It’s funny how 1+1= One flesh but 1+1+1 cannot = one and yet Scripture (John 17) is a great example of how Christ and his father and all flesh that his father has given him are one.
-
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?
Hey, God can only work with what He's been given. If society's arranged itself as though men and women are different, what's a god to do?
Last edited:
Oh my goodness! Yesterday's discussion was quite lively, and I did get to work polygamy into the discussion! The leader asked me to read Matt 19:1-15, which I did, and I left out the word "woman" from verse 9, as it is not found in the Greek, but nobody caught on to that. The discussion started off with the talk on divorce, and we read Mal 3:16, and I volunteered to read Deut 24:1-4.
That was where the fireworks began, albeit, it started when the leader tried to claim application of the marriage rules using the word "spouse". I came back and repeated the observation that this text is gender specific, and went on to refute claims that this is because of the idea that women had less power. I pointed out that historically we know that Herod's wife had divorced his brother, and Jesus even speaks about women who divorce their husbands in Mark 10:12. I was glad that the leader wanted us to read all four verses in Deut 24:1-4, rather than just stop at verse one, because that is where I pointed out that a woman could not have two husbands, whereas we don't see any prohibition of a man having two wives even in the New Testament. The leader agreed with me that Scripture never condemns polygamy, but then tried to bring up examples. I pointed to Joash, Caleb and Asher. He wanted to talk about Abraham. He had no idea that Caleb had multiple wives! One of the ladies tried to say that because God only gave one wife to Adam, we should only have one wife, and I pointed out that this only means that not every man should have multiple wives.
The leader tried to bring up Solomon, and I responded that Solomon went overboard. He then tried to say that he thinks that to wives is too many. He said that one wife is enough for him, and you have got to know his wife; she is a real nice lady, but she has him under her thumb. He knew he was in trouble for having said this. The funny thing is, earlier he made a funny remark, and she said it wasn't, but everyone else thought it was. The guy sitting next to me was quite vocal that it was funny, and she told him to say that it was not, but he refused. His wife was not there yesterday, and so she said that she would tell his wife that he refused to say that something the leader said was not funny, when it was. I blurted out, "husbands submit to your wives" and he laughed and said, "I think we got that backwards."
As I proceeded to make remarks that polygamy is not for everyone, I heard chuckles throughout the room. Folks were looking at me a little strange, as I continued to share Scripture from the New Testament to back up what I had said about the requirements in marriage being gender specific, and I could see some of them with that "huh!" expression on their faces. The leader himself admitted that he hadn't given this much consideration. The funny thing is, we never got into the discussion about the two becoming one. I was so geared up for that one, and yet I was able to bring this into the discussion anyhow! It was certainly a situation where I had the odds stacked against me. I would have liked to respond that just because 1000 wives caused Solomon's heart to go astray, does NOT mean that two wives would cause a man to go astray, but I didn't have any help in that room. I laid the groundwork. Hopefully, I got some folks in there thinking.
As I was leaving church yesterday afternoon, the pastor greeted me and was talking about how nice it was with the sun coming out. If that isn't a metaphor, I don't know what is!
That was where the fireworks began, albeit, it started when the leader tried to claim application of the marriage rules using the word "spouse". I came back and repeated the observation that this text is gender specific, and went on to refute claims that this is because of the idea that women had less power. I pointed out that historically we know that Herod's wife had divorced his brother, and Jesus even speaks about women who divorce their husbands in Mark 10:12. I was glad that the leader wanted us to read all four verses in Deut 24:1-4, rather than just stop at verse one, because that is where I pointed out that a woman could not have two husbands, whereas we don't see any prohibition of a man having two wives even in the New Testament. The leader agreed with me that Scripture never condemns polygamy, but then tried to bring up examples. I pointed to Joash, Caleb and Asher. He wanted to talk about Abraham. He had no idea that Caleb had multiple wives! One of the ladies tried to say that because God only gave one wife to Adam, we should only have one wife, and I pointed out that this only means that not every man should have multiple wives.
The leader tried to bring up Solomon, and I responded that Solomon went overboard. He then tried to say that he thinks that to wives is too many. He said that one wife is enough for him, and you have got to know his wife; she is a real nice lady, but she has him under her thumb. He knew he was in trouble for having said this. The funny thing is, earlier he made a funny remark, and she said it wasn't, but everyone else thought it was. The guy sitting next to me was quite vocal that it was funny, and she told him to say that it was not, but he refused. His wife was not there yesterday, and so she said that she would tell his wife that he refused to say that something the leader said was not funny, when it was. I blurted out, "husbands submit to your wives" and he laughed and said, "I think we got that backwards."
As I proceeded to make remarks that polygamy is not for everyone, I heard chuckles throughout the room. Folks were looking at me a little strange, as I continued to share Scripture from the New Testament to back up what I had said about the requirements in marriage being gender specific, and I could see some of them with that "huh!" expression on their faces. The leader himself admitted that he hadn't given this much consideration. The funny thing is, we never got into the discussion about the two becoming one. I was so geared up for that one, and yet I was able to bring this into the discussion anyhow! It was certainly a situation where I had the odds stacked against me. I would have liked to respond that just because 1000 wives caused Solomon's heart to go astray, does NOT mean that two wives would cause a man to go astray, but I didn't have any help in that room. I laid the groundwork. Hopefully, I got some folks in there thinking.
As I was leaving church yesterday afternoon, the pastor greeted me and was talking about how nice it was with the sun coming out. If that isn't a metaphor, I don't know what is!
Interestingly enough, I had someone bring up Luke 16:18 and Matt 19:9 last week on Pastor Dowell's YouTube video, and I shot it down using the original Greek word that has been translated "shall marry", pointing out that nowhere else in the New Testament is that particular variation used, but the word used in Luke, is found in the Septuagint, and it is not an active verb, but merely describes a wedding celebration. He used NKJV for Matt 19:9 which mirrors Matt 5:32 except for that phrase, "and shall marry another", whereas in Matt 5, Jesus said, "causes her to commit adultery". Also, the NKJV does not use the word "woman" in verse 9. I looked into verses 11 and 12 of Mark 10, and I found that it is a similar phrasing used, but the word "gameeho" which is similar to the word used in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, would mean, "to take a wife", but that could not possibly be what Jesus was saying in verse 12. What I discovered is that at the end of verse 11, Jesus added a prepositional phrase that has been translated "against her". This is almost as bad as the New NIV translation of Matt 5:32 "makes her the victim of adultery". I pointed out yesterday, that there is a Greek word "KATA" which is consistently translated "against", but that is not the word that Mark used in verse 11. That word is "ep", which predominantly is translated "in", or "around", or "upon", and I said that when a man divorces his wife and she marries another, he is committing adultery upon her, which is to say that the adultery that she is committing is conferred upon him, as he is held responsible for that adultery, which mirrors what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. I also brought out Rom 7:2, I Cor 7:10-11 and I Cor 7:39, to bolster my point about the requirements being gender specific. I pointed out that in God's eyes she is still married to her husband, even after there is a divorce, and that this explains how she is committing adultery, and yet no such restriction is ever placed on a man.
Needless to say, I had a very dry mouth by the time I left to get my trombone ready for the service.
Needless to say, I had a very dry mouth by the time I left to get my trombone ready for the service.
The gender specific nature of the commands on marriage is a huge revelation in understanding scripture as it was intended. That they fail to see this, even the so called complementariness, is a huge oversight on the part of the American church and evidence #1 that they've internalized the equality message of the culture.
This:
could be said of pretty much every male in the church these days.
This:
could be said of pretty much every male in the church these days.
@Daniel DeLuca, would your class be open to a visit from a plural family, to give some testimony and answer questions?
I will find out!!!! I know that I would LOVE to have you guys! There is no one that would stop you from coming unannounced; that is for sure! I am sure they would have lots of questions for you, before and after class, and the class is very interactive. They would probably be quite puzzled, but it's not like they would usher you out.
Our pastor is also very welcoming. He always says, "It doesn't matter what you've done, where you've done it, or who you've done it with" and he also says, "It doesn't matter if you are a Baptist. We want you here." It would be very interesting if a polygamous family came forward and wanted to join our church. The executive pastor always reads off the names of those who join, and announces it to the entire congregation. I can just hear it now: "Pastor we have a new family coming to join our church. This is __________ __________, and his three wives _____, _______, and __________ and their children..." Pastor Bowman interrupts, "Really! You have three wives?" and the whole church gasps.
BTW, my uncle has worked for the DA in California, so if you ever want to find a state that might issue you a waiver and allow your marriages to be recognized legally, I would be more than willing to contact him and see what he has to say.
Our pastor is also very welcoming. He always says, "It doesn't matter what you've done, where you've done it, or who you've done it with" and he also says, "It doesn't matter if you are a Baptist. We want you here." It would be very interesting if a polygamous family came forward and wanted to join our church. The executive pastor always reads off the names of those who join, and announces it to the entire congregation. I can just hear it now: "Pastor we have a new family coming to join our church. This is __________ __________, and his three wives _____, _______, and __________ and their children..." Pastor Bowman interrupts, "Really! You have three wives?" and the whole church gasps.
BTW, my uncle has worked for the DA in California, so if you ever want to find a state that might issue you a waiver and allow your marriages to be recognized legally, I would be more than willing to contact him and see what he has to say.
Whoa, hoss! I wasn't volunteering to join your church, or even visit more than once. I'm not interested in joining any state church, let alone a baptist church, let alone a church I'd have to drive a coupla hours each way to get to. Nothing personal, no offense, you do you, peace, etc, that just wasn't what I was saying.
What I'm willing to consider and pray about, if you think you can get authorization from the class leader to make it happen, would be to attend once for the express purpose of answering any questions class members would like to ask of a "real, live Christian plural family". Think of us as your one-time-only "show and tell" project. Does that make sense?
What I'm willing to consider and pray about, if you think you can get authorization from the class leader to make it happen, would be to attend once for the express purpose of answering any questions class members would like to ask of a "real, live Christian plural family". Think of us as your one-time-only "show and tell" project. Does that make sense?
Wow, they even take Baptists?
Heh heh, before reading Andrew's reply I had misunderstood. That's a Northerner for you.
Priceless!
Show and tell.... road show?. Lol!
Yeah, I am only musing. I am most grateful for your willingness to come and I will get back with you if and when I have a chance to talk to someone in class leadership.
Cool, I'll be praying about that. Just a hunch at this point, but it feels right.
And @Ancient Paths, that 'road show' idea is part of what I have in mind. Daniel's church would be the proof-of-concept piece, and then if it goes well, we'll go from there. (And if it doesn't go well, we'll think of some other way to raise a ruckus....)
And @Ancient Paths, that 'road show' idea is part of what I have in mind. Daniel's church would be the proof-of-concept piece, and then if it goes well, we'll go from there. (And if it doesn't go well, we'll think of some other way to raise a ruckus....)
Very interesting. I salute you. Bold and necessary. Will be praying for you on this matter.
Road show ruckus reminded me of a story...during the reformation local anabaptists would stand up during mass and assert their right under 1 Corinthians 14 to teach the people. Confrontational to be sure; but it worked and they rocked the world.
Albeit at heavy personal cost. Heavy.
Albeit at heavy personal cost. Heavy.
True! Most men would be limited by how many wives they could afford. Of course the king has no such problem, thus God's prohibition in Duet. 17:17 that Solomon failed to abide by.
Duet. 17:17 would not be needed if God's standard was one and one only.
True. A very important point.
Bingo! Exactly.
Very cool. That is one thing I have never seen any church get right. There is no 1 Cor 14 time. It is all about control.