Jack P. said:
Well I have read this thread and made comments in it, and have admitted that I am in no way an expert on plural marriage.
If anyone claimed to be an "expert" on plural marriage I would probably figure him/her for a crackpot rather than an expert. I don't claim to be an expert either. Experienced, yes. Expert, no.
Jack P. said:
But my past has taught me a few things about women. ( having had three wives before this one). Some say that I am domed to hell for that in and of it self, but I digress ( different thread different time).
I think that someone just stated, or at least implied, that having multiple exes means that a man doesn't know what he's doing in marriage. The person who said it denied that he was directing it at any one person even though up till now I was the only one who admitted to having multiple exes.
If that's true then you and I are in the same boat. I don't think it's true in every case though. I don't know your situation well enough to judge. In my case I doubt it but I don't argue with those who think that way. It's just not worth my time.
Jack P. said:
Nowhere in the Bible does God give as a commend that men "shall" take more than one wife
I can think of three places, four if we count Levirite marriage.
- A man whose wife leaves him is free to remarry (1 Corinthians 7:15) but if he does and then his first wife wants to reconcile he is required to reconcile without sending the second wife away. The only exception is if one of the wives has committed adultery. (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9)
- Isaiah 4:1, turning the women away would be a violation of the Second Greatest Commandment
- and if the woman wants to marry to avoid the temptation to sexual immorality turning her away would be putting a stumbling block in front of her.
Jack P. said:
it just isn't writen that a man will be judged a sinner for having more than one.
That's correct but not quite complete. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 states that anyone who forbids another person from marrying is a hypocrite whose conscience has been seared with a hot iron and is teaching the doctrine of demons.
I've heard a lot of people try to insert exceptions into that passage. They try to say that that's true
UNLESS...
- unless the person doing the forbidding is the first wife,
- or unless the man is already married,
- or unless the person is a catholic priest,
- or unless they don't like the person's motives,
- or unless it's a woman who wants the disgrace of being single taken away (i.e. Isaiah 4:1),
- etc.
The problem with that is that the text doesn't support any of those exceptions. 1 Corinthians 7:9 directly endorses the motive of being horny, or "
burn[ing] with passion" as the NIV and ESV put it. There's no exception there either so if a married man is still "
burn[ing] with passion" for whatever reason it is better for him to marry than to "
burn with passion" and forbidding such a marriage is the doctrine of demons. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
We're supposed to read out of the Bible not into it. Since there are no words in those passages to support any exceptions to the rule then inserting such exceptions is reading into the Bible rather than out of it.
Now many would say that that is a very legalistic approach to scripture. They're right. I see no reason to deny it.
The problem with that assertion isn't that it is inaccurate. The problem with that assertion is that the legalism is justified in this case.
The Apostle Matthew quoted Christ when he said:
Matthew 7:1-5
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
When a first wife, or someone acting in her stead, attempts to coerce a man to monogamy she, and/or whomever is supporting the effort, is practicing legalism. She is trying to force her husband to obey her and is using the Bible to do it. That is the very definition of legalism.
Christ condemned legalism. There are numerous examples in the gospels of Christ looking someone in the face and calling them a "
hypocrite" and in every case the person that He was speaking to was trying to force his/her views on religion down someone else's throat. (e.g. telling Christ that He shouldn't let His apostles eat with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:1-9) or trying to trap Him with a question about taxes. (Matthew 22:17-22))
That is the example we are to follow. The reason is in Matthew 7:2 in the section that I emphasized in bold above, by the standard they judge they are also to be judged and they are judging by the standard of legalism. That's why Christ was not sinning when He called people hypocrites for practicing legalism and it's why we're not sinning when we do the same.
Jack P. said:
And there are some who will say that it is the duty, responsibility of a man to take care of the widows and husbandless women. There are many ways that a man can take care of and love their neighbor without calling her his second wife. ( and that is a discussion for a different thread , if you don't agree). So that leaves us with the want or "called " to have a second wife. Second suggesting you have a first or current wife.
Really? How do you explain Isaiah 4:1 then? What was the disgrace that was to be removed by using the man's name, i.e. marrying him?
Some say poverty but they weren't in poverty. They had their own food and clothing and were satisfied enough with both their existing sustenance and their income that they were going to continue relying on their own resources. They weren't asking the man for money, food or clothing. They said so.
The simple act of using his name, i.e. marrying him, was what was expected to take away their disgrace.
If being married will take away the disgrace then doesn't that mean that the disgrace is not being married?
Jack P. said:
Now all the reading I have done about plural marriage says that it is a union between a current marriage and a new member
I'm not normally one to challenge another person's beliefs but I don't see anything even remotely resembling that in the Bible. Maybe we're reading different Bibles.
Genesis 2:24 clearly states that each marriage is between exactly one man and exactly one woman. There is no other form of marriage in the Bible. A man can have more than one marriage covenant just like God has more than one covenant (Ezekiel 23, Matthew 25:1-12) but each of a man's marriage covanants is between him and EXACTLY one woman, no more an no less.
Jack P. said:
If you can find females that are willing to be forced to live with you and other females
Where did that come from? Who mentioned anything about forcing a woman to do anything?
I'm going to stop here before this turns into a set of encyclopedias instead of just a long book.