Polygamy

[Groundzero]

I really don't get why I keep reading about adultery. If polygyny was adultery in the NT, then it must be the same in the OT, but that is NOT what we see. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He doesn't change his opinion or his rules.

And just because Paul speaks of a man being married to his wife, does NOT prove that adultery is wrong. It merely reinforces monogamy. It neither reinforces nor contradicts polygyny.

 

[JosyWales]

Hello again, Dragonfly. Thanks for the comments. I hope I can present a good defense of my thinking.

Hi Josy,
In regard to God destroying the people and their idolatry, Jeremiah describes in detail how it was fulfilled.

You are correct, but you only get half the story.

The Babylonian Captivity, aka the Great Captivity, was the fulfillment of several prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the times that Ezekiel, Daniel, Jerimiah, Zecheriah and others experienced.

These prophecies are:

Isa 23:17 And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

Jer 25:11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, [and] an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Jer 25:12 ¶ And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, [that] I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations

This leads into the last of these prophecies concerning the 70 years to this statement by God:

Jer 29:10 ¶ For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

Jer 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

Jer 29:12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

Notice that last part where it says “ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. “ This happened in perfection in Daniel 9 where it states:

Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Dan 9:3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

Now, as you see, Daniel is not only stating that what he is enduring is the fulfillment of the 70 year prophecy previously stated, but God answers him in a very interesting way:

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

I am not sure you get what has just happened here, but allow me to point out something that seems to be constantly overlooked.

God has just changed the prophecy from a current 70 year one to a future 70 week one. In other words, God is telling Daniel that the current 70 year tribulation he enduring is a template or pattern for a similar one that will last 70 weeks in the future. This is why I look with distain on people who have twisted this prophecy into a false interpretation of the 70 weeks being 490 years, because doing so guts the meaning and parallels of the 70 year pattern that this whole thing was built on.

In other words, the 70 weeks of Daniel are true weeks, and not to be reinterpreted as anything else. I have provided proof of this in my post here: http://www.christian...ion-and-daniel/

What I am trying to say here is that you are correct in assuming that the 70 year prophecy of Isaiah and Jeremiah were fulfilled at the time of the Babylonian Conquest, but you are incorrect in assuming that the prophecy of Daniel was also fulfilled, because it was not. Daniels prophecy of the 70 weeks was to take place far in the future as God told him here:

Dan 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing [was] true, but the time appointed [was] long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision

Dan 10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision [is] for [many] days.

This means that what I am showing you is yet to come and not an event that has already happened.

The same phrase 'upon whom my name is called' is used frequently by God when referring to Israel, and in Isa 4:1 is better translated: 'Let Thy name be called upon us'. There is symbolism in both 'seven' and 'women', who are desiring to be under a new name. I do agree it appears to speak of marriage, but I don't think it's anything to do with polygamy; rather its about the completion of God's relationship with Israel. The whole idea of a new name goes with the New Covenant.

I am sorry, but it quite clear to me that is a literal event concerning real people and not something to try to churn into some symbolic affair. These are real people as the text plainly states.

It is Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, who both divides and unites. Heb 4:12, 13, Eph 2:13, 14, 16, 17, 18.

Again you do err in this statement as per the Bible. Jesus Himself plainly says:

Mat 10:34 ¶ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Mat 10:36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household

Now, do not think I am disputing that Jesus is the Prince of Peace. The reason He states this is per this passage in the Bible:

Psa 18:25 With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;

Psa 18:26 With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself forward

Which relates to this:

Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell!

And before you tell me this only refers to the Jews of Jesus’ time, allow me to point out that Jesus also said:

Luk 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

Luk 23:29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed [are] the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

Luk 23:30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

Luk 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

The green tree was the Jewish people of Jesus’ own time, the dry tree is us now, this generation, a generation that is so perverse that it will make the Jews who were responsible for Jesus’ death seem like sweethearts by comparison.

I've never thought of 'Beauty' as the Lord Jesus Christ, but I can see that's a reasonable interpretation with the benefit of hindsight.

It is the Staff of Beauty that Zechariah says is Jesus, not just beauty itself. In other words, it is a tool in God’s hands that He considers to be the most beautiful of all His creations. The Staff of Bands is a similar tool that God considers very strong. Since the 30 pieces of silver is associated with both the Staff of Bands in Zech 11 and with Jesus in that Judas sold Him out for this price, the match is certain.

The Staff of Beauty and the Staff of Bands are two separate things, each fulfilling a different purpose according to scripture. In breaking the Staff of Beauty, God was able to break the first covenant he had made with the sons of Abraham, thus allowing the gift of God to be given to all people. In breaking the Staff of Bands, an event that has not occurred yet, God will divide all men, thus bringing about His kingdom through the event known to us as the Apocalypse, an unfortunate but necessary event caused by the nature of men. I am convenced that the Staff of Bands is Michael from all the scripture I find, most notably in Daniel and Revelation.

By that stage, God was just finalizing what had already happened - that Israel had worshipped idols, been invaded and overcome by an enemy who had put his own people in the land as well as carrying Israelites captive back to its own land. It's the perfect picture of what happens when people worship idols instead of God. God has to establish the boundary/separateness between His people and all others.

Once again here you show that you do not realize the difference between the 70 year prophecies and the 70 week future prophesies. The events you are speaking of have truly happened, However, the events for which they are a pattern for have not.

'The Branch' is definitely Jesus Christ!

I don’t think so. As you see from this prophecy:

Zec 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

The Branch is presented before Joshua, which is the Old Testament name of Jesus. This is being done to show us the future presentation of Michael (the Branch) to Jesus upon His return and Michaels reward for fighting Satan and the Beast on the Earth during the Apocalypse as per:

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Also I know of NO passage in the Bible where Seven Women married Jesus. Just the opposite actually, since Jesus took no bride at the time and has a wedding in the future at the end of the Apocalypse.

You're in the NT now. What did you want me to notice about it?

I guess this was just a poke at all the folks who think the Apocalypse is either already over or that they will fly up into the sky to escape it. If you are one of those who think these events are already over and done, then please look again at what I have written above.

Btw, I am sorry I can't seem to get the quotes to edit right.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Groundzero,

I really don't get why I keep reading about adultery.

It is most likely there are things you don't understand about marriage, and, the kind of love on which marriage is founded.

And just because Paul speaks of a man being married to his wife, does NOT prove that adultery is wrong.

I'm assuming you did mean to write 'adultery' there. What you seem to be saying is, you think adultery is okay, and God is mistaken for having made it a stoning offence under the Mosaic law.

Have I understood you correctly?

(Sub-question: do you understand that God knows how His creation is supposed to function perfectly as an image of Himself - His purity and holiness, His goodness and truth, His self-sacrificial love and justice, His equity, His character, His life and power?)

If I have (understood you correctly), (and I can understand why you're confused), then the issue is not whether polygamy ought to allowed under the New Covenant, but whether you are prepared to submit your heart and mind to God's word as Jesus indicated in Matt 7:24.

My impression from this statement

It merely reinforces monogamy. It neither reinforces nor contradicts polygyny.

is that you don't realise how much pluralism has been pumped into you through the education system. And therefore, because education systems
are birthed from the unregenerate minds of men who have no interest in God's mind or ways, you have some unlearning to do. (We all do. It's called 'the renewing of the mind', and 'putting on the new man'.)

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abideth for ever.

If polygyny was adultery in the NT, then it must be the same in the OT,

This kind of logic is what keeps people locked in all kinds of error and legalism. God can add new information whenever He wants.

Think about it - God had not forgotten what He'd said to Eve in Gen 3, and He had a reason for wanting a purified people: He wanted a bride for His Son. God didn't reveal His heart all at once, and being God, that is His preroguative - as is to recind a permission if He chooses.

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he has abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

but that is NOT what we see. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He doesn't change his opinion or his rules.

God is the same: this is true. But what God has revealed of His heart and mind, has been like paying out a rope to us, and we need to keep up with Him. The difference between the Old and the New Covenant is immense, and if ever there was a time for God to re-establish what had been His intention at the beginning when giving Eve to Adam, the transition to the New Covenant was it.

 

[Eltanin]

Hi Eltanin,



If he didn't desire her, he'd be crazy to marry her.



I'm sorry, I just don't buy either of these options.


These men would be better off employing a house-keeper than taking a wife they don't fancy.




Hi JosyWales,

Thank you for the longer post. I think my reply might be a little disappointing, but I'll give it anyway.

Remembering there were no chapter divisions originally, Isa 4:1 really brings to an end Isa 3:8 For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings [are] against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory. 9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide [it] not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves........ 11 Woe unto the wicked! [it shall be] ill [with him]: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. {given...: Heb. done to him} 12 [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. {lead...: or, call thee blessed} {destroy: Heb. swallow up} 13 The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. 14 The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor [is] in your houses. {eaten: or, burnt} 15 What mean ye [that] ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts. 16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: {wanton...: Heb. deceiving with their eyes} {mincing: or, tripping nicely} 17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. {discover: Heb. make naked} 18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon, {cauls: or, networks} 19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, {chains: or, sweet balls} {mufflers: or, spangled ornaments} 20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, {tablets: Heb. houses of the soul} 21 The rings, and nose jewels, 22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. 24 And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty. 25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. {mighty: Heb. might} 26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she [being] desolate shall sit upon the ground. {desolate: or, emptied: Heb. cleansed} 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. {let...: Heb. let thy name be called upon us} {to take...: or, take thou away}

God is going to punish the idolaters and idolatresses, and they are going to be destitute afterwards, if they're still alive.


I do not read this as about marriage, although it may be. It is more to do with a covering:

Isaiah 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. 5 And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory [shall be] a defence. {upon all: or, above all} {defence: Heb. covering} 6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.

Who is it that's going to 'purge the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning'?

These are pictures of the Lord Jesus Christ, or His work, or His Spirit (the Holy Spirit). He is the Tabernacle which gives shadow, He is the stronghold which is a place of refuge, He is the husband who is a shelter from the storm. He is 'the man' in Isa 4:1

I am not selling ideas... you don't have to buy anything... but different cultures hold different ways of thinking...

There are still places where the Old Testament Laws are still practiced to the letter... In those lands it is considered sin to leave a widow alone when there is a brother-in-law to take on the care of her and continue his brother's legacy.

 

[Pelaides]

I really don't get why I keep reading about adultery. If polygyny was adultery in the NT, then it must be the same in the OT, but that is NOT what we see. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He doesn't change his opinion or his rules.

And just because Paul speaks of a man being married to his wife, does NOT prove that adultery is wrong. It merely reinforces monogamy. It neither reinforces nor contradicts polygyny.

I agree with what you are saying,Polygamy is practised in many countries around the world,But in our society its frowned upon.Yet they are legalizing gay marriage(sodomy) go figure?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Eltanin,

There are still places where the Old Testament Laws are still practiced to the letter... In those lands it is considered sin to leave a widow alone when there is a brother-in-law to take on the care of her and continue his brother's legacy.

Your original post was answering my point about adultery closing the door to polygamy. Bringing into the discussion the fact that non-Christians still practise OT law is a bit of a digression from the reality that Jesus Christ's teaching on adultery, removes polygamy as an option.

We may accept that non-Christians practise polygamy, but let's not be under any illusions; the wives in the situation are receiving significantly less than God has for a woman in a Christian marriage, and, a Christian man should have only one wife - to whom he cleaves.



Hi Pelaides,

I agree with what you are saying,Polygamy is practised in many countries around the world,But in our society its frowned upon.Yet they are legalizing gay marriage(sodomy) go figure?

Because of sin, it is impossible that State and national laws will reflect Christ's teachings fully. Nevertheless, Christians are obliged to study Christ's teachings and follow them. A matter as important as one's marriage, is no exception.

The fact that polygamy - the product of unregenerate minds and the lusts of the flesh - continues to be practised, is irrelevant to the practices expected of Christians who are given the Holy Spirit to enable them to overcome all sin.

 

[Pelaides]

Hello dragonfly i respect your opinion,but i dont see it as lust if you marry more than one women,This topic seems to upset many people,But the Bible does not forbid it.In my opinion.

 

[Groundzero]

Hi Groundzero,



It is most likely there are things you don't understand about marriage, and, the kind of love on which marriage is founded.



I'm assuming you did mean to write 'adultery' there. What you seem to be saying is, you think adultery is okay, and God is mistaken for having made it a stoning offence under the Mosaic law.

Have I understood you correctly?

(Sub-question: do you understand that God knows how His creation is supposed to function perfectly as an image of Himself - His purity and holiness, His goodness and truth, His self-sacrificial love and justice, His equity, His character, His life and power?)

If I have (understood you correctly), (and I can understand why you're confused), then the issue is not whether polygamy ought to allowed under the New Covenant, but whether you are prepared to submit your heart and mind to God's word as Jesus indicated in Matt 7:24.

My impression from this statement



is that you don't realise how much pluralism has been pumped into you through the education system. And therefore, because education systems
are birthed from the unregenerate minds of men who have no interest in God's mind or ways, you have some unlearning to do. (We all do. It's called 'the renewing of the mind', and 'putting on the new man'.)

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abideth for ever.



This kind of logic is what keeps people locked in all kinds of error and legalism. God can add new information whenever He wants.

Think about it - God had not forgotten what He'd said to Eve in Gen 3, and He had a reason for wanting a purified people: He wanted a bride for His Son. God didn't reveal His heart all at once, and being God, that is His preroguative - as is to recind a permission if He chooses.

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he has abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:



God is the same: this is true. But what God has revealed of His heart and mind, has been like paying out a rope to us, and we need to keep up with Him. The difference between the Old and the New Covenant is immense, and if ever there was a time for God to re-establish what had been His intention at the beginning when giving Eve to Adam, the transition to the New Covenant was it.

Sorry. I meant to state polygyny there. It was the end of long night.

I'll admit quite readily that I'm not that learned in any Bible principle. But I know the basics more than enough to know that if polygyny was to do with the law, and then it changed to being unacceptable, that seems more than odd, since when Grace came, it actually freed us from the law, and gave us much more scope. (this is in regards to ceremonial laws, etc, not moral laws.) If polygyny was a sin, it would be fitting into a category with fornication, adultery, etc. And like those sins, it would have been addressed. But rather, we see powerful men of God, men who were after God's own heart, practising polygyny with no sign of God disapproving.

In reply to your sub-question, yes I do. And I've got a vague sense that I know where you are going with this. God's will is supreme, and nowhere is polygyny forbidden, or even implied that it's forbidden or that God disagrees with it.

As I stated before, Jesus stating the basic principle of marriage is not a rebuttal of polygyny. It merely reinforces monogamy (which is by far the most common married status). It does NOT cut off polygyny as unacceptable.

New information? Other than the fact that there was a new access point to God through Jesus Christ, the New Covenant did not produce the radical change that you seem to be thinking of. It didn't change the definition of murder in God's eyes, neither adultery, neither stealing, or any other type of sin. Even before the Law of Moses, these moral boundaries were in place, not necessarily written, but they were there nevertheless. If polygyny was a sin like these, God would not be changing his mind. It would have been a sin from the start.

 

[dragonfly]

But the Bible does not forbid it.In my opinion.

Hi Pelaides,

I am not offering my opinion. I'm explaining what scripture teaches to Christians - no matter what the world does.

God made man in His own image originally - male and female - to inform us about Himself through His creation. This is the start-point. Fallen man is not the start-point. Whatever God allowed, permitted, even made provision for in the Mosaic law, is past.

For Christians, polygamy is prohibited, because the last Adam (Jesus) restated marriage back to the original plan.

The word 'lust' means 'desire'. It is fine for a single man to desire a wife, but once he has her, his desire is to be (restricted) to her alone. This is a picture of Christ's undivided love for the Church, for whom He gave up His life.

It is not possible for a man to love two women with all his heart (let alone more than two). If he has one wife whom he loves with all his heart, why would he look elsewhere?

Doesn't Jesus' conversation with the Pharisees in Matthew 19 tell you He understood where they were going with their question? What were they thinking? That a man could spot a new woman he fancied, make up an excuse to divorce quickly, and then take the new wife?

They had never thought it possible to commit adultery against their own wife, with whom they were already one flesh.



Hi Groundzero,

Grace is that Jesus Christ died according to the law, so that believers in Him do not have to die for their own sin. Then, Grace poured out the Spirit of grace to enable them to cease from sin. There is nothing in grace which accommodates sin in a believer's life.

 

[Axehead]

Hi Everyone,

I am going to post the first part of a link I found that deals wisely with many things that you have talked about. Isaiah 4:1 is dealt with, too. This ex-Mormon seems to understand this issue of polygamy very well from a Biblical perspective.

Here are the major points in this outline.

Follow this link to the entire article that many of you will want to save. I have not read anything better on the subject.
http://www.shieldand...olyrequired.htm


Polygamy! What is polygamy? What does the term mean? When did the practice first begin historically? Is it moral? Is it evil? Is it neutral?

Biblical characters and others have practiced polygamy throughout the ages, is it therefore something God has required or desired for us? These questions are answered and in-depth biblical explanations are addressed in this article.

This writer was born and raised in a polygamy group in Utah. As an adult I desired to find an answer to these questions simply because deep in my soul I sensed something was not right with the “principle” of polygamy, even though all the leaders of the group preached that it was God’s will; even though women, including my own mother, taught that polygamy was the only way God would accept people into heaven, and even though some of the seemingly most “trusted” people I knew believed in and/or practiced polygamy, I still couldn’t shake the conviction that there was something dreadfully wrong with the practice.

Most polygamy groups are dogmatic in their belief that God has commanded this principle as a basic part of their religion and necessary in the plan of salvation. Because of that dogma, the Bible and God are used extensively in this article about polygamy. Actually, polygamy is not essentially a religious issue - but the male leadership of polygamy groups use it as a religious requirement simply because doing that makes it easier to entice the women and brainwash the children from birth, to follow their deceptive leading.

DEFINITION

The term “polygamy” is actually a hypocritical term. It is a word used to describe ‘plural marriage’. Since the term marriage represents the union of two people and is a covenant between those two people, there cannot be a proper word to describe something that isn’t. Plural marriage cannot be a marriage because it involves more than two people, therefore it isn’t what the term suggests it is. To make this point even clearer, a biblical covenant was between two parties. In plural marriage, the marriage covenant is not between two parties but between many individuals, therefore it does not correspond with the biblical concept of a legal covenant.

The argument that each woman a man marries is between himself and the woman making two people, does not stand, simply because all of the other wives are to be in agreement with each “marriage” and with the other wives.

When God created mankind, He created first Adam and then Eve... He created only two people, a man and a woman. He brought them together in the first God ordained marriage.... Genesis 2:24 says: "and the two shall become one". This is the original marriage, the one where God gave away the bride.

This is the marriage Jesus talked about in Matthew:
Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The King James Bible uses words which are far outdated from our modern language. The word “twain” means “two”. God joins together two in a marriage - a male and a female. No more, no less. Thousands of years later during His ministry, Jesus confirms this original design and purpose of God as stated in Matthew 19:4-6. Anything outside of, other than, or in addition to that which God has decreed is not from Him and is therefore a violation of His original purpose.

Notice that the man is to cleave to his “wife” not “wives”. Jesus goes on to say that what God has made, man should not “put asunder”. God made a marriage between two people only, between one male and one female. No human being has the right to destroy or change what God has done. And no place in Scripture do we find that God has made any changes or altered His original design.

Surely, if God's original design for marriage had been for one man to have many wives, the first marriage would have reflected that desire and plan. God did not take many ribs from Adam to make him many wives: One rib to create One wife for One man.

Follow this link to read the rest of this article and the remaining 3 chapters:
http://www.shieldand...olyrequired.htm
Origin
Old Testament Polygamy
New Testament Polygamy


This article is also available as a booklet (free to seeking fundamentalists--click here for more details), and as a .PDF file.

 

[Groundzero]

Ok, I read through that article. Here's a quote to sum it up:
[background=rgb(232, 232, 172)]God tolerated the sin of polygamy (even as He still does). Never once did He command it as a doctrine, He loves women and children too deeply for that. God has always been against polygamy, in fact He calls it sexual deviation.[/background]
How many times must I state, that it doesn't matter the dispensation, God doesn't tolerate sin! Apparently, according to the author, it's a sexual deviation. Umm, if this is all so biblical, why am I only reading this person's words instead of Scripture?

Other than that, this author also makes some horrible errors in mixing up David's sin with Baathsheba and polygyny. Poor research, or rather, to one-sided to realise what he's actually writing.
It is wrong to state that polygamy is required of God. But it's also wrong to state that polygamy is a sin.
This author, through and through, did a good job, has done alot of shooting, but he hasn't hit any target.
Time and again, I read this statement: [background=rgb(232, 232, 172)]They are NOT saying its okay to live polygamy.[/background]
So, they're saying something else is not ok (this was in reference to the Law of Moses), but for heavens sake, can we stop beating round the bush and get some solid Scripture that deals directly with polygyny? NO? Oh. Well all that for nothing . . .
This author has done very well in focussing on the negative aspects of polygyny. Now let me bring up some replies. Sure it may be hard. Sure it may be often stuffed up, but if done correctly, polygyny can function just as well as monogamy, it just takes alot more effort. For one, polygyny provides a means of support and protection for women who haven't been able to find a husband. For two, I think that if the two wives or what not, actually got along, the family unit would be alot stronger than just one man and one woman.

Us humans have a knack to see the negatives. And that's all that people see here with polygyny. They point to all the cases of man's abuse and mismanagement, and false doctrine, but conveniently ignore the positive points. I really have had enough of reading so much crap. The case for polygyny being a sin is barely even recognizable. Those who do attempt to prove it, in most of the things I have read, have failed miserably, scewing definitions, mixing up Bible truth, tramping round the bush, and shooting so much ammunition, but very little of it even gets close to the target. And so now, I bow out.

 

[JosyWales]

Well, since I see no responce to my post, I must assume that no one has a decent explaination for Isa 4.

 

[Axehead]

[font=Helvetica Neue']Well, I found another article for you. Here is part of it:[/font]
[font=Helvetica Neue']No known New Testament believer lived in polygamy and a careful look at Scripture indicates directly that, by New Testament times, polygamy was not considered acceptable moral behavior. How so? The standards of morality (like self-control and humility) for bishops, elders, and deacons in the epistles of Timothy and Titus apply not only to church leaders, but to all Christians. Atheists and other Bible critics claim that verses like those cited below imply that polygamy was allowed by the New Testament apostle Paul for ordinary Christians, because he prohibited it only for leaders. If that interpretation were valid, however, then Paul was also saying that generally it would be fine for Christians to be violent, greedy for money, quarrelsome, and have unruly children, which is nonsense. Paul's standards for elders can not conceivably support such a twisted claim. And likewise, the Bible's command against adultery with a neighbor's wife does not permit adultery with a neighbor's husband. That kind of error illustrates a false antithesis like the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, what KGOV.com calls the "false opposite." Just because the text speaks of wives, does not infer that the principle is inapplicable to husbands. Likewise, because Paul prohibits being violent for leaders does not mean that he supports it for followers. For Paul wrote that church leaders:[/font]
[font=Helvetica Neue']must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence... 1 Timothy 3:2-5[/font]
[font=Helvetica Neue']Read more here: http://kgov.com/what...-about-polygamy[/font]

By the way, Groundzero, are you taking care of many wives as a charitable endeavor? I am curious what your first bride's feelings on the matter, were.

 

[Groundzero]

[font=Helvetica Neue']Well, I found another article for you. Here is part of it:[/font]
[font=Helvetica Neue']No known New Testament believer lived in polygamy and a careful look at Scripture indicates directly that, by New Testament times, polygamy was not considered acceptable moral behavior. How so? The standards of morality (like self-control and humility) for bishops, elders, and deacons in the epistles of Timothy and Titus apply not only to church leaders, but to all Christians. Atheists and other Bible critics claim that verses like those cited below imply that polygamy was allowed by the New Testament apostle Paul for ordinary Christians, because he prohibited it only for leaders. If that interpretation were valid, however, then Paul was also saying that generally it would be fine for Christians to be violent, greedy for money, quarrelsome, and have unruly children, which is nonsense. Paul's standards for elders can not conceivably support such a twisted claim. And likewise, the Bible's command against adultery with a neighbor's wife does not permit adultery with a neighbor's husband. That kind of error illustrates a false antithesis like the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, what KGOV.com calls the "false opposite." Just because the text speaks of wives, does not infer that the principle is inapplicable to husbands. Likewise, because Paul prohibits being violent for leaders does not mean that he supports it for followers. For Paul wrote that church leaders:[/font]
[font=Helvetica Neue']must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence... 1 Timothy 3:2-5[/font]
[font=Helvetica Neue']Read more here: http://kgov.com/what...-about-polygamy[/font]

By the way, Groundzero, are you taking care of many wives as a charitable endeavor? I am curious what your first bride's feelings on the matter, were.

Firstly, if we are to go with the theory that Paul WAS indeed referring to polygamy, then only the ministry were restricted from practising it. Thus proving that it was still being practised and had restraints on it.

Secondly, I'm not married, which should be rather obvious if you look at my profile. I myself would probably never practice polygyny, but if God directed me to, I would obey, because at the end of the day, God's will MUST reign supreme in my life. I've had over fifteen close friends leave MERELY because I stick to Scripture and won't tolerate their man-made tradition, and even though I never pushed my views on them, they chose to dissociate me and many other close friends. Such actions don't speak of right. They speak of wrong. It's sort of like my distancing myself with someone because they don't mind wearing a skirt knee-length, or they watch movies, or some other absurdity.

It doesn't matter what people say, it'll never change anything, I stand upon the Scripture alone, not man's traditions, cultures, or personal opinions. I only wish to speak where the Scripture speaks, and where the Scripture is silent, I MUST remain silent.

 

[Axehead]

Firstly, if we are to go with the theory that Paul WAS indeed referring to polygamy, then only the ministry were restricted from practising it. Thus proving that it was still being practised and had restraints on it.

Secondly, I'm not married, which should be rather obvious if you look at my profile. I myself would probably never practice polygyny, but if God directed me to, I would obey, because at the end of the day, God's will MUST reign supreme in my life. I've had over fifteen close friends leave MERELY because I stick to Scripture and won't tolerate their man-made tradition, and even though I never pushed my views on them, they chose to dissociate me and many other close friends. Such actions don't speak of right. They speak of wrong. It's sort of like my distancing myself with someone because they don't mind wearing a skirt knee-length, or they watch movies, or some other absurdity.

It doesn't matter what people say, it'll never change anything, I stand upon the Scripture alone, not man's traditions, cultures, or personal opinions. I only wish to speak where the Scripture speaks, and where the Scripture is silent, I MUST remain silent.

Don't forget there is also the voice of the Holy Spirit. Christians have the Scriptures and the witness (voice) of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit that gives life to the letter, not vice-versa.

"The purpose of all Scripture is to bear witness to Christ (John 5:39; 20:31). The Bible in itself is not the Word of God. The Word of God is a person (John 1:1). Neither does the Bible have life, power or light in itself any more than did the Jewish Torach. These attributes may be ascribed to the Bible only by virtue of its relationship to Him who is Word, Life, Power and Light. Life is not in the book, as the Pharisees supposed, but only in the Man of the book (John 5:39) (Brinsmead, Robert D., "A Freedom from Biblicism" in The Christian Verdict, Essay 14, 1984. Fallbrook: Verdict Publications. Pg. 12).


"Church history has amply demonstrated that... The written record became absolutized. The prophetic spirit was quenched. The Christian Scripture became a rigid Christian Torah, a rule book for everything Christians must believe and teach. The gospel became a new law. Faith was confounded with orthodoxy, which was really theological legalism. The church ceased to be a charismatic community and became an institution. Instead of the Spirit there were rules. Instead of the priesthood of all believers there was wretched clericalism. Instead of the Spirit and presence of the living Christ there was religious canned goods. Instead of the living gospel there was dead ideology. Instead of freedom there was bondage. Yet, like the Pharisees, we have desperately tried to substitute an incredible devotion to the letter of Holy Scripture for the prophetic Spirit. Instead of having the certainty which the Spirit inspires, we have looked for certainty in endless apologetics and theories of textual inerrancy. (Robert D. Brinsmead, "The Gospel and the Spirit of Biblicism, Part I", The Christian Verdict, Essay 15, 1984. Fallbrook: Verdict Publications. Pg 9).

I would like to know your thoughts on Polygamy after you take your FIRST Bride.

Axehead

 

[JosyWales]

Well, I guess thats the answer.

If you cant explain a passage in the bible, you ignore it. (Isa 4, the whole chapter)

 

[dragonfly]

Hi JosyWales,

Well, since I see no responce to my post, I must assume that no one has a decent explaination for Isa 4.

I have not had time to read the links Axehead provided, so until I've done that, and thought about what they bring to the discussion, I, for one, will not be making any further comment.

 

[Brother James]

Well, I guess thats the answer.

If you cant explain a passage in the bible, you ignore it. (Isa 4, the whole chapter)

Good exegesis requires examining what Isaiah's message was intended to be and to whom it was intended. Not every word of scripture was written to us personally. Isaiah was writing to the people of God, Judah. He was explaining the doom that was coming upon sinful Judah. He was explaining how it was going to be for the Jews. Look at where this passage starts, which is Isaiah 3:16-17:

"The Lord says,
“The women of Zion are haughty,
walking along with outstretched necks,
flirting with their eyes,
strutting along with swaying hips,
with ornaments jingling on their ankles.
Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion;
the Lord will make their scalps bald.”

When Isaiah 4:1 says "in that day", this is the situation he was describing them as being in. Thus the women will be desparate to be attached to any man, even seven women to one man. Why? Because they will be living in disgrace according to their culture. There won't be any men for them. Why? Because God had prepared a great army to carry most of Judah away into captivity. You have to read the entire passage in context to understand why these women were so desperate that they would agree to marry one man. This is not the model for marriage God ordains, it is a description of how pathetic Judah would become because of its terrible sin and idolitry.

 

[JosyWales]

Thanks for at least commenting Brother James.

I have to reiterate tho that this seems to me to be an actual event. Not only that but it seems that this action pleases God. Lastly, it appears that it is directed toward a certain person known as the Branch. This particular fellow is presented in Zech before Joshua, the High Priest, and we all know that Joshua is the OT name of Jesus.

It seems like a prophecy to me.

I probably should not use this as any kind of support for polygamy since it does seem to be a one time event. I cant even say that I am a supporter of polygamy as I must admit that it seems that most of those that practice polygamy today do not do so in righteousness.

However, I have to say, I can sure see the Devil jumping on it when this guy and these seven girls show up and presenting it as being something evil.

I think that would be wrong and a trap to get people to turn against this fellow, much in the same way they got turned against Jesus back in the day.

 

[Brother James]

It is prophecy for the day when Judah was to be carried away into captivity by the Babylonians. There was to be great suffering. It pleased God to punish Judah for its sins because they were in desperate need of correction. If you study that whole issue and the prophesies God gave to the Jews in the decades prior to their captivity it will make this particular passage more understandable. I'm not discussing polygamy here, by the way, but how to best understand Isaiah 3 and 4. But in any case, the degenerate state of Judah prior to the captivity would not be the model God would offer for anyone to emulate. In fact it is describing the model that brought destruction and wrath upon them.