Multiple Wives

[firehill]

As far as I know, Whysoblind and LacyC don't believe you proved your point either. They just got tired of the debate. You think you proved your case. I believe I proved mine. I don't think anyone changed their mind.

You didn't prove anything. Your whole assertion is that nothing can be proved.

So true! K, that was funny. Am trying to catch up here.

[Guest shiloh357]

Endorsement or not, it was not in spite of but because of. The circumstances had to be right for her to make the petition she did.

Yes it was inspite of. It was not the polygamy itself that drove her to make the peitition. It was her desire to have a child, in order to end her humiliation only made worse by the incessent, nonstop taunting by Penninah. God did not cause a polygamist marriage. It would have been out of His character.

[firehill]

And your conclusion that polygamy is what set apart the righteous from the unrighteous disturbs me greatly.

I must have overlooked that. That is a kind of an extreme position to take.

NOAH WAS RIGHTEOUS AND NOT A POLYGAMIST!

Nebula agreed!

POLYGAMY is NOT what SET APART the righteous from the unrighteous!

[firehill]

so I'm not really sure why that keeps being debated.

I am disagreeing with your assertion that God planned the polygamy of Jacob and therefore endorsed it in this situation, which when taken with the rest of Scripture, is patently false. It is not a gray area that God only knows.

Prove it.

Because the standard for marriage was established in Genesis 2:24 and in Matthew 19:5 Jesus reiterated the proper standard for marriage. God does not endorse what He does not ordain. The difference is that polygamy was only allowed, and then only under certain circumstances. Those circumstances were not outlined in Jacob's day. They appear much later in the Torah. So it is likely that the prescriptions for polygamy to tolerated by the Lord were not being utilized even by Jacob.

Biblical marriage is based upon mutual love. Concubines were not "lovers." Jacob only loved ONE woman and that was Rachel. A loveless marriage is not a biblical or Godly marriage. God worked in those circumstances, but the arrangement certainly did not meet with His approval.

Polygamy is always accompanied by Jealously and strife. This is seen between Hagar and Sarah, Leah and Rachel, and Hannah and Penniah. I can imagine we will find the same strife and jealousy in any polygamist society we examine. It appears to be the nature of the beast.

Also look at the first time polygamy is mentioned in the Bible.

And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. Lamech said to his wives: "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold."

(Genesis 4:19-24)

Neither his murder or his polygamy are expressly condemned in this passage; they are simply reported as fact. But I hope it is not lost on you that this chapter begins with a description of the escalation of sin in mankind. Here is a man boasting that he has committed murder. Now obviously polygamy is not criminal as murder is, but it bears noting that the first polygamist in the Bible was a murderer. It is worth noting that polygamy is first mentioned in connection with increase of sin in the world and the pre-flood corruption. Having said that, I would also say that Noah was the ONLY man who found grace in the eyes of the Lord, in the days just prior to the flood and He was NOT a polygamist.

Furthermore, God has designed marriage to be a reflection of Christ and His bride. It shows the Love of Christ and how He cares for the Church. Christ has only one bride. A polygamous marriage destroys the picture. Therefore, since it is the FIRST institution set up by God, and it is meant as picture of how much God loves the world, it stands to reason that polygamy would be out of kilter, and God is certainly not going to employ, nor endorse that which wrecks a vital salvation picture He established.

Wow. That was such a good post. It basicaly summed everything up.

We know what the standard for biblical marriage is one man and one woman (Genesis)

We know that Jesus referd to biblical marriage

We know that God did not ordain polygamy because we know He ordained one man/one woman marriage

We know that polygamy is always accompanied by jealousy and strife

We know that the first time polygamy is even mentioned in the Bible is with the escalation of sin of mankind

We know that Noah was not a polygamist

We know that leaders of the NT church are not allowed to practice it and that they are our example

We also know that polygamy destroys the picture of Christ and the church which God established

To say that it is not of the fallen nature is to be in denial

[Guest shiloh357]

I suppose now you are able to read minds because you know why Hannah made the petition? This entire post is speculation on your part, but the problem with the entire issue is that neither side has absolute proof they are right. There are scriptures that can be used to argue both sides. That is why nobody has had their mind changed in either direction.

1. I don't have to read minds. It is clear why Hannah was praying for a son. 1Sam 1:7-10 tells of her distress which was brought on by the nonstop cruel provocation which Elkanah would not put a stop to. It was out of her distress caused by Penninah that she was praying for a son.

2. No there are NO Scriptures that can be used to justify polygamy. You have sought to misread biblical scenarios/situations to suppport your position, but the Scritpures do not support your postion at ANY point. You have exactly Zero Scriptures to support polygamy as acceptable before God.

[Guest shiloh357]

BUTERO's RESPONSE:

If she prayed for a son because of the provocations, then once again, polygamy led to something good, Samuel the prophet. It was because of polygamy, not in spite of it. This goes against your position.

No, that is not so. It was God responding to Hannah's prayer that led to something good. Taking your position it is polygamy that gets the Glory and not God. Had God not healed Hannah, she would have continued living in a house with the cruelty of Penninah and the obvious indifferent Elkanah who from what can be seen in Scripture was morally different to Hannah's distress. Polygamy was leading nowhere good. It was God who had to intervene and change the situation.

The scriptures regulating it justify it Shiloh. If they follow those guidelines, it is acceptable.

The very fact that God had to regulate it should tell you something. If it were acceptable as a marriage arrangement, there would have been no need to regulate it. It was never in the Will of God for such a marriage arrangement to occur. Harems, in the Middleeast were signs of power and prosperity. They were not Godly marriages. They benefited the men, but offered little to the women. Often times, the women were incessantly cruel to each other. It was a horrible arrangement for the women and certainly less than humane. The regulations made polygamy tolerable, not acceptable.

If those who are in polygamous relationships are not acceptable, the opposite would mean they were rejected, meaning Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. were all castaways.

I did not say that those involved were not acceptable before the Lord. Stop putting words in my mouth. Polygamy was never acceptable, it was simply tolerated, and then only under certain restrictions.

How can it not be sinful, and also be unacceptable. I refer to your last sentence in point 2 where you used the word acceptable specifically. I think I have proven it quite well to anyone reading it with an open mind coming in.

If it were acceptable, it would be encouraged, and presented in the Scripture as Godly. God allowed divorce in certain instances because of the general sinfulness of man, but that does not make divorce acceptable. It is never God's best and perfect Will of God. If polygamy is acceptable, then why only allow monogamous men to serve as bishops and deacons? If there is nothing invalid, or problematic with it, why that particular restriction?

A man had to be able to demonstrate that he could manage his family. If he could not manage his families affairs, how could be trusted to manage the affairs of the congregation? That tells us something else about polygamous arrangements. Multiple wives present multiple situations, and because of the strife and jealousy, bitterness and envy, it would be harder manage. The jealousy would also foment resentment and rebellion against the husband by some of the wives who felt they were not getting what they felt they deserved. Rebellion of this nature would speak to why only men with one wife were permitted to serve as deacons or bishops.

[apothanein kerdos]

I guess my question is....wouldn't multiple wives be a curse from God, thus making sense on why it's wrong and you should want nothing to do with it?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[RGR]

I guess my question is....wouldn't multiple wives be a curse from God, thus making sense on why it's wrong and you should want nothing to do with it?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is not that polygamy gets the glory. I am saying that she was in a position where she would seek God for a son. Had she not been in that place, she might not have petitioned God, and thus, no Samuel. That was my point.

Your position credits polygamy with the birth Samuel and that credit is misplaced. What if Samuel had not been born? God would have raised up someone else. It was God responding to the prayer of Hannah who was in a less than desirable situation that brought about Samuel.

God places regulations on a traditional marriage. He regulates the chain of authority. He regulates how the husband is to treat his wife. He forbids adultery. These are all regulations on how the home is to be run. Using your logic, the very fact God had to regulate it should tell you something. I guess no marriage is an acceptable arrangement.

No, it is different. Marriage is not "regulated," per se. Marriage is an ordained institution by God. As such it is not internally regulated the way polygamy is. God, relative to biblical marriage, defines any act or behavior reserved for marriage which is done outside of marriage as sin. That would include adultery. Any type of sexual contact with a member of the opposite sex outside of marriage is a sin. When a man and woman are fulfilling God's purpose for marriage, there is no reason to regulate it.

When God regulated polygamy, he regulated the behavior of the people within that marital arrangement. He set up rules as to how one would treat his wives within the polygamous arrangement. Those regulations would not have been necessary had polygamy been acceptable in His sight. The very need for regulations speak to the sinful practices that had been engaged in up until that time.

[Guest shiloh357]

The same restrictions would also include women, single men and widowers. Are they inferior to married men? If not, this whole point is invalid.

No the point is not invalid. Only monogamous men, men who were above reproach who were proven faithful to their wives and competent managers of their home and personal affairs were selected to be leaders in any given congregation. They were meant to serve as examples. They were examples to rest of the congregation in every sphere of their lives. ANY man who wanted to serve in those positions had to meet the criteria of monogamy and it is second in the list for both offices. Since they were to serve as examples, it would stand to reason that polygamy was not encouraged in the NT church.