What about polygamy? Does God FORBID it?

[Scarlett O.]

Originally posted by rjprince:
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!

That's some good advice.

Now why don't you take it yourself.

If you had actually slowed down when reading my post, you would have seen that I inserted the phrase "authority figures" in the verse that I quoted to let everyone know that this was about leaders, kings specifically, if they were familiar with the entire passage as I am and have been for a long time familiar with Deuteronomy 17.

And I said the it was my belief and interpretation that the spirit of this law could be applied to all men.

And the horses?

It's not the horses in and of themselves that were forbidden....it was what horses represented....military might and power. Yes, horses in those days represented an army.

He was telling them that their leaders should not get too full of themselves and too dependent on their own fleshly might and strength or else they would turn their backs on God.

I think that that particular "lesson" could apply to all people in general.

It's not about owning a horse being sinful.

And yes, I STILL think that the "lesson" of leaders and authority figures multiplying their spouses and ending up in danger of being led astray from God and being led astray from the straight and narrow could be applicable to all people today.

In my mind the spirit of that law prevails.

1. Don't get full of yourself and your own "power" and think that you can do everything by yourself and without God.

2. And don't become involved in a multiple marriage situation for fear that your Godly standards will waver and your relationship with God will take a back seat over your trying to keep a relationship with multiple spouses.

How's that for context for you?

 

[rjprince]

OP by ScarlettO:
That's some good advice.

Now why don't you take it yourself.

If you had actually slowed down when reading my post, you would have seen that I inserted the phrase "authority figures" in the verse that I quoted to let everyone know that this was about leaders, kings specifically, if they were familiar with the entire passage as I am and have been for a long time familiar with Deuteronomy 17.

Sorry. Sometimes I do miss things when I read fast. But then again, sometimes I miss things when I read SLOW. Besides, this is partly YOUR FAULT! You shouldn’t type so fast WHEN YOU KNOW I AM SUCH A SLOW READER!!!

OP by ScarlettO:
And I said the it was my belief and interpretation that the spirit of this law could be applied to all men.

And the horses?

It's not the horses in and of themselves that were forbidden....it was what horses represented....military might and power. Yes, horses in those days represented an army.

“Spirit of the law” never trumps clear declarations of Scripture, nor do “spirit of the law” beliefs and interpretations constitute a mandate for all believers. If “It's not the horses in and of themselves that were forbidden...”, then why can we not also say, “It's not polygamy/polygyny in and of itself that were forbidden...”

If

OP by ScarlettO:

It's not about owning a horse being sinful.

Then how can it be about having multiple wives being sinful?

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you!

 

[donnA]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Adam is a type of Christ.

And?? what??

 

[Frenchy]

There are alot of types of Christ in the old testament.

Donna that means that many people were a picture of Christ and his plan for salvation. take Abraham and issac. Issac was a type of Christ in many ways, for one he was around the same age (I have scripture to prove this) as Christ when his FATHER Abraham offered him on the alter. Issac was shown to CARRY his own wood to the alter, just like Christ carried his cross. Issac went WILLINGLY and could have resisted but he didn't. Jesus could have called his angels to take him down. Issac had faith in his father and trusted God's will so did Jesus. See all the similarities this is what is called TYPE of Christ. In Genisis Methuselah was said to be a type of Christ.

 

[paidagogos]

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.

A Biblical case against polyandry is easily made but polygamy is a little more obscure. Furthermore, how do you view Jesus’s statement in Matthew 19:9 that God originally intended for one man and one woman?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If there is nothing morally wrong (and I think there is) why did God overtly forbid it for church leaders?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]You’re rationalizing. Specifically forbidding polygamy for pastors does not make it acceptable for the rest of the church. The situation was that people were in the church that had come to salvation in a polygamous state. Even today, what do you say to Muslim who accepts Christ and he has six wives with six kids by each? Do you tell him to get rid of five wives and their kids? A man guilty of polygamy can be saved but one can never be a pastor. However, this is not to infer that it’s okay to go out and marry several wives.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If there is nothing morally wrong (and I think there is) why did God overtly forbid it for church leaders?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If there is nothing morally wrong (and I think there is) why did God overtly forbid it for church leaders?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I think there are a number of NT Scriptures that say that it is forbidden for the rest of the church.
For example, Romans 7 says that a woman that is married to another man while her husband is alive is an adulteress. Does this only apply to instances of divorce and not polyandry?

In Matthew 19, a normal interpretation is that the Lord Jesus is saying that if the first marriage stands, a second marriage is adultery. A broader concept than just divorce.

I Tim 3:2 and Titus 1 give qualifications for church leaders. BUT these leaders are told to be examples to the flock. The believers are told to imitate their example in passages in Phil. 3:17, 4:9, I Thess.1, 2 Thess. 3, I Tim 4, Titus 2, I Pet 5, I Cor 4 and I Cor 11.

So, yes, I think there are a number of passages, therefore, against polygamy in all its forms.
It is specifically forbidden and generally forbidden.

Not that it usually matters to Baptists, but Tertullian and the early Church Fathers spoke against polygamy. 150 years ago, when Brigham Young was leading the Mormons to Utah, the church as a whole spoke against polygamy.
There is a lot of research on the horrible social problems that occur in polygamous societies. There are good social reasons to oppose it, too.

An analogous example is that God hates divorce, yet He commanded it in the specific example of the returned exiles in Ezra 10.
God choosing to allow polygamy for a time does not mean that it is His design.

Karen

 

[Karen]

How annoying! It wouldn't let me post, then it did 4 of them.

[ May 03, 2006, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Karen ]

 

[Brother Bob]

You get the point!!

 

[drfuss]

Here is a scripture that, with a little stretch, could be interpreted to mean having many wives is a good thing. In fact this was one of the reasons they wanted to have many wives.

Psalms 127:3-5. Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with the enemies in the gate.


I know...I know. It is a stretch of an interpretation. But someone was looking for a scripture which could be used to say having more than one wife was a good thing.

 

[drfuss]

Here is a scripture that, with a little stretch, could be interpreted to mean having many wives is a good thing. In fact this was one of the reasons they wanted to have many wives.

Psalms 127:3-5. Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with the enemies in the gate.


I know...I know. It is a stretch of an interpretation. But someone was looking for a scripture which could be used to say having more than one wife was a good thing.

 

[Marcia]

No one posted the first biblical reference to someone taking more than one wife, which is in Gen. 4:

17Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.

18Now to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad became the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael became the father of Methushael, and Methushael became the father of Lamech.

19Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah.

23Lamech said to his wives,
"Adah and Zillah,
Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamech,
Give heed to my speech,
For I have killed a man for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me;
24If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold."

25Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."

26To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

I posted all that for a reason (I left out verses 20-22). I think we can draw principles from this -- Lamech was a descendant of Cain and took 2 wives and ended up a murderer. But it was in the time of Seth's son that "men began to call upon the name of the Lord."

This is the first instance in the Bible where men begin to call upon the Lord and so is very significant, especially in contrast to the Lamech line, he who took 2 wives.

 

[rjprince]

Originally posted by Karen:
For example, Romans 7 says that a woman that is married to another man while her husband is alive is an adulteress. Does this only apply to instances of divorce and not polyandry?

Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.

Originally posted by Karen:
I Tim 3:2 and Titus 1 give qualifications for church leaders. BUT these leaders are told to be examples to the flock. The believers are told to imitate their example in passages in Phil. 3:17, 4:9, I Thess.1, 2 Thess. 3, I Tim 4, Titus 2, I Pet 5, I Cor 4 and I Cor 11.

So, yes, I think there are a number of passages, therefore, against polygamy in all its forms.
It is specifically forbidden and generally forbidden.

It is NOWHERE SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN! None of the passage you quoted or cited make reference to polygamy/polygyny. The “one woman man” phrase is used three times in the NT. Twice in 1Tim 3 and once in Titus 1. A parallel phrase “one man woman” is used in 1Tim 5:9 as a qualification for widows taken in for support by the church. Since polyandry was NOT practiced in any of the cultures where NT churches were established this has be a reference to her moral character, not whether or not she was guilty of polyandry. Therefore, to interpret the converse statement as a reference to polygamy is not a reasonable interpretation.


Originally posted by Karen:

Not that it usually matters to Baptists, but Tertullian and the early Church Fathers spoke against polygamy. 150 years ago, when Brigham Young was leading the Mormons to Utah, the church as a whole spoke against polygamy.
There is a lot of research on the horrible social problems that occur in polygamous societies. There are good social reasons to oppose it, too.

Church history does matter, but it never takes precedence over the Word of God. Yes, polygamy/polygyny does have social problems, but that never justifies twisting the Word to make a point. On another thread I strongly argued that you cannot take a passage that uses the words “wine” and “drunk” and then argue that it is talking about “grape juice” to address the social problem of alcohol abuse.


Originally posted by Karen:

God choosing to allow polygamy for a time does not mean that it is His design.

Maybe not, but it does mean that it is not SIN! God’s righteousness would never allow Him to allow sin!

 

[rjprince]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I posted all that for a reason (I left out verses 20-22). I think we can draw principles from this -- Lamech was a descendant of Cain and took 2 wives and ended up a murderer. But it was in the time of Seth's son that "men began to call upon the name of the Lord."

This is the first instance in the Bible where men begin to call upon the Lord and so is very significant, especially in contrast to the Lamech line, he who took 2 wives.

This is non sequitur reasoning. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION between the facts that you present!

Jacob had two wives, but he was not a murderer. David had numerous wives and even concubines and he was a man after God’s own heart. Your attempt to use Genesis 4 to connect murder with polygamy and sincere love for God with monogamy fails to interact with the whole of Scripture.

I am bothered by the whole concept of polygamy/polygyny and the goel practice. BUT I AM MORE BOTHERED WHEN GOOD PEOPLE, AND WITH GOOD INTENTIONS, MANIPULATE THE WORD OF GOD BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT THEIR OWN CULTURAL MORES!

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by rjprince:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Karen:
For example, Romans 7 says that a woman that is married to another man while her husband is alive is an adulteress. Does this only apply to instances of divorce and not polyandry?

Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.

.........</font>[/QUOTE]Must not have made myself clear. I agree with you on that point. Divorce does break a marriage. But many often use this verse, correctly or incorrectly, against divorce to the extent that remarriage is wrong while the former spouse is living.
I was attempting the point that there would seem to be application, also, to polyandry.
If a woman was married to two men, bigamy, in other words, it would seem to be forbidden by this passage, in spite of assertions that the NT does not address the issue.

Karen

 

[Karen]

Deut. 17: 17, refers to the king. God says he must not take many wives or he will be led astray.
A prohibition against polygamy. I suppose one could say it was only directed to the king, and 3 or 4 is not necessarily many.
(I think that would be looking for a loophole rather than obeying Scripture.)

Also, I think it is noteworthy that Abraham and Isaac each had only one wife.
(Hagar was Sarah's idea, and it led to problems.)
Jacob was tricked into having two wives, and it led to problems.

Karen

 

[rjprince]

Originally posted by Karen:
Deut. 17: 17, refers to the king. God says he must not take many wives or he will be led astray.
A prohibition against polygamy. I suppose one could say it was only directed to the king, and 3 or 4 is not necessarily many.
(I think that would be looking for a loophole rather than obeying Scripture.)

Also, I think it is noteworthy that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob each had only one wife.
(Hagar was Sarah's idea, and it led to problems.)

Karen

Gen 29:25-32
25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?
26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn.
27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.
29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid.
30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
31 ¶ And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.

I have missed a few myself in my time...

 

[rjprince]

double post...

 

[rjprince]

OK. I see your correction... (after my quote)

He went along with the plan though.