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

[rockfox]

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.

Ya it's nothing but a stage show. A service provided to consumers. 1 Cor 14 requires the leaders surrendering control and a body that is active with each other and led by the HS such that He can work His gifts through a multiplicity of them.

I've seen a couple different churches get one part or another of 1 Cor 14 right; but never all of it. And usually the part they do do falls flat and is lifeless because they are spiritually dead. What must it be like! to have a body that inspires this...

But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

Surely not in todays mamby pampy conflict avoidant seeker friendly pro-production church.

 

[andrew]

^^That 1 Cor reference is what we used to refer to as "scary church", which was an aspiration of ours, to be that kind of church. Powerful stuff.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

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.

The larger problem was not the sheer number of wives but rather marring unbelieving wives! Wives of faith would not turn one's heart from God.

 

[cnystrom]

The larger problem was not the sheer number of wives but rather marring unbelieving wives! Wives of faith would not turn one's heart from God.

True. The foriegn wives were a significant problem. On the other hand I do think this particular verse is specifically warning against numbers, much in the way it talks about numbers of horses or amount of gold in the surrounding verses. Bascially the king is not supposed to measure himself in wordly accomplishments, but rather he is to measure himself in terms of character just like his fellow Isrealites.

Example of wrong thinking: "I have X number of horses. I have Y number of wives. I have Z amount of gold. On no! King A has Y+100 wives so I need to get more to enhance my prestige!"

I think the principle is that he could have as many true wives as he wanted, he just was not supposed to collect women.

 

[andrew]

I agree with you that the Deut passage is a warning about numbers, that the king transgresses at his own peril, but I don't think that was the issue.

I don't know which is the 'larger problem', but where I agree with Jim is that it is not recorded that Solomon was ever in trouble for having too many wives, but it is clearly recorded that he got in trouble for having foreign wives.

More specifically, and probably really important, is that he was specifically in trouble for sacrificing to other gods., which his foreign wives led him to do. As God said they would. Which is why we're not supposed to take 'strange'/foreign wives. Because they turn our hearts astray.

Numbers are implicated, just because the more wives you have, the more pressure you'll have in whatever direction they're pressuring you in, but the root cause of the issue with God is identified as the idolatry caused by the turning of the heart caused by the foreign/strange wives.

Bottom line is that Solomon's extravagance with women is not an anti-polygamy argument, it's an anti-disobeying-God's-clear-instructions argument; on that I think we all agree.

 

[JustAGuy]

@Daniel DeLuca - Wow, really appreciate you combined boldness, care, love for your follow church-mates, great study of scripture and story-telling/delivery. I'm praying God continues to help you move things forward. Thanks for sharing here. It takes a village. Best, JAG

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I agree with you that the Deut passage is a warning about numbers, that the king transgresses at his own peril, but I don't think that was the issue.

I don't know which is the 'larger problem', but where I agree with Jim is that it is not recorded that Solomon was ever in trouble for having too many wives, but it is clearly recorded that he got in trouble for having foreign wives.

More specifically, and probably really important, is that he was specifically in trouble for sacrificing to other gods., which his foreign wives led him to do. As God said they would. Which is why we're not supposed to take 'strange'/foreign wives. Because they turn our hearts astray.

Numbers are implicated, just because the more wives you have, the more pressure you'll have in whatever direction they're pressuring you in, but the root cause of the issue with God is identified as the idolatry caused by the turning of the heart caused by the foreign/strange wives.

Bottom line is that Solomon's extravagance with women is not an anti-polygamy argument, it's an anti-disobeying-God's-clear-instructions argument; on that I think we all agree.

I know a few posters on YouTube have expressed a desire to have that many wives, but most of us would be happy with far fewer wives, and of course, none of us want unbelieving wives.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

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....)

When I approach the class leadership, I will use the term "plural marriage", which is a term they are less familiar with. If they knowingly accept a polygamous family, it will only be because they are in agreement with me on this issue (who knows), and they will likely end up in hot water with the church leadership for doing so. If they ask what I mean by "plural marriage", I will refer them to Biblical Families, since that sounds interesting, and again, does not immediately convey that it has anything to do with polygamy.

If you are not comfortable with that approach, I will continue to work the angle that we need to host a live debate. In that way, the church can claim that they are taking the position against polygamy, if challenged by the SBC, while at the same time, the people can decide for themselves which arguments have greater merit. It turned out pretty well in the Dowell vs Roberts debate, albeit that one went off the rails a bit, but we can try to get Kelson to argue our side, and the church can bring in someone like Dr. James White or Dr. Bobby Conway or Dr Albert Mohler to argue for their position.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

@Daniel DeLuca - Wow, really appreciate you combined boldness, care, love for your follow church-mates, great study of scripture and story-telling/delivery. I'm praying God continues to help you move things forward. Thanks for sharing here. It takes a village. Best, JAG

Yeah! I have a feeling it is not over. The leader will have a whole week to look at the arguments for and against polygamy, so I may have to interject quite a bit more this week. My wife stayed home with our little one this past Sunday, which worked out great, since she is staunchly against polygamy, but I don't expect her to stay home this coming Sunday. My biggest concern there, is that she will want to pack her bags.

The leader did not bring up "two" as found in Matt 19:5, and I expect that he will this coming Sunday. I am prepared to come back with "no longer two, but one" found in verse 6. I am sure that he will probably respond that those two, are people, which is not found in the text, and I will respond with the fact that Jesus is describing the process, not the end result, and that this entire passage is about divorce rather than polygamy, and go from there.Also, I already dealt with Mark 10:11-12, so that should take Matt 19:9 off the table, but I may have to go back and revisit that, and remind them of what Jesus stated in Matt 5:32. I suspect I will have to deal with the whole deacon discussion as well. One of the deacons that we recently ordained, is a member of our class, and he doesn't have any children, so that might get interesting.

The cool thing about this forum though, is that I don't have to address silly side issues such as Modalism which I had to deal with in a protracted email exchange I had with a coworker, or Sabbath Worship, which is what happened one time on somebody's YouTube channel. Everybody there agrees that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. Nobody is going to claim that it was written by a bunch of misogynists. The only point of contention, is whether or not we can add on to what Jesus said, because of the culture that we live in today. They know that God's Word is unchanging, but when it comes to an issue like this, they have to grasp for whatever straw they find available.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Something I recently discovered on the one flesh issue comes from the Greek behind the phrase. The two words used to translate one flesh are the words mia and sarx. Sarx is the word for flesh and mia can be used as either one or first. The interesting part of this is that these are not the only words used. There is another word in the Greek that cannot be used in English if you have a monogamy only bias, (as the translators would have had)
this word is the word ‘eis’. In each instance of one flesh it either comes prior or just after the word mia, like so: eis mia sarx, or mia eis sarx. As best I can tell, eis acts like a preposition so the literal meaning of the passage would look more like this

“they two shall be one of flesh” or “they two shall be of one flesh”.

Once you compare it with other passages that have a similar phrase, it becomes much more interesting, such as Matt. 28:1. In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,

The words “toward the first day of the week” comes from the Greek words, “eis mia sabbathon” meaning the first of seven or the first day of the week, not one of seven or one day of the week. The argument cannot be made that mia is the only day of the week, rather that it is one day that just happens to be the first day in a sequence of seven!

In comparison with the Matt. 19 passage on one flesh, both could literally mean and be accurately translated as the beginning of the week in Matt 28 as well as they two shall be the beginning of the family. This is what happens when a man leaves his father and mother and is bound unto his wife and they two (from two families) become the beginning of one family. The process of beginning a family is a singular event that can only happen once. Any other wives that join this new family afterwards do not require him to leave his father and mother and begin a new family. The one flesh belongs to him and is already in existence with the addition of the first wife.

So to recap for those skimming, the phrase can be understood as they two shall be one flesh or family, but it is more accurately portrayed as they two shall be the first of a family or they two shall be the beginning of a family.

Once this is understood, this phrase ceases to be an argument against polygamy.

 

[andrew]

When I approach the class leadership, I will use the term "plural marriage", which is a term they are less familiar with. If they knowingly accept a polygamous family, it will only be because they are in agreement with me on this issue (who knows), and they will likely end up in hot water with the church leadership for doing so. If they ask what I mean by "plural marriage", I will refer them to Biblical Families, since that sounds interesting, and again, does not immediately convey that it has anything to do with polygamy.

If you are not comfortable with that approach, I will continue to work the angle that we need to host a live debate. In that way, the church can claim that they are taking the position against polygamy, if challenged by the SBC, while at the same time, the people can decide for themselves which arguments have greater merit. It turned out pretty well in the Dowell vs Roberts debate, albeit that one went off the rails a bit, but we can try to get Kelson to argue our side, and the church can bring in someone like Dr. James White or Dr. Bobby Conway or Dr Albert Mohler to argue for their position.

Whatever you think works best where you are. Just to be clear, I am not even a little bit interested in a debate, but will cheerfully answer honest questions from people who want to learn something.

 

[andrew]

Something I recently discovered on the one flesh issue comes from the Greek behind the phrase. The two words used to translate one flesh are the words mia and sarx. Sarx is the word for flesh and mia can be used as either one or first. The interesting part of this is that these are not the only words used. There is another word in the Greek that cannot be used in English if you have a monogamy only bias, (as the translators would have had)
this word is the word ‘eis’. In each instance of one flesh it either comes prior or just after the word mia, like so: eis mia sarx, or mia eis sarx. As best I can tell, eis acts like a preposition so the literal meaning of the passage would look more like this

“they two shall be one of flesh” or “they two shall be of one flesh”.

Once you compare it with other passages that have a similar phrase, it becomes much more interesting, such as Matt. 28:1. In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,

The words “toward the first day of the week” comes from the Greek words, “eis mia sabbathon” meaning the first of seven or the first day of the week, not one of seven or one day of the week. The argument cannot be made that mia is the only day of the week, rather that it is one day that just happens to be the first day in a sequence of seven!

In comparison with the Matt. 19 passage on one flesh, both could literally mean and be accurately translated as the beginning of the week in Matt 28 as well as they two shall be the beginning of the family. This is what happens when a man leaves his father and mother and is bound unto his wife and they two (from two families) become the beginning of one family. The process of beginning a family is a singular event that can only happen once. Any other wives that join this new family afterwards do not require him to leave his father and mother and begin a new family. The one flesh belongs to him and is already in existence with the addition of the first wife.

So to recap for those skimming, the phrase can be understood as they two shall be one flesh or family, but it is more accurately portrayed as they two shall be the first of a family or they two shall be the beginning of a family.

Once this is understood, this phrase ceases to be an argument against polygamy.

That's the first new thing I've heard in ten years (as far as polygamy bible arguments go). Very cool....

I'm thinking maybe 1-800- @IshChayil for a closer look at the Greek? Any thoughts, Ish?

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Something I recently discovered on the one flesh issue comes from the Greek behind the phrase. The two words used to translate one flesh are the words mia and sarx. Sarx is the word for flesh and mia can be used as either one or first. The interesting part of this is that these are not the only words used. There is another word in the Greek that cannot be used in English if you have a monogamy only bias, (as the translators would have had)
this word is the word ‘eis’. In each instance of one flesh it either comes prior or just after the word mia, like so: eis mia sarx, or mia eis sarx. As best I can tell, eis acts like a preposition so the literal meaning of the passage would look more like this

“they two shall be one of flesh” or “they two shall be of one flesh”.

Once you compare it with other passages that have a similar phrase, it becomes much more interesting, such as Matt. 28:1. In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,

The words “toward the first day of the week” comes from the Greek words, “eis mia sabbathon” meaning the first of seven or the first day of the week, not one of seven or one day of the week. The argument cannot be made that mia is the only day of the week, rather that it is one day that just happens to be the first day in a sequence of seven!

In comparison with the Matt. 19 passage on one flesh, both could literally mean and be accurately translated as the beginning of the week in Matt 28 as well as they two shall be the beginning of the family. This is what happens when a man leaves his father and mother and is bound unto his wife and they two (from two families) become the beginning of one family. The process of beginning a family is a singular event that can only happen once. Any other wives that join this new family afterwards do not require him to leave his father and mother and begin a new family. The one flesh belongs to him and is already in existence with the addition of the first wife.

So to recap for those skimming, the phrase can be understood as they two shall be one flesh or family, but it is more accurately portrayed as they two shall be the first of a family or they two shall be the beginning of a family.

Once this is understood, this phrase ceases to be an argument against polygamy.

I wouldn't feel comfortable using that as an argument to refute the monogamy only position. We have to remember that the reason Jesus brought this up, was to point out the indissolubility of the marriage. That is why it is a weak argument against polygamy in the first place.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Whatever you think works best where you are. Just to be clear, I am not even a little bit interested in a debate, but will cheerfully answer honest questions from people who want to learn something.

I might be interested myself, albeit there are personal reasons I might not want to bring out my best arguments. There are some people in my church who I happen to like, that are in fact remarried. I have never participated in a debate, but I pretty much held my own in an unstructured format, with one against a room full of antagonists. I don't know that I would want to take on somebody of the caliber that I mentioned. That is why I brought up Brian Kelson, and I suppose I could have included Dr William Luck as a potential protagonist. I would be thrilled to take on someone like YouTuber GMan, though, and after I have had some experience in an actual debate, I might be willing to take on somebody of that caliber.

As long as you are OK with me not being completely upfront about what you are offering, I will go with this approach. I wouldn't expect you to engage in a live debate, unless you had told me in advance that you would like to do so.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I wouldn't feel comfortable using that as an argument to refute the monogamy only position. We have to remember that the reason Jesus brought this up, was to point out the indissolubility of the marriage. That is why it is a weak argument against polygamy in the first place.

I’m not following that at all. Nothing I just posted had anything to do with disolving a marriage.

 

[Keith Martin]

Keith, did you coin this term "condemnation bias"? I love it.
This is going in my toolset.

I can't say that I've ever read it anywhere, so I guess I might have coined 'condemnation bias.' I'll be pleased if you repeat it.

And I am deeply honored by your labeling of part of my writing as poetry. You made my day!

 

[andrew]

As long as you are OK with me not being completely upfront about what you are offering, I will go with this approach.

Maybe I missed something. What would you not be completely upfront about?

 

[JustAGuy]

The leader will have a whole week to look at the arguments for and against polygamy

May I humbly suggest removing all thoughts of it being an argument from your heart (with God's help). Suggest thinking of it as just helping others see just a little bit of how plural families are ok. If they don't totally get it now, it's ok, you've planted a great seed - don't feel like you have to win right now. Jesus will water that seed. They'll come back with more questions 4 months from now. You've accomplished A LOT just opening the door like this. You don't need to pound the nail home - you got it started.... Jesus can tap that nail down with Holy Spirit working in their hearts. Don't push too hard - stand back and watch what God can do...

But there's many others here with more experience here so I defer to them.

Don't win the battle with your Church and lose the war. Go easy man...

 

[mystic]

@Daniel DeLuca, I suspect you will have (or have had) a difficult day today, given what you may have set in motion a week ago.

When I approach the class leadership, I will use ... a term they are less familiar with [and] does not immediately convey that it has anything to do with polygamy. If you are not comfortable with that approach, I will continue to work the angle that...

If you don't respect them enough to be honest about what you are trying to do, you shouldn't be attempting to influence them. And if you have to work an angle, you don't respect them. Frankly I think you're not comfortable about this — which is good because at least you sense the problem and have qualms about dissembling.

"I know a polygamous Christian family who have offered to visit the class so we can ask them questions. May I tell them that we accept their offer?" If you can't say this to the class leadership, then to pursue it is probably unfair toward both the class and that family.

 

[FollowingHim]

Just to third that: I agree you're sounding simultaneously overly antagonistic and overly sneaky in your approach. It's as if polygamy was the most important element in all of Christian theology and something that every single Christian must be persuaded to accept one way or another or else they'll go to hell, so all methods are on the table and the end justifies the means.

This is an atrocious attitude, lacking respect, and unlikely to genuinely convert the people in your bible study group to this understanding.
A man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still.

It's also highly likely to get you booted out, for no good reason. Polygamy is a minor theological detail. It's not even a salvation matter. It's not worth anyone getting worked up over - and that includes us. Yes, it helps to understand scripture better. Yes, it has personal importance for those who are actually polygamous. But still, it's not worth trying to win debates over by any means necessary.

Trying to win such debates actually contributes to the fragmentation of the Church. In reality we almost always agree on the fundamentals of salvation. Nevertheless churches insist on splitting over the details people get emotive about (details of leadership structures, alcohol, dietary laws, feast observance, the nature of God Himself [an issue beyond our full comprehension anyway], best time for baptism, polygamy...). We should be a Body united in doing the work of our Head, but instead we insist on arguing over details and trying to get everyone to see everything our way. It happens at a corporate level, resulting in denominational splits, and at an individual level, resulting in individuals leaving / being booted from fellowship.

And Satan laughs and finds a new issue to prod people to get emotive about, as he continues to try and divide and conquer the Body that is supposed to be united.