Polygamy in the Bible

[TK Burk]

Here’s one for all you ‘it’s-not-prohibited-in-the-New-Testament-so-it’s-not-sin’ folk; using the same line of reasoning you’re using for polygamy, please explain how we should view the following Old Testament Laws:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….

Nowhere are these specifically said to be prohibited in the New Testament. Consequently, can (or maybe, should) a person still do them? Are they sinning if they do? What do you say?

[HappyTown]

TK Burk's

I can assure you one menopausal women is enough for me in one house, can't even imaging more then that....Hell has no furries as a hormonal women Night all

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Act 25:8

"While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all."

Rom 13:1-2

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."


Tit 3:1-3

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men."

1Pe 2:13-16

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."

Sorry Dr. Voo, but since Paul was an exceptional Roman citizen he would of never taught good former Gentiles who had converted to Christianity to break Roman Law. Also the former Jews who had converted to Christianity had to respect Roman Law as well and set an example for their Gentile converts. There is absolutely no teaching or allowance in the NT for a man to have plural wives. You also failed to prove why Paul would admonish Elders in the church to set the example of having only ONE wife instead of having multiple wives.

Now, if Paul refused Bishops and Deacons to have plural wives, wouldn't that make his epistles confusing to those who were supposed to follow the examples of these elders?

Your doctrine is shot in the head, and harder to understand than the Trinity.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Bro. Benincasa,

I agree with you, Paul was an exceptional citizen and admonished all Christians to be the same. Paul would never have allowed polygamy because it would have been against Roman Law. However, please note....in would have been against "Roman Law". There's nothing condemning it "morally" in the New Testament. Paul was just admonishing bishops and deacons to obey the laws of the land so that they might have a good testimony to them that are without.

As I mentioned before, I find it interesting that a Pagan Empire like Rome legally mandated monogamous marriage (laws which Paul clearly expects the Christians he wrote to to obey) while God's Law to His nation, His people, Israel allowed for it and even mandated it in given circumstances.

My argument is simply this.....Polygamy isn't a sin because if it is....it always was. And if it always was, God is a sinner for allowing it and even commanding it on some occasions. And any Old Testament man of God who had more than one wife and died married to them without repenting and divorcing all but one died a sinner and is currently in Hell.

You can't have something suddenly "become" a sin when God commanded it at times.

Now...does that mean we should have polygamous marriages today. I wouldn't go that far. Like in Rome, America has laws against it. So Christians, as Paul commanded, should obey those laws. But if a global catastrophe took place tomorrow and the human race was decimated and loose clan systems arose...polygamy might be necessary... and it wouldn't be a "sin".

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Here’s one for all you ‘it’s-not-prohibited-in-the-New-Testament-so-it’s-not-sin’ folk; using the same line of reasoning you’re using for polygamy, please explain how we should view the following Old Testament Laws:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….

Nowhere are these specifically said to be prohibited in the New Testament. Consequently, can (or maybe, should) a person still do them? Are they sinning if they do? What do you say?

I don't see any problems here. Those laws were for Israel, and plus we are not bound by the old law.

In Matthew 22, Jesus, being questioned as to which was the greatest commandment, the lawyer said: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

Jesus answered, "You shall love the Lord you God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Does this suddenly 'prohibit' the old laws? Of course not, we Christians still follow many old testament laws today. If God wanted to change the rules and prohibit polygamy in the NT he would have. Since there is no new command, we definitely should not be imagining one up.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Funny how the scripture twisters cannot combat the math. The scripture says 1+1=2 becoming one.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The scripture is wrested when you start adding to it, like saying that One man leaving mother and father and joining to his one wife to become one flesh, is not saying that he can't keep adding to his wife collection.

EW, Adam and Eve sets the example, and God removed ONE rib, not two, three, or four. Adam sets the example of One head on one body, to show us One God in One Israel. What you are trying to present is twisting the scripture like a rag. You young lads are teaching a totally different Jesus and Gospel.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Bro. Benincasa....I think you're wresting Scripture. Spiritual principles aren't based on "math". Let's return to Scriptural examples and let me ask you....

Was not Abraham one flesh with both Sarah and Hagar?

Yes or no?

Was not Jacob one flesh with Leah, Rachel, and Bilhah?

Yes or no?

Was not Moses one flesh with both Zipporah and the "Ethiopian woman"?

Yes or no?

Was not David one flesh with Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and Bathsheba?

Yes or no?

Was not Jacob both a polygamist and a type of Christ?

Yes or no?

If Jacob was an Old Testament type of Christ...would Christ be properly typified by an unrepentant man of an egregious sin like this if polygamy is indeed a sin?

Yes or no?

God commanded that the Israelites take all the women as plunder...even though many of these soldiers were already married...

Deuteronomy 20:14
"14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

If polygamy is a sin and not God's will...why did God command it? Is God a sinner?

Yes or no?



....and please don't run away and leave this thread without addressing these questions. I want to know how you answer. Especially since you accuse some brethren of "wresting Scripture".

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by joshua33

I don't see any problems here. Those laws were for Israel, and plus we are not bound by the old law.

In Matthew 22, Jesus, being questioned as to which was the greatest commandment, the lawyer said: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

Jesus answered, "You shall love the Lord you God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Does this suddenly 'prohibit' the old laws? Of course not, we Christians still follow many old testament laws today. If God wanted to change the rules and prohibit polygamy in the NT he would have. Since there is no new command, we definitely should not be imagining one up.

WHAT??? So then the three laws I mentioned (Post #491) are okay for today since the NT does NOT specifically speak against them?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by HappyTown

TK Burk's

I can assure you one menopausal women is enough for me in one house, can't even imaging more then that....Hell has no furries as a hormonal women Night all

Please, answer my question (post #491).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

WHAT??? So then the three laws I mentioned (Post #491) are okay for today since the NT does NOT specifically speak against them?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

As recently as the old west here in the US an incorrigible child could be beaten brutally by parents. And if death occurred and the child was deemed to be delinquent or a threat to society, charges were often dropped. Even up until the past couple decades "spanking" or "whipping" children made them good citizens. If a parent killed their incorrigible child today it would break the civil law of the United States and they would be prosecuted by the United States...but according to God's Law they didn't "sin". They saved society from having to execute the little devil. Biblically a parent has a greater authority over the life of their seed than the state. When the state took this right of parents....well....we get the society we're dealing with now.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

Israel was a theocratic nation preparing to embark on a massive military campaign to take the land from heathen nations. To provoke an Israelite to serve any of these heathen gods would be high treason in time of war. Even today we execute those who commit treason and prosecute those spread treasonous philosophical/political propaganda in time of war. Context!

Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….

As recently as the old west it was considered ideal for the "uncle" to marry his brother's widow and care for her and sire children or raise his brother's children.

Brother....there's nothing wrong with these Laws....unless you view them through a modernist world view and take them out of their intended context.

Now I invite you to answer the questions presented in post #495.

[Aquila]

*crickets*

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

As recently as the old west here in the US an incorrigible child could be beaten brutally by parents. And if death occurred and the child was deemed to be delinquent or a threat to society, charges were often dropped. Even up until the past couple decades "spanking" or "whipping" children made them good citizens. If a parent killed their incorrigible child today it would break the civil law of the United States and they would be prosecuted by the United States...but according to God's Law they didn't "sin". They saved society from having to execute the little devil. Biblically a parent has a greater authority over the life of their seed than the state. When the state took this right of parents....well....we get the society we're dealing with now.



Israel was a theocratic nation preparing to embark on a massive military campaign to take the land from heathen nations. To provoke an Israelite to serve any of these heathen gods would be high treason in time of war. Even today we execute those who commit treason and prosecute those spread treasonous philosophical/political propaganda in time of war. Context!



As recently as the old west it was considered ideal for the "uncle" to marry his brother's widow and care for her and sire children or raise his brother's children.

Brother....there's nothing wrong with these Laws....unless you view them through a modernist world view and take them out of their intended context.

Now I invite you to answer the questions presented in post #495.

The old west?