Polygyny and the Bible

[theLords]

Re: God Does Not Condone Polygny - Period!

God does not condone, that is, overlook sin. The truth is quite simple, really.

This statement in reference to God's OT dealings is not Biblically accurate.

Acts 17:29-31 (ESV)
Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

Ignorance - agnoiav: lack of knowledge, ignorance, esp. of divine things, of moral blindness

 

[adelphos]

Re: God Does Not Condone Polygny - Period!

This statement in reference to God's OT dealings is not Biblically accurate.

Acts 17:29-31 (ESV)
Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

Ignorance - agnoiav: lack of knowledge, ignorance, esp. of divine things, of moral blindness

Actually, my contention is very Biblically accurate in reference to the context of the entire argument - God's Old Covenant saints and truth! So far, no one has mentioned one time anything about the heathen during the Old Covenant times. That is an entirely different topic. It is important to always keep context in mind when discussing Biblical truth. The context principle of hermeneutics helps objective Biblical truth to stand clear, without prejudice. Hence, my belief that this topic really has more to do with Biblical authority than it does with polygyny. Is God's Word really the final authority for all faith and practice - or is it "traditions of men?"

The passage presented is not a reference to the Old Covenant people. The context of Pauls'sermon is that it is a sermon to specifically designed for heathens during the Old Covenat era. Careful hermeneutics should always be applied (Acts 14:16):

"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

Acts 14:16 KJV

John Gill's Commentary

And the times of this ignorance God winked at,.... Not that
he approved of, or encouraged such blindness and folly, as appeared among the
Gentiles, when they worshipped idols of gold, silver, and stone, taking them for
deities; but rather the sense is, he despised this, and them for it, and was
displeased and angry with them; and as an evidence of such contempt and
indignation, he overlooked them, and took no notice of them, and gave them no
revelation to direct them, nor prophets to instruct them, and left them to their
stupidity and ignorance:

Albert Barnes Notes on the BIble

And the times of this ignorance -The long period when people were ignorant of the true God, and when they worshipped stocks and stones. Paul here refers to the times preceding the gospel.

Matthew Henry's Commentary

The conduct of God towards the Gentile world before the gospel came among them: The times of this ignorance God winked at.

The point I make still stands. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. I was referring to the Old Covenant people of God. On the other hand, I suppose most would have already understood that point. Who knows?

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[adelphos]

Handy, you began...

Now lets look at Deuteronomy 17:17 and Deuteronomy 21:15

17:17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; norshall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

21:15"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, andboth the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn sonbelongs to the unloved,

Here is the problem with looking at regulatory laws such as this and saying that they proveGod sanctions or condones something.

Consider this one:
Deuteronomy 24:1-4“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds nofavor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes hera certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out fromhis house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife,and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate ofdivorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or ifthe latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her formerhusband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife,since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and youshall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as aninheritance.

Does this passage teach that God sanctions or condones divorce?

Yes! This is what it means. Our culture is so powerful, we believers haven't taken the time tolook carefully at the Word. We have a tendency to eat what is served over thepulpits instead of being Bereans and searching the Word daily to see if what isbeing taught is really true. One thing I appreciate about your responses so faris that I get the sense that you are legitimately searching the Scriptures.

You see, theLaw is Holy, Just, Good and Perfect according to Scripture. If God isn'tinterested in us knowing it, understanding it, and applying it, why does heencourage us to meditate upon it both night and day (Psalm 1)?

Here are somethings for you to ponder. The first part is about unholy marriages that Ezraencourages - through the counsel of God - to break up, that is, for each personto divorce their spouse! The second one is where God Himself provides aCertificate of Divorce to His spouse, Israel. If God does not approve ofdivorce, then He is a hypocrite. The reality is this, God divorced Israelbecause of the Hardness of her heart! Thus, a hint on how to understand thephrase "hardness of heart!" Oh, just in case you forgot, (sarcasm)God cannot sin!!! Nor does He have a hard heart!!!

Part One: Ezra

Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people ofIsrael, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves fromthe people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of theCanaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, theMoabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.

For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astounded. Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the transgression ofthose that had been carried away; and I sat astounded until the evening sacrifice.

Ezra 9:1-4 KJV

Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himselfdown before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept verysore. And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered andsaid unto Ezra,

We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives ofthe people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble atthe commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

Ezra 10:1-3 KJV

Parttwo: God

AndI saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery Ihad put her away, and

given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sisterJudah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Jeremiah 3:8 KJV

Of course not, we know from our Lord Himself that the only reason why Moses put this in the Law was due to the hardness of men's hearts. These same men thatwould also take on multiple wives as well.

Again, the Law is holy. We are theones who reject the clear pure, holy, good words of God's Law. You may notpersonally like them, but that does not make God's Law wrong!!

Furthermore, the reason God made thelaw was because of transgression, in other words, because the heart of man washardened by the fall (Gal. 3:19).

The only way to state that the Bible teaches that God Himself sanctionsor condones polygyny is to point out texts where it states that God gavesomeone more than one wife.

No, it is one of a few ways.Principles of hermeneutics are supposed to guide proper interpretation of texts- not arbitrary or personal bias.

We have already put to rest, or at least I hope we have, that God didnot give the wives of Saul to David, nor did David take the wives of Saul aswives. They were his prisoners...nothing more. He showed them much mercy.

I answered this pretty clearly fromthe Hebraic phrase "into thy bosom." I hope it did settle it.

In the other texts that I can find that speaks of taking on more thanone wife, there is generally the language that a human was doing this. In thecase of Lamech, he took for himself more than one wife. In the case of Abrahamand Hagar, Sarah gave Abraham Hagar (and boy did she regret it, nor did Godbless Abraham and Hagar's union. God did make a nation out of Ishmael, but itwas not the nation of promise.

It is important to distinguish a fewthings here.

1. Humans do marry. That is the wayit works.

2. The fact that Abraham marriedHagar does not disprove polygyny, it proves that one should marry a second orthird wife with right motives. Notice that God did not correct Abraham formarrying Hagar, but for not trusting God.

3. I suppose if we look at a fewpeople who had problems within their polygynous marriage as proof it doesn'twork, then to be consistent, we would have to look at the first family, andconclude that no one should have children - after all, murder may be theresult!

Now, about those texts that state that David was a man after God's ownheart, or that Abraham followed the Lord in all of his ways...yes, these weremen of faith, but they also were sinners just like you and I. Abraham passedSarah off as his sister, David lied to Ahimelech...they sinned. Not everythingthey did was of faith or sanctioned by God, but their faith was accounted tothem as righteousness.

I have a tendency to believe thispassage over your statement:

BecauseDavid did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not asidefrom any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in thematter of Uriah the Hittite.

1 Kings15:5 KJV

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[felix]

The Bible never makes polygamy okay, never. What people seem to forget is that the OT most often records what happened; things that are descriptive not prescriptive. There is no way that one can say that "polygamy is considered 'right in the eyes of the LORD'". The Scriptures do not teach this.

There is only good or evil and no middle ground. Either it is right in the sight of the Lord or it's evil. I showed you from 1Kgs 15:5, David did everything right in the sight of the Lord except in the matter of Uriah. Now, show me where in the Bible is it said wrong?

From beginning to end God's plan is for marriage is one man, one woman. That he let some in their sinfulness have more was just something he let happen. Not once does the Bible explicitly or implicitly approve of polygamy.

It's in the law and regulated by the Living God.

(Deut 21:15-17) " If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, [both] the loved and the unloved, and [if] the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, [that] he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the [true] firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife [as] the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his.

"Duties of a wife"? What duties? Cleaning the house, cooking dinner, laundry? Any man can, and should, be capable of doing those things on his own. Not much of a man if he can't. Not much of a man if makes his wife do those without helping.

That's not what I really meant. For cleaning the house, cooking dinner, laundry I could easily hire a servant.

I am seriously struggling to understand why some who claim to be Christians are so sexist.

Definition of sexist: discriminatory on the basis of sex (usually said of men's attitude toward women).
Now, tell me Free, is God a sexist?

• God create man as male and female and called them Adam (not mankind as often translated).
• God's direct creations are called sons of God (not daughters of God).
• The twelve tribes of Israel are males (inspite of a daughter who was not mentioned).
• Jesus choose only twelve disciples who are all male (inspite of female disciples - a good example is John 20:16)
• Jesus Himself came as a Son (not as a daughter)
• God refers to Himself as a male (not as a female)

Is God is sexist? Yes. Hence, I am also a sexist. Is God a racist? Yes. God chose Jews for Himself as a chosen people. Hence, I too a racist. How can I be different when I have His Spirit? Do you want to throw away scriptures for the sake of traditions and cultures? Never. In fact I am proud to say that I am a 'Bibical sexist' and 'Biblical racist'.

 

[stovebolts]

The problem with the version you are using is that it is "interpreting" a specific phrase that would be better if translated. Your versions says, "I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care." The more literal reading from the Hebrew is "into thy bosom." Why does this matter - accuracy, plain and simple.

You see, the phrase "into thy bosom" is the Hebrew "euphemism for sexual relations." ("Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" by Kittel) It is used this way, for example in Genesis 16:5:

Ummm... from a cultural perspective,it would have been David's responsibility to take care of Solomon's (Edit Saul) wives. Not only is it the right thing to do, it's the biblical thing to do. Remember, they became widows when Solomon died. I can post scripture declaring this if need be, just let me know if you want to go down that path.

As far as bosom being a sexual euphemism, I don't know that in every instance any type of sexual context could be applied..

Exodus 4:6And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.

Are you now saying that God told Moses to fondle himself? That's just wrong and I don't believe scripture is stating anything to the contrary.

How about Ruth 4:16And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.

What ???? Don't even go there...

But lets get back to the text at hand. 2 Samual 12:8 right? You're saying that for this verse, a sexual euphimism is being used right?

Tell me then, what does verse 3 connote?

3But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

Are we now saying that beastealtiy and incest is permissible according to the euphemism described?

 

[stovebolts]

2. The fact that Abraham married Hagar does not disprove polygyny, it proves that one should marry a second or third wife with right motives. Notice that God did not correct Abraham fo rmarrying Hagar, but for not trusting God.

Genesis 16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Scripture is clear. It was Sarai who gave Hagar to be Abram's wife.

Let us do some simple comparison..

Genesis 3:12a 12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me

Clearly, it was God who gave Adam his mate.

Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This is why scripture states:

Galatians 4:22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[stovebolts]

It's in the law and regulated by the Living God.

(Deut 21:15-17) " If a man has two wives,

The operative here is, "If a man". The operative is "IF"

Look at verse 21. And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

Sin has always been regulated. Because it is regulated, does not mean it's condoned.

 

[stovebolts]

Is God is sexist? Yes. Hence, I am also a sexist. Is God a racist? Yes. God chose Jews for Himself as a chosen people. Hence, I too a racist. How can I be different when I have His Spirit? Do you want to throw away scriptures for the sake of traditions and cultures? Never. In fact I am proud to say that I am a 'Bibical sexist' and 'Biblical racist'.

Hi felix. Your zeal is commendable much in the same manner as Saul.

Why did God choose the Jews? Not only that, but what was their purpose?

It's easy to see where Zionist get their zeal. Let us not make the same mistake. A mistake Saul had made before his encounter to Damascus.

God promised Abraham that he would be a father of many nations... from every tribe and every tongue. How does that make God a racist?

 

[felix]

The operative here is, "If a man". The operative is "IF"

Look at verse 21. And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

Sin has always been regulated. Because it is regulated, does not mean it's condoned.

I don't think the logic is valid. Sin is condemned in scriptures but polygamy is not. I am yet to see one verse that condemns it. Some prophets of God had multiple wives and God didn't condemn it. Infact God was willing to give more to David. Hence, it is perfectly allowed in scripture.

 

[felix]

Hi felix. Your zeal is commendable much in the same manner as Saul.

Why did God choose the Jews? Not only that, but what was their purpose?

It's easy to see where Zionist get their zeal. Let us not make the same mistake. A mistake Saul had made before his encounter to Damascus.

God promised Abraham that he would be a father of many nations... from every tribe and every tongue. How does that make God a racist?

(Mark 7:27) But Jesus said to her, "Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."

 

[Bonairos]

As asked earlier in post #116 and echoed by TheLords . . .

Yet in following the thread, especially the arguments FOR a Christian man having multiple wives in 2011, I’m still left with a couple of questions for those adamantly defending such relationships in today’s society.

“What is the end result, what is it you attempt to accomplish by staunchly promoting (through Old Testament examples) ONE husband, MULTIPLE wives?â€

Is it to “free†Christian men today to consider (pursue) having more than one woman (wife) in which he can have his affections divided? Or could it be to silence women into submission when her husband brings home another “wife†to share her obligations with?


And perhaps more importantly, “What would be the purpose of a Christian man (you or those who read your interpretations) having multiple wives today?â€


We can go back and forth quoting Scripture to defend(?) our stance, but let’s bring it home and keep it real where it applies, “To what purpose?â€

Your answer (aside from scriptural integrity, which is a given) would give me better insight into your posts.


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[felix]

Yet in following the thread, especially the arguments FOR a Christian man having multiple wives in 2011, I’m still left with a couple of questions for those adamantly defending such relationships in today’s society.

God's laws does not change with time. Today's society legalizes gay marriages and allows prostitution. Does that mean such relationships are ok? Today's society is simply crap.

“What is the end result, what is it you attempt to accomplish by staunchly promoting (through Old Testament examples) ONE husband, MULTIPLE wives?â€

Gen 1:27-28. To be fruitful and multiply.

Is it to “free†Christian men today to consider (pursue) having more than one woman (wife) in which he can have his affections divided? Or could it be to silence women into submission when her husband brings home another “wife†to share her obligations with?

And perhaps more importantly, “What would be the purpose of a Christian man (you or those who read your interpretations) having multiple wives today?â€

We can go back and forth quoting Scripture to defend(?) our stance, but let’s bring it home and keep it real where it applies, “To what purpose?â€

The same purpose why Abraham, David, Solomon and many others took multiple wives. Scripture also teaches that you can be a Eunuch for the sake of Kingdom of God. So, what is the purpose of even having ONE wife when you can become a 'Eunuch' for the sake of Kingdom of God.

 

[adelphos]

As asked earlier in post #116 and echoed by TheLords . . .





Your answer (aside from scriptural integrity, which is a given) would give me better insight into your posts.


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

Truth!

What would motivate the stauch fight against the Integrity, Authority, and reliablity of Scripture?

The implication is that a person that believes in it, just wants another wife. Even if that were true, that is not sin, so it is merely a moot point being turned into some sort of evil desire.

However, the basic purpose for marriage is the same, whether it monogamy or polygyny!

There are at least four theologians that I am aware of that teach the validity of polygyny. Two have said openly that they do not plan to seek another wife. One is single, and one is pursuing another wife. It really doesn't matter. As long as God is ok, man should be ok. It is really that simple!

Be blessed by embracing truth, Stay blessed by being obedient, and be Bold to declare the Whole Counsel of God's Word!

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[stovebolts]

(Mark 7:27) But Jesus said to her, "Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."

For some reason, I have an idea we're going to also disagree on the intent of Jesus here too...

Deuteronomy 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

Grace and Peace.

 

[handy]

I find I'm not going to have a lot of time today to discuss this. I'll just have the time to make brief responses to certain things.

Adelphos, thank you. I do approach this subject as one of what is Biblically correct, not from a position of feminism.


Adelphos and Felix,

Both of you have more or less implied that because of 1 Kings 15:5, David must have been sinless, with the exception of Uriah. Not true, of course, as you must realize with me simply stating it this way. No, David did not sin only once in his life. No human sins once and only once in the course of a life.

As I mentioned before, David lied and his lie was the cause of the deaths of the priests, as well as the men, women and even babies at Nob:

1 Samuel 21:1-6
Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?†David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commissioned me with a matter and has said to me, ‘Let no one know anything about the matter on which I am sending you and with which I have commissioned you; and I have directed the young men to a certain place.’ Now therefore, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever can be found.†The priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.†David answered the priest and said to him, “Surely women have been kept from us as previously when I set out and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey; how much more then today will their vessels be holy?†So the priest gave him consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away.

David was not on a special commission from the king, nor was he traveling in the company of celibate men. The result of this lie?

1 Samuel 22:11-23 "Then the king sent someone to summon Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father’s household, the priests who were in Nob; and all of them came to the king. Saul said, “Listen now, son of Ahitub.†And he answered, “Here I am, my lord.†Saul then said to him, “Why have you and the son of Jesse conspired against me, in that you have given him bread and a sword and have inquired of God for him, so that he would rise up against me by lying in ambush as it is this day?â€

Then Ahimelech answered the king and said, “And who among all your servants is as faithful as David, even the king’s son-in-law, who is captain over your guard, and is honored in your house? Did I just begin to inquire of God for him today? Far be it from me! Do not let the king impute anything to his servant or to any of the household of my father, for your servant knows nothing at all of this whole affair.â€


But the king said, “You shall surely die, Ahimelech, you and all your father’s household!†And the king said to the guards who were attending him, “Turn around and put the priests of the LORD to death, because their hand also is with David and because they knew that he was fleeing and did not reveal it to me.†But the servants of the king were not willing to put forth their hands to attack the priests of the LORD.


Then the king said to Doeg, “You turn around and attack the priests.†And Doeg the Edomite turned around and attacked the priests, and he killed that day eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod. And he struck Nob the city of the priests with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and infants; also oxen, donkeys, and sheep he struck with the edge of the sword.



But one son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David. Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the priests of the LORD. Then David said to Abiathar, “I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I have brought about the death of every person in your father’s household. Stay with me; do not be afraid, for he who seeks my life seeks your life, for you are safe with me.â€

This gets me every time, that David admitted that he knew Doeg would tell Saul. Had he acted more up front and less unrighteously, perhaps he could have warned Ahimelech and saved a village.

Why 1 Kings 15:5 states that "David did everything right in the sight of the Lord except for the matter of Uriah" in light of this is worth a volume of Biblical study, but let us not derail this thread by going off on that tangent. Hopefully we can agree that in light of this example of what happened at Nob, David did not sin just once in his life...one cannot point to 1 Kings 15:5 and say that this proves that David's taking more than one wife wasn't sinful anymore than one can point to the text and say that David's lying and causing the deaths of many people because of the lie wasn't sinful.

As for the phrase "into the bosom" Jeff did a good job at point out that while the phrase can mean sexual intimacy, that is not its only meaning. Jeff points out, as bluntly as needed for this discussion that the very context of Nathan's parable shows that "into the bosom" could not possibly be speaking of sexual intimacy.

Many translations of Scripture very correctly translate the phrase as "into your care". This accurately describes the nature of the "gift" God gave David...that his former enemy's household and wives were placed in his care. David acted much more honorably towards them than you are giving him credit for.

As for the fact that Biblical commentators point out that it was custom for Eastern kings to inherit the harems of their predecessors, I've no argument to that...it most likely was. It also wasn't uncommon for such kings and potentates to put to death all of their predecessors households so that no one would rise up with ties to the earlier king. According to such customs, David would have had the right to put Saul's wives, daughters and grandson to death. But, he didn't do that either.

I'm sorry, but I stand by the fact that this one verse:

It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. I also gave you your master’s house andyour master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

does not prove in any way that God gives men more than one wife.

Rather this verse...

It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

...explains that God was very generous towards David, appointing him king, handing over to him all that was Saul's and even more so...He gave David not one but two kingdoms. That last part that has been quoted so many times by several on this thread... and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

...shows that God wasn't telling David that He would have given him more wives. God is simply telling David that He would have continued to add to his kingdoms and his absolute power over his kingdoms. The verse does not say "I would have added to you many more wives". It just doesn't.

This is all I have time for now, but hopefully I'll be able to respond further. I know there have been more responses directed to me, and I do want to read them...

a neighbor very generously gave me a basketful of fresh tomatoes and cayenne peppers...I need to make salsa!

 

[adelphos]

Now on to what the Scriptures do teach us clearly as to what God expects from marriage.

This is very important!

I know that it has come up several times that Scriptures be shown that God intends for marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Yes, it has come up, yet, without any clear prescription stating this to be so.

Most likely some have been included, but here is a list of such, which to me, makes it crystal clear that God intends for a man to have one wife.

Genesis 2:18, 22-24: Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.†....
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man 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.â€
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Singular all the way. God did not make Adam two wives, even though if we consider that He wanted Adam to multiply and fill the earth, two wives or even more would have been very logical.

The mere mention of the singular in a particular does not automatically establish a prescription. Doctrine is NEVER established, to my knowledge, by one verse or passage. There is a hermeneutic principle called "the progressive mention principle." This principles, which is firmly established throughout Biblical theological circles, reminds believers that God reveals His truth progressively. In order to understand the whole truth about marriage, it takes a studying of the progressive revelation of God about that topic.

It should also be noted as well is the fact that nowhere in the text does the Word of God teach ONLY one. What the passage doesn't say is many times just as important as what it does say.

Moreover, there is another principle of hermenetuics that is important to consider: Scripture does not contradict Scripture! So, if the Law allows polygyny, we know for a fact that the above passage would in no way contradict what the Bible tells us is the perfect, good, and just Law of God, would it?

All Christians agree that this is where marriage is established, in the Garden, before the Fall and before sin clouds man's thinking...and it is between one man and one woman.

No, not all Christians agree with the one man and one woman portion of that. In fact, many in the Reformation did not agree with that - Martin Luther!

[quoteTo make it clear that God intended to two to become one flesh (as opposed to three or more) Jesus clarifies this:

Matthew 19:4-6: And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.â€

A man (singular) shall leave his parents and be joined to his wife (again singular) and the two shall become one. There is no language of plurality here.[/quote]

There is no language of contradiction either! This merely points out that when a man and woman marry, those two become one flesh. In does not contradict the fact that when a man marries another woman, those two become one flesh.

Even if one wants to make the case that God sanctioned or condoned polygyny in the Old Testament, if one is a Christian, it doesn't matter. The New Testament is very clear that God expects His children to refrain from polygamy.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

His own wife, her own husband...no plurality here either. No where is anyone going to find anywhere in the scriptures anything along the line of "a woman is to have her own husband, the husband can have his many wives"...it just isn't in there.

This why we should study more deeply.

1 Corinthians 7:2bc: "Let every man have his own (Grk., "heautou") wife and let every woman have her own (Grk., "idios") husband."

Question: What possible reason would Paul use two separate words to describe a marital relationship? Is he trying to confuse people, or is he trying to be precise? Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was being precise! I would suggest that if Paul was promoting a "monogamy only position" he would have used " heautou " both times, but he didn't. He was setting up a contrast. You will see why in a moment.

You see, the word "heautou" (ἑαυτοῦ) is a reflexive pronoun of the third person. It refers back to himself, herself, itself". It signifies exclusive possession, like my "own" body, or my "own" soul, or my "own" mind. Paul uses this word the same way throughout 1 Corinthians. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:18 Paul warns individuals to not deceive their "own" ("heautou") self. In 1 Corinthians 7:37 Paul is sharing that a father may keep his "own" ("heautou") virgin. This is in keeping with the Old Testament understanding of "ownership" of the daughter. It is carried over in a modern cultural sense when the parents are asked about the "giving" of the bride. Notice, that Paul did not use "idios". Why? Because the virgin daughter was the "exclusive possession" of the father. So, in 1 Corinthians 7:2b, translated with the full impact of this word, it can rightly be understood "Let every man have his wife as his own exclusive possession."

The word "idios" here, on the other hand, signifies actual or potential corporate possession, or "corporate ownership". Many times it is used as a corporate simple possessive, like in John 1:11 where John says "He came unto his "own" ("idios), and his "own" ("idios") received him not," or John 16:32, "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his "own" ("idios"), and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me," or John 19:17, "Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his "own" ("idios") home". The idea is that there were others who were involved with the "ownership". They are "sharing" him! So, 1Corinthians 7:2c should be understood as "let every woman have her own shared husband."

Again this language of singularity is repeated in Ephesians 5:28-31:

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

He who loves his own wife...not wives. Again, two shall become one.

If anyone can show me an example of any Christian having more than one wife, I'd like to see it.

Again, this is not a contradiction. Husbands are to love their own (Grk., "heautou") and the wife is to submit to her own ("idios"), therefore, the same principles apply as the Corinthians passage.

This will help everyone. Apostle Paul will never teach anything that would contradict the Law. He will teach truths that have been fulfilled in Christ concerning the Law, but never contradict it. Paul said the Law was good, holy and just!!!

Just some thoughts for your consideration

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[reba]

Not all folks who claim to be Christian are.

 

[adelphos]

Not all folks who claim to be Christian are.

Very true...

and

Not all folks who claim to be Christian really believe that the Bible is the final authority for their faith.

 

[adelphos]

I see you have given into improper methods of doing theology and biblical interpretation--"give me three very clear passages that teach...". Not correct, not by a long shot. It's unfortunate that many think this is the way to come to biblical truth.

I understand the Cavalier Dismissal, but the fact of the matter is that instead of deflecting, please answer the question. If you are not truly interested in discussing the matter, then bow out. Thank you.

The Scriptures on polygyny are descriptive, not prescriptive. There are things that can be learned from them, for sure, but one of them is not that polygyny is okay.

The Scriptures on monogamy are descriptive, not prescriptive as well. There are no commands to have only one wife!!

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[adelphos]

Why are these folks given a place to spout their trash?

Scriptural truth is never trash!