Polygamy in the Bible

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by HappyTown

Ok kinda like the woman at the well she had more then one...

Yes, in a very real sense she did because she became the victim of serial monogamy.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

This is why Jesus said we must count the cost.... Evidently he did and it was too high.

Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right! (See Mark 8:34-38; 1Peter 4:13-16)

Let's consider a very real scenario played out in churches all across the United States....

A man and his wife and kids come to church and get saved. It is discovered that she was married before and she and her first husband separated in a "no fault" divorce.

Here's the deal bro...they have an adulterous marriage. She wasn't divorced on the pretenses of sexual infidelity and so according to Jesus this man is committing adultery by living with her. Jesus said,

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

According to your logic....

"Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right."

Do you think the man should be forced to divorce his wife and children to end an adulterous marriage?

Frankly, this is more serious than polygamy because it's directly addressed with clear prohibition. Many would say, ....

...."Well, God forgives sin. We'll just have to pray that God puts it under the blood and help minister to them as a family."

Others would resort to "justification"....

...."Well, this second marriage was adultery so I guess she committed sexual infidelity and so that divorce is NOW valid."

Get real. The issue is that she was put away for something other than forbidden sexual relations. She was put away over "irreconcilable differences". The "adultery" is the second marriage itself, because technically she still belongs to her first husband.

So we have a choice when faced with these situations. We can acknowledge the less than favorable circumstances, pray for God's grace and forgiveness, and then move forward with what is best for all the individuals involved.....or we can demand that the letter of the law be applied and demand that this man and his wife divorce.

[Apocrypha]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

Albert Barnes on Matthew 5.28

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


Adam Clarke comes closer to your sense of covet but does not still change the effect of impure desire.

Mat 5:28
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her - Επιθυμησαι αυτην, earnestly to covet her. The verb, επιθυμεω, is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. Της ΕΠΙΘΥΜΗΣΕΙ γυναικος Μασσαγετης ανηρ, μισγεται αδεως, Raphelius, on this verse, says, επιθυμειν hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundae flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.


How about Jamieson, Fausett, Brown

Mat 5:28
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her - Επιθυμησαι αυτην, earnestly to covet her. The verb, επιθυμεω, is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. Της ΕΠΙΘΥΜΗΣΕΙ γυναικος Μασσαγετης ανηρ, μισγεται αδεως, Raphelius, on this verse, says, επιθυμειν hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundae flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.

Your wasting good electrons typing in stuff that has nothing to do with the single verse we are talking about (other than cherry picking commentaries).

All Jesus was doing is adding a level of depth to our understanding of the 10th commandment. Why be so complicated by stringing together verses that have nothing to do with this one single verse? Your doing a word study when a study of the historical and cultural context of the statement gives you the proper hermunetical interpretation of the statement.

10th Commandment - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Its not rocket science friend.

Also.. think about this logically... how many single women were floating around Israel during the time of Jesus? You know.. those independent minded, self employed, lets have a slice of cheesecake while shopping at Macys type of girls? Zero to none unless they were wealthy.. and even then they were married off. Nearly every woman of marriage age was married in Israel. They didn't date... they got contractually married. So yes, logic says Jesus was saying "Dont look at your neighbors wife with lust" if you break it down with the culture. I doubt he was talking about looking at the 12 year old maidens who weren't of child bearing age yet. Nor do i think he was talking about the 45 year old widows who lived under their sons. Look at it logically though the lens of history to give yourself context.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's consider a very real scenario played out in churches all across the United States....

A man and his wife and kids come to church and get saved. It is discovered that she was married before and she and her first husband separated in a "no fault" divorce.

Here's the deal bro...they have an adulterous marriage. She wasn't divorced on the pretenses of sexual infidelity and so according to Jesus this man is committing adultery by living with her. Jesus said,

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

According to your logic....

"Tough choices had to be made by those in the First Century also. If you were a Jew, you forfeited everything to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Even today, Muslim converts often convert knowing it may cost them horrendous persecution or even their lives. But regardless of the cost, if it's right, it's right."

Do you think the man should be forced to divorce his wife and children to end an adulterous marriage?

Frankly, this is more serious than polygamy because it's directly addressed with clear prohibition. Many would say, ....

...."Well, God forgives sin. We'll just have to pray that God puts it under the blood and help minister to them as a family."

Others would resort to "justification"....

...."Well, this second marriage was adultery so I guess she committed sexual infidelity and so that divorce is NOW valid."

Get real. The issue is that she was put away for something other than forbidden sexual relations. She was put away over "irreconcilable differences". The "adultery" is the second marriage itself, because technically she still belongs to her first husband.

So we have a choice when faced with these situations. We can acknowledge the less than favorable circumstances, pray for God's grace and forgiveness, and then move forward with what is best for all the individuals involved.....or we can demand that the letter of the law be applied and demand that this man and his wife divorce.

Wow! I never said anything like YOU indicated here. Where did I say anything about divorce? You must really be desperate to prove as a Christian you can still kill rebellious kids, your spouse, and your friends, and also have as many wives as the Old West allows.

To answer your question, what's done BEFORE converstion is not the same as what's done AFTER. Consider these:

2 Corinthians 5:17
(17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 6:4-6
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Colossians 1:21-23
(21) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
(22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:
(23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice. Them being "Born Again" of the water and Spirit in Jesus' name is exactly that; they died to their old ways, old sins, old lifestyle, and are then born anew into a New Creature in Christ.

Thats right.. if you owed bills before you got saved.. you don't owe them anymore... that old man is dead.. YUH RIGHT.... a Marriage Vow is a contract recognized before and after salvation... MARRIAGE is HONORABLE only for the believers.. right? Wrong. it is honorable IN ALL

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Wow! I never said anything like YOU indicated here. Where did I say anything about divorce? You must really be desperate to prove as a Christian you can still kill rebellious kids, your spouse, and your friends, and also have as many wives as the Old West allows.

To answer your question, what's done BEFORE converstion is not the same as what's done AFTER. Consider these:

2 Corinthians 5:17
(17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 6:4-6
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Colossians 1:21-23
(21) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
(22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:
(23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice. Them being "Born Again" of the water and Spirit in Jesus' name is exactly that; they died to their old ways, old sins, old lifestyle, and are then born anew into a New Creature in Christ.

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice.


ONLY PROBLEM HERE IS THIS .......Committed is PAST TENSE... if they are LIVING IN ADULTERY that is PRESENT TENSE.. no forgiveness for continual sin

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Pharisees were keeping the "letter of the law" meticulously. However, they had neglected justice, mercy, and faith. In my example of above, in respects to the second wife's wellbeing and her children's wellbeing, I'm trying to act in favor of justice, mercy, and faith. Because it will be this second wife and her precious children that pay the price....not this man.

Wow! You keep coming up with new suprises!

You believe the Pharisees were the ones who kept the "letter of the Law"?? No wonder you keep missing this stuff….

The Bible describes the Sadducees as the Conservatives, and the Pharisees as the Liberals. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘conservative’ as “one who adheres to traditional methods or views,” and ‘Liberal’ as being “not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.” The Sadducees rejected the traditions of man and embraced the "letter of the Law." The Pharisees believed in the written Torah, but interpreted them through their "traditions of the Elders" and "Oral Law." Consequently the Sadducees were more concerned with what the Word said a righteous man ‘can’t do,’ and the Pharisees were focused more on what a man ‘can do’ while yet remaining pious. We don’t find Jesus speaking against the Sadducees on many issues (some, but not much). However, we do find Him continually dealing with the doctrines of the Pharisees. As an example, look at this exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees:

Mark 7:5-13
(5) Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
(6) He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
(7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
(9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
(10) For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
(11) But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
(12) And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother;
(13) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

After AD70, the Sadducees mostly disappear, but the Pharisees survive. Later they compiled the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical commentaries on the Mishna and Oral Law. These writings specifically focus on how these traditions are to be applied to their brand of Judaism. It is these teachings that are the foundation stones on which modern Judaism is primarily built.

Brother, you are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You are neglecting God's Word and saying that if something stands in a convert's way, it is acceptable to bend the rules to accomodate them. Did you remember one of the Laws I asked about was Deuteronomy 13:6-10? Remember, it is the one that says a man is supposed to KILL his wife and children if they stands in his way of salvation. You said that was still acceptable. Now you say YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT HER AND HER KIDS???

I guess you just post whatever is best for your case at the time???

[LUKE2447]

TK Burk

though I agree with Aquila's position for the most part on POLYGAMY you are CORRECT on the Pharisees. The traditional position of many is flawed on that aspect. The pharisees added fences and built up standards that should not have been done an negated the law of GOd for TRADITIONS of men. Jesus ripped them several times for it. Also the Sadducees would have been the more literal group. Very strict in application and reading of the Word.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice.

ONLY PROBLEM HERE IS THIS .......Committed is PAST TENSE... if they are LIVING IN ADULTERY that is PRESENT TENSE.. no forgiveness for continual sin

Okay Doc, I’ll bite….

The Bible says:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
(28) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
(29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; BECAUSE HE HATH HUMBLED HER, HE MAY NOT PUT HER AWAY ALL HIS DAYS.

There is a LOT of folks out there who committed fornication before marrying someone else. This says the man is commanded to marry the first girl and stay with her “ALL HIS DAYS.”

So there you go Doc. Know anybody who falls into that category? If so, and if they aren't with that 'old fling,' then you better go tell them to find a good lawyer because they’re living in adultery. Imagine the divorce rate in the Church with this one!









Come on guys, your arguments are getting sillier and sillier! First it's okay to have as many wives as they did in the old west (whatever THAT means). And then its okay to kill your spouse, kids, and friends because certain cultures say it is. Now it's only certain sins are washed away? What's next???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Wow! I never said anything like YOU indicated here. Where did I say anything about divorce? You must really be desperate to prove as a Christian you can still kill rebellious kids, your spouse, and your friends, and also have as many wives as the Old West allows.

To answer your question, what's done BEFORE converstion is not the same as what's done AFTER. Consider these:

2 Corinthians 5:17
(17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 6:4-6
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Colossians 1:21-23
(21) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
(22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:
(23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Bottomline, the sins a person commited 'before Christ' is attoned by Jesus' sacrifice. Them being "Born Again" of the water and Spirit in Jesus' name is exactly that; they died to their old ways, old sins, old lifestyle, and are then born anew into a New Creature in Christ.

Blah, blah, blah. You still still didn't even address the scenario given. Would you force this man to divorce his second wife, subjugating her and her children to a life of abuse, or allow him to keep her, teaching him that polygamy isn't our custom and that it stops with him?

Marriage is a covenant. It stands, even if it happened before salvation. Else....we'd have to force couples to re-marry after getting saved!