Polygamy

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

ZebraHug said:
And so we go over points I have already covered. I don't claim to understand these verses inside out, but I know more than enough, that to interpret these Scriptures as condemning polygyny, is a gross error. As I've pointed out again and again, how is it that some of God's greatest heroes were polygamous? and were never corrected?
And some more fuel for the fire: Why was provision made for polygamy in the Law???

I really don't know why you bring Lot up. From a historical narrative, you assume what is right and wrong, when Scripture says NOTHING about condemning or condoning their actions. I prefer to stay silent where Scripture is silent and speak where Scripture speaks.

Will you face the issue? In claiming that one must not multiply wives, he AUTOMATICALLY must use the same reasoning on the rest of the verse! Of course, you don't do that, because that wouldn't make sense! God was talking about excess. Not forbidding polygyny.

God dealt with polygyny? ROFL. What did Abraham actually do wrong? Let me explain. Abraham was told that he would have a son, but he tried to rush the process. Polygyny had nothing to do with it.

As for bishops and deacons, all that proves (if we want to go with your line of reasoning) is that it existed in the church, and instead of Paul saying, No, it's wrong. It was restricted. Certain offices couldn't do it. IF THAT IS the REASONING YOU WANT TO USE. There are other explanations which make more sense, but I'm a bit hands-on atm.

Obviously when God said David was a man after his own heart, he got some things wrong . . . . :blink:

Oops. And yes, I was being sarcastic.

Where is your scriptural basis for polygamy? In other posts, I have stated "He did it!" does not mean that it was okay. Especially since scriptures are against it.

When people are in spiritual darkness, God winks at a lot of things. May I remind you of the dark ages? Was no one saved out of that time? There were many people after God's heart. Does this imply that people like the reformers, Luther, Jerome, etc. were perfect? Or were they walking in the light as best as they could? Somehow, you're implying to be after God's heart means to be without fault. That makes no sense.

I have given you the scriptural stance on Polygamy. The most powerul comes from Jesus himself, as he shines a light upon his law. Not only did He show that to look at a woman with lust was adultery, he also showed that to "put away a woman" for anything other than sexual immorality is in fact adultery. How can it be adultery, to marry another woman if you're divorced? It cannot. Jesus very plainly shows that to put a wife away for wrong reasons, is the same EXACT thing as not putting your wife away, and thus you have committed adultery.

You cannot marry another woman, while being married to your wife, without committing adultery. I have given you clear scriptural evidence for that fact. If you have a wife, whether you try to divorce her, or not - and you go and marry another, you commit adultery. Plain. And simple.

You say you're silent where God is silent, yet when God has said something, you still claim silence. Was Jesus wrong, in saying it was adultery to marry another, while you are still married to one? Your reasoning is such that, if you don't see God makes an immediate censure, you assume it's okay. You even just claimed that Lot's daughters getting him drunk, so they can have sex with him, was perfectly okay. Silence where God is silent? If you would search the scriptures, you would hear God speaking loud and clear. What was done in the olden times was not always right. And even Jesus said that.

I honestly don't know what else to say to you. If you will not listen to scriptural evidence of this fact, then there is nothing I can do anymore, nothing I can say anymore.

Justin Mangonel · Dec 3, 2012

Dear R,

I gave you a proof text on it...why did you not acknowledge it?

If you really seek the trut you must accept it when you find it.

Hezekiah · Dec 3, 2012

I believe marriage between a man and a woman will soon be outlawed completely. Same-sex marriages produce zero children. No dead-beat dads.
No alomony. The taxpayers expenses for abortions, condoms, and birth-control pills would be eliminated. Soon there would be no people left to pollute the earth and cause global warming.
I am surprised the liberal Democrats haven't proposed this in the Congress or perhaps they are awaiting President Obama to make it law by executive order.

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

Justin Mangonel said:
Dear R,

I gave you a proof text on it...why did you not acknowledge it?

If you really seek the trut you must accept it when you find it.

Give me your scriptural basis for Polygamy, and please harmonize it with Ephesians 5, everything Christ said about marriage, the allegory between Christ and His Bride, etc.

And please do not use 1 verse to contradict scriptural testimonies. That is unwise. That one verse is in harmony with the rest of the Word of God, it would not contradict it.

Scriptural base please. Then I'll address you.

Justin Mangonel · Dec 3, 2012

Dear R,

I will give you this verse again for your edification,

"And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 8:11

And add,

"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Matthew 22:32

And,

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

2 Samuel 12

Does God give that which is sin? And according to this verse,

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

1 Corrinthians 6:9

And,

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Hebrews 13:4

So R, how come God has not judged Abraham and Jacob for being adulterers since that is how you define polygamy? Is there any scripture where they repented of their polygamy? How come God said that "He gave" Sauls wives into Davids bosom? What is up with that? Did God give the gift of adultery to David? Forget the winking thing because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Allagory and type prove nothing. They are what people see in scripture and cannot form the basis of doctrine. If one verse in the entire Bible diametrically opposes your doctrine then something in your doctrine is wrong. From the first verse I have quoted we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that two polygamist are with God right now in heaven. We also know that beyond a show of a doubt adulterers will not inhert the kingdom of God. Ergo Abraham and Jacob must not be adulterers and polygamy is not adultry and is accepted by God.

I have given you a scriptural basis for God's acceptance of polygamy. At this point you should simply accept what God accepts and, even though you may not personally want to live this way, stop disparaging this form of holy matrimony.

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

Justin Mangonel said:
Dear R,

I will give you this verse again for your edification,

"And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 8:11

And add,

"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Matthew 22:32

And,

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

2 Samuel 12

Do God give tha that which is sin? And according to this verse,

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

1 Corrinthians 6:9

And,

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Hebrews 13:4

So R, how come God has not judged Abraham and Jacob for being adulterers since that is how you define polygamy? How come God said that "He gave" Sauls wives into Davids bosom? What is up with that?

Allagory and type prove nothing. They are what people see in scripture and cannot form the basis of doctrine. If one verse in the entire Bible diametrically opposes your doctrine then something in your doctrine is wrong. From the first verse I have quoted we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that two polygamist are with God right now in heaven. We also know that beyond a show of a doubt adulterers will not inhert the kingdom of God. Ergo Abraham and Jacob must not be adulterers and polygamy is not adultry and is accepted by God.

I have given you a scriptural basis for God's acceptance of polygamy. At this point you should simply accept what God accepts and, even though you may not personally want to live this way, stop disparaging this form of holy matrimony.

"At this point... simply accept... even though... not personally... holy matrimony"

Far from holy, is polygamy.

If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Proverbs 24:12 KJV)

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30 KJV)

If they knew it not, they could not be judged for it, Justin. Would you really expect God to judge you, in areas you are absolutely ignorant in?

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. (John 15:22 KJV)

If God had not spoken to David, Abraham, etc, they did not have sin. The verses which you presented about God judging adulterers is mute, by the word's of Jesus himself. If God did not mention the polygamy to Abraham, and David, they did not have sin. They have a cloke, as Acts and Proverbs says, they did not know. So, they are free to go, according to the Word of God.

Does God give people that which is sin?

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (Romans 1:26-31 KJV)

Here we see God "gave them" over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient, all these things being sin. God gave them a reprobate mind, so that they could sin? No, of course not. They chose this themselves, as they did not want to retain God in their knowledge. No matter His love, they pushed still further and further into sin. Therefore, he gave up, and they retained a reprobate mind, so that they could continually sin.

And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said. And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go. (Exodus 7:3, 13, 14 KJV)

Here God, hardened Pharoh's heart, so that Israel could escape. Does this mean, God wanted Pharoh to have a hardened heart? Did God actually "give him" a hardened heart? The Love which God showed for Israel, He shows for everyone else. However, this love is what hardened Pharoh's heart. Pharoh hardened his heart against God. God did nothing wicked, he gave him love, and for that He hardened Pharoh's heart.

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. (1 John 5:10 KJV)

Does God make people sin? Does God make people become liars? No. But by His truth, and plainness of speech, people are then liars.

After all that, now here's the question. Did God give David sin? Absolutely not.

He stated that He gave David everything, all of Saul's wives, Saul's house, all of Israel and Judah. He is not saying, "I gave you these wives, so you can marry all of them, and be a polygamist", the same way he's not saying "I gave them a reprobate mind so they can sin" or "I hardened his heart so I can destroy him" or "I am making them liars, so that they sin". God is just saying, "I gave you everything. And I could have given you more! Why hast thou sinned against me?" He is not saying, "I gave you his wives, so you can marry them all, and be a polygamist".

It's like giving someone an inheritance. Did you give them that inheritance, so they could blow it on slot machines, Triple X movies, etc.? No. So, not only did David get the "inheritance", but he also went for more, slaying a man, and taking another wife to himself.

Justin Mangonel · Dec 3, 2012

So R,

Are you really comparing God giving David Saul's wives to Pharoah and Sodomy? To me that is ludicris.

What do you think "into your bosom? means. To me it means intimacy for does a man take anothe woman "into his bosom" if they are just friends?

Your pretermined position seems to not allow you to see the scriptures for what they say. I have given proof yet you retort with scriptures that do not even speak to the issue. This is what I have been talking about here on these posts. People make up their mind and nothing will change their viewpoint even though they profess to let the scriptures speak for themselves. I suppose I just have to accept this as an axiom of Christianity.

Blessings,

Justin

Groundzero · Dec 3, 2012

Raeneske said:
Where is your scriptural basis for polygamy? In other posts, I have stated "He did it!" does not mean that it was okay. Especially since scriptures are against it.

When people are in spiritual darkness, God winks at a lot of things. May I remind you of the dark ages? Was no one saved out of that time? There were many people after God's heart. Does this imply that people like the reformers, Luther, Jerome, etc. were perfect? Or were they walking in the light as best as they could? Somehow, you're implying to be after God's heart means to be without fault. That makes no sense.

I have given you the scriptural stance on Polygamy. The most powerul comes from Jesus himself, as he shines a light upon his law. Not only did He show that to look at a woman with lust was adultery, he also showed that to "put away a woman" for anything other than sexual immorality is in fact adultery. How can it be adultery, to marry another woman if you're divorced? It cannot. Jesus very plainly shows that to put a wife away for wrong reasons, is the same EXACT thing as not putting your wife away, and thus you have committed adultery.

You cannot marry another woman, while being married to your wife, without committing adultery. I have given you clear scriptural evidence for that fact. If you have a wife, whether you try to divorce her, or not - and you go and marry another, you commit adultery. Plain. And simple.

You say you're silent where God is silent, yet when God has said something, you still claim silence. Was Jesus wrong, in saying it was adultery to marry another, while you are still married to one? Your reasoning is such that, if you don't see God makes an immediate censure, you assume it's okay. You even just claimed that Lot's daughters getting him drunk, so they can have sex with him, was perfectly okay. Silence where God is silent? If you would search the scriptures, you would hear God speaking loud and clear. What was done in the olden times was not always right. And even Jesus said that.

I honestly don't know what else to say to you. If you will not listen to scriptural evidence of this fact, then there is nothing I can do anymore, nothing I can say anymore.

I would think that the fact that polygyny is never directly mentioned, should immediately raise questions about whether it's wrong. Since if it was, it would have been called as such, and not lumped with adultery.

If you want to go into allegories, how about Israel and Judah being likened to two wives???

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Jer 3:9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery

Well, your God seems to wink quite alot.

2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

If polygyny is equal to adultery, then God's judgement is certainly selective! Either that, or adultery IS different to polygyny. Go figure.
How many times must it be said, that God doesn't change? If in the OT, God made provision for polygyny, then he STILL does.

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

ZebraHug said:
I would think that the fact that polygyny is never directly mentioned, should immediately raise questions about whether it's wrong. Since if it was, it would have been called as such, and not lumped with adultery.

If you want to go into allegories, how about Israel and Judah being likened to two wives???

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Jer 3:9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery

Well, your God seems to wink quite alot.

2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

If polygyny is equal to adultery, then God's judgement is certainly selective! Either that, or adultery IS different to polygyny. Go figure.
How many times must it be said, that God doesn't change? If in the OT, God made provision for polygyny, then he STILL does.

All that needed to be said, has been said.

Selene · Dec 3, 2012

ZebraHug said:
I would think that the fact that polygyny is never directly mentioned, should immediately raise questions about whether it's wrong. Since if it was, it would have been called as such, and not lumped with adultery.

If you want to go into allegories, how about Israel and Judah being likened to two wives???

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Jer 3:9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery

Well, your God seems to wink quite alot.

2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

If polygyny is equal to adultery, then God's judgement is certainly selective! Either that, or adultery IS different to polygyny. Go figure.
How many times must it be said, that God doesn't change? If in the OT, God made provision for polygyny, then he STILL does.

God never made any provisions for polygamy. Since the beginning, He only chose one wife for Adam. That was the definition of marriage from God. Man is the only one want who wants to expand on that definition.

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

Justin Mangonel said:
So R,

Are you really comparing God giving David Saul's wives to Pharoah and Sodomy? To me that is ludicris.

What do you think "into your bosom? means. To me it means intimacy for does a man take anothe woman "into his bosom" if they are just friends?

Your pretermined position seems to not allow you to see the scriptures for what they say. I have given proof yet you retort with scriptures that do not even speak to the issue. This is what I have been talking about here on these posts. People make up their mind and nothing will change their viewpoint even though they profess to let the scriptures speak for themselves. I suppose I just have to accept this as an axiom of Christianity.

Blessings,

Justin

I gave you examples where anyone could say God "gave" people evil.

Into thy bosom has different meanings. 1 Kings 17:19, Exodus 4:6-7, and let's not forget "Abraham's Bosom".

Justin Mangonel · Dec 3, 2012

1. God did make provisions for polygamy...look up wives in the Old Testament.

2. Ok, I can see that R made a point about how God gave Pharoah and the sodomites mentioned in Romans over to evil. Just how does that apply to the men of God that are renouned from the Old Testament? Are you saying that God has also given Abraham, Jacob, and David over to evil because they engaged in polygamy?

3. I don't thing you have adiquately addressed the plain meaning of the scriptures that I have given you. Is that perhaps because it goes against your doctrine? Why do you fight against something that is obviously allowed by God? To me this is a matter of scriptural integrity. What motivates you? how would it affect you, say, if polygamy was decriminalized int the United States as a result of the gay marriage proponents?

4. You have not answered my logic about how God has polygamists in heaven and no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. Please address this point that I have raised and tell me,

a.. Are Abraham and Jacob with God at present, if yes then
b. Do you define polygamy as adultry. If yes then
c. Will adulterers see the kingdome of God. If no then,
d. Do you agree that polygamy is not adultery

Point being that even though I have laid it out this clearly I anticipate that some will not admit that polygamy is not adultry and most likely will not admit that God accepts men who practice polygamy. The question is why do otherwise reasonable christians not simply admit the obvious? Is it becasue their doctrine takes precidence over the word of God? That is perhaps one explaination. Another may be because people fear sexual sin because that type of sin is in them...therefore the thought of such freedom may make them uncomfortable? Perhaps people want these types of rules because it may make them feel safe from themselves. I am just trying to undestand why people are so against something that God is not against. Perhaps we will never know but what we do know, from abundent scripture, is that God accepts men with multiple wives and also that it is not adultery.

Raeneske · Dec 3, 2012

Justin Mangonel said:
1. God did make provisions for polygamy...look up wives in the Old Testament.

2. Ok, I can see that R made a point about how God gave Pharoah and the sodomites mentioned in Romans over to evil. Just how does that apply to the men of God that are renouned from the Old Testament? Are you saying that God has also given Abraham, Jacob, and David over to evil because they engaged in polygamy?

3. I don't thing you have adiquately addressed the plain meaning of the scriptures that I have given you. Is that perhaps because it goes against your doctrine? Why do you fight against something that is obviously allowed by God? To me this is a matter of scriptural integrity. What motivates you? how would it affect you, say, if polygamy was decriminalized int the United States as a result of the gay marriage proponents?

4. You have not answered my logic about how God has polygamists in heaven and no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. Please address this point that I have raised and tell me,

a.. Are Abraham and Jacob with God at present, if yes then
b. Do you define polygamy as adultry. If yes then
c. Will adulterers see the kingdome of God. If no then,
d. Do you agree that polygamy is not adultery

Point being that even though I have laid it out this clearly I anticipate that some will not admit that polygamy is not adultry and most likely will not admit that God accepts men who practice polygamy. The question is why do otherwise reasonable christians not simply admit the obvious? Is it becasue their doctrine takes precidence over the word of God? That is perhaps one explaination. Another may be because people fear sexual sin because that type of sin is in them...therefore the thought of such freedom may make them uncomfortable? Perhaps people want these types of rules because it may make them feel safe from themselves. I am just trying to undestand why people are so against something that God is not against. Perhaps we will never know but what we do know, from abundent scripture, is that God accepts men with multiple wives and also that it is not adultery.

Here is what I found:

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. (Deuteronomy 21:15-17 KJV)

This is not what I would say provision for many wives. First, it states if a man has two wives - then continues on from there. It's sort of like saying, if you have sex out of wedlock, yet you have born a son, you as a Christian parent bear the responsibility of taking care of that child - and that child is your firstborn, whether you like it or not, whether you actually like the mother or not. It's like that, it's a statute of the Lord telling you how to deal with these things. Like if there was an unsolved murder. God didn't make provision for murder! But He told you how to deal with that type of situation.

If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord ; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord , unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord . (Deuteronomy 21:1-9 KJV)

So as you see, He is not making provision, but telling Israel how to deal with, and how to handle these situations.

For #2, What i'm saying is, God didn't give them evil. He never did in either of those circumstances. So, God isn't saying He gave David the multiple wives of Saul, so he could marry them and have sex with them all. He is saying He gave David them, but not for polygamy.

For#3, Matthew 8:11 and Matthew 22:32, there is nothing to address there. It states that they shall be in heaven, and I'm not denying that. They will be. However, I think I am the only one seeing this - These verses are not stating these men were absolutely perfect. These verses never said nothing they did was ever questionable. This is what I think is the problem. Anything that these people did, if it did not appear to have a censure, people assume it's alright. Hence, why I mentioned Lot's daughters. Someone please explain to me how it's perfectly okay to get a parent drunk, so you can have sex with them.

As for 1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 13:4 - I addressed those. If they were unaware that it was sin, they are not judged for it. It's that simple.

I don't believe God allowed this. That's why I fight. I'm aware he winked at ignorance, i'm aware He does A LOT of winking. Please show me the perfect human being, save Jesus, that knows every single boundary for sin correctly. If you die, and you don't know, how can you be judged for it?

Know the story of Rahab the harlot?

And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: (Joshua 2:4 KJV)

Fact of the matter is, Rahab the harlot, lied. Does this mean it's okay to lie?

For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Revelation 22:15 KJV)

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8 KJV)

This clearly shows all liars shall take part in the Lake of Fire. But Rahab the harlot was blessed. Does this mean, it's okay to lie now? Does this mean, she won't be in heaven? No!

Rahab was ignorant of the fact that she could not lie. I mean seriously, she was a harlot... But her faith in the Creator is what blessed her. God accepted her sincerity. She was ignorant, she was not judged for it.

The men of God, as shown by 2 Kings 22:1-13 were ignorant of polygamy being unacceptable to God.

How can you commit adultery, if you put your wife away, and marry another? Explain to me how that is adultery.

I have answered your question about polygamists. How can you be judged if you didn't know? Was not Rahab the harlot blessed, though she lied? Does God selectively bless liars, but burns others? NO! Plain and simple - If You're ignorant, you're not judged for it. Period.

I can only speak for myself - I defend what the Word of God says, because it's my job as a Christian. The Spirit in us wars against such suggestions, like when someone claims, and tries to say we don't have to keep any of the Commandments of God. Yeah, it may be a little personal. But that's because I cannot fathom how on earth you could love your neighbour, even your wife as yourself, and go ahead and sleep with, and marry other people.

Pelaides · Dec 4, 2012

-- It says first that that man would leave his mother and that woman leave her home.
According to you, every hit-and-run sexual encounter counts as marraige. It does not.

The verse clearly states you become one in flesh.A one night stand (hit and run)sexual encounter,can land you many nights in hell.

Justin Mangonel · Dec 4, 2012

Dear R,

Obviously, you and I are on two different pages when it comes to interpretng scripture. I am a literalist whereas you seem to take much more liberty with the written word of God. I think there can be no meeting of the minds on this issue between us but I appreciate your imput and the effort it took you to share it.

Blessings,

Justin

Groundzero · Dec 4, 2012

Raeneske said:
Here is what I found:

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. (Deuteronomy 21:15-17 KJV)

This is not what I would say provision for many wives. First, it states if a man has two wives - then continues on from there. It's sort of like saying, if you have sex out of wedlock, yet you have born a son, you as a Christian parent bear the responsibility of taking care of that child - and that child is your firstborn, whether you like it or not, whether you actually like the mother or not. It's like that, it's a statute of the Lord telling you how to deal with these things. Like if there was an unsolved murder. God didn't make provision for murder! But He told you how to deal with that type of situation.

If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord ; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord , unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord . (Deuteronomy 21:1-9 KJV)

So as you see, He is not making provision, but telling Israel how to deal with, and how to handle these situations.

For #2, What i'm saying is, God didn't give them evil. He never did in either of those circumstances. So, God isn't saying He gave David the multiple wives of Saul, so he could marry them and have sex with them all. He is saying He gave David them, but not for polygamy.

For#3, Matthew 8:11 and Matthew 22:32, there is nothing to address there. It states that they shall be in heaven, and I'm not denying that. They will be. However, I think I am the only one seeing this - These verses are not stating these men were absolutely perfect. These verses never said nothing they did was ever questionable. This is what I think is the problem. Anything that these people did, if it did not appear to have a censure, people assume it's alright. Hence, why I mentioned Lot's daughters. Someone please explain to me how it's perfectly okay to get a parent drunk, so you can have sex with them.

As for 1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 13:4 - I addressed those. If they were unaware that it was sin, they are not judged for it. It's that simple.

I don't believe God allowed this. That's why I fight. I'm aware he winked at ignorance, i'm aware He does A LOT of winking. Please show me the perfect human being, save Jesus, that knows every single boundary for sin correctly. If you die, and you don't know, how can you be judged for it?

Know the story of Rahab the harlot?

And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: (Joshua 2:4 KJV)

Fact of the matter is, Rahab the harlot, lied. Does this mean it's okay to lie?

For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Revelation 22:15 KJV)

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8 KJV)

This clearly shows all liars shall take part in the Lake of Fire. But Rahab the harlot was blessed. Does this mean, it's okay to lie now? Does this mean, she won't be in heaven? No!

Rahab was ignorant of the fact that she could not lie. I mean seriously, she was a harlot... But her faith in the Creator is what blessed her. God accepted her sincerity. She was ignorant, she was not judged for it.

The men of God, as shown by 2 Kings 22:1-13 were ignorant of polygamy being unacceptable to God.

How can you commit adultery, if you put your wife away, and marry another? Explain to me how that is adultery.

I have answered your question about polygamists. How can you be judged if you didn't know? Was not Rahab the harlot blessed, though she lied? Does God selectively bless liars, but burns others? NO! Plain and simple - If You're ignorant, you're not judged for it. Period.

I can only speak for myself - I defend what the Word of God says, because it's my job as a Christian. The Spirit in us wars against such suggestions, like when someone claims, and tries to say we don't have to keep any of the Commandments of God. Yeah, it may be a little personal. But that's because I cannot fathom how on earth you could love your neighbour, even your wife as yourself, and go ahead and sleep with, and marry other people.

Dear R, I would seriously suggest reading the punishments for sexual crimes in Moses' Law before drawing up a scenario like that one you just used to 'explain away' God's protection for those in polygamous relationships and their unique circumstances.
I read that, if a man has sexual relations with a woman, he is obligated to marry her. In this other verse, I read that if a man has TWO wives (as a basic principle for those who have more than one), he is NOT to show favouritism. That has NOTHING to do with the Scripture verse considering provision for two wives and their children!
Concerning #2, if God gave David Saul's wives, but they weren't for polygyny, then what were they for???? You know, if God gave the wives to David, then they became David's wives, making him polygynous, whether you like it or not!
Concerning #3, I'm not saying that was ok. As I've stated before, Scripture never tells us much about Lot's daughters, it doesn't condone them nor condemn them. God alone is the judge of the motives of the heart. The battleground is whether polygyny is a sin or not. While the Bible never speaks saying, Yes, you can be polygynous, neither does it say, No, you are not to have more than one wife, in fact, if we look through the Scripture, we see that polygyny was practised by men of God who were far closer to God than most of the Christians who have lived will EVER be.
I would forget about what you personally feel. Because if I followed personal feelings, I would be fighting this too, except that to hold such a position is to lay down laws on men that God never ordained to be made. And I for one wouldn't dare cross such a line.
As for Rahab, what's your answer? Because I know mine. Rahab wasn't one of God's people. She was a heathen woman, who had only heard rumours, yet believed, and did whatever she could to ensure she would be safe. God accepted her, NOT because of her actions, but her faith. I'm sure that he dealt with her at some point about that as well, but to bring Rahab up, will never help your cause, because at that point in time, she had no idea of the oracles of God as compared to David, the man after God's OWN heart.
I would study things first before I preach them. If you studied Rahab, you wouldn't even dream of brining her up. RAhab was not blessed because she lied. She was blessed for her faith.

Of course, in the frame of mind that you have, it doesn't matter how black-and-white something is, because you don't like it. The facts still stand, that God never condemned polygyny, or tolerated it, but blessed it just as he blessed monogamy.

Selene · Dec 4, 2012

God never made any provisions for polygamy, and that is very clear since the beginning when He only made one wife for Adam. He never gave Adam multiple wives. Polygamy negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."In a marriage, each person totally gives each other to their spouse in total undivided love and commitment.. In polygamy, love and commitment are not total, but divided.

In the New Testament, St. Paul was already teaching that a person must be married to one wife.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

The reason all these three verses specifically says "one wife" is because polygamy is recognized to be immoral.

Justin Mangonel · Dec 4, 2012

Dear Z,

You wrote,

"if we look through the Scripture, we see that polygyny was practised by men of God who were far closer to God than most of the Christians who have lived will EVER be."

Well said!

Raeneske · Dec 4, 2012

ZebraHug said:
Dear R, I would seriously suggest reading the punishments for sexual crimes in Moses' Law before drawing up a scenario like that one you just used to 'explain away' God's protection for those in polygamous relationships and their unique circumstances.
I read that, if a man has sexual relations with a woman, he is obligated to marry her. In this other verse, I read that if a man has TWO wives (as a basic principle for those who have more than one), he is NOT to show favouritism. That has NOTHING to do with the Scripture verse considering provision for two wives and their children!
Concerning #2, if God gave David Saul's wives, but they weren't for polygyny, then what were they for???? You know, if God gave the wives to David, then they became David's wives, making him polygynous, whether you like it or not!
Concerning #3, I'm not saying that was ok. As I've stated before, Scripture never tells us much about Lot's daughters, it doesn't condone them nor condemn them. God alone is the judge of the motives of the heart. The battleground is whether polygyny is a sin or not. While the Bible never speaks saying, Yes, you can be polygynous, neither does it say, No, you are not to have more than one wife, in fact, if we look through the Scripture, we see that polygyny was practised by men of God who were far closer to God than most of the Christians who have lived will EVER be.
I would forget about what you personally feel. Because if I followed personal feelings, I would be fighting this too, except that to hold such a position is to lay down laws on men that God never ordained to be made. And I for one wouldn't dare cross such a line.
As for Rahab, what's your answer? Because I know mine. Rahab wasn't one of God's people. She was a heathen woman, who had only heard rumours, yet believed, and did whatever she could to ensure she would be safe. God accepted her, NOT because of her actions, but her faith. I'm sure that he dealt with her at some point about that as well, but to bring Rahab up, will never help your cause, because at that point in time, she had no idea of the oracles of God as compared to David, the man after God's OWN heart.
I would study things first before I preach them. If you studied Rahab, you wouldn't even dream of brining her up. RAhab was not blessed because she lied. She was blessed for her faith.

Of course, in the frame of mind that you have, it doesn't matter how black-and-white something is, because you don't like it. The facts still stand, that God never condemned polygyny, or tolerated it, but blessed it just as he blessed monogamy.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 is not God making provision for having many wives. I have not explained away anything, but showed how God told them how to handle a situation. Much like God has told them how to handle many situations. Was our God making provision for murdering someone outside the camp? (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) Of course not. He said how to deal with that situation "IF" it happened. The verse is setting the situation, and tells you how to deal with that type of situation. The instruction is in regards to the son, being the firstborn. He was not allowing them to pick and choose their firstborn.

God is not saying he gave David a reason to be a polygamist. He is stating that everything of Saul's was given into his hand, and the Lord would have given him more, had he asked. Could David really have dropped onto his knees, and asked for God to send him many more wives? Can a Christian do that? No, God does not sanction it.

On the battleground for polygamy, please explain to me how it is sin to put away your wife, and marry another, rather, please explain to me how it is adultery. And, is it now safe to assume that we can have concubines?

I am personally involved in the Word of God, that is the level of "personal" it may be.

Rahab the harlot was brought up because Justin mentioned that all adulteres shall be judged. I showed that all liars shall be in the lake of fire. Rahab clearly was not blessed for lying, but for her faith. She was a harlot, and ignorant of the divine law. And that is the point I was making there. The ignorance to the law, when your heart is in the right place, is okay. Not everyone has had everything shined within the correct light to some people, and they are only doing their best. They have not yet rejected light given them, but they have lived with the only knowledge they had to the best of their ability.

Groundzero · Dec 4, 2012

Raeneske said:
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 is not God making provision for having many wives. I have not explained away anything, but showed how God told them how to handle a situation. Much like God has told them how to handle many situations. Was our God making provision for murdering someone outside the camp? (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) Of course not. He said how to deal with that situation "IF" it happened. The verse is setting the situation, and tells you how to deal with that type of situation. The instruction is in regards to the son, being the firstborn. He was not allowing them to pick and choose their firstborn.

God is not saying he gave David a reason to be a polygamist. He is stating that everything of Saul's was given into his hand, and the Lord would have given him more, had he asked. Could David really have dropped onto his knees, and asked for God to send him many more wives? Can a Christian do that? No, God does not sanction it.

On the battleground for polygamy, please explain to me how it is sin to put away your wife, and marry another, rather, please explain to me how it is adultery. And, is it now safe to assume that we can have concubines?

I am personally involved in the Word of God, that is the level of "personal" it may be.

Rahab the harlot was brought up because Justin mentioned that all adulteres shall be judged. I showed that all liars shall be in the lake of fire. Rahab clearly was not blessed for lying, but for her faith. She was a harlot, and ignorant of the divine law. And that is the point I was making there. The ignorance to the law, when your heart is in the right place, is okay. Not everyone has had everything shined within the correct light to some people, and they are only doing their best. They have not yet rejected light given them, but they have lived with the only knowledge they had to the best of their ability.

My point with David was quite simple. The wives became David's wives. If polygyny didn't please God, I doubt that he himself would be giving David more wives!

Explain how it's adultery? Well, I would say that Jesus was extending the definition of adultery, just as he did when he explained about the sin in the mind. The emphasis is on putting away.

The point I'm going to make, is that if ANYONE knew the oracles of God by heart, DAVID DID!
Your assumption that polygyny is a sin of ignorance, is completely unsupported, since even in the NT, all you can pull up, are verses relating to divorce.

Selene said:
God never made any provisions for polygamy, and that is very clear since the beginning when He only made one wife for Adam. He never gave Adam multiple wives. Polygamy negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."In a marriage, each person totally gives each other to their spouse in total undivided love and commitment.. In polygamy, love and commitment are not total, but divided.

In the New Testament, St. Paul was already teaching that a person must be married to one wife.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

The reason all these three verses specifically says "one wife" is because polygamy is recognized to be immoral.

A person? Please read more carefully. Paul was referring to specific offices - deacons and bishops to be precise. Now if we're going to accept this at base value, then instantly it tells us that polygyny WAS practised in the church, and was accepted, bar these two positions. Any more questions?

But I'm not finished! lol.
If you look at the greek word for one in these verses, you find that they mean "one or first". I can think of a much better explanation. Paul was saying that if you want to get involved in ministry, you can't be a divorcee, you must still be married to your first wife.

This harmonizes with what we read in Scripture. As I've stated so many times, polygyny is never denounced nor condemned. Go figure.

Polygamy

Is polygamy a sin/wrong?

yes, why

no, why

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Not Afraid To Stand

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Not Afraid To Stand

New Member

New Member

New Member

Not Afraid To Stand

Similar threads