One of the most commonly overlooked phrases in scripture

[Wesley]

Note: All of this assumes a man who was smart enough to know better than to make a monogamous promise.

One of the most commonly overlooked phrases in the entire Bible, at least in our culture, is in Genesis 3:17.

Genesis 3:17 NIV (Bold emphasis is mine)
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.

"Because you listened to your wife"? So did the entire human race get cursed because Adam listened when his wife was upset and moody and he validated her feelings? No, the entire human race was cursed because Adam listened when his wife counseled him to disobey God.

So what does this tell us?

First, it does not tell us not to listen and offer comfort to our wives' feelings. That's our job as husbands. It's in the job description. The Second Greatest commandment would tell us to comfort our wives when they need it even if it were nowhere else in the Bible. Anyone who thinks that the Bible says we are not to comfort our wives should reread Ephesians 5:25-32, Colossians 3:19 and 1 Peter 3:7. It does however tell us that obeying our wives' wishes can be a very bad idea when those wishes go against God's will.

Many would have us believe that when a man encounters a situation where a woman pushes back against polygamy then he should pray about it and let the Holy Spirit convince her. Really? God is calling this man to marry a second wife because He wants another one of His precious daughters to have a loving family but the guy is supposed to put God on hold because the first wife isn't listening to God?

That might make sense to those who believe in predestination but I don't. I believe in free will. She (the first wife) has the option to reject God's will just like everyone else and the Holy Spirit is not going to take away a gift, such as free will, that God gave her.

Are women perfect? Are they better than men that they never just plain refuse to hear what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell them? No, they're not better than men. When it comes to sinning women are just as proficient at it as we are.

When a woman needs a loving family and is willing to be a second wife the first wife is rejecting the Second Greatest Commandment, and effectively rejecting Christ (Matthew 25:40 & 45), when she rejects the second woman. What is the first wife judging the second for? Wanting a loving family? How will that fly in regard to Matthew 7:1-5 when we consider that the reason that the first wife is so jealous is that she doesn't want her loving family jeopardized. Or at least that's what most first wives I've spoken with have claimed. Perhaps she should reread James 2:1-13 where he talks about favoritism and realize that judging a woman for not already having a loving family is just as bad as judging a man for not having fine clothes.

In my opinion, when a man listens to his jealous wife and likewise rejects the second wife then he is committing the same sin that Adam committed. He is putting his wife over God on his list of priorities. No, we are not to stone the first wife for sinning (John 8:7) but we are not to disobey God's commands, which includes the Second Greatest Commandment either.

Many first wives will threaten to leave. That is their option. We don't stone women for the adultery of divorce any more than we stone them for disobeying their husbands or violating the Second Greatest Commandment by rejecting a second wife. Those are God's issues to judge not ours. (Matthew 6:15 and John 8:7) Force within a marriage is a foreign concept to Christ. The only time he ever raised His hand to one of His intended brides was when He didn't want her in His house anymore and she refused to leave. (John 2:15) We as husbands are to follow that example.

So what does all of this say?

It says that we are not to force our wives to obey us but we are not to obey them either when what they want goes against the will of God. That's what got Adam in trouble.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

The part that is the sketchiest to me there is the man who believes to be called by God to be marrying a second wife. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't happen... but I think it's more often claimed than true.

I've received direct commands from the Lord in the form of a still, small voice, and I know that if the same voice that told me to confess my sin also told me to marry again, I'd be terrified not to! I also know that the Lord has spoken to me in that way only twice and neither time did I expect to hear what I was told. Also neither time was I actually expecting to hear from Him. My expectations have proven useless in discerning the will and timing of the Lord.

My real question is: Can we find a biblical imperative to be polygamous, or is it simply a valid option?

I ask because if the imperative is there... then I sort of have to agree with you in just about everything you said there.

But even the very specific Levirate marriage was optional and carried only (what I regard to be) a minor penalty for forgoing.

If there is no general imperative for marrying a second wife, and he has not received a specific directive from the Lord, AND (as you say) he has not made any monogamous vows: It remains simply a totally legitimate biblical option.

If it is only a legitimate option, then 1 Corinthians 10:23 weighs heavily on me: All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Is bringing another woman in always expedient? Does it always edify? I am certain that in some cases it isn't and doesn't.

Like I said before, this presupposes that God has not directly spoken to a man. Obviously if God told us to go up a mountain and sacrifice our firstborn son, well, up the mountain we would go. The same applies if He tells us that Suzy McDoe needs a new last name.

 

[Wesley]

The part that is the sketchiest to me there is the man who believes to be called by God to be marrying a second wife. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't happen... but I think it's more often claimed than true.

While I will agree with the idea that men claim to be called to polygyny when they haven't I have to point out that a woman who challenges that claim, especially without evidence, is in violation of Matthew 7:1-5. She's calling him a liar.

As for biblical imperatives for polygamy...

• In a nation such as ours where men are an endangered species, even though males are plentiful, it is a violation of the Second Greatest Commandment to turn away a sister-in-Christ who wants a loving family. (Matthew 25:40, 45 and Isaiah 4:1)
• If a woman leaves her husband then he is free to marry again. (1 Corinthians 7:15) If he does so and then later his first wife wishes to be reconciled he is required to reconcile with her without sending his second wife away which would be adultery. (1 Corinthians 7:11)
• When the man is called to polygamy by God. (i.e. When God chooses to give him more than one wife which does happen regardless of how common or rare it might be. (2 Samuel 12:8))

I've received direct commands from the Lord in the form of a still, small voice, and I know that if the same voice that told me to confess my sin also told me to marry again, I'd be terrified not to! I also know that the Lord has spoken to me in that way only twice and neither time did I expect to hear what I was told. Also neither time was I actually expecting to hear from Him. My expectations have proven useless in discerning the will and timing of the Lord.

We all hear that voice. Some listen. Some don't.

If there is no general imperative for marrying a second wife, and he has not received a specific directive from the Lord, AND (as you say) he has not made any monogamous vows: It remains simply a totally legitimate biblical option.

Agreed.

Can you show me a valid scripture that gives a first wife the right to exert her will on her husband by stopping him from marrying again? Wouldn't that be a violation of several scriptures including 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 4:1-3?

Even if her husband is evil in his desire to have more than one wife wouldn't Matthew 5:39-42 prevent her from interfering? She could leave if she is neglected or abused (1 Timothy 5:8 and Exodus 21:10-11) but could she leave or try to force her husband to remain monogamous if she not abused or neglected (in God's eyes not hers)? What scripture condones that?

If it is only a legitimate option, then 1 Corinthians 10:23 weighs heavily on me: All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Is bringing another woman in always expedient? Does it always edify? I am certain that in some cases it isn't and doesn't.

Once again, if the husband decides that it is beneficial to the family and the first wife is still receiving food, clothing and marital rights (Exodus 21:10-11) from family resources then what scripture allows the woman to take action against her husband's decision?

Like I said before, this presupposes that God has not directly spoken to a man. Obviously if God told us to go up a mountain and sacrifice our firstborn son, well, up the mountain we would go. The same applies if He tells us that Suzy McDoe needs a new last name.

When a man claims to be called to the ministry do we automatically question that or do we wait and see what comes of it?

When a man claims to be called to missionary service do we automatically accuse him of lying?

Then why would we automatically accuse a man who claims to have been called to polygyny of lying?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

This I can do!

The right to exert her will on her husband is given in a similarly overlooked phrase: 1 COR 7:4 ; The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

The word translated power there translates pretty handily as "legitimate right to exert power over". You are quite right to point out that this power doesn't extend to usurping authority over her husband. Her authority is pretty strictly limited to the very narrow field of her husband's actual body, in sexual matters. I don't think that it is much of a stretch to say that her consent or opposition is relevant when deciding whether or not to take another wife.

---
also
---
GUILTY AS CHARGED. When I hear the words "I feel called to do XY and Z"
I usually translate it as one of the following:
"I would really like to do XY and Z"

"Scripture requires that I do AB and C, but XY and Z would get me out of that if I were called to it"

"I think XY and Z are good things, and I can't think of anything else to do at the moment"

"I think XY and Z might be the path of least resistance out of my current situation"

So for me, it is first nature to question these things. The more convenient or appealing a man's stated calling is, the more likely I am to question his bona fides.
You know?

"The Lord has called me to take on the austere duty of a second wife. That girl in the second pew... no the one over... oh yeah... that's the one. I feel the anointing upon me even now. Ladies, your appointed minister has arrived"

That's the exact feeling I get.

Now, I don't doubt that the Lord could, would and does provide wives, even second and third ones, at times of His choosing. Proverbs 18:22 says that a man who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord. I also believe He is a masterful gift giver. If my first wife is going to feel nauseated and betrayed by the the token of the Lord's favor, and cause my very soul within me to sink at the sight of her distress, what kind of favor is that? Would it be too much to hope that the Lord might first prepare the heart of my current wife before springing a second on us?

"Happy Birthday, Kiddo! Here's your 2013 Lamborghini Superleggera!"

"... thanks Grand dad. You know I can't afford the insurance on this right?"

"Insurance nothing, my boy! Think of how you'll be repaying me first before taking it out on the street!"

Nothing says I love you like crippling debt.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Let me stir the waters just a little, I doubt any men are "called" to a second wife except possibly in the matter of the levirate marriage. The rest of the time we choose it and its a legitimate choice but I think we try to hide behind this calling thing sometimes to give us cover.

 

[Wesley]

This I can do!

The right to exert her will on her husband is given in a similarly overlooked phrase: 1 COR 7:4 ; The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

We will have to agree to disagree about the issue of 1 Corinthians 7:4. My personal view is that no two passages of scripture can contradict one another. (Matthew 12:25, Mark 3:25 and Luke 11:17) If two passages of scripture seem to conflict then we are misunderstanding one or both scriptures.

Interpreting 1 Corinthians 7:4 as giving power to the wife over the husband conflicts with...

• 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which forbids any woman to have power over any man which would include a wife having power over a husband.
• Genesis 3:16 in that the husband is the ruler of the household.
• 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 which declare the husband to be the head of the wife.
• The comparisons between the marriage covenant and the Christ/church covenant in that we have no authority over Christ therefore a wife cannot have authority over her husband. The Vatican does not get to say that Christ cannot also marry the Baptist Theological Seminary (even though they pretty much hate each other) thus a wife does not get to say that husband cannot take another bride either.

Interpreting 1 Corinthians 7:4 as giving the wife the right to expect to be taken care of, including sexually, goes along with...

• Most importantly 1 Corinthians 7:5 which makes leaving a marriage partner unsatisfied an issue of putting a stumbling block in front of the person. (see also Matthew 18:6 and Romans 14:13) This explains the context of the passage.
• Exodus 21:10-11 in that a woman can leave if she is abused or neglected.
• 1 Timothy 5:8 in that a husband who neglects his wife has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
• The Second Greatest commandment in that neglecting the wife is not loving her as yourself.

====
As for the rest I think you may have missed the point.

Why is being called to provide a safe home for God's precious daughters more suspect than any other calling?

 

[Wesley]

Let me stir the waters just a little, I doubt any men are "called" to a second wife except possibly in the matter of the levirate marriage. The rest of the time we choose it and its a legitimate choice but I think we try to hide behind this calling thing sometimes to give us cover.

While I will not deny that false prophets, false teachers and false patriarchs exist I still have a problem with the idea of declaring any of the three to be false without evidence that supports the accusation.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I'm content to disagree on 1 Cor 7:4. I think your take on the context of the verse is correct. I ascribe more meaning to the phrase "power over the body", but I could be off base as well.

But as to why that particular calling is more suspect, I should clarify (though I may be splitting hairs) that it is the claim of having that calling which I greet with suspicion. Mox nix maybe.

I believe it is because women are the weaker vessel, and the parts that seem to have less honor are treated with abundant honor.

A man says he has been sent to preach the Gospel, and what harm if he does it for personal gain? Paul didn't hardly even care.

A man says he has been sent to feed the poor, fine, let him feed the poor. Even if he does it inefficiently the poor are getting more food than before.

A man says God is calling him to risk life and limb to go to Africa to treat sick war orphans. Why not? He risks his own life and his own limbs.

Most callings that require self-sacrifice are not greeted by much suspicion. Our nature usually runs contrary to that. Arguing that marriage requires self sacrifice is likely to get a cold reception from a guy like me. My 'sacrifices' are hardly worth comparing to my wife's many uses and value. I profited from the deal like some kind of genius pirate. I pilfered the best thing her family was able to produce within living memory and didn't even pay a bride-price. I carried her off without conscience and to this day the wench swabs the decks, runs the galley, manages the treasure, and meets me nightly in the captain's quarters. Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of Rum!

That ran away with me. But you see where I'm coming from. When I hear someone claim to have a calling to provide a safe home for multiple of her kind... I hear "I believe it is my sacred duty to provide a safe home for the best jewels to be found in all the land, and I believe that home is a chest under my bed."

Well, I'll bet ye think that, me bucko! Give the lubbers what for and I'll meet ye in Tortuga! But I think that we are more properly privateers, not pirates, conducting warfare on behalf of the King that employs us. The 'callings' of our little venture are more likely aimed towards destroying and hindering the enemy, not

grabbing...

the..

BOOTY.

I have to stop now. I am no longer taking myself seriously.

 

[ylop]

A man says God is calling him to risk life and limb to go to Africa to treat sick war orphans. Why not? He risks his own life and his own limbs.

Most callings that require self-sacrifice are not greeted by much suspicion. Our nature usually runs contrary to that. Arguing that marriage requires self sacrifice is likely to get a cold reception from a guy like me.

Me too.

Great post Slumberfreeze.

PS Actually somehow it stirs up a memory of how both Joseph Smith and Mohammed used to get special revelations about additional wives.

 

[Wesley]

I'm not even going to touch the pirate stuff. I'm more into Star Wars so scorch it and let's play some Sabaac.

I'm content to disagree on 1 Cor 7:4. I think your take on the context of the verse is correct. I ascribe more meaning to the phrase "power over the body", but I could be off base as well.

Either one of us could be wrong. We have to go with the best understanding we have and trust Christ to forgive us for our mistakes because we will both make them. There are no if's, and's, but's or maybe's about that. Only one human ever born was perfect and He ascended into Heaven about 2000 years ago. The rest of us make mistakes.

But as to why that particular calling is more suspect, I should clarify (though I may be splitting hairs) that it is the claim of having that calling which I greet with suspicion. Mox nix maybe.

I believe it is because women are the weaker vessel, and the parts that seem to have less honor are treated with abundant honor.

On this point we actually agree although we may disagree about the details of how the weaker vessel is accorded the special honor. In my understanding a woman submits to her father (Colossians 3:20) until she marries (Genesis 2:24), then she submits to her husband (1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Peter 3:1-6) and teaches other women to do the same. (Titus 2:3-5)

It is thus the father's responsibility to accord her the special honor before she is married and the husband's after.

Note: The word "submit" is a verb not a noun. It is something a woman does rather than something that is done to her.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I just wanted to say I have enjoyed this thread, and the thought provoking perspectives of all.

Thanks!

 

[Wesley]

I just wanted to say I have enjoyed this thread, and the thought provoking perspectives of all.

Thanks!

Thank you for the compliment, or at least my part of it since it was directed at all participants.

 

[FollowingHim]

On 1 Corinthians 7:4, I have to agree with Wesley that the authority given to the wife is strongly limited by the context. If it were not, this would contradict many passages already cited that very clearly state the husband is in authority over the wife.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

This is very clearly talking about sex. I'd paraphrase it as:

The husband should be intimate with his wife, and the wife with her husband. For the wife does not have the authority to keep her body to herself, but the husband has a right to it. Likewise the husband does not have the authority to keep his body to himself, but the wife has a right to it. Do not deprive one another...

But if the wife has the authority to define what the husband may do with his body, outside of that context, he is no longer her head. If she can command him to not marry a second wife, she can also command him to use his body to scrub the floor and build her a new sewing-room. It's a slippery slope that completely undermines everything else the Bible teaches about the authority structure of marriage.

At which I must also stress, as Wesley did, that submission is something a wife chooses to do, not something she is forced to do. Just as I choose whether or not to obey God, He doesn't chase me with lightening bolts making me obey Him.


But on the issue of a "calling" to polygamy, I am as suspicious of this as anyone else. I don't doubt that some may be called in this way. But from the outside, how do we know they are telling the truth? We cannot tell the difference between someone truly commanded by God to do it (probably rare), and someone using an imagined "calling" as an excuse to follow their own desires (probably more common).

Anyone who feels called to polygamy cannot expect others to believe they are called to it.

However, anyone who is genuinely called to polygamy, knowing it's a true calling because God really did say it in undeniable terms, should have the fortitude to push through and follow that calling even if everyone around them doesn't believe them. Because people think we're nuts about so many other things anyway, why not that too? Most Christians think we're mad having new children at fairly regular 18-month intervals. Doesn't change what we do about it.

Other Christians who accept polygamy are here to keep an eye on each other, offer support where support is required and rebuke where rebuke is required. The reason someone is pursuing polygamy doesn't really come into that at all, that's between them and God. We can still offer the same accountability to each other. We can certainly accept those who feel called to polygamy provided they're acting in a Christ-like manner towards the women they claim called to take under their protection. At the same time we can rebuke those who appear to be simply collecting them as pirate booty, prioritising themselves above their women, regardless of whether they claim God told them to or not.

 

[Wesley]

On 1 Corinthians 7:4, I have to agree with Wesley that the authority given to the wife is strongly limited by the context. If it were not, this would contradict many passages already cited that very clearly state the husband is in authority over the wife.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

This is very clearly talking about sex. I'd paraphrase it as:

The husband should be intimate with his wife, and the wife with her husband. For the wife does not have the authority to keep her body to herself, but the husband has a right to it. Likewise the husband does not have the authority to keep his body to himself, but the wife has a right to it. Do not deprive one another...

(I'm curious as to what translation you're using.)

I agree that the passage is stating that neither partner has the right to withhold sex from the other. I'm not sure whether the obligation comes from the marital promises or from divine command. I've heard both sides argued effectively. I tend to lean toward the divine command theory because of the notation about protecting one another from temptation. If we consider in that respect then it goes along with the Second Greatest Commandment and 1 Timothy 5:8.

But on the issue of a "calling" to polygamy, I am as suspicious of this as anyone else. I don't doubt that some may be called in this way. But from the outside, how do we know they are telling the truth? We cannot tell the difference between someone truly commanded by God to do it (probably rare), and someone using an imagined "calling" as an excuse to follow their own desires (probably more common).

Anyone who feels called to polygamy cannot expect others to believe they are called to it.

This is where we disagree. To be blunt...

4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?

The husband is Christ's servant not ours. (1 Corinthians 11:3) How do we justify standing in judgment over his intentions?

If we limited the concept only to suspicion then I wouldn't see an issue because suspicion/skepticism gives the person the benefit of the doubt until the issue is proven one way or the other. The problem is that most people go well beyond just suspicion when dealing with such issues. This is a slippery slope that causes people to slide from suspicion to judgment very quickly.

The reason someone is pursuing polygamy doesn't really come into that at all, that's between them and God.

This is the straight up truth of the matter. It really doesn't matter whether a man is pursuing polygamy because he feels called by God, because he wants a non-sinful outlet for his lust (1 Corinthians 7:9), or for some other reason. We are not allowed to judge a man's motives. (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37, Romans 14:1, 4 & 14)

What does the man's motive change in the situation? Does 1 Timothy 4:1-3 contain an exception that says that prohibiting marriage isn't the doctrine of demons if we don't like the man's motives? Is prohibiting a man from marrying a second wife not prohibiting marriage?

However, anyone who is genuinely called to polygamy, knowing it's a true calling because God really did say it in undeniable terms, should have the fortitude to push through and follow that calling even if everyone around them doesn't believe them.

Once again this is the straight up truth. A man who is legitimately called to polygamy, and has accepted the calling rather than fighting it, is going to push through to the goal regardless of whether we approve or not.

Acts 5:33-39 NIV
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

There is real wisdom in Gamaliel's words and it is wisdom that we should heed with regard to men who claim to be called to polygamy.

At the same time we can rebuke those who appear to be simply collecting them as pirate booty, prioritising themselves above their women, regardless of whether they claim God told them to or not.

Once again you have hit the nail on the head. A woman can leave a man who abuses or neglects her. (Exodus 21:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and 15, and 1 Timothy 5:8) This is where we should focus our efforts rather than trying to judge a man's motives. A man who is legitimately answering a calling from God may make mistakes, or fail to heed all of the details of his calling, but he won't deliberately mistreat any woman he is courting or married to in any way.

 

[NetWatchR]

Thank you, guys. For all of this. It's really helped me. I'm one of those who feel called, or led, towards polygyny, but yet I doubt even myself. This tells me I may be headed in that direction but not ready yet.

Anyway, I've really liked the discussion here and love the way that we can discuss our differing views. Already in the last month or so I've seen were the discussion of contrary interpretations have led to new insights.

BTW I don't ever recalling having heard Acts 5:33 before today. I like it. Gonna go read some more about it.

 

[yoderfamily]

Isn't there a difference between being called by God as in an audible voice versus coming to peace over a subject. I think I have often misused that term.

You can come to peace with the understanding given but that doesn't mean you are called to walk where others are walking.

I am all for walking and talking with God. I have heard that still small voice and there has been a time of actual dialogue. But mostly he answers with the peace that passes all understanding.

But what about the times I convinced myself I was walking in that peace only to get shock therapy later That too has happened which makes me very cautious in accepting someone's word that they were CALLED. But I won't try to discourage them unless its a path that I have walked or they are bearing rotten fruit.

And yes I like to read all the controversy too as it sharpens my iron.

Aaron

 

[Wesley]

But I won't try to discourage them unless its a path that I have walked or they are bearing rotten fruit.

Aaron,
Do you believe that you could walk in Michael Jordan's shoes and score 76 points in one game against one of the best basketball teams in the nation?

If the answer is 'no' then perhaps you should reconsider discouraging someone simply because you couldn't walk the same path effectively. Just because you can't walk that path doesn't mean that they can't. To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 12 and eye will not be expected to do the same things as a foot.

As for the "rotten fruit" issue you're preaching the words of Christ. That is how Christ tells us to recognize people that we should not be around.

 

[yoderfamily]

Let me rephrase Wesley

I would share the path I walked and what I experienced while on the journey and my conclusions based on that. Then pray that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.
Aaron

 

[Wesley]

Let me rephrase Wesley

I would share the path I walked and what I experienced while on the journey and my conclusions based on that. Then pray that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.
Aaron

I will attempt to rephrase as well.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing so long as it is done in the spirit of sharing. Iron does sharpen iron after all. Sometimes it even strikes sparks when doing so. When we get into a spirit of suspicion it can be really hard to avoid that suspicion turning into condescension or judgment though.

Matthew 7:13-14 NIV
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

• When we water down the teachings of Christ, such as claiming that homosexuality isn't sinful, we stray to the left of the narrow path that Christ spoke of. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
• When we engage in legalism, such as declaring polygamy to be sinful, we stray to the right of the narrow path. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

Either way leads to destruction however.

The path to Christ is narrow but it isn't a tightrope. When we try to make it a tightrope we start straying. One example for instance could be by saying that a particular person isn't hearing a real calling BEFORE we see the fruit that the person is bearing. At that point then we start straying into legalism which is to the right of the path to salvation and leads to destruction.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I realize that this is a little off topic but the truth is that we are all called to polygamy. We are called to be fruitful and multiply. We are told that wives and children are a blessing. We are told that he who finds a wife finds a good thing. There is no more calling. There aren't men who are called to polygamy and those who are not, at least not many of them. If we can make it work great, but the hand wringing about God's timing and callings has to stop. You are called. But due to your own choices and own circumstances you might not be chosen.
Most of us couldn't pull it off anyway. I'm too poor. Others may have other impediments but even if it were accepted and there were no obstacles I probably couldn't find a second wife I'd be willing to marry. She'd have too many better options. Also, most of us have unlawfully divorced in God's eyes so in that case we would be barred from anymore wives.
So to recap, yes God has called men to be as fruitful and multiply as much as we can. Polygamy is the obvious best wat to do that. Like any good Father though he expects you to do most of the work. And like any good father he is interested in your intentions and your effort, and only tangentially in your results.
Sorry about that rant. Somebody said something innocuous that triggered a pet peeve. Obviously the controlling the others body thing is about not denying sex.