Is polygamy a sin

[solid_core]

Wrong. Nowhere does the Bible talk about a man belonging to someone else as a definition for adultery.

The definition of adultery is to have sex with somebody while you belong to somebody else.

"So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress."
R 7:3

 

[SwordmanJr]

Patriarchs did not have Jesus' words, so His rules do not apply to them.

Don't you find it interesting that Jesus, the only begotten Son of the living God, also existed and spoke with the Patriarchs in their day? Did He not say, "Before Abraham was, I AM"?

Given that Jesus IS GOD, Who also said, "I CHANGE NOT," was Jesus, then, remiss in telling the Patriarchs to abstain from what He knew He would allegedly later disallow as a sin? Wouldn't that make Jesus guilty of a double standard to change the very fabric of marriage in the manner you have described?

So if the Patriarchs didn't have Jesus' words back then, then exactly WHO were they hearing from when God spoke to them? Please be very careful in your answer by remaining on solid grounding from the scriptures.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

The definition of adultery is to have sex with somebody while you belong to somebody else.

"So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress."
R 7:3

You conveniently ignored the fact that the very verse you quoted addresses the WOMAN having sexual relations with another man not her husband. Please go to the original Greek and show me where you get the authority for your misapplication by systematically forcing the text into being neuter, which might THEN apply to both sexes. But it doesn't. Instead, the Greek is VERY specific in its address of the action of a SPECIFIC GENDER in how that verse defines adultery, which is the WOMAN having sex with another man while married to another.

I beg of you to PLEASE read the texts for what they say! Leave misapplication and false teaching to the mormons, jehovah's witnesses and muslims. We as Christians should uphold INTEGRITY in our use of the word of God.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Generally speaking, relationships, whether premarital or marital, should ALWAYS conform to the moral absolutes of God's word in every respect without forcing any man-made dynamics into the mix. Feminism has no place in the word of God. Cultic teachings, social and cultural dogmas and beliefs, NONE of them have any room will find any room in the Bible. Keeping God's word PURE (for what it actually says) from the taints of personal beliefs, whether heard from the pulpits of their false teaching "pastors," Sunday school teachers, or whomever and wherever, seems to be a lost art for many.

The Bible is the final authority I personally will not stand by idly while being corrupted with personal injections that have no place therein. That is in keeping with this section's purpose, as described in the Courting Couples statement of purpose.

Jr

 

[Jonaitis]

"If polygamy is wrong, why did people in biblical times do it?"

The intent purpose of a polygamous culture in the day was different than our idea of it today.

While the Law prohibited kings from taking more than one wife (Deuteronomy 17:17), we yet see David who not only had many wives but was told that had he asked he could have had more (2 Samuel 12:8). Why is that? It had more to do with the interior motive and purpose. It wasn't wrong to have a foreign wife/husband, the commandment that forbid it (Deuteronomy 7:3) referred to idolatrous relationships. Solomon's problem with foreign women was that they were pagans, and their idolatrous influence were detrimental to his relationship with God, thus breaking the intended purpose of the prohibition. Had he married a godly Egyptian wife, like Joseph did (Genesis 41:45), it would have been permissive.

The main scope of polygamous marriage and concubines was to increase the posterity of the male, which was permissive for a time by God. In ancient times, to increase the family and name of a person was important. It was shameful for a woman to be barren, it was like her purpose within a family setting was denied her. You can read the account of Rachel and Leah's fight, or Hannah, or Elizabeth to give an example.

However, the original, established design of the marriage institution was the union between one male and one female. Just as divorce was permissive on account of the hardness of Israel's heart, yet it was never designed to be that way at all. Marriage lasts for a lifetime, you cannot break what God has joined together.

Since the old intent purpose of polygamy is culturally and permissively obsolete, not to mention that men don't desire it for that reason anymore, it is biblically and culturally wrong.

 

[SwordmanJr]

The intent purpose of a polygamous culture in the day was different than our idea of it today.

Perhaps we can both agree that the above statement does not have any bearing upon the morality of polygyny then and/or today.

While the Law prohibited kings from taking more than one wife (Deuteronomy 17:17),

Uh, hold on. That's a false statement. Why do I say that?

Simply stated, interpreting that statement as meaning two or more, as opposed to literally MULTIPLYING beyond reason, forces the preceding verse to also make it unlawful for a king to own more than one horse. Does not the theme of reliance upon God throughout the Bible give us ample reason to believe that a king relying upon an army of horses and chariots, as opposed to a reliance upon God for the nation's strength and protection, is a more consistent treatment of those passages? Can we agree on that? If not, then why?

we yet see David who not only had many wives but was told that had he asked he could have had more (2 Samuel 12:8). Why is that? It had more to do with the interior motive and purpose.

Motive does indeed play into the morality in our actions and possessions, but not all. We have to be careful when applying that with more broad brush strokes than what the word of God states.

It wasn't wrong to have a foreign wife/husband, the commandment that forbid it (Deuteronomy 7:3) referred to idolatrous relationships. Solomon's problem with foreign women was that they were pagans, and their idolatrous influence were detrimental to his relationship with God, thus breaking the intended purpose of the prohibition. Had he married a godly Egyptian wife, like Joseph did (Genesis 41:45), it would have been permissive.

Interesting observation.

The main scope of polygamous marriage and concubines was to increase the posterity of the male, which was permissive for a time by God. In ancient times, to increase the family and name of a person was important. It was shameful for a woman to be barren, it was like her purpose within a family setting was denied her. You can read the account of Rachel and Leah's fight, or Hannah, or Elizabeth to give an example.

Did the Lord ever lay down an injunction to the historic purpose for increasing posterity? How is that different with time, such as in modern times?

However, the original, established design of the marriage institution was the union between one male and one female.

In what portrayal? When we speak of "design" or "intent" within the mind of God, it behooves us to be very careful with our assumptions.

Just as divorce was permissive on account of the hardness of Israel's heart, yet it was never designed to be that way at all. Marriage lasts for a lifetime, you cannot break what God has joined together.

Dare we read the scriptures more carefully, we find that the Lord laid that allowance squarely at the feet of Moses. Nowhere can I find where the Lord ever took credit for that allowance. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this with more clarity and precision?

Since the old intent purpose of polygamy is culturally and permissively obsolete, not to mention that men don't desire it for that reason anymore, it is biblically and culturally wrong.

Please show where it is biblically wrong for a man today to desire polygyny for the RIGHT reasons.

Jr

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Yes.

But just think about how many birthdays, anniversaries, first date anecdotes and other trivia you don't have to memorize now.

See? A bright side to everything.

Good thing you only jest, because if you were serious, then you've condemned Abraham and a majority of all the other Patriarchs of our faith to Hell.

Jr

 

[dayhiker]

Yes, an interesting read is Hebrews 11 and think what do I know about the sex life if each person mentioned. ... All these did tings by faith. Like Sarah asking her husband to have sex with another woman. I don't see people today saying these people were people of faith if we thought about what they had done sexually. Then total up how many meet what the church says we should do and how many didn't.

 

[Sketcher]

Hello guys, I've been wondering if it's a sin for a Christian man to marry more than one wife. Will a person ho to hell if he legally marries more women? Pls advice with scriptural reference. Thank you

Jesus made no room for polygamy with his strict definition of adultery in Matthew 19:9. If divorcing your wife and marrying another woman is adultery against your first wife, then not divorcing her wouldn't make taking on a second wife not adultery.

Besides, you might not want to have multiple wives anyway.

 

[dayhiker]

Jesus made no room for polygamy with his strict definition of adultery in Matthew 19:9. If divorcing your wife and marrying another woman is adultery against your first wife, then not divorcing her wouldn't make taking on a second wife not adultery.

Well you opened up one big topic with that post Sketcher ....
A full reply would take many pages. Which noone would likely read anyways. So a couple of simple thoughts one scripture based and one cultural.

1. Many great men of the OT are had more than 1 wife. We have David who Nathan confronted about his taking Uria's wife Bathseba. But said nothing about him already having several wives. Indeed in 2 Sam.12 Nathan says that God gave David all of Saul's wives and implied that if David wanted more all he had to do was ask God. Clearly OT saints didn't think it was adultery for a man to have more than one wife.
2. At the time of Jesus Rome had a law that a man could only have one wife. But Israel petitioned Rome to give Israel an exemption to that law and it was granted. So the leaders of Israel, God people, thought it was important enough to continue their marriage style to petition Rome to change the law.

Mat.19 has so much going on that we have to know the marriage and divorce situation up till Jesus' time to answer that and that it a very big topic.

 

[Sketcher]

Well you opened up one big topic with that post Sketcher ....
A full reply would take many pages. Which noone would likely read anyways. So a couple of simple thoughts one scripture based and one cultural.

1. Many great men of the OT are had more than 1 wife. We have David who Nathan confronted about his taking Uria's wife Bathseba. But said nothing about him already having several wives. Indeed in 2 Sam.12 Nathan says that God gave David all of Saul's wives and implied that if David wanted more all he had to do was ask God. Clearly OT saints didn't think it was adultery for a man to have more than one wife.

They were Jews, we are Christians. The standard Christ gave is what concerns us.

2. At the time of Jesus Rome had a law that a man could only have one wife. But Israel petitioned Rome to give Israel an exemption to that law and it was granted. So the leaders of Israel, God people, thought it was important enough to continue their marriage style to petition Rome to change the law.

Mat.19 has so much going on that we have to know the marriage and divorce situation up till Jesus' time to answer that and that it a very big topic.

Jesus was speaking in moral terms, not in legal terms.

 

[dayhiker]

Sketcher ... Yes, I agree we are Christians and Jesus didn't change how we are to live, we are to love God and to love people the same as the Jews where to do. Yes, as gentiles we don't have to obey the Jewish purity laws See, Acts, Galatians and Hebrews. I don't see Jesus changing the marriage laws in Mt.19. The question there is about divorce and really not even divorce but about putting away which what many men where doing to their wives rather than divorcing them.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Yes, an interesting read is Hebrews 11 and think what do I know about the sex life if each person mentioned. ... All these did tings by faith. Like Sarah asking her husband to have sex with another woman.

Um, actually, that other woman wasn't someone Abraham had sex with. Hagar was Abraham's wife, as the scriptures make quite clear.

I don't see people today saying these people were people of faith if we thought about what they had done sexually.

You're right that people today and throughout history have said things out of total ignorance. Plural wives was never something the Lord opposed, except when it came to kings "multiplying wives". THAT is where the Lord drew the line. Remember that the Lord gave to some men the plural wives they had.

Then total up how many meet what the church says we should do and how many didn't.

What the "church" says? What is "the church"? May I ask how you define that?

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Jesus made no room for polygamy with his strict definition of adultery in Matthew 19:9.

True. He made no room for it because He never took it away. Jesus gave some men plural wives, so there was nothing to take away.

If divorcing your wife and marrying another woman is adultery against your first wife, then not divorcing her wouldn't make taking on a second wife not adultery.

To ensure you're not adding to scripture what isn't there, where does scripture uphold your rationalization?

Besides, you might not want to have multiple wives anyway.

Most men don't because most couldn't handle it.

Jr

 

[bèlla]

Most women are not naturally interested in joining a triad or founding one. The majority do so at the behest of the male in the picture. The relationships unfold in 3 ways most commonly:

She discovers his desire after they’re involved.
He instructs her to find a second or does so himself.
She enters as the second, third, etc.

Few women are naturally wired to share their companion. The majority undergo significant mental and emotional challenges and struggle with anger, jealousy, and worthlessness. Adapting is her responsibility. Some men try to smooth the process or establish a hierarchy (alpha) to maintain order. But it isn’t easy by a long shot and often takes years to settle without upset.

I can see how this might appeal for someone wrestling with singleness who desires a companion. But the long-term impact would be damaging unless she’s naturally subservient. That’s a must. She is required to subjugate herself to him and the group for the sake of the union. I don’t believe most can do so for long stretches of time without psychological conditioning (breaking) and some measure of internal pain that makes her pliable and open to his influence.

Humans are selfish. This degree of self-sacrifice is more than most can swallow. Some make it work with authoritarian methods and absolute rule for compliance.

~Bella

 

[Sketcher]

True. He made no room for it because He never took it away. Jesus gave some men plural wives, so there was nothing to take away.

By making no room for it, he took any previous existence of it away.

To ensure you're not adding to scripture what isn't there, where does scripture uphold your rationalization?

The verses I quoted, because I do not wish to pervert their meaning.

 

[SwordmanJr]

By making no room for it, he took any previous existence of it away.

I would have to see the premises behind that conclusion. They must be real doosies.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Most women are not naturally interested in joining a triad or founding one.

True.

Few women are naturally wired to share their companion. The majority undergo significant mental and emotional challenges and struggle with anger, jealousy, and worthlessness. Adapting is her responsibility. Some men try to smooth the process or establish a hierarchy (alpha) to maintain order. But it isn’t easy by a long shot and often takes years to settle without upset.

There are other realities you did not cover. Appealing to the more base elements of human nature as the inhibitors is not always the reality in all plural marriages.

But the long-term impact would be damaging unless she’s naturally subservient. That’s a must. She is required to subjugate herself to him and the group for the sake of the union.

Again, this is only one course of reality; one vein. There are others that don't fit into this little cookie box of yours. I always view with suspicion tendencies toward demonization of a marital form simply because it does not conform to the commonly accepted cultural norm. Feminism isn't always a powerful force in the minds of ALL women.

Jr

 

[bèlla]

There are other realities you did not cover. Appealing to the more base elements of human nature as the inhibitors is not always the reality in all plural marriages.

It wasn't meant to be all encompassing. This is a Christian site. It isn't necessary to unpack the depths of the subject in this venue or the thread.

Again, this is only one course of reality; one vein. There are others that don't fit into this little cookie box of yours. I always view with suspicion tendencies toward demonization of a marital form simply because it does not conform to the commonly accepted cultural norm. Feminism isn't always a powerful force in the minds of ALL women.

You are welcome to your views and assessments. I have nothing to defend.

~Bella