The Marriage Covenant

[Guest shiloh357]

As for 1Tim3:2&12 As you pointed out, a casual reading suggest that there were members that could not be in leadership positions because they were polygamous. Not that they did anything wrong, but they might be a little busy.

No, that is not the reason why.

It is known that at that time polygamy was not considered unlawfu. Yet, the purpose of the gospel was to restore tmarriage to its original condition; It might have been impossible to expect a new convert to give up his wives if he was a polygamist prior to salvation, but the idea was to set an example by prohibiting the ministers of the gospel from having more than one wife. In this way, polygamy would, over time, come to be regarded as improper, and the example and influence of the ministry would tend to advance the proper view in regard to the true nature of marriage.

Here is something else to take into account. The men had to been of one wife prior to being selected as a deacon or bishop. The Scriptures are clear that they had to be able to demonstrate a consistent track record of Godliness. One way of determining this was by the number of wives they took. Those with multple wives were automatically disqualified. Being a competent head of household was in part determined by having only one wife. These men reflected God's ideal and set the example for the rest of the congregation.

[Lionroot]

Now Lionroot, I will answer your questions, but I must begin by saying that I will answer them in light of God's perfect plan for marriage.

I do not have any issue with the idea of "God's perfect plan for marriage". However you do not base the plan you present on scripture. Why is that?

God's perfect Will for marriage is that ONE man and  ONE woman fall in love and marry, and they stay married until they die.  That is God's perfect plan.  So, any discussion of polygamy must start from that point, and must be examined in the light of God's perfect Will.  Polygamy is never presented in Scripture as God's ideal.  He did not ordain it.

See what I mean? There is not one quote, example, or one reference from scripture. Am I supposed to take your word for it? Is this a personal revelation? From what source does this plan come exactly? You cannot discover scriptural truth, on a sandy non-Biblical foundation.

God made only one wife for Adam thus setting the precedent for the human race.

To be fair Adam took all the wives available. While we agree he did not have opportunity. His marital status in and of itself is irrelevant. Does the Lord ever say, "This is it"?

Polygamy is first mentioned in connection with the wicked Cainite society (Gen. 4:23)

So is your point that there were no evil non-polygamous people? Should I list the evil monogamists of the Bible? What would that prove about monogamy? Monogamy is first mentioned in connection with Adam the man who brought sin and death into the world, but I digress.

God forbade the kings of Israel from taking multiple wives:

[Lionroot]

Yet, the purpose  of the gospel was to restore tmarriage to its original condition; It might have been impossible to expect a new convert to give up his wives if he was a polygamist prior to salvation, but the idea was to set an example by prohibiting the ministers of the gospel from having more than one wife. In this way,  polygamy would, over time, come to be regarded as improper, and the example and influence of the ministry would tend to advance the proper view in regard to the true nature of marriage.

Your do realize your making stuff up now. Right?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

Now Lionroot, I will answer your questions, but I must begin by saying that I will answer them in light of God's perfect plan for marriage.

I do not have any issue with the idea of "God's perfect plan for marriage". However you do not base the plan you present on scripture. Why is that?

Is what I said incorrect? Is anything I said unbiblical? If not, then what is the problem? I did not think I had to demonstrate to a Christian the truth about marriage. This is Bible 101. I am surprised that you would challenge me on a such a basic, fundamental truth.

QUOTE

God's perfect Will for marriage is that ONE man and

[nebula]

OK . . . how long ago did I post that?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Greetings Dr.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I hope that you will continue to be so scripturally centered.

QUOTE(Dr. Luke @ Mar 12 2005, 10:25 PM)

Mt 19:8

He said unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

I am sure that you realise this is a scripture about divorce, not polygamy. It is interesting to note that it is Jesus' rebuttal of contemporary tradition that said a man could divorce for any reason. He in fact restored adultery only divorces.

QUOTE

Men who practiced this always ended up in trouble.

Do you mean to say that single, and monogamous men never ended up in trouble? Should I spend time listing and recounting men that got in trouble who were never polygamous? Adam to Judas to Ananias. Would that really prove anything about their marital status?

QUOTE

God is Graceful. He desires a man to who is Married to be faithful to the Bride of his youth.

I agree with that. Again, divorce is another issue entirely.

QUOTE

Just like Jesus is faithful to His Bride.

As God has always been faithful to his brides, but they have not always been faithful to him have they?

Ezekiel 23

Two Adulterous Sisters

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem.

Read this chapter it is excellent. Anyway, God claims two brides for himself. While I agree this is highly metaphorical, do you really think that God would illustrate something by modeling a sin?

It is clear that Biblically that polygamy is not a sin, and it is not the problem. In every case another "charged" sin is involved. Am I recommending that all you guys run out and get yourselves into such relationship? No way. I am saying that it is important to read the scriptures in the light of the truth, not in the light of modern culture. I myself am in a 17 year strong monogamous marriage, and I highly recommend it. Amen.

God Bless,

Robert

Lion,

Please call me Luke.

Yes, I realize that the Scripture was speaking of Divorce. The Pharisee's who asked seemed to want to lay something of the hardness of men's hearts at the feet of the Lord. Look carefully, The Lord laid it right back where it belonged.

Shall we say culturally men are allowed to violate God's law with impunity? The Law is written on each Believers heart. It does not change. God does not change. men's hearts are hard. God is Graceful though.

I want you to find for me one example of God commanding a man or a King for that matter to have as many wives as he desires.

Men who fall away from the Law written on their hearts are doomed for trouble.

Should I spend time listing and recounting men that got in trouble who were never polygamous?

No, rather we should look at men like Ananias and see how their deceived hearts thought that sin would not ultimately end in death. God is not a fool. That which a man sows shall he also reap.

Job

[Botz]

Hey Botz,

I did not mean to slight you at all. Your points are valid, but they did not specifically address the issue of Davids wives, or the limitation of the King of Israel. Since the issue has been somewhat widened, your statements have become more relevant. Otherwise I did not have much to disagree with., but perhaps I can expand on your threads.

No worries Robert I didn't feel slighted in the least...just stuck my head around the door to make a brief appearance

I don't think polygamy was inherently wrong in those days

We agree.

it is just that much of our society has changed and developed and it is no longer acceptable practiceWe agree, but as Christians we do not seek to please men, and there cultural practices. Jesus spent not a little time refuting the traditions of his day, and we should be equally vigilant against traditions that have no foundation in the word.

Do you seriously believe that polygamy is promoted in the 1st Century Church?

Jesus had nothing against traditions per se...only those that made the word of G-d null and void and placed unnecessary burdens on people.

2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Matthew 15:1-6 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread........."

As for 1Tim3:2&12 As you pointed out, a casual reading suggest that there were members that could not be in leadership positions because they were polygamous. Not that they did anything wrong, but they might be a little busy.

If your interested though there is another possibility that suggests they cannot be divorced. It lies in the Greek word translated "one". What is the word? and what other words is it translated as? I cannot do all the work for you now.

[Lionroot]

Hello nebula,

OK, let me begin by saying this is my last response to you. That should assure you, and others, that I have no personal agenda regarding you. You engaged me first on this issue, and you are welcome to the parting shot.

So, a brand new participant just happens to do a random search and finds a post from me I wrote Jan 17, 2004 (that's over a year ago ) to use against me.

Not buying it.

2) Digging up a quote from over a year ago is not an easy task.  Either you've been tracking me or targeting me or something. (???)

It was in fact a very "easy task" for a long time Internet user like myself. Worthyboard uses a very typical interface. There was nothing "random" about my search. I was in fact looking for consistency in your positions. Using a persons prior writings is a fair debate tactic, not a personal attack. Certainly you have seen people backpeddle as they faced challenges. Unfortunately, it turns out most of your posts are trivial.

Where does the Lord ever mandate, "Take for yourself wives?

I have never said that the LORD gave a "mandate" per se. I said it was not a sin. There is no absolute "mandate" to marry, as there is no absolute mandate for celibacy. If you looking for a mandate though read about Levitical law, and you will see that occassionally a brother may have to take his deceased brothers wife, without regard for his current marital status.

You argue as if you are staunch hard against divorce and remarriage, yet having more than one spouse at the same time is God's perfect plan?

That really avoids the question I asked you, but let me not be so timid. There is absolutely no doubt that divorce is Biblically not permitted, and is sinful. A man unhappy with his wife can live on the roof or sleep in the desert, or marry another(Duet 21:10) but he cannot divorce her, short of her adultery.

Conversely the Patriarchs did not divorce, they did not "remarry".

And you have avoided three times the mention of elders and deacons not being allowed more than one wife.  If polyomy is God's design, why this rule?

Actually, I have responded to those quotes in Timothy. As I said the face value reading does suggests the practice of polygyny in the early church.

Any time a man uses the verse: "He who finds a wife finds a good thing," as an advocation for polygomy (which you had in the very beginning), I can think of no other reason he would state such other than sexual pleasure.

I've had a very bad experience with the male sex drive gone out of control.  I don't trust any man who seems to eager to promote advancing his pleasure like this.

First of all let me say that I am sensitive to your experience. It is without a doubt the reason for your reaction to my postings. However lets be fair, you do not know me. Isn't it unjustified for you to disparagingly reflect your experience upon me? Men (and women) all over are increasing their sexual partners through infidelity. Sadly the rate of infidelity among Christians is almost identical to the population at large. If my interest were merely a sexual one, there are many avenues that offer a more immediate gratification than debating theology with you. I have been faithful to my first and only wife for 17 years now, with no end in sight, short of death to separate us.

So that brings us to the Patriarchs and the other men of God that actually practiced. Do you think they were sex crazed men just advancing their pleasure? Do you really think that would be the kind of man in whom God would delight.(Duet 30:9) or on whom He would set his affection?(Deut 10:15) Was David just another sexual predator? Or was he a man after God's heart, who kept the LORD's commands all the days of his life - except in the case of Uriah the Hittite as the scriptures say? Was Moses confused when he wrote, " You shall not commit adultery" (BTW punishable by death) then just 22 verses later says "If a man marries another woman...". Remember the Lord says he spoke to him "face to face" as a man speaks to his friend, perhaps you think they did not go over "God's Perfect Plan for Marriage"?

I strongly encourage you to reconcile these inconsistencies. You just cannot have it both ways. Either they were Godly men, or they were evil sex crazed men seeking to satisfy their lusty desires. Which is it?

God Bless,

Robert

[Guest shiloh357]

So that brings us to the Patriarchs and the other men of God that actually practiced. Do you think they were sex crazed men just advancing their pleasure? Do you really think that would be the kind of man in whom God would delight.(Duet 30:9) or on whom He would set his affection?(Deut 10:15) Was David just another sexual predator? Or was he a man after God's heart, who kept the LORD's commands all the days of his life - except in the case of Uriah the Hittite as the scriptures say? Was Moses confused when he wrote, " You shall not commit adultery" (BTW punishable by death) then just 22 verses later says "If a man marries another woman...". Remember the Lord says he spoke to him "face to face" as a man speaks to his friend, perhaps you think they did not go over "God's Perfect Plan for Marriage"?

I strongly encourage you to reconcile these inconsistencies. You just cannot have it both ways. Either they were Godly men, or they were evil sex crazed men seeking to satisfy their lusty desires. Which is it?

Actually, there are NO inconsistencies. The Bible does not praise David for taking more than one wife, in violation of the Torah, nor does it praise Solomon for this, in fect, the Bible shows the fruit of the polygamous relationships was extremely bitter for both men. I have refuted your claim that God gave multiple wives to David. God would not have violated His own Torah, and his perfect Will. I have demonstrated that you are not employing proper hermeneutics in your treatment of the this issue, hence your incorrect conclusion and downright sloppy theology where polygamy is concerned. You have clearly not studied the issue in depth enough, or you would not hold to such an erroneous position.

This is clearly illustrated in your usage of Exodus 21:10

If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

(Exodus 21:10)

The context begins in verse seven. God says that if a man sells his daughter to be a servant, then she was not to leave at the end of the six years as the males servants did. If she displeases her master then he must allow her father to redeem her. He is not allowed to sell her to foreigners.

It then goes not to say in verse nine that if he betrothes her to his son, then she is afforded all of the privileges of being a daughter. She is to get the exact same dowry he would give to a daughter born of his own flesh and blood.

If the son takes another wife... This is simply a case of the Bible dealing with common cultural distinctive of that time period. In that part of the world such a thing was not unheard of. However, though God is not forbidding it, he is laying down laws as to how a second wife was to be treated. She was not to eat the food of a slave, her clothing was to be of fine quality, and the son was not to withhold marital rights from his second wife. This has nothing to do with adultery. Nor is this God's stamp of approval on polygamy.

God is not saying, "Go out and get another wife, its OK." God is making allowances for the culture. God also makes laws for how they are to treat slaves. That does not mean that God condones slavery but rather makes a concession in the Torah for the cultural reality.

God made another concession God made was in allowing for a "writ of divorce." Again, that is not God's plan, and it certainly does not meet with His approval, but in certain mitigating circumstances, it is allowed.

None of the Scriptures you use, support your implication that polygamy is a biblically justifiable marriage arrangement.

The Bible does not praise Abraham for having relations with Hagar. It also shows the bitter fruit of that disobedience when the children of Israel had deal with one of their arch enemies the Midianites, descendents of Ishmael in Judges 8. Nowhere do we find polygamy in the presence of holiness. Nowhere is it praised as virtuous, and in every case, the fruit that comes from polygamous relationships in Scripture is always bad, WITHOUT exception. That is the difference between polygamy and monogamy.

Actually, I have responded to those quotes in Timothy. As I said the face value reading does suggests the practice of polygyny in the early church.

Yeah, and it was a lame response. It does not suggest that those who engaged in polygamy were pleasing God by doing so. God wanted the elders to be an example of what was proper. Monogamy is the ONLY proper marrage arrangement, and you have nothing from the Bible that says otherwise.

A man unhappy with his wife can live on the roof or sleep in the desert, or marry another(Duet 21:10) but he cannot divorce her, short of her adultery.

How about checking your references before posting them, and doing some REAL study on this issue? Frankly you don't have leg to stand on. You have completely and soundly refuted.

[nebula]

Robert -

Don't gipe about me using poor debate tactics when you do the same.

The year-old quote bothers me because how do I know you aren't a previously banned poster coming back in with a new username, and you dug up the old quote because you actually remembered that one from before you got banned?

That quote comes from a topic that is so far off from this discussion that it does not seem likely that performing a search for "consistency" would lead you there.

"Most of your posts are trivial," you say? What kind of debate tactic do you call that?

Besides, the only people I have ever heard arguing that polygomy should not be considered a sin are wither Muslims, Mormons, or members of some other cult. Why should you be suprised of suspicion against you for posting such a position?

I have responded to those quotes in Timothy.

"They were too busy" ???

That was your answer?

Amidst a list of requirements indicating spiritual maturity, Paul is concerned about "too busy"???? Oy!

A man unhappy with his wife can live on the roof or sleep in the desert, or marry another(Duet 21:10) but he cannot divorce her, short of her adultery.

So, can a woman who is unhappy with her husband marry another as well (and have more than one living husband)?

BTW, you need to recheck your Scripture reference.