treated in the local church. Would he be told to choose, thus separating what God has put together, in contradiction to what Jesus actually said in Matthew 19? I would think you would have to say the second marriage was just adultery and therefore doesn't count as marriage. I have yet to hear an intelligent discussion of this idea in light of the Biblical documentation of multiple wives. This of course, neglects the fact that most of those faithful men in Hebrews 11 had multiple wives.
I have gone on further than I planned, but thanks for humoring me, folks!
I think it is certainly worth bringing up with him tactfully, particularly if you wish to fellowship with him further. Either you live a lie and fellowship pretending you agree on marriage, or you discuss it. If you discuss it, he'll either run or stay, best to find that out earlier rather than later.
This could well be an opportunity for you to have a deep theological discussion. I expect he's never even considered the possibility that he could be wrong on this. His article really is entirely written to read a particular presupposition into the text, it would be good for his mind for him to be challenged to turn this logic around and look first for what the Bible says, then determine what he should be concluding from that.
This opening statement shows the entire issue in his logic:
Do you have a copy of "Why do you believe that" you could lend him? That would be the most appropriate book.
You could even say something neutral like "I find this book very challenging. I see you wrote on this topic a few years ago and have clearly put some thought into it, I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on this".
This could well be an opportunity for you to have a deep theological discussion. I expect he's never even considered the possibility that he could be wrong on this. His article really is entirely written to read a particular presupposition into the text, it would be good for his mind for him to be challenged to turn this logic around and look first for what the Bible says, then determine what he should be concluding from that.
This opening statement shows the entire issue in his logic:
Why on earth is the existence of polygamy in the Scriptures a "problem"? Why not just read it as a fact? He sounds just like a homosexual complaining that the condemnation of homosexuality in the Scriptures is a "problem" for a gay theologian attempting to justify their point of view...
Do you have a copy of "Why do you believe that" you could lend him? That would be the most appropriate book.
You could even say something neutral like "I find this book very challenging. I see you wrote on this topic a few years ago and have clearly put some thought into it, I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on this".
I second Samuel's idea. Suggesting he read "Why Do You Believe That?" makes the author "the bad guy", not you, and lets you be someone to discuss it with.
For my part, I enjoy "proving" that the seed of poly was present even in the creation of mankind (#1), and for #4 observing the problematic monogamous marriages in Scripture and since.
For my part, I enjoy "proving" that the seed of poly was present even in the creation of mankind (#1), and for #4 observing the problematic monogamous marriages in Scripture and since.
1) Monogamous marriage, God’s desired standard, was instated before the fall of man,
2) Both the Old and New Testaments support and prefer monogamous marriage,
3) A lack of direct Biblical condemnation does not automatically give license for an act,
4) Scriptural instances of polygamy usually result in undesirable consequences for the participants, and
5) Polygamy is best understood as an "allowed" practice rather than an "approved" practice
My responses:
1) Naked gardening was God's desired standard, and was instated before the fall of man.
2) Both the Old and New Testaments combined show more examples of polygamous marriage than monogamous marriage.
3) A overwhelming supply of Biblical evidence that God 'allowed' plural marriage, BUT NEVER CONDEMNED A SINGLE INSTANCE OF IT, legitimizes the practice
4) Scriptural instances of monogamy always have problems, and should be avoided as well. Best to remain single. (At least I have Bible to back me up on that one lol)
5) Monogamy is best understood as an 'allowed' practice, since most of the Biblical regulations regarding marriage occur not only in a polygamous context, but also in a polygamous culture.
Blessings
Doc
2) Both the Old and New Testaments support and prefer monogamous marriage,
3) A lack of direct Biblical condemnation does not automatically give license for an act,
4) Scriptural instances of polygamy usually result in undesirable consequences for the participants, and
5) Polygamy is best understood as an "allowed" practice rather than an "approved" practice
My responses:
1) Naked gardening was God's desired standard, and was instated before the fall of man.
2) Both the Old and New Testaments combined show more examples of polygamous marriage than monogamous marriage.
3) A overwhelming supply of Biblical evidence that God 'allowed' plural marriage, BUT NEVER CONDEMNED A SINGLE INSTANCE OF IT, legitimizes the practice
4) Scriptural instances of monogamy always have problems, and should be avoided as well. Best to remain single. (At least I have Bible to back me up on that one lol)
5) Monogamy is best understood as an 'allowed' practice, since most of the Biblical regulations regarding marriage occur not only in a polygamous context, but also in a polygamous culture.
Blessings
Doc