Polygamy in the Bible

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

?? incredibly flawed? Your argument make no sense at all. You fail to grasp the basic principle that God is not going to call SIN what he told people was OK to do and gave legislation on how to act within such relationships. God does not change what is sin is always sin. God is not going to say well it wasn't sin then but it is now. You make God inconsistent. Especially when he never said it was sin. Yet somehow you want to make it sinful now.

So, is it a sin to murder someone?

God established cities of refuge on the OT for people to flee to if they killed someone, and as long as they stayed there, they were safe.

Is that how we should operate in 2008?

Come on, Brother, you should be a bit more adept at the Word that this!

Jesus, Himself, taught and said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He also said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Now, if you believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, you have to believe that He (God) changed some rules! And, He was still God. And He wasn't a liar. And He didn't vacillate.

So, polygamy WAS accepted and approved in the OT, but I don't find ANY scripture in the NT where God sanctioned multiple wives, only you guys and your misinterpreted sheen of scripture wrapped around your flimsy philosophy.

And, I say that in the nicest possible way!

[Aquila]

A good example would be my pastor's facial hair standard. Having a beard isn't a sin...but he believes it's improper for a Christian. So he has a "platform policy". He doesn't condemn men with beards to Hell...but the standard is set and guess what...people normally don't keep their beards very long...especially if they want to be used by God.

Paul sets monogamy as a standard for leadership and service in the church and thereby making it ideal and the "standard". However, he doesn't condemn those converts reading this letter who might have multiple wives. They are simply disqualified for service in the church. This standard will influence the church to choose monogamous unions...but doesn't condemn polygamy as sin. God answered David's prayers and gave him wives...if Paul condemned it as sin Paul would be condemning God as a sinner. God's Law also would require it in the case of Liverite Marriage. God's Law sets standards for polygamy and concubines. God isn't a sinner. But Paul sets a clear standard for what is ideal by example in the church.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You like your boy, the Doc, are teaching from conjecture, and therefore It's not scripturally sound for doctrine.

Here Aquila answer me the below post.



Did women also have plural husbands?

Come on Beni I expect more from you.

The term there is "heis" The term for used in the aspect for elders etc... is mia which can mean "first"


mia
mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.


heis
hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527,

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You like your boy, the Doc, are teaching from conjecture, and therefore It's not scripturally sound for doctrine.

Here Aquila answer me the below post.



Did women also have plural husbands?

Do your research Evangelist, you will see the difference in the two

Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 --- "One wife" --- mia is the Greek word from which the word, one, was translated in those passages. Yet, it can also be translated as first, just as it is, for example, so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7.

Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow's "one man" is not mia but the Greek word "heis", meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of "first".

[Aquila]

In my opinion we have two errors here.

First, we see the error that if polygamy was sanctioned and never condemned as sin in the Old Testament it’s a viable option for today.

Second, we see the error that if Paul required monogamy for ministers polygamy must be sin.

I believe that the Gospel was preached in the “fullness of time”. Polygamy wasn’t a sin…never was. Polygamy was sanctioned, allowed, and occasionally required to protect women and family wealth. It served a very important social function. However, it wasn’t “ideal”. Jealousies and strife among wives and children plagued polygamous families to a higher degree than in monogamous families. In the fullness of time, society was no longer such a society wherein polygamy was necessary. So Paul essentially institutes a departure from polygamy in the Church. Paul sets the standard that bishops and deacons should have only one wife. This standard expresses the ideal. However, Paul never condemned the men of the Old Testament nor did he condemn converts who may have already been in polygamous unions and then order divorce. In fact…unless a woman was unfaithful divorce wasn’t permitted. No distinction was made for polygamy so that standard would apply to even polygamous marriages. This was a covenantal shift in ideals. Those in polygamous marriages weren’t condemned (because it wasn’t sin) but they were locked into the marriage they had. The next generation was to be raised in a church where the example in leadership expressed that monogamy was ideal. In this way Paul allowed polygamy, which had outlived it’s time, to die a quiet death that monogamy might be the standard throughout the church.

It was a wise and compassionate approach.

[DividedThigh]

you guys are gonna fight with each other, knowing that you aint gonna change what you think anyway, you crack me up, dt

Originally Posted by Aquila

In my opinion we have two errors here.

First, we see the error that if polygamy was sanctioned and never condemned as sin in the Old Testament it’s a viable option for today.

Second, we see the error that if Paul required monogamy for ministers polygamy must be sin.

I believe that the Gospel was preached in the “fullness of time”. Polygamy wasn’t a sin…never was. Polygamy was sanctioned, allowed, and occasionally required to protect women and family wealth. It served a very important social function. However, it wasn’t “ideal”. Jealousies and strife among wives and children plagued polygamous families to a higher degree than monogamous families. In the fullness of time, society was no longer such a society wherein polygamy was necessary. So Paul essentially institutes a departure from polygamy in the Church. Paul sets the standard that bishops and deacons should have only one wife. This standard expresses the ideal. However, Paul never condemned the men of the Old Testament nor did he condemn converts who may have already been in polygamous unions and order divorce. In fact…unless a woman was unfaithful divorce wasn’t permitted. No distinction was made for polygamy so that standard would apply to even polygamous marriages. This was a covenantal shift in ideals. Those in polygamous marriages weren’t condemned (because it wasn’t sin) but they were locked into the marriage they had. The next generation was to be raised in a church where the example in leadership expressed that monogamy was ideal. In this way Paul allowed polygamy, which had outlived it’s time, to die a quiet death that monogamy might be the standard throughout the church.

It was a wise and compassionate approach.

Aquila, after much WORD study concerning Pauls instruction of ONE WIFE to the church leaders.. I am inclined to understand it as an adjective and deriving from FIRST... we have mention of the "wife of your youth" and as thus I see Paul protecting the church here against DIVORCE and REMAIRRAGE, not polygamy...

if that is indeed the case then we have NOT ONE scripture in the NT even referencing an IDEAL MONOGOMOUS marriage in the church...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No one is arguing that Paul didn't set monogamy as the ideal union.

Stop! Don't you see what you just said here? If you have even one shread of honesty in your body. You will explain what you mean by IDEAL UNION.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The point is Paul had opportunity to condemn it.

Roman Law in the fist century plural marriage was illegal, Paul was a Roman citizen. Paul stated that he never offended in the law of the Jews or the Romans. Roman Law forbid plural marriage, and the Gospel shows Jesus and one Bride, Adam and one wife is the first mention, and therefore sets the perfect example of man and subjected wife. If the man is the head, then the wife is his singular body. One God and One Temple, that Temple is the one Body. Biblical doctrine, and proven by the whole Bible. If a man has more than one wife he will die in his sins.

Originally Posted by Aquila

However Paul only sets the solid standard on bishops and deacons.

That again is making a doctrine out of could-be and might-be, your argument is based on conjecture.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again...he had wisdom. He didn't condemn those who may had been in polygamous marriages...

Roman Law forbade plural wives, and Paul is writing to Gentile churches, so why would Paul teach on something that is prohibited in Asia Minor?

Originally Posted by Aquila

but through a leadership standard he sets the tone and allows the example to influence the flock.

Are you confused? Aquila, stop you are making no sense.

Example for what? If the Bible accepts plural wives and you say, then why the example? This doctrine is shot in the head.

Lets talk about ONE FLESH

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24, referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8, 1_Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31....................... A man is "one flesh" with EACH woman with whom he copulates, whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot).

When a married man, who is therefore already "one flesh" with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being "one flesh" with the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1_Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be "one flesh" even with an harlot........... As even a married man, therefore, can become "one flesh" with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be "one flesh" with more than one woman, without negating his being "one flesh" with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being "one flesh" with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e.,

1_Corinthians 6:17: "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." As EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, so too may EACH woman be joined as "one flesh" with one man. Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as "one flesh". For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). The term, "one flesh", could not otherwise allegedly mean that a man could not be "one flesh" with more than one woman because three things did indeed happen. 1) Moses did marry two wives. 2) Moses did author such other verses as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. 3) Jesus Christ did not speak against Moses' being "one flesh" with two wives. Hence, the Scriptures reveal that Jesus and Moses knew what "one flesh" meant when Moses authored Genesis 2:24: a man may be "one flesh" with more than one woman.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

So, is it a sin to murder someone?

God established cities of refuge on the OT for people to flee to if they killed someone, and as long as they stayed there, they were safe.

Is that how we should operate in 2008?

Come on, Brother, you should be a bit more adept at the Word that this!

Jesus, Himself, taught and said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He also said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Now, if you believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, you have to believe that He (God) changed some rules! And, He was still God. And He wasn't a liar. And He didn't vacillate.

So, polygamy WAS accepted and approved in the OT, but I don't find ANY scripture in the NT where God sanctioned multiple wives, only you guys and your misinterpreted sheen of scripture wrapped around your flimsy philosophy.

And, I say that in the nicest possible way!

You still miss the point he SAID and gave DEEPER meaning to the understanding of God's will. Yet Jesus never said anything about polygamy. In the NT you never fine abolishment of polygamy. Thus you are putting words in his mouth.

Also the reference to hating your enemies is not in the Torah but in rabbinical teaching.

Also your point on Jesus saying concerning Eye for an eye etc... Jesus point was that grace and mercy viewed through love are the greater way. Thus he brought deeper understanding to the people. As Jesus said you neglect the weightier matters of the law. Justice mercy and faith.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others

Yes, one could take eye for any eye but that was not the whole means by which one should look at the situation but through grace and mercy and love. Jesus himself gives retribution for evil deeds. Things should be done through the eyes of love and mercy and forgiveness as we would want to treat ourselves. The law of retribution still stands but the deeper meaning by how we conduct ourselves is made known through long lasting patience, and mercy. Otherwise retribution could never take place,as Christ himself could not judge as you make judgment impossible and Jesus in the end would contradict his own word. Jesus did not come to abolish but to make the law more revealed or full!