Polygamy?

[JCISGD]

People often think God condoned many things He merely overlooked, God has never been into tyrannical control or insisting on His will at the cost of free will. After the fall God dealt very gently with early men as thier understanding of right and wrong was very limited.

Abraham lied to Abimilech without obvious punishment and Lamech? slept with his daughters to further his name, but did God condone such things ? methinks wisdom dictated that some things be overlooked to serve a greater cause.

Further than this He already had a plan to raise up Israel as a light to the nations and begin His ultimate plan of redemption. The law was given by Moses and could only curb unrighteouness, but grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ who shows us the better way.

"be the husband of one wife" is the standard of the new covenant to those who bow the knee to Jesus Christ.

[anitarose]

I might also point out that the State of Utah, when the Union was considering it for statehood, as a condition of becoming a state, had to ban polygamy (the Mormons practiced it openly). Needless to say, there are still some "fringe groups" of Mormonism that openly practice polygamy but as a whole in the state of Utah it is illegal to have more than one wife.

I did some research on this when the whole Warren Jeffs thing came up in the news---he's the guy that was married to not just one but several underage girls and was consenting for others to do the same, going so far as to perform the ceremony itself and even stand in the room when consummation of the marriage took place. Sick man....

a.

[Guest LadyC]

JCISD, lamech slept with his daughters to further his name? are you sure you aren't confusing lamech with lot, whose daughters got him drunk enough to sleep with them so that they would be able to bear children?

seasonedwarrior, there are laws prohibiting bigamy. i believe MG posted a link to that. surely you are aware of this though... seems you were driving at what if a guy shacks up with multiple women without the benefit of a legal marriage... that's a whole different discussion. this discussion is about polygamy, which means legal marriage to more than one person... which is an oxymoron because it's not legal to be married to more than one person. you're thinking of polyamory.

[Matthitjah]

There is a law of first mention and principles that apply here.

The Lord is mentioning Marriage as it began and was sanctioned by God. Not how men were currently practicing it. Therefore, it is entirely relevant.

But in what way is a focus on some elements, at the exclusion of others, relevant? That's what I'm trying to understand. When the underlying foundations of one's use of some elements, at the exclusion of other elements, undermine the overall argument, then I hope you can understand my inability to blindly accept your conclusion.

God does not commend a plurality of wives for any man.

Well, actually, that's a false statement in relation to what God's word portrays. He did command SOME men to have plural wives. This is one of those inconvenient truths that prove God doesn't fit into the nice, neat little god-in-a-box of many people's comforts. The scriptures bear out, in Deut. 25:5, that SOME men had to take into their family an additional wife. That law made no distinction as to whether the living brother was single or married already.

The Lord also is known to have given men plural wives. Such a case is laid out for us to see in the life of David where the Lord clearly revealed, through Nathan the prophet to king David that SOME of David's wives had been given to him by the Lord, and if that had not been enough, then the Lord would have given him even more.

Again, this all rubs against the grain of pet, socially engineered theologies that have painted a theological picture enjoying a long history of social acceptance. Forcing modern values upon the Bible almost always results in falsehoods of some sort. Antiquity doesn't make a falsehood any more true than endless repetition.

Been there, done that.

BTW

Grace to you,

Actually, I believe that it rubs against the grain of your own opinion.

This;

De 25:5

[Guest LadyC]

seasoned, you can play symantics all you want. but the bottom line is, the term marriage, in this country, at the very least implies that it is a marriage sanctioned by and recognized by the state. and so anyone who is "married" according to you, but has not had it certified by the state, is shacking up. whether you like it or not, that is the common perception of people, and what YOU are doing is acting as though you are the legal expert here. so go chew on that for awhile. and by the way, i'd like to see the law that says it is illegal to make a statement about the laws, whether true or not. that's hogwash. what is illegal is for any person to impersonate any government official... or a doctor or lawyer etc. not one person here has claimed to be an attorney, so nobody here is in violation of squat.

now, i'll hand one thing to ya. i disagree with most people here regarding whether or not God ever actually allowed it, or whether he just gave a wink and a nod. was it david or solomon whom God spoke to and said that He (God) had given the king many wives? and that if that hadn't been enough and the king had asked, God would have given him more... in any case, it was one of them. to me that goes way beyond a wink and a nod. and concerning the hebrew law of taking the wife of a deceased brother, there was no requirement of the brother being single. anywhere. and in leviticus, the law demanded that no man take his wife's sister as a RIVAL wife. didn't say he couldn't take another woman, just not the first wife's sister.

however, there's something i find totally bizarre. you come here to this forum and bring up a subject, knowing full well what the common perception is, with the sole purpose of trying to prove everybody wrong based on some obscure legal jargon. you admit that you have challenged pastors on this subject. you admit that you've gone so far as to consult a legal expert on this.

you're obsessed.

and you are pushing an agenda.

and it seems that you've come here to push that agenda in a manner that was kinda sneaky and underhanded.

and if you really have no further interest in anything at worthy other than sitting on some perch and putting others down (yes, i've read your other posts, and you did the same thing in the thread about slavery, and your tone was condescending in the thread about teenagers on this planet, too) then maybe this isn't the right place for you. and i do hope that if you don't change your attitude soon, that your visit here will be short lived.

by the way, you said you don't understand why christians aren't up in arms over serial polygamy being legal. because it's not. one can not have a legal (i.e. certified by state) marriage to multiple people. period.

but we, as christians, DO speak up boldly against adultery (having a "certified" marriage to one while having sexual relationships with others) and against fornication (having sexual relations with one or more people without the benefit of a "certified" marriage.

so feel free to pick up your self-righteous condemnation and ride off on your very tall pony into the sunset.

[Matthitjah]

Bless you friend Seasoned Warrior,

Here's how we operate at Worthy;

2Ti 2:24

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

2Ti 2:25

In meekness instructing those that oppose them; if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

The command, therefore, in some cases, would require an already-married brother to take in an additional wife as his own. The obvious is inescapable.

According to your reading and interpretation. However, scripture and even surrounding scripture doesn't support your argumentation as has already been indicated.

Let's look at the Hebrew;

The first word brethren in Det 25:5 denotes Brethren/Kinsmen;

251. 'ach

Search for H251 in KJVSL

xa 'ach awkh

a primitive word; a brother (used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like 1)):--another, brother(-ly); kindred, like, other. Compare also the proper names beginning with "Ah-" or "Ahi-".

Yes, the womans brother in law is commanded to take her in. However, that doesn't mean that the brother in law is neccesarily Married already and if he were that another Kinsman wouldn't likely be looked to.

The brother in law could also refuse. As in Onan's case.

We see the penalty for not following through with this law;

De 25:7

And if the man desires not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuses to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

De 25:8

Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stands to it, and says, I desire not to take her;

De 25:9

Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

De 25:10

And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that has his shoe loosed.

Again, none of this infers that the man's brother is already Married.

Onan was a younger brother.

Again, we can look to Scripture and not the opinion of man for the answer.

If one looks back at Onan before Moses codified this law we can see it in practice;

Ge 38:2

And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shua; and he took her, and went in unto her.

Ge 38:3

And she conceived, and bore a son; and he called his name Er.

Ge 38:4

And she conceived again, and bore a son; and she called his name Onan.

Ge 38:5

And she yet again conceived, and bore a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bore him.

Ge 38:6

And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.

Ge 38:7

And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.

Ge 38:8

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto your brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up descendants to your brother.

Ge 38:9

And Onan knew that the descendant would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give a descendant to his brother.

Judah had several sons. The first was Er and he was unrighteous so God slew him. Then his wife fell to the younger brother Onan who scripture does not state was yet married. He took the widow in but was unrighteous himself and his actions betrayed him so God slew him too. Judah seeing this kept the third and even younger brother from her in an unrighteous act himself fearing he may fall prey to death. (Probably because of some silly superstition but we don't know)

We know the story though. Judah's wife dies and God corrects Judah's sin of ignoring it through his daughter in law's deceit.

Since you have this already figured out, please explain what would happen if the man had no brothers. How would the Law be fulfilled?

peace,

dave

[Matthitjah]

Sister Christie,

Here's the scripture you were alluding to;

2Sa 12:8

And I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto you more things.

This doesn't neccesarily mean that David took Saul's wives as his own and it also doesn't neccesarily mean that the Lord sanctioned what David did with Bathsheba. In fact the Lord was enraged by it.

It meant that if the Lord was so good to David and delivered even his enemies wives unto his own household or bosom as a sign of that sure victory there were no mercies or blessings He would not bestow upon David. Therefore, what made David think that he could take the matters of his providence into his own hands? It certainly doesn't mean that God would defy His own Righteousness or Just nature to accomodate David.

In fact, the punishment for what David did haunted him for the rest of his life leaving him greatly humbled.

The Lord bless you dear sister.

Peace,

Dave

[Fez]

and if you really have no further interest in anything at worthy other than sitting on some perch and putting others down (yes, i've read your other posts, and you did the same thing in the thread about slavery, and your tone was condescending in the thread about teenagers on this planet, too) then maybe this isn't the right place for you. and i do hope that if you don't change your attitude soon, that your visit here will be short lived.

Do what I did when I received an out of the blue, no prior discussion pm on another subject, never having discussed the subject with him.

Use the pm ignore function.

[Guest LadyC]

so far he hasn't sent me a pm. and if he did, i'd promptly hit the ignore button!

[enoob57]

The book of Ruth is the simple answer to your dilema... Love Steven