• 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.

When bringing up the subject of PM, what's the first verse you would use?

I am really confused why there's even an argument here. Both what we read in the Old and New testaments show that God has a heart for women and wants them to be provided for through marriage. The details of what precisely and legalistically is said in each case differ, but the heart is the same. It's usually pretty easy to see what God would have you do in reality.

Is there any real situation anybody is facing where they are unsure what God would have them do, and where this discussion would actually help to clarify the matter? Or is this entire discussion empty words about nothing important?
 
I am really confused why there's even an argument here. Both what we read in the Old and New testaments show that God has a heart for women and wants them to be provided for through marriage. The details of what precisely and legalistically is said in each case differ, but the heart is the same. It's usually pretty easy to see what God would have you do in reality.

Is there any real situation anybody is facing where they are unsure what God would have them do, and where this discussion would actually help to clarify the matter? Or is this entire discussion empty words about nothing important?
I think there is much profit in discussion especially if there is a right dividing of the Word involved. In this particular instance we are talking about two completely different. This isn't unimportant. We are required to do the right things for.the right reasons.
On top of that this particular idea has the potential to lead men to only care for the hot fertile women but maybe not be quite so interested in the others. And it gets very confusing when it comes to orphans.
Levirate marriage has nothing to do with the living standard of widows and absolutely nothing to do with orphans. If we want to understand God's heart on this then we can't confuse His motives.
 
On top of that this particular idea has the potential to lead men to only care for the hot fertile women but maybe not be quite so interested in the others. And it gets very confusing when it comes to orphans.
But the NT obligations apply whether or not they are related to the Levirate law. Whether they're an extension of that law, or a completely separate command, the final result is the same - we have an obligation to provide for widows and orphans. Is anybody suggesting that our obligations are reduced by this reasoning?
 
I am suggesting that it could lead some to view it incorrectly.

I would say I’m in general agreement with Zec on this. The two commands are different and have different reasons.
 
Wouldn't that be their problem not yours?

Completely unhelpful sir.

Couldn’t we say this about all misunderstandings of scripture? Why try to convince anyone about anything in the Bible isn’t it their problem?
 
Completely unhelpful sir.

Couldn’t we say this about all misunderstandings of scripture? Why try to convince anyone about anything in the Bible isn’t it their problem?

Most of what goes on here is not trying to convince anyone other than those who are already here. And very rarely, if at all, are those here likely to change their minds about the way they interpret scripture.

I am not sure if you have come to understand the mannerism the person being responded to in the previous post relates to others.
 
And very rarely, if at all, are those here likely to change their minds about the way they interpret scripture.

I have changed my mind on some things based on what others have said on this forum. I know there are others here who mostly read and don’t comment very much who are learning as well.

I am not sure if you have come to understand the mannerism the person being responded to in the previous post relates to others.

I have noticed he is very blunt and straight forward. I prefer that over passive aggressive tactics and stawman arguments being used when you can’t support your claims from the Bible.

It’s not lost on me that I tend to agree with Zec on a lot of things and therefore I’m not commonly the one “in the crosshairs” of his disagreement so that may be clouding my perspective a bit...
 
It’s not lost on me that I tend to agree with Zec on a lot of things and therefore I’m not commonly the one “in the crosshairs” of his disagreement so that may be clouding my perspective a bit...

Then you don't regularly have to rephrase your responses to try and be careful with his mannerisms and attitude towards those he disagrees with to protect others so you don't have to look like the bad guy, and then sometimes get tired of it and say the hell with it and decide on treating him like he treats you.
 
Like @Pacman I've learnt a lot from reading the comments on the forums and had my understanding change accordingly; an entire paradigm shift at times. James put it most succinctly when he wrote saying; let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
Shalom brothers and sisters in Christ.
 
My point is that its every mans job to care for the widows in his own family specifically, just as 1 Tim 5:16 states.

IMO the Levirate is just a very small portion of that same responsibility. You are generally expected to relieve the widows of your own household, and in very specific and probably rare cases, you are to make sure that your brothers widow has everything she needs, particularly, someone to carry on her husbands name.

It’s like saying a Ford and a Mustang are two different automobiles.
 
Thanks everyone for your help on the above thread! Just FYI, I used this thread to write the below email this evening to a friend who asked for Bible verses on plural families....

The high priest picked out 2 wives for Joash (who was king) and it says Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. This shows the high priest didn't question it being right or wrong and neither did God (all verses below are from New International Version but the web link is provided so it's easy to flip the versions around online if you want to see what King James says or other versions).

2 Chronicles 24:1-4 Joash was seven years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His mother’s name was Zibiah; she was from Beersheba. Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters. Some time later Joash decided to restore the temple of the Lord.... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+24:1-4&version=NIV

The Old Testament law has guidelines for how plural families are to work. If it was wrong, why would there be commands on how to do it?

Exodus 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21:10&version=NIV

This is about King David, when he took Bathsheba, and Samuel says God would have given him more wives!

2 Samuel 12:8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+12:8&version=NIV

This verse is a metaphorical story about how God married 2 women representing Samaria & Jerusalem. I have a hard time telling people plural families are sinful when God tells a story of himself doing it.

Ezekiel 23:4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+23:4&version=NIV

This verse is a bit difficult to understand what it's saying but it may be saying plural families are good and expected in the future but I think there's good arguments for it saying other things too (including maybe that plural marriage is a bad thing):

Isaiah 4:1-4 In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!” In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem. The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+4:1-4&version=NIV

If you haven't gotten to read the story of how David and Abigail became introduced it's pretty amazing - here's the very end of it, but suggest reading whole chapter.


1 Samuel 25 Then David sent word to Abigail, asking her to become his wife. His servants went to Carmel and said to Abigail, “David has sent us to you to take you to become his wife.” She bowed down with her face to the ground and said, “I am your servant and am ready to serve you and wash the feet of my lord’s servants.” Abigail quickly got on a donkey and, attended by her five female servants, went with David’s messengers and became his wife. David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both were his wives. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+25&version=NIV

Many of the people in the highlighted list of faithful people had plural families like Abraham, Moses, Jacob, etc:



Note that Jesus's family tree is thru Bathsheeba who was David's like 5th wife...



And many people forget the 12 tribes of Israel are from Jacob's 4 wives..



This is pretty technical so I put it last - here it goes:

1. Genesis 38 - Levirate marriage (which would require almost always require polygamy) is required BEFORE the law.
2. Deuteronomy 25 - Levirate marriage is required IN the law.
3. Matthew 22 - Levirate marriage is discussed AFTER the law and Jesus doesn't modify it (like he did with divorce in other passages).

Here's all 3 passages: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38:8,Deuteronomy+25:5-6,Matthew+22:23-33

In other words, this makes it unreasonable to say "plural families were only for Old Testament." Why? Because these verses, which cover a huge chronological span, show plural families are constantly ok - before the law, in the law, and after the law. I'm not saying Levirate marriage is what we should be doing today - only making the point that Jesus could have altered the point of view on marriage here and he didn't, thus marrying more than one is ok in the New Testament just like it was in the Old Testament.​

Christians sometimes say God created Adam & Eve and it was "the ideal" (not Adam, Eve & Susan). However that's not a good way of thinking because Adam & Eve were also gardeners but nobody is saying we should be trying to get back to "God's ideal" and all become gardeners. Also, to follow this line of thinking, we'd have to say it's "God's ideal" for all people to be married (like Adam & Eve) which means both plural families and single people would be equally "sinning" because they aren't following "God's ideal" set forth in Genesis. Another issue here, and I would never say this but there's no record of Adam & Even having sex or children (before the apple) thus it was taught for a long time that sex was a necessary evil for procreation and "to get back to God's ideal" we shouldn't really be enjoying sex - it should really be only for procreation. All that to say, using before-Adam-and-Eve-sinned-world as a firm model for what's best to happen today isn't a good idea.

It's VERY IMPORTANT to remember that just because something is good for some people, it may not be good for us. What's good for us is what Jesus himself is leading each of us into. We don't read a book anymore to figure out what God is leading us into - Jesus is the map - Jesus is alive & working in us to pull him to himself. More specifically, the Old Testament Law isn't in effect anymore so it doesn't matter if it says something is ok, or not ok, per se. How we move forward is thru interacting with Jesus. See Hebrews 7 & 8 below from The Message version:


Hebrews 7: The former way of doing things, a system of commandments that never worked out the way it was supposed to, was set aside; the law brought nothing to maturity. Another way—Jesus!—a way that does work, that brings us right into the presence of God, is put in its place.​

Hebrews 8: If the first plan—the old covenant—had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said,
Heads up! The days are coming
when I’ll set up a new plan
for dealing with Israel and Judah.
I’ll throw out the old plan
I set up with their ancestors
when I led them by the hand out of Egypt.
They didn’t keep their part of the bargain,
so I looked away and let it go.
This new plan I’m making with Israel
isn’t going to be written on paper,
isn’t going to be chiseled in stone;
This time I’m writing out the plan in them,
carving it on the lining of their hearts.
I’ll be their God,
they’ll be my people.
They won’t go to school to learn about me,
or buy a book called God in Five Easy Lessons.
They’ll all get to know me firsthand,
the little and the big, the small and the great.
They’ll get to know me by being kindly forgiven,
with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean.
By coming up with a new plan, a new covenant between God and his people, God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust.​
 
My point is that its every mans job to care for the widows in his own family specifically, just as 1 Tim 5:16 states.

IMO the Levirate is just a very small portion of that same responsibility. You are generally expected to relieve the widows of your own household, and in very specific and probably rare cases, you are to make sure that your brothers widow has everything she needs, particularly, someone to carry on her husbands name.

It’s like saying a Ford and a Mustang are two different automobiles.
 
In other words, this makes it unreasonable to say "plural families were only for Old Testament." Why? Because these verses, which cover a huge chronological span, show plural families are constantly ok - before the law, in the law, and after the law. I'm not saying Levirate marriage is what we should be doing today - only making the point that Jesus could have altered the point of view on marriage here and he didn't, thus marrying more than one is ok in the New Testament just like it was in the Old Testament.

clever argument.

This verse is a bit difficult to understand what it's saying but it may be saying plural families are good and expected in the future but I think there's good arguments for it saying other things too (including maybe that plural marriage is a bad thing):

Isaiah 4:1-4 In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!” In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem. The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+4:1-4&version=NIV

I put it this way. Isaiah prophecies a time when, after the people have turned their backs on God they are ruled by women and children. Sound familiar? We see that today. He then prophecies that when those people repent and turn back to God one of the things women will do is embrace polygamy in order to take away their disgrace. This action is part of the fruits of repentance that God calls beautiful and glorious. That this is the first and only specific action that God prophecies as part of this repentance should tell us a lot about the nature of the fall and the importance of polygamy to God as part of restoring right order in relations between the sexes.
 
And actually, I would find it really handy if we could have a series of threads addressing arguments people have raised against it, and of course the answers. I know there are some on the main page and some older threads, but there don't seem to be many recent ones.
All I did was spend a lot of time in forums, particularly on YouTube, and one that I resurrected on christianchat.com, so I could get exposed to all the arguments out there. Over time, God revealed to me certain truths I had not seen before, such as when Jesus said that the two shall become one, He followed that up by saying that they are no longer two but one. It does't hurt that I have read through the entire Bible multiple times over, in both KJV and NIV, and I have committed several books to memory. I am not trying to boast here, but God does have a way of reminding you of what He has written in His Word. It also helps me refute nonsense from people who try to argue that I don't know Scripture very well, or that I am cherry picking. I also reference both scriptureforall.org and greekbible.com, whenever I engage folks on this and other topics. Sometimes I find myself defending the Christian faith against people who want to argue that it is false. It kind of looks good when the person defending the faith, is pro-polygamy.

Above all, I generally try to be respectful with the people I disagree with, as long as they don't attack my character, which happens far too often. With the most recent approach that I have taken, it doesn't portray myself as desiring polygamy for myself, which is a distraction for most people, as they are prone to say that I am full of lust, and other garbage of that sort. Here, polygamy is shown as evidence to support, what they disagree with, and while they also disagree with polygamy, they feel as though I am only trying to argue in favor of the gender differences that those passages employ. Ultimately, I am willing to go as far as it takes to prove that polygamy is acceptable to God, but I don't want my personal motives to be a distraction to the conversation at hand.

Update on our Bible Study leader: I have asked him twice since our conversation, if he has taken the time to follow up on our discussion, and do the research to see if what I said, is right, and both times, he has said that he has been too busy.

Another update on pro-polygamy activities: My wife had a crazy idea to visit a church that her friend used to attend, before she headed off to serve God in Romania, which is where my wife is from. This is the young lady that my wife invited over for New Year's Eve last year, and also invited me to go out with her, and we met at a local park and convened at Dairy Queen. I paid for her meal, which my wife was grateful for, but I couldn't keep this young woman from fulfilling her dream of serving God overseas, so I let it go, but she was a very nice young lady who my wife enjoyed spending time with. Anyway, I didn't like the church very much, and I made that clear. I went online to find the email address of the young man who preached that Sunday, and had a bit of a conversation with him about being prepared. Bless his heart, he is new to preaching, and he was all over the place. Anyhow, we interacted back and forth over email, and I brought up the fact that I don't have difficulty loving a God who does not ask me to follow man-made legalities. This is because, in his message, he said that sometimes he finds it difficult to love God. He was curious when I told him that what I had learned had given me a greater love for God, even though I warned him, that if he embraces this, he will incur a lot of hatred from people who call themselves Christians. When he asked me to show him what I have learned, I introduced him to this notion that there are different requirements for men and women. He never responded. I will follow up with him to see what his thoughts are, and to see how he is doing in his love for God.
 
And actually, I would find it really handy if we could have a series of threads addressing arguments people have raised against it, and of course the answers. I know there are some on the main page and some older threads, but there don't seem to be many recent ones.
Missed this earlier. Are there any major issues missing from this article on the main website? If so, let me know and we can add them. It's a living document and has been edited several times in the past.
 
Back
Top