Polygamy, Where is it forbidden specifically

[deadman1204]

Pauls comment might mean more in light of Jesus's discussion on marriage. He calls celebacy a gift, because the person can dedicate more time to God than a married man can.

So Paul saying a bishop shouldn't have more than 1 wife probably relates to the bishop needing the time to perform his duties without neglecting God or his family.

[Prodigalson123]

If four wives, why not fourteen? Or like Muhammad of Yathrib, what, 25? Four for his compatriots, any number for the leader, yes? Both Muslims & Mormons always go far overboard on this strategic life issue. Our Lord was straightforward & to-the-point on it: In Matthew 19 - a repeat of Genesis 1:27; 2:21-25 - male & female for a lifetime. Husband & wife - singular - not plural. Deuteronomy 17:17 explicitly instructs God's people not to "multiply wives." Even Paul in 1 Timothy 3:2 couldn't be clearer, "the husband of ONE wife." Truth to tell, it was Adam & Eve in the first and strategic instance, never Adam and Eve....plus Miriam and Ruth and Rachel and Helena and Delilah and Joanne and whatever else. In Holy Writ, polygamists paid severe penalties for desecrating Jehovah God's declaration on holy matrimony. Solomon was the leader, so to speak, in going against God's will re monogamy. He sinned in two ways (1) he engaged in polygamy, and (2) he violated Jehovah's command against marrying pagans, which ultimately led to his own apostasy. Or did we forget? Polygamy denies Holy Scripture, denigrates womanhood and multiplies 'family' suffering. Fast coming down the pike to a community like yours: polyandry! Quik guys, clap if you deserve respect!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

well I looked up the scriptures that you cited, and I don't see where it says singular. The reference in Matthew is:

anthrōpos

anth'-ro-pos

From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man. That isn't speaking of a single man, but of mankind.

I'm just trying to give an educated response here, I'm not trying to further an agenda. But the Bible is replete with concerns about adultery. But it doesn't say anywhere I can find it's one man and one woman. Marriage is men and women, but another problem we as Christians face is the same Eve faced when talking to the serpent. Don't add to the scriptures what isn't there,( Not only did God say we can't eat, but not even touch the fruit) Gen 3:3

[MK202002]

maybe if your try showing your friend God nature toward us in the Bible. I mean God trying to keep us totally for himself, the church being called "the bride of Christ". And marriage in several ways is supposed to reflect this relationship. So exclusiveness is seen in the Bible. Man, the bible is so different from the Koran, sometime its hard to nail an answer down in the Bible, even though it's clear enough.

[Smalcald]

I think Christ is pretty clear on the singular use of man and wife when He is discussing marriage and divorce.

He does not say multiple marriages and multiple wives, he says wife and He says husband and he says marriage. I think in agrarian cultures long prior to that time it was important to have large numbers of working children, thus the need for more than one wife in a family.

Today however multiple wives are usually just an excuse for child molestation, at least that it is how it is being practiced by the Mormon Fundamentalists, marrying their 13 year old second cousins and calling it normal. The reason that it devolves today into children is that most fully informed women above the age of 18, who are not already trapped in a multiple marriage want nothing to do with being the fourth wife to some old slime ball, thus the need to target the young teens who can be controlled and coerced. I have never seen a modern example of multiple wives being practiced in a healthy way; there is something basically wrong with it, sometimes the gut check is important on sin. But we have Christ

[Guest LadyC]

i don't believe polygamy is forbidden by scripture, whereas it does not violate the laws of the land. scripture indicates clearly to the israelites that they should not take a wife as a RIVAL wife... particularly not to take a wife's sister as a rival wife. it was customary, and in fact, law, at the time that a widow who had no children was to be taken as a wife to the deceased husband's nearest kin, to provide the dead brother with an heir. however, it was also according to custom that if the nearest kin's FIRST wife objected, then the next nearest kin was to take that responsibility. the laws were God's laws, and were for the protection and provision of women, as much as for the inheritance issues. you'll note two things... one, that only a man could have multiple wives (and many of God's servants, biblical patriarchs, did so)... women could not have multiple husbands... and second, that a woman without a husband who had no children to support her was left to either scavenge for grain left in the fields, or prostitute herself out to support herself.

i do not believe that God looks with disfavor upon people from other countries who still lawfully practice polygamy. God would have a few things to say to someone in THIS country who chose to have multiple wives!

[Smalcald]

Well I think Christ will indeed overlook the sin of many who are deluded or are swept up in a culture which practices unrighteousness, particularly when the people honestly believe that it is okay and not sin. I agree with you here.

But Christ said;

[Prodigalson123]

Well I think Christ will indeed overlook the sin of many who are deluded or are swept up in a culture which practices unrighteousness, particularly when the people honestly believe that it is okay and not sin. I agree with you here.

But Christ said;

[Smalcald]

I agree, but in Mathew 19:8 He is speaking about their wives plural because He is speaking to the group, three men will have three wives. But more directly the context of what Christ is saying is indeed pointed directly at the fact of one husband and one wife. It makes no sense to say the two will become one flesh, then broaden the language to mean wives in the plural it does not fit with His description of leaving your wife, it is pointed at the singular meaning of that word.

But to answer your question, I don't think there is a direct discussion of polygamy in the New Testament, but I think that non-polygamy is assumed in the New Testament Church. For example look at Paul's discussions in Corinthians. "But he who is married cares about the things of the world-how he may please his wife" again it is assumed wife in the singular. The other descriptions by Paul about married life again point to one wife and one wife only.

But just getting to your point, if one were to simply read the New Testament without Greek lexicons, etc, we would be fully convinced that marriage meant one women and one man as discussed plainly by both Christ and Paul. Plus of course the whole analogy about the Church being the bride of Christ, not multiple Churches being the brides of Christ.

[Guest LDStudent]

For me this is a tricky issue. I know God does sometimes sanction polygamy, as He did in Israel. (When a man's brother died, he must take his brother's wife). And it is true that the Bible does not condemn polygamy. However, deep down I believe God always intended 1 wife for 1 husband.

[book_wirm]

It makes no sense to say the two will become one flesh, then broaden the language to mean wives in the plural...

It depends on what you think "becoming one flesh" means. I Corinthians 6:16 tells us:

"What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

It appears that marriage is not required to become one flesh...rather, sex is. And how many men can become "one flesh" with the same harlot?

...it does not fit with His (Christ's) description of leaving your wife, it is pointed at the singular meaning of that word.

Right...because it is wrong to leave your wife. Whether the first or second etc, it is wrong to leave any. If I say it is wrong to abuse your child you would understand that I imply as many children as you have. The passage you refer to has nothing to do with polygamy, though, either in support or denouncement. It has to do with divorce.

...I think that non-polygamy is assumed in the New Testament Church.

Then why does Paul see fit to require Bishops and Deacons to be the husband of one wife if it is assumed that all Christian men should be so?

In Christ,

Eric

*Edit: typos

Edited January 17, 2006 by book_wirm