PastorSBC1303
Active Member
Originally posted by ccrobinson:
The real curse of polygamy is not multiple wives, but multiple mothers-in-law.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What about polygamy? Does God FORBID it?
- Thread starter rjprince
- Start date
David had eight wives and concubines that are named in the Bible:
II Samuel 3: 2-5 Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah.
II Samuel 3: 14 & I Samuel 18: 27 Michal.
II Samuel 11: 27 Bathsheba.
In addition to Bathsheba, David took more wives after he moved to Jerusalem.
David had at least 10 concubines that he left to take care of the palace when he fled Jerusalem.
It appears that as David took more wives, God blessed him more. It was the culture back then. If you could provide for many wives, you could have them. I have trouble providing for just one.
II Samuel 3: 2-5 Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah.
II Samuel 3: 14 & I Samuel 18: 27 Michal.
II Samuel 11: 27 Bathsheba.
In addition to Bathsheba, David took more wives after he moved to Jerusalem.
David had at least 10 concubines that he left to take care of the palace when he fled Jerusalem.
It appears that as David took more wives, God blessed him more. It was the culture back then. If you could provide for many wives, you could have them. I have trouble providing for just one.
David had eight wives and concubines that are named in the Bible:
II Samuel 3: 2-5 Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah.
II Samuel 3: 14 & I Samuel 18: 27 Michal.
II Samuel 11: 27 Bathsheba.
In addition to Bathsheba, David took more wives after he moved to Jerusalem.
David had at least 10 concubines that he left to take care of the palace when he fled Jerusalem.
It appears that as David took more wives, God blessed him more. It was the culture back then. If you could provide for many wives, you could have them. I have trouble providing for just one.
II Samuel 3: 2-5 Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah.
II Samuel 3: 14 & I Samuel 18: 27 Michal.
II Samuel 11: 27 Bathsheba.
In addition to Bathsheba, David took more wives after he moved to Jerusalem.
David had at least 10 concubines that he left to take care of the palace when he fled Jerusalem.
It appears that as David took more wives, God blessed him more. It was the culture back then. If you could provide for many wives, you could have them. I have trouble providing for just one.
Hope of Glory
New Member
Adam is a type of Christ.
Slavery is another of those issues that God seems to tolerate, though He never commends the idea. AND, the NT also tolerates the practice! Paul told masters to treat their servants (doulos, bondslave) kindly, not to release them all!
Please do not misunderstand, I am no more for slavery than I am for polygamy/polygyny, BUT, God tolerated both of them, and both of them are practiced in some parts of our world yet today...
Should we expect Bible teaching to be REALLY popular, anyway?
Wasn't Solomon forbidden to multiply wives unto himself?
Also, although multiple wives isn't specifically mentioned in general as being sin, there are scriptures which I believe support one man for one woman for life. "Live joyfully with the wife (not wives) of thy youth". "Let her (not them) be as a loving hind..." I can't recall ever in Scripture when God is specifally talking about husband/wife commands that he mentions the man having more than one wife. I do suppose though that one could twist Scripture and say that the phrase "husbands, love your wives" is condoning it even though that is simply a case of subject/verb agreement.
I think it is like smoking not being mentioned in Scripture specifically: the principal is there even if the direct command is not.
Also, although multiple wives isn't specifically mentioned in general as being sin, there are scriptures which I believe support one man for one woman for life. "Live joyfully with the wife (not wives) of thy youth". "Let her (not them) be as a loving hind..." I can't recall ever in Scripture when God is specifally talking about husband/wife commands that he mentions the man having more than one wife. I do suppose though that one could twist Scripture and say that the phrase "husbands, love your wives" is condoning it even though that is simply a case of subject/verb agreement.
I think it is like smoking not being mentioned in Scripture specifically: the principal is there even if the direct command is not.
Genesis 2:24..."Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."
How can you become one flesh with multiple partners? Would that make the "sister-wives" one flesh with each other, too?
Deuteronomy 17:17..."And he [authority figure] must not multiply his wives unto himself or else his heart will turn away."
Granted, this law was given after the patriarchs, but I do not believe that "spirit" of the law just magically "appeared" in Deuteronomy and did not apply to previous men.
Yes, Jacob had two wives and two concubines.
But does that mean that God ordained it all as moral and being in alignment with Genesis 2:24?
Jacob ended up with Leah, not because Leah tricked him, but because her father Laban, deceived him. Jacob hated Leah, the bible says so.
And in his mad dash to have sons, Rachal gave her handmaiden to him because she was barren. And Leah did the same thing, because she was in a contest, a vile and degrading contest with her sister.
This was a highly dysfunctional family. Favortism and selfishness did greatly abound.
God did not condemn Jacob for having multiple wives, but surely anyone with an IQ high enough to read and understand the bible can see that this is NOT the way to have a happy, Godly, and moral family.
God blessed Jacob, Leah, and Rachal not BECAUSE they were involved in a multiple marriage, but IN SPITE of it.
Ephesians 5:31..."For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the TWO will become one flesh."
The TWO.
Yes, there were many multiple marriages and concubine practice in the bible.
Jacob was also a deceiver and a hater of one of his wives and a father who showed gross favortism to his sons and his wives.
Does God condone deceit or hatred or family favortism?
No.
But it was Jacob's destiny to bear the 12 sons who would become the 12 tribes of Israel.
I believe that Jacob tried to follow God's will, but like the rest of us he was a sinner and made grievous mistakes.
How many of us can identify with Jacob and say that God has richly blessed us, IN SPITE of our short-comings.
I can.
How can you become one flesh with multiple partners? Would that make the "sister-wives" one flesh with each other, too?
Deuteronomy 17:17..."And he [authority figure] must not multiply his wives unto himself or else his heart will turn away."
Granted, this law was given after the patriarchs, but I do not believe that "spirit" of the law just magically "appeared" in Deuteronomy and did not apply to previous men.
Yes, Jacob had two wives and two concubines.
But does that mean that God ordained it all as moral and being in alignment with Genesis 2:24?
Jacob ended up with Leah, not because Leah tricked him, but because her father Laban, deceived him. Jacob hated Leah, the bible says so.
And in his mad dash to have sons, Rachal gave her handmaiden to him because she was barren. And Leah did the same thing, because she was in a contest, a vile and degrading contest with her sister.
This was a highly dysfunctional family. Favortism and selfishness did greatly abound.
God did not condemn Jacob for having multiple wives, but surely anyone with an IQ high enough to read and understand the bible can see that this is NOT the way to have a happy, Godly, and moral family.
God blessed Jacob, Leah, and Rachal not BECAUSE they were involved in a multiple marriage, but IN SPITE of it.
Ephesians 5:31..."For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the TWO will become one flesh."
The TWO.
Yes, there were many multiple marriages and concubine practice in the bible.
Jacob was also a deceiver and a hater of one of his wives and a father who showed gross favortism to his sons and his wives.
Does God condone deceit or hatred or family favortism?
No.
But it was Jacob's destiny to bear the 12 sons who would become the 12 tribes of Israel.
I believe that Jacob tried to follow God's will, but like the rest of us he was a sinner and made grievous mistakes.
How many of us can identify with Jacob and say that God has richly blessed us, IN SPITE of our short-comings.
I can.
paidagogos
Active Member
Slavery is another of those issues that God seems to tolerate, though He never commends the idea. AND, the NT also tolerates the practice! Paul told masters to treat their servants (doulos, bondslave) kindly, not to release them all!
Please do not misunderstand, I am no more for slavery than I am for polygamy/polygyny, BUT, God tolerated both of them, and both of them are practiced in some parts of our world yet today...
Should we expect Bible teaching to be REALLY popular, anyway? </font>[/QUOTE]Kudos rjprince! You ain't politically correct but it's the truth.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
I find nothing morally or biblically wrong with polygyny or polyandry, except that the secular laws forbid it in this country. My gripe with the reformed LDS folks who practice it, is the child molestation and incest they drag along with it. That is not adults giving consent.
As a practical matter, I think it would be difficult for more people to get along. It is hard enough for 2 people to get along.
As a practical matter, I think it would be difficult for more people to get along. It is hard enough for 2 people to get along.
Magnetic Poles,
If there is nothing morally wrong (and I think there is) why did God overtly forbid it for church leaders? God can do anything He wants consistent with His Character, but I doubt this was for just arbitrary or pragmatic reasons.
The nature of marriage is from creation.
We have no pattern of God overtly instructing and approving polygamy.
Karen
If there is nothing morally wrong (and I think there is) why did God overtly forbid it for church leaders? God can do anything He wants consistent with His Character, but I doubt this was for just arbitrary or pragmatic reasons.
The nature of marriage is from creation.
We have no pattern of God overtly instructing and approving polygamy.
Karen
Paidagog,
Thanks. AND we must keep in mind that God tolerated and even regulated some things that were never part of His orignal pattern. HOWEVER, GOD NEVER indicated His approval or favor upon some of the cultural practices. He may have tolerated them, but there is no indication that He liked them! He tolerated and regulated divorce (Deut 24) and later He plainly declares that He HATES divorce.
MP,
Aside from the fact that God's original pattern was one man, one woman, one lifetime; AND that Jesus reaffirmed this pattern in Matt 19; AND that Paul forbids Elders/Bishops or Deacons from being a more than one woman man, I guess I must concede your first point -- "nothing morally or Biblically wrong" -- simply on the basis that nothing in Scripture contains a clear and DIRECT prohibition to polygamy. Yet, I must admint that I almost feel like I have somehow abandonded the faith with such a concession.
My biggest objection to LDS is that they are a CULT! Their polygamy is very much a side issue to that fact!
Scarletto,
The context of Deut 17 relates to special commands for the Kings of Israel...
Please do keep in mind the THREE critical rules of BIBLE INTERPRETATION! -- context, context, and context!
Thanks. AND we must keep in mind that God tolerated and even regulated some things that were never part of His orignal pattern. HOWEVER, GOD NEVER indicated His approval or favor upon some of the cultural practices. He may have tolerated them, but there is no indication that He liked them! He tolerated and regulated divorce (Deut 24) and later He plainly declares that He HATES divorce.
MP,
(Well Gina, I guess you were right!)Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
I find nothing morally or biblically wrong with polygyny or polyandry, except that the secular laws forbid it in this country. My gripe with the reformed LDS folks who practice it, is the child molestation and incest they drag along with it. That is not adults giving consent.
As a practical matter, I think it would be difficult for more people to get along. It is hard enough for 2 people to get along.
Aside from the fact that God's original pattern was one man, one woman, one lifetime; AND that Jesus reaffirmed this pattern in Matt 19; AND that Paul forbids Elders/Bishops or Deacons from being a more than one woman man, I guess I must concede your first point -- "nothing morally or Biblically wrong" -- simply on the basis that nothing in Scripture contains a clear and DIRECT prohibition to polygamy. Yet, I must admint that I almost feel like I have somehow abandonded the faith with such a concession.
My biggest objection to LDS is that they are a CULT! Their polygamy is very much a side issue to that fact!
Scarletto,
The context of Deut 17 relates to special commands for the Kings of Israel...
If this passage is a general prohibition for all against polygamy/polygyny, then it also clearly makes it a sin for anyone to own more than one horse!
Please do keep in mind the THREE critical rules of BIBLE INTERPRETATION! -- context, context, and context!
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Why did He not forbid it for the rest of the Church? </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. He was expressly talking about the pastor, not the general population.
Agreed. Yet God did provide some regulation of the practice in regard to the treatment of firstborn sons.
You do not provide regulations for that which is absolutely forbidden.
No one here has claimed that God overtly instructed or approved polygamy/polygyny/polyandry – only that He tolerated it. And we have rightly pointed out that even with advancing and progressing revelation, there is no DIRECT prohibition against the practice, even in the NT.
Would I be more comfortable about the whole thing if God had outright forbidden it to NT saints? Of course!
Am I willing to distort either my view OR my presentation of the issue to make it more palatable? Absolutely not. It may not be easy to swallow, but neither is it something I have the option of spitting out because I do not understand or like it. I can well sympathize with Peter when he said,
That does not mean Peter was right, only that I understand his objections just as well as I understand all of the objections raised here.
What is the end of the matter? Simply this... “Hath God said...?”