Polygamy

ZebraHug said:

Be careful what you wish for.

Eze 23:4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

So I'm curious. Since so many 'Christians' shun you immediately when you breach the topic of polygyny, what would happen if David came and walked our streets? Hosea? Gideon? Would we shun them because they practiced polygyny, some of the greatest men of God?

Click to expand...

David, Hosea, and Gideon lived in those times, when they were suffered to do so. But, it's clear, we are to be married to one person. In the beginning he made them male and female, and they had one husband/wife. And spiritually, Jesus has one wife. David in these times, Hosea, and Gideon, would walk the straight narrow gate laid out for them, if they continued being men of God.

Raeneske said:

David, Hosea, and Gideon lived in those times, when they were suffered to do so. But, it's clear, we are to be married to one person. In the beginning he made them male and female, and they had one husband/wife. And spiritually, Jesus has one wife. David in these times, Hosea, and Gideon, would walk the straight narrow gate laid out for them, if they continued being men of God.

Click to expand...

Well according to what you are saying these men would have been celibate.

Hey guys I found a picture for the man cave, what do you think?

ZebraHug said:

So, you request a verse showing a spiritual analogy of polygyny, I give you one, and you ignore it completely! Seriously????

And then you talk about these great men of God being suffered to do so. Lol. I doubt God has changed at all over the milleniums of humanity. If David were alive today, he would still be a man after God's own heart. Polygyny had NOTHING to do with his righteousness, as neither does monogamy.

Click to expand...

This question a stalemate, and I don't find any value in perusing an issue the Lord has neither approved nor disapproved and I suspect you enjoy such a topic of conversation as a form of entertainment. That latter statement is evident by your desire to lure some into your circular argument. I see you have found another fly to toy with, Have a good day.

Your opening post

ZebraHug said:

Hehe. So, I've finally found a nice little topic: polygamy, what does the Scripture have to say about it? Is polygamy really a sin?

After researching it, I take the negative.

Click to expand...

The value in the topic is to dispel the false doctrine of monogamy only. That has tremendous value.

ZebraHug said:

So, you request a verse showing a spiritual analogy of polygyny, I give you one, and you ignore it completely! Seriously????

And then you talk about these great men of God being suffered to do so. Lol. I doubt God has changed at all over the milleniums of humanity. If David were alive today, he would still be a man after God's own heart. Polygyny had NOTHING to do with his righteousness, as neither does monogamy.

Click to expand...

Lol, my bad. I didn't even notice you were responding to that, nor did I remember I asked that.

This verse does not imply polygamy, but instead uses the two cities, and gives them names, and compares them to harlots. Yes, there was more than one city, but there was never more than one bride. They were His, all 12 tribes were his. There were many tribes, but there was one bride. There are many cities, many peoples, tongues, and nations, but there is one bride. Though different cities, and different names, they are still the same church, following (well they were supposed to anyways) after the Lord.

The Lord does not change, but what people were suffered to do, does. They were suffered to have many wives in the past, just like they were suffered to put away a bill of divorcement, and i'm sure a whole mess of things that we aren't even aware of, or havent brought up. The husband is to be as Christ. Christ does not have many brides, he Has one bride. There are many members to that one bride, many churches, but he does not have many brides. As for the men of God, if they were alive today, and God knew their heart, he would make known to them about polygamy, just like he lets all His children know regarding the truth if they desire it.

ZebraHug said:

Interesting you should say that. Because alot of Christians seem to think God disapproves of polygyny. No, discussing topics is not a form of entertainment. But I do enjoy it in a way. Obviously you do to, otherwise you wouldn't be on this site, in this forum.
What circular argument? The only times I've used a circular argument is when I have someone useing a circular response. />

This discussion has been a refreshing change of topic from what I usually discuss. />



Hmmm. Forgive me for being sceptical, but doesn't it seem odd, that the Law, which covered so MANY different things in such detail, should omit to mention polygyny? Hang on. Sorry. It didn't omit it, it made PROVISION for it. And so we are know going to say that God made provision for sin? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's odd. Yes, God blessed the polygamist, the same way he blessed the murderer to choose his punishment. He allowed David to choose his punishment, though Exodus 21:12-13 says whoever smites a man shall surely be put to death. God was long suffering with the murderer, the same way he is long suffering with the polygamist.

The law made provision for polygamy? Remember how Jesus said they were suffered to write bills of divorcement, but in the beginning it was not so? Did God make "provision" to allow people to unmarry and remarry left and right? He allowed them to because of "the hardness of thier hearts". Polygamy is not the way to go, and it never has been. But, God winketh at times of ignorance, and as Jesus says, They were suffered to do so. In the beginning they were made male and female, and they two became one flesh.

Hi all,

So in a practical, real world sense, how would a pastor deal with a man who had, say five wives? Would they all be allowed to come to church? Would they be allowed to take communion? Would he and his wives be allowed to hold church offices? And if so which ones? If King David showed up would you teat him the same? I am curious how those who are against this practice would deal with it.

As I mentioned on the other page, Paul said, Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord;
Your brand of liberty and freedom, you promote all over this forum has a familiar ring to it. I told you to "do as thou will" on the other page as well "google it"
Well I doubt you did so I posted the well known phrase for you.
It's is the teaching of an unbridled heart "do as thou will" so when the scripture is silent, be careful where you venture to.

do as thou will...............................shall be the whole of the Law............Quote............Aleister Crowley (1875-1947)


here's the google link
http://tim.maroney.o..._Thou_Wilt.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema

Good luck with that

I understand exactly your reference. I thought it was in poor taste so I did not respond to it.

I feel that God will put one man together with one woman, at least as far as sexual relations are concerned. However, I believe there is an exception. It has to do with the protection of a woman and it is an exception that is dependent on culture. Due to the fact that a married man and woman represent Christ and the church, or even the Father and the Spirit, I think the symbolism is important that Christ isn't taking multiple brides, and though the symbolism isn't perfect, the taking of additional wives in the case I mentioned above has been accepted and honored by God. A lot of this has to do with the fact that marriage falls under two different laws. God's ordinance, and our national and cultural laws. If we've married 5 woman before coming to Christ, then there is a great responsibility to take care of each one the way Christ loves the church. Ouch. If any of those 5 were married outside of God's ordinance, the marriage can be broken where it actually never existed, as long as it is legal, otherwise they would have to leave the culture in order to break the marriage.

To understand when polygamy is actually okay, it would help to understand Old Testament tradition and cultures (not necessarily Israel, but other nations at the time) where women have few rights. Say a married man finds a woman who is in danger of her surroundings. The man may take her in as his wife, if there is no better and if it is legally acceptable, in order to protect her and to give her a future.

When it is wrong, is when it is about power, dominance, and sensuality, and when you're hurting the freedom of women rather than protecting their freedom/lives/rights.

mls,

I noticed that if there is one clear statement of God's heart where polygamy exists, it is that if a man wants to lie with a woman, he must marry her. Or, he must treat her like a daughter and honour her privacy and her virginity.

I guess there could be mutually consented abstinence, though polygamous sex after marriage I assume would be the norm in this case. Oh, I get what you're saying, another exception based on if a man has sex with a woman who is not already married. That definitely was important in Old testament Israel law and culture. I see no where in American law where that exception would fit, however. I make a distinction between the two separate ordinances of marriage. Because marriage existed before the law was given, and because the law had its own ordinance for marriage, means there are two standards by which marriage is held or broken. Marriage can exist properly outside Jewish law and regulation just as it existed before that culture was created, and shares a consistency between other cultures. That is why the rightful exception of polygamy might be different depending on the culture and even national laws you're talking about. In America, because of the freedom women have in our culture, I don't see why there would ever be a right standing polygamous marriage in America, especially due to our law. Due to the fact that we're supposed to abide by the laws placed over us, and because marriage is held as a standard by both God and our given laws of nation and culture, we must respect and be sensitive to both. I personally don't think the exception you stated would apply in American culture, and honestly I don't think the one I stated would apply either. If we felt we needed to have a polygamous marriage based on God's law and our conscience, we would need to move to another country where the right is respected, and we're not violating the national laws God has placed over us. That's how I see things.

ZebraHug said:

So, you request a verse showing a spiritual analogy of polygyny, I give you one, and you ignore it completely! Seriously????

And then you talk about these great men of God being suffered to do so. Lol. I doubt God has changed at all over the milleniums of humanity. If David were alive today, he would still be a man after God's own heart. Polygyny had NOTHING to do with his righteousness, as neither does monogamy.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying polygyny instead of polygamy?

Well, I just learned something. I did not know polygyny was a word. Is this why you are using it, ZH?

Polygyny (from neo-Greek πολυγυνίa from πολύ poly "many", and γυνή gyny "woman or wife")[sup][1][/sup] is a mating system involving one male and two or more females, or a form of marriage in which a man has two or more wives at the same time.[sup][2][/sup] In countries where the practice is illegal, the man is referred to as a bigamist or a polygamist. It is distinguished from relationships where a man has a sexual partner outside marriage, such as a concubine, casual sexual partner, paramour, cohabits with a married woman or other culturally but not legally recognized secondary partner. Polygyny is the most common form of polygamy; the much rarer practice of polyandry is the form of marriage in which one woman has two or more husbands at the same time, usually among brothers or males of the same family.[sup][3][/sup]

to Dragonfly-

I don't think I had gotten your point completely when I made my post. However, In a round about way, I think we are using the same core principles to arrive at our conclusions. I was looking for any exceptions as to why polygamy might exist today in a rightful, Biblical way. I think it still could, depending on culture and stated I don't think it would apply to American culture. I thought you were providing another example of exception, where if a man has sex with a woman outside of marriage, he would be obligated in some cultures to marry her, thus providing another exception to polygamy dependent on the culture and national law. I don't know if that was a supplementary point you were making, or if you were just establishing that a polygamist by any exception or rule by rightful standard, can't have sex with another woman until marriage, even if the marriage is polygamous.

Hi martin,

I thought you were providing another example of exception, where if a man has sex with a woman outside of marriage, he would be obligated in some cultures to marry her, thus providing another exception to polygamy dependent on the culture and national law. I don't know if that was a supplementary point you were making, or if you were just establishing that a polygamist by any exception or rule by rightful standard, can't have sex with another woman until marriage, even if the marriage is polygamous.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'an exception to polygamy'. To me, an exception is something that doesn't happen when it should, or, does happen when it shouldn't. All I was keen to establish in regard to polygamy, is that the terms still included no sex outside of marriage - a commitment which provided for both the woman and children.