Polygamy

[the answer]

Is this permitted for a believer?

I know we can't do it in this country, but what about those in other countries?

1

[OrthodoX]

According to I Corinthians seven marriage is between one man and one woman. And this makes sense in light of Ephesians 5 were it is revealed that marriage is a picture of Christ and his bride, the Church. Certainly Christ would not take on more than one wife.

and in Paul's instructions to Timothy concerning the qualifications of leaders, Paul makes it clear that they are to be the husband of one wife.

Just some quick thoughts off the top.

Some might object, "well David and Solomon did it"...well they weren't supposed to. God told Israel before he gave them a human King that they weren't to have multiple wives. This mistake by David and Solomon led to David's murder and adultry and Solomon's idolatry.

In Christ-
OrthodoX

[the answer]

my crew was talkin about this last night.

If this is so bad, why doesn't God punish them for it, like he did for murder? Nathan came after he did all the wild stuff, not when he had many wives..

The Church being the bride is a good argument too!

1

[OrthodoX]

Good question.

I believe they were punished in that God allowed them their sinful desires which led eventually to "bigger" sins. Also the Bible does not record everything that took place in the lives of these great kings. It is very possible that David and Solomon were warned or rebuked yet it is not recorded in Holy Writ. I admit we must be careful in attempting to speculate here. But what we do know is that it was wrong and they did it anyway.

Bottom line? It is sin to have more than one wife...and as I am told by my married brothers...insane! Why would you want more than ONE wife? Isn't one sanctification and testing enough? jk- to my sistas out there...Im just playin. ;D

In Christ-
OrthodoX

[bob]

John said:

Some might object, "well David and Solomon did it"...well they weren't supposed to. God told Israel before he gave them a human King that they weren't to have multiple wives. This mistake by David and Solomon led to David's murder and adultry and Solomon's idolatry.

Actually, Scripture teaches the exact opposite....check Deut below..

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9 his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." 10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

..................

See, actually God had MANDATED that they take Multiple Wives. Hardly a mandate against it. For unless the brother happened to be single then he was to end up with MULTIPLE Wives.

So what shall we do in view of this? Well, this thread will need to be moved to another thread probably, as this gets straight into Eschatology. It is where the Futurist position is inconsistent again.

The Reformed Position namely, proclaims unashamedley, that we are Priest today in Christ Kingdom. But you and I being a Priest falls to Escatological Lines. It falls to the side of the New Covenant. And if those adhearants to the COW, Covenant of Works, are honest they will have to admit that they are basking today in the light New Covenant as Priest in the Kingdom.

So you ask, "what does being a Priest have to do with anything in this discussioin"? Well, per Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the Priest was to remain the Husband of ONE Wife. Why? His life was to MIRROR the relationship God had with His Bride Isreal. This was another picture story to show Isreal the PRECIOUSNESS of their status with God. As well as to show yet again what being in the Garden with God was REALLY about. Behind the Angels Flaming Sword, behind the Veil, was a ONE on ONE, relationship with God. Hence again the Mosaic command for the Marriage Bed to remain UNdefiled, for it too was another PICTURE of the Relationship behind the veil.

So for Paul to claim that we are NOW PRIEST is Radical Language at least. But it is deffinatly Eschatological, as Pauls anouncement here is ABSOLUTLY on par with the statement that we can NOW ENTER BOLDLY into the Throne Room of Grace. A New Day has dawned for Paul and the "followers of THE WAY" made straight by John the Baptist. The "hills" that only the Priest of Isreal had been able to climb, had been "made low". The Veil had been torn assunder, and the Angel guarding the Garden removed.

Now that we are Priest, WE are to represent and MIRROR for the World our PRECIOUS Position with our Husband, Christ, the Potter of Romans 9. The Elector, the Chooser of His Bride. HOW? By, ONCE having CHOOSEN our Bride, to be SATISFIED with her. Hence One Man, ONE Woman.

Bottom line here seems to me that if I am going to impose Levitical Law in one place I ought to impose it in ALL spots. Therefore I need to impose the same chapters of Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the areas of:

1. cutting my hair
2. producing evidence that my daughter is a Virgin at Marriage
3. stone her if she is not
4. stone her husband if she is not
5. stone the male members of the Singles group at Church if they have "bedded" my daughter, and she ends up marrying someone else, for at that point they have taken what belonged to another man
6. require a dowry of the male members of the Singles group if they bed my daughter but decide not to marry her

Need I go on? If we are going to condem David and Solomon then we ought to be consistent and take these same passages right on into the Church. I guarantee that if Deacon Jones was found to have bedded multiples, he would be diciplined according to these passages, and not against an Eschatological Line. So why not take the same medicine to the Hormonaly Enraged Youth of today? Whats good for the Goose is good for the Gander, is it not? I think so!

..............


If we are Preist then we are Preterist. Simple. And we must obey the Laws of One Wife.

If we are not Preterist, then we MUST take our brothers wife in the event that he dies OR Divorces her. Lest your Family be called the Family Unshod.

Not only that, but the Church has been told to be the Fatherless and Husband to the Widow, and it aint real hard to see that that passage crosses the Bounds of Isreal, and goes head long into previously Alien territory. Hence, now we should be prepared to take many MORE Multiple Wives than Isreal EVER had to. For now the Church knows no Racial or Ethnic barriers.

Kent

The Jedi Temple has been Cleaned and Opened for Business! Circa 70AD Darth Vader has brought Peace to the Gallaxie!

[bob]

John said...

This mistake by David and Solomon led to David's murder and adultry and Solomon's idolatry.

actually Davids Depravity led to this didnt it?

sounds to me like the front door to Works Salvation.

Just a question...


Kent
The Jedi Temple has been Cleaned and Opened for Business! Circa 70AD Darth Vader has brought Peace to the Gallaxie!

[OrthodoX]

Kent-

Welcome to the Cafe! ;D

Challenging points...let us discuss.

"When you come to the land the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me', you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold."
-Deuteronomy 17:14-17

The simple thing to see here was that God warns Israel and future kings that if the kings disobey here, acquire mulitiple wives, their hearts will turn away.

Commenting on verses 16 & 17, Kenneth L. Barker, General Editor of the NIV study bible commentary and Earl S. Kalland, commentator assigned to the NIV commentary of Deuteronomy write:

"The very things that later kings were guilty of, beginning especially with Solomon..."

Yes depravity is the big enchillada of answers or the easy answer. But the decisions one makes, in their depravity, leads to consequences. God tell the kings of Israel, if you take on multiple wives your hearts will turn from me. And this is seen in the lives and activities of the Kings themselves. Even David, man after God's own heart, turned from God and broke every one of the ten commandments in his sin which began with his disobedience of these commands in Deut. 17.

So to say, David's depravity is the culprit is really not a sufficient answer. The Bible challenges us to seek out where and how that depravity was manifested so we can check it in our own lives. Let us all learn from the fall of David, Solomon and the rest of Israel for that matter as the author of Hebrews admonishes us to do.

And Darth Vader's quoting of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 below is a beautiful passage demonstrating the OT practice of the kinsman redeemer which is in existence as a shadow of the work and ministry of Christ. The great piture of redemption found in this law is seen clearly in the book of Ruth. But this passage does not command us to take on multiple wives. And to use this passage to say that the Bible teaches polygamy is I believe to oversimplify the issue and to ignore other factors that are important.

Deut. 25 was directly for the nation of Israel, instructing them how to handle young widows. It has a spiritual fullfillment in Christ.

In the culture of Israel in the OT time, it was neccessary at times to take on more than one wife, and Kent has found the passage to explain why. A widow without a kinsman redeemer was doomed...they had to have a husband to survive.

As far as bringing up hyper-preterism..not gonna fly my friend. This will not again become a board where every post somehow comes back to the issue of hyper-preterism. We have threads for that, or you can start your own...but this one is a discussion on polygamy.

Is polygamy permitted for the believer? This is the original question raised by the answer. The answer to the answer's (don't mind the pun ;D) question is, according to scripture, NO.

I believe the most solid evidence for this is found in the New Testament revelation of the nature and purpose of marriage, and in the qualifications for church leaders, which by the way are interesting to parallel with the instructions in Deuteronomy 17 concerning national Israeli kings...hmmm...

It is impossible to make a case for polygamy from the New Testament....

In Christ- the bridegrom of the Chrurch, his ONE bride,

OrthodoX

[bob]

a slight correction here. on points 3 and 4 I say...

3. stone her if she is not
4. stone her husband if she is not

should have said...

3. stone her if she IS
4. stone ACCUSING husband if she is NOT

here again this point is a back drop for the Prophets being able to ask "is there UNrighteousness in God". Or better said, "will YOU SAY, there is UNrighteousness in God".

We see this play on into Eschatology once more as Isaiah Prophesys that Isreal would become a Harlot and an Adulterer. Paul confirms the fulfillment of Isaiah in almost ALL of his letters. Romans 1-5 and Galations 6, just to name two. Isreal had become that Harlot, Adulterer, Fornicator, Sodomite, etc.

The writter of Hebrews uses the same picture of Isreal having ".....once TASTED of the heavenly gift, yet turning away....". What gift? Is it somehow not part and parcel of the gift of ONE HUSBAND, YHVH, that said, "Thou shalt have no other Gods(Husbands) before me"? This ought to go right back to play into the discussion of Adams sin as well, for the Husband is the PICTURE of God providing for His Bride.

And of course here again we have the Justification of Polygamy under the Mosaic system as God is now providing for a CORPORATE PEOPLE GROUP, instead of just Individuals. Noah, Adam, Cain, etc.

Now per Abrahamic Covenant Gods Husbandly Role is Corporate. Pictured in the ONE Priest, providing for the Corporation, behind the Veil. So it is CONSISTENT for the Male who is NOT of the lineage of Arron to have MULTIPLE Wives. Arrons line was the PERFECT HUSBAND for all of the Families of Isreal. The PERFECT PICTURE of One Man One Woman per Corporate Framework.

Now 1Cor makes perfect sense. Chapter 15 included. Abraham Corporate WAS being raised for her soon returning Bride Groom. Only her First Husband, Moses, had to die first. The Corruption of Moses was putting on the Incorruption of Christ. The Eternal High Piest/Husband.

The Futurist who are adhearing to Monogomy are giving the World the wrong picture of Gods Relationship with his Church, His Bride. If the Mosaic System is still here in ANY PART then the Church is a sleeper, and God is a fornicating suitor, as she, the Church is still bound to another husband. Theonomist beware.

And of course the consistent Calvinist puts Peter "unwilling that any(elect) should perish" with Romand 9 "...Jacob (Isreal of the Spirit) have I loved, Easu (Isreal of the Flesh) have I hated..." and understands that our Election is only as good as is our Corporatness of being the Bride of Christ. Lest we make each of ouselves, INDIVIDUALY, a "Bride" and God a Polygamist. One God One Wife. Hmmmmmm I smell Salvation moving to an Eschatological Position. But I aint down with 100% of Auburn Avenue. Dont misunderstand me.

Kent

The Jedi Temple has been Cleaned and Opened for Business! Circa 70AD Darth Vader has brought Peace to the Gallaxie!

Kent

[OrthodoX]

Kent-

So you would tell the answer that polygamy is wrong...right? good...I agree...I have been saying polygamy is wrong from the beginning of this thread.

Humanity in the OT sinned out of their depravity, just as the sinners of today....I think I made that clear. But to only say...David sinned because he was depraved is a cop out. Is it not good to see the bad desicions made? (out of depravity?) God himself tells us that there are certain consequences to different sins...take on MULTIPLE wives they will turn away from him.

Anyways, I do not think this discussion is going anywhere...you want to debate me on polygamy yet you agree with me that it is wrong. okie dokie.

OrthodoX

[OrthodoX]

My only purpose originally for bringing up Deut. 17 was to show that the kings of Israel were not supposed to have multiple wives in the expectation that some would use the multiple wives of Solomon, ect. to support polygamy. You are right that the text I bring is not in itself sufficient to disprove polygamy.

My main arguement comes from the purpose and nature of marriage....primarily the definition in Ephesians five. And the qualifications for a leader in Paul's instructions to Timothy....a case for polygamy is impossible from the NT.

I appreciate the correction friend.

DoX

[bob]

[These were the last responses to this thread before I requested that it be made into its own thread for the peace and harmony of the board here. I have tried to do a little exegesis on Ephesians and marriage that can be found under "Eschatology of Monogamy. Thanks for the Grace guys. Kent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by Heretic Hound:

John,

I think you are missing Kent's point so I will try to state what I think he is getting at as 'simply' as possible. Kent, correct me if I'm wrong.

Kent is NOT saying that your conclusion about polygamy being wrong today is incorrect. I think what he is saying is that you have no basis for saying so. You are inconsistent in your own paradigm. You have prooftext your position, but in doing so, strected the meaning of passages to fit your preconceived ideas and ignored the 'story'.

Kent, I hope I didn't misrepresent what your point was here, but that is the direction I see you going.

James

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by Darth Vader:


First let me say that James is pretty much on the money. Your position has to "read into" the Text things that are BLATANTLY not there. I however have tried to demonstrate that my position is in harmony with Scripture from ANY ANGLE you choose to approach it from. Your position is still a product of the Feminization of the American Male courtesy of Charles Finney and and countless other Emotional Philisophical Theologians.

Second let me CLEARLY say that Leviticus and Deuteronomy in NO WAY tell Kings or Simpeltons to NOT TAKE MULTIPLE WIVES. It tells them to not take "MANY" wives and THEN!, it even QUALIFIES itself(Scripture) as to WHAT IT(Scripture) means by juxtaposing WIVES to GOLD AND SILVER. The issue and point is EXCESS. Based on your Logic we should all throw our Wedding Bands away too. For if "Many" means "any more than one" then "Excessive" must mean the same thing. I would expect a Christian movement shortly to be formed to have:
1. Fort Knox removed from the country.
2. Stop accepting nickles in Chuch offering plates
3. Excomunicate any Church Member who refuses to rid their houses and cars of anything that uses Gold as an electrical conductor.
4. etc.

Point is this John, did we learn nothing in the American Experiance with Prohibition? You are making me wonder bro. Why cant we just learn to let Scripture Speak for itself?

It doesnt say what you are forcing it to say. It actually says the OPPOSITE.

Take your own premis of letting the LATER Passages QUALIFY the FORMER and apply it to Deuteronomy where you and I both quote from.

Your passage comes BEFORE my passage. Therefore based on your logic my passage takes precedent. I win the argument again EVEN IF it said NO WIVES in chapter 17!

It is simply the fact that no where in the OT, outside of Arrons Line, do you find Monogamy Mandated. Actually it is just the OPPOSITE! They were MANDATED TO be Polygamist in the OT. So my answer to Answer would be, "Bro, if you are not in the New Covenant, you are to be a Polygamist". Just like with C-Tide back on HHZ, "Bro, if we aint in the New Covenant, you are MANDATED to be Speaking in tongues".

Thirdly, let me just clarify, we have a CLEAR ENOUGH picture and Mandate defined by the TIME LINE of the New Covenant, to no longer Practice Polygamy. Period. We are Priest today. Priest are to have ONE WIFE.

The HUMOROUS thing is that the Partial Preterist are the BIGGEST proponents of proclaiming our Priesthood and Kingship. Once again I will say, "If we arent Kings and Priest, we cannot take Dominion". Period. Dispensational escapism rules the day. Raptue anyone?

Lastly. By making Chapter 17 say Monogamy and Chapter 25 say Polygamy, you have introduced "contradiction" into the text. If I am not mistaken, this is the supposed point wherby Bahnsen destroys the Muslim Position. Yet you have in one fell swoop reduced Scripture to the same position of the Koran. I really get from this that Tylers argument is based not from his encounters with those who proclaim Scripture is NON Contradictory, but rather from encounters with this same mentality of pragmatism. Why would you do this to Scripture? Especially when there is no reason to. Scripture, like God, doesnt need to be defendend, nor kept in the "sacred box" of Incomprehensibility. He, God, can use the Human Language just fine. Many means excess, Brother dying means you become a Polygamist. Priest are MANDATED to be Monogamous.

And yes, I dont know how to spell Polygamy nor Monogamy, and I don't feel like running this through spell check right now!

Scripture says, Be NOT DRUNK. wherein is >>>>>EXCESS. Not DONT DRINK.
Scripture says, Be Polygamist(in the Old Covenant). but not to >>>>>EXCESS. Not DONT HAVE MORE THAN """ONE""".

Then Scripture moves YOU AND I into the line of ARRON. at the point of the NEW COVENANT. If you are not a Priest then you are a Dispensationalist. If you are a Priest you are a Hyper Preterist. Just ask any Dispensationalist.

One more thing here. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard a preacher preach against premarital sex because you might get pregnant or AIDS I would be a Very Rich man. yet all he had to do was go to Scripture and say "thus sayeth God". Are all those things true about AIDS and STDs? Sure. But can we not see the difference in Mans Wisdom and Gods. Everytime we FORCE something out of a text or into a Text we are doing the SAME EXACT thing Satan started this whole dance with. "Well surely what He really meant Eve, was...........".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Cyple]

Hmmm....interesting argument. I'm all about the compare and contrast that the bible uses. It uses it in many places. For instance in Romans 6:23:

23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Some believe that in this passage death is physical death, meaning that if you sin you will suffer different consequences (as stated in earlier posts). It contrasts it with eternal life. by saying BUT meaning the alternative to deah in this scripture is eternal life. It doesn't say the alternative is a better life without the consequences of sin. So it must mean ETERNAL DEATH.

I said all that t say that I agree with the point that contrasting not taking too much silver and gold and not taking too many wives must not mean just one. Unless you believe that it is wrong for people to have more than one piece of silver or gold.

You did bring to my attention that we are a royal priesthood and that priests are not to have more than one wife. But then why would Paul even have to tell Timothy not ot let someone be a leader that has more than one wife. Wouldn't he say they cannot be a Christian with more than one wife? So the question is: What about someone who is married to multiple wives before he becomes a Christian? Is he to abandon his wives?

Cyple