Multiple Wives

[Lionroot]

Every single instance of ANYONE having any prominence as far a church leadership was concerned, had no connection to polygamy. Either they were not married, as in Paul's case, or they were monogamous.

The truth is that the marital status of MOST of the NT men is unknown. Remember you gave someone a hard time for arguing from silence. That's exactly what your doing here. Silence is not evidence.

God Bless,

Robert

[Guest drbelitz]

Every single instance of ANYONE having any prominence as far a church leadership was concerned, had no connection to polygamy. Either they were not married, as in Paul's case, or they were monogamous.

The truth is that the marital status of MOST of the NT men is unknown. Remember you gave someone a hard time for arguing from silence. That's exactly what your doing here. Silence is not evidence.

God Bless,

Robert

polygamy ended when Jesus said that what God hath put together let no man put asunder and then stated that the only time divorce(seperation) can take place is if they are living in immorality, which one form of immorality at the time was multiple wives.

[angels4u]

pologamy might become legalized

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday January 13, 2006 Printer friendly version Email to a friend

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russia May Legalize Polygamy for

[firehill]

The "wives" God gave him were of Saul's household, and were symbols (along with everything else in Saul's house that was given to him) symbols of his absolute regal authority and sovereignty as the rightful successor to King Saul as ruler over Israel.

Thats a great theory but that is simply not what the scripture says.

"I gave your master's ...wives into your arms." -NIV

"I gave thee thy ...master's wives into thy bosom" -KJV

The language of the Bible has a trancendent quality that allows us to understand the meanings of words and phrases. The Bible repeats itself, and reveals the deeper meaning of these phrases. God very specifically chooses the words of Sarai. She said:

"I put my servant in your arms" -NIV

"I have given my maid into thy bosom" -KJV

You all know what she meant. Hagar was given as a wife into Abram's arms (or bosom). So it is clear what this phrase meant to the Israelites, who were steeped in the Torah. Within this list of blessing on David, the phrase carried its meaning to them as they read it, as it does to you now.

God Bless,

Robert

"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.

What about the other verses that use the same phrase in which you left out of the equation? There may be more. I've stopped here though.

GLT

Genesis 16:

16:5 And Sarai said to Abram, My injury be upon you; I gave my slave-girl into your bosom, and she saw that she had conceived, and I was despised in her eyes. Let Jehovah judge between me and you.

Exodus

4:6 And Jehovah said to him again, Now put your hand into your bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom, and he brought it out, and, behold, his hand was leprous like snow.

2 Samuel

12:8 And I gave you the house of your master, and your master's wives into your bosom. And I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if that were too little, then I would have added to you these and those things .

Numbers

11:12 I, have I conceived all this people? I, have I begotten it, that You say to me, Carry it in your bosom as the foster father bears the suckling, to the land which You have sworn to its fathers?

[Lionroot]

It has been established that one man and one woman is the ONLY marriage arrangement ordained by God. Gen 2:24, and Matt. 19:5 both attest to this.

These scriptures only tell us about the marriage between a man and a woman, as every marriage is in the Bible. You have yet to show that these same verses do not apply equally to say, David and Abigail, or Joseph and Rachel. What you have not faced is the fact that these marriages are not delineated from what you would call monogamous marriages, but for which the Bible has no special term. A wife is just a wife, a marriage is just a marriage, in the Bible, without regard to any other wives.

It is Scripture that shows me the problems polygamy brings to a family.

Actually its your prejudice that does that. Sin comes from the fall, not marriage. Problems in a marriage are not caused by the institution but by the sinners themselves.

Polygamy does not degrade women. Sin degrades women, just as it does men. Jealousy, greed, envy, and any other such things that these women may have engaged in, that

[Lionroot]

What about the other verses that use the same phrase in which you left out of the equation? There may be more. I've stopped here though.

So you think perhaps God meant David should put these women inside his cloak, in the same way one of your examples show? Was God telling David to carry them in his arms like children? There is simply no equivalence in context. These others are not about a wife being given to a man. As such they are irrelevant to this conversation.

GLT

Exodus

4:6 And Jehovah said to him again, Now put your hand into your bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom, and he brought it out, and, behold, his hand was leprous like snow.

Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, like snow. -NIV

Numbers

11:12 I, have I conceived all this people? I, have I begotten it, that You say to me, Carry it in your bosom as the foster father bears the suckling, to the land which You have sworn to its fathers?

Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth? Why do you tell me to carry them in my arms, as a nurse carries an infant, to the land you promised on oath to their forefathers? -NIV

So what about them? Do they have you confused about what God meant when he gave David these women?

God Bless,

Robert

[firehill]

What about the other verses that use the same phrase in which you left out of the equation? There may be more. I've stopped here though.

So you think perhaps God meant David should put these women inside his cloak, in the same way one of your examples show? Was God telling David to carry them in his arms like children? There is simply no equivalence in context. These others are not about a wife being given to a man. As such they are irrelevant to this conversation.

GLT

Exodus

4:6 And Jehovah said to him again, Now put your hand into your bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom, and he brought it out, and, behold, his hand was leprous like snow.

Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, like snow. -NIV

Numbers

11:12 I, have I conceived all this people? I, have I begotten it, that You say to me, Carry it in your bosom as the foster father bears the suckling, to the land which You have sworn to its fathers?

Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth? Why do you tell me to carry them in my arms, as a nurse carries an infant, to the land you promised on oath to their forefathers? -NIV

So what about them? Do they have you confused about what God meant when he gave David these women?

God Bless,

Robert

The Hebrew phrase is exactly the same in all those verses. English translations provide different wording for the one phrase unlike the Hebrew original. The point is that the phrase does not carry the meaning you ascribe to it just because it is used in reference to women for if it did and according to your logic then your meaning should be imputed into the other verses as well which would be ridiculous.You are assinging a meaning to a particular Hebrew phrase which is obviously not warranted.

[Guest shiloh357]

The "wives" God gave him were of Saul's household, and were symbols (along with everything else in Saul's house that was given to him) symbols of his absolute regal authority and sovereignty as the rightful successor to King Saul as ruler over Israel.

Thats a great theory but that is simply not what the scripture says.

"I gave your master's ...wives into your arms." -NIV

"I gave thee thy ...master's wives into thy bosom" -KJV

The language of the Bible has a trancendent quality that allows us to understand the meanings of words and phrases. The Bible repeats itself, and reveals the deeper meaning of these phrases. God very specifically chooses the words of Sarai. She said:

"I put my servant in your arms" -NIV

"I have given my maid into thy bosom" -KJV

You all know what she meant. Hagar was given as a wife into Abram's arms (or bosom). So it is clear what this phrase meant to the Israelites, who were steeped in the Torah. Within this list of blessing on David, the phrase carried its meaning to them as they read it, as it does to you now.

The problem here is your lack of basic skills in biblical interpretation. Simply using the same word or phraseology does not indicate word usage. My understanding of was meant is reenforced by some simple facts:

1. David is not recorded as marrying Saul's wife or concubine.

2. David did not have any children by either woman.

3. These women were only part of Saul's house and are only mentioned in connection all of Saul's wealth that had been given to David.

Also worth noting is that Sarai gave Hagar to Abraham for the express purpose of creating offspring. It was an act of Sarah, not an act of God.

No mention is made that God gave David Saul's wife and concubine to bring forth offspring for him. They were simply part of the symbolic transferrence of power to David from Saul.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 7 2006, 03:55 PM)

It has been established that one man and one woman is the ONLY marriage arrangement ordained by God. Gen 2:24, and Matt. 19:5 both attest to this.

These scriptures only tell us about the marriage between a man and a woman, as every marriage is in the Bible. You have yet to show that these same verses do not apply equally to say, David and Abigail, or Joseph and Rachel. What you have not faced is the fact that these marriages are not delineated from what you would call monogamous marriages, but for which the Bible has no special term. A wife is just a wife, a marriage is just a marriage, in the Bible, without regard to any other wives.

It is clear that it is monogamy that is upheld by those passages. An intelligent, thinking person can simply read the Scriptures and see that the Bible upholds ONLY monogamous relationships as ordained by God. Polygamy began when sin increased in the world. It is the invention of sinful man, and outside the Will of God.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 7 2006, 03:55 PM)

It is Scripture that shows me the problems polygamy brings to a family.

Actually its your prejudice that does that. Sin comes from the fall, not marriage. Problems in a marriage are not caused by the institution but by the sinners themselves.

Polygamy provides the environment for sin to thrive. I cannot blame jealousy, pride, or whatever on polygamy, anymore than I can blame God's marital arrangement for adultery. However, the difference between the two is that polygamy, when practiced, provides an environment for women to become abused by each other and jealous of each other. It caused some women to be humiliated and shamed. Because the ancient Middleastern culture emphasized a Patriarchal system, those women who contributed to furtherance of the family line were more favored, and held as more value than women who were barren. That is not God's way.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 7 2006, 03:55 PM)

Polygamy does degrade women because in the ancient Middleeast women who bore sons were the most favored. Women who bore daughters were less favored since they did not provide a male to carry on the bloodline and the women who were barren were seen in some cases as despised by God.

You understand that this is a humanistic argument.

No, it is an historical argument. That is how it was. You may not like the historical reality of how cruel polygamy was to women, but then truth is not something you are known for around here.

Men of God do not have the option of favoritism, specifically because God made commands against it.

God gave instructions about how polygamy could be tolerated in the nation of Israel. That is not a sanction of it. As for the "man of God," It is worth noting that the High Priest was only allowed one wife. God forbade the King to multiply wives unto himself. This was speaking directly to the practice of kings marrying the daughters of other kings as a manner of diplomacy with the kings of those nations.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 7 2006, 03:55 PM)

They would get made fun of by the women able to bear children, as seen in the case with Hannah and Penninah.

Of course these two make my point, in fact I was thinking of them as I wrote, "sin degrades women". Jealousy is not a result of polygyny, it is a result of the fall.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 7 2006, 03:55 PM)

It degrades women by placing them in a sort of caste system causing the less fortunate to be looked upon with undeserved contempt over something they have no control over. As a result, it causes undue shame to the poor woman who though barren, would have in a Biblical marriage, been able to receive all the honor and dignity she deserved.

Again this is a humanist argument based on the sin nature of mankind. There is no discussion of "caste system" in the Bible. It was not part of the obedient man's home.

Again, it is just history plays out. Polygamy when practiced properly, provides an environment for sin to flourish. God's way of marriage (monogamy) when practiced properly, does not provide the environment. That may not prevent sin from entering the marriage, but at least God's marital arrangement does not provide the means for sin to flourish.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 7 2006, 03:55 PM)

In the biblical marriage that God actually ordains, a woman is loved by her husband more than he loves himself.

I believe the term is "as" not "more". Lets do away with feministic heresy.

No, let's do away with your imbecilic pro-polygamy heresy. There is nothing feministic about what I said. Love by its very nature prefers others over itself. It willingly sacrifices and seeks all of those things which make for others' highest good. True love places self on the "back burner." Love cannot be defined by only one verse of Scripture. If that is "feministic" to you, you are not much of a man.

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 7 2006, 03:55 PM)

Whether a mother or not, she is afforded all the dignity and honor she rightly deserves. She is not just a baby machine, she is a woman made in the image of God and is, second only to the Lord, the sole object of her husband's desire. That is far superior to anything a polygamous marriage could provide.

"Second only to the Lord"? What scriptures are you reading? Haven't you read:

the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

That verse does not, in anyway correct what I said. The Lord is our number one Love, our spouse is number 2. When a man has his priorities right, and places God at the head of his life, he will love his wife properly, and they will truly exemplify what it means to be one flesh. One flesh is only possible in a monogamous marriage.

You can believe your silly, pro-polygamy tripe, Robert. I believe that women deserve better. They deserve God's marital arrangement, not the inferior man-made system you are trying to defend. I will stick to what God has ordained and blessed.

[Guest LadyC]

...at the root of Polygamy is self gratification ...

I hate to shock you guys...but this can be true. It can even be true in monogamous marriages as well. When people marry for such hollow reasons their relationships fail. Perhaps that is why Christians are divorcing for the first time at a rate equal or greater than non-Christians. Samson was a monogamous man who married for such reasons. He saw a woman desired her and married her. His marriage to her is an example of this exactly.

Paul wrote, it is better to marry than to burn with passion, but that doesn't mean that more is not required to make a successful marriage.

God Bless,

Robert

maybe i need to re-read the story of samson. to my recollection, he married for LOVE, not self-gratification. his wife was taken from him, and killed, wasn't she? and in despair samson went on this wild rebellious streak that included a torid, self-gratifying affair with delilah.... isn't that how it goes? he was never married to delilah.