Polygamy?

[Hugh McBryde]

(jamesrage;9898)
"If we look at Genesis and what Jesus said to the Pharisees regarding divorce it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman."
An oft repeated myth. It is made more sure in the minds of it's adherants by it's mere repetition. Jesus speaks only of a marriage that happens to be a monogamy and how at the beginning, marriages were meant to be PERMANENT in this life. Nowhere does he even begin to suggest that they were meant to be monogamous any more than he suggests that all men be named Adam, and all women, Eve. Certainly God intended Adam and Eve to be monogamous but he also intended them to be made of the dust of the earth directly by his hand (Adam) and taken literally from the body of her husband (Eve). None of this is even possible for us today nor was it intended that we originate as Adam did or as Eve did. Thus it is illogical to suggest that an aspect of Adam's existance or an aspect of his marriage are automaticly instructive for us. This is so self evidently true and obvious that it can't be debated honestly. What makes the PERMANENT nature of Adam and Eve's relationship important is the fact that Christ SAYS it's important. Since he doesn't say that about their monogamy we're no more free to assume their monogamy is instructive than we are that Adam's assisted asexual budding is instructive. Genesis 2:
23 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (24)Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
The understandable error here occurs when we mistake "one flesh" as a synonym for monogamy which we also tend to construe as a synonym for marriage, thus "one flesh" = monogamy = marriage. It simply doesn't follow that this is so from God's own words. Later in God's law, God utters the phrase "If a man has two wives.." Regardless of the context God has made something clear. One, that you CAN have two wives, whether it's a good idea or not. Two, as a result of this declaration, and the fact that in the preceeding verses from Genesis, we know that you ARE "one flesh" with your wife or wives (the hebrew word is neither plural nor singular) the synonym myth is shown for what it is. One Flesh becomes a condition set up between two people, but hardly limited to two people at a time. It's quite clear that at least the husband can have several "one flesh" relationships at a given time. Matthew 19:
3 "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?' (4)';Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female,"[a] 5and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? (6)So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate'." (7)'Why then,' they asked, 'did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?' (8)Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning'."
This passage only says originally, in a world without sin, God intended for there to be no divorce, and there wouldn't have been in such a world. You're confusing a circumstance of the illustration with the point that it is to illustrate. I'm sorry, but NOWHERE does Christ point to monogamy as a concern, he points to a man and wife, who happen to be monogamous. That is all.

 

[jamesrage]

(Hugh McBryde;10100)
An oft repeated myth. It is made more sure in the minds of it's adherants by it's mere repetition.
Myth?That is absurd.When Jesus told the Pharisees why divorce is wrong, he explained the reason why.In explaining the reason why, he defined what marriage is as a result.
Jesus speaks only of a marriage that happens to be a monogamy and how at the beginning, marriages were meant to be PERMANENT in this life.
Why would Jesus say something like that to the Pharisees if it had no real meaning?
The understandable error here occurs when we mistake "one flesh" as a synonym for monogamy which we also tend to construe as a synonym for marriage, thus "one flesh" = monogamy = marriage. It simply doesn't follow that this is so from God's own words. Later in God's law, God utters the phrase "If a man has two wives.."
Things in the bible also change.
This passage only says originally, in a world without sin, God intended for there to be no divorce, and there wouldn't have been in such a world. You're confusing a circumstance of the illustration with the point that it is to illustrate. I'm sorry, but NOWHERE does Christ point to monogamy as a concern, he points to a man and wife, who happen to be monogamous. That is all.
Again why would Jesus say this in response to "is it lawful" if it had no real meaning,why not just recite Deuteronomy 24:1?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

(jamesrage;10149)
"Myth?That is absurd.When Jesus told the Pharisees why divorce is wrong, he explained the reason why.In explaining the reason why, he defined what marriage is as a result."
Yes, he defined marriage as taking your female clone that resulted from assisted asexual budding. No? Then you take the "co-INCIDENCE" of Adam and Eve's monogamy to be instructive for purely arbitrary reasons. Namely, that the permanence of Adam and Eve's marriage and it's simoultaneous MONOGAMY mean something for all of us because they occur together. If this is so, might I also point out that they were NAKED, were literally made of the same body, had no earthly parents and so on. UNLESS their nakedness is an ideal which you wish to pursue because they were Adam and Eve, unless you seek to find ways to marry your own female clone, unless you insist that all men be named Adam and all women Eve, you're just picking something you like about their marriage and asserting that we are all to do likewise. I'm sorry, Christ did NOT define marriage in Matthew 19. He mentioned it there because you can't discuss divorce without marriage being part of the discussion. Unmarried people don't divorce. This passage is not set up to say "See here, this is exactly and only what marriage is, if your marriage is not like this is all ways, it's displeasing to God." What instead is said is this: "See, marriage is meant to be permanent, the first couple stayed together and was intended to stay together." Archetypes CANNOT be followed in all ways, so it is necessary for our teacher (Christ) to tell us in what way that Adam and Eve's archetype is instructive.Saying that my response to you is "Absurd" shows your lack of argument. You must resort to assertions, not reasoning, to uphold your position. This is in fact no foundation at all.(jamesrage;10149)
"Why would Jesus say something like that to the Pharisees if it had no real meaning?"
Of course it had meaning, the meaning was simple and follows the context of the passage. The Pharisees asked about DIVORCE. Jesus ANSWERED about divorce. He said that marriage, in the beginning, included no concept of ending while both parties still lived. That's what a divorce is.(jamesrage;10149)
"Things in the bible also change."
I'll go with that for now. Where does this change? Where does marriage become redefined as monogamy? Don't cite Matthew 19 to me again, unless you can buttress your position with more than your declaration that "it is so". You're not God, you don't get to declare a passage means something and retire. Also remember that this clearly means that marriage could very WELL have been originally defined as synonymous with Monogamy and it wouldn't matter at all, since as you say, "Things in the Bible also change". It is CLEAR that the concept of marriage changed to include the notion of Polygyny, so, when did marriage supposedly change back to "monogamy only"? For that matter, when did it alter to include Polygyny, as it clearly did? I'd say it needs a clear line in the sand, such as the forbidding of what we now call incest needed to cease as a practice.(jamesrage;10149)
"Again why would Jesus say this in response to 'is it lawful' if it had no real meaning,why not just recite Deuteronomy 24:1?"
It doesn't matter. Jesus isn't talking about monogamy. He's discussing divorce. The example he cites also happens to be a monogamy.Hugh McBryde

 

[jamesrage]

(Hugh McBryde;10150)
Yes, he defined marriage as taking your female clone that resulted from assisted asexual budding. No? Then you take the "co-INCIDENCE" of Adam and Eve's monogamy to be instructive for purely arbitrary reasons. Namely, that the permanence of Adam and Eve's marriage and it's simoultaneous MONOGAMY mean something for all of us because they occur together. If this is so, might I also point out that they were NAKED, were literally made of the same body, had no earthly parents and so on. UNLESS their nakedness is an ideal which you wish to pursue because they were Adam and Eve, unless you seek to find ways to marry your own female clone, unless you insist that all men be named Adam and all women Eve, you're just picking something you like about their marriage and asserting that we are all to do likewise. I'm sorry, Christ did NOT define marriage in Matthew 19. He mentioned it there because you can't discuss divorce without marriage being part of the discussion. Unmarried people don't divorce. This passage is not set up to say "See here, this is exactly and only what marriage is, if your marriage is not like this is all ways, it's displeasing to God." What instead is said is this: "See, marriage is meant to be permanent, the first couple stayed together and was intended to stay together." Archetypes CANNOT be followed in all ways, so it is necessary for our teacher (Christ) to tell us in what way that Adam and Eve's archetype is instructive.Saying that my response to you is "Absurd" shows your lack of argument. You must resort to assertions, not reasoning, to uphold your position. This is in fact no foundation at all.Of course it had meaning, the meaning was simple and follows the context of the passage. The Pharisees asked about DIVORCE. Jesus ANSWERED about divorce. He said that marriage, in the beginning, included no concept of ending while both parties still lived. That's what a divorce is.I'll go with that for now.
Again if Jesus only wanted to say divorce was okay he would have not needed to reference Genesis 2 23-24,the only scriptures he would have only needed to make reference to are the ones regarding divorce.
Where does this change? Where does marriage become redefined as monogamy? Don't cite Matthew 19 to me again, unless you can buttress your position with more than your declaration that "it is so". You're not God, you don't get to declare a passage means something and retire. Also remember that this clearly means that marriage could very WELL have been originally defined as synonymous with Monogamy and it wouldn't matter at all, since as you say, "Things in the Bible also change". It is CLEAR that the concept of marriage changed to include the notion of Polygyny, so, when did marriage supposedly change back to "monogamy only"? For that matter, when did it alter to include Polygyny, as it clearly did? I'd say it needs a clear line in the sand, such as the forbidding of what we now call incest needed to cease as a practice.It doesn't matter. Jesus isn't talking about monogamy. He's discussing divorce. The example he cites also happens to be a monogamy.Hugh McBryde
It would pointless for Jesus to use a monogamous example as a example regarding divorce if monogamy was meaningless.The reference to Gen. 2:23 is also made in Ephesians except this time is it not referencing divorce.Ephesians 5 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Here is a verse regarding sexual immorality. 1 Corinthians 72Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Yes, he defined marriage as taking your female clone that resulted from assisted asexual budding. No?
If you read Genesis 2 23-24 Adam doesn't seem to be saying this applied only to him and Eve seeing how Adam did not have a mother.Even here Adman describe marriage as a union of one man and one woman he says for this reason shall a man leave his father and mother. Genesis 223And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

[Lionroot]

(jamesrage;10188)
Again if Jesus only wanted to say divorce was okay he would have not needed to reference Genesis 2 23-24,the only scriptures he would have only needed to make reference to are the ones regarding divorce.
Lets look at the question though, because after all it provides context to his answer("Matthew 19:3")
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
So the question is about strictly about divorce, and the acceptable reasons underwhich one may be obtained. ("Matthew 19:4-6)
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
This verse can and does apply to every wife of a man. Certainly one could not use it to say that Abigail was somehow more divorcible than Michal. Thats just simply not the point of this scripture.God Bless,Robert

 

[Hugh McBryde]

(jamesrage;10188)
"Again if Jesus only wanted to say divorce was okay he would have not needed to reference Genesis 2 23-24,the only scriptures he would have only needed to make reference to are the ones regarding divorce."
You still do not say how it is Jesus is mandating monogamy, simply by talking about a marriage that was one. Genesis 2:24 is treacherous ground for you as well, unless you say that somehow it's original meaning was changed.In dealing with Matthew 19 and Genesis 2 I notice that people shuttle back and forth between the two passages invoking one as proof of the other's meaning. However, the meaning of Genesis 2:24 is clearly defined by it's twin authors, God and Moses. Moses is the author of the two books Genesis and Deuternomy. It's GOD's revelation that Moses writes down. In Genesis 2:24 we know that you are "ONE FLESH" with your "ishshah" (the Hebrew word for wives or wife) and in Deuteronomy 21:15, where Moses, quoting God has God uttering the phrase "If a man has two 'ishshah' (wives)." This is not the only example of two or more "ishshah" being mentioned by God or in the Books of Moses, but it's probably the best one. What does this do to the "feedback loop" employed to have Matthew 19 and Genesis 2:24 reinforce each other? Frankly, the loop is broken.Originally, the revelation of God to Moses, his prophet, who is like Christ, says this: YOU ARE "one flesh" with your wife. YOU CAN have more than one. Because you are "one flesh" with each wife of necessity, and since you can have two simoultaneously, you are "one flesh" with more than one woman if you have two or more of them as wife at the same time. Again, something God clearly declares to be possible. Thus James, we break the reinforcing cycle you've set up (along with many others) in these two passages. Thus by refering back to Genesis 2:24, Christ does not refer back to a CONCEPT imbedded in "one flesh" that is synonymous with monogamy, he refers to the fact that all married people ARE one flesh, and the example he uses happens to be a monogamy. Since NOWHERE in scripture does anyone cite monogamy as superior to polygyny and NOWHERE in scripture does it say polygyny is wrong, it's odd that you "find" a meaning in Matthew 19 where none is offered. It's a discussion of DIVORCE, and you have to cite marriage to talk about divorce. You err by saying that when Jesus Christ cites a monogamy, he is INSTITUTING monogamy. Please don't exhaust a good discussion of doctrine by simply returning to your original assertion.Please show me how a "one flesh" relationship equates to monogamy, or how you select some aspects of Adam and Eve's marriage as archetypal, while you don't embrace all of them. Christ no more does this than he endorses asexual budding when he cites Adam and Eve. All he's doing is citing a marriage, declaring that as it was originally designed it was meant to be permanent. James, either he endorses ALL aspects of Adam and Eve's marriage as an archetype, or only the ones he mentions. He mentions only the lifetime permanence of their marriage as being instructive, you are free to go no farther than that.(jamesrage;10188)
"Ephesians 5 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."
No one denies this, however it falls under the same interpretation of scripture that Matthew 19 does. In citing Genesis 2:24 Paul either creates a new meaning, endorses the "newly created" meaning of Matthew 19 or it means what it meant when Jesus and Moses and God all sat down and penned it originally.(jamesrage;10188)
"Here is a verse regarding sexual immorality. 1 Corinthians 72Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
You're probably not aware that Paul uses words for "own" in the case of husband and in the case of wife that are different. When Paul says "own husband", he uses the same word he also uses for "own master". The word he selects for "own wife" is not the same. This is an understandable confusion since the english word embraces both "owning" and "being owned by" as possible meanings. The greek is not ambiguous though, even though the english translation of the greek is. Paul is not saying the same thing is the duty for husband as is the duty for the wife, he is in fact contrasting their duties to one another, and saying they are DIFFERENT.(jamesrage;10188)
"If you read Genesis 2 23-24 Adam doesn't seem to be saying this applied only to him and Eve seeing how Adam did not have a mother.Even here Adam describe(s) marriage as a union of one man and one woman he says for this reason shall a man leave his father and mother."
So, let me get this straight, Orphans can't get married? Widowers who have outlived their parents cannot marry again?I will agree that marriage occurs two people at a time, at least for the sake of this discussion, but why does this automaticly preclude marrying again while married? It is only because you preconceive marriage to be monogamy.Hugh McBryde

 

[betchevy]

Hugh, you really are being outrageous here... you have more than one wife? or you want more than one wife? we get that ... it is clear in the Word that having more than one wife, while not against the Law of the Word, the Word has shown us even the wisest of men became foolish because of their desire to have more than one wife... David and Solomon both had big problems brought on by their unbridled desires to have more than one wife... and the Word speaks of having those in authority of the church to be the husbands of one wife... why would that be? Because in order for a man to be a church leader, he must be able to bridle himself and put the Word first not his lusts...lastly if you live in the US, its against the laws of this country to have more than one wife...and God says clearly that we shoud keep the law of the nation in which we live.. of all the things we discuss here you only particpate in this discussion... that is truly telling.. for you care more about your sex life than the Word...its clear for you don't care about anything else we discuss.. it might behoove you to pay more attention to the whole Word and what God desires you to be rather than defending your flesh..

 

[Hugh McBryde]

[quote name='betchevy;10470]"Hugh' date=' you really are being outrageous here."[/quote']Thanks, I think your hair looks nice.[quote name='betchevy;10470]".. you have more than one wife?"[/quote]How is this relevant? Frankly' date=' I've been accused of not being sincere by those that DON'T think I have two or more wives, and self serving by those who think I do, thus it's not question I plan to answer. The question only centers around it being right or wrong, therefore:[quote name='betchevy;10470']"..or you want more than one wife?"[/quote]My desire for another wife' date=' or lack thereof is also, not relevant.[quote name='betchevy;10470']"we get that ..."[/quote]You got a mouse in your pocket?[quote name='betchevy;10470]"it is clear in the Word that having more than one wife' date=' while not against the Law of the Word' date=' the Word has shown us even the wisest of men became foolish because of their desire to have more than one wife..."[/quote'']Glad to know you have progressed at least to this point, you realize that it's never spoken against as a matter of moral law.[quote name='betchevy;10470]"David and Solomon both had big problems brought on by their unbridled desires to have more than one wife..."[/quote]Bzzzzzzzzzt' date=' WRONGO! David STOLE his neighbor's wife, and then MURDERED his neighbor to cover it up. Those are the specific named wrongs of scripture uttered by God's prophet directly to David. Odd that at the same time God tells David that if he wanted more wives, He (God) would have supplied them, provided of course David stayed away from stealing and murdering to get them.Solomon's sin is the accumulation of UNBELIEVING wives of MARRIAGE ALLIANCE with foreign women. If you read the last chapter of Nehemiah, you discover scripture's analysis of Solomon's sin, which is not the one YOU offer. By the way, this sin, is one of the most cautioned against in scripture. Few laws are repeated as often over time in as many places as the forbidding of marrying "strange" women.[quote name='betchevy;10470']"the Word speaks of having those in authority of the church to be the husbands of one wife... why would that be?"[/quote]You don't know.[quote name='betchevy;10470]"Because in order for a man to be a church leader' date=' he must be able to bridle himself and put the Word first not his lusts."[/quote']Odd' date=' Paul wrote that restriction and assigns having a (one) wife in the first place to unbridled lusts that need to be controlled. Hmmm....[quote name='betchevy;10470']"..lastly if you live in the US' date=' its against the laws of this country to have more than one wife..."[/quote']Not really, but even if it was, you're not addressing the issue, you're trying to table it. All you've said here is that if the law CEASED to "prohibit" it, as you believe it does, it would be suddenly OK.[quote name='betchevy;10470]"God says clearly that we shoud keep the law of the nation in which we live.."[/quote]You can be sure my gravest offenses are that of pushing the speed limit a bit. I drive 75 miles one way to work.[quote name='betchevy;10470]"of all the things we discuss here you only particpate in this discussion..."[/quote]Actually' date=' I made one other post' date=' here: "[url=http://www.christianityboard.com/sons-god-man-t2487.html?p=8995'']Sons Of God Or Man[/url]..."[quote name='betchevy;10470]"you care more about your sex life than the Word.[/quote]Funny' date=' I spend way way way more time in the word than I do having sex. You seem WAY too concerned with my sex life, which I haven't discussed, beyond the sordid little detail that I read God's word MORE.[quote name='betchevy;10470']"its clear for you don't care about anything else we discuss."[/quote]Chevy' date=' let me ask you, did I bring this up? Or did someone else?

"it might behoove you to pay more attention to the whole Word and what God desires you to be rather than defending your flesh."

It's dangerous to do this, but I'm about to. I'm going to guess, straight up, that I have spent more time, and paid more attention to it than you have. This is a safe bet on my part, I've lost it only a few times. I rejoice whenever I discover someone who has spent more time in the word than I have, but sadly, there aren't many. I read scripture between 2-3 times on average EVERY YEAR Chevy, front to back, start to finish, and have done so since 1994. I've read it multiple times in each of these versions I am about to mention. (This means I've read each version I mention, completely, more than one time each.) The KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the ESV. In addition I study the original languages, though I confess I am very poor at them and I read other versions (though not completely) such as the "New English" and the "American Standard" (Catholic English Translation) and I have dabbled slightly with the Vulgate and Septuagint.Hugh McBryde

 

[Jordan]

(Betchevy)
"Hugh, you really are being outrageous here."
(Hugh McBryde)
Thanks, I think your hair looks nice.
That was a disgusting comment. It is a worldly comment.(Betchevy)
"we get that ..."
(Hugh McBryde)
You got a mouse in your pocket?
Again with this. Another worldly comment. I don't think... (actually I know so) ... a child of God who loves Father, Yahshua...so much that they don't want to be played around with such filthy comment. LEAVE HER ALONE. PERIOD!(Betchevy)
"the Word speaks of having those in authority of the church to be the husbands of one wife... why would that be?"
(Hugh McBryde)
You don't know.
Of course she knows...She loves the Word.(Betchevy)
"God says clearly that we shoud keep the law of the nation in which we live.."
(Hugh McBryde)
You can be sure my gravest offenses are that of pushing the speed limit a bit. I drive 75 miles one way to work.
Yes, you are correct Betchevy we are supposed to keep the law in our nation. Hugh, it's best to not speed over the speed limit.Hugh, on a side note: Not every bible says the same thing.Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

(thesuperjag;10485)
"That was a disgusting comment. It is a worldly comment."
It was mildly sarcastic, and said to illustrate that someone calling me "outrageous" as a way of introducing themselves is a bit harsh. So to illustrate it I said "Thank you, I think your hair looks nice". As far as I know betchevy is male and bald, bad guess? It's a way of pointing out that introductions should be less combative. I've no idea what betchevy's hair looks like.(thesuperjag;10485)
"Again with this. Another worldly comment. I don't think... (actually I know so) ... a child of God who loves Father, Yahshua...so much that they don't want to be played around with such filthy comment. LEAVE HER ALONE. PERIOD!"
I did not know to whom "betchevy" referred when Chevy said "We", if Bet had a mouse in his/her pocket, that would make two, thus "we". It's an old way of asking "who do you mean by we? I only see YOU." Shall I assume you to be the aforementioned mouse now?(thesuperjag;10485)
"Of course she knows...She loves the Word."
No, she does not know why Paul admonished elders to be monogamous and Paul does not give a reason, thus neither of us are free to supply our speculations as Paul's reasons.(thesuperjag;10485)
"Yes, you are correct Betchevy we are supposed to keep the law in our nation. Hugh, it's best to not speed over the speed limit."
Did I say it was? I simply said that I violate no laws beyond those. If you've been driving for a while, I'll bet you violate traffic laws (unintentionally) from time to time.(thesuperjag;10485)
"Hugh, on a side note: Not every bible says the same thing."
Which one do you like? I'll quote from that one when speaking to you. Could we, by the way, stick to the topic instead of inflaming our various "outrages"?Hugh McBryde

 

[Bamp;#39;midbar]

(Savate;7804)
I also wonder about certain practices that are not mentioned in scripture, but that we can all agree are "immoral" in God's eyes (such as bestiality or pedophilia)...or are there scripture referring to these as well?
Sorry to jump in so late to answer this, but as far as I can tell, no one mentioned in reply that bestiality is mentioned in the bible.
Leviticus 18:23 'Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
Also, I have a question for Hugh. You mentioned earlier to SwampFox that the polygamy/polygyny/monogomy/etc. issue is important. Why is it important?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

(B'midbar;10494)
"I have a question for Hugh. You mentioned earlier to SwampFox that the polygamy/polygyny/monogomy/etc. issue is important. Why is it important?"
First, we encounter cultures all the time that have Polygynous patterns of marriage that they consider normal. Why would we tell them to behave any differently if there was nothing wrong with it?Second, I am sure you agree that marriage and family life are of critical interest to the church going christian and the church they go to. We are told that marriage and family life illustrate things about our God. If Polygyny was and is a perfectly acceptable and intended form of marriage, isn't our living illustration a bit deficient since we ban a form that God finds every bit as good as monogamy?Third, divorce rates among evangelical Bible Believing Christians are very high. I would expect that as sinners, we would fail and it would occur on occasion even in the best of congregations, but we are now said to divorce at rates that exceed those among atheists. That's terrible.We need to understand marriage better to understand why so many fail. One outgrowth of acceptable polygyny is that women are understandably deprived of ANY reason, as believers, to divorce a believing husband. Not surprisingly, all divorce laws and provisions in scripture are framed in terms of men divorcing women, not the other way around. If a man cannot commit the only sin for which believers may divorce (against their SPOUSE), then he can't be divorced.

 

[arenamistica]

I hope these help to answer your question about polygamy and/or polyandry. These scriptures were taken from the New Testament of the KJV Holy Bible.1Timothy 3:2 - A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1Timothy 5:9 - Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Titus 1:6 - If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. Ephesians 5:33 - Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.1Timothy 3:12 - Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

(arenamistica;10497)
1Timothy 3:2 - A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
I'm not a bishop.(arenamistica;10497)
1Timothy 5:9 - Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
I'm not a woman.(arenamistica;10497)
Titus 1:6 - If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
I am not a deacon or a bishop.(arenamistica;10497)
Ephesians 5:33 - Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
So, love them all.(arenamistica;10497)
1Timothy 3:12 - Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
I'm not a deacon.

 

[Christina]

Biblically the word deacon does not necessarily mean what it does todayif you are head of a family minister to them your believes supply their necessities of life technically you could be called a deacon) to minister i.e. supply food and necessities of life1) to relieve one's necessities (e.g. by collecting alms), to provide take care of, distribute, the things necessary to sustain life2) to take care of the poor and the sick, who administer the office of a deaconnsd) to minister1) to attend to anything, that may serve another's interests2) to minister a thing to one, to serve one or by supplying any thing

 

[Bamp;#39;midbar]

Thanks for the straight answer to my question. I really wasn't sure why it bugged you.(Hugh McBryde;10495)
First, we encounter cultures all the time that have Polygynous patterns of marriage that they consider normal. Why would we tell them to behave any differently if there was nothing wrong with it?
I see your point about the missionary field. In general, one doesn’t want to needlessly put a damper on conversions. Perhaps you mean like, why threaten them with circumcision if it is not needed, or maybe instead, why tell them to keep from strangled meat? Eh, I’m not sure what I think there, what do you think?
We are told that marriage and family life illustrate things about our God.
Can you give a specific example of how you think this difference would change our understanding of God? Are you talking the Trinity, are you talking Hosea stuff, or ?
Third, divorce rates among evangelical Bible Believing Christians are very high
I think that for the divorce rate issue, we need to look at what does work, and then be sure we know why. For example, hypothesize that polygynous marriages tend to not end in divorce. That need not be because of polygyny, but it could be because of other factors that march along in common with polygyny. Like, if most of the people who went to the beach last Tuesday end up with diarrhea, you should not just blithely assume that something was wrong with the water. Perhaps they ate bad ice cream from a passing ice cream truck that day. I know, not the best example, but it is concrete.More to the point, I’ve had statistics thrust upon me about marriages that don’t use contraception (I mean in a Western country) and that they don’t fail much at all. So, why is that? Is it just that the people in question are super-religious sorts, self-selected to be that way? Or is it that they are more likely to understand the meaning of marriage? Or is it that they are the most afraid of hell? I don’t know, but it is worth looking into. Perhaps arranged marriages do better as well. That could be because of underlying assumptions that the two parties have. The bottom of it all is worth digging for, I think.
If a man cannot commit the only sin for which believers may divorce (against their SPOUSE), then he can't be divorced.
I’m not sure I follow you. I assume you mean that adultery is grounds for divorce, but that it would be impossible for a man who has two legal wives to commit adultery against either one, even if he had relations with a third woman who is the wife of another man? You are saying the adultery would only be against that other man, and not against either of the wives?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

(kriss;10505)
"Biblically the word deacon does not necessarily mean what it does today if you are head of a family minister to them your believes supply their necessities of life technically you could be called a deacon..
The UNIVERSAL deaconate of MEN? This is new. Why select men as deacons if we all are? How can you "first be proved" if all are to be Deacons(B'midbar;10515)
"Perhaps you mean like, why threaten them with circumcision if it is not needed, or maybe instead, why tell them to keep from strangled meat? Eh, I’m not sure what I think there, what do you think?"
What I think is simple. If there is nothing wrong with the practice, all we should tell them is that their elders are to be monogamous and their deacons, but there isn't anything more wrong with being polygynous than with being born a woman. Elders cannot be women you know.(B'midbar;10515)
Can you give a specific example of how you think this difference would change our understanding of God? Are you talking the Trinity, are you talking Hosea stuff, or ?
It depicts authority. Scripture teaches that the relationship of mankind to God is like woman to a man. It's a living picture. All throughout the Old Testament things are done so that "when your children ask" you can explain why it is you do a thing. If it is a true doctrine of marriage, Polygyny offers the chance for Children to ask, "Why can't Mommy have two Daddies with her?" and a story ensues.(B'midbar;10515)
I think that for the divorce rate issue, we need to look at what does work, and then be sure we know why. For example, hypothesize that polygynous marriages tend to not end in divorce."
All I will say is that Polygyny does not promote divorce, and that perhaps, if we lived according to Godly designs of marriage, there might be less divorce, partly because we understand marriage better.(B'midbar;10515)
"I assume you mean that adultery is grounds for divorce, but that it would be impossible for a man who has two legal wives to commit adultery against either one, even if he had relations with a third woman who is the wife of another man? You are saying the adultery would only be against that other man, and not against either of the wives?"
The other man, and God, not his wives.Hugh McBryde

 

[Bamp;#39;midbar]

(Hugh McBryde;10518)
What I think is simple. If there is nothing wrong with the practice, all we should tell them is that their elders are to be monogamous and their deacons, but there isn't anything more wrong with being polygynous than with being born a woman. Elders cannot be women you know.
I didn't mention elders. : You missed my point in referencing strangled meat. Most Christians have no moral issues with eating non-Kosher meat (assuming they aren't vegetarian of course), yet for some reason, there it is placed as a burden on the Gentile converts in Acts. Usually you see this explained by Christians as a temporary thing. If you are such a Christian, then I was suggesting that perhaps sometimes one does place extra burdens on converts, for whatever practical reason. That's why I asked what you thought.
If it is a true doctrine of marriage, Polygyny offers the chance for Children to ask, "Why can't Mommy have two Daddies with her?" and a story ensues
I think God does just fine (explaining) with Gomer and all the men she has sex with. The point is quite clear. God had lots of opportunites to make explanations with polygyny anyway, if we grant your point. He had the entire bible.
perhaps, if we lived according to Godly designs of marriage, there might be less divorce, partly because we understand marriage better.
Yes.
The other man, and God, not his wives.
What does the presence of an extra wife do to change the mix? If with two wives a man cannot commit adultery against her no matter what he does, why can he commit adultery against her with only one wife? I just don't get it. If it is only the other man and God that he ever can offend, then he can't offend her no matter how many or how few hers there are. You probably think I'm obtuse. But I really don't get it.

 

[betchevy]

I would detail my study habits but unlike you would rather remain humble before all here... but in the world of bigomists we rarly see humbleness of any kind. The latest news on the polygamy here in the US includes a group of men who force women into marraiges... some from the pubescant ages of 12 recently here in Texas where I live...These men send women out to work and make money to support them and trade them like so much cattle, from one bigomist father to another bigomist son-in-law. The women who have escaped tell horror stories of getting out to save themselves or their daughters from this horror...the rest have been so brainwashed they have become outcasts and assume their lot in life is determained by where they were born in a polygomist family... IF it was legal then why is a bigamist on the top 10 wanted list of our nation, oh, right for trafficing in underaged girls... You are only fooling yourself... me and my mice see you and where you put your treasure... out or the abundance of the heart...so speaks your mouth...and further more my Father see your heart and intent and who you have enslaved for your lust... I may also be assuming or quoting the national news ....David had many wives and concubines but still his lusts drove him to near murder... it seem the more that you have the more you want... and it became sin... yet the great Hugh Mc B is a greater man that he and look what it did to his son Solomon,,, he who loved God so became blinded by the many wives and his desire to please them....he built hundreds of temple to false gods... the wives were the direct cause of this.. or is your study is done with blinded eyes ?If you are guilty, I hope your wives met up with a strong women who will teach them that God loves women who do not become slaves to men....And that they do have the right to divorce them for ANY reason they choose... as long a they do not remarry...oh yes you can divorce for making a marriage unclean, but women do not need men to live a satisfied life...you however SEEM to be so weak you require more than one woman to take care of you.. and your sick needs... Thank you all for your support in calling out this hypocrasy but I fear we are wasting our time... another one for Father take care of...

 

[Christina]

to quote your words:Scripture teaches that the relationship of mankind to God is like woman to a man. It's a living picture

What Does God say about relationships with other gods? Does he say we can worship two or three? Does he say theres going to be a couple brides at the wedding to come?Seems to me you just answered your own question.