“The Wise and Foolish Virgins” by Peter von Cornelius

Holy Polygamy: Men of the Bible with Multiple Wives

When you think of polygamy, what do you think of? The Mor­mons? Islam or Muham­mad? Maybe you think of Big Love or the Yearn­ing for Zion Ranch?

If you are a Chris­t­ian, though, I want to give you some­thing else to think of when the sub­ject of polygamy comes up. You see, a Chris­tian’s mind should­n’t instinc­tive­ly be drawn to the world, oth­er faiths, or entertainment.

Instead, the Chris­tian’s thoughts should grav­i­tate to the Scrip­tures, to those men through­out the his­to­ry of the Bible who lived out their lives with mul­ti­ple wives, some with two or three, oth­ers with wives num­ber­ing in the hundreds.

I want to intro­duce you to these men. 

For sim­plic­i­ty, I’ll present this list alpha­bet­i­cal­ly. Also, I will from now on be refer­ring to these men with the more spe­cif­ic term polyg­y­nist. Polyg­y­ny is the prac­tice of one man hav­ing mul­ti­ple wives; it is a type of polygamy.

The Biblical Polygists

Abdon

And after him Abdon the son of Hil­lel, a Pirathonite, judged Israel. 14And he had forty sons and thir­ty nephews, that rode on three­score and ten ass colts: and he judged Israel eight years.

Judges 12:13–14, King James Version

Alpha­bet­i­cal­ly, we start our list with a man, Abdon, who isn’t explic­it­ly said to be a polyg­y­nist. How­ev­er, due to the large num­ber of chil­dren he is said to have had, it is pos­si­ble that mul­ti­ple wives bore these chil­dren to him. If that is a cor­rect assump­tion, then it is also worth not­ing that no neg­a­tive remarks regard­ing Abdon’s rela­tion­ships are made.

Abijah

But Abi­jah waxed mighty, and mar­ried four­teen wives, and begat twen­ty and two sons, and six­teen daughters.

2 Chron­i­cles 13:21, King James Version

You should read the rest of chap­ter thir­teen to get the full pic­ture of Abi­jah; when you do, you’ll come away with the dis­tinct impres­sion that God was on his side.

You’ll find out that while Abi­jah was rul­ing over the king­dom of Judah, Jer­oboam and the king­dom of Israel rose up against them. Jer­oboam and his men stood under the care­ful, watch­ful pro­tec­tion of their gold­en calves and idols; Abi­jah and his men rose up under the watch, care, and pro­tec­tion of the God of Abra­ham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And what hap­pened? “…God smote Jer­oboam and all Israel before Abi­jah and Judah” (v. 15).

Despite all that we’re told about Abi­jah, it is telling that we’re nev­er giv­en a hint of dis­ap­proval regard­ing his hav­ing mul­ti­ple wives.

Abram / Abraham

Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no chil­dren: and she had an hand­maid, an Egypt­ian, whose name was Hagar. 2And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bear­ing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain chil­dren by her. And Abram hear­kened to the voice of Sarai. 3And 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.

Gen­e­sis 16:1–3, King James Version

Then again Abra­ham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

Gen­e­sis 25:1, King James Version

The ESV Study Bible says of Gen­e­sis 16:3, “While the OT records occa­sions when par­tic­u­lar indi­vid­u­als have more than one wife, such instances are almost always fraught with com­pli­ca­tions and dif­fi­cul­ty. The tak­ing of mul­ti­ple wives is nev­er encour­aged in the Bible and usu­al­ly aris­es out of pecu­liar circumstances.”

I won­der if the authors of that note have paid much atten­tion to mar­riage in gen­er­al: even monogamy is “almost always fraught with com­pli­ca­tions and dif­fi­cul­ty.” That’s just the nature of human relationships!

Did any of those polyg­a­mist unions found in the Scrip­tures end in divorce? What about today’s monog­a­mous mar­riages? I’m will­ing to bet that monog­a­mous soci­eties have a much high­er rate of divorce than do polyg­y­nous ones. Why that would be, I can­not say for certain.

In any event, Abra­ham had at least three wives — two of which for cer­tain were con­cur­rent. An addi­tion­al curios­i­ty of this fam­i­ly was that Abra­ham’s tak­ing of a sec­ond wife the idea of Sarai, his first wife.

That is a curios­i­ty because it shows a great lack of self-cen­tered­ness on the part of Sarai; she knew the promise that Abra­ham would have chil­dren despite his age, and feel­ing as though the promise could not be ful­filled in her, she arranged for her own ser­vant to be Abra­ham’s sec­ond wife, so that the promise could be ful­filled through her.

The study Bible notes that polygamy is nev­er encour­aged; notice here, though, that the angel of the Lord inter­venes to mend the rela­tion­ship between Hagar and Sarai but in no way express­es any sort of dis­ap­proval at the polyg­y­nous unions between Abra­ham and the two women (vv. 9–12)!

Ahab

And Ben-hadad the king of Syr­ia gath­ered all his host togeth­er: and there were thir­ty and two kings with him, and hors­es, and char­i­ots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it. 2And he sent mes­sen­gers to Ahab king of Israel into the city, and said unto him, Thus saith Ben-hadad, 3Thy sil­ver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also and thy chil­dren, even the good­liest, are mine.

1 Kings 20:1–3, King James Version

We aren’t giv­en details regard­ing these mar­riages, just that they exist: Ahab, king of Israel, had mul­ti­ple wives, and a dis­ap­prov­ing word from the prophets or God him­self can­not be found.

Ahasuerus

Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the roy­al house which belonged to king Ahasuerus.

Esther 1:9, King James Version

Aha­suerus’ sit­u­a­tion, like Abdon’s, is a bit spec­u­la­tive. Were all the women wives of Aha­suerus? Or were they hand­maid­ens of the king? Or concubines?

In any event, we know that Aha­suerus was mar­ried to Vashti, and that lat­er, she would lose her roy­al posi­tion to Esther (ch. 2). Were both women con­cur­rent wives of Ahasuerus?

What­ev­er the sit­u­a­tion, at the very least we can be cer­tain that no dis­ap­prov­ing words regard­ing polyg­y­nous mar­riages are spo­ken by God or his prophets in this situation.

Ashur

And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

1 Chron­i­cles 4:5, King James Version

Appear­ing in a much longer list of the descen­dants of Judah, we are told sim­ply that Ashur had two wives. No dis­ap­proval. No stat­ed need for repentance.

Belshazzar

Bels­haz­zar, while he tast­ed the wine, com­mand­ed to bring the gold­en and sil­ver ves­sels which his father Neb­uchad­nez­zar had tak­en out of the tem­ple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his con­cu­bines, might drink therein.

Daniel 5:2, King James Version

I admit that Bels­haz­zar isn’t the best pos­si­ble exam­ple, but he is a “bib­li­cal polyg­y­nist” nonetheless.

We are told of his drunk­en­ness, of his idol­a­try — things which else­where are revealed to be against the Law of God.

That Bels­haz­zar had mul­ti­ple wives, though? That was a com­mon prac­tice among many cul­tures, just as it is today, and there is no sign that the prac­tice of polyg­y­ny vio­lat­ed the law of God, nor is it with­in the con­text of this pas­sage that his hav­ing mul­ti­ple wives was in any way prob­lem­at­ic to God.

Ben-hadad

We can infer that when Ben-hadad would take Ahab’s wives, he would take them to be his own wives.

Caleb

And Caleb the son of Hezron begat chil­dren of Azubah his wife, and of Jerio­th: her sons are these; Jesh­er, and Shobab, and Ardon. 19And when Azubah was dad, Caleb took unto him Ephrath, which bare him Hur.

1 Chron­i­cles 2:18–19, King James Version

And Ephah, Cale­b’s con­cu­bine, bare Haran, and Moza, and Gazez: and Haran begat Gazez.

1 Chron­i­cles 2:46, King James Version

Maachah, Cale­b’s con­cu­bine, bare She­ber, and Tirhanah.

1 Chron­i­cles 2:48, King James Version

Caleb had at least two con­cur­rent wives plus some con­cu­bines, and there is no sign that this was­n’t a nor­mal, expect­ed fam­i­ly structure.

The study Bible notes men­tioned above said that polyg­y­ny was nev­er encour­aged; how is por­tray­ing some­thing as per­fect­ly nor­mal not at least implied encouragement?

David

Where­fore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hun­dred men; and David brought their fore­skins and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daugh­ter to wife.

1 Samuel 18:27, King James Version

And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the Lord, that hath plead­ed the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his ser­vant from evil: for the Lord hath returned the wicked­ness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and com­muned with Abi­gail, to take her to him to wife.

1 Samuel 25:39, King James Version

David also took Ahi­noam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.

1 Samuel 25:42, King James Version

And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron.

2 Samuel 3:5, King James Version

And David took him more con­cu­bines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daugh­ters born to David.

2 Samuel 5:13, King James Version

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anoint­ed thee king over Israel, and I deliv­ered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8And I gave thee thy mas­ter’s house, and thy mas­ter’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too lit­tle, I would more­over have giv­en unto thee such and such things.

2 Samuel 12:7–8, King James Version

And David com­fort­ed Bathshe­ba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him.

2 Samuel 12:24, King James Version

David is the most sig­nif­i­cant man on this list thus far; not only was he the king of Israel, he is also the pen­man behind hun­dreds of chap­ters of Scripture.

And he was a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22).

Make no mis­take that there was sin in David’s life. He com­mit­ted adul­tery and mur­dered to get away with it. He was as human as the rest of us, yet he was high­ly favored by the lord.

And he was a polygynist.

It’s easy enough to attribute David’s prob­lems to some sort of insa­tiable lust, but the Scrip­tures do not point us in that direction.

On the con­trary, 2 Samuel 12:7–8 (quot­ed above) and the sur­round­ing con­text show that David rebelled against the lord despite hav­ing mul­ti­ple wives. The Scrip­tures go so far as to say that God him­self gave David mul­ti­ple wives and that, if they were not enough, he would give David even more!

Accord­ing to the Bible, does God sin? Can iniq­ui­ty be found in the him? Does God change?

Keep in mind that the ESV Study Bible said that the Scrip­tures nev­er encour­aged polyg­y­ny. What does it have to say about God giv­ing mul­ti­ple wives to David? “There is no oth­er record of David mar­ry­ing Saul’s wives, but he was cer­tain­ly in a posi­tion to do so.”

Basi­cal­ly, they avoid the issue. When con­front­ed with unde­ni­able, incon­tro­vert­ible evi­dence that polyg­y­ny is an accept­able prac­tice, rather than admit such, the edi­tors of the study Bible side­step the issue. I hope you won’t make the same mis­take when com­ing to your own under­stand­ing of what the Bible says regard­ing marriage.

Eliphaz

And the sons of Elip­haz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. 12And Tim­na was con­cu­bine to Elip­haz Esau’s son; and she bare to Elip­haz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife.

Gen­e­sis 36:11–12, King James Version

We are only told the name of one of Elip­haz’s wives, but what we are not told is that God dis­ap­proved of his fam­i­ly struc­ture. We should not read into the Scrip­tures dis­ap­proval where none in fact exists.

Elkanah

Now there was a cer­tain man of Ramath­aim-zophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elka­nah, the son of Jero­ham, the son of Eli­hu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite: 2And he had two wives; the name of the one was Han­nah, and the name of the oth­er Penin­nah: and Penin­nah had chil­dren, but Han­nah had no children.

1 Samuel 1:1–2, King James Version

The ESV Study Bible actu­al­ly makes sense in its han­dling of this pas­sage, so I’ll defer to it: “Prob­a­bly Han­nah was Elka­nah’s first wife, since she is named first. Pre­sum­ably he mar­ried Penin­nah because Han­nah was bar­ren; lack of an heir was a major prob­lem in the ancient Near East, as in many oth­er soci­eties. Tak­ing a sec­ond wife was one way to try to solve the prob­lem (Gen. 16:2), as was levi­rate mar­riage. Elka­nah’s pedi­gree sug­gests that it would be impor­tant to him to have an heir to con­tin­ue the fam­i­ly and also that he was pros­per­ous enough to afford a sec­ond marriage.”

If mar­riage was the only legit­i­mate avenue of ful­fill­ing the com­mand to pro­cre­ate, then how much more does polyg­y­ny allow this com­mand to be ful­filled? We saw this sort of thing ear­li­er in the case of Abra­ham; so that Abra­ham may have a child, his wife Sarai encour­aged him to take Hagar to be his sec­ond wife.

Seems to me that polyg­y­ny is in fact an encour­aged alter­na­tive to remain­ing child­less. Curi­ous, no?

Esau

And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daugh­ter of Beeri the Hit­tite, and Bashe­math the daugh­ter of Elon the Hittite:

Gen­e­sis 26:34, King James Version

Mul­ti­ple wives with no dis­ap­proval. Are you notic­ing a pat­tern yet?

Ezra

And the sons of Ezra were, Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon: and she bare Miri­am, and Sham­mai, and Ish­bah the father of Eshte­moa. 18And his wife Jehudi­jah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithi­ah the daugh­ter of Pharaoh, which Mered took.

1 Chron­i­cles 4:17–18, King James Version

Verse 17 lists the sons of Ezrah with one wife; verse 18 details his fam­i­ly with his wife Jehudi­jah (or as some trans­la­tions ren­der it, his Judahite wife).

There are fam­i­ly details aplen­ty but not a word of divine disapproval.

Gideon

And Gideon had three­score and ten sons of his body begot­ten: for he had many wives.

Judges 8:30, King James Version

This pas­sage does­n’t mince any words: Gideon had many wives. Plain. Sim­ple. Unpunished.

Heman

Hosea

Ibzan

Issachar

Jacob

Jair

Jehoiachin

Jehoram

Jerahmeel

Joash

Lamech

Machir

Manasseh

Mered

Moses

Nahor

Rehoboam

Saul

Shaharaim

Shimei

Simeon

Solomon

Terah

Zedekiah

Ziba

Polygamy is Biblical

What comes to your mind when you think of polyg­y­ny? If this post was suc­cess­ful, you’ll now think of any of a num­ber of men from the Bible. Per­haps most sig­nif­i­cant­ly, you should think of David, who not only was a man after God’s own heart, but was also a man to whom God gave mul­ti­ple wives with the promise of more if desired.

I ful­ly rec­og­nize that polyg­y­ny is a for­eign con­cept to many peo­ple today, but in the midst of a soci­ety in which I see Chris­tians using the Bible to brow­beat homo­sex­u­als or any­one else who is “alt” or “oth­er” in their sex­u­al­i­ty, when we view the hav­ing of mul­ti­ple spous­es as bigamy, a crime with real pun­ish­ments, it is all the more impor­tant to under­stand that the Bible which so many peo­ple point to in favor of their moral high grounds isn’t at all what the mul­ti­tudes assume it is.

Yeah, the Bible (extreme­ly unfor­tu­nate­ly) con­demns homo­sex­u­al­i­ty. Yes, it uses (extreme­ly unfor­tu­nate) misog­y­nis­tic language.

But it also freely allows the hav­ing of mul­ti­ple wives. (Unless you’re a Chris­t­ian, in which case the only rea­son giv­en for you to mar­ry is if you can’t keep your pants on, but that’s anoth­er top­ic for anoth­er time.)

Fea­tured image: The Wise & Fool­ish Vir­gins by Peter von Cornelius

346 thoughts on “Holy Polygamy: Men of the Bible with Multiple Wives”

  1. Thanks for your com­ments, Armen; I have posts planned on just about every top­ic you men­tioned, so I’ll only briefly touch on the points here:

    “Hav­ing been hum­bled by Saul, they were not eli­gi­ble women for oth­er men. But, some­one need­ed to care for them.” — Saul was dead; the women would no longer be bound to him and would be free to remarry.

    “The law of Moses reg­u­lat­ed polygamy, but nev­er approved of it. In fact, if your sup­port is from David and you think God gave him mul­ti­ple wives, then God con­tra­dicts his own word. Read Deut 17 con­cern­ing any king over Israel, ‘Nei­ther shall he mul­ti­ply wives to him­self…’ ” — If the Law is what defines sin, then it is notable that polyg­y­ny is not con­demned, even while a vast array of oth­er sex­u­al sins are.

    Like­wise, the com­mand to not mul­ti­ply wives does­n’t for­bid hav­ing more than one wife any­more than the neigh­bor­ing verse for­bids hav­ing more than one horse. Do you believe that a king was only allowed one horse?

    “God’s order is that a man should take one wife. It was insti­tut­ed as such in the gar­den of Eden. Polygamy then orig­i­nat­ed with the son of rebel­lious Cain (Gen. 4:16–19). Not a good exam­ple.” — Actu­al­ly, God’s order was that a woman would leave her par­ents to cleave to her hus­band. Noth­ing inher­ent in that pre­cludes mul­ti­ple women cleav­ing to the same hus­band; indeed, we see mul­ti­ple exam­ples of that in Scrip­ture. Also, if you want to make polyg­y­ny evil by asso­ci­a­tion with Cain’s descen­dants (who are not called “ungod­ly” at all in the Scrip­ture), then I hope you like­wise avoid cities, ani­mal hus­bandry, met­al­work­ing, and so on, all of which were pio­neered by Cain or his descendants.

    “Many god­ly men had one wife (Adam, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Boaz, Job, etc) and those who had many wives had much heartache as a result of it.” — I would argue that their heartaches were the result of oth­er prob­lems, not the mul­ti­ple mar­riages. Also, if that’s the argu­ment you want to use, then would­n’t the high rate of divorce with­in the church be a fine argu­ment against monogamy? Note that despite the com­mon prac­tice of polyg­y­ny in the Scrip­tures, there is not one divorce.

    “Why is it impor­tant that a man only have one wife? It’s almost impos­si­ble to raise a god­ly fam­i­ly in any oth­er envi­ron­ment.” — I fail to see how you can estab­lish that. Chil­dren are raised by par­ents, and that is no less true in a polyg­y­nist situation.

    “On top of all that, no man with mul­ti­ple wives can hold office in the church, and there are no god­ly exam­ples of post-con­ver­sion polyg­a­mists in the NT.” — Argu­ments from silence are hard­ly argu­ments at all; like­wise, sim­ply because a man may only be the hus­band of one wife to be an elder does­n’t mean that oth­ers are like­wise lim­it­ed. Bear in mind that hav­ing chil­dren is also a require­ment of being an elder; is it like­wise to be enforced upon all mem­bers of the church that they have children?

    1. “Saul was dead; the women would no longer be bound to him and would be free to remar­ry” — True, but that does­n’t prove that David’s duty was­n’t just to look after them.

      “Like­wise, the com­mand to not mul­ti­ply wives doesn’t for­bid hav­ing more than one wife any­more than the neigh­bor­ing verse for­bids hav­ing more than one horse. Do you believe that a king was only allowed one horse?” — In 1 Kings 11, is not Solomon’s tes­ti­mo­ny shown to be taint­ed, and his “many wives” paint­ed in a neg­a­tive light? I see no sign of bless­ing from God clear­ly indi­cat­ed in the form of hav­ing many wives. I see chil­dren seen as a sign of bless­ing, but not mul­ti­ple wives.

      “Actu­al­ly, God’s order was that a woman would leave her par­ents to cleave to her hus­band.” — Are you just going to ignore the order insti­tut­ed in Eden, when God pro­nounced every­thing as “very good”? You can’t ignore that by quot­ing a verse which deals with a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent aspect of the subject.

      “Also, if you want to make polyg­y­ny evil by asso­ci­a­tion with Cain’s descen­dants (who are not called “ungod­ly” at all in the Scrip­ture), then I hope you like­wise avoid cities, ani­mal hus­bandry, met­al­work­ing, and so on, all of which were pio­neered by Cain or his descen­dants.” — True point.

      “Wouldn’t the high rate of divorce with­in the church be a fine argu­ment against monogamy?” — No. Just because some­thing is abused, does­n’t make it wrong (or right). 

      “I fail to see how you can estab­lish that. Chil­dren are raised by par­ents, and that is no less true in a polyg­y­nist sit­u­a­tion.” — Go and read Mal 2. To para­phrase, it states that God could have made more than one woman for Adam, but he did­n’t. His order in cre­ation was designed to aid in the rais­ing of a god­ly seed.

      “Argu­ments from silence are hard­ly argu­ments at all; like­wise, sim­ply because a man may only be the hus­band of one wife to be an elder doesn’t mean that oth­ers are like­wise lim­it­ed. Bear in mind that hav­ing chil­dren is also a require­ment of being an elder; is it like­wise to be enforced upon all mem­bers of the church that they have chil­dren?” — True. But, if a man does­n’t have chil­dren yet, it does­n’t dis­qual­i­fy him from hold­ing office in the future, because God may give him chil­dren in com­ing days. How­ev­er, if I take mul­ti­ple wives now, I’m imme­di­ate­ly dis­qual­i­fied for future ser­vice as an elder. So they’re not real­ly com­pa­ra­ble situations.

      1. Wel­come back. :)

        “True, but that doesn’t prove that David’s duty wasn’t just to look after them.” — Per­haps not, but “into his arms” seems quite per­son­al. In any event, he had mul­ti­ple wives whether or not Saul’s wid­ows are tak­en into account.

        “In 1 Kings 11, is not Solomon’s tes­ti­mo­ny shown to be taint­ed, and his ‘many wives’ paint­ed in a neg­a­tive light?” — I see his mar­ry­ing *foreign/pagan* women paint­ed in a neg­a­tive light, not the sim­ple fact that he had plur­al wives. It was their pagan faith which caused Solomon prob­lems, not their number.

        “True point.” — Find­ing good infor­ma­tion on the line of Cain is a bit of a dif­fi­cult task. Far too many assump­tions have been passed down gen­er­a­tion after gen­er­a­tion as if they were actu­al­ly log­i­cal doc­trines. I’m not say­ing my beliefs are fool­proof — I’m just the fool to prove they aren’t! — but you might enjoy The Line of Cain, a post I made on the sub­ject some time ago.

        “No. Just because some­thing is abused, doesn’t make it wrong (or right).” — But isn’t that the same argu­ment you’re using by point­ing out prob­lems sup­pos­ed­ly caused by polygyny?

        “Go and read Mal 2. To para­phrase, it states that God could have made more than one woman for Adam, but he didn’t. His order in cre­ation was designed to aid in the rais­ing of a god­ly seed.” — That pas­sage is an argu­ment against divorce, that God unit­ed Adam and Eve so that they could raise god­ly off­spring. The pas­sage goes on to address divorce direct­ly. A hus­band and wife cer­tain­ly become “one,” but there is noth­ing that lim­its a hus­band from being “one” with a plu­ral­i­ty of women. The Scrip­tures attest to that fact repeat­ed­ly, else plur­al wives would not be called “wives” for they would not prop­er­ly be wives in the sight of God.

        “How­ev­er, if I take mul­ti­ple wives now, I’m imme­di­ate­ly dis­qual­i­fied for future ser­vice as an elder. So they’re not real­ly com­pa­ra­ble sit­u­a­tions.” — Per­haps not. Note that some polyg­y­ny advo­cates point out that there is a trans­la­tion­al point in the pas­sage which may cause it to mean “hus­band of his first wife” rather than “hus­band of one wife.” If that’s the case, then an elder may have more than one wife and be qual­i­fied, pro­vid­ed his mar­riage to his first wife is still going strong.

        1. I might be wrong, but it appears you’ve made up your mind on the matter.

          I just men­tion Mal 2 again. It does­n’t mat­ter if the pas­sage is about divorce, the state­ment still stands. Why does it say, “he had a residue of the spir­it. And where­fore one?” What does that mean if it does­n’t mean God could have made Adam more than one wife, but did­n’t because His pur­pose was that they as one flesh, should raise god­ly offspring?

          A man has no need for mul­ti­ple wives. If man need­ed more than one, God, who was to give Adam a “help meet”, would have made him more than one wife.

          “let every man have his own wife” 1 Cor 7:2

          1. “I might be wrong, but it appears you’ve made up your mind on the mat­ter.” — I spent months attempt­ing to defend monogamy on an old mes­sage board I once admin­is­tered; over the course of those few months, I watched as every defense of monogamy-only brought up by me and sev­er­al oth­ers was sound­ly and log­i­cal­ly tak­en apart. It’s only recent­ly that I have made the deci­sion to trust that what the Scrip­tures say on the mat­ter of polyg­y­ny is true and that I had no rea­son oth­er than stay­ing with­in my “com­fort zone” to con­tin­ue to hold the inde­fen­si­ble posi­tion of monogamy-only.

            “A man has no need for mul­ti­ple wives.” — That state­ment can’t be defend­ed from the Scrip­tures. Adam need­ed at least one wife in order to get the human race off the ground; how­ev­er, it is clear from the Scrip­tures that there are men who don’t even need one wife. “Need” is not an argument.

            When deter­min­ing whether some­thing is a sin or not, we turn first to the Law of God which not only does not for­bid polyg­y­ny but pos­i­tive­ly accounts for it — and in the case of Levi­rate mar­riages, may very well man­date polyg­y­nous mar­riages in cer­tain circumstances.

            With no con­dem­na­tion in the Law, we turn to the broad­er Scrip­tures regard­ing the mat­ter, and there are still no men­tion of polyg­y­ny being condemned.

            God could have done cer­tain things, men may or may not need cer­tain things, but these are lit­tle more than argu­ments from assump­tion. They are far from log­i­cal­ly defen­si­ble. A “Scrip­ture alone” method of estab­lish­ing doc­trine all but requires us to accept polyg­y­ny as an accept­able prac­tice. Mar­tin Luther knew it. The ear­ly church knew it.

            Actu­al­ly, “monogamy-only” is a rather recent inven­tion from what I’ve read, and I would­n’t be sur­prised if it was some­how relat­ed to the fem­i­niza­tion of Amer­i­ca and the church. But I’m out of my league when dis­cussing his­to­ry, though. :P

            1. ““Need” is not an argu­ment.” — Yes it is. Argu­ing from the excep­tion does­n’t hold. The gen­er­al rule is that a man needs a wife, because most of us “can­not con­tain” 1 Cor 7:9. But, that ‘need’ does­n’t require any more than one wife.

              “A “Scrip­ture alone” method of estab­lish­ing doc­trine all but requires us to accept polyg­y­ny as an accept­able prac­tice.” — Obvi­ous­ly, I dis­agree. “Like­wise, ye hus­bands, dwell with them accord­ing to knowl­edge, giv­ing hon­our unto the wife…” Note, the singular.

              Also, the the­ol­o­gy and teach­ing of Eph 5 does­n’t match with hav­ing mul­ti­ple wives, if it’s prop­er­ly under­stood. There is one head, and one body. There is Christ, and the Church; and it’s rep­re­sent­ed in mar­riage with man as the head. Should he have many bodies?

              Also, that pas­sage tells us that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the church? Sac­ri­fi­cial­ly and par­tic­u­lar­ly. You can­not prop­er­ly sac­ri­fice your­self to one wife, with­out min­imis­ing the sac­ri­fice made to the other(s). Impos­si­ble. Nei­ther can you love each one par­tic­u­lar­ly as Christ loved the Church.

              1. “But, that ‘need’ doesn’t require any more than one wife.” — I agree that some (many?) men need mar­riage. The Scrip­tures do not state that any polyg­y­nist was over­step­ping his bounds, so I will not make that assump­tion on their behalf.

                “Note, the sin­gu­lar.” — The verse isn’t argu­ing for or man­dat­ing polyg­y­ny but is instruct­ing hus­bands how to treat wives. Not every hus­band has mul­ti­ple wives, after all, so there’s no rea­son to expect reg­u­la­tions con­cern­ing mar­riage to always be plur­al. Fur­ther, the sec­ond half of the verse, after “the wife,” states that “they” are joint heirs. That’s inter­est­ing, if only one wife is in view.

                I appre­ci­ate that you have prag­mat­ic rea­sons based on cer­tain bib­li­cal pre­cepts, but the Bible makes no attempt to apply those against polyg­y­nist fam­i­lies. No one is ever crit­i­cized, ostra­cized, or oth­er­wise called out by God, His Christ, or His apos­tles for being a polyg­y­nist, and I sug­gest, Armen, that you are tread­ing unwise tracks in forc­ing a monogamy-only view­point into the pages of Scrip­tures when in fact the Scrip­tures allow for pologyny.

                I’ve been sav­ing this for its own blog post as it’s bit of a coup de grâce in defend­ing polyg­y­ny, but God Him­self is described as being in a polyg­y­nist rela­tion­ship.

            2. There are 2 things that i would like to address here ” the fem­i­niza­tion of Amer­i­ca” & Mar­tin Luther’s approval of polygamy . Being female in the old tes­ta­ment left you no choice in mat­ters of mar­riage .…who you would mar­ry & also if your hus­band want­ed to have more wives & also con­subines. Men had total con­trol over women .….they were their “prop­er­ty” to do with what they wished.….just like own­ing cat­tle or hors­es. If a man want­ed to divorce his wife under the Mosi­ac law he could with­out any good rea­son & Jesus said this law was giv­en by Moses because of “the hard­ness of his heart” but it was’nt from the begin­ning .…you know what scrip­ture i am going to quote “he made them male & female & a man shall leave his father & moth­er & cling to his wife & the 2 shall become 1 flesh”. God intend­ed that the man be the leader in the fam­i­ly & to “love his wife as his own flesh”. If a “chris­t­ian man demands the approval or forces his wife to “sub­mit to polygamy“using the scrip­ture “wives sub­mit to your hus­bands in everything”.…i believe he is a hyp­ocrite because he is not lov­ing his wife as his own flesh because he is forc­ing her to accept some­thing he would nev­er endure him­self. I know the sub­ject is not about forc­ing your wife to accept polygamy but it is relat­ed to women rights & God’s will for women. Did God our father intend for women to be treat­ed like cat­tle? No he loves us as much as he loves men. Do we have a choice as far as polygamy is concerned?We do under the “fem­i­niza­tion in Amer­i­ca” as you call it. Fem­i­nist is a dirty word to some peo­ple because they asso­ciate it main­ly with abor­tion. But in the begin­ning it had to do with equal pay for women & the right to vote. Fem­i­nism is a wom­an’s voice in mat­ters .….our right to be equal with a man as far as mak­ing our own choic­es in life. It can be good choic­es or bad choic­es but it is free­dom to choose just like a man can choose to make choic­es for his life. I thank God that we live in a free nation .….that women are not cattle.…that we can vote.…that we have EQUALITY & can choose who we want to mar­ry or not mar­ry. “You shall know the truth & the truth will set you FREE”. Polygamy start­ed as a “cus­tom from man” not God. God allowed it & even com­mand­ed it in one occa­sion (to keep his broth­ers name & inher­i­tance alive by mar­ry­ing his sis­ter-in-law & hav­ing chil­dren with her). That is the only instance where it was a com­mand. That was a “trib­al thing”. Each tribe had their own land under their fathers name.…..no one want­ed to loose their inher­i­tance. This woman had no chil­dren so to pre­serve her dead hus­bands name & inher­i­tance she was to mar­ry her broth­er-in-law. Do you think that God has com­mand­ed polygamy today in any way shape or form? I say no.….but there are “cults”.….christian cults & also Mus­lims who through their “false prophets” who force women into polygamy say­ing it is “god’s com­mand­ment” that they sub­mit to it. Joseph Smith was mar­ried to his first wife Emma when he had the “hots” for the 16 year old maid in the house in which he had an affair with & got her preg­nant. Emma want­ed to keep this hor­ri­ble scan­dal a secret & get her out of the house when sud­den­ly Joseph gets a rev­e­la­tion from God that all men should be polyg­a­mist & that all women must sub­mit to it or burn in hell. That my friend is the begin­ning of polygamy in the Mor­mon faith. Start­ed by Joseph Smith to make it approved by god his going out on his wife & not giv­ing her or any oth­er woman a choice in the matter.Yeah just make them all your wives & take their rights away & tell them that not only does god approve but he com­mands it.
              Ok 2 subject.…..Martin Luther’s approval of polygamy…i for­got the mans name but remem­ber the whole sto­ry of him com­ing to Luther for “god’s approval” of polygamy. First off this man’s mar­riage was “arranged by his fam­i­ly ” (forced) to have an alleince & keep or add pow­er & prop­er­ty in the family(sound famil­iar?) Old tes­ta­ment customs.….anyway it was said that he did’nt love his wife even though they had a lot of chil­dren togeth­er. We are talk­ing forced mar­riage here no choice for the man or the woman. This man did the exact thing that Joseph Smith did.…..he was hav­ing sex with the “lady in wait­ing” (maid) who was 16 years old .…..com­mit­ing adul­tery under his wife’s nose. He loved this girl & did not love his wife but divorce was not an option under the Roman Catholic rule so he goes to Luther to get approval for his actions . He was cor­nered under the laws of that time so he found a way out by Luther’s famouse say­ing “i do not see any dis­agree­ment in scrip­ture as to hav­ing more than one wife”. So Luther is the hero for those who are “pro polygamy” (most­ly men in that camp).….the only women that i hear about that are pro-polygamy are those who were raised in a cult by the words of a false prophet who claim to be a “voice from god”. Both Joseph Smith & Mohamid claim to be THE ONLY true way & voice of God. They are both liars & false prophets. Here is a lit­tle his­to­ry on Luther.….he approved of polygamy & he also want­ed to kill the Jews because they reject­ed Christ Jesus. You know if a man went to Luther back then & used scrip­ture to approve of slav­ery you can bet that he could find scrip­tures to back up the approval because just like polygamy there were laws about how to treat your slaves in God’s word so that means that god allowed it & it is’nt against God’s laws so slav­ery has god’s stamp of approval also.…..see how that log­ic works? To me polygamy is a form of slavery.

              1. Yes, God com­mand­ed polyg­y­ny. Because polyg­y­ny isn’t a sin.

                Yes, polyg­y­ny is a form of slav­ery — all bib­li­cal mar­riages are. The hus­band is the head of the wife just as Jesus is the head of the hus­band; and how are believ­ers in Jesus described? As slaves to a master.

                If you real­ly don’t like the “slav­ery” aspect of it, the prob­lem isn’t with polyg­y­ny — it’s with the Bible. Peri­od. (Remem­ber, this is a book that says women can be raped into mar­riage because the rape takes away the only thing of val­ue a woman has in the view of the Law­giv­er: virginity.)

                1. Yes .….i know what scrip­ture you are talk­ing about & i was hor­ri­fied when i read that the woman who was raped was forced to mar­ry her rapist. I per­son­al­ly have had a hard time with the way some scrip­tures put down , degrade & abuse women. I thought.….“how can a lov­ing god let this be?” It shook my faith & i was very depressed. I have noticed that you left Chris­tian­i­ty & are an athe­ist now. I haven’t read your arti­cle yet but i was won­der­ing if the rea­son was .…..did you think the god of the Bible is unfair?
                  Me per­son­al view is that it is’nt God who is unfair.…..it is sin­ful man (includ­ing sin­ful woman) & i know there is a dev­il (father of all lies).…i have had a real fright­en­ing event hap­pen to me that showed me of his real­i­ty. There is a god & there is a dev­il who wants to be “god”. My faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing that keeps me going in life.……knowing that God loves me & accepts me when i did’nt even love myself. If there is no God that loves me then there is no pur­pose in life . We are our own god then.…..doing the same thing & believ­ing the same lie that lucifer start­ed .……you are god.

          2. It seem the sub­ject keeps going back to the gar­den where every­thing was per­fect, once adam and eve sinned the plan for Jesus was set in place.
            it was Gods inten­sion for adam and eve not to sin and live in obe­di­ence to him, one request dont eat the fruit of the tree of knowl­edge of good and evil, they could have had any oth­er fruit from any oth­er tree,especailly the tree of life, but they didnt.
            now it was Gods desire for adam and eve to walk in obe­di­ence from the begin­ning, now the ques­tion is before christ did you walk in total obe­di­ence since adam and eve did not? or after you came to Jesus have you walked in per­fect obedience?
            I am sure the Father would have desired total obe­di­ence from the begin­ning but it did­nt hap­pen, as long as we are in this sin­ful bod­ies we will fall short . even being a chrisi­tan we fall short.
            notice God nev­er men­tions to solomon the way it was in the begin­ning with adam and eve. when he had 700 wive and 300 con­cu­bines , also he was not to col­lect horses,or gold and sil­ver yet he was the wealth­i­est king ever, but God did rebuked him because the wives turn his heart away from him and brought idol­a­try to israel.
            and david a man after Gods own heart , told david after him bring­ing many wives and con­cu­bine from heron by the prophet, if you want­ed more wive you should have asked i would have gave them to you .but why did you take anoth­er mans wife. and have him killed. God rebuked david for adul­try and mur­der, and why is david call an adul­ter ? because he took anoth­er mans wife, not once because he had many or had concubines.
            so lets get off this reli­gious soap box. also God said be fruit­ful and mul­ti­ply, why do we have birth con­trol pills,
            and please read in hebrew languege the ture mean­ing and under­stand­ing of malachi 2:16, every trans­la­tion is mans own under­stand­ing accord­ing to his con­vic­tion, be very careful.

      2. “Go and read Mal 2. To para­phrase, it states that God could have made more than one woman for Adam, but he didn’t. His order in cre­ation was designed to aid in the rais­ing of a god­ly seed.”

        God first made Lilith for Adam. So he did indeed give Adam mul­ti­ple wives.

      3. All of these MEN look at their LIVES and YOU want to say there was no DISAPPROVAL from GOD. You’re an IDIOT try­ing to TEACH your OWN FALSE DOCTRINE. Take a LOOK at LAMECH in the CAUCASIAN GENEALOGY refer to (GEN. 4:19 & GEN. 4:24) where his Polygamy result­ed in LAMECH mur­der­ing his own BLOOD RELATIVE “CAIN” the first CAUCASIAN MAN. Look at what HAPPEN to ABRAHAM that fathered a CHILD by HAGAR his BONDWOMEN and the CHILD were CAST-OUT refer to (GEN. 21:10) which GOD agreed with SARAH and “NOT” ABRAHAM which was TOLD by GOD to “HEARKEN unto THY WIFE” and do as she COMMANDED. Even King DAVID
        “MURDERED” a WOMAN’S HUSBAND just so he could COMMIT POLYGAMY. I DISAGREE just because GOD did­n’t say he DISAPPROVED does­n’t mean that he DIDN’T and you can TELL by the WAY the CURSES in their LIVES devel­oped as a result of this SIN. DEBUNK these BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES because there are many more.

  2. I would pro­pose, Rick, that 2 Sam 7–8 is not nec­es­sar­i­ly sug­gest­ing that David was to take Saul’s wives to be his own, but rather that he should become their guardian. Hav­ing been hum­bled by Saul, they were not eli­gi­ble women for oth­er men. But, some­one need­ed to care for them.

    Your posi­tion on polygamy is clear­ly incor­rect. The law of Moses reg­u­lat­ed polygamy, but nev­er approved of it. In fact, if your sup­port is from David and you think God gave him mul­ti­ple wives, then God con­tra­dicts his own word. Read Deut 17 con­cern­ing any king over Israel, “Nei­ther shall he mul­ti­ply wives to himself…”

    God’s order is that a man should take one wife. It was insti­tut­ed as such in the gar­den of Eden. Polygamy then orig­i­nat­ed with the son of rebel­lious Cain (Gen. 4:16–19). Not a good example.

    Many god­ly men had one wife (Adam, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Boaz, Job, etc) and those who had many wives had much heartache as a result of it.

    Why is it impor­tant that a man only have one wife? It’s almost impos­si­ble to raise a god­ly fam­i­ly in any oth­er envi­ron­ment. “And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spir­it. And where­fore one? That he might seek a god­ly seed.” Mal 2:15

    On top of all that, no man with mul­ti­ple wives can hold office in the church, and there are no god­ly exam­ples of post-con­ver­sion polyg­a­mists in the NT.

    I trust these scrip­tures may be used to help you recon­sid­er your postion.

    1. Inter­est­ing Armen.

      You have the brava­do to com­pare the right­eous men of the Bible with rebel­lious Cane the mur­der­er of his right­eous broth­er on account they mar­ried more than one wife legal­ly and with Yah­we­h’s Bless­ing? Because with Yah­weh there is no silence it is Yeah or Nay, right or wrong, no grey areas.

  3. Pro­hi­bi­tion against polygamy will be legal­ly inde­fen­si­ble if gay mar­riage becomes legal­ly rec­og­nized. Yes, it’s a slip­pery slope argu­ment, which does­n’t make it any less valid. 

    The War on Drugs on the oth­er hand con­tin­ues unabat­ed due to obscene prof­it margin.

  4. “… monog­a­mous soci­eties have a much high­er rate of divorce than do polyg­y­nous ones. Why that is, I can­not say for certain.”

    I think I know why. When you have only one wife and you hap­pen to fall in love with anoth­er woman/girl and want to mar­ry her, you have no option, but to divorce the first one. How­ev­er, if you were allowed to mar­ry more than one, then you would keep the old one, and get a new one.

    If you have your wife who you not pleased with (either sex­u­al­ly or due to oth­er issues), you have no oth­er option but to divorce and get anoth­er one. How­ev­er, if you were allowed to have more than one wife, then you would find a bet­ter one, and keep the old one to see on rare occasions.

    In my opin­ion it is not good that men are not allowed to have more than one wife, because they have them any­way, they just either do not call them wives, but girl­friend (con­cu­bines), or they get “real” mul­ti­ple wives by a way of divorce, divorc­ing one and mar­ry anoth­er, then anoth­er, and anoth­er. Prob­a­bly 60–70% of men get divorced mul­ti­ple times so they can have mul­ti­ple wives; the only dif­fer­ence is that they have them on at dif­fer­ent times. The “sin­gle wife” sys­tem hurts women and chil­dren the most.

    1. The sin­gle wife sys­tem hurts woman & chil­dren most???? Ah no it is just the reverse my friend. Women get a knife in their heart & back when they know that their hus­band is hav­ing sex with anoth­er woman telling their 2nd wife that they love them “with all their heart”.…..the same words that they told their first wife. How can that not hurt? Also the chil­dren get hurt because now they have a “part time dad” because their is com­pe­ti­tion with “oth­er chil­dren from anoth­er wife”. Then there is the mat­ter of inher­i­tance .….when dad­dy dies.….who gets what. It is because of polygamy that we have the biggest fam­i­ly fued in history.…..Abraham Sarah & Hagar . One father 2 wives turned into 2 nations & 2 dif­fer­ent faiths fight­ing over the inheri­tence of the land. They hate each oth­er & the whole world will & is involved over this one.…..all because of polygamy.

      1. You’re say­ing polyg­y­ny is wrong because of the ill effects of one fam­i­ly’s deci­sions… That isn’t how sin works in the Bible, though. You’re defin­ing sin not based on God’s Law but instead on your own judg­ment of events. In oth­er words, God did­n’t con­demn the polyg­y­ny; you are.

        Also, “I love you with all my heart.” Are you say­ing par­ents with more than one kid can’t say that to each kid as it would some­how be a lie? You’re mak­ing a lot of assump­tions about love.

        1. Rick the sub­ject is not sin the sub­ject is the effects of polygamy & your state­ment of “monogamy being worse & more hurt­ful on woman & chil­dren then polygamy”. Can a man love all his chil­dren with all his heart equal­ly? Yes of course Rick. Can he love more then one woman at the same time? Yes of course Rick. Should women have to sub­mit to polygamy Rick? Is it a com­mand­ment from God Rick? The only advan­tages of polygamy are for the men & the only peo­ple i see who are polyg­a­mist are either Mor­mon or Mus­lim except for a few Chris­t­ian polyg­a­mist groups. It is a form of slav­ery .….…God did allow it but nev­er except for 1 time com­mand­ed it in the Bible.….since you are pro polygamy.……are you prac­tic­ing your­self? Are you mar­ried Rick? Can i talk to your wife & get her views on this subject?

          1. I’m read­ing all the views of oth­ers on this post & i’m only hear­ing the men’s views.….some against but most for polygamy.….….stupid me! Of course most men are in favor of own­ing & hav­ing mul­ti­ple sex part­ners LOL! Oh & they have God’s approval of course. Well lets hear some views from the women. I wish i could talk to Sarah & Hagar.……wish i could talk to the 1000 wives & less­er wives of King Solomon. ( there are 365 days in a year & 1000 women to have qual­i­ty time with 1 husband).…..lets see.….that means Solomon has sex with 3 a day.….no rest he needs via­gra LOL! some men are nev­er sat­is­fied with one wife but women have to be sat­is­fied & are com­mand­ed to be with one hus­band or they are called a whore. What a joke ! Man cre­at­ed polygamy not God

            1. Read the list of bib­li­cal polyg­y­nists above; God gave wives to David. So well, whether you like it or not, God “cre­at­ed” at least one polyg­y­nous union.

              Abra­ham is men­tioned above too; his tak­ing a sec­ond wife was, well, Sarah’s idea.

              Solomon is a spe­cial case; he vio­lat­ed the law giv­en to kings about mul­ti­ply­ing wives unto him­self, but even then, he was nev­er con­demned by God for it, nor was any oth­er per­son in the Bible.

              And yes, I agree, the one-sided nature of the Bible is wrong — women should be free to take as many hus­bands (or wives!) as they want. How­ev­er, if you want that, you need to break free from bronze age reli­gions and step into mod­ern human­ism that allows adults to make their own deci­sions with­out think­ing there’s a sun god star­ing at their gen­i­talia at all times to make sure it does­n’t touch the wrong per­son­’s spe­cial places.

          2. Yes, I’m mar­ried. But I’m also not a Chris­t­ian. I’m in favor of peo­ple hav­ing any sort of rela­tion­ships that they want, so long as it’s con­sen­su­al. For all I care, a woman can have ten hus­bands, and each of those hus­bands can have a vari­ety of wives. Love is a won­der­ful thing. For me, I choose monogamy. I have friends who choose poly, and I have friends who choose polyg­y­ny (the wives of which are also my friends and defend the prac­tice as well).

            You’re argu­ing that polyg­y­ny is a form of slav­ery, but bib­li­cal­ly, that’s basi­cal­ly what mar­riage is — the wife becomes prop­er­ty of the hus­band. “Love” isn’t even a bib­li­cal rea­son to get mar­ried (in the New Tes­ta­ment, the only valid rea­son to get mar­ried is uncon­trol­lable lust, for exam­ple). If you have a prob­lem with the mar­riage-as-slav­ery/­women-as-prop­er­ty thing, con­grat­u­la­tions, you’re more moral than God (most peo­ple are, but typ­i­cal­ly only atheists/humanists are wise enough to admit it).

            You argue that the only advan­tages of polyg­y­ny belong to the men; that’s sub­jec­tive. In such a rela­tion­ship, there are sis­ter wives who can sup­port one anoth­er, who can help each oth­er in rais­ing fam­i­lies, and so on. You cite a few “bad exam­ples” in the Bible, but “bad exam­ples” don’t define sin. The Law of God does. You’re attempt­ing to add new sins to the Law could be tan­ta­mount to “adding unto the words of God,” which Rev­e­la­tion says results in not so very good things, for what it’s worth.

    2. Alyssa O'Donnell

      In real­i­ty, accord­ing to Jesus, a man who divorces a faith­ful wife to get anoth­er wife is com­mit­ing adul­tery. So, he does not have mul­ti­ple wives, he has mul­ti­ple adul­ter­ous rela­tion­ships. Math­ew 19:9

      1. Of course he does­n’t have “mul­ti­ple wives”; the pas­sage specif­i­cal­ly says he leaves one to mar­ry another.

        The pas­sage does­n’t say any­thing about mul­ti­ple simul­ta­ne­ous wives.

  5. Excel­lent post Rick…

    I am always amazed at your turn­about on this issue. The real ques­tion becomes why is this so hard for men to understand?

    Those of us who debate this are accused of ear tick­ling, but the truth is it is not an attrac­tive topic.

    God Bless,

    Robert

  6. Hel­lo,
    I like your page, and have been enjoy­ing it. AMEN! (to most of it). I have been a Spir­it filled Christ fol­low­er for 13 years, and in the past 5 years I have REALLY began to ques­tion “soci­ety’s” or “reli­gious” view point of a man only hav­ing one wife. I agree with most of what your say­ing, and will con­tin­ue to read and com­ment, BUT, in all fair­ness to the read­ers who do NOT read, or under­stand the Holy Scrip­tures, don’t you think you should dis­close the FACT that when Abra­ham mar­ried Ketu­rah, it was way after Sarah was dead? I’m just sayin’.
    Any­way, keep up the good work, and if your going to speak about those who I will call “the scis­sor Chris­tians”, then I sug­gest that you don’t be one by omit­ting impor­tant FACTS to prove your point of view on such an ENORMOUSLY con­tro­ver­sial, and HORRIBLY mis­un­der­stood issue.
    Moto Jeff

    1. Thanks for the com­ment, Jeff, and for fact-check­ing for me. And you’re right, Ketu­rah came into the pic­ture after Sarah’s death, but was it after Hagar’s also? I’m not sure. If not, then Ketu­rah’s inclu­sion above is still valid, I think.

      1. Your wel­come, and I enjoy doing it. In order to answer your ques­tion, I must first ask if you under­stand Hagar to have been a wife to Abra­ham, or just a con­cu­bine? Which rais­es anoth­er ques­tion about a sim­i­lar, and high­ly flam­ma­ble issue; what is a con­cu­bine? Why did God allow it (or over­look it) in the O.T.? And why aren’t men of God today allowed to have “con­cu­bines”? I’m not say­ing I think it’s a good thing, but maybe it’s sim­ply sit­u­a­tion­al? These are very sen­si­tive issues that I don’t see in black or white yet.

  7. A Proudly Christian Feminist

    How self serv­ing — yet anoth­er group of men above quot­ing out­dat­ed, anti­quat­ed vers­es from the Old Tes­ta­ment. These pro­po­nents of “Chris­t­ian” Polygamy tell us that men are enti­tled to mul­ti­ple wives, but women are enti­tled to only one hus­band. They tell us that a man can nev­er com­mit adul­tery unless he has sex with a mar­ried woman, so any sin­gle woman is “game” — but a woman is a har­lot, or worse, an adul­tress, doomed to hell, no mat­ter whom she has sex with if she is not mar­ried to the man in ques­tion. These “Chris­t­ian” Polyg­a­mists are quick to cite vers­es to jus­ti­fy grat­i­fi­ca­tion of their sex­u­al appetites with mul­ti­ple women, but recall these vers­es were writ­ten in an era when women were noth­ing more than CHATTEL, with­out edu­ca­tion or the abil­i­ty to pro­vide for them­selves, total­ly depen­dent on men for their sur­vival — and their only pos­ses­sion which appar­ent­ly had any val­ue was their HYMEN. Since you seem to have such an inter­est in anti­quat­ed Old Tes­ta­ment reg­u­la­tions, per­haps you should weigh in on anoth­er per­mit­ted, but reg­u­lat­ed Old Tes­ta­ment insti­tu­tion — SLAVERY

    1. Hey “Proud­ly Chris­t­ian Fem­i­nist”, your fem­i­nist pride has blind­ed and con­ce­trat­ed you on a total­ly dif­fer­ent issue than what I talk about.

    2. More inter­est­ing is how one squares “fem­i­nism” with “Chris­tian­i­ty,” let alone the prac­tice of polyg­y­ny. Fem­i­nism is indi­rect­ly respon­si­ble for all sorts of errors in today’s church — the weak­en­ing of God, who is a “man of war,” to that of a kind, car­ing cos­mic fairy; the neg­a­tive view of alco­hol (even when viewed sep­a­rate­ly from drunk­en­ness) that still has­n’t dis­si­pat­ed near­ly a cen­tu­ry after pro­hi­bi­tion; egal­i­tar­i­an­ism in mar­riage and lead­er­ship, despite the very clear­ly defined gen­der roles through­out the Scrip­tures (not just the Old Tes­ta­ment); and so on.

      If the issues of gen­der rela­tions, slav­ery, or any­thing else in the Scrip­tures both­er you, I can only coun­sel you to take the mat­ters to God in prayer if you are indeed a Chris­t­ian. God does not change. Either it was His will to nev­er say a harsh word about polyg­y­ny but to allow it in near­ly 13 of his exam­pled saints in Hebrews 11, or it was not. And if it was not, then can we real­ly trust the Word of God for paint­ing a dif­fer­ent pic­ture of God than what real­ly exists?

      Jesus looked to the Old Tes­ta­ment and praised it as point­ing to Him, as advo­cat­ing it as say­ing that it shall nev­er pass away, and as glo­ri­fy­ing it by hold­ing every­one account­able to it. He did not look into it and say, “Except for this, this, this, and this.” If we are Chris­t­ian, then we can­not excise teach­ings from the Old Tes­ta­ment just because we do not like them. We must con­form our minds to it rather than forc­ing our pride upon it. If this was an easy thing, Jesus would­n’t have been cru­ci­fied with only a hand­ful of dis­ci­ples still fol­low­ing Him. Thou­sands walked away from Him because of what He taught. I’m con­vinced that true, bib­li­cal doc­trine isn’t sup­posed to appeal to us. Yah­we­h’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. Indeed, they are more pre­cious than gold, where­as ours are utter­ly worth­less, of less val­ue than a used men­stru­a­tion cloth (or “filthy rag” as the King James Ver­sion ren­ders it).

      1. A Proudly Christian Feminist

        If you buy the whole Old Tes­ta­ment bag­gage, you will then have to :
        1) admit slav­ery is acceptable
        2) admit that you are COMMANDED to EXECUTE:
        Homosexuals
        Witches
        Idolators
        Per­sons who have sex with animals
        Adulterers
        Dis­obe­di­ent Children
        3) admit that in bib­li­cal war­fare, God “com­mand­ed” bib­li­cal patri­archs to kill all the sur­vivors includ­ing men, women and children.
        That’s alot to swallow.
        Open wide.

        1. The com­mand to exe­cute sin­ners is one that the New Tes­ta­ment shares. Paul affirms it in the Book of Romans, and Jesus affirms that in the End Times, all who would have not His rule will be exe­cut­ed before Him. This is not “Old Tes­ta­ment bag­gage,” this is Scrip­ture, through and through. Although, it must be point­ed out that only civ­il author­i­ties have the right to exe­cute sin­ners, as Paul and the Old Tes­ta­ment affirm and as Jesus affirms when He stopped indi­vid­u­als from tak­ing upon them­selves the exe­cu­tion of an adul­ter­ess woman.

          Slav­ery is still prac­ticed today — the Amer­i­can mil­i­tary is a form of it, actu­al­ly. Slav­ery has a neg­a­tive con­no­ta­tion because Amer­i­cans screwed it up roy­al­ly. In ancient Israel, there were slaves who would choose to remain with their own­ers for pro­tec­tion, pro­vi­sion, and so on. It was not a whol­ly bad situation.

          As for the Scrip­tures being anti-woman, there are numer­ous women who were very promi­nent, who oper­at­ed out­side the home, and so on and so forth. Like­wise, the vir­tu­ous woman of Proverbs 31 pic­tures a woman who is not only a won­der­ful wife and home­mak­er but is also involved in local econ­o­my and so on.

          It is telling that “the voice of san­i­ty” is the one which rejects over half of Yah­we­h’s holy Word as being “bag­gage.” That isn’t san­i­ty, that’s flirt­ing with disaster.

          1. Since you sud­den­ly demon­strate an inter­est in the “civ­il author­i­ties ” who rule over us, I would remind you that the Scrip­ture admon­ish­es us to sub­mit to the author­i­ties which gov­ern us … and if you live in the Unit­ed States as I do, the civ­il author­i­ties have spo­ken — polygamy is ILLEGAL . So what was the pur­pose of this dis­course in the first place ? Advo­cat­ing for ille­gal activity ?

            1. Attain­ing mul­ti­ple mar­riage licens­es in Amer­i­ca is ille­gal. Bib­li­cal mar­riage does not require the pur­chase of a civ­il mar­riage license, so bib­li­cal polyg­y­ny is allowed and prac­ticed in Amer­i­ca. The only pit­fall is that because civ­il mar­riage licens­es were not obtained, cer­tain rights would not be bestowed upon the spouses.

              That is unfor­tu­nate indeed, which is why there are those who advo­cate that polyg­y­ny be rec­og­nized under the law.

              Also, claim­ing that it is against the “law of the land” is a cop-out. If it is a bib­li­cal­ly accept­able prac­tice, we should push for it to be allowed under free­dom of reli­gion. When preach­ing the Gospel is out­lawed — or preach­ing against homo­sex­u­al­i­ty or oth­er pet sins — will you qui­et­ly accept the “law of the land”?

              The test of sin isn’t whether Amer­i­ca says it is so, it is whether the Law of God says it is so, for sin is trans­gres­sion of the Law. Because no one can go to the Law of God and say, “Polyg­y­ny is a sin,” I con­tend that it is thus not a sin. It isn’t for every­body — I’m in a monogamist rela­tion­ship and plan to stay that way for the rest of my life — but the fight for truth isn’t a fight for what is prac­ti­cal or prag­mat­ic “for me right now,” it’s a fight for What Saith the Lord.

              1. We are com­mand­ed to fol­low the law of the land in which we live.
                We are not com­mand­ed to engage in polygamy.
                Does the name Tom Green mean any­thing to you ?
                He was pros­e­cut­ed for bigamy and he spent time in jail.
                Any woman who engages in your ver­sion of “bib­li­cal polygamy” has no legal rights is a fool.

                1. Were the wives of David fools? Or of Abra­ham? Just curi­ous. The Scrip­tures don’t tell us whether they are or not, so I’d appre­ci­ate your expert opin­ion on the matter.

                  And yes, the Law does com­mand polyg­y­ny in at least one instance: Levi­rate mar­riage. If polyg­y­ny is a sin, then that par­tic­u­lar law makes no sense.

                  Also, if I were to live in a cul­ture where polyg­y­ny is allowed under the civ­il author­i­ty, your argu­ments lose what lit­tle weight they car­ry. “It’s ille­gal” does­n’t answer the ques­tion of whether “it’s bib­li­cal” or not. As I said ear­li­er, when the day comes that preach­ing against homo­sex­u­al­i­ty or false reli­gions is a sin, we are either going to obey the law of the land or rebel against it. The law of the land is only as worth­while as its abil­i­ty to not con­tra­dict the Law of God.

                  Also, it should be point­ed out that we’re prob­a­bly with­in ten years of polyg­y­ny being legal in Amer­i­ca any­way — unfor­tu­nate­ly not thanks to Chris­tians who want to recov­er the bib­li­cal prac­tice but instead because of those fol­low­ing in the foot­steps of the rapid­ly advanc­ing homo­sex­u­al movement.

                  So once polyg­y­ny is legal (the day is com­ing, I promise you), what will your argu­ment against it be? It will no longer be against the law of the land, and it is not in any way against the Law of God…

                  1. Levirite mar­riage was not mandatory.
                    A man was not REQUIRED to mar­ry his broth­er’s wife.
                    He could refuse — this is known as hal­izah in Judaism. Hal­izah is ref­er­enced in Deuteron­o­my. Look it up.
                    Hil­lel wrote in Pirkei Avot that most men in ancient Israel invoked hal­izah and refused to mar­ry their broth­er’s wife.
                    Besides when was it that you ever saw one of these polyg­a­mists mar­ry their broth­er’s wife ?
                    They nev­er do — they are always inter­est­ed in the younger, hot­ter model.
                    Telling me that we must have polygamy in the US because the bible per­mits it is like telling me that we must have slav­ery in the US because the bible per­mits it.
                    Ridiculous.

                    1. Nobody is say­ing we must have polyg­y­ny. What I am say­ing is that we must not demo­nize those who choose to prac­tice it. The Scrip­tures are very clear about what is and is not a sex­u­al sin.

                      Every­thing from homo­sex­u­al­i­ty to incest, for­ni­ca­tion to adul­tery is point­ed out and marked very clear­ly as sin. Why not polyg­y­ny? Why, when a third of the Hall of Faith prac­ticed it? Why, when the Father Him­self is described as hav­ing two brides at once? Why?

                      The log­i­cal answer is that polyg­y­ny is not sin­ful and that men are free to have more than one wife if they so desire.

                      Levi­rate mar­riages were part of the Law; those who chose not to par­tic­i­pate were essen­tial­ly spit­ting in their broth­er’s face. There was shame asso­ci­at­ed with it. That’s in the Bible too. (What the Jew­ish rab­bis turned it into is of lit­tle con­cern to me; there was a lot that was embell­ished in Judaism that isn’t “Sola Scrip­tura,” just as there is a lot with­in Chris­tian­i­ty that has lit­tle to do with the Scriptures.)

                      Giv­en the pri­ma­ry impe­tus behind mar­riage — that being pro­cre­ation — it actu­al­ly makes per­fect sense for men to have mar­ried younger women. Pro­vid­ed she was of mar­ry­ing age and her father con­sent­ed, the mar­riage was allowed. That’s in the New Tes­ta­ment, by the way. I sup­pose it’s sex­ist too, when viewed from a cul­ture-col­ored per­spec­tive.

                    2. Polyg­y­ny is not a com­mand­ment — it was not manda­to­ry. Most ancient Jew­ish men in Jesus’ time invoked their right to decline Levirite mar­riage thru hal­izah, as doc­u­ment­ed by Hil­lel in Pirkei Avot. Polyg­y­ny is an ancient prac­tice which evolved to enable women who out­num­bered men in the pop­u­la­tion to have a spouse who pro­vid­ed with them food, cloth­ing, and shel­ter. These women were large­ly une­d­u­cat­ed, were not per­mit­ted employ­ment, and had no means to sup­port them­selves, thus their depen­den­cy on men. Polyg­y­ny is not com­mand­ed, it is per­mit­ted and reg­u­lat­ed, just as slav­ery was. It is no longer nec­es­sary as women have the abil­i­ty to obtain an edu­ca­tion and employ­ment. We can mar­ry for love, not economics.
                      I regret to inform you that most rep­utable New Tes­ta­ment schol­ars do not agree with you — they emphat­i­cal­ly state that polygamy was con­demned by the apos­tles and New Tes­ta­ment scrip­ture. They base their objec­tions on the scrip­tures in the orig­i­nal Greek text. Their view is that polyg­y­ny is not per­mit­ted by Chris­t­ian scrip­tures and is sin­ful. Not one of the apos­tles was a polyg­a­mist. Not one of the ear­ly church fathers was a polyg­a­mist, and all of the ear­ly church fathers to a man (not catholic church) spoke out against the practice.
                      Why did the Apos­tle St. Thomas teach the ancient Per­sian con­verts that polygamy was sin­ful if polygamy is indeed still per­mit­ted ? You do real­ize that ancient papyri have been found which doc­u­ment his teach­ing on the subject.
                      Only the lunatic fringe cultists will tell you that polyg­y­ny is per­mit­ted to Christians.
                      You unfor­tu­nate­ly have been duped by a group on male fanat­ics with zip­per problems.
                      Any woman who involves her­self in “Bib­li­cal Polygamy” has no legal rights and is a fool. Read “God’s Broth­el” or any one of a num­ber of books writ­ten by women who were involved in the practice. 

                      Polyg­y­ny is a hold over from a day and an age where

                    3. I won­der if you have actu­al­ly read any­thing I’ve writ­ten or are just past­ing in rehashed argu­ments from elsewhere?

                      The “bib­li­cal argu­ments against polyg­y­ny” don’t exist. There are none. The Bible nev­er con­demns any­one for polyg­y­ny, nor does it ever even por­tray it in a neg­a­tive light.

                      I real­ize that not many peo­ple teach that, but frankly, who cares? Very few Chris­tians preach a true Gospel (the entire­ty of the Roman Catholic Church teach­es a false gospel, for exam­ple), the vast major­i­ty of Chris­tians believe that Satan was a fall­en angel named Lucifer (none of which is taught in the Scrip­tures), and so on.

                      If you want to deal with polyg­y­ny on a strict­ly bib­li­cal lev­el, I wel­come it. Appeal­ing to teach­ers, books, and so on is a log­i­cal fal­la­cy. Deal with the scrip­tures them­selves or leave the conversation.

                    4. So who is the great bib­li­cal schol­ar who believes the New Tes­ta­ment sup­ports polygamy — oth­er than you of course .…appar­ent­ly you know more than St. Thomas who was an apos­tle ? He lived with Christ for three years.

                    5. Uppi­ty, I’m not going to answer that because it is not a real argu­ment. Look up “appeal to author­i­ty” on a log­ic web­site. It’s a fal­la­cy, and one which I’m not going to fall into here.

                      There are peo­ple who quote Jesus’ dis­cus­sion of Adam and Eve, stat­ing that it pre­cludes polyg­y­ny. But that dis­cus­sion was about divorce, not polygyny.

                      Now you’re quot­ing Paul, but that pas­sage is about for­ni­ca­tion and the ben­e­fits of mar­riage, not polygyny.

                      Do you have any argu­ment against polyg­y­ny that is based on a bib­li­cal pas­sage that is actu­al­ly about polyg­y­ny? Bonus points if the pas­sage comes from the Law of God, which again, is the deter­min­ing fac­tor in whether some­thing is sin or not, for (again) sin is trans­gres­sion of the law. You seem con­tent to make up a sin and force it into the Scrip­tures, and if so that is fine for you (although God has noth­ing nice to say about those who would add to His Word), but please do not teach such tra­di­tions here with­out some­thing more sub­stan­tial to back them up.

                    6. I’ll start with some­thing kin­da fun­ny; Why a man would even want a wife is a mys­tery, why a man would want a sec­ond wife is a bigam­istry! Now let’s be seri­ous, not delerious.
                      “Lunatic fringe cultists with zip­per prob­lems”? Bra­vo, BRAVO! What an enter­tain­ing dis­play of edu­ca­tion, fem­i­nism, and of course, my per­son­al favorite, the work of Satan him­self; ACCUSATIONS. How­ev­er, the FACTS remain; FEMINISM was nev­er God’s plan. In Gen­e­sis (look up the “out­dat­ed anti­quat­ed, Scrip­ture for your­self, and, in case you have trou­ble find­ing Gen­e­sis, it’s the first book in The Holy Bible) Eve was con­vers­ing with the ser­pent, and you will see that she got con­fused, and appar­ent­ly was even unsure of God’s inten­tions for her. Then, once she was deceived to the ser­pen­t’s way of think­ing, and quite cer­tain she was miss­ing out, une­d­u­cat­ed, not allowed to work, and def­i­nite­ly not per­mit­ted to dri­ve a car, she believed that by going against the orig­i­nal com­mand­ment of God, she would be ‘enlight­ened’. So, as we all know, she took a bite or two. But then some­thing unex­pect­ed hap­pened, she gave some to her hus­band, who was WITH her, and he ate also. Well, I think we all know what hap­pens after that. So much for women know­ing what’s best about what God’s Heart on an issue is. See, Adam wimped out. He fol­lowed his wife. He was led astray some how, and ate also. Well ladies, I won’t eat. Not the world’s ways.
                      Final­ly, we read in I Corinthi­ans 11:9 (New Tes­ta­ment) women WERE cre­at­ed from men, for men! How DARE you say that The Word of GOD is anti­quat­ed! Are you a Dar­win­ist? Do you believe in some con­vo­lut­ed Chris­t­ian evo­lu­tion or some­thing? God is the SAME yes­ter­day, today, AND FOREVER! Now, try out dat­ing THAT!
                      And I am not nec­es­sar­i­ly a “pro­po­nent” of hav­ing more than one wife, but I’m not (nor is God) an oppo­nent. It real­ly is sit­u­a­tion­al. Obvi­ous­ly, it’s not God’s best for us, and, it’s cer­tain­ly not his favorite sub­ject, but what if a man (and woman) wants to have chil­dren, and the wife is bar­ren? If she agrees, and the man meets anoth­er woman, and they also mar­ry, what do you think God’s heart is on that? Of course, the man must not be an Apos­tle, Pas­tor, or Dea­con, that’s made pret­ty clear in the N.T.
                      Any fur­ther non­sense on these issues should be able to be backed up with SCRIPTURES. Not hearsay, opin­ions, or what “St Thomas” said. Let’s get real here, ok?

                    7. King Hen­ry VII mar­ried his broth­ers wife. Then divorced her. Then mur­dered some. Divorced more. He is known for his many wives. Had polygamy been allowed most would have no idea whom he was. A for­got­ten king in history.

      2. A Proudly Christian Feminist

        Sor­ry, I believe that Adam and Eve was a para­ble writ­ten by MEN for the ben­e­fit of MEN.
        Mito­chon­dr­i­al DNA stud­ies have shown that the fore­run­ners of the human race were 7 females, not men.
        I don’t believe the earth was cre­at­ed in six days either — sci­ence has proven oth­er­wise. So much for your edu­ca­tion in science.
        I don’t believe that I, or any oth­er woman, was cre­at­ed for MEN .
        I believe I was cre­at­ed equal to MEN, for the pur­pose of serv­ing God.
        I don’t believe that God ever ordered Bib­li­cal Kings to kill their ene­mies, to the last man, woman, and child, nor do I believe that God wants you to have mul­ti­ple wives while a woman is enti­tled to one spouse alone, unless it was absolute­ly nec­es­sary to con­tin­ue the human race. You don’t need to mar­ry a sec­ond wife today to guar­an­tee prog­e­ny — there is always adop­tion, as well as fer­til­i­ty treatments .
        Most rea­son­able Chris­t­ian schol­ars do not believe the New Tes­ta­ment sup­ports polygamy. They cite the scrip­tures I and oth­ers have men­tioned. Appar­ent­ly you don’t agree with them, nor do you agree with all the ear­ly lead­ers of the Chris­t­ian Church, who specif­i­cal­ly con­demned the prac­tice. So you have some spe­cial rev­e­la­tion. Con­tin­ue in your delu­sions. Good night

        1. I hope you real­ize the log­i­cal incon­sis­ten­cy of your belief. You’re essen­tial­ly say­ing, “I believe that a great deal of the major themes of the Word of God are false leg­end invent­ed by men for men, and to rein­force just how anti-man I am, I’m going to actu­al­ly believe a few Bible vers­es here and there so strong­ly that I can apply them to polyg­y­ny, even though the con­text has noth­ing to do with that.”

          The Scrip­tures stand and fall as a whole; pick­ing and choos­ing what you want to believe is destruc­tive. The Lord Him­self affirmed the Old Tes­ta­ment — includ­ing the Cre­ation account — (and why should­n’t He, for He was present dur­ing the events being described) and one can­not in truth call them­selves a Chris­t­ian if they reject those Scrip­tures which the Christ declared tes­ti­fied of Him.

            1. The dif­fer­ence is that I’d rather trust what God said rather than what men (or women, I sup­pose) near­ly 2,000 years lat­er think He said.

              I was mere­ly point­ing out the irony of using any Scrip­tures to argue against polyg­y­ny when you have come out into the open as not believ­ing just about any­thing the Bible says. So why should we believe what you think regard­ing a few vers­es regard­ing mar­riage? Once you reject what the Scrip­tures mean, then you can make them mean any­thing. So why both­er argu­ing for any­thing?

        2. Dear P.C. Feminist:

          I’m just new to this con­ver­sa­tion but I found your com­ment very inter­est­ing and thought I’d respond to it. 

          — “Sor­ry, I believe that Adam and Eve was a para­ble writ­ten by MEN for the ben­e­fit of MEN.” —

          Why is it you lat­er in your com­ments, call on the cred­i­bil­i­ty of New Tes­ta­ment schol­ars con­cern­ing polygamy, yet here you say that you believe Adam and Eve was a para­ble, which is not held by any cred­i­ble Old Tes­ta­ment Scholar. 

          Also you say it was writ­ten for the ben­e­fit of men? How? 

          Eve was cre­at­ed a “help-meet” (ezer), she was a helper, she was­n’t a ser­vant, and that was nev­er the inten­tion. They need­ed and relied on each other. 

          If the book was writ­ten as well to favour men, we sure seemed to get a bad deal out of it in Gen­e­sis 3:17–20. Also the woman expe­ri­enced pain in child birth because of her sin, yet she also received an amaz­ing bless­ing, the promise of the Mes­si­ah com­ing through the seed of the woman. 

          I could go on, but this alone makes me won­der if you have a miss-placed hate on for men con­sid­er­ing there is no favour giv­en to one over the oth­er in the Gen­e­sis account.

          — Mito­chon­dr­i­al DNA stud­ies have shown that the fore­run­ners of the human race were 7 females, not men. —
          Have you ever actu­al­ly looked close­ly at mito­chon­dr­i­al DNA, and you’re just chuck­ing that line in there hop­ing that no one will fig­ure it out and buy into your views, or did you just read a blurb of it some­where and like it so quot­ed it here?
          mtD­NA , if look­ing for it in males is found main­ly in the base of the sperm’s tail and helps pro­pel the sperm into the egg, and it is then destroyed. mtD­NA is extreme­ly rare in males and found in pos­si­bly only one male case and was linked with infer­til­i­ty. If you wish to trace pater­nal lin­eage then using mito­chon­dr­i­al DNA is not the case, now if you want to trace your mater­nial her­itage back then using mtD­NA is the way to go, hence the rea­son you find the “7 ances­toral women” all which would have had men who fathered their chil­dren. In fact if we wish to spec­u­late, it is believed that Japeth is the father of all Euro­peans and in Gen­e­sis 10, he had 7 grand­sons, so maybe they were the hus­bands of the 7 women. 

          — I don’t believe the earth was cre­at­ed in six days either – sci­ence has proven oth­er­wise. So much for your edu­ca­tion in science. —
          The Hebrew lan­guage found with­in Gen­e­sis would state that the earth was cre­at­ed in 6 days. Sci­ence has not proven oth­er­wise. Evo­lu­tion­ary sci­en­tists attempt to say that the earth is bil­lions of years old, but even hon­est evo­lu­tion­ists will tell you that they hold to a phi­los­o­phy that they are attemp­tion to hold to at any cost. You have not denied the cre­ation sto­ry based off sci­ence, but off nat­u­ral­is­tic phi­los­o­phy and the fear that you may have to face up to the fact that there tru­ly is cred­i­bil­i­ty to the Gen­e­sis account.
          — I don’t believe that God ever ordered Bib­li­cal Kings to kill their ene­mies, to the last man, woman, and child —
          The Bible says that it hap­pened, and a close study of the pas­sages would give you a very clear rea­son why it hap­pened based off Gen­e­sis 6, not to men­tion that the cred­i­ble, New Tes­ta­ment schol­ars that you would refer to lat­er in your com­ment would be the same ones that would accept the Old Tes­ta­ment sto­ries that speak of the exe­cu­tion of nations.

          I have no inter­est in join­ing in on the polyg­a­mist debate, but couldn’t help but say some­thing when I saw the incon­sis­ten­cies in your accept­ing of scrip­ture only when you feel it suits your views, and with your par­tial sci­en­tif­ic evi­dences mas­carad­ing as absolute truths. 

          The Bib­li­cal Fundamentalist
          Glen

          1. FOOL! Polygamy is ALLOWED by GOD! Get over it! A MAN has a right to as many wives as he wants! No wo=MAN, is a vic­tim of polygamy, if she agrees to it, it’s NO ONES business!

        3. what about birth con­trol ? where does it say it .
          the bot­tom line is jealious is a fac­tor, woman are very jeal­ous and want things there way, they want to wear the pants in the home, and part of the curse would be for the woman would be the desire for the man, and not a love or a sex­u­al desire , but a desire to con­trol him. and he is to put here on check ‚he is to con­trol her , sor­ry femenist it in the word.

    3. At last ! A voice of san­i­ty on this string ! Bra­va ! Thanks Proud­ly Chris­t­ian fem­i­nist! The abil­i­ty of women to vote, get an edu­ca­tion, hold a job, dri­ve a car, have her own hus­band who is not shared with any­one, and even ven­ture out­side the house­hold are accom­plish­ments of fem­i­nism, and we as women should be proud.

  8. There are three rules to inter­pret­ing pas­sages, such as 1 Cor. 7. 

    1. Con­text
    2. Context
    3. Context. 

    I haven’t read all the com­ments, but if “uppi­ty” is against polygamy, I would love to read answers to vers­es that are show­ing polygamy, right now the intel­li­gent, log­i­cal, side of the con­ver­sa­tion is for polygamy, the oth­er side unfor­tu­nate­ly is just a large amount of ran­dom thoughts with vers­es quot­ed out of context.

  9. 1 Corinthi­ans 7:2
    Let each man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
    That is clear enough to me.

    1. First Corinthi­ans 7:2 is an argu­ment against for­ni­ca­tion, not polyg­y­ny. The text is not intend­ed as a lim­it­ing fac­tor against polyg­y­ny. It is, rather, an affir­ma­tion of the Law of God. If it was a dec­la­ra­tion that polyg­y­ny is a sin, where in the Law of God was that declared, for sin is the trans­gres­sion of the Law?

      1. In your opin­ion it is an argu­ment against fornication.
        In the opin­ion of most bib­li­cal schol­ars, it is a con­dem­na­tion of polygamy.

        1. Where in the Scrip­tures does Thomas teach what you say? If it isn’t Scrip­ture, it isn’t infal­li­bly authoritative.

          The con­text of 1 Corinthi­ans 7 is for­ni­ca­tion. The Corinthi­ans had been told that it would best to just not touch women at all; Paul says that not touch­ing them at all would lead to sex­u­al temp­ta­tion — built up sex­u­al desires and such — and for that rea­son, mar­riage should be allowed and is a good thing.

          Polyg­y­ny isn’t even men­tioned at all in the pas­sage. What “most bib­li­cal schol­ars” are you talk­ing about? Any that can actu­al­ly read the passage/context?

          1. The Scrip­ture states that each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own hus­band. It does not state that you are per­mit­ted mul­ti­ple wives.
            Who exact­ly are the bib­li­cal schol­ars who sup­port your position ?

      2. In rela­tion to 1 Cor 7:2 — the word “own” is trans­lat­ed from two dif­fer­ent words in the Greek. The dif­fer­ence in them is sig­nif­i­cant, I think. This has been very nice­ly treat­ed here:

        http://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/article7.html

        Here a quote of the rel­e­vant section:

        “Own Wife” Ver­sus “Own Husband”

        Anoth­er com­mon objec­tion to polyg­y­ny in the New Covenant is found in 1 Corinthi­ans 7:2.

        But because of whor­ing, let each one have his own [1438] wife, and let each woman have her own [2398] hus­band. (1 Corinthi­ans 7:2, The Scriptures)

        and because of the whore­dom let each man have his own [1438] wife, and let each woman have her prop­er [2398] hus­band (1 Corinthi­ans 7:2, YLT) 

        Some crit­ics of polyg­y­ny believe that the word­ing “his own” and “her own” in this verse sug­gests monogamy over polyg­y­ny. It is some­times argued that the phrase “let each woman have her own hus­band” implies that she must have own­er­ship of her hus­band. There­fore, they rea­son, the hus­band could­n’t be “owned” by anoth­er wife at the same time, since he would then be shared property.

        How­ev­er, as we can see above, there are actu­al­ly two dif­fer­ent Greek words being trans­lat­ed as “own” in this verse. In fact, in the Young’s Lit­er­al Trans­la­tion, the orig­i­nal Greek word idios is more accu­rate­ly trans­lat­ed as “prop­er”, rather than “own” as in most Eng­lish trans­la­tions, sig­ni­fy­ing the dif­fer­ent mean­ing. Again for clar­i­ty, let’s refer to the Strong’s Con­cor­dance for the def­i­n­i­tions of these Greek words:

        1438. heautou, heh-ow-too (incl. all the oth­er cas­es); from a reflex. pron. oth­er­wise obsol. and the gen. (dat. or acc.) of 846; him- (her‑, it‑, them‑, also [in con­junc­tion with the pers. pron. of the oth­er per­sons] my‑, thy‑, our‑, your-) self (selves), etc.: ‑alone, her (own, ‑self), (he) him­self, his (own), itself, one (to) anoth­er, our (thine) own (-selves), + that she had, their (own, own selves), (of) them (-selves), they, thy­self, you, your (own, own con­ceits, own selves, ‑selves).

        2398. idios, id’-ee-os; of uncert. affin.; per­tain­ing to self, i.e. one’s own; by impl. pri­vate or sep­a­rate:- x his acquain­tance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, prop­er, sev­er­al), home (her, our, thine, your) own (busi­ness), pri­vate (-ly), prop­er, sev­er­al­ly, their (own).

        There is a dis­tinc­tion between these two Greek words, sig­ni­fy­ing two types of own­er­ship. Heautou implies sole “exclu­sive” own­er­ship, that is, one enti­ty sole­ly own­ing a par­tic­u­lar thing with­out shar­ing that own­er­ship with anoth­er. Idios, by con­trast, implies shared joint own­er­ship, that is, own­er­ship of a par­tic­u­lar thing by more than one per­son. There is no word in the Eng­lish lan­guage for exclu­sive own­er­ship (heautou) ver­sus non-exclu­sive own­er­ship (idios), which is why they are both usu­al­ly trans­lat­ed into Eng­lish as “own”.

        We have pre­vi­ous­ly seen in Scrip­ture that a wife is “owned” (heautou) exclu­sive­ly by her hus­band and is not shared with oth­er men, where­as a hus­band is “owned” (idios) joint­ly by his wives and is shared by each of them. To gain a clear­er under­stand­ing of how this applies here, con­sid­er the same verse in context:

        But because of whor­ing, let each one have his own [1438] EXCLUSIVE wife, and let each woman have her own [2398] NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUSIVE hus­band. (1 Corinthi­ans 7:2, The Scriptures) 

        Anoth­er way to look at this is that Heautou stress­es the exclu­siv­i­ty of the pos­ses­sion (the “own­ing”), where­as idios stress­es the exclu­siv­i­ty of the rela­tion­ship (the “being owned” or the “belong­ing to”, as it were). In oth­er words, a man might say, “That is MY wife, she belongs to me and me ALONE”. A woman, on the oth­er hand, might say, “That is MY hus­band; I belong to him and him ALONE”.

        For a clear­er under­stand­ing of the usages and mean­ings of these terms, we’ll need to see how these words are actu­al­ly used else­where in Scrip­ture. First, let’s look at some exam­ples of heautou:

        “If any­one comes to Me and does not hate his father and moth­er, and wife, and chil­dren, and broth­ers, and sis­ters, and his own [heautou] life too, he is unable to be My taught one.” (Luke 14:26, The Scriptures)

        And not hav­ing grown weak in belief, he did not con­sid­er his own [heautou] body, already dead, being about a hun­dred years old, and the dead­ness of Sarah’s womb (Romans 4:19, The Scriptures)

        Love is patient, is kind, love does not envy, love does not boast, is not puffed up, does not behave inde­cent­ly, does not seek its own [heautou], is not pro­voked, reck­ons not the evil (1 Corinthi­ans 13:4–5, The Scriptures)

        For each one shall bear his own [heautou] bur­den. (Gala­tians 6:4, The Scriptures) 

        “His own life”, “his own body”, “seek its own”, “his own bur­den” — all imply­ing exclu­sive own­er­ship of the object in ques­tion. Now let’s look at some exam­ples of idios:

        And enter­ing into a boat, He passed over, and came to His own [idios] city. (Matthew 9:1, The Scriptures)

        For Yahushua Him­self wit­nessed that a prophet is with­out appre­ci­a­tion in his own [idios] coun­try. (John 4:44, The Scriptures)

        And when this sound came to be, the crowd came togeth­er, and were con­fused, because every­one heard them speak in his own [idios] lan­guage. (Acts 2:6, The Scriptures)

        Who are you that judges anoth­er’s ser­vant? To his own [idios] mas­ter he stands or falls. But he shall be made to stand, for Elo­him is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4, The Scriptures)

        And the mes­sen­gers who did not keep their own prin­ci­pal­i­ty, but left their own [idios] dwelling, He has kept in ever­last­ing shack­les under dark­ness for the judg­ment of the great day. (Jude 1:6, The Scriptures) 

        In each case of idios, the con­cept of a shared, com­mon or joint own­er­ship is under­stood. When Yahushua went to his own city, he joint­ly “owned” it with the oth­er inhab­i­tants of that city. Oth­er res­i­dents also termed that city their own (idios). The same is true in each of the exam­ples, whether coun­try, lan­guage, mas­ter or dwelling. Each of these was joint­ly “owned” by oth­ers, which they shared. It is clear from the con­text of the vers­es that these peo­ple did­n’t exclu­sive­ly “own” the coun­try, or the lan­guages, or the mas­ter, or the dwelling. These things were obvi­ous­ly shared with others.

        There­fore, the clear impli­ca­tion of 1 Corinthi­ans 7:2, as deter­mined from the usage of the Greek words heautou and idios in var­i­ous Scrip­tures, is that while a wife is not allowed to be owned by more than one hus­band, a hus­band, on the oth­er hand, is allowed to be owned by more than one wife. If a hus­band were owned by more than one wife, the own­er­ship of him by those wives would be shared, com­mon or joint own­er­ship, as demon­strat­ed by the term idios in 1 Corinthi­ans 7:2.

        We under­stand that a mas­ter can have more than one ser­vant, but a ser­vant can only have one mas­ter. We also under­stand that the hus­band is called to be the leader of his fam­i­ly. But just as “no man can serve two mas­ters”, no wife can serve two hus­bands. A woman can­not have two hus­bands because she can­not fol­low two lead­ers. But a man can have two wives because it is per­fect­ly pos­si­ble to lead more than one per­son. This prin­ci­ple can be eas­i­ly under­stood using the imagery, “A head can have more than one mem­ber, but a mem­ber can­not have more than one head”.

        We’ve already estab­lished that the Greek word ‘gune’ (Strong’s #1135) can be prop­er­ly trans­lat­ed into Eng­lish as either “woman”, “women”, “wife” or “wives”, depend­ing on the con­text. This is relevent because 1 Corinthi­ans 7:2 could just as cor­rect­ly be trans­lat­ed as:

        But because of whor­ing, let each one have his own wives, and let each woman have her own hus­band. (1 Corinthi­ans 7:2, The Scriptures) 

        In light of the cor­rect under­stand­ing of this pas­sage, the orig­i­nal Greek word gune could legit­i­mate­ly be trans­lat­ed into Eng­lish as either “wife” or “wives”, giv­en the estab­lished con­text of ownership.

  10. Rick, I’m actu­al­ly behind you on the old tes­ta­ment being in sup­port of mul­ti­ple wives (polyg­y­ny). I may not think it is a good thing, but I do think you are right in your premise.

    In the end, what is real­ly wrong with polyg­y­ny? What’s wrong with polyandry? The prob­lem from a fem­i­nist or equal­ist point of view is the idea that Gen­der A is enti­tled to rela­tions with mul­ti­ple mem­bers of Gen­der B, while Gen­der B is bound to one mem­ber of Gen­der A. In West­ern cul­tures, Gen­der A is gen­er­al­ly male while Gen­der B is gen­er­al­ly female. It unbal­ances the sex­es and gives more val­ue to one than the oth­er. It also gives more right to one than the other. 

    Right now, what our world needs is equal­i­ty among all peo­ple. Striv­ing to broad­en the gen­der gaps will only increase frus­tra­tions and ten­sions. The con­se­quences could poten­tial­ly lead to rep­e­ti­tion of past atroc­i­ties (witch burn­ings, slav­ery, and unnec­es­sary wars, any­one?). Do we real­ly want a neg­a­tive out­come on our heads? Equal­i­ty is def­i­nite­ly the way to go. If polyg­y­ny is allowed, polyandry should also be allowed. In a world where nei­ther man nor woman is supe­ri­or to the oth­er, and oth­er big­otry and hatred is no more, we may final­ly put pet­ty dif­fer­ences behind our­selves and advance the human race. Until then, we will con­tin­ue to keep fight­ing our way out of the dark ages.

    (Sor­ry for the pseu­do-poet­ic tones near the end.)

    1. But that isn’t going to solve any­thing. Peo­ple aren’t equal, at least not in the way that fem­i­nists want us to think. Equal in stand­ing before God? Absolute­ly — in Christ there is no Gen­tile or Jew, male or female, Greek or bar­bar­ian. But that does­n’t change the fact that God’s dif­fer­ent stan­dards for the gen­ders are inher­ent­ly built into Cre­ation. The New Tes­ta­ment affirms this repeat­ed­ly and ham­mers it home with the affir­ma­tion that the woman was made from man for man.

      Church lead­er­ship? That bur­den falls on men.

      Head of house­hold? Again, that bur­den falls on men.

      Men will be held account­able for what takes place in their house­hold. God spared women that responsibility.

      Reject­ing the gen­der roles as inher­ent in Cre­ation and cod­i­fied in the Scrip­tures isn’t going to solve any­thing. It could be argued rather eas­i­ly that egal­i­tar­i­an­ism has done much more harm than good. There was a time that mar­riage very rarely end­ed in divorce. Nowa­days, that’s an every­day occur­rence. I’ve seen peo­ple give oth­ers flow­ers and bal­loons in con­grat­u­la­tions of their divorce. It’s ridicu­lous, it’s abom­inable, and it can­not be tol­er­at­ed in the church­es of God. We are bound to the Scriptures.

      And may they define the peo­ple of God.

    2. @ David : Unfor­tu­nate­ly Rick believes that polyg­y­ny is per­mit­ted, how­ev­er, women who engage in polyandry are head­ed straight to hell. It does­n’t mat­ter if polygamy is against the law in the US, nor does it mat­ter if every Chris­t­ian denom­i­na­tion, as well as all the apos­tles, taught against the prac­tice of hav­ing mul­ti­ple spous­es. All the apos­tles taught that polygamy and polyandry were wrong. Appar­ent­ly the text “the two shall become one flesh” and Paul’s exor­ta­tion “let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own hus­band” does not pre­clude a man hav­ing more than one wife in Rick­’s opinion.

      1. It also was­n’t a preclu­sion of polyg­y­ny in the eyes of Abra­ham, father of God’s cho­sen nation… of David, a man after God’s own heart… and Solomon, the wis­est man who has ever lived… and Jesus, who depict­ed Him­self in para­ble as a bride­groom mar­ry­ing ten vir­gins… and the Father, who depict­ed Him­self as being mar­ried to two sep­a­rate nations… and so on.

        If “two became one” pre­clud­ed the pos­si­bil­i­ty of mul­ti­ple mar­riages, Abra­ham would have only had one wife and would have been com­mit­ting for­ni­ca­tion with oth­ers. Dit­to David. Dit­to Solomon, and so on. But the Bible calls mul­ti­ple wives what they are: wives.

        And you have no log­i­cal rea­son why that would be the case.

        Also, please quote from the Scrip­tures teach­ing from all fif­teen or so apos­tles their teach­ing that both “polygamy and polyandry were wrong.” If you can’t do that, please stop fill­ing this thread with lies. Thank you.

  11. Your con­cerns are cer­tain­ly valid, but I dis­agree that the non-egal­i­tar­i­an fam­i­ly mod­el shown in the Scrip­tures should be replaced by egal­i­tar­i­an­ism. Remem­ber that Paul declares ties the head­ship of the hus­band over his house­hold direct­ly to the head­ship of Christ over the church­es. In oth­er words, the house­hold ought to be a pic­ture of Christ and the church; to change the pic­ture by mak­ing the wife equal to her head (hus­band) would be to imply that the church is some­how equal to its head (Christ).

    I agree that women were often treat­ed bad­ly. But sim­ply because sin­ful man can’t play nice­ly with oth­ers with­in a polyg­y­nous fam­i­ly does­n’t make the con­cept itself bad any­more than the can­cer of divorce in today’s church­es makes monogamy (or mar­riage itself, as some I have heard argued) anti­quat­ed, flawed, or oth­er­wise “not for today’s society.”

    And I fur­ther agree that Christ changed things, but in real­i­ty He did­n’t change as much as some peo­ple think. He ful­filled the cer­e­mo­ni­al or rit­u­al Law and in unit­ing the Gen­tiles and Jews under one church removed the neces­si­ty for the Jews to remain a sep­a­rate nation. So while I don’t have to go do Israel to sac­ri­fice ani­mals and I don’t have to cir­cum­cise any future sons that I may have, I’m not free to mur­der or com­mit adul­tery or any­thing else. The rest of the Law still stands, and Jesus even revealed that when He judges, He is a stricter judge than we would have thought, for it is not just the let­ter of the Law which we are judged by (adul­tery, for instance), but also the spir­it (lust, for instance).

    I dis­agree that 1 Corinthi­ans 7 pre­cludes polyg­y­ny. In essence, Paul is say­ing, “To avoid for­ni­ca­tion, let every man have a wife and every woman have a husband.”

    That’s like say­ing, “To avoid hunger, let every man have a sandwich.”

    Does that state­ment pre­clude the man from ever hav­ing more than one sand­wich? In ordi­nary con­ver­sa­tion, we’d have to admit “no,” so why do we impose a restric­tive ele­ment upon the text of Scrip­ture when it makes no sense to do so?

  12. Rick: You’re very right on many more points. Men and women aren’t equal. Men can­not house a devel­op­ing fetus like (most) women can. And, I’m sure there is some­thing that women phys­i­cal­ly can’t do that men can, although I’m not sure what that would be–women can’t grow beards like most men.

    The bur­dens of church and house­hold lead­er­ship falling on men is sim­ply a philo­soph­i­cal idea gen­er­at­ed in the bible, and many of the dif­fer­ent reli­gions inhab­it­ing the globe today. I don’t under­stand how you can claim that equal­i­ty is respon­si­ble for many of soci­ety’s ills. You say that it could be argued eas­i­ly, yet you give but one argu­ment in this favor. I would like to counter it by stat­ing the hor­rors sur­round­ing the women in those mar­riages of the past. Polyg­y­ny allowed by mod­ern-day reli­gions (Mor­monism, as an exam­ple) has a pro­found effect on the phys­i­cal and men­tal well-being of women. This idea is sup­port­ed in the doc­u­men­tary “The God Mak­ers”, for­mer­ly avail­able on Google Video. It is cur­rent­ly avail­able on Veoh, but they’ve had some major blocks on Cana­di­an view­ers recent­ly. It is also backed up by a won­der­ful book I recent­ly read A Study in Scar­let by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Both of these sources are eas­i­ly dis­missed. I admit that. How­ev­er, doing some actu­al dig­ging it should­n’t be dif­fi­cult to find actu­al sources show­ing the harm that polygamy has committed. 

    As for the claims that equal house­holds leads to greater a greater divorce rate, I believe you are incor­rect. The divorce rate would increase with the philo­soph­i­cal equal­i­ty of women in soci­ety because women would have more con­trol. Men, accus­tomed to being the dic­ta­tors of the house­hold would fight and strain for every last ounce of pow­er. Peo­ple in these sit­u­a­tions haven’t learned to com­mu­ni­cate and com­pro­mise. Hitler, Stal­in, Cas­tro, and Mao are all nice exam­ples of a grand scale dic­ta­tor­ship. Why would we want a mod­el of soci­ety, that has failed the indi­vid­ual so many times, to be the ide­al mod­el of the household?

    It should also be point­ed out that the bible is con­sis­tent in its sup­port of polygamy in some places, while also sup­port­ing monogamy in oth­er places (1 Corinthi­ans 7). The full chap­ter is giv­en in mul­ti­ple dif­fer­ent versions–editions–incase any­one wish­es to blame me of read­ing it out of con­text. The aver­age Chris­t­ian tends to give more weight to the new tes­ta­ment because “Christ changed things”, and it is usu­al­ly the old tes­ta­ment where polygamy is implied. Mean­while, the aver­age Jew­ish per­son gives more weight to the old tes­ta­ment (par­tic­u­lar­ly the Torah) because he/she does not believe that there ever was a Christ. If Christ did change the rules, as implied by the writ­ings of Paul, would­n’t it make more sense for a Chris­t­ian to seek out where those rules have changed and apply the changes to him/her-self?

    I still think that both polyg­y­ny should be equal­ly as valid in today’s soci­ety as polyandry.

  13. I, like “Proud­ly Chris­t­ian” am not a fundamentalist.
    Most Chris­tians are not.

    Jesus, how­ev­er, affirmed the truth and eter­nal­i­ty of the Old Tes­ta­ment. I rest com­fort­ably know­ing that I am of like mind with the Lord of Cre­ation rather than mod­ern philoso­phers who would seek to make the Old Tes­ta­ment mean any­thing they want or noth­ing at all.

    The Bible is not 100% accu­rate on every account, but that does not mean every­thing in it should be dis­re­gard­ed either.

    Paul said that all Scrip­ture is inspired by God; if the Scrip­tures are wrong, would­n’t that imply that God can be wrong? Like­wise Jesus said that the Old Tes­ta­ment tes­ti­fied of Him. If Jesus is the Truth, could a lie real­ly tes­ti­fy of Him? I mean, real­ly? What you’re say­ing is nice if it was being said by an athe­ist, but for some­one who calls them­selves a Chris­t­ian, the con­clu­sions reached by fol­low­ing such state­ments log­i­cal­ly are indefensible.

    David, Solomon, Abra­ham, and the polyg­a­mist patri­archs of Old Tes­ta­ment scrip­ture are not exact­ly my idea of Chris­t­ian role models.

    Then you must answer why the events of the Old Tes­ta­ment are said to be exam­ples to us in the New Tes­ta­ment. Like­wise, you must answer why the author of Hebrews con­sid­ers at least five polyg­y­nists to be role mod­els for Chris­t­ian believ­ers. Truth isn’t mal­leable; if you want to reject the Old Tes­ta­ment, you must have a rea­son based in truth to do so. Now, that’s a fun­ny sit­u­a­tion: the Old Tes­ta­ment is truth, truth does not con­tra­dict, and so you’ll nev­er have a rea­son ground­ed in truth upon which to reject the Old Testament.

    Of King David ‚while the Bible said he was a man after God’s heart, but he was an adul­ter­er and he arranged the death of Uri­ah the Hit­tite. So he was both a mur­der­er and an adulterer.

    Abra­ham mar­ried his half sis­ter and then gave her away to a king with­out inform­ing the king Sarah was his wife. So he not only com­mit­ted incest, but he as also a liar, and he gave his wife away to anoth­er man so that the King could osten­si­bly have sex with her. How many com­mand­ments were vio­lat­ed here ? 

    Solomon’s involve­ment with his wives and con­cu­bines appar­ent­ly led him to allow them to con­struct tem­ples to their for­eign Gods . Not my idea of a role mod­el either.

    Suf­fice it to say that Old Tes­ta­ment patri­archs don’t impress me.

    Agreed that those men did­n’t leave per­fect lives. I can think of only a hand­ful of men in the Scrip­tures who lived lives who were above reproach. Jesus, of course. Enoch comes to mind.

    But you should note that the sins weren’t polyg­y­ny but were mur­der, deceit, idol­a­try, and so on. The Scrip­tures nev­er call Solomon out for the num­ber of wives he had; rather, he is called out because he mar­ried out­side of Israel, his faith tribe. That prin­ci­ple is car­ried over into the New Tes­ta­ment in the prin­ci­ple of not being unequal­ly yoked.

    God called David a man after His own heart. Abra­ham is called a friend of God. You admit to reject­ing much of God’s Word, so you may not want some­one role mod­els who were “bud­dies” with God, but such is what the Old Tes­ta­ment presents to us. We are not free to reject it while call­ing our­selves Chris­tians for in doing so we make a mock­ery of He who was tes­ti­fied of in the Old Testament.

    Jesus’ para­ble about the wed­ding of the ten vir­gins is noth­ing more than a para­ble. He also said that if you have faith the size of a mus­tard seed, you can move moun­tains. He did not mean it lit­er­al­ly obviously.

    I agree that the para­ble is not lit­er­al. In real­i­ty, Jesus bride is com­prised of thou­sands upon thou­sands upon thou­sands of believ­ers, not just ten vir­gins. There’s still a plu­ral­i­ty there, though. Noth­ing fig­u­ra­tive about that.

    Jesus taught us that divorce was allowed in the Old Tes­ta­ment due to the hard­ness of men’s hearts. Most Chris­tians believe polygamy was per­mit­ted for the same reason.

    I’ll believe that too, if you can show me the Scrip­tures which teach it. Why was God so explic­it about divorce while ignor­ing from Gen­e­sis to Rev­e­la­tion the polyg­y­nous unions of so many of his promi­nent followers?

    Jesus gave us a new teach­ing : that divorce is not per­mit­ted unless adul­tery has tak­en place. Jesus was a mem­ber of the Essene sect of Judaism which taught that polygamy and divorce were wrong because the bib­li­cal ide­al was that you were mar­ried to one per­son only for life. Many of his para­bles, teach­ings, and sto­ries come from the Essene literature.

    What the Essenes believed is of lit­tle con­cern unless it has been cod­i­fied in the Scrip­tures. We are bound to the Scrip­tures alone as the Word of God, plus or minus noth­ing. If the Essenes believed that polyg­y­ny was wrong, good for the Essenes. Until it can be demon­strat­ed from the Scrip­tures, I’ll con­tin­ue to accept that it was correct.

    Every pas­tor, priest, and min­is­ter I have ever encoun­tered attest­ed to the “two shall become one flesh” and 1 Corinthi­ans 7:2 as suf­fi­cient evi­dence that both Paul and Jesus taught monogamy as the ideal.

    Some­thing in the neigh­bor­hood of a bil­lion peo­ple believe that the Pope is the high­est Chris­t­ian author­i­ty alive today. Mil­lions of peo­ple teach that infants should be bap­tized. Mil­lions believe that God wants you to be rich. I don’t care about any of those teach­ings, nor do I care how many peo­ple you can point to and say, “See, see, I’m right!”

    Stick to the Scrip­tures. In them is truth and life. How­ev­er, I will answer your chal­lenge with two promi­nent examples.

    Augus­tine, per­haps the most promi­nent church father after the com­ple­tion of the New Tes­ta­ment canon taught that polyg­y­ny was not sin­ful but that it should not be prac­ticed sim­ply because it was against Roman custom.

    Mar­tin Luther, which the Bible-believ­ing com­mu­ni­ty owes a huge debt of grat­i­tude to this day, said that he could not “for­bid a per­son to mar­ry sev­er­al wives, for it does not con­tra­dict Scripture.”

    Source for both bits of info.

    You feel dif­fer­ent­ly, and I don’t know of any Chris­tians who would agree with you, unless you con­sid­er David Kore­sh a Chris­t­ian. All the apos­tles were monog­a­mous, and ani­cent texts teach us that the apos­tles who actu­al­ly lived with Jesus taught that monogamy was the ide­al taught to them by Jesus.

    “All the apos­tles were monog­a­mous” does­n’t mean any­thing any­more than say­ing that “All the pres­i­dents of the Unit­ed States have been men.” Does that mean that all Unit­ed States cit­i­zens must be men? Nope. And nei­ther does the apos­tles’ mar­i­tal sta­tus have any nor­ma­tive sta­tus on all oth­er Christians.

    What “ancient texts” do you have from the apos­tles that aren’t record­ed in the Scrip­tures? I hope you’re not refer­ring to any of those nut­ty “lost gospels.” Sure, they’re a huge boon for fem­i­nism due to their obses­sion with Mary Mag­da­lene, but they were lost for a rea­son; the church did­n’t use them, did­n’t repro­duce them, and tried to let them be for­got­ten until archae­ol­o­gists dug them up.

    That speaks vol­umes to me – I take the tes­ti­mo­ny of those taught by Jesus any day over the exam­ple of cor­rupt Old Tes­ta­ment patriarchs.

    Giv­en that the tes­ti­mo­ny you are refer­ring to isn’t in the Scrip­tures while the exam­ple of the Old Tes­ta­ment patri­archs is in the Scrip­tures… and giv­en Jesus’ and Paul’s and oth­ers’ insis­tence that the Old Tes­ta­ment is per­fect… I’ll stick with the Old Tes­ta­ment saints. :)

  14. I, like “Proud­ly Chris­t­ian” am not a fundamentalist.
    Most Chris­tians are not.
    The world was not cre­at­ed in 6 days, nor is the world less than 6000 years old.
    The Bible is not 100% accu­rate on every account, but that does not mean every­thing in it should be dis­re­gard­ed either.
    David, Solomon, Abra­ham, and the polyg­a­mist patri­archs of Old Tes­ta­ment scrip­ture are not exact­ly my idea of Chris­t­ian role models.
    Of King David ‚while the Bible said he was a man after God’s heart, but he was an adul­ter­er and he arranged the death of Uri­ah the Hit­tite. So he was both a mur­der­er and an adulterer.
    Abra­ham mar­ried his half sis­ter and then gave her away to a king with­out inform­ing the king Sarah was his wife. So he not only com­mit­ted incest, but he as also a liar, and he gave his wife away to anoth­er man so that the King could osten­si­bly have sex with her. How many com­mand­ments were vio­lat­ed here ?
    Solomon’s involve­ment with his wives and con­cu­bines appar­ent­ly led him to allow them to con­struct tem­ples to their for­eign Gods . Not my idea of a role mod­el either.
    Suf­fice it to say that Old Tes­ta­ment patri­archs don’t impress me.
    Jesus’ para­ble about the wed­ding of the ten vir­gins is noth­ing more than a para­ble. He also said that if you have faith the size of a mus­tard seed, you can move moun­tains. He did not mean it lit­er­al­ly obviously.
    Jesus taught us that divorce was allowed in the Old Tes­ta­ment due to the hard­ness of men’s hearts. Most Chris­tians believe polygamy was per­mit­ted for the same rea­son. Jesus gave us a new teach­ing : that divorce is not per­mit­ted unless adul­tery has tak­en place. Jesus was a mem­ber of the Essene sect of Judaism which taught that polygamy and divorce were wrong because the bib­li­cal ide­al was that you were mar­ried to one per­son only for life. Many of his para­bles, teach­ings, and sto­ries come from the Essene literature.
    Every pas­tor, priest, and min­is­ter I have ever encoun­tered attest­ed to the “two shall become one flesh” and 1 Corinthi­ans 7:2 as suf­fi­cient evi­dence that both Paul and Jesus taught monogamy as the ide­al. You feel dif­fer­ent­ly, and I don’t know of any Chris­tians who would agree with you, unless you con­sid­er David Kore­sh a Chris­t­ian. All the apos­tles were monog­a­mous, and ani­cent texts teach us that the apos­tles who actu­al­ly lived with Jesus taught that monogamy was the ide­al taught to them by Jesus.
    That speaks vol­umes to me — I take the tes­ti­mo­ny of those taught by Jesus any day over the exam­ple of cor­rupt Old Tes­ta­ment patriarchs.

  15. Paul said that all Scrip­ture is inspired by God; if the Scrip­tures are wrong, wouldn’t that imply that God can be wrong?

    No sir, it does not. If A is inspired by B, that sim­ply means that some­one looked at B, thought of B, or some­thing of the like, and pro­duced A with B in mind. I can inspire you to make a sand­wich, but you are the one who decides what the sand­wich is like. But, it will still be a sand­wich. Now, I could also inspire you to make a roast beef sand­wich with mus­tard and rye bread, but did I tell you to make that? No. I said or did some­thing, or you thought about me and it remind­ed you of a roast beef sand­wich with rye bread. That is what “inspired” means. Faults with­in scrip­tures would imply faults in god if the scrip­tures were dic­tat­ed unerr­ing­ly. How­ev­er, by your own admis­sion, they were inspired, mean­ing there is room for error with­out imply­ing error on the part of the subject.

    Anoth­er exam­ple is paint­ing (hunger led to the food anal­o­gy) of the sun­set. I look out my win­dow each night and, if the weath­er is cor­rect, I see a beau­ti­ful sun­set. See­ing the sun­set inspires me to paint the sun­set. Is my paint­ing per­fect? No. There are flaws, but over­all it is a decent rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the beau­ti­ful red glows and the orange ball dis­ap­pear­ing beyond the hori­zon. But, I’m a crap­py artist. It isn’t near­ly as won­der­ful as the actu­al sun­set. Does my fail­ure to make a per­fect rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the sun­set mean that the sun­set itself is flawed? No. It shows that I am flawed and my paint­ing is flawed.

    Inspi­ra­tion != Dictation

    (I apol­o­gize for any html issues. This is, believe it or not, my first time try­ing out blockquotes.)

  16. Charlene T, MSW

    Any­one who has ever observed the effect of polygamy on women and chil­dren involved in the prac­tice would not advo­cate for it to be labeled as Chris­t­ian, nor would they advo­cate for it to be declared legal. I speak as some­one who has actu­al­ly treat­ed patients who are vic­tims of this system.

  17. Charlene T, MSW

    Re : Divorce Rates : The rea­son why the divorce rate is low­er in coun­tries which have wide­spread polygamy is sim­ply because the women in these cul­tures do not have the legal or reli­gious right to file a divorce action. Only the men do. These women are usu­al­ly une­d­u­cat­ed, have no mar­ketable skills, or lives in cul­tures where they are for­bid­den to exit the home with­out a male escort. Any woman who is has lived in a polyg­a­mous soci­ety will relate this to you.

  18. The Bible says that God is just. If the Bible is inerrant in the text we cur­rent­ly have, how do you explain a just Deity order­ing the slaugh­ter of inno­cent chil­dren in the fol­low­ing verses :
    Num­bers 31:17–18 “…now there­fore kill every male among the lit­tle ones and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women chil­dren, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
    1 Sam 15:3 “Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”
    Ezek 9:6 “…nei­ther have ye pity, slay utter­ly old and young, both maids and lit­tle chil­dren, and women.”

  19. David: Inspi­ra­tion does mean “dic­tat­ed.” Holy men of old were moved as the Holy Spir­it gave them the words to write. This is the his­toric, ortho­dox under­stand­ing of inspi­ra­tion. It has nev­er meant that God was a cos­mic muse, imper­fect­ly com­mu­ni­cat­ing His Word through men. If that were the case, the Scrip­tures would­n’t be that use­ful at all as it would require us to pick and choose which bits we think are actu­al­ly true and which were mis­un­der­stand­ings or mistranscriptions.

    Char­lene T, MSW: If you don’t like polyg­y­ny, you don’t have to engage in it. That does­n’t change the fact that many peo­ple through­out the world even today are very hap­py in a polyg­y­nous sit­u­a­tion. Judg­ing an ide­ol­o­gy by the abus­es there­of is by no means a sound method of reasoning. 

    Log­ic: First of all, I unap­proved your com­ment regard­ing “errors” in the Bible. It’s a dis­trac­tion to the issue at hand here, and while I will respond to you via e‑mail (or an appro­pri­ate post here if you want to track one down to com­ment upon), you are also wel­come to bring the issues up at the Fel­low­ship Hall.

    Regard­ing God being just while order­ing those “atroc­i­ties,” when you have a full under­stand­ing of just how sin­ful mankind is, then you can ask that ques­tion. God is per­fect­ly just in killing any one of us, regard­less of age, creed, or any­thing else. We deserve it. And beyond that, this life is not all there is. Giv­en that, God order­ing the deaths of some­one is just Him trans­fer­ring them from one life to anoth­er. They’re going to die any­way, remember.

    And what David says is accu­rate. If God orders an army to wipe out a nation, then that is just and must be done. He is sov­er­eign over all of our lives, after all. Our lives are His to increase or decrease as He sees fit. When we object to it in a way that isn’t hon­est before God but is instead a method of test­ing God or putting Him on tri­al, our objec­tions amount to noth­ing more than a pot back­talk­ing to the pot­ter. The pot, like us, isn’t going to get very far with the objections.

    Now, can we please keep this on top­ic? There are oth­er posts on this blog, there’s my mes­sage board, and there’s a thou­sand oth­er Web­sites out there that can serve as dis­cus­sions for how just God is or whether the Bible is inerrant or not. If you’re “smart” enough to debate the­ol­o­gy, phi­los­o­phy, and so on, let’s be smart enough to stay on top­ic, shall we? Thanks.

  20. Log­ic: I asked that of a min­is­ter one time. How can any god be just if he orders/sanctions this or that atroc­i­ty. The answer was a lot sim­pler than the ques­tion, but it was­n’t an actu­al answer. I will give you what he said, hop­ing that Rick will come up with some­thing better.

    “God is more pow­er­ful and knows more than we do. How can we say that any­thing is wrong with­out God telling us it is wrong. If God says it is right, it must be right for God knows all and we just know the action.”

  21. Charlene T, MSW

    David cit­ed his con­cerns regard­ing the wel­fare of chil­dren and women in polygamy in a pre­vi­ous post. You respond­ed : “I agree that women were often treat­ed bad­ly. But sim­ply because sin­ful man can’t play nice­ly with oth­ers with­in a polyg­y­nous fam­i­ly doesn’t make the con­cept itself bad.”
    Per­haps I agree with you. Maybe the con­cept in itself isn’t bad. “The real­i­ty” in terms of health out­comes, unfor­tu­nate­ly, is bad for both women and children.
    You are assum­ing how­ev­er that out­comes for women and chil­dren of polyg­y­nous fam­i­lies are equiv­a­lent to health out­comes in monog­a­mous fam­i­ly units. The med­ical lit­er­a­ture does not sup­port this.
    When com­par­ing women in polyg­y­nous fam­i­lies with women in monog­a­mous fam­i­ly units, women in polygyny :
    a) have 5 X high­er rates of seri­ous men­tal ill­ness than mong­a­mous women, espe­cial­ly severe depres­sion with sui­ci­dal ideation, neces­si­tat­ing psy­chi­atric admis­sion for sui­cide watch.
    b)have high­er rates of suicide
    c) have high­er rates of domes­tic vio­lence, includ­ing hus­band on wife, wife on wife, and wife on chil­dren. In par­tic­u­lar, the chil­dren of a wife who is per­ceived to be a rival are fre­quent­ly abused. Death of the child of the rival spouse is not uncom­mon and has been described in all polyg­a­mous cul­tures, includ­ing the Unit­ed States.
    d) Polyg­y­nous women have high­er rates of stress, anx­i­ety, and pho­bias on stan­dard­ized psy­cho­log­i­cal testing.
    e) Women in polyg­y­nous house­hold have high­er rates of som­a­ti­za­tion dis­or­der, a seri­ous men­tal ill­ness which man­i­fests itself in myr­i­ad phys­i­cal com­plaints which have no organ­ic basis. (symp­toms of pep­tic ulcer dis­ease, back pain, abdom­i­nal pain, headaches, neck pain, and unex­plained mus­cle pain) all of which cause these women sig­nif­i­cant phys­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal suffering.
    In terms of health out­comes for chil­dren, when one com­pares chil­dren of polyg­y­nous fam­i­ly units with chil­dren in monog­a­mous fam­i­ly units, chil­dren of polyg­y­nous units :
    a) have poor­er aca­d­e­m­ic performance
    b) have high­er school drop out rates
    c) have high­er rates of use of illic­it drugs
    d) have high­er rates of alcoholism
    e) have high­er rates of depres­sion and seri­ous psy­chi­atric illness.
    These health out­comes were not derived from anec­do­tal reports. These research stud­ies were per­formed using stan­dard­ized test­ing, anony­mous sur­veys, and reviews of patien­t’s med­ical records, arrest records, sub­stance abuse treat­ment records, and school atten­dance records. These stud­ies were per­formed in Cana­da, the US, Israel, Unit­ed Arab Emirates,Africa and Turkey. Chris­t­ian, Mor­mon, Moslem, and Sephardic Jew­ish polyg­y­nous fam­i­lies were studied.

    1. I don’t agree with these results you just pre­sent­ed sir. First, I would like to say that the out­come of these results could have been influ­enced by con­tex­tu­al fac­tors. In soci­eties where polygamy is a crime these out­comes could well be true but in soci­eties where polygamy is a nor­mal way of life and accept­ed as nor­mal, I don’t see all these dif­fer­ences you just dis­cussed above. I, being an issue from a polyg­a­mous home can assure you that it all goes wrong when peo­ple believe that it is a bad thing and the women start look­ing for ways of pro­tect­ing them­selves and their chil­dren against each oth­er. Polygamy in itself is not the issue, it is the soci­etal per­cep­tion of the con­cept that poss­es prob­lems hence lead­ing to all these ills you have out­lined above. A UNESCO study has also shown that 87% of cou­ples in Cameroon admit­ted hav­ing prob­lems of con­ju­gal rape and 97% of these fam­i­lies were in monog­a­mous mar­riages. The divorce rate in Africa is high­er in monog­a­mous fam­i­lies than in polyg­a­mous fam­i­lies, do you know why? because the con­cept is nor­mal and even includ­ed in the con­sti­tu­tions of most African coun­tries. Whilst the Bible tells us that God did­n’t con­demn polygamy or pun­ish any of the men that prac­tised it, it nonethe­less tells us that Sodom and Gomor­rah were two cities that were destroyed by God because of homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and oth­er sins. So the bible clear­ly tells us that homo­sex­u­al­i­ty is a sin. And yet most of the west­ern pow­ers are legal­is­ing this sin and crim­i­nal­is­ing polygamy. Let us begin by ask­ing our Chris­t­ian gov­ern­ments to fol­low the Preach­ings of the book we are sup­pos­ed­ly bas­ing our foun­da­tions on “The Holy Bible”.

  22. Pret­ty sure there was like a huge­ly pub­li­cized raid on a polyg­y­nous com­mu­ni­ty last year, yet pret­ty much none of those evils you men­tion were found there. I can absolute­ly under­stand how those evils would arise in a big­a­mous sit­u­a­tion — when one wife does­n’t know about the oth­er. When the rev­e­la­tion drops, that can ruin lives. But in an open, hon­est polyg­y­nous sit­u­a­tion, there’s no rea­son why any of those things should be true.

    I doubt soci­etal pres­sures against the fam­i­lies help things any either.

    And because of that, those “results” aren’t real­ly worth any­thing for they don’t tell us what would hap­pen if polyg­y­ny were a com­plete­ly accept­able form of mar­riage. That day is com­ing in Amer­i­ca rather quick­ly, so whether you agree with it or not, you’ll have to deal with it then.

    Those stud­ies also do noth­ing to deter­mine whether the Scrip­tures allow for polyg­y­ny or not, which is the crux of my argu­ment and quite frankly the only thing that mat­ters to me in this dis­cus­sion. If any­one wants to debate the prac­ti­cal aspects of polyg­y­ny, there are bet­ter places online to dis­cuss it. Thanks.

  23. Keep in mind I dis­miss far “big­ger” sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies. Old-earth geol­o­gy? Rub­bish. Evo­lu­tion? A lie. Glob­al warm­ing? Mod­ern myth.

    There is noth­ing in the Wis­dom Lit­er­a­ture of the Scrip­tures which would dis­cour­age polyg­y­ny. As a mat­ter of fact, if the Song of Solomon was real­ly about Solomon and one of his wives, then it’s very telling that the Bible’s most impor­tant expo­si­tion of love is based on the life of the Bible’s “biggest” polygynist.

    What­ev­er prac­ti­cal rea­sons you have against it, that’s all well and good, but it does­n’t answer the ques­tions as to whether it is a sin or not, whether God bless­es or just mere­ly “allows” it, and so on. The rea­sons you give are good rea­sons to be active polit­i­cal­ly argu­ing against homo­sex­u­al mar­riage (which will inevitably lead to the allowance of polyg­y­nous mar­riages, as some groups are already fight­ing for in some states). But what you have pre­sent­ed isn’t con­vinc­ing on a doc­tri­nal level.

  24. Charlene T, MSW

    The results of the stud­ies which I cit­ed were not relat­ed to the raid in Utah last year.
    Of note, the raid in Utah did reveal high­er rates infant mor­tal­i­ty in the com­pound than one observed in the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion in the area (>20% infant mortality)
    The results of the mul­ti­ple stud­ies (>25) which I ref­er­enced were not relat­ed to big­a­mous sit­u­a­tions where­in the women were not aware of the exis­tence of a “sis­ter wife”. All of the women in the stud­ies knew their “sis­ter wives.” and they lived prox­i­mate to each oth­er, or in the same household.
    These stud­ies were per­formed anony­mous­ly in com­mu­ni­ties around the world where the polyg­a­mous lifestyles were not sub­ject to gov­ern­ment / legal sanc­tions at the time the study took place. The reli­gious com­mu­ni­ties in which these women lived accept­ed polyg­y­ny as legit­i­mate lifestyle which was val­ued as high­ly (if not more high­ly) than monogamy. I am sur­prised that you dis­miss the rel­e­vance of the stud­ies out of hand, with­out review­ing them first.

  25. That’s quite an awk­ward jump from polyg­y­ny to some sort of homo­sex­u­al group mar­riage. Keep in mind that polygamy has been quite com­mon through­out his­to­ry, whether homo­sex­u­als are involved or not. I’m afraid I don’t see any log­i­cal con­nec­tion between homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and polygamy. Care to explain?

    I nev­er men­tioned homo­sex­u­al group mar­riages, David. What I meant was that there are peo­ple out there who, on the basis of homo­sex­u­al mar­riage being legal in some states, are argu­ing that polyg­y­ny should be legal as well. I believe that homo­sex­u­al­i­ty is abom­inable, but I’m not igno­rant enough to not see what would hap­pen if mar­riage is rede­fined at the civ­il lev­el to include homo­sex­u­al unions. It will soon fol­low that polyg­y­ny (and polyandry… if not entire­ly open, group mar­riages) will be fought for as well and will be legal­ized as well. After all, far be it for the gov­ern­ment to dic­tate moral prin­ci­ples upon groups of peo­ple who want to have sex with each other.

    Char­lene T, MSW: Then in a con­ver­sa­tion meant to deter­mine the sta­tus before God of polyg­y­ny, what do you intend to add? I appre­ci­ate your shar­ing the med­ical data which you’re aware of, but it does­n’t answer any of the ques­tions being raised here.

  26. Rick: That’s quite an awk­ward jump from polyg­y­ny to some sort of homo­sex­u­al group mar­riage. Keep in mind that polygamy has been quite com­mon through­out his­to­ry, whether homo­sex­u­als are involved or not. I’m afraid I don’t see any log­i­cal con­nec­tion between homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and polygamy. Care to explain?

    Char­lene T, MSW: To assist with your under­stand­ing of fun­da­men­tal­ist read­ings of sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies, I will clar­i­fy with show­ing the dif­fer­ence between a sci­en­tif­ic read and a fun­da­men­tal­ist read. The sci­en­tif­ic means is to come up with an idea. For­mu­late a hypoth­e­sis from that idea for test­ing. Run the test to see if it is sup­port­ed by real­i­ty. Repeat the test mul­ti­ple times, refor­mu­lat­ing the hypoth­e­sis to bet­ter match the expect­ed results as data is acquired. After per­form­ing numer­ous tests and col­lect­ing numer­ous data, for­mu­late a the­o­ry based on the hypoth­e­sis, which is now well-found­ed in the work­ings of reality. 

    The fun­da­men­tal­ist means (any reli­gion) is to wait for the sci­en­tif­ic results to come forth, or some­times just read the hypoth­e­sis. If the sci­en­tif­ic results are sup­port­ed by sacred teach­ings, it must be true. If the sci­en­tif­ic results are not sup­port­ed (or out­right reject­ed) by the sacred teach­ings, it must be false no mat­ter how much sup­port nature, soci­ety, or real­i­ty gives the the­o­ry and/or hypoth­e­sis. This is how we get the flat earth soci­ety, peo­ple who believe that there is a god of some kind in the cen­tre of the earth run­ning things, a mag­ic man in the sky, a fly­ing spaghet­ti mon­ster hold­ing us to the ground with nood­ly appendages, and many oth­er ideas which are not sup­port­ed by observ­able reality.

    I spec­u­late (and for­give me for putting words in your mouth) that Rick is reject­ing the data col­lect­ed by these stud­ies because there is no sup­port nor men­tion of any hor­ri­ble out­comes of polygamy in the bible. And, there is no men­tion of Yah­weh (or any­one in the Elo­him) say­ing it is wrong. Since there is no objec­tion in the bible, it is not against God’s law and there­fore not immoral. This is sim­i­lar to the beat­ing of slaves not being wrong or immoral because the bible says we may beat our slaves so long as they don’t die from the beat­ing with­in a day or two. (Exo­dus 21:20–21)

  27. Charlene T, MSW

    Mr. Beck­man,
    You said : There is noth­ing in the Wis­dom Lit­er­a­ture of the Scrip­tures which would dis­cour­age polygyny.
    At no time in any of my post­ings have I ren­dered an opin­ion regard­ing the Wis­dom Lit­er­a­ture of the Scrip­tures. I have no opin­ion on this sub­ject, and there­fore can­not comment.
    You stat­ed : What­ev­er prac­ti­cal rea­sons you have against it, that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t answer the ques­tions as to whether it is a sin or not, whether God bless­es or just mere­ly “allows” it, and so on.
    At no time in any of my post­ings have I ren­dered an opin­ion regard­ing the “sin­ful­ness” of polg­y­ny, nor do I intend to. I am a health care pro­fes­sion­al who prac­tices at an aca­d­e­m­ic med­ical cen­ter. I restrict my dis­cus­sions to mat­ters regard­ing health care and health care out­comes, as well as research regard­ing health out­comes. I leave dis­cus­sions regard­ing bib­li­cal stan­dards to qual­i­fied the­olo­gians, such as yourself.
    Last­ly you said : The rea­sons you give are good rea­sons to be active polit­i­cal­ly argu­ing against homo­sex­u­al mar­riage (which will inevitably lead to the allowance of polyg­y­nous marriages)
    At no time in any of my pre­ced­ing post­ings have I dis­cussed the exist­ing med­ical lit­er­a­ture regard­ing med­ical out­comes of domes­tic homo­sex­u­al part­ners and / or their off­spring. My com­ments were lim­it­ed to a review of the med­ical lit­er­a­ture on health out­comes in polyg­y­nous cou­ples, which is unfor­tu­nate­ly not positive.
    For infor­ma­tion regard­ing the health out­comes of chil­dren raised by homo­sex­u­al part­ners, I would refer you to the recent sum­ma­ry arti­cle pub­lished by Amer­i­can Acad­e­my of Pedi­atrics, which iden­ti­fied health out­comes for these chil­dren which were supe­ri­or to those described in polyg­y­nous unions. I did not write the arti­cle — I’m just quot­ing it.

  28. Nev­er heard of him. Please don’t try to asso­ciate me with some group you dis­agree with just because you dis­agree with me. I’m not a mem­ber of any polyg­y­nist group (nor am I a polyg­y­nist myself), any cult, or any oth­er “fringe” group. Thanks.

  29. Charlene T, MSW

    Mr. Beck­man :
    I am famil­iar with the Chris­t­ian polyg­y­ny move­ment which was start­ed by Steve Butt. Are you a mem­ber of his group ? Mr. Butt was an evan­gel­i­cal Chris­t­ian who began the move­ment about 15 yrs ago, while work­ing as a men­tal health coun­selor work­ing with female vic­tims of abuse. He decid­ed he was “divine­ly inspired” to have sex with one of his patients, to bring about her heal­ing. He then took her home to his wife and announced he had a rev­e­la­tion that Chris­t­ian men could have plur­al wives and he would there­after be mar­ried to his patient as well and his wife.
    This is a vio­la­tion or abuse of pro­fes­sion­al trust. It is a vio­la­tion of state licen­sure reg­u­la­tions which pro­hib­it coun­selors, nurs­es, physi­cians, etc which is pun­ish­able with license revo­ca­tion, fines, and in some states, required jail time.

  30. Well, you asked if I was a mem­ber of his group, and then went on to say that your com­ment was lit­tle more than a com­mon on his pro­fes­sion­al behav­ior or lack thereof.

    And since none of that has any­thing to do with the top­ic at hand, that makes him irrel­e­vant and I see no rea­son why you would have brought him up oth­er than to take the oppor­tu­ni­ty to ask if I was some­how a part of his group.

    So, that makes him irrel­e­vant. Like, for exam­ple, David Kore­sh, who was men­tioned ear­li­er by Uppity.

  31. Charlene T, MSW

    Mr. Beck­man :
    I did­n’t say I dis­agreed with Mr. Butt.
    I nev­er said I dis­agreed with you.
    I nev­er sug­gest­ed that you were a “cult ” or “fringe” group member.
    These are your assumptions.
    I did how­ev­er com­ment on Mr. But­t’s pro­fes­sion­al behav­ior ( or lack of same)

  32. Char­lene: Actu­al­ly, I have no idea about David Kore­sh. His­to­ry isn’t my strong suit, unfortunately.

    As far as main­stream Chris­t­ian denom­i­na­tions are con­cerned, I doubt any of them advo­cate or allow polyg­y­ny. Actu­al­ly, I’m pret­ty sure none of them do. I’d like to con­sid­er myself a Presbyterian/Baptist, but I admit that my beliefs don’t align per­fect­ly with either of those groups. I aim to believe the Bible, not fol­low a group, so on some things I fit in here, while oth­ers I fit in there.

    I would­n’t be sur­prised if there are groups which iden­ti­fy them­selves by polyg­y­ny, but I have noticed that when a group splin­ters away and puts so much empha­sis on one area, they end up being way off base on oth­er, more impor­tant issues.

    I’ve inter­act­ed with very few peo­ple who actu­al­ly believe that polyg­y­ny is accept­able, and that only via the Inter­net. Hugh is one of them. I learned most of what I know about polyg­y­ny from him, and I learned it by doing my best to prove him wrong. Well, I failed, and after months of reflec­tion on that fail­ure, I deter­mined that I was hold­ing onto a “monogamy-only” doc­tri­nal posi­tion out of pref­er­ence only and had no bib­li­cal rea­son to do so, so I now defend the “bib­li­cal polyg­y­ny” position.

    Not that you asked for all that… but you did ask for advise­ment, and that’s all I know. :)

  33. David: Actu­al­ly, that ques­tion, being part of the post intro­duc­tion, was rhetor­i­cal in nature. Now, had it come at the end of the post. ;)

    Still, kudos on work­ing in the Gum­mi Bears. I miss that show. :)

    And to an extent, yeah, it is impor­tant to under­stand the impact on soci­ety. Chris­tians are told not to offend each oth­er or cause each oth­er occa­sion to sin. Per­haps intro­duc­ing polyg­y­ny would cause men to sin by abus­ing mul­ti­ple women. But that same point could be lev­eled against monog­a­mous mar­riage. Dit­to most argu­ments of that nature.

    There are a num­ber of issues to address, but if polyg­y­ny is a sin, then there is no rea­son to go any far­ther. Argu­ing the prac­ti­cal­i­ty or use­ful­ness of, for exam­ple, mur­der is a moot point — it’s an undis­put­ed sin. So argu­ing that polyg­y­ny is moral­ly neu­tral and is inher­ent­ly not a sin, then are peo­ple free to move on to dis­cus­sions of practicality.

  34. Charlene T, MSW

    I am unsure how many of polyg­y­nous Chris­t­ian groups or denom­i­na­tions there tru­ly are now. Is one required to be a mem­ber of a group ?
    I was under the impres­sion that there was only one, asso­ci­at­ed with Rev­erend Butt, which I men­tioned in the pre­vi­ous post­ing. I should read more on the top­ic. Please advise me. I did not mean to offend you by sug­gest­ing this pos­si­ble asso­ci­a­tion. My sin­cer­est apolo­gies. In con­trast to the opin­ion of the “Uppi­ty Woman” I do not think that David Kore­sh was a mem­ber of a Chris­t­ian polyg­y­nist sect. Was­n’t his group asso­ci­at­ed with the Sev­enth Day Adven­tists at one point?

  35. … I’m entire­ly not sure where the idea that hus­band and wife becom­ing one soul in the after­life comes from. That issue would seem to affect a vari­ety of sit­u­a­tions, not just polyg­y­ny. Think of the wid­ow­er who remar­ries or the wid­ow who remar­ries. In levi­rate mar­riages, is the wife to become one with both brothers?

    The Scrip­tures are explic­it that hus­band and wife become “one flesh,” and that in the after­life they are like unto angels, not mar­ry­ing. I’ve nev­er heard of the “one soul” idea before, nor does it seem bib­li­cal, based on my under­stand­ing of things.

    1. I have always though of 1 flesh mean­ing to have chil­dren. The indi­vid­ual flesh of the man and woman become 1 flesh is rep­re­sent­ed as child/children.

  36. The “Branch David­i­ans” were a break away group of 7th Day Adven­tists. They came into being in the late 1920’s and Kore­sh sort of took the group over. They were and are apoc­a­lyp­tic in nature, and still exist today.

  37. Rick: Char­lene made her state­ments about the med­ical find­ings of polyg­a­mous rela­tion­ships. You stat­ed that you reject these claims, ques­tion­ing what this has to do with the assert­ed top­ic of whether or not polygamy is sanc­tioned or allowed accord­ing to the bib­li­cal texts. This is clear. Char­lene then point­ed out that she is aware of a Chris­t­ian-based move­ment start­ed by Butt. She also asked if you were a part of this orga­ni­za­tion. You accused her of attempt­ing to asso­ciate you with this group. Right­ly so. Had you been asso­ci­at­ed with this group, she would have more infor­ma­tion of where your ide­o­log­i­cal stand­point lies, allow­ing her to make com­ments that you would find more rel­e­vant. This makes Butt and his move­ment rel­e­vant to the con­ver­sa­tion, as it is an attempt to under­stand more about where you stand on the sub­ject, and whether or not you are mak­ing the asser­tion that polygamy should be put into practise.

    It is also impor­tant to note that ques­tion­ing the moral­i­ty and pos­si­ble impact on soci­ety that polygamy may have is not out­side the bound­aries of the sub­ject. To you, it may seem so. Your view, as I under­stand it, is that the bible at points makes ref­er­ence to polyg­y­ny, and there­fore may sanc­tion it. You do not call into ques­tion whether or not it is moral­ly valid, as I under­stand your log­ic, because the ideas are not stat­ed as moral­ly unjust in the bible. How­ev­er, when bring­ing up a sub­ject like polygamy, it is dif­fi­cult (if not impos­si­ble) for some to rea­son it pure­ly based on scrip­ture, with­out think­ing about the impact it may have on soci­ety, health, and what have you. Since your clear­ly stat­ed ques­tion after the numer­ous bib­li­cal pas­sages ref­er­enc­ing polyg­y­ny is:

    What comes to your mind when you think of polygyny? 

    you have clear­ly opened the doors of dis­cus­sion on any top­ic or field that may come to the read­er’s mind when s/he thinks about polygamy. If I were to think of gum­my bears (bounc­ing here and there and every­where) when I think of polygamy, it would not be off-top­ic to men­tion it. And, when ques­tion­ing whether or not any god sanc­tions any­thing, it is always rel­e­vant to ask whether or not it is moral. If the dis­cus­sion becomes one of the soci­etal impacts of polygamy, how can we ignore it? Sure­ly, since the bible states that god placed the holy spir­it into every man, and with it knowl­edge of the law, we can rely on our own sens­es of moral­i­ty when it comes to such top­ics, as well as the scrip­tures when look­ing at it from a bib­li­cal per­spec­tive. (Hebrews 8:7–12)

  38. Rick: It was­n’t hard to work in the show. I’ve been think­ing about them for a while, as I am crav­ing gum­my bears.

    It has already been estab­lished, at least in my mind, that the bible makes no claim to polygamy, of any kind, being a sin. Had it been con­sid­ered a sin, it would be clear­ly stat­ed thus. You made many (and I’m still strug­gling to fin­ish read­ing them all) quotes of men who took mul­ti­ple wives through var­i­ous meth­ods. God hat­ed none of this behav­iour. God also gave mul­ti­ple wives to dif­fer­ent men, accord­ing to scrip­ture. There­fore, since no mea­sure is made (in the bible–mormons may dis­agree) to make polygamy either sin­ful nor a require­ment or sign of good graces of god, we may make the assump­tion that it is moral­ly neu­tral accord­ing to the bible. Hence, we are free to dis­cuss prac­ti­cal­i­ty, accord­ing to your own words.

    How­ev­er, there are peo­ple, Chris­tians, who read 1 Corinthi­ans and think this means the rules have changed and the state­ments about a man being with his wife and a woman being with her hus­band means monogamy is the new chic thing to do.

    I do won­der how you get around the idea of the man and the woman, mar­ried, becom­ing one soul in the after­life. If there are mul­ti­ple wives, does this mean that the one man becomes one with his (for exam­ple) 40 wives? And, what of the con­cu­bines? They may be of low­er social sta­tus, but are they not also his wives, as con­cu­bines dif­fer from mis­tress­es in this case? If a man has 40 wives and 20 con­cu­bines and they all die, does that mean that all 61 peo­ple are joined into one soul? Or, does this only apply to the first wife? Does it apply to a wife cho­sen for bondage after death? Does the man pick a favorite wife while alive, and that’s the one he joins? In ques­tion­ing the after­life, the bib­li­cal take on polygamy becomes more complex.

  39. You’re right. It does say “flesh”. No mat­ter any­way. Mul­ti­ple souls inhab­it­ing one body is still trou­ble­some. Would they have a time­share sys­tem on the body, or would they all con­stant­ly fight over its con­trol. Pre­sum­ably they would do the same thing as each oth­er in the after­life, any­way, so it may be that they’re all look­ing out of the same automa­ton-like body. Since I’m not famil­iar with the par­tic­u­lar verse off the top of my head and I’m not real­ly all that keen on doing any research at this time of night, unless it is a metaphor for sex­u­al rela­tions, I can still see how the very notion would cause men­tal hav­oc in the minds of any­one think­ing of polygamy.

    It is sim­i­lar to this ques­tion: “What if a man is on a road to Hell, as is his wife, while they were still mar­ried in the eyes of God? His wife dies and goes to Hell. Then, the man mar­ries a Chris­t­ian woman, on her way to Heav­en. The man con­verts (to save headaches in argu­ment) and is now on his way to Heav­en. If the man is sup­posed to become one flesh (or one soul, as I orig­i­nal­ly heard this ques­tion) with his wife, and one is in Heav­en while the oth­er is in Hell, does that mean that half the man’s soul goes to Heav­en while the oth­er Hell?”

    The “one soul” idea comes from one of the many dif­fer­ent church­es I’ve expe­ri­enced. It may have been that dread­ful Queensway Cathe­dral. I’d pre­fer to blame them for any­thing erro­neous over any oth­er church I’ve attend­ed, but I’m hon­est­ly not sure which one made that statement.

    Thank you for the correction.

  40. With regard to 1st Corinthi­ans 7:2 which says:

    “Let each man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

    I have this to observe:

    The Greek words for “own” are dif­fer­ent. This makes the sen­tence con­struc­tion not par­al­lel, but con­trast­ing. Let me explain that dif­fer­ence. In par­al­lel con­struc­tion, there is one vari­able and the for­mu­la­tion is to com­pare, and say a thing is like anoth­er. Rick men­tioned this oblique­ly in an ear­li­er com­ment regard­ing the King with One Horse. In Hebrew the sen­tence con­struc­tion of Deuteron­o­my 17:16 is par­al­lel to the sen­tence struc­ture of Deuteron­o­my 17:17. What is said about hors­es is also said about wives. It says “don’t ‘rabah’ your wives or hors­es.” Thus what is true about horse pos­ses­sion is true about wife pos­ses­sion (yes, I used a “chat­tel” term).

    In 1st Corinthi­ans 7:2 Paul is say­ing that what is true about “wife own­er­ship” is not true about “hus­band own­er­ship.” This is cru­cial. I am not word wran­gling here because we must always remem­ber that the Eng­lish word “own” has near­ly oppo­site poten­tial mean­ings. When you refer to “your mas­ter” or “your own mas­ter” as a slave, you’re not talk­ing about pos­sess­ing your mas­ter, you’re speak­ing of being pos­sessed by your mas­ter. When you speak of your slave, or “your own slave” you’re talk­ing about pos­sess­ing them.

    I do not dream of dic­tat­ing to you what you should derive from that lit­tle expla­na­tion, except this one thing. If you think the pas­sage is com­par­a­tive, par­al­lel and stat­ing that the duties and rela­tion­ship of wife to hus­band are iden­ti­cal, the pas­sage does not say that. It in fact says that the rela­tion­ship is not iden­ti­cal and the duties are not iden­ti­cal, depend­ing on which side of the coin you represent.

    Rick said:

    “Levi­rate mar­riages were part of the Law; those who chose not to par­tic­i­pate were essen­tial­ly spit­ting in their brother’s face. There was shame asso­ci­at­ed with it. That’s in the Bible too. (What the Jew­ish rab­bis turned it into is of lit­tle con­cern to me; there was a lot that was embell­ished in Judaism that isn’t “Sola Scrip­tura,” just as there is a lot with­in Chris­tian­i­ty that has lit­tle to do with the Scriptures.)”

    I would point out that Rick is being mild here. The fact that the pun­ish­ment of the man who refused to take his dead broth­er’s wife was not severe does not change at all that it was a pun­ish­ment. You pun­ish some­one for doing some­thing wrong. Thus a man COULD refuse his dead broth­er’s wife, but he was wrong to do so and he was pub­licly shamed for doing so. Being tak­en into a “chat­tel” soci­eties city gates, then hav­ing your face spit in, and a shoe removed (attes­ta­tion and insult) and it pro­claimed that “this is done to the man that does­n’t raise up his broth­er’s house in Israel,” is not the equiv­a­lent of “Hey, what­ev­er floats your boat.”

    Israel in the peri­od between Sinai and Saul had no pris­ons, do not for­get. Pun­ish­ments were sham­ing, ban­ish­ment, fines, muti­la­tion and death. It was­n’t a death penal­ty offense to refuse your broth­er’s wife, but it was an offense.

    I should also note that no one in par­tic­u­lar is EVER com­mand­ed to mar­ry by a law of God unless that law also could and fre­quent­ly DID require their polyg­y­nous mar­riage. Indeed, Adam was mar­ried, but his wife was cre­at­ed AS HIS WIFE, he did­n’t mar­ry her.

    One of Adam’s sons HAD to mar­ry one of his daugh­ters, but scrip­ture does not record that Abel mar­ried. Some­one had to mar­ry to car­ry out God’s com­mand to “be fruit­ful and mul­ti­ply” but no one in par­tic­u­lar did. The com­mands to mar­ry in par­tic­u­lar are con­fined to “Levi­rate Law” and the laws con­cern­ing the seduc­tion of an unbe­trothed vir­gin. Nei­ther of those laws involved dis­cus­sion of the pri­or mar­i­tal state of the man so a man would just as eas­i­ly be com­pelled to mar­ry polyg­nous­ly as monog­a­mous­ly. In fact, in Israel, it was almost cer­tain that the com­mand caused more polyg­y­nous sit­u­a­tions or addi­tions to exist­ing polyg­y­nies than it cre­at­ed monogamies.

  41. Charlene T, MSW

    It appears that the Chris­t­ian polyg­y­nous fun­da­men­tal­ist belief sys­tem incor­po­rates many prac­tices of ancient Judaism which are not cur­rent­ly prac­ticed in most Chris­t­ian denom­i­na­tions. Is this belief sys­tem also called Mes­sian­ic Judaism ?
    For example :
    Does your sect require women to under­go rit­u­al immer­sion 7 days after com­ple­tion of the men­stru­al cycle ?
    Does your sect require spe­cial gar­ments for women, such as head cov­er­ings, or the fringed under­gar­ment worn by Jew­ish men, called tzizit?
    Does your sect refrain from eat­ing those foods which are con­sid­ered unclean in Judaism, includ­ing pork, and shellfish?
    Do you refrain from mix­ing milk and meat prod­ucts at meal­time in obe­di­ence to Jew­ish dietary laws ? are sep­a­rate uten­sils and dish­es required for milk and meat products?
    Do you keep the laws regard­ing obser­va­tion of the Sabbath ?
    Is the obser­vance of Passover, Suc­coth, Shevout and oth­er Jew­ish fes­ti­vals required ?
    Does your sect engage in spe­cial groom­ing prac­tices with regard to trim­ming the beard or side­burns which was com­mand­ed in the Torah ?
    Sor­ry I have so many questions.

  42. Char­lene, we are not Israelites but whose val­ues to you sup­pose the Jerusalem Church refers to in acts when advis­ing the gen­tile church­es? Romes? Those of Greece? No, those of Moses:

    Acts 15: “There­fore my judg­ment is that we should not trou­ble those of the Gen­tiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things pol­lut­ed by idols, and from sex­u­al immoral­i­ty, and from what has been stran­gled, and from blood. For from ancient gen­er­a­tions Moses has had in every city those who pro­claim him, for he is read every Sab­bath in the synagogues.”

    It is a red her­ring to sug­gest that we pro­pose the whole law be fol­lowed in every aspect, or to pro­pose that this was nec­es­sary, or to pro­pose that it must be to be con­sis­tent. Even the law itself nev­er required uni­ver­sal adher­ence by all to all the laws in the same way.

    Deuteron­o­my 14:

    “You shall not eat any­thing that has died nat­u­ral­ly. You may give it to the sojourn­er who is with­in your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a for­eign­er. For you are a peo­ple holy to the Lord your God.”

    The law of God was nev­er egal­i­tar­i­an, yet you appeal to that eth­ic. I am not a pros­e­lyte to the faith of Judaism. I do not have to fol­low the laws par­tic­u­lar to Jews. Jews were even told this in the law as I point out above. We are told to fol­low their laws of sex­u­al moral­i­ty, and immorality.

  43. Charlene T, MSW

    Char­lene, we are not Israelites but whose val­ues to you sup­pose the Jerusalem Church refers to in acts when advis­ing the gen­tile church­es? Romes? Those of Greece? 

    I did­n’t refer to “acts” and I don’t know what that means. 

    The law of God was nev­er egal­i­tar­i­an, yet you appeal to that ethic : 

    I am not appeal­ing to any ethic.
    I sim­ply am unfa­mil­iar with your sect, and I am mak­ing inquiries.
    If I have giv­en you the impres­sion that I am appeal­ing to that “eth­ic”, I apologize.

    It is a red her­ring to sug­gest that we pro­pose the whole law be fol­lowed in every aspect, or to pro­pose that this was nec­es­sary, or to pro­pose that it must be to be consistent.

    I did­n’t sug­gest or pro­pose that these laws be fol­lowed in any way.
    I did inquire about the prac­tices of your sect, with which I am unfamiliar. 

    It appears that you have tak­en offense to my ques­tions, when none was unintended.

  44. Biblical Cherry Picker

    Char­lene,
    Wel­come to the wide, won­der­ful world of polyg­y­nous fun­da­men­tal­ist Bible cher­ry picking!
    Mul­ti­ple wives ? Its a full go !
    Con­sis­ten­cy in adher­ence to Bib­li­cal prin­ci­ples which require effort or sac­ri­fice on their part ?
    For­get about it!

  45. Char­lene, I am tak­ing no offense. Acts is a book in the Bible in the New Tes­ta­ment. You asked ques­tions regard­ing which laws I should or should not fol­low in a rhetor­i­cal way. I respond­ed that the ques­tions had no mean­ing for a well versed Christian.

  46. Cher­ry Picker..

    Cher­ry Pick­ers are in the set of things that Bib­li­cal Chris­tians are not. I do not fol­low some laws and not oth­ers. It COULD be argued that I fol­low the whole law, because cer­tain parts of the law have a flag on them that asks who I am, and then tell me whether to give regard to them or ignore them.

    The laws of Sex­u­al Prac­tice have a big flag on them from the Book of Acts that says “FOLLOW THESE.”

  47. Biblical Cherry Picker

    Hugh :
    The Bib­li­cal laws regard­ing sex­u­al immoral­i­ty dic­tate that a man refrain from hav­ing sex with his wife / wives dur­ing the time they are men­stru­at­ing and sev­en days thereafter.
    So is it the rec­om­mend­ed prac­tice or your prac­tice to fol­low this guideline ?

  48. That is a clean­li­ness law that relates to sex. What is your point though? That I would not fol­low it if I thought it applied? All you will be able to do in the final analy­sis is show that I am hyp­o­crit­i­cal. If you wish an admis­sion to hypocrisy, let us go no fur­ther, I will offer that admis­sion to you now.

    I am not con­scious­ly hyp­o­crit­i­cal in this area in gen­er­al. If I trans­gress con­scious­ly, I clear­ly sin in both my eyes and in the sight of God. I owe God my repen­tance. Again, what would be your point? I do not ADVOCATE the trans­gres­sion of God’s laws as they per­tain to me.

  49. Biblical Cherry Picker

    All you will be able to do in the final analy­sis is show that I am hyp­o­crit­i­cal. If you wish an admis­sion to hypocrisy, let us go no fur­ther, I will offer that admis­sion to you now.

    Exact­ly. You do not fol­low the laws regard­ing sex­u­al immoral­i­ty dic­tat­ed by bib­li­cal law.
    You choose to do what is con­ve­nient and serves your interests.
    How con­ve­nient it is that you as a man can have mul­ti­ple spous­es, but a woman must share you.
    You have made my point.
    You pick and choose what you want to follow.

  50. Now you sim­ply are lying about what I said. It does no good to be hon­est and forth­com­ing with the dis­hon­est. I made no such point as you declare, I do not will­ing­ly cher­ry pick a law, and if shown to do so, I will repent.

  51. Thanks as always, Hugh, for your comments.

    David: You mis­un­der­stand. Peo­ple don’t share a spir­it, soul, or even a body when they become mar­ried. Rather, they are “one flesh.” They are still each very much their own per­sons with their own body, soul, and spir­it. When they die, they are very much indi­vid­u­als, for there is no mar­riage in the after­life. The “one flesh” aspect is bore out via sex­u­al rela­tions, and if I’m not mis­tak­en, any­time man and woman have sex, they become “one flesh” in a sense. Polyg­y­ny does­n’t com­pli­cate this, real­ly — there’s no blend­ing of the souls or any­thing else of that nature.

    Char­lene: The Law present in the Pen­ta­teuch is com­posed of three dis­tinct fea­tures: moral laws, laws which set Israel apart from oth­er nations, and rit­u­al (includ­ing rit­u­al clean­li­ness and holy days) laws. The New Tes­ta­ment affirms that Jesus’ ulti­mate sac­ri­fice put an end to the neces­si­ty of the rit­u­al laws; like­wise, the blend­ing of Gen­tile and Jew with­in the Church brought an end to the sep­a­ra­tion laws. The moral law has nev­er been repealed and is still in force today. Those things which you men­tion fall into the two ful­filled aspects of the Law, and so no, we do not observe those things today.

    Bib­li­cal Cher­ry Pick­er: We’re not pick­ing and choos­ing vers­es to believe and vers­es not to believe. We strive to believe the whole Bible, so yes, I do believe in the laws that Char­lene men­tioned. How­ev­er, I believe in what the New Tes­ta­ment has to say as well, which reveals that a great part of the Law was spe­cif­ic to Judaism. If we’re guilty of pick­ing and choos­ing laws to believe, then the Scrip­tures are guilty of the same mis­take: nowhere is a Gen­tile pun­ished for fail­ing to observe Jew­ish rit­u­al or sep­a­ra­tion laws. The moral laws, how­ev­er, are bind­ing upon every one. The law regard­ing men­stru­a­tion had to do with rit­u­al clean­li­ness; in Jesus, we are made clean. I sug­gest you take some time to review basic bib­li­cal the­ol­o­gy; what we are teach­ing here isn’t some­thing we came up with; it’s been the prac­tice of Chris­tians for near­ly 2,000 years and is taught by the New Testament.

    Robert: Right on!

  52. “I did inquire about the prac­tices of your sect, with which I am unfamiliar.”

    You are unfa­mil­iar, because there is no such sect. There are only indi­vid­u­als who have come to the same con­clu­sion through prayer and study of the word of God. The only “sect” to which we belong, is the one described in the Bible…

  53. Heh, after look­ing through the com­ments pan­el, it looks as though at least four dif­fer­ent user­names used in com­ments on this thread (and at least one oth­er post here) belong to the same person.

    Ain’t anonymi­ty fun?

    (Any­one else find it a lit­tle weird that the pro­po­nents of polyg­y­ny here in this thread are doing noth­ing to dis­guise their iden­ti­ty? Open­ness equals accountability.)

  54. It’s okay. Soon­er or lat­er it was bound to come out that you, Glen, David, and myself were all the same per­son. The only rea­son I’m reply­ing to you this way is to keep up the illu­sion of sep­a­rate persons.

    Or maybe we’re schiz­o­phrenic. That must be it.

  55. Keep in mind I dis­miss far “big­ger” sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies. Old-earth geol­o­gy? Rub­bish. Evo­lu­tion? A lie. Glob­al warm­ing? Mod­ern myth.

    While I agree with you that the Bible clear­ly and obvi­ous­ly both demon­strates polyg­y­ny among its patri­archs and has no prob­lem with it, the first of the three above “points” are spu­ri­ous, and cause me not to take much of what you say seri­ous­ly. I actu­al­ly agree with you about the last point, at least so far as man has lit­tle if any­thing to do with it and the Earth has nat­ur­al, and some­what ran­dom, cli­mat­ic variations.

    But the Earth is old and your deny­ing same does­n’t do you any good. And evo­lu­tion seems to have more evi­dence behind it than not.

    Any­way, I fur­ther agree with you that what we know of bio­log­i­cal and genet­ic sci­ence shows us that com­plete 100% social and sex­u­al monogamy is not natural.

    It can be made to work through vol­un­tary (or invol­un­tary, for that mat­ter, but I’m not advo­cat­ing that) appli­ca­tion of the will (or pos­si­bly occa­sion­al­ly through low libido, or mas­sive cul­tur­al pro­gram­ming while young)… but it isn’t nat­ur­al.

    Social monogamy may be a nat­ur­al thing: Sev­er­al species exhib­it it. Com­plete sex­u­al monogamy not so much. What we now know of mod­ern genet­ics (the same genet­ics that make evo­lu­tion a near cer­tain­ty) shows us that it isn’t nat­ur­al in nei­ther the ani­mal nor cer­tain­ly the human kingdom.

    Should polygamy (polyg­y­ny and polyandry) be legal? Sure. As long as it involves con­sent­ing adults. I can’t think of a seri­ous reli­gious free­dom argu­ment against it… how can one hon­est­ly pre­tend it isn’t tol­er­at­ed by the Judeo-Chris­t­ian scrip­tures them­selves escapes me. It clear­ly is by the three main (alleged­ly) “monothe­is­tic” reli­gions. And many others.

    The fact that mod­ern Chris­tians (and Mor­mons, inter­est­ing­ly) are usu­al­ly fanat­i­cal­ly opposed to polygamy is amus­ing — and so utter­ly pre­dictable — where mod­ern cul­ture and legal prac­tice replace their scrip­tur­al “beliefs”… if I can use that term to describe what is clear­ly a high­ly flu­id thing in their case.

    I am talk­ing about main­stream Chris­tians (and Mor­mons), not fun­da­men­tal­ists obvi­ous­ly. While I dis­agree with both main­stream and fun­da­men­tal­ists, I have more respect for the fun­da­men­tal­ists… while at the same time acknowl­edg­ing the main­stream are more fun at parties.

    Inter­est­ing dis­cus­sion. Car­ry on.

  56. While I do agree with all three of Ricks sen­ti­ments which Christof denies at least two of, I would rather ask Char­lene to actu­al­ly present the study she is ref­er­enc­ing. It seems for all the hub­bub and debate about weath­er such a study is impor­tant the poly oppo­si­tion has neglect­ed to actu­al­ly cite a place to find this study or link too it. Its kind of like the con­cept of the habere­des cor­porus, show me the accuser. The study may indeed say a lot about polygamy, but odds are good that its sub­jects are too broad to pin their ilks to polygamy alone, and odds are great that good polyg­a­mists are not rep­re­sent­ed at all, as they are usu­al­ly sen­si­ble enough not to be on the bad side of the law and not about to be par­tic­i­pat­ing in such stud­ies. The coun­tries list­ed that would yeaild the high­est edu­ca­tion lev­els and low­est abuse lev­els have polygamy illegal. 

    There are a num­ber of impor­tant inquiries that must be made before such a sur­vey could be accept­ed as demon­strat­ing a valid link and being unbias. It seems that David in all his trum­pet­ing for the sci­en­tif­ic method neglect­ed to point out that prop­er analy­sis pro­ce­dure was not being fol­lowed here. 

    I seri­ous­ly ques­tion the per­son who said that the Polyg­a­mist FLDS peo­ple had a high­er infant mor­tal­i­ty rate, I fol­lowed that atroc­i­ty close­ly and one of the key things that irri­tat­ed the state was the lack of birth records. The state did not have them and unless some­thing very new has come out they did not find any, where does the sta­tis­tic of 20% high­er infant mor­tal­i­ty come from? The only place I could guess would be that they had high­er infant mor­tal­i­ty after the raid due to the doc­u­ment­ed gross mis­han­dling of infants by the Texas CPS not­ed by such groups as the Nation­al Coali­tion for Child Pro­tec­tion Reform. I have a link from ear­ly on where they lost some of the chil­dren they where kid­nap­ping http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274226,00.html and if I recall at least 3 infants where sent to emer­gency care about a week into their hold­ing, though I don’t have a handy link for that one, its not a stretch to say that chil­dren died because of anti-polygamy sen­ti­ment, it is a cer­tain that they where injured both phyis­cal­ly and emotionally. 

    It worth not­ing that there was a very low inci­dence of bro­ken bones among the chil­dren exam­ined, low­er than the Texas stan­dard, and the teen preg­nan­cy rate was tiny, less than one tenth the Texas averedge (when you take the lat­er data, when the tests came back that most of the women in their 20’s where indeed in their 20’s). This is of course quite astound­ing when you remem­ber that the whole premise for this mas­sacre was teens hav­ing sex. 

    Bah, I don’t like sym­pa­thiz­ing with Mor­mons but you kind of have to here. 

    What I always find amus­ing is that sil­ly women some­how think polyg­y­ny is against them, its not too like­ly they are famil­iar with his­to­ry beyond their ‘every­thing was against women till now’ tripe. Real­ly, Monogamy, is very very misog­y­nist both in ori­gin and prac­tice. Rick had already not­ed that Augus­tine said monogamy was a cus­tom of Rome, and it was from c 150 B.C. I won­der if these fem­i­nists are famil­iar with the abor­tion cri­sis in India? Specif­i­cal­ly the fact that it is the baby girls that are being selec­tive­ly elim­i­nat­ed. Well, such a thing was again a well doc­u­ment­ed cus­tom of Rome (though they left the girls to die of expo­sure imme­di­ate­ly after birth, not being as enlight­ened as us and not know­ing that it is real­ly a baby at that point and that they should have done it soon­er {Its all been done before, eh?}) It appears in extant let­ters from offi­cers and oth­er extant scripts, and Aris­to­tle looks favor­ably upon it in one of his works. 

    The link between killing girls and monogamy is not often made, but it is quite com­pelling, how is it that a war­like cul­ture with many men dieing in bat­tle also a monog­a­mous one? It came because they killed their own daugh­ters faster than the ene­my could kill their sons. Of course it was not monog­a­mous as we know it, they still had con­cu­bines ect from con­quests and slav­ery, but the rea­son you could only have one cit­i­zen wife was that there where not enough to go around. 

    Monogamy is great­ly misog­y­nist, and not only in ori­gin, but in prac­tice. When the Anabap­tist Lead­en cap­tured Mun­ster and set up ‘New Jerusalem’ polyg­y­ny was part of his vision, and while it last­ed it is record­ed (In John Car­ni­cos’s book, After Polygamy Became a Sin, for one place) that the women where so hap­py with the set­up that they active­ly searched for wives for their hus­band (as my dear wife does for me :) ). The next major occur­rence is when it was allowed after the 30 years war, and much debate ensued then, but if we are talk­ing about the state of women we real­ly must talk about The­lyph­tho­ra, lit­er­al­ly trans­lat­ed On the Ruina­tion of Women. It was pub­lished in 1780 by Mar­t­ian Madan, a freind of the Weasly broth­ers and God­fa­ther of Samuel Weasly. He worked most his life as chap­lain of Lock­’s hos­pi­tal in Lon­don, a place that spe­cial­ized in ver­nal dis­ease (STD’s). While his work is many vol­umes, very detailed, and avail­able for free dig­i­tal­ly, one of its key points is that men should man up and take care of the women they screw, monogamy gives them an out, and polygamy should be allowed for account­abil­i­ty sake. Of course there is much more too it than that, but it does very much say that monogamy is ruin­ing Euro­pean women and backs with scrip­ture and expe­ri­ence in detail. Over the next 20 years a great num­ber of coun­ters came out, but it is very well worth not­ing that the most promi­nent and suc­cess­ful coun­ters was essen­tial­ly ‘women are not worth keep­ing, polygamy would be an eco­nom­ic bur­den on men’. 

    Once again, who is the misogynist? 

    Even more recent­ly, it is inter­est­ing to note that many of the Mor­mon women where very much involved in wom­ens lib, Utah women got the right to vote ear­ly, they where expect­ed to be against polygamy, but of course they where not. A side note of the 1887 Edmunds-Tuck­er Act which was an anti-polygamy motion took away wom­ens right to vote in Utah, and they did­n’t get it back for over a decade. 

    So, right up till the 1900’s Polygamy has a his­to­ry of help­ing and pro­tect­ing women, and has a his­to­ry of women favor­ing it. Now ‘fem­i­nists’ absolute­ly hate it, it shows how dis­con­nect­ed they are. 

    Ah, I noticed before I post­ed that this post was just res­ur­rect­ed, prob­a­bly no one left to make this point too, but any­way, if you want some recent Poly his­to­ry Rick there is a short bit of it. Thanks again for you’re work on polygamy. I half wish some of these objec­tors knew real polyg­a­mists, so many of them are help­ing sin­gle moms ect and tak­ing on huge amounts of respon­si­bil­i­ty and work to make a big dif­fer­ence in some injured and reject­ed wom­ans life…

  57. “I half wish some of these objec­tors knew real polyg­a­mists, so many of them are help­ing sin­gle moms ect and tak­ing on huge amounts of respon­si­bil­i­ty and work to make a big dif­fer­ence in some injured and reject­ed wom­ans life…”

    Good job, Jair. 

    It is inter­est­ing how many peo­ple have an opin­ion of polygamy, and have nev­er seen it first hand, or known any­one that lived this type of mar­riage struc­ture, have nev­er asked the women if they like it, love it, or have ben­e­fit­ted from it at all. It is also inter­est­ing to see the argu­ments against Bib­li­cal polygamy and how the argu­ments tend to go toward vers­es that can be inter­pret­ed dif­fer­ent ways, and the inter­pre­ta­tion is cho­sen with­out regard to how gross­ly it con­flicts with the rest of scripture. 

    Hang it there, Rick. Have no fear, the Bible is with you. I too strug­gled for 3 years with the argu­ments against Bib­li­cal polygamy, and final­ly had to change my beliefs to be sub­mis­sive to God and not man. The only posi­tion that is not con­tra­dic­to­ry to God’s Word is the one that says polyg­y­ny is not sin. I do not want to go back to try­ing to live my spir­i­tu­al walk think­ing or preach­ing that God changes, caus­es sin, or is an adul­ter­er Him­self. The more appro­pri­ate atti­tude would be that “I don’t have to engage in polyg­y­ny, but I defi­nate­ly will not con­demn those that do, in accor­dance with the Bible.” 

    I have met polyg­y­nists, spent time with them in fel­low­ship and prayer, seen their fam­i­lies, and talked with the hus­bands, wives, and chil­dren. I would sug­gest that oth­ers do not make judge­ments or assume that they know what is good, bad, or the norm in those fam­i­lies with­out see­ing for them­selves. If any­one is inter­est­ed in learn­ing more about the prac­ti­cal lives of spir­it-filled believ­ers that sup­port and/or prac­tice Bib­li­cal polyg­y­ny, send me an email, and I will get you the info to a web­site found­ed for the pur­pose of sup­port­ing those fam­i­lies that choose to live in this lifestyle. You will be able to ask ques­tions, and be able to know for your­self what this is all about for today’s believer.

    Paul

  58. That’s a good point, Paul; I do think it would help if polyg­y­nists and the ladies they mar­ry were more known. They’re not all cult mem­bers, Mus­lims, or what­ev­er else.

    But of course, the come­back retort would be, “I don’t need to know a mur­der­er to know that mur­der’s a sin.” Ulti­mate­ly, it still comes down to how much respect one gives to the Word of God, which I’m sad to say, isn’t much these days. Fol­low­ing the “par­ty line” is just as much a prob­lem in denom­i­na­tions as it is in politics.

  59. True.

    It is inter­est­ing for the peo­ple that say they don’t need to know one to know it is sin; the Bible is clear that mur­der is sin, we can eas­i­ly find that. But mar­ry­ing more than one woman is nev­er called or described, or implied as sin. One inter­est­ing facet is that in all of the oppor­tu­ni­ties for God to say that it was sin, or show his dis­plea­sure at any man that engaged in it, or any woman, or in giv­ing His Law, He remained silent. It is inter­est­ing that today’s church and the church through­out the cen­turies has seen fit to “upgrade” God’s Law, and call this type of mar­riage “sin” when He did not. It was idol­a­try for me to main­tain the stance of polygamy=sin. I had too much fear of the first com­mand­ment and the Almighty God that wrote it. Why would I dare to act or believe that some­thing is good that He calls bad, or say that some­thing He calls beau­ti­ful is sin. Thanks for being strong enough in your fear of the Lord to post what you know to be the truth.

    Paul

  60. Hi,
    It is inter­est­ing to see how many peo­ple have con­clud­ed that polyg­y­ny is accept­able after *inves­ti­gat­ing* the bible. Its is frus­trat­ing to hear peo­ple who haven’t stud­ied the issue just wave Matthew 19 and Gen­e­sis 2 as some kind of trump card (even though they do not address polyg­y­ny at all). I sup­pose it is cul­tur­al con­di­tion­ing, which is understandable.

    One of the clear­est exam­ples of God­ly men with mul­ti­ple wives (and I guess you’ll cov­er this in the future) is Joash:
    “1 Joash was sev­en years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His moth­er’s name was Zib­i­ah; she was from Beer­she­ba. 2 Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the years of Jehoia­da the priest. 3 Jehoia­da chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daugh­ters.” — 2 Chron 24

    Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, and the *priest* choose two wives for him. In con­text, it is almost as if God gave Joash 2 wives. I can’t see how peo­ple can hon­est­ly look at this and think that Gen­e­sis 2 some­how con­demns Joash.

  61. I’ve been enjoy­ing the con­ver­sa­tion on this post too much to actu­al­ly put “pen to paper” on the sec­ond edi­tion of this series, so thank you for men­tion­ing Joash. It’s amaz­ing how often God Him­self is involved (direct­ly or indi­rect­ly) with men becom­ing polyg­y­nists. If polyg­y­ny is a sin, then God tempts man to sin; that’s the prob­lem that monogamy-only­ists must face.

  62. There were too many posts on here for me to read each one care­ful­ly, so tell me if this was already brought up. The exam­ple of Abra­ham has glar­ing omis­sions. The whole thing with Hagar was because Abra­ham and Sarah were try­ing to ful­fill God’s promise on their own…they weren’t trust­ing Him to do it. So now we live with the consequences…all of the trou­ble in the Mid­dle East. David’s life was scarred by mur­der, exile, and blood­shed by his own sons. Solomon’s wives led his heart astray from God. Yes, there were patri­archs who had mul­ti­ple wives. They were all sin­ners, too. The point of the Old Tes­ta­ment is not to glo­ri­fy them, but to point to the need for a sin­less Sav­ior. I per­son­al­ly think you need a good smack to the head, Rick! I also think that if I was your wife, I would feel very hurt and betrayed. The prob­lem is when peo­ple start think­ing they have to come up with some “nov­el” idea to show how clever they are. (it’s obvi­ous­ly not nov­el if they were doing it thou­sands of years ago.) The Gospel is to admit that you are a hor­ri­ble wretch who deserves eter­nal judg­ment, repent of your sin, and turn to Christ…not to find your favorite patri­arch and live exact­ly like he did.

  63. Mar­ta,

    Are you main­tain­ing that the patri­archs we main­tain were monog­a­mous (very few) who are not actu­al­ly said to be monog­a­mous, were free from sin? It is the amount of detail we have about the lives of each indi­vid­ual man in the Old Tes­ta­ment, that deter­mines in gen­er­al, whether or not we know of griev­ous sin in their lives.

    Would you con­tent, for instance, that Isaac was bet­ter off than Abra­ham? “Cas­tle Intrigue” reigned among Isaac’s tents. One broth­er (just like Adam and Eve) attempt­ed to kill the oth­er, with the pri­ma­ry dif­fer­ence being he did­n’t suc­ceed. Son deceives father and broth­er, moth­er deceives hus­band and based on the telling of the sto­ry, there was con­sid­er­able dis­tance (lit­er­al­ly) between the tent of Isaac and Rebekah allow­ing her and Jacob to car­ry our their deceptions.

    You note cor­rect­ly that Abra­ham’s sin was to try to do it him­self. You neglect to empha­size that it was Sarah’s idea. You neglect to men­tion that it was­n’t polyg­y­ny for which David was pun­ished, but for MURDER and ADULTERY, the mur­der being a sec­ond sin meant to cov­er up the adul­tery of David, which was against Uri­ah and God. You neglect to men­tion that Solomon is NEVER chid­ed for his lit­er­al num­ber of wives and NEVER chid­ed for his polyg­y­ny, but for the UNBELIEF of the wives he took. Con­text sug­gests this large num­ber of wives he took was towards the lat­ter part of his life, and com­prised most­ly of unbe­liev­ers. At the time of Song of Songs for instance, his num­ber of wives was less than a 5th of what he end­ed up with. Nehemi­ah, the word of the LORD, chides him only for his wives of unbelief.

    Rick, to my knowl­edge, takes seri­ous­ly his promise to his own wife that he be monog­a­mous, just as I do. Beyond that, it isn’t impor­tant, ulti­mate­ly, in the deci­sion mak­ing process, what she FEELS about it. IF polyg­y­ny IS NOT WRONG, then a wife resist­ing the addi­tion of anoth­er wife becomes lit­er­al­ly as child­ish as one of your sons or daugh­ters com­plain­ing that you have decid­ed to bring yet anoth­er son or daugh­ter into the fam­i­ly. It real­ly isn’t any of her busi­ness. I’m not going to sug­ar coat it for you. If Rick were free from promis­es not to mar­ry oth­ers, and if he took anoth­er wife, his present wife could only argue the con­tract God says he has with her in Exo­dus 21. Name­ly, that he not deprive her of con­sort, cloth­ing and food as a result of tak­ing that oth­er wife. Those would be her ONLY legit­i­mate complaints.

  64. My point, if you re-read it you will see it, was that they were ALL sinners.

    BTW, Gen­e­sis 2:24 says, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and moth­er, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (which involves so much more than just sex)

    The onus is on the man to leave and cleave (which accord­ing to Web­ster’s, means, “to adhere firm­ly and close­ly or loy­al­ly and unwa­ver­ing­ly.” The two exam­ples God gave us specif­i­cal­ly were the gar­den of Eden and the flood. Each man had his own, sin­gu­lar wife.

    Once you open the door to this evil prac­tice, you give your­self per­mis­sion to be unhap­py with the wife of your youth. This whole dis­cus­sion is fool­ish, and I plead with all of you who are advo­cat­ing this to get your­selves into a sound, Bib­li­cal church, sub­mit your­selves to the author­i­ta­tive preach­ing of the Word, and repent of your arro­gance. You will prob­a­bly say I am the one being arro­gant, but this is not a sys­tem that was set up by me…it was ordained by God.

  65. Mar­ta,

    If you’re going to argue to a fine point, the mean­ing of words for instance, then you need to study the Hebrew, which is pos­si­ble for even a novice, such as myself, in view of all the aids that are avail­able for free on the inter­net. “Cleave” itself is an unfor­tu­nate word with which to make your point, since it has near­ly polar oppo­site poten­tial mean­ings, one being to divide with a sharp object, the oth­er being to stick togeth­er. Web­ster was­n’t even around when that pas­sage was so translated.

    I would inter­pret Gen­e­sis 2:24 which is a pas­sage even the most con­ser­v­a­tive Bible Schol­ars and con­text say was writ­ten by Moses con­cur­rent­ly with Exo­dus 21 must sub­mit to the actu­al words of God in Exo­dus 21. “Woody” Lauer, an Ortho­dox Pres­by­ter­ian sem­i­nary HEBREW lan­guage pro­fes­sor says it is a “Mosa­ic inter­po­la­tion.” He says this in the process of try­ing to REFUTE me. 

    Cleav­ing would have to sub­mit to the dec­la­ra­tion of God that mar­i­tal faith­ful­ness on the part of the man con­sist of not depriv­ing a woman of con­sort, food and cloth­ing as the result of adding anoth­er wife. It can­not mean, as you strong­ly wish it means, that a man can­not have anoth­er wife. Con­texts define and lim­it the word being used to some of it’s mean­ings, not all of them, oth­er­wise as I point out, “cleave” itself is an impos­si­ble contradiction.

    I rebuke you OPENLY and STRONGLY for the undemon­strat­ed LEAP that polyg­y­ny is an “evil prac­tice.” You sim­ply have not shown that and I DO NOT CARE, nor should I BE ASKED TO CARE what you “think” or “feel” about it in a dis­cus­sion of truth. Demon­strate it, or with­hold your judg­ment from me. You show your­self to be rash. You are cer­tain­ly free to live in the light of that inter­pre­ta­tion your­self, but real­ly, this is an “I dunk, you sprin­kle” argu­ment at best, and you, like all intol­er­a­ble busy­bod­ies, want to peer in my bed­room to see how I’m work­ing out my sal­va­tion. Get the BEAM out of your eye I’ve lost patience with you and oth­ers jab­bing mine with your thumbs, in search of that speck that both­ers you so much.

    Faith­ful­ness again, to the wife of my youth is in the con­text of ABANDONMENT of her through divorce, which is lat­er clar­i­fied by Christ, as unjust divorce. Such aban­don­ment would nec­es­sar­i­ly deprive her of con­sort, cloth­ing and food and impli­cate her as an adul­ter­ess, the only valid rea­son for her sta­tus as divorced.

    Arro­gant?

    You are supreme­ly arro­gant and deserve harsh, point­ed, scoff­ing rebuke. Con­sid­er it done.

  66. Sor­ry, I messed up the hyper­link, the para­graph should read:

    I would inter­pret Gen­e­sis 2:24 which is a pas­sage even the most con­ser­v­a­tive Bible Schol­ars and con­text say was writ­ten by Moses con­cur­rent­ly with Exo­dus 21 must sub­mit to the actu­al words of God in Exo­dus 21. “Woody” Lauer, an Ortho­dox Pres­by­ter­ian sem­i­nary HEBREW lan­guage pro­fes­sor says it is a “Mosa­ic inter­po­la­tion.” He says this in the process of try­ing to REFUTE me.

    [update by Rick] Hyper­link fixed in this and pre­vi­ous comment.

  67. Hugh,
    My argu­ment is not with you…you have shown your true col­ors and you will be hum­bled by God, either in this life or in eter­ni­ty. I have no inter­est in what you do in your bed­room. My rea­son for writ­ing is to call Rick, who is sup­posed to be in charge of this blog, to repen­tance. He took a vow to sub­mit to the author­i­ty of the church, and to not for­sake the assem­bly of the saints. Rick, I ask you to stop sub­sti­tut­ing elec­tron­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tion for sub­mit­ting to Bib­li­cal author­i­ty. You have writ­ten that you do not know what you believe any­more, or some­thing to that effect. (for­give me, I don’t have time to read every­thing on here, so I may have some­thing out of con­text.) It is too easy in this set­ting to pick and choose, to hide from dis­ci­pline, to not be REAL in front of oth­ers so you can for­give and be for­giv­en. You are in a very dan­ger­ous posi­tion spir­i­tu­al­ly, and you are set­ting your­self up to be car­ried away by false teach­ings. Please stop. I ask you in the love of Christ to return to the church. You know me…you know this is not the rant­i­ngs of a mad woman with an ax to grind. I ask this for both you and your fam­i­ly, for whom you will have to give account to God…not to me.

  68. Hugh, I will make an attempt to post what I believe is your link.

    I would inter­pret Gen­e­sis 2:24 which is a pas­sage even the most con­ser­v­a­tive Bible Schol­ars and con­text say was writ­ten by Moses con­cur­rent­ly with Exo­dus 21 must sub­mit to the actu­al words of God in Exo­dus 21. “Woody” Lauer, an Ortho­dox Pres­by­ter­ian sem­i­nary HEBREW lan­guage pro­fes­sor says it is a “Mosa­ic Inter­po­la­tion”. He says this in the process of try­ing to REFUTE me.

    —————

    I have already stat­ed my own point of view. The bible states it is alright, though it does­n’t take a hard moral line on whether or not a man should take mul­ti­ple wives. It also does not state whether or not a woman should take mul­ti­ple hus­bands. But, it does clear­ly show that polygamy is alright. The sec­ond half was hav­ing to do with soci­ety. Many peo­ple and many stud­ies have found that poly­gymy can be likened to spousal abuse. On the oth­er hand, humans have been shown to be a polyg­a­mous crea­ture, most tak­ing mul­ti­ple dif­fer­ent wives/husbands at dif­fer­ent times over their lives. This is, of course, depen­dent on society.

    So, the bible says it’s alright and some indi­vid­u­als and groups say it is alright. If it’s not hurt­ing any­body, why not?

  69. Mar­ta,

    Where in the bible does it say that to be saved one has to go to the lit­tle (or big) qui­et (or loud) church (or megachurch)? Nowhere. It says that you must believe in Jesus as a per­son­al sav­iour and that your actions must be of god. How do you get “sub­mit to the preach­er” from the pas­sages stat­ing the way to heaven?

    What is going on here? A thought game is going on here. Rick brought up a con­tro­ver­sial top­ic and asked whether or not it is allow­able accord­ing to the bible, pro­hib­it­ed by the bible, or even pro­mot­ed by the bible. When stat­ing that he does­n’t know what to believe any­more (remem­ber the con­text) he was speak­ing specif­i­cal­ly about this one top­ic. Why would he be con­fused on this one top­ic? Well, there is a lot of stuff in the bible saying/showing it is okay. There are also pas­sages about god giv­ing out wives to peo­ple. But, con­trary to this, we have a few which may be inter­pret­ed to sound like it is one man and one woman. And, we have a large soci­etal point of view back­ing up this inter­pre­ta­tion. Hence, it is easy to get con­fused on this one topic.

    If Rick went to church A and sub­mit­ted to an author­i­ty fig­ure for the truth, he would get answer A. At church B, he would get answer B. Repeat this going through the entire­ty of the alpha­bet. I went with a sim­i­lar ques­tion to a Unit­ed Bap­tist church (it had to do with divorce). I got an answer, which we may abbre­vi­ate as “yes”. I went to anoth­er and got a “no”. Final­ly, a third, to break the tie, gave me a “maybe”. The catholics gave me a “no, unless” and the angli­cans gave me a “if nec­es­sary”. Rick does­n’t want the thou­sands of human inter­pre­ta­tions he could get through search­ing church by church for an answer. (I real­ize you are say­ing to go to a spe­cif­ic church, but church by church is more dra­mat­ic.) Rick wants the unbi­ased opin­ions of god, as stat­ed in the bible. Hence, I would state that Rick is sub­mit­ting to bib­li­cal author­i­ty. In fact, he is sub­mit­ting to the high­est bib­li­cal author­i­ties in exis­tence. Rick is sub­mit­ting to the bible and the word of god. Do you still think that Rev­erend Joe Any­body is bet­ter than the author­i­ty Rick seeks?

  70. Mar­ta, I appre­ci­ate the con­cern — I do. But your com­ments are most­ly emo­tion­al plead­ing, and that cer­tain­ly isn’t suf­fi­cient to change my mind on the matter.

    The above post — the orig­i­nal blog entry at the top — is sim­ply a list of non-chas­tised polyg­y­nists in the Scrip­tures, and it’s a woe­ful­ly incom­plete list at that (one can very eas­i­ly add the Father and the Son to the list as well). I’ve writ­ten sev­er­al oth­er posts on the sub­ject of polyg­y­ny that con­tain actu­al argu­ments for the prac­tice, both here and at FriendOfPolygyny.com.

    I’m aware of the church’s beliefs on the mat­ter; how­ev­er, at this point, I won­der if that whole aspect might be aca­d­e­m­ic: my cur­rent work sched­ule isn’t ter­ri­bly friend­ly to Sun­day morn­ing ser­vices, which is all the church has. I’m aware of the West­min­ster Con­fes­sion’s state­ments con­cern­ing mar­riage, which is what the church adheres to, that a per­son can­not be mar­ried to more than one per­son con­cur­rent­ly. That’s the very first point under the head­ing of “Mar­riage and Divorce,” and sad­ly all of the proof texts giv­en are argu­ments against divorce, for­ni­ca­tion, or polyandry… but not polygyny.

    As a Reformed woman, you’re well aware of the doc­trine of “Scrip­ture alone,” and the Scrip­tures state that sin is “trans­gres­sion of the Law.” No one any­where has shown from the Law that polyg­y­ny is a sin. Rather, such an inter­pre­ta­tion must be read into pas­sages which deal with for­ni­ca­tion or divorce or some­thing else entire­ly. The Law, in fact, con­tains allowances for polyg­y­ny (as Hugh has already men­tioned) and even demands it in cer­tain cir­cum­stances (levi­rate marriage).

    It’s also worth not­ing that not only are the Scrip­tures filled with inci­dents of polyg­y­ny, it’s a “sin” which is nev­er repent­ed of, nev­er mind the fact that it is nev­er rebuked. The prob­lems in the lives of David, Abra­ham, and oth­ers are nev­er tied direct­ly to their polyg­y­ny — again, such inter­pre­ta­tions must be read into the Scriptures.

    Indeed, the first instance of polyg­y­ny — the prin­ci­pal of First Men­tion being fair­ly use­ful to deter­mine the Scrip­ture’s stand­ing on a mat­ter — is that of Lamech’s, and it is out of his polyg­y­ny that we have musi­cal instru­ments, met­al­work­ing, ani­mal hus­bandry, and oth­er activ­i­ties which have been used and enjoyed by God’s peo­ple through­out the ages. (The mat­ter of Lamech’s mur­der-in-self-defense is unre­lat­ed to his polyg­y­ny, despite the pop­u­lar­i­ty of it as an argu­ment against polygyny.)

    Even Jesus — the sin­less Lamb — depicts Him­self as a hus­band meet­ing ten vir­gins to wed. Ten! If polyg­y­ny were a sin, its endorse­ment by Christ as a sym­bol of the spot­less Lamb makes lit­tle sense.

    Also, crit­i­ciz­ing polyg­y­ny on the basis of the sup­posed abus­es there­of in the lives of the patri­archs isn’t valid argu­men­ta­tion. Through­out his­to­ry, there have been far more abus­es of monogamy, and that shows no sign of slow­ing down, par­tic­u­lar­ly here in America.

    —–

    David, a woman may only have one hus­band at a time. First Corinthi­ans 7:39 states that a woman is only free to mar­ry anoth­er if her cur­rent hus­band dies. There are oth­er argu­ments, but that one’s the sim­plest, I think.

  71. Mar­ta,
    I have to find it curi­ous that the charge of nov­el­ty should come up here and now Mar­ta, In the mid 100’s one of the ear­li­est Christin\Gnostic (for the author had a foot in both pud­dles) works try­ing to pro­mote monogamy (enti­tled, in fact, On Monogamy) was almost half spend try­ing to defend against the charge of nov­el­ty. The writ­ers only defence against this charge was that he claimed direct spe­cial rev­e­la­tion from the holy spir­it and that made the fact that monogamy was nov­el (to Chris­tians and Jews) irrel­e­vant. You said in you’re own post that polyg­y­ny was­n’t nov­el, but what do you say about the fact that monogamy was? Should, as St.Augustine opined, the cus­toms of the land dic­tate Chris­tians view of right and wrong? 

    David,
    While you have re-assert­ed a gen­er­al­i­ty con­cern­ing stud­ies you have read, you still haven’t dis­closed their source or method, nor have you attempt­ed to explain how they could be accu­rate in the light that the major­i­ty of North Amer­i­can Polyg­y­nists are not open about their rela­tion­ships. Only the most seg­re­gat­ed and cul­tur­al­ly dif­fer­ent polyg­a­mists in NA are even rep­re­sent­ed in the pub­lic eye. Quite a bit of skep­ti­cism is in order when any study claims to accu­rate­ly rep­re­sent this issue. 

    Rick,
    I do hope you’re wife knows you’re views here, and on every top­ic. Mar­ta makes a good point that she should, but her insin­u­a­tion that she did­n’t and that she would be out­raged was quite out of line.

  72. Yes, let me clar­i­fy — I’m sure I have some­where already, per­haps not in this thread — that my wife cer­tain­ly does know what I believe regard­ing the mat­ter. She does­n’t feel like polyg­y­ny is a right thing, which is absolute­ly fine by me. I’ve no inter­est what­so­ev­er in prac­tic­ing polyg­y­ny myself, so it’s a moot point real­ly. How­ev­er, I want to be sup­port­ive of those men who do choose to have mul­ti­ple wives and of those women who choose to be those wives.

    It’s only a mat­ter of time before bisex­u­als argue their case in courts and get polyg­y­ny rec­og­nized by the state — it’s per­fect­ly legal now, pro­vid­ed no more than one wife is a “civil­ly rec­og­nized” wife… oth­er­wise, the state finds you guilty of bigamy. The min­i­mum arrange­ment of a bisex­u­al union is at least 3 peo­ple, where­in at least 2 are the same sex. So these folk will have polygamy in gen­er­al “legal­ized.”

    Once that hap­pens, the flood­gates will be opened for all of the god­ly men who have been afraid to prac­tice polyg­y­ny for fear of state ret­ri­bu­tion or what­ev­er. At that point, the church­es will *have* to deal with the issue. There’s not pas­sage in Scrip­ture which, in con­text and orig­i­nal intent, argues against polyg­y­ny. Most argu­ments boil down to “it’s ille­gal, so don’t do it.” That argu­ment will soon be entire­ly null and void. (Well, it is already — I fol­low the blog of a young woman who recent­ly became a man’s third [fourth?] wife — but it’s far too easy for objec­tors to polyg­y­ny to con­fuse it with bigamy.)

    Inci­den­tal­ly, a good deal of Chris­tians would argue that mar­riage does­n’t require state recog­ni­tion to be valid — indeed, I believe mar­riage should be made sim­pler (no big cer­e­monies, no gov­ern­ment inter­fer­ence, etc.) — yet many of those same Chris­tians will argue against polyg­y­ny on the only leg they can find to stand on: the legal­i­ty of bigamy. So does the gov­ern­ment decide what is or is not mar­riage or not? We should be “con­sci­en­tious­ly object­ing” to a lot of what the gov­ern­ment requires of us. We’re oblig­at­ed to pay our tax­es and sub­mit if we cross the gov­ern­ment… but we are not oblig­at­ed to buy into the world’s empires in every lit­tle way.

  73. Rick,

    In the face of legal Same Sex “Mar­riage” in Ver­mont, Carl Durham of the Covenant Ortho­dox Pres­by­ter­ian Church has stat­ed that they will just take mar­riage infor­mal instead of legal if they are forced to in any way par­tic­i­pate in a gay “mar­riage.”

    Unpack that.

    It means the church­es already rec­og­nizes that the state is not a par­ty to mar­riage. Of course, when it comes to polyg­y­ny, they sim­ply state that it’s “ille­gal” mean­ing, “it’s ille­gal to reg­is­ter the mar­riage. The prac­ti­cal liv­ing arrange­ments involved in an unreg­is­tered monogamy are no more legal, or ille­gal than the prac­ti­cal liv­ing arrange­ments of an unreg­is­tered polygyny.

  74. Jair: Indeed I do not both­er look­ing up the sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies. Doing so would be point­less. Rick has already stat­ed that he is will­ing to reject any amount of sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence if the bible con­tra­dicts it. Also, this is a thread about whether or not the bible allows polygamy. What does sci­ence have to do with the inter­pre­ta­tions of a book? That’s more along the lines of lit­er­ary crit­i­cism. Hence, prop­er ref­er­enc­ing of any sci­en­tif­ic study would hard­ly be required. Read it more as an anec­dote which could be backed up if necessary.

    Rick: Thank you for cor­rect­ing me. As I stat­ed in an email (or I should have stat­ed), I am always will­ing to be cor­rect­ed and thank­ful of any per­son who does so kind­ly. But, now I must ques­tion your knowl­edge on the mean­ing of bisex­u­al. A bisex­u­al is a per­son attract­ed to both males and females for sex­u­al encoun­ters. When a bisex­u­al per­son set­tles down with a mem­ber of either sex and makes a life-part­ner, it is just like any oth­er per­son with a monog­a­mous rela­tion­ship. I, as is usu­al in the case where you bring up your gay con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries, do not under­stand in the slight­est why you think bisex­u­als are or should be polyg­a­mists. Please explain.

  75. A bisex­u­al could set­tle down with just one per­son, true. But if a per­son attract­ed to both men and women wants to mar­ry both a man and a woman in order to express his desires toward both in mar­riage… then you got your­self a polygamy. It’s not a con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry at all.

  76. David,

    If you have missed my point I will make it con­cise­ly, you can­not have accu­rate study data of a group when the major­i­ty of the group is hid­den. Any North Amer­i­can sur­vey pre­vi­ous to 2005 would have to focus on the pub­licly known FLDS groups and a num­ber of oth­er fringe groups rather than main­stream polyg­a­mists. That hope­less­ly taints results mak­ing it sil­ly that stud­ies should be ref­er­enced in any dis­cus­sion of Chris­t­ian polygamy. Of course it is even more out of place in a dis­cus­sion of scripture.

    My expe­ri­ence with ‘bi-sex­u­al’ women, which is quite inti­mate, shows that they do have dis­tinct, inde­pen­dent dri­ves. Cer­tain­ly this may not be uni­ver­sal, but I expect it is com­mon. Men and women are so dis­tinct in their inti­ma­cy, both emo­tion­al and phys­i­cal, that it should not be sur­pris­ing that a woman that wants both should want them each independently. 

    I can­not com­ment con­cern­ing ‘bisex­u­al’ men, I only know one and he will not dis­cuss the matter.

  77. Bisex­u­al­i­ty only applies to polygamy if the bisex­u­al is a polyg­a­mist. If the per­son is a monogamist, he/she will pre­fer a rela­tion­ship with whomev­er he/she has found as a suit­able part­ner. My room­mate is a les­bian but mar­ried a man because she gen­uine­ly loves him, despite his penis. She has no desire to mar­ry a woman now that she has her man. Why? She has no desire because she is a monogamist. This is just an exam­ple to show what I am dri­ving at. It has noth­ing to do with the com­plete and gen­er­al population. 

    I likened it to con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry because the log­ic is very off. Bisex­u­al­i­ty means that the per­son is attract­ed to both sex­es. If the per­son is a monogamist, he/she will want to part­ner with one per­son, regard­less of gen­der. If the per­son is a polyg­a­mist, he/she may attempt to part­ner with one of each or two of one, depend­ing upon the indi­vid­ual. Bisex­u­al­i­ty is unre­lat­ed to polygamy. Like­wise, using myself as an exam­ple, I would want to mar­ry a woman because I am attract­ed to women. I am a monogamist. I have no desires beyond hav­ing the one part­ner­ship. If I were a polyg­a­mist, I would want mul­ti­ple women. Het­ero­sex­u­al­i­ty also has no rela­tion to polygamy. For an extrap­o­lat­ed exam­ple, it’s sim­i­lar to say­ing that com­mu­nists hate democ­ra­cy. Although many may, com­mu­nism is an eco­nom­ic sys­tem. Democ­ra­cy is a sys­tem of gov­ern­ment (or choos­ing a gov­ern­ment, to be more spe­cif­ic). Com­mu­nism and democ­ra­cy are unre­lat­ed. To bring this back into con­text, bisex­u­al­i­ty defines a per­son­’s sex­u­al pref­er­ence. Polygamy defines a per­son­’s desired num­ber of part­ners. The two are unrelated.

    —–

    Jair,

    It is not dif­fi­cult, nor is it impos­si­ble to per­form a study of hid­den mem­bers of soci­ety. Psy­cho­log­i­cal, soci­o­log­i­cal, and anthro­po­log­i­cal stud­ies may all be con­duct­ed with pri­va­cy and still retain accu­ra­cy. A per­son does not have to come out to soci­ety a polyg­a­mist in order to par­tic­i­pate in the study. All that is need­ed for the stud­ies is “sub­ject 123” and “polyg­a­mist”.

    Fur­ther­more, I’ve also not­ed that many stud­ies have deter­mined humans to be polyg­a­mists by nature. See­ing as I am no longer at the uni­ver­si­ty, I can­not find arti­cles as eas­i­ly as once before. Google wants to give me infor­ma­tion on Islam, so that’s what a lot of my results are.

    Suc­cess and Fail­ure Among Polyg­a­mous Fam­i­lies: The Expe­ri­ence of Wives, Hus­bands, and Chil­dren

    There’s one. While I was read­ing these stud­ies, or hear­ing of them, I was in an anthro­pol­o­gy course at uni­ver­si­ty. The sub­ject of polygamy came up. (We were learn­ing about fam­i­ly structure–it was a gener­ic course on health.) I no longer have access to the var­i­ous search engines for sci­en­tif­ic arti­cles. Google is lit­tered with memes and per­son­al state­ments. If you wish to find arti­cles, they are there. Sim­ply pay the fees for access to Anthrosource, PsycIN­FO, or anoth­er and pay the fees for access to the articles.

  78. You still have to sup­pose that the peo­ple that come for­ward for such a sur­vey give a nor­mal rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the group as a whole, and you must sup­pose that you have a suf­fi­cient per­cent­age of respon­dents to have an accu­rate sampling. 

    I did not say it was impos­si­ble or even dif­fi­cult to pre­form a said study, I said that such a study can­not assume any rea­son­able or sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly valid accuracy. 

    The prob­lem with accu­ra­cy is aggra­vat­ed because the peo­ple that tend to come for­ward are the ones that leave the fringe groups and iden­ti­fy polygamy with every aspect of their group, I can’t com­ment on the link you gave as it cur­rent­ly just com­plains about some­thing con­cern­ing ses­sion cook­ies tim­ing out. 

    It is very safe to say that bisex­u­al­i­ty with dis­tinct dri­ves for each gen­der is direct­ly relat­ed to polyg­y­ny. While it seems prob­a­ble that not all bisex­u­als have such a dri­ve it can hard­ly be said to be unrelated.

  79. Rick -
    I will address this to you, because you are the only one I per­son­al­ly know on this blog. I don’t care what any­one else says because I don’t know them.
    I real­ize that there are sea­sons in life where sched­ules are wacky and things get dropped. You know our fam­i­ly and what we have been through the last few years. How­ev­er, you stood up in church and pledged to 1. “…sup­port the Church in its wor­ship and work to the best of your abil­i­ty.” and 2. “…sub­mit your­self to the gov­ern­ment and dis­ci­pline of the Church, and promise to study its puri­ty and peace.” You made a pub­lic oath, just like you made a pub­lic oath before God when you mar­ried to “for­sake all oth­ers.” This whole thread shows the dan­ger of “for­sak­ing our own assem­bling togeth­er, as is the habit of some…” Please study Hebrews 10. (and Eph­esians 4) You are being car­ried away by false teach­ings and tossed about. If you study the two clear mod­els, Adam and Noah, and put that togeth­er with the instruc­tions for indi­vid­ual fam­i­ly mem­bers found in Eph­esians 5, along with who God wants lead­ing the church in I Tim­o­thy 3, I don’t see how you can con­tin­ue to swal­low this camel as you strain at the gnats. This is not an emo­tion­al plea…this is a deep con­cern that I have had about you and Ali­cia for a long time and have nev­er had the courage to say it to your face beyond try­ing to with light humor. If you are a Chris­t­ian, than you are a part of the body of Christ. The body can live with­out a hand, although not as well, but the hand will with­er and die with­out the body. The same God who com­mand­ed us to not for­sake our assem­bly did not put a time lim­it on that com­mand, nor was He tak­en by sur­prise by the inter­net. This is not a Bib­li­cal sub­sti­tu­tion for attend­ing church. There is too much room for anonymi­ty, not being dis­ci­plined (which, accord­ing to Hebrews 12 hap­pens to all true believ­ers) and run­ning after false teachings.
    As to the mul­ti­ple wives issue, I do not see who it would ben­e­fit except for the hus­band, (and only sex­u­al­ly — cer­tain­ly not emo­tion­al­ly) and if he is liv­ing Eph­esians 5, I do not see how it is phys­i­cal­ly or spir­i­tu­al­ly pos­si­ble. I think peo­ple’s hearts are very hard, and they will read any­thing into the Bible that they want, just as the phar­isees did. I can­not think of a mod­ern day motive that would make it pure, and I high­ly doubt if there are those today who are kings and need to mar­ry for an alliance, or some­one who con­sum­mat­ed a mar­riage with the wrong bride, or have fought a bat­tle in such a man­ner as to be reward­ed with mul­ti­ple women. This whole issue is a straw man argu­ment and shows the need for you to be under the phys­i­cal preach­ing of the whole Gospel. My fear is that your pride will not allow you to see how seri­ous this is, and you will con­tin­ue to think you can dis­obey God (about being in church) with impuni­ty. This is a mat­ter of faith, since you are tying it to your job. I say your soul is worth more than mam­mon. I am done com­ment­ing on this, so those of you lis­ten­ing in, feel free to blast away at me…I real­ly don’t care. The anonymi­ty afford­ed in this medi­um shows the weak­ness of it being on par with phys­i­cal­ly wor­ship­ing with oth­ers. Your rants mean noth­ing. You might as well be hol­ler­ing at me from behind your steer­ing wheel. But I do know Rick, and Rick, I will con­tin­ue to pray that God hum­bles you and shows you what is important…especially in light of eter­ni­ty, and in light of Ali­ci­a’s soul, for which you will give an account to God as her husband.

  80. This is such an inter­est­ing thread. 

    Mar­ta,
    My wife and I have been study­ing men’s and wom­en’s roles in the Bible for 3 years, specif­i­cal­ly the sit­u­a­tions regard­ing mar­riage and author­i­ty. We are both inter­est­ed in hear­ing your thoughts on if polyg­y­ny is a sin in God’s eyes, which sin it is, and what His pun­ish­ment is, and the cor­re­spond­ing scrip­ture references. 

    We would also like to hear any thoughts that you have, with the appro­pri­ate scrip­ture ref­er­ences, for the dif­fer­ences between oaths, covenants, and creeds, and how this effects the mar­riage vows, espe­cial­ly when we con­sid­er that they are cre­at­ed by man, and not from God at all.

    Also, if you are using Adam as an exam­ple of monogamy being Gods mar­riage intent, how do you feel about his mar­riage being monog­a­mous, and also being the mar­riage rela­tion­ship by which sin and death entered the world? Cain and Lamech were his descen­dants, polyg­a­mous, and often used as exam­ples against polygamy, but their sin is direct­ly descend­ing from Adam’s sin­ful action. How do we excuse Adam’s sin as not being tied to his mar­riage struc­ture, and not excuse his polyg­a­mous descen­dants sin, and then use that sin as con­dem­na­tion for their mar­riage struc­ture? Do you see this as a dou­ble stan­dard of judge­ment, and if you do not, then can you explain why not?

    Also, 1Co 6:16 says, “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an har­lot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” Do you have any thoughts regard­ing your ear­li­er state­ments about Gen­e­sis and God’s one flesh def­i­n­i­tions? The above verse seems to con­tra­dict your stance of only one flesh with one woman, in that any man that has sex with any woman is one flesh with her. I do agree that mar­riage is about so much more than sex, but one flesh as defined in the Bible seems to be not how you are using it on this thread. 

    Also, I would like to know what you mean by “mod­ern day motives” that would make mul­ti­ple wives “pure”. We think that it is a sin or not, and has noth­ing to do with mod­ern or prim­i­tive cul­tures or lifestyles. Can you please clar­i­fy this for us? God did say to be fruit­ful and mul­ti­ply, so one ben­e­fit for the sin­gle woman is to be able to be obe­di­ent to God in that she can be mar­ried and bear chil­dren. Also, in the con­text of mar­riage, does not every sin­gle woman have a right to the things that mar­ried women have? A man to tell her she is beau­ti­ful, to take walks with her, hold­ing her hand? To have a man that lis­tens to her and cares intent­ly about the strug­gles and rejoic­ings of her day? To be with her dur­ing preg­nan­cy and child­birth, to have spe­cial time on the bed with the new­born, to enjoy the rela­tion­ships and spe­cial moments between father, moth­er and child? To have spir­i­tu­al lead­er­ship and cov­er­ing for her, to pray with her, to sup­port her when she is sick, or feel­ing lost or emo­tion­al­ly low? And yes, does not every woman in her inner most being have the God giv­en need to be desired by a man, and to have him desire her and enjoy each oth­er dur­ing times of phys­i­cal inti­ma­cy? And giv­en the dif­fi­cul­ty that God­ly women have in find­ing a finan­cial­ly sta­ble, handsome,

    We would also like to know if your belief that dea­cons and elders as the lead­ers of the church comes from a spe­cif­ic Bible pas­sage, or if it an assumed or taught belief. There are ref­er­ences to the body being many parts, not all the same, but all equal, so why is it that require­ments for dea­cons and elders are assumed to be applied to parts of the body that God did not apply them to? 

    I will stop ask­ing ques­tions now, I hope that you believe that I am not being sar­cas­tic with my ques­tions, we are real­ly inter­est­ed in your respons­es. I do hope that you will com­ment. Post­ing and then say­ing you are done is like a slap and run, espe­cial­ly to those that are gen­uine­ly inter­est­ed in what you have to say.

  81. In reply to Marta:

    I will address this to you, because you are the only one I per­son­al­ly know on this blog. I don’t care what any­one else says because I don’t know them.

    Well, I do appre­ci­ate the con­cern, but blog com­ments are very much pub­lic, and I can’t stop any­one else from tak­ing part in the con­ver­sa­tion. You’re, of course, wel­come to ignore oth­ers’ respons­es, but that’s sor­ta like going to a par­ty and ignor­ing every­one who speaks to you except for the one who invit­ed you.

    I real­ize that there are sea­sons in life where sched­ules are wacky and things get dropped. You know our fam­i­ly and what we have been through the last few years. How­ev­er, you stood up in church and pledged to 1. “…sup­port the Church in its wor­ship and work to the best of your abil­i­ty.” and 2. “…sub­mit your­self to the gov­ern­ment and dis­ci­pline of the Church, and promise to study its puri­ty and peace.” You made a pub­lic oath, just like you made a pub­lic oath before God when you mar­ried to “for­sake all others.”

    I did make those vows at the church, true, and my cur­rent posi­tion con­cern­ing them is being tak­en care of between Tom and I.

    This whole thread shows the dan­ger of “for­sak­ing our own assem­bling togeth­er, as is the habit of some…” Please study Hebrews 10. (and Eph­esians 4)

    As it hap­pens, I pre­fer the com­pa­ny of Chris­tians. It’s large, cor­po­rate, imper­son­al gath­er­ings which I’ve been avoid­ing as of late.

    You are being car­ried away by false teach­ings and tossed about.

    You say “teach­ings”; I can assume one of these is polyg­y­ny, but are there oth­ers? If so, what?

    If you study the two clear mod­els, Adam and Noah, and put that togeth­er with the instruc­tions for indi­vid­ual fam­i­ly mem­bers found in Eph­esians 5, along with who God wants lead­ing the church in I Tim­o­thy 3, I don’t see how you can con­tin­ue to swal­low this camel as you strain at the gnats. 

    Adam and Noah are nev­er men­tioned in Scrip­ture as mod­els of monogamy, only of mar­riage. Specif­i­cal­ly, mar­riage was meant to be between a man and a woman and that for life. Giv­en that polyg­y­ny is a man hav­ing mul­ti­ple mar­riages, the arche­type of Adam is not vio­lat­ed. I real­ize it’s easy to say that Adam only had one mar­riage, but that isn’t pre­sent­ed as an arche­type in the Scrip­tures, where­as we have much writ­ten con­cern­ing divorce using Adam as the pri­mor­dial example.

    Like­wise, the argu­men­ta­tion you’re using is eas­i­ly shown to be flawed when one con­sid­ers every aspect of Adam and Noah’s lives: is every­one required to be mar­ried? is every­one required to have chil­dren? is every­one required to x, y, or z? (Keep in mind the require­ments for church elders are that they be mar­ried and have at least one child…) If these aren’t require­ments upon every man, then why is Adam’s monogamy? We must not assume arche­typ­al ele­ments that the Scrip­tures them­selves do not.

    This is not an emo­tion­al plea…this is a deep con­cern that I have had about you and Ali­cia for a long time and have nev­er had the courage to say it to your face beyond try­ing to with light humor. If you are a Chris­t­ian, than you are a part of the body of Christ. The body can live with­out a hand, although not as well, but the hand will with­er and die with­out the body. The same God who com­mand­ed us to not for­sake our assem­bly did not put a time lim­it on that com­mand, nor was He tak­en by sur­prise by the inter­net. This is not a Bib­li­cal sub­sti­tu­tion for attend­ing church. There is too much room for anonymi­ty, not being dis­ci­plined (which, accord­ing to Hebrews 12 hap­pens to all true believ­ers) and run­ning after false teachings.

    Agreed. The same holds true for the church­es, espe­cial­ly church­es with more than a few dozen atten­dees. The issue of anonymi­ty is a non-issue. Actu­al­ly, by and large it’s the oppo­nents of polyg­y­ny who have hid­den behind anonymi­ty here and elsewhere.

    As to the mul­ti­ple wives issue, I do not see who it would ben­e­fit except for the hus­band, (and only sex­u­al­ly – cer­tain­ly not emo­tion­al­ly) and if he is liv­ing Eph­esians 5, I do not see how it is phys­i­cal­ly or spir­i­tu­al­ly possible.

    Call­ing motives into ques­tion is rather sil­ly. Paul gives sex­u­al ful­fill­ment as a motive for mar­riage in 1 Corinthi­ans 7. In the first bib­li­cal case of polyg­y­ny, no one called motives into ques­tion. It’s a non-issue in the debate of polyg­y­ny’s moral­i­ty and is some­thing which is between the prospec­tive hus­band, prospec­tive wife, and the prospec­tive wife’s father.

    I think people’s hearts are very hard, and they will read any­thing into the Bible that they want, just as the phar­isees did.

    Polyg­y­ny and the accept­ed nature there­of aren’t some­thing read into the Bible; it’s some­thing the Scrip­ture assumes from start to fin­ish with­out argu­ing its case. The sin­ful­ness of polyg­y­ny, how­ev­er, must be read into the Scrip­tures. This is why the vast major­i­ty of those seek­ing to point out polyg­y­ny’s sin­ful­ness point to pas­sages about divorce or for­ni­ca­tion or church lead­er­ship — pas­sages which don’t deal with gen­er­al polyg­y­ny — to prove their point.

    There are pas­sages which deal direct­ly with gen­er­al polyg­y­ny — things like levi­rate mar­riage or not reduc­ing the mar­i­tal care giv­en to a first wife if anoth­er is added — in the Scrip­tures, but these are large­ly ignored by monogamy-only­ists. This is because when the Scrip­tures speak of polyg­y­ny, they do so positively.

    I can­not think of a mod­ern day motive that would make it pure, and I high­ly doubt if there are those today who are kings and need to mar­ry for an alliance, or some­one who con­sum­mat­ed a mar­riage with the wrong bride, or have fought a bat­tle in such a man­ner as to be reward­ed with mul­ti­ple women.

    This whole issue is a straw man argu­ment and shows the need for you to be under the phys­i­cal preach­ing of the whole Gospel.

    Teach­ing the accep­tance of polyg­y­ny includes a greater swath of Scrip­tures than does teach­ing polyg­y­ny as a sin. The lat­ter school of thought makes the levi­rate mar­riage Law make no sense, if the Law of God is sup­posed to be holy.

    My fear is that your pride will not allow you to see how seri­ous this is, and you will con­tin­ue to think you can dis­obey God (about being in church) with impunity.

    Again, that issue is being han­dled pri­vate­ly (like it should be). Regard­ing pride, though, it was pride which caused me to frac­ture fel­low­ship with a fel­low Chris­t­ian a few years ago because they taught the moral­i­ty of polyg­y­ny. It was only after my pride was bro­ken, when I real­ized there were no valid exeget­i­cal argu­ments against polyg­y­ny (a posi­tion shared by Augus­tine and Mar­tin Luther, actu­al­ly) that fel­low­ship was restored. 

    This is a mat­ter of faith, since you are tying it to your job. I say your soul is worth more than mammon.

    Agreed, if I worked sim­ply for gain. Work itself is a spir­i­tu­al expe­ri­ence — one which is com­mand­ed — and because Jesus is my Sab­bath, there is no one-day-a-week Sab­bat­i­cal require­ments upon me.

    I am done com­ment­ing on this, so those of you lis­ten­ing in, feel free to blast away at me…I real­ly don’t care. The anonymi­ty afford­ed in this medi­um shows the weak­ness of it being on par with phys­i­cal­ly wor­ship­ing with oth­ers. Your rants mean noth­ing. You might as well be hol­ler­ing at me from behind your steer­ing wheel. But I do know Rick, and Rick, I will con­tin­ue to pray that God hum­bles you and shows you what is important…especially in light of eter­ni­ty, and in light of Alicia’s soul, for which you will give an account to God as her husband.

    For most of the peo­ple here, the mat­ter of polyg­y­ny is a mat­ter of truth, the rejec­tion of which has pret­ty far-reach­ing con­se­quences. For exam­ple, if polyg­y­ny is a sin, Jesus likens Him­self to a ten-fold sin­ner in the para­ble of the ten vir­gins. If polyg­y­ny is a sin, the Father likens Him­self unto a sin­ner when He is said to be wed to mul­ti­ple nations. If polyg­y­ny is a sin, it is evi­dent­ly the one sin which does­n’t require repen­tance, rebuke, or even a Law against it, for it is nev­er spo­ken neg­a­tive­ly of in the Scriptures.

    For years, I’ve taught that Lucifer is not Satan — that Satan was nev­er an angel but could only appear as one. For years, I’ve taught that demons are not fall­en angels but are instead the dis­em­bod­ied spir­its and/or souls of the giants. These things and more have I taught because I believed that tra­di­tion­al church views on these mat­ters were unbib­li­cal, so I chose to stick with the Scrip­tures. Today I teach that a man may have more than one wife if he so chose because I believe that to be in line with the Scrip­tures. This teach­ing, for once, has not been in a vac­u­um and has stirred up quite a few peo­ple for and against. I am not ashamed of the teach­ing, and until some­one can present a valid exe­ge­sis against polyg­y­ny, I have no inten­tion of turn­ing. I spent sev­er­al years attempt­ing to come up with that exe­ge­sis myself; fail­ing to do so, I con­ced­ed the argument.

  82. Jair,

    Sor­ry about the link tim­ing out. This is what hap­pens when you look for decent jour­nals with Google and no direc­tion in titles, authors, etc. But, a psy­cho­log­i­cal study isn’t any­where near impos­si­ble under these cir­cum­stances. Nei­ther, I might add, is an anthro­po­log­i­cal study. It is the soci­o­log­i­cal study that has prob­lems. Psy­cho­log­i­cal stud­ies can eas­i­ly draw peo­ple who nor­mal­ly would­n’t want any­one to know about their “con­di­tions” (term used for ambi­gu­i­ty of study in con­text). I’ve seen psy­cho­log­i­cal stud­ies con­duct­ed on female to male trans­gen­dered non-smok­er hero­in addicts. There was no dif­fi­cul­ty get­ting a decent sam­ple size. What they do to make it best fit the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion is get more peo­ple to vol­un­teer than nec­es­sary for the study (not dif­fi­cult in a place like New York City, which has a pop­u­la­tion rough­ly sim­i­lar to Cana­da). After get­ting a large applic­a­ble sam­ple, they assign num­bers and ran­dom­ly draw those num­bers. The sam­ple size of the exper­i­men­tal group depends upon the type of test­ing being per­formed. Most sam­ples, how­ev­er, are 20–80 peo­ple. This isn’t dif­fi­cult, once again, when you go to a city with a large population. 

    An exam­ple of a very pub­lic (and great­ly non-sci­en­tif­ic) study is Penn and Teller’s show on Show­Time. They were talk­ing about tra­di­tion­al fam­i­lies and involved a polygyny/polyandry group sit­u­a­tion. They had to get con­sent forms to be on tele­vi­sion from the four mem­bers of the rela­tion­ship and their son. Think of the dif­fi­cul­ty get­ting just one polyg­a­mous per­son on a nation­al tele­vi­sion series. Mul­ti­ply that by the dif­fi­cul­ty of anoth­er per­son, then anoth­er, and so on. If it is (low­balling for easy math) a 12 chance of get­ting one per­son, get­ting both becomes 14. To get the 4 peo­ple, it becomes 116 and the fifth makes it 132. As I stat­ed, I was low­balling the odds. Con­sid­er that ti is like­ly much high­er odds, then con­sid­er how many polyg­a­mists must be out there in order to find one fam­i­ly of 5 will­ing to sign release papers and open up their per­son­al lives on cam­era. Now, tak­ing this extreme­ly large num­ber of peo­ple, con­sid­er how many would be will­ing to fill out a ques­tion­naire in a doc­tor’s office. It is sur­pris­ing­ly easy to get an accu­rate sample.

    Also, I think you’re con­fus­ing both and either with respect to bisex­u­als. I am a straight man who is attract­ed to women with red and blond hair. Does this mean I will be lob­by­ing the gov­ern­ment for the right to ful­ly express my love and desire? No. Like­wise, a bisex­u­al per­son is attract­ed to men and women. This means they aren’t as lim­it­ed in their choice of sexual/romantic part­ners. That is all. If they are polyg­a­mists, there is a chance they will want to mar­ry a per­son of each gen­der, and I can see a few peo­ple say­ing that. How­ev­er, polygamy is the issue, not bisex­u­al­i­ty. Bisex­u­al­i­ty is more of an either or sit­u­a­tion when the per­son in ques­tion is a monogamist. “I can date either a man or a woman and not feel weird about either,” is a state­ment that could con­vey the gen­er­al line of thought. It is the rare case where a bisex­u­al would want to mar­ry both a man and a woman in order to ful­ly rep­re­sent their love. That per­son would be think­ing, “I can date a man or a woman, but I real­ly want both at once.” No. Bisex­u­al­i­ty is unre­lat­ed to polygamy.

    That being said, to bring this back to the top­ic of the thread, I ful­ly agree that the bible is in sup­port of polygamy, though it is not a com­mand­ment of all men. Some argu­ment could be made in that respect with regards to the “go forth and mul­ti­ply” thing. One could also make an argu­ment about men hav­ing to mar­ry his broth­er’s wife, should the broth­er die, but I’m not too sure on the exact word­ing of that state­ment in the books.

    ——

    Rick,

    I can think of a pos­i­tive aspect to polygamy. Actu­al­ly, I can think of sev­er­al. If a wom­an’s hus­band dies and she is unable to care for her­self, her hus­band’s broth­er might wish to take her on as a sec­ond wife so she can more eas­i­ly sur­vive. A real­ly rich man might help out war wid­ows unable to care for them­selves. How­ev­er, in today’s soci­ety where women are equal­ly val­ued in the work­place, those rea­sons don’t pan out most of the time. It’s only in those times when a woman is unable to care for herself.

    Still, there are oth­er ben­e­fits to polygamy, but most don’t fit in our soci­ety. Keep­ing up a pop­u­la­tion is one. Anoth­er may be, as in the case of some kings, to be lovers and con­sorts to the man, giv­ing him plea­sures that his betrothed wife can­not for what­ev­er rea­son. It can also be said that it adds a bit of vari­ety to the mar­riage, leav­ing peo­ple less bored, if they are the type to get bored. With that last exam­ple, I would rec­om­mend a group marriage.

    Some of the exam­ples are meant to be humourous and some are meant to be seri­ous. In any case, I give them to you as exam­ples of prac­ti­cal­i­ty. You are cor­rect that whether or not some­thing is prac­ti­cal has no bear­ing on whether or not it is biblical.

  83. So much for not com­ment­ing any more. Sorry.

    I Tim. 1:3–11 “As I urged you upon my depar­ture for Mace­do­nia, remain on at Eph­esus, in order that you may instruct cer­tain men not to teach strange doc­trines, nor to pay atten­tion to myths and end­less genealo­gies, which give rise to mere spec­u­la­tion rather than fur­ther­ing the admin­is­tra­tion of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruc­tion is love from a pure heart and a good con­science and a sin­cere faith. For some men, stray­ing from these things, have turned aside to fruit­less dis­cus­sion, want­i­ng to be teach­ers of the Law, even though they do not under­stand either what they are say­ing or the mat­ters about which they make con­fi­dent asser­tions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it law­ful­ly, real­iz­ing the fact that law is not made for a right­eous man, but for those who are law­less and rebel­lious, for the ungod­ly and sin­ners, for the unholy and pro­fane, for those who kill their fathers or moth­ers, for mur­der­ers and immoral men and homo­sex­u­als and kid­nap­pers and liars and per­jur­ers, and what­ev­er else is con­trary to sound teach­ing, accord­ing to the glo­ri­ous gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”

    It is inter­est­ing that you are very hap­py to broad­cast your beliefs in a pub­lic forum, but when some­one who knows you points out your sin, (account­abil­i­ty) you cry, “Pri­va­cy!” You say you are a teacher, but to whom are you account­able? What author­i­ty do you have? I had thought at the begin­ning of this that I may have jumped to the “triple-dog-dare” by doing this pub­licly, but you are the one set­ting your­self up in this posi­tion, which is very dan­ger­ous. You say you are a teacher, but you have also pub­licly declared that you don’t know what effect the Gospel is to have on your every­day life. You base your posi­tion (on mul­ti­ple wives) not on what the Bible says, but by what it does­n’t say. With that log­ic, should men have sex with their daugh­ters like Lot did? He was called right­eous in the New Testament…even though he TWICE got so ham­mered, he got his daugh­ters preg­nant with­out even know­ing it. Yes, there is teach­ing against drunk­en­ness, (which came after Lot’s day) but the spe­cif­ic law in Leviti­cus 18 nev­er men­tions daugh­ters, although it talks about every oth­er rela­tion. Or what about phone sex with some­one who isn’t you wife? You may think I am being sil­ly, but the Bible only talks about what you look at, not about what you hear.

    You talk about hang­ing around Chris­tians as though that is a sub­sti­tute for assem­bling with the body of believ­ers in cor­po­rate wor­ship. There are marks of a true church…the admin­is­tra­tion of bap­tism and com­mu­nion, the cor­rect and author­i­ta­tive teach­ing of the Gospel, the prop­er admin­is­tra­tion of dis­ci­pline. Does this all hap­pen when you meet with oth­er Chris­tians? Are you ever rebuked? Are you ever con­vict­ed of your sin and called to repent? God has decreed cer­tain ele­ments to be present for prop­er wor­ship of Him. Please remem­ber what hap­pened when the sons of Aaron took it upon them­selves to wor­ship God in their own man­ner. (Leviti­cus 10:1–3)

    Paul…thank you for your ques­tions. Accord­ing to the notes in the Ref­or­ma­tion Study Bible, (pg. 665) “Oaths are solemn dec­la­ra­tions invok­ing God as a wit­ness to state­ments and promis­es, invit­ing Him to pun­ish any­thing false. Scrip­ture approves oaths as appro­pri­ate on solemn occa­sions.” “Vows to God are the devo­tion­al equiv­a­lent of oaths, and must be treat­ed with equal seri­ous­ness. What one swears or vows to do must be done at all costs. How­ev­er, ‘no man may vow to do any­thing for­bid­den in the Word of God, or what would hin­der any duty there­in com­mand­ed.’ ” (that last part is a quote from the West­min­ster Con­fes­sion, XXII.7) As to the doc­trine of author­i­ty, I would refer you to an excel­lent blog, http://www.baylyblog.com, which has expound­ed on this infi­nite­ly bet­ter than I could ever do. Plus, I fear I have strayed into preach­ing with all of this, and I know that is wrong for me, being a woman.

  84. I write here. That does, in a way, make me a teacher, for bet­ter or worse. I have made men­tion here in the past that I haven’t been to church in a while. I know every­thing the West­min­ster Con­fes­sion teach­es, and in the year and a half at Christ Pres­by­ter­ian, I did­n’t real­ly learn any­thing that I did­n’t already know. I know what you’re telling me. I know what the Con­fes­sion says.

    But I’m not account­able to the creeds and con­fes­sions. I’m account­able to the Bible — the Bible which teach­es that a man (whether he already has a wife or not) may mar­ry his dead broth­er’s wid­ow. If polyg­y­ny is a sin, then the Bible is a con­fused jum­bled mess. If trans­gres­sion of the Law is what defines sin, then which Law is being violated?

    You keep say­ing I need to be held account­able. No one — here or else­where that I’m famil­iar with — has pro­duced a bib­li­cal, valid exe­ge­sis against polyg­y­ny. If it’s the Scrip­tur­al posi­tion that polyg­y­ny is not a sin, then that is what I must believe. That is the dis­cus­sion here, else­where on the site, and at FriendOfPolygyny.com. Any­one’s wel­come to par­tic­i­pate in that dis­cus­sion, but pulling the dis­cus­sion into an argu­ment con­cern­ing my char­ac­ter or what­ev­er is noth­ing but a straw man. Your con­cerns may be legit­i­mate, but they are irrel­e­vant to the the­o­log­i­cal dis­cus­sion of the sin­ful­ness (or not) of polyg­y­ny. You’re wel­come to con­tact me via e‑mail, Face­book, or else­where for that.

  85. Mar­ta, thank you for responding. 

    Do you have any thoughts on the oth­er ques­tions that we asked?
    And also, do you have any Bible pas­sages that sup­port your claim of account­abil­i­ty and the lack of being a sin?
    How do we know who we should be account­able to, and what if they teach false doctrine?
    Are we still account­able to them even if they teach falsely?
    Do you have any thoughts regard­ing your approach­ing Mr. Rick as sin, espe­cial­ly in light of God’s insti­tu­tion of men’s and wom­en’s roles, specif­i­cal­ly regard­ing preach­ing and the author­i­ty of men as the head or cov­er­ing of women? I am ref­er­enc­ing the same vers­es that you prob­a­bly are regard­ing women not usurp­ing author­i­ty over a man.

    We would appre­ci­ate any com­ment on the first set of questions.

    Thanks,
    Paul

  86. Paul, this isn’t a “for­mal” gath­er­ing of believ­ers; there’s at least one woman in the Scrip­tures who, in a pri­vate con­text, helps her hus­band to rebuke a man. So it can happen.

    And Mar­ta is right: I’m not cur­rent­ly faith­ful to a local gath­er­ing of believ­ers, and that for a vari­ety of rea­sons. Still, that issue is of no effect in this con­ver­sa­tion and is doing lit­tle but dis­tract the issue.

    At this point in my life, I feel like what I have been per­suad­ed by the Scrip­tures to believe has caused me to appear as filled with leav­en to many church­es. The Bap­tists don’t want me because I’m a Calvin­ist. The Pres­by­te­ri­ans don’t want me because I believe Pae­dobap­tism is heresy. The lib­er­al denom­i­na­tions don’t want me because of my strict adher­ence to the Scrip­tures. And I’d reck­on nobody wants me because of my beliefs regard­ing polyg­y­ny. I real­ize that the body needs the hand and so on, but when my beliefs ren­der me as use­less as an appen­dix or a wis­dom tooth, then no harm is seen when I’m excised from fellowship.

    I can only stand firm on what I believe the Bible teach­es on every issue which I have had oppor­tu­ni­ty to learn.

  87. Just to clar­i­fy, I was not say­ing that Mar­ta was in sin, I was ask­ing that ques­tion because she made the com­ment on preach­ing and being a woman. No harm intended.

  88. David,

    I under­stand the method­ol­o­gy, the dif­fi­cul­ty par­tial­ly in how far you have to extrap­o­late data in any said study. The dif­fi­cul­ty is main­ly that it will always be a sur­vey of polyg­a­mists who desire to take part in stud­ies. In gen­er­al that is going to be more extrem­ist types than more lib­er­tar­i­an live and let live types. The extrap­o­la­tion of the lim­it­ed set is nat­u­ral­ly going to give bad results. But that’s not just with polygamy, thats sta­tis­ti­cal stud­ies in gen­er­al, ulti­mate­ly its hard to prove causal cor­re­la­tions is soci­o­log­i­cal stud­ies because they can only fac­tor so many dimen­sions of the sur­vey’es lives. 

    Any­way, I appre­ci­ate the effort to pro­vide a link. 

    If you look back to when I first opined con­cern­ing bi-sex­u­al­i­ty I think you will find that I was not in any way con­fus­ing ‘desires both’ and ‘desires either’, I was explain­ing how desires both is going to be com­mon because the nature of the rela­tion­ships are dif­fer­ent and ful­fill dif­fer­ent needs. I think you are try­ing to homog­e­nize bi-sex­u­als to their most base def­i­n­i­tion. Even the base def­i­n­i­tion I would object too, it is not defined mere­ly by whom they would be com­fort­able around but whom they have an attrac­tion for. It then fol­lows that a woman who has an attrac­tion for both men and woman would often have dis­tinct attrac­tions. A per­son whom is mere­ly com­fort­able around either gen­der with­out attrac­tion would be a‑sexual per this terminology. 

    Rick,
    I know Bap­tist groups that have Calvin­ist mem­bers or lead­ers, is that a gen­er­al prob­lem or just one with a cer­tain Bap­tist group. Its a pity you don’t have a local church, but it can be dif­fi­cult to find the right church.

  89. None of the Bap­tist church­es in this area are Calvin­is­tic in their sote­ri­ol­o­gy, and most of them are knee-deep in here­sies like King James Only­ism or No Rock Musicism…

  90. Thats sad, My pas­tor talks about his col­leagues that are into that stuff but in our area I don’t know many that are. My church does not have a Calvin­is­tic sote­ri­ol­o­gy, but no one would be unwel­come over that. 

    KJVO is real­ly infec­tious to the bap­tist denom­i­na­tion, which to my expe­ri­ence is very rea­son ori­ent­ed. Hard cea­sa­tion is not so good either, my church has a kind of ‘soft cea­sa­tion’ where they do not believe things have stopped but are going to put any super­nat­ur­al event under severe scruti­ny (which is not nec­es­sar­i­ly a bad thing). The view on the Gifts is prob­a­bly where I vary from my church the most (except polyg­y­ny of course). 

    I pre­fer hymns myself, but I like super­tones too, and I think the no-rock­ism is backed by extreme­ly des­per­ate arguments.

    I hope you get Church via meet­ing up with friends to talk about God a lot. A struc­tured Church is very nice, but as I’m sure you teach Church is about the peo­ple, how­ev­er and wher­ev­er they meet.

  91. Every major step for­ward in my bib­li­cal under­stand­ing over the past half decade can be direct­ly linked to three peo­ple I have nev­er met in person.

    Accept­ing oth­er Bible ver­sions. Calvin­ism. Even polygyny.

    I hate to say this because it sounds so very neg­a­tive­ly crit­i­cal, but local church­es over­whelm­ing­ly are *stuck.* Because of the over­all apa­thy of believ­ers, mes­sages in church­es are forced to be entry-lev­el at best, rely­ing on catchy mnemon­ics such as allit­er­at­ed lists or word pic­tures. I don’t want that. I’ve nev­er ben­e­fit­ed from that. I spent years buy­ing into King James Only­ism and mil­i­tant­ly believ­ing against Calvin­ism because I was involved in a church that did­n’t teach in-depth stuff. No oppor­tu­ni­ty was giv­en to think about high­er things.

    I under­stand com­plete­ly the impor­tance of teach­ing the Gospel, but at some point, the rest of the Scrip­tures must be preached as well — even the hard parts… even the uncom­fort­able parts.

    It’s exact­ly that sort of “church” that I get from con­ver­sa­tions with men like Shawn McGrath and Glen Har­nish and Hugh McBryde. (For the record, none of us pre­tend to be anony­mous.) In those men, I have found broth­ers will­ing to ham­mer out the­ol­o­gy, no mat­ter how deep it may get.

    As a result, I under­stand mar­riage bet­ter. I under­stand the Scrip­tures more thor­ough­ly. I under­stand piety and poli­ty better.

    And I under­stand Jesus so much more than I did pri­or to them.

    While I doubt I’ve taught Hugh much, the expe­ri­ences with Shawn and Glen were mutu­al. We all “dis­cov­ered” Calvin­ism with­in the Scrip­tures at around the same time, for exam­ple. Through week­ly Fri­day chats, we learned what sov­er­eign grace was all about. For me, that was church. And such is an expe­ri­ence large­ly unpar­al­leled in my life in brick and mor­tar churches.

    I’ve start­ed read­ing a stack of four books on organ­ic, Pauline com­mu­ni­ties (or, house church­es), as church itself seems like the next top­ic which is being reformed (Sem­per Refor­man­da) in my heart.

    I’m half con­vinced in my own think­ing that any church reg­is­tered with the gov­ern­ment has tak­en the beast­’s mark unto itself, reg­is­ter­ing with the beast so that it may exist with­in the empire’s econ­o­my. The church ought to stand out apart from all such sys­tems. The church ought to be viewed as an ene­my by the present empires, and that’s nev­er going to hap­pen in any mean­ing­ful way while church after church applies for the lucra­tive “tax-free” sta­tus. Of course, that would­n’t be much of an issue at all if the world’s eco­nom­ics were left out of the church­es — there is no rea­son to own a build­ing, to have church bills, to have a paid staff, and so on. None.

    That’s the rev­o­lu­tion that needs to take place in Amer­i­ca. Not some socio-polit­i­cal, let’s-all-love-Ron-Paul non­sense. Let the world’s empire deal with itself. We have big­ger prob­lems to attend to, like the homog­e­niz­ing of Chris­tian­i­ty into Amer­i­can culture.

    The soon­er we repent of that, the bet­ter off we’ll all be.

  92. Amen, Amen, Amen!

    Rick, you would fit in nice­ly with so many of our friends that we have met online regard­ing the sit­u­a­tion of today’s church. I don’t think most church­go­ers real­ize how indoc­tri­nat­ed they are by their denom­i­na­tions. The indi­vid­u­als know what they believe, they just don’t know why they believe it, or how to sup­port it with scripture.

    Have you had a chance to study Isa­iah 3 and 4 pas­sages and if so, how do you see their rel­e­vance to the top­ic of polygamy?

    Do you see the home­church or small group fel­low­ships as the next fad in chris­tian­i­ty? Or do you see those as a nat­ur­al reac­tion to the frus­tra­tions of Chur­chios­i­ty in America?

  93. Ahh, Glen Har­nish I knew ye well.

    I remem­ber a while back get­ting into an argu­ment over mar­riage with Glen. My stance stat­ed our gov­ern­ment reg­u­lat­ed mar­riage licens­es and that these licens­es were sim­ply papers, not any­thing impor­tant to God. Glen’s stance stat­ed that mar­riage before God required mar­riage before the gov­ern­ment, in Cana­da, because of some bib­li­cal rule of being loy­al to one’s coun­try. That was many years ago. I’m sure he changed his mind by now.

    I must make the obser­va­tion that, accord­ing to many of the things I’ve read on your site, you would fit in well with Fred Phelps and the West­boro Bap­tist Church. Incase you are one of the peo­ple who would be insult­ed by that com­ment, please do not take it as an insult. It is not meant as such.

  94. I hang my head in shame. I did indeed sin…I should have stat­ed from the begin­ning that, since I am a woman, I have no author­i­ty either in preach­ing to or teach­ing men. I did not adhere to that in my heart. I do repent of that and ask for­give­ness. I ful­ly believe that is in Scrip­ture for wom­en’s pro­tec­tion and submission…it was Eve who was deceived. I also ask for­give­ness for not being self-con­trolled in my remarks. That, too, is sin.

    Rick, believe me, I under­stand your frus­tra­tion with the church­es imme­di­ate­ly around you. For 20 years, my hus­band and I have had to dri­ve 30 min­utes or more to find sound preach­ing. It was­n’t until we moved this June that we final­ly are lit­er­al­ly 5 min­utes from a church where God’s word is pro­claimed faith­ful­ly, humbly, and with author­i­ty. I have heard of peo­ple who move specif­i­cal­ly to be near a sol­id church, and trust God to pro­vide a job. It sounds rad­i­cal, but that may be nec­es­sary in some situations.

    I do ask (and I am real­ly try­ing to not preach or teach) that peo­ple avail them­selves of mate­r­i­al for help with the­o­log­i­cal debates. The West­min­ster Con­fes­sion, the study book on the West­min­ster Cat­e­chism by G.I. Williamson, blogs by pas­tors such as http://www.baylyblog.com all come to mind, but those are to be used with Scrip­ture and church and not instead. These mate­ri­als have been put togeth­er by god­ly men with much more wis­dom (and Bib­li­cal author­i­ty) than I have. But we also need to real­ize (trying…not…to…preach…!) that God is infi­nite­ly above us, and we will nev­er, even in eter­ni­ty, ful­ly com­pre­hend Him. There is much mys­tery because we are cre­ation and He is Cre­ator. I real­ize I am say­ing things you prob­a­bly already know. 

    Just as an aside, there are church­es in which dif­fer­ing views on cer­tain sub­jects are wel­come. Obvi­ous­ly, things like the deity of Christ, the total deprav­i­ty of man, the exclu­siv­i­ty of Christ as the means of sal­va­tion, those things are cen­tral. But in our church, for exam­ple, there are pae­dobap­tists who wor­ship along­side cre­dobap­tists. I think any pas­tor worth his salt would wel­come the oppor­tu­ni­ty to debate cer­tain issues. AND, he would have the added ben­e­fit of hav­ing the Bib­li­cal authority. :)

  95. One more thing, and then I will stop. (I promise!)
    What safe­guards should we apply to those who would be teach­ers of the Chris­t­ian populace…especially in areas of the­ol­o­gy? I believe the qual­i­fi­ca­tions are lim­it­ed to those of elder or over­seer, although there are sev­er­al pas­sages about chil­dren lis­ten­ing to the teach­ings of their moth­er. Just a thought.

  96. So, Mar­ta, as a Pres­by­ter­ian, how do I ques­tion the lead­er­ship on areas of doc­tri­nal dispute?

    Essen­tial­ly they police for­mal mem­ber­ship to be in vir­tu­al 100% com­pli­ance with the church, by either not let­ting doc­tri­nal vari­ances into the church, or by cast­ing them out when they are found. 

    Thus you can­not talk about dis­putes with the church on Doc­trine. Odd­ly this leaves the PCA and OPC in the exact same posi­tion the RCC was in regard­ing Luther.

  97. The state cer­ti­fied issue aside (per­haps is should­n’t be aside) a change in form of church­es wont be suf­fi­cient to solve the core prob­lems with churchi­an­i­ty. Small groups can be extreme­ly basic in their teach­ing, and can be prone to lead­er­ship issues. Like you said, the prob­lem is apa­thy, that is where the advan­tage of house church­es lie. Habit and tra­di­tion can con­tin­u­al­ly draw peo­ple to dead places of wor­ship, but they have to make an active deci­sion to par­tic­i­pate in small groups. 

    Still, that deci­sion does not nec­es­sar­i­ly beat apa­thy, I would ven­ture to say that small groups get a good rap because they are small and its hard­er to see the ‘dead’ small groups. I’ve scout­ed a few, some are good, some are quite dead, not unlike the main­stream churches. 

    A change in mode may be a com­po­nent of the next step in ref­or­ma­tion, the build­ing and sin­gle speak­er set­up has some deep flaws, but home church­es can­not con­tin­ue equate to small, unaf­fil­i­at­ed groups either. There needs to be some syn­er­gy and some bal­ance. Either way, chang­ing forms is only as good as chang­ing chan­nels when deal­ing with apa­thy, you can use it to help but you’ll need some­thing bet­ter to make the change lasting.

    Just to note, my pas­tor has banned Ipods (touch and phone, with ref­er­ence notes, strongs, ect) when he does his evening ser­mons so he can ask the church things about Greek word usage and see if they actu­al­ly know it (as opposed to just being able to look it up). He does make a point to teach the Gospel once in a while, but the rest is usu­al­ly not entry lev­el. Church is more about who is there than how it meets.

    On the top­ic of good the­o­log­i­cal debate mate­ri­als, have you seen Bernardi­no Ochi­no’s A Dia­log on Polygamy? Its short but deals with the com­mon objec­tions very well (Bernardi­no him­self was a con­tem­po­rary of Calvin that was killed over this work) and actu­al­ly gave me some improved respons­es to com­mon objec­tions (I’ve been sup­port­ing poly for a while, by response set is fair­ly set sol­id). Longer, and much more detailed is The­lyph­tho­ra by Mar­tain Madan, a freind of the Weaslys. It details how monogamy hurt the women of his time, and much of it is still applic­a­ble. Per­haps you should check into those as well Mar­ta, as these where works by reform­ers and men of God that ded­i­cat­ed their lives to ser­vice, and they deal with the objec­tions very thor­ough­ly and concisely. 

    I had met Hugh some time ago, I haven’t talked to him much out­side of back­ing each oth­er on Poly though. And are you Paul Rollins Paul? If so we have talked a fair bit as well, if not for­give my mis­take, but you have a sim­i­lar writ­ing style.

  98. I have a writ­ing style? I need to stop now, I thought that I was just hav­ing some fun online in my spare time. I have spare time because I don’t have more than one wife. 

    Yes, it is me, I saw your post so I com­ment­ed as well, birds of a feath­er I sup­pose. I guess it is only fair to Mar­ta and to every­one else, to let them know that I am on the advi­so­ry board for a chris­t­ian poly friend­ly web­site, so I am not as inno­cent as I try to be. I guess that after years of research­ing and debat­ing, I have found that the best approach is to make the forced monogamy crowd explain away, not explain (to quote Tom Ship­ley) God’s Law and instruc­tion con­cern­ing this issue. I have had pret­ty good suc­cess with peo­ple after they bloody them­selves try­ing to refute God and His char­ac­ter, and law. Many times they just ignore the ques­tions (like has hap­pened here).

    If any­one needs help or sup­port, email me at [email protected]. Most per­sons that take a stand or even vocal­ize their beliefs regard­ing the law­ful­ness and appli­ca­tion of mul­ti­ple wives in a fam­i­ly encounter some very strong oppo­si­tion. Sup­port is offered for those that need it. After years of research­ing and watch­ing this type of mar­riage struc­ture first­hand, the only draw­backs for those that engage in this lifestyle (and live in a scrip­tural­ly based man­ner) are the ungod­ly actions and reac­tions of those that oppose it.

    I do enjoy read­ing Jair’s posts, wher­ev­er I find them. I am almost through all of Jose­phus’ works, and might go on to ter­tul­lian if I can stom­ach his heresy and luna­cy. I did also read the­lyph 1 and 2, and need to get 3. Dia­logue will be here a week so I can start on that. The­lyph is the best IMO, for those that just don’t get it. I like it because it cov­ers Christ and the law of Moses. On a per­son­al note, I did get my polygamy tshirt, a hybrid that com­bines the scrip­ture ref­er­ences with the “two’s com­pa­ny, three­’s allowed” slo­gan and a BF logo in the cen­ter. It gets some stares at Walmart. 

    I might even send Rick my “I don’t go to church, I am the church.” tshirts if he keeps abstain­ing from cor­po­rate worship. 

    Wow, I rambled.

  99. Dialouge is very good, I’ve only got four pages left, The­ly is much bet­ter, I have vol­ume one, Don Mil­ton is going to release a restored ver­sion of V3 soon, he said it was most­ly a chronol­o­gy, but that is very good too. I have The­ly V1 but its some­thing I’m going to read on my trip (I’ve read some sec­tions already online, but he bent some pages when he scanned it) I expect The­ly will be the best and I’m very excit­ed to read it. 

    I want to fin­ish Dia­logue and mem­o­rize a few vers­es it quotes and then give it to a cer­tain girl since its tech­ni­cal enough to address all the main points but its short enough that some­one would have time to read it even if polygamy was­n’t their main thing. Prayers on that, I would like to be up to two girl­friends but I don’t know what she will decide about it in the end. 

    Jose­phus sounds very inter­est­ing, Tre­tullin is hard on the soul to read as he is so extreme and ill tem­pered in every­thing. I don’t know if it would help or not, but try read­ing ‘On Soul’s Tes­ti­mo­ny’ first, it is actu­al­ly quite good in some ways and it shows that he has a least some puri­ty of intent even if his doc­trine is often lost in madness. 

    Good talk­ing to you,
    Jair

  100. Who is Robert and who invit­ed him? 

    Just kid­ding, I am a par­ty crash­er as well. I claim squat­ter’s rights on this thread, if not the whole site as well. 

    I hope that your prais­es are aimed at our plur­al mar­riage sup­port and not the polygamy is sin com­men­tary. We would then have to play in an unfair man­ner with you like we do with all monogamy-only adher­ents, which means quot­ing scrip­ture incessantly.

  101. I have been read­ing this site for a few days and have been quite inter­est­ed in the ongo­ing con­ver­sa­tions. I would like to join for a while and add some of my own insight into these matters.
    Just for starters.… Marta…
    Leviti­cus 18 does in fact for­bid a man from hav­ing sex­u­al rela­tions with his daugh­ter. My son ques­tioned me on this point as he was hav­ing a con­ver­sa­tion with anoth­er man about it and the oth­er man point­ed out to him the same thing you said.

    Read again: Leviti­cus 18 which says:
    LEV 18:6 ” ‘No one is to approach any close rel­a­tive to have sex­u­al rela­tions. I am the LORD.
    There is no one much clos­er to a man than his own children.
    And:
    LEV 18:17 ” ‘Do not have sex­u­al rela­tions with both a woman and her daughter.
    Is this verse not clear? How can a man have sex with his daugh­ter with­out hav­ing first had sex with her moth­er who gave birth to her?

  102. It is also the first use of an inter­est­ing word in Hebrew, זמה (zimmah), which is trans­lat­ed “wicked­ness.” This is a word that seems to indi­cate intrin­sic evil, a sort of foun­da­tion­al wrong or obvi­ous wrong. Hav­ing sex with a woman AND her daugh­ter, at any time whether one dies or not, is con­sid­ered foun­da­tion­al­ly wrong.

  103. Who is Bill Mike­lait and who invit­ed him? I know I already used that one. I should have left it out this time. This email noti­fi­ca­tion thingy is pret­ty neat. Anyway.…

    I thought the same thing about the close rel­a­tive thing, but did not bring it up to Mar­ta because I real­ly want­ed to hear her answers to the oth­er ques­tions. Good that you got that one. 

    So.…are you sup­port­ive of those that choose to live in a plur­al mar­riage struc­ture? (not you, Hugh)

  104. I have been study­ing the mat­ter of mul­ti­ple wives for a few years now, off and on, much to the grief of most Chris­tians I have spo­ken to. I have enjoyed read­ing your argu­ments and points on the sub­ject. I do agree that there is no argu­ment against mul­ti­ple wives in Scrip­ture and God blessed many men who had them.

  105. Wow, guys, great con­ver­sa­tion going on here. Do a search for polyg­y­ny here if you want some oth­er stuff upon which to dis­cuss. There aren’t many posts, so if you start at the old­est (from ’07, I believe, enti­tled “The Great Polyg­y­ny Debate”), you can see my grow­ing in under­stand­ing of the topic.

    Also, if I ever have more to post on the top­ic, I’ll be doing so at Friend of Polyg­y­ny, a site around which I hope to build a lit­tle com­mu­ni­ty. I want to have lit­tle “Friend of Polyg­y­ny” badges for sup­port­er blogs and sites and per­haps even tee-shirts for sale. Noth­ing like a lit­tle walk­ing con­tro­ver­sy, ya know?

    Paul, you men­tioned a t‑shirt? What’s “BF”?

  106. I have been study­ing the mat­ter of mul­ti­ple wives for a few years now. One coun­try after anoth­er began out­law­ing mul­ti­ple wives. The Jews were forced under Roman law to have only one wife. Rome was a pagan empire, not a holy right­eous one. The Greek empire before it was filled with homo­sex­u­al­i­ty. Men pre­ferred men to women. I don’t think we should look to Rome and Greece for our train­ing in right­eous­ness, but to the Scriptures.

    A lead­ing Rab­bi in the 11th cen­tu­ry pushed for and got passed into Jew­ish law the edict that for­bade Jew­ish men from hav­ing more than one wife. This was most­ly done to try and lessen the per­se­cu­tion they were endur­ing from Chris­tians who con­sid­ered them dogs. The edict was to last for 1000 years. (That time has passed, inci­den­tal­ly) This edict was nev­er accept­ed out­side of the Ashke­nazi Jews. The Yemenite Jews con­tin­ued to have up to 4 wives. And many Shep­hardic Jews had more than one wife as well.

    The Laws of Rome were incor­po­rat­ed into the cor­rupt Roman church and passed down to the Protes­tant church­es which were sim­ply Catholic church­es who protest­ed. Those laws came to the British Isles and North and South Amer­i­ca. When Euro­peans came to North Amer­i­ca they found many natives here mar­ried more than one woman. They began to preach and teach that in order for a man to bap­tized and saved he must only have one wife. 

    Abra­ham Lin­coln was respon­si­ble for pass­ing the law out­law­ing Polygamy in the States. Cana­da passed the same law to pre­vent the Mor­mons from immi­grat­ing to Cana­da. One coun­try after anoth­er over the years began to out­law the practice. 

    The Scrip­tures said this would happen.

    1TI 4:1 The Spir­it clear­ly says that in lat­er times some will aban­don the faith and fol­low deceiv­ing spir­its and things taught by demons. 2 Such teach­ings come through hyp­o­crit­i­cal liars, whose con­sciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They for­bid peo­ple to marry…

    Who is for­bid­den to mar­ry? The sin­gle woman who wants to mar­ry a man who already has a wife.
    A man is for­bid­den to mar­ry an unmar­ried woman who does not have a hus­band, even if they love and want each other.

    The laws of our coun­try and the Church of Jesus Christ says the man must divorce his first wife first.
    God says if he divorces his first wife to take the sec­ond one he com­mits adul­tery against his wife.
    No mat­ter! Most church­es will accept the divorce and remar­riage, even if it is adul­tery in favor of the mar­ried man tak­ing anoth­er wife and lov­ing and car­ing for them both. They pre­fer him to aban­don his first wife and let her fend for her­self. The Scrip­tures say that who­ev­er mar­ries this divorced woman com­mits adul­tery and the woman also com­mits adul­tery if she remar­ries but the Church doesn’t care about that and most will not even believe it.

    A few peo­ple tried to tell me they believe the ful­fill­ment of 1 Tim 4:1 is found in the Catholic priest­hood who are for­bid­den to mar­ry. For one thing, the Catholic Church does not for­bid priests to mar­ry. Being sin­gle is a require­ment of the priest­hood. If they want to mar­ry they can go on with their lives and mar­ry and get anoth­er job. The require­ment for an Elder is that he have one wife. I would pre­sume that if he wants two or more that he should step down from being an Elder. The Scrip­tures do not tell us any­one is evil who has two wives or that some­one is holi­er if he has only one. 

    There is no oth­er event in his­to­ry in the last 2000 years that come close to ful­fill­ing 1 Tim 4:1 oth­er than for­bid­ding men and women to mar­ry when two women are involved in the mix. If this is not what the pas­sage is speak­ing of, then it is a pas­sage that has nev­er been ful­filled and I can­not even imag­ine that the time would ever come when men are for­bid­den to mar­ry women in general.

  107. and the beat goes on.…..

    I will take that as a yes, you do sup­port them. Because if you did not, then you would be going against what you believe the scrip­ture says. Glad that you are sup­port­ive. to quote a dear polyg­a­mous friend, “you can’t show me in the Bible where it is con­demned, but I can show you where it is commanded.”

    I made a polygamy friend­ly tshirt or two, and I wear them some­times. I will have to get some print­ed up. 

    BF is short for Bib­li­cal Fam­i­lies, which is a non prof­it that has a web­site and forums for the pur­pose of sup­port­ing bib­li­cal mar­riage, includ­ing those that have more than one wife. BF has the site, the forums, the fel­low­ship, etc. and even retreats for fel­low­ship and wor­ship. I scammed my way onto the advi­so­ry board. The group has an advi­so­ry board to help han­dle the rapid growth that is occur­ring. Lots of peo­ple are com­ing around to the idea that this is biblical.

  108. Bill,

    If you look close­ly at your Leviti­cus quote above, about sex with a woman and her daugh­ter, you did quote it as a woman and “her” daugh­ter. You then go on to state some­thing about a man hav­ing to have sex with the moth­er first to pro­duce the daugh­ter, and that’s all well and good. How­ev­er, this pas­sage pro­hibits more than what you’ve stat­ed here. It means that if you have sex with a woman and she has a daugh­ter from a pre­vi­ous man, you may not have sex with the daugh­ter. That is how your Eng­lish trans­la­tion reads. The orig­i­nal Greek/Hebrew/Ethiopian will be more clear.

    Just as a note, there is a man who is either right now a priest or he will soon be a priest of the Roman Catholic Church and he has a wife. It is a rar­i­ty, but if a man is mar­ried and con­verts to catholi­cism and wants to become a priest, some­times they will give spe­cial per­mis­sion for this man to remain mar­ried to his wife while also join­ing the priest­hood. I guess this one will be able to take his sex­u­al frus­tra­tions out on his wife, instead of uphold­ing the tra­di­tion of using the altar boys.

    Any­way, the guy is in P.E.I. The link to the CBC News arti­cle is below.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2009/08/09/pei-married-priest.html

  109. I guess this one will be able to take his sex­u­al frus­tra­tions out on his wife, instead of uphold­ing the tra­di­tion of using the altar boys.

    Please keep that kind of gross gen­er­al­iza­tion off of my blog. Thanks.

  110. I’d like to apol­o­gize for my com­ment. I mean no offense or insult to any­one, here or oth­er­wise, but main­ly here as I have grown to respect all involved in this thread. The com­ment was inap­pro­pri­ate and off-top­ic. I will be fol­low­ing up this response in email to Rick.

    To run my train of thought back to that of polygamy, I would like to state that in addi­tion to the reli­gious rea­sons for polygamy, a remark­able case may be made for polygamy in a most­ly sec­u­lar fashion.

    Many would argue that mar­riage is an open dec­la­ra­tion of a bond among man, woman, and God. Even if we take the def­i­n­i­tion to remove God from the bond, it is still an open dec­la­ra­tion of a bond between a man and woman (homo­sex­u­al mar­riage of any kind being ignored for this argu­ment). As such, it is a reli­gious mat­ter or a per­son­al mat­ter. In cas­es of reli­gious mat­ters, we are sup­posed to have, in North Amer­i­ca, a sep­a­ra­tion of church and state. How­ev­er, in the case of mar­riage, the gov­ern­ment plays a part. They have no right. If they want to have their hands in mar­riage, they should restrict it to sec­u­lar mar­riages and leave the reli­gious mar­riages alone. If the gov­ern­ment wants to give recog­ni­tion to the mar­riage, they should respect their bound­aries and not make com­ments on the reli­gion of the indi­vid­u­als in ques­tion. This means that the gov­ern­ment should, in keep­ing with a sep­a­ra­tion of church and state, make no laws pro­hibit­ing a polyg­a­mous marriage.

    If we view it as a per­son­al mat­ter, we get into the argu­ment of the gov­ern­ment remov­ing the per­son­al lib­er­ties of con­sent­ing adults. The gov­ern­ment would be seen as inter­fer­ing with a prac­tice that (arguably) harms no per­son or per­sons. It then becomes an issue of an unnec­es­sary reg­u­la­tion of the per­son­’s harm­less per­son­al life.

    For those rea­sons I have been in sup­port of the indi­vid­u­al’s right to choose polygamy for many years. The fact that the bib­li­cal scrip­tures sup­port polygamy only goes to bol­ster my sup­port in the case of the mar­riage as a reli­gious cer­e­mo­ny. I would be will­ing to wear the t‑shirt and view the parade. How­ev­er, as I am a monogamist with respect to my own per­son­al affairs, I would not march in the parade. It would be as inappropriate.

  111. You’re right, David, but the gov­ern­ment will soon­er lis­ten to fem­i­nists who think that polyg­y­ny can only be accept­able to brain­washed, abused women than to a small but grow­ing num­ber of polyg­y­ny-accept­ing Bible believ­ers. It is wide­ly regard­ed in our cul­ture that polyg­y­ny is harm­ful — even abu­sive — to women. That stig­ma could take decades or more to overcome.

  112. God’s Word tells us Abi­gail was a beau­ti­ful and “intel­li­gent” woman. After her hus­band died, leav­ing her wealthy and free to mar­ry any­one she wished, (or none if she wished) she imme­di­ate­ly jumped at the chance of becom­ing David’s 2nd (actu­al­ly 3rd wife.… His first one was tak­en away by King Saul and forced to mar­ry anoth­er man.) From that point on the Word refers to David and his two wives.. Ahi­no­ham and Abi­gail. (until he mar­ried more). Abi­gail was not forced to do any­thing against her will and there is noth­ing in Scrip­ture that hints at her being unhap­py with her situation.
    I do not believe that the bad press of mul­ti­ple wives is some­thing that will ever change, though. Unbe­liev­ers don’t care what God’s Word says and Chris­tians inter­pret it to suit their beliefs.

  113. What? no more com­ments on this blog? Well… let me go back and review some things said a while back.

    “Uppi­ty” wrote on July 6, 2009 at 9:49 pm 

    “The world was not cre­at­ed in 6 days, nor is the world less than 6000 years old”.
    I am sure God is very hap­py to have that cleared up for him, but I would like to remind you that God was there at the begin­ning (Jesus was there also) and you and I were not. I would sup­pose that His record of the events which were writ­ten for our knowl­edge and instruc­tion car­ries more weight that our speculations.

    “Abra­ham mar­ried his half sis­ter and then gave her away to a king with­out inform­ing the king Sarah was his wife. So he not only com­mit­ted incest, but he as also a liar, and he gave his wife away to anoth­er man so that the King could osten­si­bly have sex with her. How many com­mand­ments were vio­lat­ed here ?”
    ___ Actually..none. Abra­ham did not mar­ry his half sis­ter. Sarah was his old­er brother’s daugh­ter. There was no law against such a union. Don’t believe Sarah was Abraham’s niece? Look again:
    Gen 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; (and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milc­ah,) the daugh­ter of Haran, the father of Milc­ah, and the father of Iscah. 

    This pas­sage is not say­ing “Milc­ah was the daugh­ter of Haran, the father of Milc­ah” as this would not make sense to write it this way. 

    It is say­ing that Sarai who Abra­ham mar­ried was the daugh­ter of Haran who also was the father of Milc­ah and Isc­ah. Haran was also the father of Lot. That means that Lot was Sarai’s broth­er. This makes Lot not only Abraham’s nephew but also his broth­er in law.

    Read on:

    Gen 11:31 And Ter­ah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daugh­ter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees
    If as most Chris­tians want to believe… Abra­ham mar­ried his half sis­ter, why is she called Terah’s daugh­ter in law. What I am say­ing is if both Abra­ham and Sarai are Terah’s chil­dren (albeit by dif­fer­ent moth­ers) Why is Abra­ham called Terah’s son where­as Sarai is called his daugh­ter in law. Why is Abra­ham not called his son in law? The erro­neous belief that Sarai was Abraham’s sis­ter is not based on this record but on the words that came out of Abraham’s mouth lat­er when he was in fear of his life. 

    “Abra­ham told Sarai to say she was his sis­ter when asked” is not exact­ly accu­rate. Such is the prob­lem with trans­lat­ing Hebrew to Eng­lish. The word trans­lat­ed “sis­ter” means “a close kinswoman”. She was in fact a close kinswoman as she was his niece. This was not a lie. To say that Abra­ham thought noth­ing of giv­ing his wife to Pharaoh so he could have his sex­u­al way with her is kind of stretch­ing it a bit. The Bible nev­er says that. It sim­ply gives us an out­line of the events and not all the details. The turn of events that caused Pharaoh to take Sarai might have come as a com­plete sur­prise and dis­as­ter to the mind of Abra­ham. One thing quick­ly led to anoth­er and he got boxed into a cor­ner from which there was no escape. What­ev­er the case, God inter­vened for Sarai and brought her back to Abra­ham safe and sound and unde­filed. Abra­ham received much rec­om­pense from Pharaoh because of the fear that God put in him.

    Abra­ham and Sarai encoun­tered a sim­i­lar event with King Abim­i­lech. God had pro­tect­ed him and Sarai in Egypt so was there any rea­son for Abra­ham to believe he would not do so again? Remem­ber… he left Eqypt quite wealthy as a result. To claim that Abra­ham was a heart­less man who had no regard for the puri­ty and safe­ty of his wife is going a bit too far. Abra­ham did tell King Abim­i­lech that Sarai was his half sis­ter when pressed about it but I believe that was a lie to get him­self out of a tight spot. Not much dif­fer­ent than the mid­wives in Egypt fib­bing to pro­tect them­selves from death when ques­tioned about let­ting the Israelite boys live.
    “Solomon’s involve­ment with his wives and con­cu­bines appar­ent­ly led him to allow them to con­struct tem­ples to their for­eign Gods . Not my idea of a role mod­el either”.
    Many men in the his­to­ry of the world have had only one wife and been led bad­ly astray by her. Take Adam for instance and king Ahab with his wife Jezebel Not very good role mod­els in my opin­ion but they would not pre­vent me from hav­ing one wife if I want­ed one. 

    “Suf­fice it to say that Old Tes­ta­ment patri­archs don’t impress me”.
    I don’t think God is too wor­ried about what impress­es you or I. At the end of the age it is not God who is going to be judged by us but it will be the oth­er way around accord­ing to Scrip­ture. What kind of role mod­els would we make if all our sins were laid out on the table?
    “Jesus taught us that divorce was allowed in the Old Tes­ta­ment due to the hard­ness of men’s hearts. Most Chris­tians believe polygamy was per­mit­ted for the same reason.”
    Again (and I believe Rick already com­ment­ed on this some­what) many Chris­tians like to read a pas­sage and then apply the log­ic from it to oth­er sit­u­a­tions for which there is no basis in Scrip­ture to apply them to. For exam­ple the pas­sage in Romans 7 which states: “by law, a woman is bound to her hus­band as long as he is alive, and if she mar­ries anoth­er man while her hus­band is alive, she shall be called an adul­ter­ess” . Many look at this pas­sage as say: “this also applies to men”. That is because they believe what ever applies to women also applies to men and vice ver­sa. Good log­ic in their minds but unfor­tu­nate­ly not Scrip­tur­al. There is noth­ing in Scrip­ture to make us believe David com­mit­ted adul­tery when he mar­ried Abi­gail, his third liv­ing wife and the com­mands giv­en to men and women some­times dif­fer. Mod­ern Chris­tians have this warped idea on what “equal­i­ty” means and how it applies. I know Chris­tians who believe David com­mit­ted adul­tery when he mar­ried Abi­gail but that is their words and not God’s.

    “Jesus gave us a new teach­ing : that divorce is not per­mit­ted unless adul­tery has tak­en place.”
    The Phar­isees and teach­ers of the Law were con­stant­ly watch­ing Jesus and try­ing to get him to con­tra­dict the Law so they could have a rea­son to accuse them and they were nev­er able to do it. Do you hon­est­ly believe Jesus came along and start­ing mak­ing up new Laws to replace the Laws already giv­en by God through Moses? Many Chris­tians also believe that Jesus changed the Law of ston­ing for adul­tery to one of for­give­ness. (stat­ing the woman caught in adul­tery sto­ry). When the Jews said to Jesus, “the law says she must be stoned… what do YOU say, they were try­ing to get him to trap him­self by His words. He nev­er con­tra­dict­ed the Law and it was the LAW in fact that saved to woman in the final analy­sis. The Law stat­ed that a woman caught in adul­tery must be stoned, along with the man she did it with, but on the tes­ti­mo­ny of two or more wit­ness­es. When Jesus asked here where her accusers were, they had all fled the scene. No wit­ness­es? Case is thrown out of court! Saved by the Law! If Jesus had tried to change the Law HE would have been stoned to death. The woman inci­dent­ly was not brought to Jesus to be tried. Jesus had no author­i­ty to try any­one. He was sim­ply a carpenter’s son from Nazareth. It was JESUS who was on tri­al here. 

    Jesus nev­er said that divorce was now per­mit­ted if adul­tery has tak­en place. The law stat­ed the guilty par­ties must be stoned. Their deaths would allow their inno­cent spous­es to remar­ry again. Jesus said: “if a man divorces his wife, save for the cause of for­ni­ca­tion, and mar­ries anoth­er, he com­mits adul­tery”. Most believe he means if a man’s wife com­mits for­ni­ca­tion he can dump her and remar­ry. WRONG! “save for the cause of for­ni­ca­tion” means “unless their mar­riage was one of for­ni­ca­tion” (i.e. an unlaw­ful mar­riage to start with) Such was the case with the mar­riage of King Herod with his brother’s wife and the man in 1 Corinthi­ans who had tak­en his father’s wife. This was more prop­er­ly trans­lat­ed in the Amer­i­can Bible. If Math­ew 5 and 19 give a man per­mis­sion to dump his wife and remar­ry if she com­mits adul­tery, then these pas­sages are in con­tra­dic­tion of all the oth­er pas­sages that speak of divorce and remarriage.
    MK 10:10 When they were in the house again, the dis­ci­ples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Any­one who divorces his wife and mar­ries anoth­er woman com­mits adul­tery against her. And if she divorces her hus­band and mar­ries anoth­er man, she com­mits adultery.”

    LK 16:18 “Any­one who divorces his wife and mar­ries anoth­er woman com­mits adul­tery, and the man who mar­ries a divorced woman com­mits adultery.

    Scrip­ture teach­es us that who­ev­er does NOT divorce his wife and mar­ries anoth­er does NOT com­mit adul­tery. Read it and weep.

    “Jesus was a mem­ber of the Essene sect of Judaism which taught that polygamy and divorce were wrong because the bib­li­cal ide­al was that you were mar­ried to one per­son only for life. Many of his para­bles, teach­ings, and sto­ries come from the Essene literature”.
    Many peo­ple and groups through­out his­to­ry have held to some com­mon ideals while not hold­ing to all of them. This does not make a per­son a mem­ber of that group. Just believe I may believe a cou­ple of things that the Mor­mons also believe does not make me a Mor­mon, for exam­ple. The Bible nev­er says Jesus belonged to the Essene sect.
    “Every pas­tor, priest, and min­is­ter I have ever encoun­tered attest­ed to the “two shall become one flesh” and 1 Corinthi­ans 7:2 as suf­fi­cient evi­dence that both Paul and Jesus taught monogamy as the ide­al. You feel dif­fer­ent­ly, and I don’t know of any Chris­tians who would agree with you”, 

    “All the apos­tles were monog­a­mous, and ancient texts teach us that the apos­tles who actu­al­ly lived with Jesus taught that monogamy was the ide­al taught to them by Jesus”.
    Actu­al­ly, Jesus and Paul both attest­ed that it was bet­ter in some instances not to mar­ry, but God had not giv­en every­one this abil­i­ty to stay sin­gle and the Scrip­tures nev­er uses the phrase “it was the ide­al” although many like to throw that phrase around.

    ”That speaks vol­umes to me – I take the tes­ti­mo­ny of those taught by Jesus any day over the exam­ple of cor­rupt Old Tes­ta­ment patriarchs.”
    You hold to the tes­ti­mo­ny of Jesus? Great! Lis­ten to what Jesus said:”
    MT 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abol­ish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abol­ish them but to ful­fill them. I tell you the truth, until heav­en and earth dis­ap­pear, not the small­est let­ter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means dis­ap­pear from the Law until every­thing is accom­plished. Any­one who breaks one of the least of these com­mand­ments and teach­es oth­ers to do the same will be called least in the king­dom of heav­en, but who­ev­er prac­tices and teach­es these com­mands will be called great in the king­dom of heav­en. For I tell you that unless your right­eous­ness sur­pass­es that of the Phar­isees and the teach­ers of the law, you will cer­tain­ly not enter the king­dom of heaven.

  114. “save for the cause of for­ni­ca­tion” means “unless their mar­riage was one of for­ni­ca­tion” (i.e. an unlaw­ful mar­riage to start with) This was more prop­er­ly trans­lat­ed in the Amer­i­can Bible. If Math­ew 5 and 19 give a man per­mis­sion to dump his wife and remar­ry if she com­mits adul­tery, then these pas­sages are in con­tra­dic­tion of all the oth­er pas­sages that speak of divorce and remarriage.
    MK 10:10 When they were in the house again, the dis­ci­ples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Any­one who divorces his wife and mar­ries anoth­er woman com­mits adul­tery against her. And if she divorces her hus­band and mar­ries anoth­er man, she com­mits adultery.”

    I have nev­er heard this take before, specif­i­cal­ly the inter­pre­ta­tion of the for­ni­ca­tion clause. I will have to look at this again.

  115. Yes, I know I said I was done…

    Here’s the com­mand­ment: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his moth­er, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” — Gen. 2:24

    That is stat­ed in the positive…”…a man shall…”

    Fast for­ward to the New Tes­ta­ment: “And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read, that He who cre­at­ed them from the begin­ning male and female, and said, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and moth­er, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh”? Con­se­quent­ly they are no longer two, but one flesh. What there­fore God has joined togeth­er, let no man sep­a­rate.’ They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses com­mand to give her a cer­tifi­cate of divorce and send her away?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hard­ness of heart, Moses per­mit­ted you to divorce your wives; but from the begin­ning it has not been this way. And I say to you, who­ev­er divorces his wife, except for immoral­i­ty, and mar­ries anoth­er woman com­mits adul­tery.’ ” — Matt. 19:4–9

    This is stat­ed in both the positive…the reit­er­a­tion of the orig­i­nal com­mand, along with the deep­er, negative…“What there­fore God has joined togeth­er, let no man separate.”

    So, here’s the question…when does a divorced per­son com­mit adul­tery? Is it at the divorce? No, it is at the mar­ry­ing anoth­er per­son part. Divorce is a sin in itself. The adul­tery part comes at the next mar­riage. God joined the orig­i­nal two peo­ple togeth­er. That does not change in His eyes until one of them dies.

    So was David an adul­ter­er? Yes. Solomon? Yes. Abra­ham? Yes. Were these men blessed by God? Yes. Was it because of their sin? No, it was in spite of their sin. We can­not earn God’s bless­ing any more than we can earn sal­va­tion. If we could, who in all of his­to­ry would have earned God’s bless­ing over all? Jesus. Yet we are told that He was cursed. (Gal. 3:13)

    I have seen in this thread sev­er­al times where Scrip­ture was either tak­en incor­rect­ly, or just mis­quot­ed and then an argu­ment for sin based on the mis­quote. (com­ment #2 is the worst offend­er) That is a tac­tic that has been employed through the ages by the ene­my of God. Satan can prob­a­bly quote Scrip­ture bet­ter than any human alive…he’s had much time to prac­tice this. This is why it is essen­tial to inter­pret Scrip­ture with Scrip­ture. This com­mand is straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ…“Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What there­fore God has joined togeth­er, let no man separate.”

  116. So, a man shall not do that again? A wid­ow­er may not mar­ry again? What part of this “A man SHALL” “Com­mand­ment” states that he can’t do it when he’s still mar­ried to the first one? Where is it said in this “Com­mand­ment” that the pro­ce­dure can­not be repeat­ed, ad infinitum?

    Mar­ta, Matthew 19 has noth­ing to do with polyg­y­ny, since if a man does not divorce, he does not incur the neg­a­tives cast by the rest of this passage.

    David was an adul­ter­er, yes. But ONLY after he stole anoth­er man’s wife.

    Solomon was NOT an adulterer.

    You keep con­fus­ing the con­cept of “one flesh” with monogamy. This is sim­ply not so since a man is one flesh with his wife, how­ev­er many he may have.

  117. Hugh, you only see what you want to see. The fact that a child stands with his eyes shut and says. “You can’t see me!” does­n’t make it so. You also don’t read very care­ful­ly, or else you would have seen the part about “That does not change in His eyes until one of them dies.”

  118. And char­ac­ter­iz­ing me as a child isn’t a case of “I said it first, so it’s true,” nor is claim­ing that I see “what I want to see” first, tan­ta­mount to mak­ing that descrip­tion fit me, because you said it first. We don’t get “dibs,” we have to build arguments.

    The fact is you have been led to believe Matthew 19 and Gen­e­sis 2:24 amount to a com­mand to monogamy. Fas­ci­nat­ing that no one took it that way until thou­sands of years later.

    Your prob­lem is that “one flesh” is not syn­ony­mous with “monogamy” nor is it syn­ony­mous with mar­riage. Thus say­ing “The two become ‘one flesh’ ” does­n’t do any­thing more than describe what inevitably hap­pens. Nowhere is it said that “the two become one flesh that’s the end of that.”

    Since you are unable to show me where this verse descrip­tion exists, then I reject it as proved. I read as care­ful­ly as I need to, your dec­la­ra­tions are not scripture.

  119. It should also be point­ed out at this point going for­ward that “adul­tery” is not a man “cheat­ing on his wife.”

    Actu­al­ly, there is no term in Scrip­ture giv­en to the act of one man tak­ing more than one wife over and above the terms used for tak­ing his first wife. Valid mar­riages, spous­es, and so on all around. That’s how Scrip­ture por­trays it.

    A man can *for­ni­cate* with an unmar­ried woman, whether he’s mar­ried to some­one else or not.

    A man can also com­mit adul­tery by tak­ing anoth­er man’s wife, caus­ing her to become an adulteress.

    But there is no sin descrip­tive of one man hav­ing one wife tak­ing anoth­er wife.

    Or to put it anoth­er way, there is no com­mand­ment which says that a man may not have mul­ti­ple mar­riages — each fit­ting well with­in the “fun­da­men­tal­ist” def­i­n­i­tion of “1 man + 1 woman = mar­riage.” The ques­tion is whether a man may have more than one such mar­riage con­cur­rent­ly, and the Scrip­tures tes­ti­fy repeat­ed­ly that he can. (Oth­er­wise, the patri­archs did­n’t have more than one wife, they had one wife plus [what­ev­er the word is for an extra wife… if “wives,” then that ren­ders their mar­riages as valid].

  120. Yes, and Deuteron­o­my 21:15 does not estab­lish the first or sec­ond wife’s son as hav­ing inher­i­tance sta­tus based on her true sta­tus as wife, while the oth­er “isn’t real­ly a wife.” It states that whichev­er wife has the first born, that son gets the inher­i­tance right.

    Sim­i­lar­ly, Josi­ah’s sons did not become dis­qual­i­fied from the thrown as bas­tards because both mar­riages WERE LEGITIMATE. They were also con­cur­rent. Both sons ascend to the throne. 

    Solomon ascends to the throne. They’re legit­i­mate wives, not part­ners in an adul­ter­ous ongo­ing sin.

  121. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not com­mit adul­tery.’ But I say to you that every­one who looks at a woman with lust­ful intent has already com­mit­ted adul­tery with her in his heart.” — Matt. 5:27 Jesus shows that adul­tery goes WAY deep­er than any of us would admit.

    The point is this…God’s view of mar­riage is very spe­cif­ic. Once you have become one with some­one, in His eyes (and He wrote the rules) you are no longer free to become one with anoth­er until your spouse dies. The two are one, and that is not to be sep­a­rat­ed either phys­i­cal­ly by divorce, or in your heart by keep­ing the oth­er one around while you com­mit adultery.

    Anoth­er point is this…we are law-break­ers, every one. That is why Jesus came. He did­n’t dis­card the Law, he point­ed out how much deep­er it goes than any­one thought…how much more guilt we have before God than we could ever imagine…and then pro­ceed­ed to ful­fill the Law per­fect­ly. He is our only hope, and there is noth­ing we can do to save our­selves. It is God who grants the mer­cy to see the depth of our sin so we can plead for for­give­ness and pray for the grace and faith to repent.

  122. Yes, and if trans­lat­ed “woman” to the Greek, then it was almost cer­tain that Christ said ” ‘ishshah” in the Hebrew. (Psssst, he did­n’t speak these words in Greek.)

    As an Israelite preach­ing to the “lost sheep of Israel” (his words, not mine) and only quot­ed direct­ly in Ara­ma­ic or Hebrew, Christ would have prob­a­bly cho­sen Hebrew or Ara­ma­ic words to speak.

    A woman was a sex­u­al­ly expe­ri­enced female human being.

    Where did this idea come from that “you are no longer free” to become one with some­one else? God leg­is­lat­ed that in his own law, the first such instance of that com­ing IMMEDIATELY after giv­ing the Ten Com­mand­ments. You are CLEARLY wrong.

  123. Mar­ta,
    I can see that you are famil­iar with Scrip­ture and are con­cerned about believ­ing and doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord. That is won­der­ful. You are also very pas­sion­ate about what you believe and your beliefs are backed up by many, many Chris­tians world­wide, not to men­tion respect­ed teach­ers and preach­ers of the Word of God, but I want to point out that many peo­ple stick­ing togeth­er on an issue against the very few (or even one) does not always make the many right. A read­ing in the book of Jere­mi­ah and some of the Kings will con­firm that. Men of God have often stood alone against a pre­vail­ing belief. That is not to say that peo­ple who believe like Rick, Hugh and Paul (and I) are alone. We are also con­cerned about believ­ing what is right as far as the Scrip­tures and God’s will go and con­stant­ly search the Scrip­tures to see if what is taught is actu­al­ly in keep­ing with what the Scrip­tures say. I urge all who are con­cerned about these issues to do the same.

    Many of the teach­ings of today are based on pre­con­ceived notions, brought about by a par­a­digm shift in people’s think­ing down through the ages and it has cloud­ed peo­ples’ minds.
    From what I can deter­mine, this is how your log­ic goes:
    1. Man can only have one wife at a time. (God’s will accord­ing to you and many others).
    2. If any man or woman has a sex­u­al rela­tion­ship with some­one oth­er than their spouse, they com­mit adultery.
    3. There­fore the con­clu­sion fol­lows that all the men in Scrip­ture who had more than one wife com­mit­ted adultery.
    Some have vari­a­tions on this belief sys­tem that may admit that more than one wife was “tol­er­at­ed” by God in the Old Tes­ta­ment but Jesus changed that in the New Testament.

    What­ev­er the case, Jesus said He did not come to change the Law and He said the Law continues.

    Back to the Law God (not man) made, back in Lev 18:18: “Do not take your wife’s sis­ter as a rival wife and have sex­u­al rela­tions with her while your wife is living. 

    The hear­ers of this law would have inter­pret­ed it as say­ing there was no law against tak­ing a woman as an extra wife who was NOT her sis­ter, oth­er­wise the com­mand is stu­pid. Do you think God has some Law in mind against tak­ing an extra wife but He can’t quite find the words to describe it? Maybe He should have wait­ed and tak­en a course at one of our sem­i­nar­ies! I’ll bet if you were God, you would have made sure this anti-sec­ond wife law was spelled out in such a way that there would have been no doubt in anyone’s mind, eh? Why couldn’t God do it? Not smart enough? Well let me assure you that the Israelites who were giv­en the Law had every pos­si­ble ques­tion to ask about it and were care­ful to know what was accept­able and not accept­able to God. They, after all were under the Law of curs­es and bless­ings and reaped ter­ri­ble curs­es when they trans­gressed. Why was no one ever pun­ished for the “ter­ri­ble sin of polygamy” if it indeed is a sin? Peo­ple were put to death for break­ing the Sab­bath for cry­ing out loud!

    I would like to bring you back to a cou­ple of vers­es that were men­tioned way back in this blog. (It is no trou­ble for me to men­tion them again since they are vital to this discussion.) 

    1KI 155 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’S com­mands all the days of his life–except in the case of Uri­ah the Hittite.

    Appar­ent­ly you and all the oth­er “anti mul­ti­ple-wife” pro­po­nents do not believe this verse. Read it again! 

    “Done what WAS RIGHT in the eyes of the Lord…….

    Not failed to keep ANY of the Lord’s com­mands ALL the days of his life….
    EXCEPT in the case of Uri­ah the Hittite.”
    (but I think YOU add… “also in the case of Abigail”)
    (ALL Scrip­ture is God’s breathed and giv­en by inspi­ra­tion of God and is use­ful for our instruction).

    Anoth­er verse:

    2CH 24: 2 Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the years of Jehoia­da the priest. 3 Jehoia­da chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters.

    Jehoia­da the priest was a god­ly man who res­cued Joash as a baby from death and raised him as his own under the instruc­tion of God. “Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord dur­ing the whole life­time of Jehoia­da the priest.
    While Jehoia­da the priest was still “ALIVE”………..he chose two wives for Joash!
    Does the read­ing of this verse, in your mind not tell you that Joash mar­ry­ing these two women con­sti­tut­ed Joash doing “what was right in the eyes of the Lord”? How can you call what he did “adul­tery” if it was right in the eyes of the Lord?

    Back to Jesus……
    The Jews of Jesus’ day under­stood that it was not unlaw­ful for a man to have more than one wife. Just because they were under Roman occu­pa­tion and Rome had their own laws did not negate God’s laws in their minds. They already knew that if a man divorced his wife and send her away and she mar­ried anoth­er man they were caus­ing her to become an adul­ter­ess, based on the Law which said:

    DT 24: “and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of anoth­er man, and her sec­ond hus­band dis­likes her and writes her a cer­tifi­cate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first hus­band, who divorced her, is not allowed to mar­ry her again after she has been defiled.”

    Jesus was not telling them any­thing new, here. The woman was defiled by her sec­ond husband.

    They also knew that adul­tery as far a man was con­cerned, was hav­ing sex with anoth­er man’s wife, and that it was impos­si­ble for a man to com­mit adul­tery with his own wife.

    Jesus did in fact say: “Mat 5:27 You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not com­mit adul­tery.’ But I tell you that any­one who looks at a woman lust­ful­ly has already com­mit­ted adul­tery with her in his heart.”

    Does this verse, in your mind say that if a sin­gle man looks at a sin­gle woman and desires earnest­ly to have her for his wife and dreams about mak­ing love to her is an adul­ter­er as a result of that? Then every god­ly man who has ever desired his wife pri­or to hav­ing her has been and is an adul­ter­er. There is a dif­fer­ence between pure desire and lust.
    To “lust after” or “cov­et your neighbour’s wife means to have the desire to have her, not to sim­ply look at her and admit in your mind that she is a beau­ti­ful and desir­able woman. 

    JAS 1: 14 but each one is tempt­ed when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has con­ceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

    This verse says desire has to “con­ceive” in order for it to become sin.

    In the con­text of their knowl­edge, the Jews that Jesus was speak­ing to would have inter­pret­ed his Words like this: “Don’t think that just because you have not had sex with your neighbor’s wife you have not com­mit­ted adul­tery. If you cov­et her and desire to have her in your heart, the seeds of adul­tery are already with­in you”. They would not have con­fused his words to mean that they could nev­er desire any­one oth­er than their one wife. A woman, on the oth­er hand, can only have one hus­band while her hus­band lives. (Romans 7:3 and 1 Cor 7:39). (Not too pop­u­lar a verse for the “mod­ern” woman).

    I want to assure you Mar­ta, that I say all these things to you with the utmost of respect. If you are tru­ly a child of God, than you are my sis­ter in Christ, and as the Scrip­tures say: “dear­ly loved”.

  124. Mar­ta,
    Not only can a man have mul­ti­ple wives, he can also have con­cu­bines and SLAVES, even if it is against the law — because God’s law is greater than man’s law.

  125. I cov­ered Jesus’ teach­ings regard­ing lust and adul­tery a few weeks ago.

    In short, the pas­sage is irrel­e­vant to the dis­cus­sion; Jesus for­bade even cov­et­ing after your neigh­bor’s wife as adul­tery rather than let­ting peo­ple think that only the actu­al *tak­ing* of the neigh­bor’s wife was for­bid­den. In effect, Jesus linked “do not com­mit adul­tery” with “do not cov­et,” empha­siz­ing the heart’s role in sin.

  126. Jair,

    Chate­laine (anoth­er user) has been so kind as to give me some abstracts of stud­ies on polygamy. I’ll put the one abstract at the bot­tom of this (below the response to PJP). I believe she gave three. The oth­er two abstracts are on my web log.

    PJP,

    I real­ly hope some­one makes you his slave so that you can re-eval­u­ate how good “god’s law” is in com­par­i­son to “man’s law”.

    Here’s the abstract as promised:

    A Com­par­i­son of Fam­i­ly Func­tion­ing, Life and Mar­i­tal Sat­is­fac­tion, and Men­tal Health of Women in Polyg­a­mous and Monog­a­mous Marriages

    Alean Al-Kre­nawi
    Ben-Guri­on University

    John R. Graham
    Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­gary, Cal­gary, Canada

    Back­ground: A con­sid­er­able body of research con­cludes that the polyg­a­mous fam­i­ly struc­ture has an impact on children’s and wives’ psy­cho­log­i­cal, social and fam­i­ly functioning.

    Aims: The present study is among the first to con­sid­er with­in the same eth­no­ra­cial com­mu­ni­ty such essen­tial fac­tors as fam­i­ly func­tion­ing, life sat­is­fac­tion, mar­i­tal sat­is­fac­tion and men­tal health func­tion­ing among women who are in polyg­a­mous mar­riages and women who are in monog­a­mous marriages.

    Method: A sam­ple of 352 women par­tic­i­pat­ed in this study: 235 (67%) were in a monog­a­mous mar­riage and 117 (33%) were in a polyg­a­mous marriage.

    Results: Find­ings reveal dif­fer­ences between women in polyg­a­mous and monog­a­mous mar­riages. Women in polyg­a­mous mar­riages showed sig­nif­i­cant­ly high­er psy­cho­log­i­cal dis­tress, and high­er lev­els of soma­ti­sa­tion, pho­bia and oth­er psy­cho­log­i­cal prob­lems. They also had sig­nif­i­cant­ly more prob­lems in fam­i­ly func­tion­ing, mar­i­tal rela­tion­ships and life satisfaction.

    Con­clu­sion: The arti­cle calls on pub­lic pol­i­cy and social ser­vice per­son­nel to increase pub­lic aware­ness of the sig­nif­i­cance of polyg­a­mous fam­i­ly struc­tures for women’s wellbeing.

    Inter­na­tion­al Jour­nal of Social Psy­chi­a­try, Vol. 52, No. 1, 5–17 (2006)

  127. Don’t think of slav­ery like Amer­i­cans did slav­ery. Think of slav­ery as the Scrip­tures describe it. Slaves were well enough off that they could vol­un­teer after a cer­tain num­ber of years to either be free or remain on as a slave for the rest of their life. Paul man­dates that a mas­ter treat their slaves prop­er­ly — and like­wise that a slave should prop­er­ly obey and respect his master.

    Slav­ery is still prac­ticed today, endorsed unknow­ing­ly by a great deal of peo­ple. Forc­ing pris­on­ers to work, for instance, is slav­ery, and so is mil­i­tary ser­vice, until restric­tions on going absent-with­out-leave are lift­ed. If a draft is ever insti­tut­ed, well, that just rein­forces the fact that sol­diers are slaves of the state.

    Slav­ery is by no means “bad,” we’ve just been cul­ture-col­ored by Amer­i­ca’s trag­ic abuses.

    Amer­i­ca is real­ly only good at one thing, if I may be so bold, and that’s screw­ing things up, though I’d expect that peo­ple from every nation would say the same about their own home­lands. It’s no won­der man was nev­er meant to rule.

  128. Yeah. Fine. You can live with your ratio­nal­iza­tion that mil­i­tary ser­vice is slav­ery. It is very dif­fer­ent. It is a paid ser­vice, where­in peo­ple are tak­en to per­form the duty to keep their coun­try safe. Slav­ery, even accord­ing to the bible, is invad­ing a neigh­bour­ing coun­try, tak­ing the able-bod­ied men and vir­gin women, sell­ing the women as sex slaves and con­cu­bines, sell­ing the men as labour slaves, to be used until they die (unless they are Hebrew). It’s also fine to beat the slaves, so long as they don’t die with­in a day or two of the beat­ing. And, if it is a Hebrew slave being set free and he wants to stay with his fam­i­ly (because the fam­i­ly is still prop­er­ty, held hostage, and only the male head of the fam­i­ly is freed), he is to be per­ma­nent­ly marked by hav­ing an awl drilled through his ear. Amer­i­can slaves did­n’t have it that much worse. The bible teach­es how much to charge for your daugh­ters, and all the archa­ic, cru­el, and ter­ri­ble laws sur­round­ing slav­ery. The slaves got dimin­ished amounts of food, cloth­ing, and were still owned as prop­er­ty. They were not vol­un­teers but were cap­tured subjects.

    Appeal­ing to the mil­i­tary is not accept­able. If there is no draft, the peo­ple in the mil­i­tary treat it as a job and can leave at (pret­ty much) any point. If there is a draft, it is for the defense of the coun­try. Not par­tic­i­pat­ing weak­ens the mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties of the coun­try and puts every­one in jeop­ardy. It is a pas­sive form of trea­son. This is very dif­fer­ent from enter­ing into a for­eign land, cap­tur­ing able-bod­ied peo­ple, killing their very young chil­dren (as lia­bil­i­ties), tak­ing their women as sex slaves, and forc­ing them to work with no chance of pay or free­dom. It’s also not buy­ing them from the for­eign­ers with­in your coun­try already. That was what Amer­i­ca did, and the Eng­lish, and it is sanc­tioned by the bible. 

    I agree when it comes to crim­i­nals, and I don’t think they should be forced to work just because they are in jail. A work pro­gram should be imple­ment­ed, but the pris­on­ers should be paid (either in cash or for extra priv­i­leges) for work­ing and it should be optional.

    Look, I should­n’t have to tell you why this stuff is wrong and inhu­mane. Here’s a link to a few of the rules of slav­ery. It has pic­tures of fig­ures in pos­es to rep­re­sent the bib­li­cal ref­er­ences. It might help. (There’s even a lit­tle in there about sex slav­ery, which some­what ties into the argu­ments of polygamy.)

    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/slavery/ex21_02a.html

  129. to uppi­ty woman. you need to study the bible not juist read it. i corint. 7 is talk­ing about the chris­tians being sex­u­al­ly cor­rupt with the peo­ple in the city of corint that wor­shipped the god­dess of fer­til­i­ty or oth­er gods which is con­sid­ered for­ni­ca­tion in the real greek term. maybe you should hold a con­ver­sa­tion on what if for­ni­ca­tion next since we nev­er have an account of being between two sin­gle peo­ple in the bibly to my knowl­edge. it was only when peo­ple of God entag­gled them­selves with idols and oth­er gods.

  130. to david there are bond­ser­vants in the new tes­ta­ment. how­ev­er Jesus told those that owned slaves to treat them fair­ly with fair wages, and with­out ill treat­ment. and remind­ed the slave own­ers that they too are slaves to Him. so can every­body stick to facts instead of our own view about dif­fer­ent issues. we are all enslaved to the gov­ern­ing sys­tem right now, we just choose not to look at it that way. to prove my point to be a slave is to be under bondage to some­one or some thing. now ask your­selves or we slaves or not.

  131. to all the women i am not that much of a male shovenist, how­ev­er why do most women have a prob­lem with things that God ordained. was it not God that said a wo man will be under man. was it not said in the bible that a man was­n’t made for woman, but a woman for man. any thing that is labeled as sex­u­al immoral­i­ty in the bible comes from the book of lev. you can start at chap­ter 17 and read through chap­ter 22 for a full overview of wrong­do­ings. i nev­er even seen the law address the top­ic of two sin­gle peo­ple hav­ing sex in the this book, which is the book of law. if you read these chap­ters and then go to the new tes­ta­ment and read 1 corint. i think 6:1–10, what paul calls sex­u­al immoral­i­ty is the same thing the law calls immoral­i­ty. sleep­ing with your fathers wife. please study both old and new so we can get the true rev­e­la­tion of Gods word, not a prac­tice pattern.

  132. Rick,

    Two ques­tions:

    1) Has Christ Pres­by­ter­ian Church dis­ci­plined you yet for your hereti­cal views?

    2) What does your poor, love­ly wife think?

    Quite sin­cere­ly,
    Pas­tor Stephen Baker

  133. Inter­est­ing post filled with ven­om and lack­ing God­ly love. And, per usu­al, with­out any scrip­ture sup­port­ing the assump­tion that Rick is a heretic, no rea­son­ing, no proof, and not a shred or hint at exact­ly what makes his views hereti­cal. And the insin­u­at­ing com­ment that his wife does not know what his views are, or that he has hid­den some­thing about him­self from his wife= Lashon hara, and is an attempt to dri­ve a wedge between a hus­band and wife. As the hea­thens say, “you are mak­ing baby Jesus cry.”

    If you were real­ly being sin­cere, you would have used Scrip­ture to explain why his views are hereti­cal, with patience and under­stand­ing, not by being sar­cas­tic and rude.

  134. I answered Stephen’s ques­tions else­where, so I won’t be doing so here again.

    Stephen’s def­i­nite­ly not the first to ask what Ali­cia thinks, and I’m curi­ous as to the moti­va­tion there. When I embraced Calvin­ism, I got that ques­tion a lot too. Am I account­able to my wife for my beliefs? If not, then the ques­tion is entire­ly irrel­e­vant. Allow me, as head of my house­hold, to man­age our mar­riage, under the head­ship of Christ, mmmkay?

    If I am tru­ly in error on an issue, I trust that some­one can show me Scrip­ture to the con­trary. I’ve been wait­ing near­ly two years for Scrip­ture to the con­trary regard­ing polyg­y­ny, and it’s yet to be brought forth. Twice in this thread peo­ple I know to rep­re­sent a main­stream denom­i­na­tion (or at least a church there­of) have come forth and sim­ply said “heresy!”

    I’m sor­ry, but judge for your­selves: Is it bet­ter to sub­mit to man or to trust what the Scrip­tures say?

    If the lat­ter, then let that be where the dis­cus­sion remains, and let’s leave our opin­ions out of it. The Scrip­tures repeat­ed­ly encour­age, allow, man­date, or oth­er­wise endorse polyg­y­ny, and hav­ing mul­ti­ple wives is some­thing which was asso­ci­at­ed with the Father at least once in the prophets and with the Son through His para­ble of the ten virgins.

    I sub­mit that if I am a heretic on this issue, then it is on the basis of an unbib­li­cal god that I am being judged.

  135. I too am dis­gust­ed by a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of a Church ask­ing a ques­tion like “what does your poor wife think?”

    Rick is monog­a­mous in prac­tice. What he THINKS and does not do, does not offend the sen­si­bil­i­ties of his wife. In fact, I would think a woman would be hon­ored to be mar­ried to an hon­est man who said what he believed and worked it through, as opposed to a man who bent to the insis­tence of oth­ers, even in his thought life, to things he did not tru­ly believe.

    Both Rick and I are monog­a­mous by vow to our wives. I took my vow KNOWING that there was no sin in polyg­y­ny, but instead out of love for my wife who only recent­ly has come to under­stand that it is accept­able. It is much hard­er for her to take that next step and actu­al­ly prac­tice what would still be an entire­ly option­al thing, so we remain, monog­a­mous for that and oth­er excel­lent rea­sons, not the least of which is, there is no one else I would want to marry.

    Rick takes a high­er road, believ­ing (if I may speak for him) that even a vow tak­en in igno­rance of the truth, is still a vow that binds. Rick does not sin to be monog­a­mous, and he has vowed TO be monog­a­mous, so he remains, as an HONORABLE MAN, monog­a­mous. I am sure a great part of the rea­son is his deep love for his wife.

    When Israel vowed to the men of Gibeon, that they would not slay them, even though the vow was based on a LIE by those men, they kept that vow. Rick keeps the vow he can keep, even though tak­en in igno­rance, and he is more of a man to do that, than you are.

  136. It is inter­est­ing when asked what the wife thinks. It does give inter­est­ing insight into the mar­riage of the per­son ask­ing the ques­tion, and how the mar­riage might be inprop­er­ly aligned and not struc­tured accord­ing to God’s Word. It is sim­i­lar to the state­ments that it is only about sex for the hus­band. It again gives insight into the thought process that mar­riage is only about sex for the per­son asking.

  137. I have seen that in some cas­es, when the per­son oppos­ing polygamy says “what does your wife think” in a rude man­ner, that their own mar­riage struc­ture is one that allows the woman to be the head of the house­hold, and the wife’s atti­tude and desires are the rul­ing party.

    I have also seen in some cas­es, whent he per­son oppos­ing polygamy says “it is all about sex for the hus­band” in a rude man­ner, that their own views on mar­riage are focused on an improp­er under­stand­ing of sex­u­al rela­tions between hus­band and wife.

  138. are you guys still cov­er­ing if it’s bib­li­cal to have more than one wife or not. if so i would like to add, for these very rea­sons non-believ­ers a pushed away from Chris­tian­i­ty. as body we make God ways to unsta­ble (which are not) by adding our intel­lect to the sit­u­a­tion, as jack it all up. in the old we see sev­er­al cas­es of God­ly men with more than one wife, that God him­self said they were of Him.so when we tell peo­ple that it’s not of God it makes God appear to be unsta­bl, chang­ing in His ways. we use this lame excuse that the new tes­ta­ment say one wife. well guess what in the old tes­ta­ment the per­son that had sev­er­al wives. think about it. so if i get mar­ried in sept. i took to myself a wife. then i get mar­ried in jan­u­ary, i took to myself a wife again. find a wife means see has pre­pared her­self and under­stand the require­ments that comes along with being a wife. how­ev­er, the way of this cul­ture has gov­erned how we under­stand the scrip­tures by mak­ing it fit the era. fyi, pologamy was­n’t always ille­gal in the u.s.a. so here we go again mak­ing God appear to be ever chang­ing. when His word says he is the same yes­ter­day, today and for­ev­er. either thats the truth or it’s a lie. i know it to be true. Don’t just take oth­er reli­gious beliefs, or teach­ings as the good book says, study to show your­selves approved.

  139. I, too, am deeply dis­turbed with many of the com­ments on here, espe­cial­ly from the women. I don’t want peo­ple to think I’m chau­vin­is­tic, but the truth is, there is no BIBLICAL evi­dence that polyg­y­ny was some­how abol­ished. All I can gath­er is that Ter­tul­lian per­son­al­ly did not like the idea (read On Monogamy) and it became church prac­tice since.

    As for the women, this is all I have to say:

    Let a woman learn qui­et­ly with all sub­mis­sive­ness. I do not per­mit a woman to teach or to exer­cise author­i­ty over a man; rather, she is to remain qui­et. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a trans­gres­sor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they con­tin­ue in faith and love and holi­ness, with self-control. 

    Also:

    As in all the church­es of the saints, the women should keep silent in the church­es. For they are not per­mit­ted to speak, but should be in sub­mis­sion, as the Law also says. If there is any­thing they desire to learn, let them ask their hus­bands at home. For it is shame­ful for a woman to speak in church. 

  140. Rick -
    You are a false teacher. If you are a child of God, you will be dis­ci­plined to bring you to repen­tance. If you are not dis­ci­plined, then it is because you are not His child. You have repeat­ed­ly said for peo­ple to show you in the Bible where you are wrong. Then when it occurs, your hard heart refus­es to submit…even to the direct com­mand of Jesus. You are in grave dan­ger. I ask to have my email removed from this site. I want to fur­ther fel­low­ship with you, elec­tron­ic or oth­er­wise, unless you repent. I do not say this in anger, but in much sor­row and fear for your soul. Do not trust in your own knowledge…your heart is deceit­ful above all things and des­per­ate­ly wicked. Remem­ber the warn­ing in Matt. 7:15–23.
    Sincerely,
    Marta

  141. Rick, if I were you, I’d save the headache and just block the peo­ple who want to argue and call down accu­sa­tions on you, your fam­i­ly and character.

    As for a per­son who stirs up divi­sion, after warn­ing him once and then twice, have noth­ing more to do with him, know­ing that such a per­son is warped and sin­ful; he is self-con­demned (Titus 3:10–11).

    And then I would con­tin­ue preach­ing the Word of God.

  142. Dis­claimer: I have no idea whether Mar­ta will ever read this due to her request for her e‑mail address to be removed, result­ing in her no longer being sub­scribed to new comments.

    In any event, she has brand­ed me a false teacher — at least with a lit­tle more of a foun­da­tion than when Stephen ear­li­er called me a heretic — and so I want­ed to address what she said briefly.

    In short, if Jesus’ teach­ings regard­ing divorce some­how pre­clud­ed polyg­y­ny, then the Scrip­tures are not inter­nal­ly har­mo­nious. Levi­rate mar­riage being com­mand­ed in a right­eous Law shows that polyg­y­ny (at least in that one form) is not only not sin­ful but is whol­ly righteous.

    Fur­ther, Jesus’ depict­ed Him­self as the polyg­y­nous bride­groom, tak­ing unto Him­self the five wise vir­gins in mar­riage simul­tanous­ly. (And that would have been 10 were half of them not foolish!)

    These and many oth­er pos­i­tive argu­ments for polyg­y­ny do not van­ish sim­ply because some­one claims a man can­not be one flesh with more than one woman simul­ta­ne­ous­ly. Indeed, the above exam­ples show that a man can in fact do so.

    A hard-heart­ed heretic any­one may think I am, but it is only from the Scrip­tures that I’ll be con­vinced oth­er­wise. (And I should hope that Moses, Jesus, Augus­tine, Luther, and myr­i­ads of oth­ers who taught that polyg­y­ny is okay are all reject­ed as heretics too… You know, for con­sis­ten­cy’s sake.)

  143. “I con­fess that I can­not for­bid a per­son to mar­ry sev­er­al wives, for it does not con­tra­dict the Scrip­ture. If a man wish­es to mar­ry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is sat­is­fied in his con­science that he may do so in accor­dance with the word of God. In such a case the civ­il author­i­ty has noth­ing to do in the mat­ter. (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329–330.) ” — Mar­tin Luther

    I can under­stand how some­one could con­clude that monogamy is the only way today, but to call Mar­tin Luther a false teacher (an unbe­liev­er) is arro­gant and reckless.

  144. A great quote that I agree with 100%, but I can’t find it in con­text any­where… Every­place that has it, includ­ing Wikipedia, includes the exact same cita­tion as you did. What is “De Wette II”? Is there an online text somewhere?

  145. Pas­tor Stephen (if you are indeed a pas­tor and not some­one who is just putting that des­ig­na­tion in front of his name to some­how give it spir­i­tu­al clout)…I speak to you in the words of Jesus: “are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?”

    If you read this whole blog and care­ful­ly con­sid­er what Rick and oth­ers have said and how they have cor­rect­ly “divid­ed the word of truth” in regard to this top­ic of mul­ti­ple wives, how can you just blurt out that he has “hereti­cal views” Heresy is a seri­ous alle­ga­tion to make against some­one; and Chris­tians who claim to be led by the Holy Spir­it (the Spir­it of Truth) should not be slan­der­ing broth­ers in Christ in front of the unre­gen­er­ate world. This does no good to the gospel mes­sage and only serves to dri­ve peo­ple away from Christ. Your pet beliefs are not what are impor­tant here. It is truth that must pre­vail. I know a for­mer mis­sion­ary to Nige­ria and he told me that many Mus­lims refuse to con­sid­er Jesus for sal­va­tion because the mis­sion­ar­ies are telling them they have to divorce their wives in order to do so. Where do you see in Scrip­ture that this was a com­mand of God? He also told me of one man who came to Jesus with two wives but they refused to bap­tize him until he divorced one of them. They final­ly con­vinced him to do so “for the sake of his eter­nal soul” and con­vinced anoth­er sin­gle man in the con­gre­ga­tion to take his wife and chil­dren. In the words of the mis­sion­ary: “It was not the ide­al solu­tion but the best one they could come up with”. Isn’t that sweet? They caused the man, his wife and the man who mar­ried her to com­mit adul­tery in a sit­u­a­tion where adul­tery did not exist. And they called this the best they could do! 

    Sober­ing Words of Jesus:
    LK 11:52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have tak­en away the key to knowl­edge. You your­selves have not entered, and you have hin­dered those who were entering.”

    JAS 3:1 Not many of you should pre­sume to be teach­ers, my broth­ers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strict­ly. 2 We all stum­ble in many ways. If any­one is nev­er at fault in what he says, he is a per­fect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

    By your words Stephen, you are con­demn­ing all the god­ly men in his­to­ry who have had two or more wives by also call­ing them heretics because of their views on the mat­ter. I sur­mise that you also believe David was an adul­ter­er because of his wife Abi­gail. Many oth­er Chris­tians and many pas­tors also believe this. They and you are quick to call unclean some­thing the Lord has nev­er called unclean.

    Regard­ing your state­ment: “what does your poor wife think”….. Let me bring you back to what oth­er wives have thought. The Lord shut up Rachel’s womb so she could no not con­ceive. She gave her hand­maid to Jacob to be his wife so she could bear chil­dren for her. After the hand­maid bore Jacob two chil­dren the Lord opened Rachel’s womb and she con­ceived and bore chil­dren. After the Lord shut up Leah’s womb so she could no longer bear she gave her hand­maid to Jacob to be his wife also. This hand­maid also had two chil­dren, after which the Lord opened up Leah’s womb and she bore more chil­dren. After a cou­ple of years (which is the min­i­mum time it takes to have two children…and Leah had a long time to think about the whole sit­u­a­tion) Leah declared: “the Lord has reward­ed me more giv­ing my hand­maid to my hus­band to be his wife”. That means she had no prob­lem with Jacob hav­ing sex with woman num­ber four. She did not feel cheat­ed or threat­ened in the least but was con­tent­ed and hap­py in the Lord and what He had done for her.

    Now…Stephen (or Pas­tor Stephen if that is what you pre­fer to be called) ….since you are a man who should know the Scrip­tures and how to apply it to our lives and the Scrip­tures them­selves tell us that “all these things were writ­ten for our instruc­tion”, What do you learn from this sto­ry and what do you teach oth­ers about it? Let me guess! You teach that this was a sad case of mul­ti­ple adul­tery and gross sex­u­al sin, right? Well appar­ent­ly God did not think so. It was after all of this that God appeared to Jacob and promised again to make him into a mighty nation. He told him to be “fruit­ful and mul­ti­ply”. With whom, pray tell did God mean for him to be fruit­ful and mul­ti­ply with, if it were not with his four wives? 

    As far as what “many wives think” in our soci­ety today….they have been vic­tims of bad teach­ing and brain­wash­ing down through the ages like the men also. It is not their fault that they have unbib­li­cal views since they were taught these things by men who were sup­posed to know the truth. 

    Marta…..if you are still read­ing this blog. You also sit in con­dem­na­tion of all the god­ly men and women in his­to­ry who have sim­ply desired to have wives and hus­bands they could love and be loved in return. 

    Your atti­tude, in which you are cer­tain­ly not alone is also respon­si­ble for con­demn­ing many sin­gle women down through the ages to remain sin­gle when they have tru­ly desired hus­bands to love them when no “sin­gle” appro­pri­ate man was avail­able. They remain sin­gle, not by their own will nor by the will of God but by the Will of the Church and the god­less gov­ern­ments that have been established.
    It is a known fact that many more women than men are called to the Lord through Jesus Christ and there is a sex­u­al imbal­ance in the Church. There is a sex­u­al imbal­ance in the whole world! It is report­ed that there are 1 mil­lion more women in New York than men and 1 third of the men are homo­sex­u­al. Delete from the rest what would be pathet­ic mar­riage mate­r­i­al and what are you left with? What is a woman who desires a hus­band sup­posed to do? Many despair­ing Chris­t­ian women wind up mar­ry­ing unbe­liev­ers to their hurt and against the very com­mands of God because there are not enough Chris­t­ian men to go around. Oth­ers wind up giv­ing in to their sex­u­al urges and engag­ing in sex­u­al immoral­i­ty. The Word says: “ it is bet­ter for a per­son to mar­ry than to burn” but what does one do when they can not find a spouse? Some sin­gle Chris­t­ian women wind up hav­ing “illic­it” rela­tion­ships with mar­ried men in the church, often even with their best friend’s hus­bands, destroy­ing their own lives and the lives of their friends. There was a time when a mar­ried woman had no prob­lem bring­ing her best friend to her hus­band and allow­ing him to also take her as his wife. How could they do this? They were secure in the love that their hus­bands had for them. I repeat….Leah said: “the Lord has reward­ed me for giv­ing my hand­maid to my hus­band to be his wife”. Not: “my jerk of a sex hun­gry hus­band has had sex with my ser­vant girl and I want a divorce!”
    Now the hus­band is giv­en the choice…it is either her or me, but not both! What does the hus­band do when pre­sent­ed with this choice? He will either give up the extra woman he tru­ly loves and wants for his oth­er wife and leave her to wal­low in her despair of sin­gle­ness or he will give up his present wife in favor of the oth­er one or some­times car­ry on a rela­tion­ship with the oth­er woman in secret
    This is the way the Law has fash­ioned it. It is ille­gal in Cana­da for a man to mar­ry two women at once. It is pun­ish­able by 5 years in prison, although no one has been pros­e­cut­ed in over 60 years. He can mar­ry 1,000 women though if he agrees to divorce each one of them! This is also the way the Church likes it. If they didn’t like it they would not be hold­ing wed­ding show­ers and par­ties for the divorced enter­ing into remar­riage and call­ing adul­tery “Holy Matrimony”.
    God­ly peo­ple as well as unbe­liev­ers from Bib­li­cal days would call us idiots.

    There have been some inter­est­ing stud­ies out there.
    Most of them show that most men are polyg­a­mous in nature wheras women are gen­er­al­ly monog­a­mous. No great sur­prise there!
    Nine­ty per­cent of the sin­gle women in an Okla­homa State Uni­ver­si­ty study were more inter­est­ed in dat­ing a man who was already in a rela­tion­ship than a sin­gle man. This new study, pub­lished in the cur­rent issue of the Jour­nal of Exper­i­men­tal Social Psy­chol­o­gy shows that most sin­gle women actu­al­ly pre­fer men who are already in a com­mit­ted rela­tion­ship. Dr. Melis­sa Burkley, an assis­tant pro­fes­sor of social psy­chol­o­gy at Okla­homa State Uni­ver­si­ty and one of the researchers behind the study sug­gests that the rea­son behind this is that sin­gle women are more inter­est­ed in pur­su­ing unavail­able men (now, there’s some shock­ing news) pos­si­bly because they are more inter­est­ed in a guy who’s already shown he can com­mit by being in anoth­er rela­tion­ship, indi­cat­ing he’d be a reli­able mat­ing partner.
    Go figure!

  146. Just a thought:
    Rev. 21:12: “Also she (the New Jerusalem in Heaven–D.E.) had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names writ­ten on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the chil­dren of Israel.” (NKJV)
    Comment:
    Israel is anoth­er name for Jacob.
    Jacob had four wives.
    These four wives bore him twelve sons.
    These sons are called the “tribes of Israel” through­out the Bible.
    John “saw” the New, Eter­nal, Jerusalem, which seems to be God’s eter­nal dwelling place. He saw that the twelve gates in the wall of God’s eter­nal dwelling place are named for Jacob’s/Israel’s twelve sons.
    I think it’s inter­est­ing and instruc­tive that God would name the gates of His eter­nal dwelling place after the sons of a man most of the world con­sid­ers a vile sin­ner because he had more than one wife at the same time.
    Do you think God knows some­thing we don’t? (tongue plant­ed firm­ly in cheek).
    In His ser­vice and yours,
    David in Bulgaria

  147. dear Bill M. we are not twist­ing the Word. First off, where in the bible can you show us that what was called a sin in the O.T is not A sin in the N.T. You guys give peo­ple the indi­ca­tion that God is not the same yes­ter­day today and for­ev­er. If you guys read Isa­iah 3&4 4:1 explains our con­vo. her today. this is a pro­hesy that take place right before the sec­ond com­ing of Jesus, and the rest of 4 talks about the new hea­van. yeah sev­en women to one man in that day.they have their own mon­ey and clothes. you do the math bud­dy. please i am wait­ing any non-believ­ers response, because we are enti­tled to the truth, because it will set us free. “(mind and spir­it). for those that don’t know Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah. ric i would love to hear from you also. good work, as fair as study­ing to show your­self approved.

  148. I’m not sure what you’re talk­ing about, Dami­an, nor am I entire­ly cer­tain what posi­tion you take — are you a friend of polyg­y­ny or not? If you are, then I won­der why you are chal­leng­ing Bill M., who has also strong­ly demon­strat­ed his posi­tion as a friend of polyg­y­ny as well. Regard­ing the pas­sage in Isa­iah that you refer to, it’s a great pro-polyg­y­ny pas­sage.

  149. As a bit of clo­sure regard­ing what Stephen said ear­li­er, I con­tact­ed the oth­ers pas­tors of his church regard­ing the mat­ter (yes, Stephen is a pas­tor, and his church is linked to from his name on his com­ment; I have met Stephen in per­son), and the head of staff wrote back defend­ing Stephen, prais­ing what he said here as a great “con­tri­bu­tion” to the con­ver­sa­tion. I’m still unclear what it is Stephen con­tributed oth­er than divi­sive­ness, but I’ve also yet to receive any clar­i­fi­ca­tion on that from his church.

    If a church is will­ing to allow some­one to speak on its behalf (Stephen linked to the church and used his pas­toral posi­tion in sig­na­ture) who makes rash judg­ments and refus­es to offer any­thing in the way of admon­ish­ment or edi­fi­ca­tion… Well, you can draw your own conclusion.

  150. my apolo­gies to bill m. i was direct­ing my com­ments to martha, com­mit­ting to Bil­l’s state­ments. i agree with the word of God, that nev­er spoke against mul­ti­ple wifes. if lust was con­sid­ered to be a sin by itself. explain the event that took place with abram in phaoroah, obvi­ous­ly he lust­ed for her, but he did­n’t sleep with her. same thing with the oth­er abra­ham deceit sto­ry. God told the king if they touch her they would sure­ly die. and same with issaac.

  151. Rick,
    First of all thanks for the good work. 

    Its amaz­ing how many peo­ple have a foot in the WORD of YAHWEH and anoth­er foot in the socio/religious phi­los­o­phy of EGYPT, which lat­er bacame the phi­los­o­phy of GREECE and ulti­mate­ly ROMAN phi­los­o­phy (or should I write the­ol­o­gy). By the way cur­rent­ly, accord­ing to the dream of Neb­uchad­nez­zar we are liv­ing in the age of Iron and Clay (Roman and ????) What most peo­ple do not realise is that the fab­ric of the cur­rent ‘organ­ised’ church is dat­ed way back to Moses and his duel with Satan act­ing through Pharaoh. Satan did­n’t give up then and he still has­n’t set­tled his score even todate (most peo­ple do not realise this — its sad). So you now have ‘chris­tians’ who real­ly do not believe in what Christ/Mashiach believed in, or what HE prescribed.
    Its amaz­ing when I read through many com­ments above that take no respect to the wirt­ten WORD or YAHWEH (yet they claim the name Chris­t­ian — what a shame)neither to the lan­guages in which both the Old­er and the New tes­ta­ments were writ­ten; because if they did, then they would realise that:
    i) Mar­riage is hon­ourable in all — whether monogamy or Polygyny
    ii) None of the Apos­tles nor Jesus spoke against polyg­y­ny but rather against the evil of divorce ( I would be hap­py to take on any­one with fact that Jesus was against it — for starters — HE is the Alpha and Omega).

    But for you my broth­er, no man is greater than his mas­ter; if “the teach­ers of the law” per­se­cut­ed your mas­ter even unto death, who are you not to face such a vent­ed out anger from read­ers not deli­gent enough to do their home­work ? (by the way they are not on their own) It does not suprise me in the least when I read their com­ments because even Jesus was not accept­ed by the very high­ly the­o­log­i­cal phar­isees and their intri­cate Sanhedrin.The very doc­tors of the law want­ed HIM dead ! because what HE taught was just as rad­i­cal ! He nev­er wast­ed a minute apol­o­gis­ing to them. John the Bap­tist was killed just for stand­ing up for the truth (by the way, that Herold had more than 1 wife — some say atleast 8; but it was not until he mar­ried his broth­er Phillip’s wife — Hero­dias, that John took issue with him — isn’t that surprising !)

    Now to those that have lift­ed up the issue of the law of the land; was­n’t it Apos­tle Peter that chal­lenged the San­hedrin on such issues and said point blank that if he had to choose between God and the law of the land he would rather he broke the law ? (read your book of acts — I hope they still keep it in their bibles).

    The ancient ( and notice I said ancient) spir­it, the har­lot of Baby­lon has not gone to rest. The King­dom of God suf­fers Vio­lence and the vio­lent take it by force. Do not think the free­dom of the WORD of God has been deliv­ered peace­bly down through out the ages; some men and women have laid down their lives just to make sure the WORD, the TRUTH was know; at times it took gen­er­a­tions to accept this WORD, many times after they were long gone.

    I pray for you that the Bless­ing of YAHWEH that makes rich and adds no sor­row with it shall sur­round you ever; for HE watch­es over HIS WORD to per­form it.

    Shalom.

  152. I have been trav­el­ing quite a bit and may not be back to post for a while, but I just had to come in and thank David for ref­er­enc­ing such a won­der­full study on polygamy. Mr. Gra­hams study cer­tain­ly does sound ter­ri­ble for polygamy when read from the abstract, but his analy­sis is spec­tac­u­lar and would like up exact­ly with what we would say prob­lem poly rela­tion­ships are.

    “Jeal­ousy and com­pe­ti­tion among co-wives, and an uneven dis­tri­b­u­tion of house­hold resources have been report­ed as prob­lems among women in polyg­a­mous mar­riages (A1-Kre­nawi, 1998b; Al-Kre­nawi & Gra­ham, 1999d; Borg­er­hoff-Mul­der, 1992; Kil­bride & Kil­bride, 1990; Ware, 1979). For many, polygamy is asso­ci­at­ed with greater capac­i­ty for love and propen­si­ty of choice. Hence, sec­ond and sub­se­quent wives often expe­ri­ence an ele­vat­ed posi­tion with­in the mar­riage with respect to eco­nom­ic resources, social sup­port, and atten­tion (Al-Kre­nawi, 1998b; Al-Kre­nawi, Gra­ham & Al-Kre­nawi, 1997). Dif­fer­ences have been not­ed con­cern­ing senior and junior wives in a polyg­a­mous mar­riage. For exam­ple, junior wives, com­pared to senior wives, often per­ceive them­selves as hav­ing a bet­ter rela­tion­ship with their hus­bands (Al-Kre­nawi, 1999). Senior wives may attribute their mar­i­tal dis­sat­is­fac­tion to their hus­band’s remar­riages (Chale­by, 1985). ”

    And prob­lems for chil­dren, cer­tain­ly, becasue
    ” The few­er eco­nom­ic resources asso­ci­at­ed with senior wives may neg­a­tive­ly impact the scholas­tic per­for­mance of their children. ”

    He does not damn polygamy at large but sug­gests that “The first con­sid­er­a­tion for improv­ing prac­tice is for the social work­er to become knowl­edge­able about the cul­tur­al and per­son­al sig­nif­i­cance of polygamy to fam­i­ly members.” 

    Also note that he does his stud­ies in the mid­dle east, Jor­dan, Egypt, and the UAE. These are not places where women have the voice to get out of unde­sir­able rela­tion­ships and there is not much motive for men to con­sid­er their first wife in any case. 

    Of course we are specif­i­cal­ly for­bid­den to dimin­ish both mate­r­i­al resources and sex­u­al inta­ma­cy on account of takn­ing a sec­ond wife, we could have said from the get go that short­ing senior wives and their chil­dren would cause seri­ous prob­lems. The prob­lems relat­ed to polygamy out­lined in this study are pecu­liar to an envi­ron­ment with­out the rules and safe­gau­rds we acknowl­edge when tak­ing a sec­ond wife. The only one that is not nes­sis­ar­i­ly elim­i­tat­ed is jeal­ousy, and that is mit­i­gat­ed by the fact that women do have a say in rela­tion­ships here. The prob­lem lies in the extreme legal con­trol over women in said coun­tries and polygamy sim­ply mul­ti­plies bad sit­u­a­tion by adding quantity.

    And that is why it is good to ana­lyze a report for ones self and not take for grant­ed the con­clu­sions of an abstract.

  153. Hi
    I am a new believ­er in God. I had a huge spir­i­tu­al awak­en­ing in my bed­room in april 2009 of this year and I believe that I have become born again in the spir­it. I would love to share with you exact­ly what hap­pened but maybe this is not the right thread to do so. But, to put it blunt­ly, I was vis­it­ed by Christ in Spir­it when I was sui­ci­dal in April 09, He deliv­ered me from a demon­ic force that was with­in me and He told me to fol­low Him and watch.
    After major repen­tance and study of the scrip­tures I am still bat­tling one major issue with­in my life. This is that I love my Wife, but, I also adore the beau­ty of oth­er women and I have prayed and read and prayed and read and I’m still battling.
    I came across this thread which has been very inter­est­ing for me. I can only com­ment regard­ing the top­ic of ‘polygamy’, that I agree that it is not a sin but I do not find an answer in the scrip­tures (as of yet) for my sit­u­a­tion. I am con­fused and it is frus­trat­ing for me that I can­not find a black and white answer as to what I should do with this feel­ing of mine. Am I to fol­low my ado­ra­tion for beau­ti­ful women and see what hap­pens? Should I talk to my Wife? If I was in my unsaved state I would just for­ni­cate and com­mit adul­tery so I defin­te­ly choose not to do those things, but, where do I go from here? Any ideas, any advice? Polygamy sounds inter­est­ing for me but what do I do about my mar­riage? How would my Wife who has also recent­ly found faith in God react? More impor­tant­ly, how would God deal with this sit­u­a­tion I am in if He was me?
    Help!
    Steve ( a new believ­er in Christ and our Cre­ator, God)

  154. Steve, I’m going to reply to you via e‑mail, if that’s okay. Giv­en the poten­tial — for lack of a bet­ter word — del­i­cate­ness of the sit­u­a­tion, I encour­age you to keep it out of the pub­lic are­na, as the tumul­tuous nature of the con­ver­sa­tion you’ve stepped into is real­ly not the best place for a young believ­er, espe­cial­ly giv­en the rather less-than-desir­able response of those who are opposed to the prac­tice of polygyny.

    1. So thought­ful Rick. I get the dis­tinct impres­sion that you are one of the peo­ple God Almighty has called on me to sup­port, yet you have nev­er asked for a sin­gle pen­ny? You are tru­ly cho­sen and if by any means we shall meet,

  155. Hi Rick,
    Yes, I do realise that this may have been the wrong place to post in the way I have, sor­ry for that but please feel free to email me. But say­ing that, it would still be inter­est­ing to see the views of the com­men­tors in this thread (be them for or against polyg­y­ny). I will not take offence as I am open to peo­ple’s opin­ions regard­ing the top­ic and my sit­u­a­tion, but yes, it may get messy!
    Thanks

  156. Steve,

    More impor­tant than addi­tion­al wives would be the following: 

    Being a mem­ber and a reg­u­lar atten­der of a church. I rec­om­mend denom­i­na­tions that are “Reformed” and nation­al in their orga­ni­za­tion. This is for doc­trine. You will not find accep­tance of your accep­tance of polyg­y­ny. In any case, find one that is Bible Believing.

    Your accep­tance of Polyg­y­ny will open the Old Tes­ta­ment to you, as you will not degrade the fal­li­ble “Heroes” of the faith as most oth­ers do. When you encounter their fam­i­ly sit­u­a­tions, you will not say “Sin­ful!” because they are polyg­y­nists. This will help you to a greater under­stand­ing of the word. Embrace the word, read it often, get to know it. It is living.

    Be mind­ful of this, if you have chil­dren, it will not mat­ter that in God’s more per­fect order of the fam­i­ly, that you should have been in charge and that your wife ought not leave you. If you jam this under­stand­ing down her throat, she prob­a­bly will leave you and when she does, she will take your chil­dren with you. This is very destructive.

    If you love your wife, remem­ber why you took her as a wife. Much of what you want­ed in a wife the first time, is not as burn­ing an issue in an addi­tion­al wife. You have a wife. Sup­port her, love her, and if anoth­er comes, praise God for it, but seek in a sec­ond or addi­tion­al wife, a GODLY woman. She should build up your house, not destroy it.

  157. Hi Hugh,
    Thank you for the reply and advice. After my expe­ri­ence in April this year I ran to the near­est church which was Pen­ta­costal. After a few months I walked out. I have final­ly, after 5 months, found a bap­tist church with which I feel com­fort­able. The Pas­tor is great and sticks to the Word. The prob­lem is is that I am 33yrs old and they are all over 70yrs old! But it is a minor prob­lem. I will speak to my Pas­tor about my feel­ings but I should imag­ine that he will con­dem them, that is why I’m search­ing else­where first for some advice.
    I have read a lot of the Bible and it was exact­ly the Old Tes­ta­men­t’s heroes that got me scratch­ing my head. These amaz­ing men of God and how God had cho­sen them, yet they had many partnerships/relations/wives dur­ing their time with God.
    I do love my Wife, mas­sive­ly, that’s exact­ly the rea­son that I am bat­tling plus my faith in Christ. I just want clar­i­fi­ca­tion regard­ing my feel­ings I sup­pose and how I should go for­ward with them instead of let­ting it take some kind of neg­a­tive con­trol or in turn, end up as sin.
    We don’t have chil­dren but would like some. I do not know how my Wife would respond if I told her that I would con­sid­er hav­ing anoth­er Wife in the future, I should imag­ine she would want to leave me. There­fore, I feel that I may have to bat­tle this out to the very end unless there is anoth­er way forward..

  158. Steve,

    We will pray for you. Go slow­ly. I find that in con­sid­er­ing at times, an addi­tion­al wife, I prob­a­bly put the brakes on as much if not more so than my wife does. I have love in her, I can eas­i­ly see love with and for anoth­er, but she must bring some­thing to the family.

    We will glad­ly serve as sup­port out­side the church. Feel free to con­tact me, and oth­ers in this group of peo­ple. We are all Bible Believ­ing. You will find fer­vor for our LORD among us. We can encour­age you.

    [email protected]

  159. Thanks Hugh,
    Patience is some­thing I am learn­ing at the moment. I will con­tin­ue ask­ing the Lord for guid­ance with my feel­ings towards women oth­er than my wife. Basi­cal­ly, I am not wor­ried, just a bit con­fused and uncer­tain, but I’m sure the Lord will show me the best way for­ward. I reg­u­lary thank Him for sav­ing me, and for my wife, and all the things He has done and will do in mine and many oth­er’s lives. I’ll drop you an email also for some more advice as it is much appreciated.

  160. Here’s an exer­cise Steve.

    Relax. Con­cen­trate on eli­gi­ble women, name­ly, women of the faith, who have not destroyed their own eli­gi­bil­i­ty for mar­riage through things like ungod­ly divorces. Women who are not oth­er men’s wives. Then con­tem­plate that you have them, for­ev­er, and what prac­ti­cal effects that will have, com­plete­ly apart from how it might affect your exist­ing wife and your rela­tion­ship with her. You’ll slow down to school dis­trict speed in a hurry. :)

  161. Hehe!
    I think you may have just put me off!
    I can imag­ine it right now.…more headaches, more pet­ty argu­ments, more moan­ing over what to eat tonight!
    Yip, one wife is ample!!!!! ;-P
    Nah seri­ous­ly, I get where you’re com­ing from. But, out of all of my amaz­ing trans­for­ma­tion and regen­er­a­tion so far though, this is the one fac­tor in my life that still cap­ti­vates me. I have a lot of love to give, and I have a lot of pas­sion towards the beau­ty of the female, that our Lord so amaz­ing­ly cre­at­ed. I just do not know how to express it all, I sup­pose. I shall trust in the Lord to show me the cor­rect way for­ward and I shall give my wife a big huge hug and kiss when she comes home tonight!

  162. Dear Steve,

    I would like to add my com­ments to this con­ver­sa­tion also.
    If you read back to what I already wrote you will see that I do not believe hav­ing two wives is a sin.

    Hav­ing said that…..our soci­ety as a whole does not read­i­ly accept a man tak­ing two wives and most wives in gen­er­al kind of freak at the idea. Many Chris­tians also believe it is adul­tery or worse. In Cana­da it is a crim­i­nal offense pun­ish­able by 5 years in prison. I am not say­ing the law is in keep­ing with Scrip­ture but it IS the law.

    This is not some­thing you can push on your wife, nor should you live your life as to be mis­er­able if you can nev­er have more than one wife 

    Let me share a bit of rel­e­vant scrip­ture with you.
    The Apos­tle Paul said: 

    RO 14:13 There­fore let us stop pass­ing judg­ment on one anoth­er. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stum­bling block or obsta­cle in your broth­er’s way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am ful­ly con­vinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if any­one regards some­thing as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your broth­er is dis­tressed because of what you eat, you are no longer act­ing in love. Do not by your eat­ing destroy your broth­er for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you con­sid­er good to be spo­ken of as evil. 17 For the king­dom of God is not a mat­ter of eat­ing and drink­ing, but of right­eous­ness, peace and joy in the Holy Spir­it, 18 because any­one who serves Christ in this way is pleas­ing to God and approved by men.

    RO 14:19 Let us there­fore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutu­al edi­fi­ca­tion. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat any­thing that caus­es some­one else to stum­ble. 21 It is bet­ter not to eat meat or drink wine or to do any­thing else that will cause your broth­er to fall.

    RO 14:22 So what­ev­er you believe about these things keep between your­self and God. Blessed is the man who does not con­demn him­self by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is con­demned if he eats, because his eat­ing is not from faith; and every­thing that does not come from faith is sin.

    RO 15:1 We who are strong ought to bear with the fail­ings of the weak and not to please our­selves. 2 Each of us should please his neigh­bor for his good, to build him up. 3 For even Christ did not please him­self but, as it is writ­ten: “The insults of those who insult you have fall­en on me.” 4 For every­thing that was writ­ten in the past was writ­ten to teach us, so that through endurance and the encour­age­ment of the Scrip­tures we might have hope.

    Yes there are a lot of beau­ti­ful women out there and you prob­a­bly would not have been attract­ed to your wife if you did not have the abil­i­ty to notice. This sim­ply proves that you are a nor­mal man. But what if you take anoth­er wife and you notice all the beau­ti­ful women that you do not have yet? You sure­ly will! Are you not going to be hap­py until you have them all? Is 300 going to be enough? 

    There is the dan­ger that you will hurt your wife and the law of love through Christ com­pels you not to hurt her or cause her grief. This is not some­thing you can do unless your wife wants it and you should not try and coerce her into it. If the Lord wills it for you, He will bring it to pass. 

    Again Paul says:

    1CO 8:9 Be care­ful, how­ev­er, that the exer­cise of your free­dom does not become a stum­bling block to the weak. 10 For if any­one with a weak con­science sees you who have this knowl­edge eat­ing in an idol­’s tem­ple, won’t he be embold­ened to eat what has been sac­ri­ficed to idols? 11 So this weak broth­er, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowl­edge. 12 When you sin against your broth­ers in this way and wound their weak con­science, you sin against Christ. 13 There­fore, if what I eat caus­es my broth­er to fall into sin, I will nev­er eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

    You see the prin­ci­ple here? You are not only respon­si­ble by your actions for your wife’s emo­tion­al and spir­i­tu­al wel­fare but for your fel­low believ­ers as well.
    You have been giv­en one wife and there­fore have received bless­ing from the Lord. Many do not have even one. 

    PR 5:18 May your foun­tain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

    PR 5:19 A lov­ing doe, a grace­ful deer–
    may her breasts sat­is­fy you always,
    may you ever be cap­ti­vat­ed by her love.

  163. Hi Bill
    Thanks for the com­ment and scrip­tures. Since com­ing across this top­ic this morn­ing, I have learnt quite a few things already and posters such as your­self have real­ly helped me by point­ing out inter­est­ing scrip­tures for me to study and dif­fer­ent aspects of the whole sit­u­a­tion I am in. There­fore, I am pleas­ant­ly sur­prised and thank­ful that I was led to this site this morn­ing and will con­tin­ue to read the infor­ma­tion on here. I feel that Rick has an inter­est­ing gift that he is using here and the added com­ments from var­i­ous peo­ple have also become a great read for me.
    300 wives, hmmm, I see where you’re com­ing from there, where would it stop?
    Even though I respect the views and ideas here, it does not stop the fact that I have these feel­ings for females oth­er than my wife. I def­i­nite­ly would not force any­thing on here and if that means that I have to stay feel­ing this way, mar­ried to her only until I die, then so be it. I’m just curi­ous as to what oth­ers feel on the mat­ter and I will just wait for the Lord to show me the best way for­ward with this feel­ing of mine..

  164. Steve,
    If you made a monogamy-only vow to your wife, you are still bound to that. Laban enforced a sim­i­lar vow on Jacob, forc­ing him not to take oth­er wives than his daugh­ters (Gen­e­sis 31:50).

    I’m pro-poly, but I think you can be hon­est about it, with­out sac­ri­fic­ing your mar­riage, due to your vow. Vows are sacred and Scrip­tures teach­es a man is bound to his vow (Num­bers 30).

    Be blessed.

    -Derek

  165. Steve…
    Here is anoth­er good verse to con­sid­er in regard to your mar­riage vows 

    ECC 5:4
    When you make a vow to God, do not delay in ful­fill­ing it. He has no plea­sure in fools; ful­fill your vow. It is bet­ter not to vow than to make a vow and not ful­fill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the tem­ple mes­sen­ger, “My vow was a mis­take.” Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands? Much dream­ing and many words are mean­ing­less. There­fore stand in awe of God.

    If your mar­riage was like most…. This is what was said in the sight of God and the wit­ness­es in the pews

    MINISTER TO GROOM:

    Do you GROOM’S NAME take BRIDE’S NAME to be your wife – to live togeth­er after God’s ordi­nance – in the holy estate of mat­ri­mo­ny? Will you love her, com­fort her, hon­or and keep her, in sick­ness and in health, for rich­er, for poor­er, for bet­ter, for worse, in sad­ness and in joy, to cher­ish and con­tin­u­al­ly bestow upon her your heart’s deep­est devotion,
    for­sak­ing all oth­ers, keep your­self only unto her as long as you both shall live?

    GROOM: I will.

    In view of the above verse, I would expect that the Lord is look­ing to see if you stand by your word.

  166. It’s a good thing bib­li­cal mar­riages don’t require min­is­ters to be present… let alone vows. :) (That’s not to say my mar­riage did­n’t fol­low all the tra­di­tions, though.)

  167. I spoke to my wife last night, briefly, about what I had been read­ing about (not feel­ing) and men­tioned the big debate on here. She was actu­al­ly and sur­pris­ing­ly quite open to the top­ic but end­ed the con­ver­sa­tion with a kind of ‘what­ev­er’..
    I told her I would like for us to talk more about it as it was ‘inter­est­ing’, she said OK!

    I spent a while in bed imag­in­ing how it could ever work and there were quite a few neg­a­tives in there. But, there were some real­ly nice pos­i­tives too, not regard­ing sex, more like a large, God lov­ing and fear­ing fam­i­ly with love­ly lit­tle chil­dren all going about our busi­ness where the Lord was at the cen­tre. It was nice, very nice and quite appeal­ing to be honest. 

    ‘It’s a good thing bib­li­cal mar­riages don’t require min­is­ters to be present… let alone vows. (That’s not to say my mar­riage didn’t fol­low all the tra­di­tions, though.)

    ‘Hey Rick, my mar­riage sounds a bit bib­li­cal! We rushed it though! We did­n’t take vows or have min­is­ters, it was at a reg­istry office. Say­ing all of this, I will def­i­nite­ly not be rush­ing out to find a sec­ond wife should my wife be will­ing for me to have one! I real­ly don’t think I would actu­al­ly find a suit­able sec­ond wife who loves the Lord, in my local­i­ty any­way. Peo­ple here in Wales could do with a revival in fact, like that of 1904! Should one come along(2nd wife)that I feel blessed with then we shall see. I may as well keep you all post­ed on the out­come of my wife and I and our chat regard­ing ‘Men of the Bible with Mul­ti­ple Wives’.
    Thanks for your com­ments and advice, much appreciated..
    God bless you and yours.. :-)

  168. Hmmm,

    Inter­est­ing and deep post­ings about “what you eat” not stum­bling your weak­er broth­er and the vows issue. I do agree that we ought to be respon­si­ble with how we han­dle this truth how­ev­er there is also a place for truth to be taught with­out apol­o­gy nor fear — this way it ceas­es to be a mat­ter of hid­ing iden­ti­ties but rather who will accept the truth and who won’t. So I think its kind of both ways: first if you keep your views a secret then you will stum­ble those that ‘stum­ble upon your belief in the poly truth’. That’s where most of us lie. The oth­ers though that have cho­sen the way of open­ness will take a pub­lic stand and as such there is no need to apol­o­gise for what they believe in. so to me if its TRUTH we ought to pray for strength to walk the walk when the time for it comes. some­times its just not the time and in such cas­es you need to be care­ful how you walk.

    About VOWS, I have looked at this sub­ject for a while now though pos­si­bly not in much detail. Num­bers 30 deals a bit with the issue of vows and it seems there are some revock­able Vows ? ! That in itself rais­es some impor­tant questions.
    Also sec­ond­ly should we be bound by un-bib­li­cal Vows ? e.g in the part of the world where I come from some peo­ple make demon­ic vows with the dev­il and evil forces — then they come to the LORD. Do we sub­mit that they should not break those un-bib­li­cal vows sim­ply because they gave a word of hon­our in igno­rance ? On this one still, the com­mon wed­ding vows recit­ed by many as quot­ed ear­li­er on say “… to live togeth­er after God’s ordinance…forsaking all oth­ers…” I find the two state­ments exist­ing in one con­tra­dic­to­ry — bacause as many of us have dis­cov­ered late in life YAHWEH the God of Abra­ham, Isaac and Jacob was nev­er against Polyg­y­ny so HIS ordi­nance already pre­scribes it as rel­e­vant and Holy; but then the same vow in the same breath appends ” for­sak­ing all oth­ers ? ! can that be con­sid­ered a God­ly stand, a God­ly vow ?

    Now the issue of vows can be quite a tricky mine field and I would appre­ci­ate some good cousel on these mat­ters because I am just being hon­est with the type of ques­tions that have arisen in my mind.

    But to set­tle it for me, with or with­out Vows, mar­riage is Holy and sacred and is not to be tak­en light­ly for Jesus said “let your YES be a YES and your NO be a NO”. So if you ask a woman to mar­ry you and she says YES, the rest is just good tra­di­tions but our words seal us just as it is writ­ten “death and life are in the pow­er of the toungue”. So, I guess I am say­ing for now I think the Vows may have a bind­ing effect and as such thats the per­son­al posi­tion I have tak­en until pos­si­bly my queries above on un-God­ly/un-holy/un-bib­li­cal vows are con­firmed. I think it is safe to loose than gain the whole world and then loose your soul.

    PAUL

  169. Steve,

    You have received a lot of good coun­sel from the oth­ers about how to han­dle your feel­ings of attrac­tion to Gods won­drous, amaz­ing cre­ation called Woman ! The truth is that:

    i) God intend­ed it this way that women would appear attrac­tive to men. So there is noth­ing wrong with see­ing woman after woman as being attrac­tive. You should be wor­ried if you didn’t.
    ii) When all is said and done, even with 300+ women you will still see even more attrac­tive women. so there will always be an attrac­tive woman you can­not or do not have. So will you mar­ry the whole world ? thats nev­er been on God’s intend­ed list/menu for any man, how­ev­er Holy he may be and since we have been called to holi­ness and will not com­mit for­ni­ca­tion, this means that as a man thin­keth in his heart so is he i.e if your thoughts go beyond “wow, she’s beau­ti­ful” to the more graph­ic stuff in your mind then you need to watch out for you have crossed the line into for­ni­ca­tion territory.
    iii) You are not alone — Infact Solomon, the wis­est man ever con­fessed he could not under­stand the way of a man with a maid !
    Pr 30:18 ¶ There be three things which are too won­der­ful for me, yea, four which I know not:
    Pr 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a ser­pent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.
    If Solomon failed to decode this, I do not think any of us will; we just need to accept it and respect it, and learn how to deal with it cor­rect­ly. It will take some work.

    I per­son­al­ly had the same chal­lenge when I first got into the Poly dis­cov­ery. I how­ev­er had to beat myself back into shape and under­stand that I can­not mar­ry all women and yet atrac­tive women will always exist out­side my domain.But as a man of God I con­trol myself and keep my attrac­tion in check. I also learn to respect those attrac­tive women both in what is seen and what is not seen i.e the mind.Let me use a gross exam­ple to dri­ve my point home:- The dif­fer­ence between date rape and con­sen­tial sex is exact­ly that: con­sent of both par­ties to do it — You may feel sex­u­al­ly attract­ed to a woman but you do not have to take it by force oth­er­wise it becomes evil. In the same vein, you can be attract­ed to a woman but you need to keep this attrac­tion in check unless she has con­sent­ed to your attrac­tion to her — even then holi­ness demands that the WORD of God reigns.
    iv) Last­ly, I always tell the Holy Spir­it when­ev­er I see one of them s.exy, attrac­tive, won­der­ful women. I tell HIM so, then I ask for strength to walk accord­ing to God’s Holy Word. And it always works for me. On this Psalms 62:8 is my favourite. I do not hide any­thing for HIM for he already knows — so I can as well just tell HIM the way it is.…I pour out my heart to HIM.

    PAUL

  170. In my per­son­al sub­jec­tive expe­ri­ence (I know, redun­dant), I have found that when you allow your­self to real­ize that you may have every girl on earth, pro­vid­ed they are not already encum­bered or for­bid­den in some way (your wife’s mother/daughter, your sis­ter, your wife’s sis­ter, your moth­er, your father’s wife) you start to look in a dif­fer­ent way.

    Some fas­ci­nat­ing things hap­pen. Women become even more beau­ti­ful, not less. You appre­ci­ate them all. If their nose is crooked, it’s charm­ing, if they’re a lit­tle plump, it’s ok, if they’re Asian, or African or Poly­ne­sian, dandy.

    Big chests, lit­tle chests, big or lit­tle what­ev­er, it’s all good. You also hes­i­tate for dif­fer­ent rea­sons. Instead of say­ing to your­self, “what if there were anoth­er that I loved more” and not tak­ing a sin­gle wife for that rea­son or “what if there were one more beau­ti­ful” or “what if I want a blond” or the host of oth­er super­fi­cial ques­tions we all know as men that we ask our­selves in doubt when we focus on one woman, we smile on them all.

    What we start to ask is “can I afford anoth­er wife?” “How will she affect home life?” “Is she God­ly?” Etc.

    Believe me, that’s what hap­pens, at least for me. All eli­gi­ble females became bet­ter look­ing and I began to think of who they were, not what they looked like. When it’s not wrong to look on a maid­en who is not betrothed, and who is eli­gi­ble to mar­ry, you real­ly don’t think about the sup­pos­ed­ly sala­cious aspects of desir­ing a sis­ter in Christ who is not your wife.

    They become Sis­ters, Peo­ple, not objects.

  171. Ungod­ly vows can def­i­nite­ly be bro­ken, but it must be born in mind that monogamy is not exact­ly against God’s law (Isaac was monog­a­mous). Polyg­y­ny is per­mit­ted and in some cas­es, com­mand­ed. One is also free to take a wife if oth­er vows aren’t in place.

    I’m not entire­ly sure where the line is drawn, but I think if your wife releas­es you from your monogamy-only vow in front of wit­ness­es, you are per­mit­ted to take oth­er wives. Of course, I also believe God can release you from a vow, but that would take a rev­e­la­tion and in order for that to hap­pen, you must believe prophets exist in this day and age (I, for one, do, but only under the rules of 1 Corinthi­ans 12–14).

    Be blessed.
    Derek

  172. Only if the ungod­ly vow forces you to do some­thing, ungod­ly. It’s not ungod­ly to be monog­a­mous, or even sin­gle. There is no com­pul­sion to take anoth­er wife, unless it is seduc­tion (which you should not do) or Levi­rate mar­riage, which I doubt any of us have to engage in, as we are not racial Israelites pre­serv­ing a heritage.

  173. If there were no vows, the wife has slight­ly come into the faith but does not accept polyg­y­ny, would divorce be accept­able? Just a thought..

  174. Divorce ! anoth­er inter­est­ing sub­ject. It was Jesus that said “…save for the rea­son of for­ni­ca­tion (all sex­u­al per­ver­sion includ­ing adul­tery)…” all oth­er rea­sons to divorce were not accept­able. God hates divorce because of the vio­lent spir­it behind it (it leaves all those involved bleed­ing). So if wife refus­es to accept the truth of polyg­y­ny, let the LORD deal with her, and let the peace of God that pass­es all under­stand­ing reign with you. The WORD of God is meant to build us not break us and like some­one said ear­li­er in this post, what you know now is that you have one wife, take care of her well. If God wish­es anoth­er for you, it only takes a whis­per from HIM to soft­en your wife total­ly toward this truth.

    PAUL

  175. Mar­i­tal rela­tions are meant to mir­ror that of Christ and His church. Just as He will not divorce the church despite her adul­ter­ies with this world, so too should we nev­er divorce our wives, despite what they may do. Love keeps no record of wrongs. Malachi 2:16 says that the man who divorces his wife “cov­ers his gar­ment with vio­lence” — where­as we ought, as Chris­tians, to “put on Christ” — and is “faith­less.” Romans 14:23 says that what­so­ev­er is not of faith is sin: divorce is sin.

  176. I would dis­agree Rick, as Joseph, hus­band to Mary, Christ’s earth­ly par­ents is said to be a “just” man in the act of seek­ing to divorce Mary. He does so for entire­ly cor­rect rea­sons, obe­di­ence to God’s law.

    Divorce is a pun­ish­ment, and a mer­ci­ful one at that, since the alter­na­tive was death.

    It is inter­est­ing that in fol­low­ing God’s com­mands, like Abra­ham did with Isaac, he is also stopped from doing as God’s law direct­ed him to do by divine intervention.

  177. I would add that divorce for the wrong rea­sons (adul­tery of the wife being the only one for believ­ers) is a sin indeed. The law says the pun­ish­ment for false wit­ness, which essen­tial­ly a divorce would be, brings the pun­ish­ment intend­ed for the unjust­ly accused on the one who bore false witness.

    It might explain (among oth­er rea­sons) why Christ says a man who divorces his wife for no cause, and replaces her with anoth­er wife, is said to “com­mit adul­tery against her.”

    Deuteron­o­my 19:

    “If a false wit­ness rise up against any man to tes­ti­fy against him that which is wrong; And the judges shall make dili­gent inqui­si­tion: and, behold, if the wit­ness be a false wit­ness, and hath tes­ti­fied false­ly against his broth­er; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his broth­er: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall hence­forth com­mit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

    Note that it also says of those that false­ly accuse their wives:

    Deuteron­o­my 22:

    “If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occa­sions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her moth­er, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s vir­gin­i­ty unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daugh­ter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath giv­en occa­sions of speech against her, say­ing, I found not thy daugh­ter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daugh­ter’s vir­gin­i­ty. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chas­tise him; And they shall amerce him in an hun­dred shekels of sil­ver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a vir­gin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of vir­gin­i­ty be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought fol­ly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”

  178. ‘That sounds an awful lot like maneu­ver­ing for the abil­i­ty to sleep with oth­er women.’

    I know it does and knew it would. I am in a dif­fi­cult predica­ment so I have come on here with total hon­esty to try and get some advice.
    Maybe I should explain my predica­ment more. I got mar­ried for the wrong rea­sons in 2004. We have had our ups and downs since then. My wife was bud­dhist, I was born a catholic. In april 2009 I came to Christ for help and He appeared to me in my bed­room that night and saved me. My wife came to Christ a few months lat­er only after we had an argu­ment and I advised her that she should put her faith in God, and that He could help us and our messy mar­riage. I point­ed her to a prayer to call Jesus, just like the one I used. She did and things have been a lot bet­ter. But, I am not feel­ing con­fi­dent that she under­stands the con­cept of the faith even though I have bought her books and have tried to encour­age her to learn more and grow in her faith, she seems to pre­fer to put her world­ly habits infront of the Lord. There­fore, I am con­cerned that she may well be unsure about it all, even though she has told me she believes it all on a few occas­sions. Ontop of all of this. Before I was saved I lust­ed after women ter­ri­bly. Since I was saved I com­plete­ly stopped. The oth­er day though, I felt very attract­ed to a young woman on the bus, first time for quite some time, I start­ed glanc­ing more often and was won­der­ing a lot about this per­son. I came home and ques­tioned myself and I prayed to the Lord to give me strength to under­stand my feel­ings. The answers I have been get­ting are why I have been on this web­site. It leads me back to the ques­tion of whether I could have more than one wife.
    Since read­ing here I have spo­ken to my wife twice regard­ing my feel­ings and what I should do about them. The first time we spoke, towards the end she became iri­tat­ed and did not want to talk about it. She said she felt it was sin and lust. I argued the case that it is not a sin and I did not lust after the oth­er woman although I had some feel­ing stirred up about her. We left it at that.
    Today, with a more calm con­ver­sa­tion, we spoke about it again. We looked at it from all aspects and the result is, for me, not good. She still believes it is a sin and caused through lust. She said she believes in God and Jesus but in her own way. It start­ed get­ting a bit messy so I’ve left it there. She does­n’t feel like she has to read the Word or the books I have bought her. She prefers to stay the way she was before I intro­duced her to Christ. She also said that most Chris­tians do not read the Bible often so why should she! I laughed and said that that was one of the biggest prob­lems with­in the church today; ‘My peo­ple suf­fer through lack of knowledge’.
    I gave this anal­o­gy to her ’ If you had a new com­put­er game that was very dif­fi­cult to play, would­n’t it be bet­ter to check the instruc­tion man­u­al before turn­ing it on and jump­ing straight in? so that you kind of know what you’re doing and how to be bet­ter at it at an ear­ly point in your time of play­ing it..’

    We love eachother, we mar­ried in the wrong cir­cum­stances though, and I am battling.
    That’s the score!

  179. Thanks for that Hugh. I need to have some help here and you guys are help­ing, it is eter­nal­ly appreciated! :)
    I will go slow­ly. I am con­cerned for my wife, but I need to leave her to the Lord, I know. I trust in my Sav­iour and I know I will pre­vail with His help. If I am to stay mar­ried to my wife and have to bat­tle it out until the end then I will. I am pray­ing for the Lord to help me through this as it is the only one thing left that I have a strange uncer­tain­ty about. Every­thing else has fall­en into place, nice­ly and gracefully.
    Thanks again and please, if you don’t mind, pray for me when you get a chance.

  180. Please don’t butch­er your wife’s heart by plac­ing what isn’t nec­es­sary before what is nec­es­sary. Do you think God’s going to be mer­ci­ful to you on the day of judg­ment if you push her away from Him because of polyg­y­ny, just because she was­n’t ready for it?

    But who­ev­er caus­es one of these lit­tle ones who believe in me to sin, it would be bet­ter for him to have a great mill­stone fas­tened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea (Matthew 18:6 ESV). 

  181. derek, i hope you know that matthew 18:6, is talk­ing about chil­dren, not adults. that’s why we are in this sit­u­a­tion now. peo­ple stick­ing a scrip­ture in a con­ver­sa­tion so they can appear cor­rect. when it is clear that the scrip­tures is talk­ing about chil­dren. the bible does say don’t add or take away from my word. you may want to read the con­se­quences for that on the day of judge­ment. and fyi, i may be wrong but i thought the real harsh jugde­ment was for the non-believ­ers, and our judge­ment would con­sist more of which lev­el of hea­van we will enter into and the dif­fer­ent gifts and growns, etc. since we are saved my the mer­cy and grace of Jesus Christ.

  182. To Derek,
    I total­ly agree with you to not put my wife off her faith due to this top­ic of polyg­y­ny. We do final­ly have a bet­ter under­stand­ing of the whole issue now. I realised through my wife’s reac­tion that it was some­thing that she did not ini­tial­ly agree with.
    I want­ed to be hon­est with her and said ” If one day dar­ling, I should ever feel this way and want to pur­sue it…”.
    Basi­cal­ly, I just want­ed to know my options and what the Bible says about it. After a few in depth dis­cus­sions with my wife she actu­al­ly, in a humor­ous way, said “see what hap­pens if it ever hap­pens” and we went on jok­ing about how we would live on a farm with a large God lov­ing fam­i­ly. She said I should become a mus­lim! and we both laughed. After the dis­cus­sion, we hugged and realised that noth­ing or no-one will ever come between us, and all of this was worth the hon­est approach that I a maintained.
    As far as butcher­ing her heart with things that are not nec­es­sary I must dis­agree. Since my meet­ing with the Lord I tell my wife every­thing, absolute­ly every­thing, even if she does not agree with it. I found it nec­es­sary to try and under­stand the feel­ing I had towards anoth­er female the oth­er day which was not lust and it led me to realise that, yes, I may well want anoth­er wife in the future, so, I want­ed to know what the Bible and oth­er God lov­ing peo­ple say about it and that led me here.
    If I had not spo­ken to my wife about it then I believe that it may have become a prob­lem, where­as now, I and my wife feel more com­fort­able with it and we have more insight and under­stand­ing should it ever arise in our lives. 

    It has been sur­pris­ing­ly help­ful com­ing here, (great site Rick!) I have got the under­stand­ing that I want­ed, and it results in this; 

    If, in the future, I was to fall in love with anoth­er woman who obvi­ous­ly loves the Lord and could bring more hap­pi­ness and pos­i­tive ele­ments to mine and my wife’s lives, it seems that there would be a pos­si­bil­i­ty that I could mar­ry her with my wife’s con­sent. On the under­stand­ing that my first wife would always be the most impor­tant in my life and that my sec­ond wife would be total­ly under­stand­ing of this, would make every effort to be a lov­ing sis­ter in Christ to her, and would not be a hin­drance to our God lov­ing fam­i­ly. Also, if it was total­ly afford­able to do so!
    If it were any way oth­er than the above guide­lines then it would not hap­pen, we would not divorce and I would just have to live with the fact of it not being possible.
    So, once again, thanks for all your advice regard­ing my sit­u­a­tion, it has helped tremen­dous­ly as it’s not easy being new in the faith and being unable to dis­cuss cer­tain issues that one could be fac­ing in their walk..
    I’m just won­der­ing what the Pas­tor at the Bap­tist church I’m attend­ing would advise regard­ing all of this! As I have only been going there a few weeks I find it a bit awk­ward to jump in and lay this on him! He’s quite an old fel­low too so I’m not sure if I should bur­den him incase it con­flicts with how he feels on the matter!!

  183. “Tru­ly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like chil­dren, you will nev­er enter the king­dom of heav­en. Who­ev­er hum­bles him­self like this child is the great­est in the king­dom of heaven.

    “Who­ev­er receives one such child in my name receives me, but who­ev­er caus­es one of these lit­tle ones who believe in me to sin, it would be bet­ter for him to have a great mill­stone fas­tened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:3–6 ESV).

    It is spo­ken with­in the con­text of becom­ing like a lit­tle child. I believe from that dis­course, based on both con­text and the way the lan­guage is uti­lized, He is refer­ring to believ­ers who have become like children.

    As it stands, it does­n’t mat­ter if I am right or wrong, Dami­an. There are clear­er Scrip­tures, such as Mark 10:11, which says:

    And he said to them, “Who­ev­er divorces his wife and mar­ries anoth­er com­mits adul­tery against her.” 

    So no, I won’t say polyg­y­ny is a sin, but I will say a man who divorces his wife to live polyg­y­nous­ly com­mits adul­tery, because he dis­hon­ored his word.

  184. Girl's opinion?

    Fine Polygamy appears to be accept­able and the ‘norm’ dur­ing ancient bib­li­cal times. Just tell me then, that the equal option for WOMEN, that is polyandry, is like­wise ALSO accept­able and not dis­cour­aged. Because if it isn’t then that implies mas­sive dou­ble stan­dards on God’s part. God said not to be ‘unfaith­ful’ to your wife, yet he nev­er accused Solomon of being unfaith­ful when he had 300 wives. It would only be fair if that norm applied to women as well ( I’m sure hop­ing as hell it does oth­er­wise I’m recon­sid­er­ing Chris­tian­i­ty). If peo­ple can­not find a bib­li­cal argu­ment against polygamy then don’t they dare con­demn the idea of polyandry. ;) — not that I want to prac­tice it anyway.

  185. Girls Opin­ion,

    It’s time to recon­sid­er. God does not meet your stan­dards of fair­ness. His ways are not your ways.

    Recon­sid­er your com­mit­ment to God, espe­cial­ly if it is on such shaky ground. Do you believe in the God of the Bible? The cre­ator of heav­en and earth? 

    Is Christ Lord? Have you declared that with your mouth? Have you believed that in you heart?

    2Co 13:5 Exam­ine your­selves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 

    Destroy your idol of a “fair god”, and accept God as He is.

    God Bless,

    Robert

  186. Dear Girl’s Opinion

    I tru­ly hope that the truth of God’s Word is not some­thing that will ulti­mate­ly turn you away from Him. You said that you would con­sid­er drop­ping Chris­tian­i­ty if it does not fall in line with your per­ceived notion of what is right. This leads me to believe that you may well have a god that you have fash­ioned your­self. (i.e. in your image). Chris­tian­i­ty is not some­thing God has offered to you as an option among oth­er good options for you to con­sid­er. Jesus said: “no one can come to the Father except through me”. “There is sal­va­tion found in no one else”. 

    Now con­cern­ing Polyandry being accept­able if Polygny is….
    I can assure you that accord­ing to God’s Word it is not. These are not my words but the Words of God.
    Please consider…..

    1CO 7:39 A woman is bound to her hus­band as long as he lives. But if her hus­band dies, she is free to mar­ry any­one she wish­es, but he must belong to the Lord

    RO 7: 2 For exam­ple, by law a mar­ried woman is bound to her hus­band as long as he is alive, but if her hus­band dies, she is released from the law of mar­riage. 3 So then, if she mar­ries anoth­er man while her hus­band is still alive, she is called an adul­ter­ess. But if her hus­band dies, she is released from that law and is not an adul­ter­ess, even though she mar­ries anoth­er man.

    There are no clear­er vers­es than these.

    A woman mar­ry­ing anoth­er man while her hus­band is still alive is an unfaith­ful wife. She becomes defiled. This dis­al­lows polyandry as far as the Gospel is concerned.

    Scrip­ture teach­es us that a man mar­ry­ing anoth­er woman while his wife is still alive is NOT being unfaith­ful if he remains faith­ful to his wife in that he does not divorce her but con­tin­ues to love her and care for her. If you draw any oth­er con­clu­sion from Scrip­ture than this you are allow­ing your cloud­ed opin­ion of the mat­ter guide you.

    If you read back in this blog you will see much of the expla­na­tion for this and many vers­es and exam­ples to prove this from Scripture.

    A man com­mits adul­tery if he divorces his wife to mar­ry anoth­er……. or if he has sex with anoth­er man’s wife….not if he takes a sin­gle avail­able woman as his wife.
    Human laws and the dis­tort­ed idea of “equal­i­ty of the sex­es” does not reflect the teach­ing in Scrip­ture in this matter. 

    If this does not line up with your con­vic­tion of what Chris­tian­i­ty, God and the Bible should be (or IS in your opin­ion) then it seems you have not only refash­ioned God in your image but you have also rewrit­ten the Bible to suit your per­ceived notion of what con­sti­tutes moral­i­ty. You have placed your­self in a posi­tion of being the Judge of God instead of Him being your judge.
    I would coun­sel you to not only read the Scrip­tures again but to med­i­tate on them a bit hard­er. Jesus said: “the truth will set you free”.

    I say these things sober­ly and with respect and not in any way to put you down.

  187. A wife’s com­mit­ment to her hus­band is like the church’s com­mit­ment to Christ.

    Just as the church can have no oth­er Lord than Christ, than so can a wife have no oth­er hus­band than her one hus­band. You can­not serve two masters.

    Or to put it anoth­er way, if you want to believe that polyandry is accept­able, then the bur­den of proof is upon you to prove it. No one here is claim­ing it is accept­able, nor does our accep­tance of polyg­y­ny require us to accept polyandry.

  188. The Bible has a dif­fer­ent stan­dard for men and women, not a dou­ble stan­dard. A dou­ble stan­dard implies that 2 like types of per­sons are treat­ed dif­fer­ent­ly for no rea­son. A dif­fer­ent stan­dard is one that sup­ports 2 dif­fer­ent types of per­sons being giv­en two dif­fer­ent pur­pos­es, roles, and instructions. 

    The instruc­tions for men are to love their wives as christ loved the church. Women are instruct­ed to sub­mit to their hus­bands as unto the Lord. It is inter­est­ing to note that men are not to dom­i­neer or rule their wives with an iron fist, but to LOVE them with sac­ri­fice, while not bend­ing or giv­ing in to any­thing that com­pro­mis­es the role that God has giv­en the man as the spir­i­tu­al cov­er­ing of his house­hold. The man is also respon­si­ble for his wife’s sin and actions, as per Adam being attrib­uted with orig­i­nal sin instead of Eve, who ate first of the for­bid­den fruit. Not very “equal” for the man, cor­rect? But, that is the role of man in mar­riage, pro­tec­tor, defend­er, cov­er­ing, lay­ing down his life. That is quite chival­rous, not chauvinistic.

    It only seems unfair if you have been taught that men and women are “equals” regard­ing their roles and respon­si­bil­i­ties, instead of equal unto the Lord, with dif­fer­ent call­ings and author­i­ties. Just like a woman loves her own chil­dren equal­ly, the man loves his wives equal­ly. And just like any par­ent gives chil­dren dif­fer­ent chores or jobs to do dur­ing the day, the Lord has giv­en men and women dif­fer­ent roles. We don’t want our kids going out and cut­ting the lawn two days in a row, or wash­ing dish­es if we tell them to do the laun­dry. We have a pur­pose behind why we give dif­fer­ent instruc­tions to dif­fer­ent chil­dren. The younger ones cer­tain­ly do not use sharp knives or run the chain­saws. They are giv­en dif­fer­ent respon­si­bil­i­ties based on what we know to be the best things for them. Our Heav­en­ly Father does the same for us, in giv­ing men and women the roles that are for them based on His per­fect knowl­edge of how he cre­at­ed all of us. 

    I can under­stand your feel­ings. But, upon clos­er glance, the rules and laws of God are lov­ing and car­ing, not cru­el and demean­ing. I admire you for speak­ing your mind on this pub­lic forum. Please give God a chance to speak to you and teach you of His undy­ing love. It is all in His Word, if giv­en the chance and stud­ied with an open mind, He will reveal it to you. Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened unto you.

    Bless­ings to you in the name of the Father

  189. Paul:
    That’s a bad anal­o­gy. When you give kids chores to do, do you sub­ject those chores to their gen­der? Prob­a­bly not. As a soci­ety, we used to do that. But, today, the notion of “wom­an’s work” and “man’s work” is pret­ty much gone. A bet­ter anal­o­gy would be that you would­n’t send your son to do the dish­es while you send your daugh­ter to mow the lawn.

    Girl’s Opin­ion:
    Real­ly? Polygamy is the top­ic that will cause you to recon­sid­er your faith? What about slav­ery, misog­y­ny, geno­cide, racism, and any of many oth­er issues the mod­ern world would take with the bib­li­cal world? If you’re seri­ous­ly recon­sid­er­ing the Chris­t­ian reli­gion, read Deuteron­o­my 21:18–21 and lis­ten to how hol­low apol­o­gist argu­ments become when you bring it up. Polygamy is pret­ty much a non-issue when you put it up against a law, appar­ent­ly dic­tat­ed by god, to kill unruly children.

  190. I don’t think its a bad anal­o­gy, inas­much as it breaks down a bit toward the end. I also think its slight­ly misog­y­nist to say women can’t use “sharp knives” or “chain saws” — and while I know that isn’t prob­a­bly what isn’t meant, it presents women as weak chil­dren and I know that peo­ple are going to take it like that.

    I see it more along the lines of the mil­i­tary (I don’t know much about mil­i­tary struc­tures, so cor­rect me if I’m wrong ;)). Each sol­dier has a dif­fer­ent rank and with­in those ranks are dif­fer­ing areas of author­i­ty. We have Jesus, who is the Head of State and under Him are the apos­tles, who are the Sec­re­tary of Defense, and under them, the pas­tors, who are lieu­tenants. Final­ly, we come to the man, who as, head of house­hold, are the sergeant gen­er­als, their wives the gen­er­als and the chil­dren the sol­diers. Each part is nec­es­sary. This is what I think Paul means when he says to both “sub­mit to one anoth­er” and “wives, sub­mit to your hus­bands” in Eph­esians 5:21–22. The Greek for sub­mit, hupotas­so, is actu­al­ly a mil­i­tary term that means “to arrange in a mil­i­tary fash­ion under a leader”. You can read more about it and its uses here.

    Of course, the anal­o­gy breaks down when you real­ize the church is a lit­tle more organ­ic than that, with every­one hav­ing some­thing to con­tribute, but I think it makes sense. :) Even the prophets were sub­ject to their lead­ers (and the wives to their hus­bands) in the wor­ship pat­tern of 1 Corinthi­ans 11–14.

    Hope this helps. :)

  191. David, you said:

    Polygamy is pret­ty much a non-issue when you put it up against a law, appar­ent­ly dic­tat­ed by god, to kill unruly children.

    Every one of us is wor­thy of death. God is with­in His rights to deter­mine whether cer­tain sins man­dat­ed a more imme­di­ate cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment or if in this world they were only to be met with ret­ri­bu­tion or cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment. Ulti­mate­ly, every­one will die anyway.

    Your objec­tion assumes with­out basis that we all deserve to live life to the fullest. We do not, for the wages of sin is death.

    No “hol­low” apolo­get­ics are required to under­stand that. What is required to mis­un­der­stand it, though, is a lim­it­ed under­stand­ing of not only the sin­ful­ness of man but also of the holi­ness of God.

  192. Rick:
    I guess you’re right, Rick. You don’t need hol­low apolo­get­ics to under­stand the idi­ot­ic dog­ma of the bible. You just need to believe that chil­dren deserve to die, raped women deserve to be trapped with their rapists for the rest of their lives, slaves deserve to be slaves, and a finite crime deserves an infi­nite punishment.

    Derek:
    Your mil­i­tary anal­o­gy still has an arbi­trary sep­a­ra­tion where men are supe­ri­or to women, based sole­ly upon gen­der. It may be more accu­rate to what the bible teach­es, but that does­n’t make it good.

  193. David: Just curi­ous, upon what basis are you mak­ing these judg­ments? Is there anoth­er absolute reli­gious truth you hold to, or do you accept the req­ui­site nihilism that comes with athe­ism or human­ism? If so, then on what basis is *any­thing* in the Bible bet­ter or worse than *any­thing* in your life and beliefs?

    I’ve been told the doc­trine of the Bible is immoral by plen­ty of peo­ple. Most of them, though, if they were to fol­low their beliefs to the *only* log­i­cal con­clu­sion, must believe that killing a human is no more or less trag­ic than step­ping on an ant or eat­ing a carrot.

    Giv­en the Scrip­tures as an absolute author­i­ty, I rest assured­ly on them. I assume you’re argu­ing from the stand­point of some oth­er absolute rather than your own desires?

    1. Rick:
      I don’t under­stand why you think morals have to be objec­tive or else there is an inevitable nihilism. If morals do not come from any unques­tion­able and objec­tive source, as we devel­op and learn more about our inter­ac­tions we can change our mores and folk­ways. So, we get the result that peo­ple thought it was a good thing to have slaves and treat them in this way and in that, but now we know it is wrong to own slaves. Own­ing slaves then becomes immoral. I like to think of it as a col­lec­tive moral sys­tem, as opposed to a sub­jec­tive or objec­tive sys­tem of morals. Also, it does­n’t require me to make state­ments like “chil­dren deserve to die”, like you’ve already stat­ed about your bib­li­cal morals.

      1. Rephras­ing the ques­tion to make it absurd is about the most idi­ot­ic thing I’ve ever heard. You could rephrase any­thing sci­ence tells us in such a way as to make it absurd. (Tak­ing your com­ic book theme, the X‑Men do this with muta­tions all the time!)

        If there is no absolute moral­i­ty, there is only major­i­ty rules. Killing trees is wrong. Eat­ing meat is wrong. Nazis are bad. Nazis are good. Abor­tion is fine. Euthana­sia is evil.

        Any­thing and every­thing goes pro­vid­ed it gets enough votes. That, my friend, is nihilism — ulti­mate­ly, those mak­ing those votes are going to die. They’re lives just do not mat­ter. Ulti­mate­ly, in an athe­is­tic world, human­i­ty does­n’t mat­ter. That is the only log­i­cal con­clu­sion of reject­ing an absolute God and/or moral­i­ty. Where you get your sense of enti­tle­ment that you deserve life is some­thing you need to recon­sid­er. Either we deserve life and mur­der is wrong because we’re cre­at­ed in the image of God… or we’re noth­ing more or less than ants — the prod­uct of mil­lions of years of process­es that sci­ence tells us have been going on. How can any­one right­ful­ly say that human­i­ty is deserv­ing of any­thing more than ants? We’ve all come just as far in the his­to­ry of the earth, after all. 

        How­ev­er, as this has got­ten entire­ly off-top­ic (does­n’t take long for the oppo­nents of polyg­y­ny to either give up or obscure the top­ic by launch­ing every pos­si­ble attack they can against the Bible), so I’m going to close this top­ic. There are oth­er polyg­y­ny-cen­tric posts on this site that any­one is wel­come to take part in.

  194. Giv­en that God knows the begin­ning from the end, and that He is a Holy, Lov­ing God, would it not be safe to say that what­ev­er hap­pens, He knows what is best?
    Since being saved ear­li­er this year I have writ­ten a Tes­ti­mo­ny. A friend of mine who read it and is into Bud­dhism had ques­tioned why God allows bad things to hap­pen. I could not give him a def­i­nite answer but I went back to scrip­ture and the fact that the ‘wages of sin is death.’
    But I have also been feel­ing that we do not have the abil­i­ty to com­pre­hend how God feels towards His cre­ation. I came up with quite a few — ’ what ifs ?..’
    What if God knew that the young pop­u­la­tion that have died in the past were going to be evil to the bone, fol­low Satan and cause more mis­ery than they were worth?
    What if by dying, they were actu­al­ly saved from ter­ri­ble atroc­i­ties lat­er in life, caused by man and/or Satan?
    What if God knew they would be going to hell unless He had them killed at that point in their lives, so that they would be saved and go to stay with Him in all His glory?
    What of God allowed slav­ery because slaves would become hum­ble peo­ple and would fol­low Him, be saved and in turn cause a revival and save their masters?
    What if, through all of this, believ­ers of Him were killed? How can that be justified?
    Maybe, through a believ­er’s death, many turned to God as they saw the assur­ance with­in the fam­i­ly’s lives and hearts that God had every­thing in con­trol and a bet­ter place was yet to come for them.
    We will all dis­cov­er exact­ly how and why God works when we die and until then I can­not see the point in feel­ing bit­ter or ques­tion­ing His motives. I no longer have any what ifs? I now have a sense of, ‘Ah, ok, well we shall see, when the time comes’
    And I trust in the Lord’s eter­nal conclusion..

    I live in the UK and I can­not help to feel that women here are turn­ing into men! They work like men, talk like men, drink like men, dress, act and look like men!
    This is not right with God. And here in this coun­try, breast can­cer, cer­vi­cal can­cer, ovary can­cer are affect­ing near­ly every fam­i­ly. These can­cers were prac­ti­cal­ly unheard of before WWII. What’s going on? Could it be that God is tak­ing away the body parts that they are neglect­ing? What­ev­er hap­pened to a real, hus­band lov­ing woman?
    The same could be said for men, who are turn­ing into women. Tes­tic­u­lar and Pros­trate can­cers are esca­lat­ing at a fast rate here..

    Being a baby Chris­t­ian, I strive to make sure I am wrapped in the cot­ton wool of Truth out of scrip­ture from the begin­ning. I am on milk but get­ting ready for the meat.

    Sex­u­al equal­i­ty goes against God’s plan of cre­ation for us and giv­en all of the warn­ings from the past in the Bible, who­ev­er goes against this plan will go against God. We can­not have God on our terms.

    Polyg­y­ny — If my Lord wants me to have more than one wife then it will be. If He does not then it will not be, sim­ple as that.

    I have recent­ly uploaded my Tes­ti­mo­ny to a blog. It is harsh and to the point and I wrote it for my close ones. There are some areas in there that I would like help on as I keep learn­ing more and more each day. I will be edit­ing it and updat­ing it as I con­tin­ue in my rela­tion­ship with the Lord. I wrote it dur­ing the few months after Jesus vis­it­ed me in my bed­room ear­li­er this year.
    I can only say that I feel that I have a cure for all the ill­ness­es and dis­eases in the world and I need to share it, but will peo­ple believe me?
    I’m send­ing it out to my loved ones today, please, pray that it sows that most impor­tant seed in their hearts and minds.

    There is a sense of urgency in there and I would like to have it proof read by Chris­tians on meat!

    Rick, I hope you do not mind me men­tion­ing my Tes­ti­mo­ny here and adding a link?
    If it is a prob­lem, you can take the link off, no prob­lems. But I would real­ly appre­ci­ate you hav­ing a look through it and maybe help­ing me to amend it if you have the time.

    http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

    1. Steve:
      I real­ly want to respond to your “what if” list. It real­ly is quite a fun list. Your quotes are giv­en the “em” tag.

      What if God knew that the young pop­u­la­tion that have died in the past were going to be evil to the bone, fol­low Satan and cause more mis­ery than they were worth?

      This ques­tion assumes that God knew it would hap­pen and cre­at­ed them any­way. So, he cre­ates them and kills them, instead of just not cre­at­ing them. Obvi­ous­ly God isn’t that good at his prun­ing of the pop­u­la­tion because he let through Hitler, Stal­in, and Ronald H. Paquin. So, we’re left with a god who does things in a round­about and slow way, and then does those things real­ly poor­ly. Your ques­tion makes god sound like an idiot.

      What if by dying, they were actu­al­ly saved from ter­ri­ble atroc­i­ties lat­er in life, caused by man and/or Satan?

      So, God can kill them to save them from being evil, and to save them from lat­er atroc­i­ties? Let’s just put a ran­dom atroc­i­ty that can hap­pen to peo­ple in place of a vari­able. Let’s choose a vio­lent rape at gun­point, after which the vic­tim is muti­lat­ed. We’re still left with the prob­lem of peo­ple still being vic­tim of the atroc­i­ties, despite the assump­tion that God is pre­sum­ably sav­ing peo­ple from this by killing them at birth. Would­n’t a bet­ter approach to stop­ping these atroc­i­ties from hap­pen­ing to some­one be to have the per­pe­tra­tor die, instead of the vic­tim? So, in this sce­nario, God is killing a poten­tial­ly good per­son and let­ting a psy­chot­ic crim­i­nal go free. This ques­tion makes your god sound evil, on the side of evil, the per­pe­tra­tor of evil, and the enabler of evil. It does not make your god sound kind and caring.

      What if God knew they would be going to hell unless He had them killed at that point in their lives, so that they would be saved and go to stay with Him in all His glory?

      Once again, we are left with the ques­tion of why God is cre­at­ing peo­ple with the spe­cif­ic pur­pose of send­ing them to Hell? Yes, it is the spe­cif­ic pur­pose of eter­nal­ly tor­tur­ing them. God cre­ates some­thing, know­ing every last intri­cate detail of the per­son­’s life, and know­ing exact­ly where they will go after death. So, instead of just not cre­at­ing the per­son or choos­ing not to send them to Hell, God cre­ates them and kills them as a loop­hole? That is, once again, back­wards and requires many assump­tions. Also, why would he want some­one around who he knew would­n’t pass his test? If your god gave these spe­cial favors to every­body, then nobody who is alive is going to Hell, no mat­ter what we do. If he does­n’t give these spe­cial favors to every­body, he’s cre­at­ing peo­ple with the pur­pose of tor­tur­ing them for­ev­er. Now, that’s a lov­ing god.

      What of God allowed slav­ery because slaves would become hum­ble peo­ple and would fol­low Him, be saved and in turn cause a revival and save their masters?

      Please re-read the three above and apply it to this ques­tion. We have god cre­at­ing a per­son with the spe­cif­ic pur­pose of liv­ing an unful­filled life of slav­ery, abuse, and tor­ment. Then, it is all turned around “for the bet­ter” by hav­ing the equiv­a­lent of a mor­mon elder stop by the per­son­’s door. Why tor­ture some­one when it can be done in a benign manner?

      What if, through all of this, believ­ers of Him were killed? How can that be jus­ti­fied? Maybe, through a believ­er’s death, many turned to God as they saw the assur­ance with­in the fam­i­ly’s lives and hearts that God had every­thing in con­trol and a bet­ter place was yet to come for them.

      Or, maybe, it will cause peo­ple to see the truth that reli­gion can be a poi­son as much as a panacea. I would like to cite the case of Andrea Yates who killed her five chil­dren, so they would go straight to Heav­en instead of risk­ing Hell.

      Maybe you were think­ing of a mar­tyr. Let’s take Jesus as an exam­ple. God cre­ates peo­ple, know­ing they will do things he does­n’t like. But, the pri­or knowl­edge that he’ll be cre­at­ing peo­ple to be tor­tured for­ev­er does­n’t both­er him. Instead, he cre­ates a child, who is him­self, and then makes it so his favourite evil sin­ner peo­ple kill his son (who is him­self) as a back­wards loop­hole and per­haps cause peo­ple to turn their lives around. But, it obvi­ous­ly did­n’t work. There are still mur­der­ers, rapists, and lawyers in every nation. But, now he has his loop­hole and has an excuse to say “It’s not my fault you went to Hell” when he knew very well that he was cre­at­ing peo­ple to send them there in the first place. This ques­tion assumes that the gamemas­ter sets up the rules, know­ing before­hand exact­ly who the par­tic­i­pants will be and what the out­comes will be for all par­tic­i­pants. With 60–80% of the USA believ­ing that this guy is kind and moral, it’s no won­der that the movie SAW was so popular.

      What if there is the­is­tic kind of god (deis­tic gods still per­mit­ted) and the hor­ri­ble things that hap­pen are entire­ly because of peo­ple and nature, the great things that hap­pen are entire­ly because of peo­ple and nature, and we’re hold­ing our­selves back from mak­ing things bet­ter because of the 4000 year-old writ­ings of peo­ple, not the sacred texts of gods?

  195. I assumed that for the most part the entries in this blog were being made by Chris­tians who believed the Word of God and who sin­cere­ly want­ed to know what it real­ly teach­es about Polygamy, Polygny and Polyandry. I guess my assump­tion may have been premature. 

    David….
    When you make a com­ment such as “idi­ot­ic dog­ma of the Bible, etc. it leads me to believe that you dis­dain much of what has been record­ed in Scrip­ture and have no trou­ble tram­pling it under­foot, sub­sti­tut­ing a gospel that fits in more with your believe sys­tem, not being pleased with or accept­ing the one God has pro­vid­ed. (i.e. “since they did not accept the right­eous­ness that comes from God, they went about to estab­lish their own”.)

    The Apos­tle Paul said to Timothy….
    2TI 3: 12 ……every­one who wants to live a god­ly life in Christ Jesus will be per­se­cut­ed, while evil men and impos­tors will go from bad to worse, deceiv­ing and being deceived. But as for you, con­tin­ue in what you have learned and have become con­vinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infan­cy you have known the holy Scrip­tures, which are able to make you wise for sal­va­tion through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scrip­ture is God-breathed and is use­ful for teach­ing, rebuk­ing, cor­rect­ing and train­ing in right­eous­ness, so that the man of God may be thor­ough­ly equipped for every good work.

    And

    1TI 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it prop­er­ly. We also know that law is made not for the right­eous but for law­break­ers and rebels, the ungod­ly and sin­ful, the unholy and irre­li­gious; for those who kill their fathers or moth­ers, for mur­der­ers, for adul­ter­ers and per­verts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for what­ev­er else is con­trary to the sound doc­trine that con­forms to the glo­ri­ous gospel of the blessed God, which he entrust­ed to me.

    So tell me David…. Are you a believ­er in Jesus and have you trust­ed in Him for Sal­va­tion? I don’t see how you could be and despise the Word of God because it is writ­ten that Jesus was the Word. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. You can not love Jesus and hate the Word because they are one and the same.

    What do you think YOU deserve from God? His Word says “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glo­ry of God” and “the soul that sins will die”. 

    Any com­ments?

    Steve..
    A word for you that Paul also gave to Timothy….

    2TI 2:14 “Warn them before God against quar­rel­ing about words; it is of no val­ue, and only ruins those who lis­ten. Do your best to present your­self to God as one approved, a work­man who does not need to be ashamed and who cor­rect­ly han­dles the word of truth. Avoid god­less chat­ter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly”.

    You are young in the faith so walk slow­ly and care­ful­ly. It is easy for you to take off on a wild tan­gent and get all screwed up in your doc­trine and it is easy to get con­ceit­ed when you start being able to prop­er­ly dis­cern the Word. 

    PS 1:1 Blessed is the man
    who does not walk in the coun­sel of the wicked
    or stand in the way of sinners
    or sit in the seat of mockers.
    But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
    and on his law he med­i­tates day and night.

  196. Bill M:
    Bill, when you say that God pro­vid­ed the scrip­tures, you have to give some evi­dence that it was pro­vid­ed by God. It could have just as eas­i­ly been pro­vid­ed by the saucer peo­ple, or the lizard­men from the fifth dimen­sion. But, most like­ly, it was writ­ten by peo­ple, chron­i­cling their strug­gles and tri­umphs, attribut­ing the ups and downs to an unseen force that did­n’t exist. You see it as turn­ing away from your god’s will because you believe it is your god’s will. I believe it is the will of grumpy old men who spent too much time wan­der­ing in the desert eat­ing poi­so­nous fungus.

    Am I a believ­er in Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, Mes­si­ah, Lamb, Way, Truth, Word, and Light? I was. Did I trust in him for Sal­va­tion? I did. I don’t despise the bible as the book, although it isn’t very well writ­ten, has many gram­mat­i­cal errors, has con­ti­nu­ity errors, has con­tra­dic­tions, and is very preachy. In the end, it’s a book like any oth­er. I have on on my shelf. I have sev­er­al in my home (my moth­er’s house). I find it inter­est­ing to know that peo­ple believe that chil­dren deserve to die and that no mat­ter what tor­ture hap­pens to them, they deserved it just by being born. It’s not the text that I hate. It’s the mis­use of that text. I like this forum because Rick is a fun­da­men­tal­ist. I believe that the bible should be read with a fun­da­men­tal­ist eye. But, I don’t believe the con­tent should be put into practise.

    I don’t like quot­ing peo­ple direct­ly when I respond (uncom­fort­able with block­quote). But, I am forced to now.

    What do you think YOU deserve from God? His Word says “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glo­ry of God” and “the soul that sins will die”.

    I’d like to respond to this by rephras­ing the ques­tion, renam­ing some of the char­ac­ters, and pos­ing it to you. Then, I will respond to your question.

    What do you think you deserve from Spi­der-Man? His word says “With great pow­er comes great respon­si­bil­i­ty” and “my spi­der-sense is tingling”.

    See what I did there? I made the ques­tion absurd. Obvi­ous­ly Spi­der-man is fic­tion­al. How could I deserve any­thing from a fic­tion­al char­ac­ter? Oh! I get it. Obvi­ous­ly, I don’t think that fic­tion­al char­ac­ters owe me any­thing, nor do I deserve any­thing from them. Like­wise, I don’t owe any­thing to fic­tion­al characters.

    *** This reply was trun­cat­ed due to fatigue. If any­body is inter­est­ed in the short blurb I did­n’t feel like post­ing tonight, I will post it.

  197. David — It is clear to me that you only read what you want­ed to rip apart with­in my com­ment, is this what you do with the Holy Word of God? (Sounds like!)
    If you took the time to read MY com­ment prop­er­ly it explains that my “What ifs”
    were giv­en to a Bud­dhist friend of mine, with­in weeks of my meet­ing with Christ.
    I did not have the answers and guess what? I still do not have the answers, but hey, you sound like you do because you know every­thing right?
    I did go on to say that we shall all find out the answers when we die and go onto the next part of our exis­tence and that there was no point in feel­ing bit­ter or frus­trat­ed about things. And that I TRUST in my Lord’s eter­nal conclusion. 

    I can’t believe you spent so much of your time and ener­gy rip­ping apart my “What ifs?”, when I stat­ed ” I no longer have any what ifs? I now have a sense of,
    ‘Ah, ok, well we shall see, when the time comes’. Is there some­thing wrong with you? Don’t use my “What ifs?” to TRY and jus­ti­fy your opin­ion, use some­thing bet­ter will you?
    Peo­ple like you are dan­ger­ous, and I HAVE what ifs regard­ing your types;
    How about..

    What if — David is blind­ed with his own intel­lec­tu­al­ism and proud heart and would pre­fer to put his faith in peo­ple like David Icke and Spider-man?

    What if — The atroc­i­ties that you point out that our evil God lets hap­pen are
    because of peo­ple like you David?

    What if you are going to hell and because you opened your big mouth you took hun­dreds with you?

    Now those are inter­est­ing what ifs…

    You see, when you have the proof, con­vic­tion and FAITH that all of this is VERY real, includ­ing what those grumpy old men wrote with their gram­mat­i­cal errors etc.
    and peo­ple like you come along, it gets wor­ry­ing, because impres­sion­able peo­ple lis­ten to peo­ple like you! 

    “Father, please for­give him and open up his heart to the truth”

  198. Greet­ings

    I caught on to this long thread by acci­dent and must point out that some scrip­ture has been MIS­quot­ed, in error I‘m sure,nonetheless it has been used for an argument/debate.
    Gen. 2:24 a MAN shall leave his moth­er and father and cleave to his WIFE (not wives).
    Math.19:3 the phar­isees came to TEMP Christ.
    Math 19:8 Christ tells them MOSSES told them because of the HARDENING of their/YOUR heart, but from the BEGINING it was NOT soo.

    I pray that the GREAT COMMISSION be the #1 goal in our lives.

    Bless­ings bros.

  199. I’m sure this point has been made many times, but no time to read over everything. 

    When God set up the tem­ple, he nev­er instruct­ed the play­ing of musi­cal instru­ments. It was not part of his ini­tial plans. Yet He allowed David to bring them in, and David was not judged for it. 

    The same seems to have hap­pened as well with the mar­riage issue. God set up ini­tial­ly a one man, one woman plan. Men began mar­ry­ing more than one wife, and God said noth­ing about it. He was quick to judge David when he com­mit­ted adul­tery, yet is so qui­et it’s scream­ing, on the fact that David had more than one wife.…

  200. heres my thoughts..
    I dont feel the need to quote the same scrip­tures you kind folks have, it would be kind of redun­dent. The ques­tion of “Is hav­ing more than one wife a sin” can be dif­fi­cult for peo­ple to swollow.
    The way the bible talks about mar­rage in all those many quotes, does not say that for a man to have more than one wife he is liv­ing in sin. But on the same hand, it tells us to Hon­or our wife above all else acept of corse Jesus and god. so if our wife isnt okay with the idea then we have to reframe from hav­ing mulit­pull wifes.
    So its not a Sin to have more than one wife, but it isnt acept­able to break our vow to our first wife. but onto anoth­er top­ic I saw as i read this ver­ry ver­ry long thread, that relates to this whole topic.
    In the ques­tion of Gods good­ness, if you beleave every­thing in the bible you will see, that only by gods com­mand can we break his com­mand­ments, if you dont beleve that too be true, just look at how many times peo­ple were ordered too kill. We all know that com­mand­ment. but from what i remem­ber the bible says some­thing along the lines of “God is per­fect” and sence we all fall short the glo­ry of god, then only god would or could know when its acept­able too kill. With that said though, does this mean he is cru­el or evil, i would nat­u­al­ly think the god the bible talks about could­nt be evil. if any­thing he would be all know­ing, and we would be the ones who did­nt under­stand. so maybe we think its mur­der when he ordered the slaugh­ter of babys, maybe it was­nt acord­ing the the god the bible talks about. maybe it was­nt because God said it was­nt, if the bible is too be acept­ed then what ever God says cant be wrong, and we dont under­stand what evil real­ly is.
    I am not a Chris­t­ian, but that does­nt mean i havent poored over the bible for many hours, and my under­stand­ing isnt made invalid because of the fact. but I saw some­thing in the ear­ly­er hours it took me too read all this about Gospals that have been more recent­ly dis­cov­ered in tombs and such that both­ered me. does the fact that Mankind lost them mean they are any less valid as the oth­er NT gospals that are cur­rent­ly in the chris­t­ian bibles?
    Remem­ber the God makes no mis­takes, thats the Chris­tians way right, well if thats true, does­nt that mean that if god did­n’t want those books found, then they would­nt have been found? I could be wrong here, but did jesus only have the just the cou­ple apos­als that are acual­ly writ­ers of the bible, if i remem­ber cor­rect­ly he start­ed with 12.
    i should get back to the whole poly talk i guess huh.
    i dont want too hit any nervers here, but from what I per­son­al­ly beleave and some of the hate ive had to endure in my life because of my way of think­ing. I dont beleve in forc­ing any­thing like this on any­one. I also don’t beleave in a lot of actions being sins, and heres the shock­er state­ment “I dont beleave ever­thing im told” like i was once told that God wrote the bible, when in all acual­li­ty it was man who wrote it, by the will of God. The only Words that I can recall ever being etched by Gods hand are the com­mand­ments. Of which I cant help but to think theres a lot more than 10, due to the fact that Moses was NOT chris­t­ian, he was of the faith of his peo­ple. which if i read every­thing wright he was Jew­ish, and remark­bly last I looked the Jew­ish faith had over 600 com­mand­ment. sad­ly though sence the acuall tablets have been lost, ether god does­nt want us hav­ing them yet, or there long gone.. or if your of the Aithi­est per­swa­tion, prob­a­bly nev­er even exist­ed, though thats not real­ly me ether. 

    Its Gods job to judge, not ours.
    sor­ry if i seem kin­da angry when I talk, im just pas­sion­ate. its how I feel, and if god made us, which I think is a con­fused con­cept, then he made me have these morals for a rea­son. If its okay with the first wife and hus­t­band and soon to be next wife, i think your cor­rect there is no rea­son why that should­nt be aloud to hap­pen. that is between there god and them, just like it is our job too love them no mat­ter there choices…
    “god is love, but god is fear, and god is pow­er, god is evil, and god is good. god is beyond all our dis­crip­tion of under­stand­ing.” even though your not like­ly to ever find it. Jesus said that. we can have a book, that dis­cribes gods doings, but we are not meant to under­stand god, just the book, and what it meant.
    I think if the god in the bible is real, then God made adam, and then made eve, but sence then only one oth­er being had his direct hand in the cre­ation part, and that was Jesus, oth­er than that, we have had kids only acord­ing too gods “Plan”
    which to me means god lets us have kids, but were mak­ing the kids, and if god did­nt want us to have kids then we would­nt. the same goes for mar­rage real­ly, god mar­ryed Adam and Eve by cre­ation, but sence then not many oth­ers, we just make vows to our wife and god. he would ether acept it, or it would­nt happen.
    theres some­thing huh lol.
    sor­ry i did­nt use a bunch of quotes, but i nether dis­proved any­thing or proved any­thing, just like faith, you will ether beleve it or not.
    oh, and loki is my online name not because im afread to share my giv­en name, but out of pri­va­cy sakes, last time i opened my mouth about my ideas, i had to move to get it too stop, i made every­one mad, because in the world i wish we would let our­selfs live in, was a world baised off of love, not fear, but sad­ly its a world of fear for peo­ple who can think for themselfs.
    good­luck and may the bless­ings of your god be with you :)

  201. Why is it said that men “need” a wife? If that is the case and if Jesus is the exam­ple, why did­n’t he have a wife?

    1. Xavier, id like to take a crack at this one. i once asked a preach­er, and this was his response, in a nut shell by the way.
      “Jesus was god, and he was per­fect, the body of jesus was made per­fect and com­pleat. where the body of men although made per­fect was­nt made com­pleat, and thats why jesus did­nt have a wife, but men need a wife. men need a wife to be compleat.”
      there was talk of the whole “two becom­ing one” and such, i fig­ure if you read this whole thread you will find the quote at least four times.
      my per­son­al thoughts on the mat­ter are “Jesus most like­ly had a wife, the men of the bible did­nt like­ly want a woman to be con­sid­ered that pow­er­ful as to be his wife. so they did­nt talk much about her.” you see, i have strange thoughts about the bible its self, i hon­est­ly think there was way more to the sto­ry. and i hon­est­ly think that is why there has been a quite a few more gospals found in the last few years. i dont think they are all fake, or lies, or any­thing like that, i think most of those are like­ly just anoth­er part of the story.
      plus i think its like­ly those are bet­ter trans­lat­ed than the king james ver­sion of the bible its self. did you know that most of them have been dat­ed back before even most of what the bible is trans­lat­ed from. if peo­ple were using log­ic then they might real­ize its like­ly the old­er ver­sions are like­ly to be clos­er to the true sto­ry. or even the full story.
      but thats a dif­fer­ent sub­ject i guess.

      1. loki June 8, 2012 at 21:48
        Xavier, id like to take a crack at this one. i once asked a preach­er, and this was his response, in a nut shell by the way.
        “Jesus was god, and he was per­fect, the body of jesus was made per­fect and com­pleat. where the body of men although made per­fect was­nt made com­pleat, and thats why jesus did­nt have a wife, but men need a wife. men need a wife to be compleat.”

        If the preach­er told you Jesus pbuh is God Loki your preach­er is wrong. First off there is no where in the bible where Jesus said: “I AM GOD WORSHIP ME”. But I have a pletho­ra of vers­es where Jesus pbuh is pray­ing to a God/Elah, said he has a God/Elah, said he has pow­ers with the Will of God/Elah. Now there was no such name as Jesus either, He was a Hebrew Israelite, Yeshu’a/Isa was his name. You have been taught by the Catholic Church he was God and it has spilled into the oth­er sects of Chris­tian­i­ty, but the fun­ny thing is NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HE WAS GOD!! Until you can show me where Jesus pbuh said he is God him­self I would­n’t advise any­one to take that as the truth. 

        Peo­ple put to much empha­sis on Jesus pbuh when they should be putting their faith in Elah/God who he called upon who sent Jesus pbuh as a mes­sen­ger and prophet. Oh yeah scrip­ture says this. Jesus pbuh him­self said he came to fol­low the Law not break it, I am sure he had a woman and most see her as Mary Mag­da­lene, and the Law said to have a wife.

  202. The more polyg­a­mous fam­i­lies where true love and God­ly holi­ness val­ues are upheld. The quick­er aids and HIV and maybe even more deceas­es will be a thing of the past.

  203. Titus 1:6

    King James Ver­sion (KJV)

    6 If any be blame­less, the hus­band of one wife, hav­ing faith­ful chil­dren not accused of riot or unruly.

    This is all I have to say about polygamy.

    All of you (with the excep­t