Jump to content

Adelphos

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. This is an interesting post, because it cuts to the heart of why we dissagree over various Bible topics. We have the same Bible, but interpret it differently. I don't begin at what Jesus said, and then work backward from there. I search through the Bible as a whole for all scriptures relating to a particular topic. In this case, it would be polygamy. I certainly want to know what Jesus said about marriage, but I also want to know what all the other writers said as well. That is how I came to the conclusion that polygamy is not a sin, and is not forbidden anywhere in scripture. During the time of Jesus' ministry on earth, the people were still under the weight of the entire law of Moses. He taught a Jewish audience. Remember how he said his ministry was to the house of Israel and not the Gentiles? The Apostle Paul is known as the Apostle to the gentiles, as his ministry was primarily to that group of people. Jesus would not have said anything that would have been contrary to the law of Moses. He simply explained it's original intent, as opposed to what the religious leaders had perverted it to mean. Why do we observe certain portions of the law and not others? It is my view that this is because some portions of the law were never intended to be followed forever. Let me explain why. First, there are the laws dealing with the office of the levitical priests. They were established to continue until Christ went to the cross, and then end. Then there were laws that showed Israel to be a separate people from the unclean and idol worshipping gentile nations around them. These only applied to the Jewish people, and circumcision was one such law. It served no purpose but to show the Jewish people were in covenant with God and a separate people. The laws regarding clean and unclean foods were for the same purpose, as is clearly seen in the book of Acts. The laws that still pertain today are those dealing with God's standard of morality, like not stealing, killing, bearing false witness, etc. It is not that the law was done away with in any portion, but that certain elements were set up as a temporary way of dealing with sin until the cross, and showing the children of Israel to be God's people until the church was established. Now that believing gentiles are included in God's family, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, it is only saved and lost, so the symbolism today has changed. When we eat foods once deemed unclean, we do so with a clean conscience understanding that the gentiles are also included in God's plan of salvation. I wouldn't have gone through all of that except to once again explain why I believe polygamy is not a sin. There were regulations regarding this practice in the law of Moses, but the practice was not forbidden. In addition, God used a polygamous relationship to bring about the 12 patriarchs. They all had one father, but 4 mothers. The prophet Samuel also came about as a result of the sincere prayer of a woman in a polygamous relationship. There is also a prophecy that speaks of 7 women taking hold of one man for a husband in a future time because of the shortage of men, as a result of war. From a practical standpoint, I see no need for polygamy to take place today. There is no shortage of eligable single men or women. In addition, most men have trouble supporting one wife, let alone multiple wives. In a future time however, necessity may dictate that we return to allowing polygamy to take place because of war. In Russia, the idea is being contemplated today because of a shortage of men. It is my opinion that the practice is not sinful. Hello, Good post. I have no problem with the Biblical practice of polygyny. The issue isn't necessarily "shortage", but quality. Perhaps you have heard the saying "why are all the good men taken?". Well, if the good men were open to more wives, then the "users and abusers of women" might decide to "act right" if they want a wife. Why? Because these women would know that they do not have to settle for the dregs of society in order to not feel alone. It would give women a good, solid option for love and security. Moreover, at polygyny's height, the estimates are that no more than 10% of the Israelites ever practiced it. It is not for everyone, and I am sure it will never be a majority practice!
  2. Smalcald, I am going to assume you are Lutheran. It might be of interest to you to know that Luther preferred polygyny over divorce, and encouraged the second marriage of Phillip of Hesse.
  3. Hello, There is a hermeneutical principle that says "never make a doctrine out of one passage". There is another one that says, "Scripture interprets Scripture". The problem is not what Jesus said. The problem is understanding what Jesus said. Jesus would not have contradicted His own Law. So, the best way of attempting to understand this passage is to understand it based upon the context of the already established "perfect" Law. To me, it is very presumptuous to be denying Jesus own warning in Matthew 5:17-19. Why? 1. Because one would be forced to make Jesus out to be a liar, for He said that He did not come to "destroy", that is, nullify the Law. The Law included polygyny both passively and activively. 2. Because one would be forced to make Jesus out to be "called least in the kingdom of heaven": "whosoever therefore shall... teach men... (to break "one of these least commandments", "shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:18-19). Since God's Word does not contradict itself, then there must be a viable explanation for Matthew 19: 1. The subject matter is divorce, not polygyny. 2. Jesus would not contradict Himself, therefore, this is not about nullifying a teaching in the Law. 3. Gos'a Law is not evil (Psalm 19:7-9). 4. The issue is about substitution of one wife with another and the dissolution of the one-flesh marital bond with the first wife in so doing. 5. The teaching of Jesus here is 100% consistent with Exodus 21:10-11. We could go into detail if you wish on this passage, but hopefully, this will help.
  4. Remember, the statements of Christ were not said outside of the times He was living. His statements need to be seen within the context of His day. We are wrong to read back into His day our modern day understanding! Moreover, Jesus would not have contradicted the Law: It is a mistake to not understand what Jesus said about anything without understanding that He would not contradict the Law - he would be forced to contradict His own statement above. Blessings!
  5. Well said Adelphos. And welcome to Worthy. thank you Richard
  6. Caleb is another one who God blessed mightly, but he was a practicing polygamist... as was Gideon - who God called very specifically while practicing polygamy. The fact is that the Law allows it. Either the Law is evil because it allows it, or the Law is good and pure.
  7. One thing for sure, if David had multiple wives and scripture says this about him, God surely could not have seen this passage about 'multiplying wives' as damning as some here might want to believe. Great point! As I see it, this was an opportunity for God to share if David had major moral problems. Obviously, God did not include polygny.
×
×
  • Create New...