What about polygamy? Does God FORBID it?

[rjprince]

Originally posted by Karen:
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

... seem to be application to polyandry....

... seem to be forbidden...

I repeat. THE NT DOES NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE!

 

[Karen]

We just disagree then. The NT does address this issue when church leaders are specifically prohibited. (Yes, "one-woman man" covers MORE than polygamy, but it covers polygamy.)

They are not prohibited because of an arbitrary rule but because of God's creation order stated by Jesus in Matthew.

When people are told to emulate their leaders in the various passages I cited, this is one of the things they are supposed to emulate.

You are right that there is not a 3-word prooftext. But the concept is there.

Karen

 

[paidagogos]

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.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.

 

[paidagogos]

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.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.

 

[paidagogos]

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.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.

 

[paidagogos]

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.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.

 

[paidagogos]

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.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.

 

[paidagogos]

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.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.

 

[paidagogos]

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.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.

 

[paidagogos]

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.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by rjprince:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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! </font>[/QUOTE]You sure read a lot into the few words I personally wrote with this post!

I merely posted this since it is the first mention of a man with 2 wives. I did not say it proved anything and I am not up in arms about my "cultural mores." This is also an ad hominem attack and does not prove your point.

Nothing in the text I posted indicates that God told Lamech to take 2 wives and it does not say God approved or disapproved. But the fact that Lamech is not much of a role model might be something God wants us to see here?

I noticed also that you left out the fact that David was a murderer by sending Bathsheba's husband to the front so he would get killed. Yes, he was a man after God's own heart, but it doesn't take away from him being a murderer. And you talk about manipulating God's word!

You drew conclusions from what I posted that I did NOT state nor was I trying to imply. I said we could draw "principles" from this, and by that, I meant principles that shows God is perhaps not in favor of men taking more than one wife.