Polygamist of the Old Testament

[Smalcald]

ALL of our actions and intentions toward God as Christians today can ONLY be seen through the eyes of Christ as shown in the New Testament. We should always start with what Christ said about marriage or any other facet of our behavior and life.

Remember, the statements of Christ were not said outside of the times He was living. His statements need to be seen within the context of His day. We are wrong to read back into His day our modern day understanding! Moreover, Jesus would not have contradicted the Law:

Matthew 5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

It is a mistake to not understand what Jesus said about anything without understanding that He would not contradict the Law - he would be forced to contradict His own statement above.

Blessings!

Jesus would not contradict the Law but Jesus wrote the Law it is His Law to do with as He pleases. Jesus most certainly changed the law for gentile believers. Why do we not follow the 300 some laws listed in Leviticus, are they not the law? Why does the New Testament tell us directly that circumsions profits us nothing, yet circumcision was a Law a very strong Law given?

[Adelphos]

One can live and stand firmly on what the Lord Jesus Christ declared in Matthew 19:4-6 - and SINGULAR "wife" in Verse 5 - re Holy Matrimony: one male, one female for a lifetime commitment "till death do us part." What's difficult about listening to & obeying the very Head of the Christian Church? Some kind folk prefer it in shades of gray, though, right?http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Hello,

There is a hermeneutical principle that says "never make a doctrine out of one passage". There is another one that says, "Scripture interprets Scripture". The problem is not what Jesus said. The problem is understanding what Jesus said. Jesus would not have contradicted His own Law. So, the best way of attempting to understand this passage is to understand it based upon the context of the already established "perfect" Law.

To me, it is very presumptuous to be denying Jesus own warning in Matthew 5:17-19. Why?

1. Because one would be forced to make Jesus out to be a liar, for He said that He did not come to "destroy", that is, nullify the Law. The Law included polygyny both passively and activively.

2. Because one would be forced to make Jesus out to be "called least in the kingdom of heaven": "whosoever therefore shall... teach men... (to break "one of these least commandments", "shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:18-19).

Since God's Word does not contradict itself, then there must be a viable explanation for Matthew 19:

1. The subject matter is divorce, not polygyny.

2. Jesus would not contradict Himself, therefore, this is not about nullifying a teaching in the Law.

3. Gos'a Law is not evil (Psalm 19:7-9).

4. The issue is about substitution of one wife with another and the dissolution of the one-flesh marital bond with the first wife in so doing.

5. The teaching of Jesus here is 100% consistent with Exodus 21:10-11.

We could go into detail if you wish on this passage, but hopefully, this will help.

[Adelphos]

Smalcald,

I am going to assume you are Lutheran. It might be of interest to you to know that Luther preferred polygyny over divorce, and encouraged the second marriage of Phillip of Hesse.

[Adelphos]

ALL of our actions and intentions toward God as Christians today can ONLY be seen through the eyes of Christ as shown in the New Testament. We should always start with what Christ said about marriage or any other facet of our behavior and life.

This is an interesting post, because it cuts to the heart of why we dissagree over various Bible topics. We have the same Bible, but interpret it differently. I don't begin at what Jesus said, and then work backward from there. I search through the Bible as a whole for all scriptures relating to a particular topic. In this case, it would be polygamy. I certainly want to know what Jesus said about marriage, but I also want to know what all the other writers said as well. That is how I came to the conclusion that polygamy is not a sin, and is not forbidden anywhere in scripture.

During the time of Jesus' ministry on earth, the people were still under the weight of the entire law of Moses. He taught a Jewish audience. Remember how he said his ministry was to the house of Israel and not the Gentiles? The Apostle Paul is known as the Apostle to the gentiles, as his ministry was primarily to that group of people. Jesus would not have said anything that would have been contrary to the law of Moses. He simply explained it's original intent, as opposed to what the religious leaders had perverted it to mean.

Why do we observe certain portions of the law and not others? It is my view that this is because some portions of the law were never intended to be followed forever. Let me explain why. First, there are the laws dealing with the office of the levitical priests. They were established to continue until Christ went to the cross, and then end. Then there were laws that showed Israel to be a separate people from the unclean and idol worshipping gentile nations around them. These only applied to the Jewish people, and circumcision was one such law. It served no purpose but to show the Jewish people were in covenant with God and a separate people. The laws regarding clean and unclean foods were for the same purpose, as is clearly seen in the book of Acts. The laws that still pertain today are those dealing with God's standard of morality, like not stealing, killing, bearing false witness, etc. It is not that the law was done away with in any portion, but that certain elements were set up as a temporary way of dealing with sin until the cross, and showing the children of Israel to be God's people until the church was established. Now that believing gentiles are included in God's family, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, it is only saved and lost, so the symbolism today has changed. When we eat foods once deemed unclean, we do so with a clean conscience understanding that the gentiles are also included in God's plan of salvation.

I wouldn't have gone through all of that except to once again explain why I believe polygamy is not a sin. There were regulations regarding this practice in the law of Moses, but the practice was not forbidden. In addition, God used a polygamous relationship to bring about the 12 patriarchs. They all had one father, but 4 mothers. The prophet Samuel also came about as a result of the sincere prayer of a woman in a polygamous relationship. There is also a prophecy that speaks of 7 women taking hold of one man for a husband in a future time because of the shortage of men, as a result of war.

From a practical standpoint, I see no need for polygamy to take place today. There is no shortage of eligable single men or women. In addition, most men have trouble supporting one wife, let alone multiple wives. In a future time however, necessity may dictate that we return to allowing polygamy to take place because of war. In Russia, the idea is being contemplated today because of a shortage of men. It is my opinion that the practice is not sinful.

Hello,

Good post.

I have no problem with the Biblical practice of polygyny. The issue isn't necessarily "shortage", but quality. Perhaps you have heard the saying "why are all the good men taken?". Well, if the good men were open to more wives, then the "users and abusers of women" might decide to "act right" if they want a wife. Why? Because these women would know that they do not have to settle for the dregs of society in order to not feel alone. It would give women a good, solid option for love and security. Moreover, at polygyny's height, the estimates are that no more than 10% of the Israelites ever practiced it. It is not for everyone, and I am sure it will never be a majority practice!

[EricH]

This is an interesting post, because it cuts to the heart of why we dissagree over various Bible topics. We have the same Bible, but interpret it differently. I don't begin at what Jesus said, and then work backward from there. I search through the Bible as a whole for all scriptures relating to a particular topic.

So which is the correct approach and why?

[Openly Curious]

Was polygamy permitted in the OT or mercifully not dealt with by Jehovah?

It was obviously permitted because it was regulated or permitted in the law as it was dealt with as the right of the firstborn went to the legitimate firstborn even if it was the son of the favorite wife. There was also a regulation of a man marrying two sisters but polygamy was not prohibited. So it was regulated mercifully by Jehovah and dealt with by God to the point of regulating polygamy.

OC

[Lionroot]

From a practical standpoint, I see no need for polygamy to take place today. There is no shortage of eligable single men or women. ...It is my opinion that the practice is not sinful.

There is in the Christian church. I have read from several sources that most churches maintain an average of about 30% male membership. If that is true then potentially only 60% of the membership will ever be married, assuming life long monogamy. (...and not serial monogamy which is practiced in the church at the same rate the as the godless population, and was discouraged by Christ(Matthew 5:32)) That leaves a full 40% out of the loop. That is some are under command to marry(1 Corinthians 7:9), but to only marry a believer(1 Corinthians 7:39, 2 Corinthians 6:14), but some forbid to marry(1Timothy 4:3), and thats a shame.

So thats my take on the practical standpoint....

[Lionroot]

Follow-up ....

In my last post I threw out some ballpark figures....

Here is what one author says:

• The typical U.S. congregation draws an adult crowd that's 61 percent female and 39 percent male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.
  
• On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America's churches.
  
• This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.
  
• Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.
  
• As many as 90 percent of the boys who are being raised in church will abandon it by their 20th birthday. Many of them will never return.
  
• More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only two out of six attend church on any given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.
  

(from a review of the book "Why men hate going to church"

click here)

Using these figures, I would say we are talking about roughly 4.5 million women that will never marry a believing man, that isn't engaged in serial monogamy.

The future looks even bleaker when you consider what he says about boys abandoning their faith by the age of 20.

[Ovedya]

Follow-up ....

In my last post I threw out some ballpark figures....

Here is what one author says:

• The typical U.S. congregation draws an adult crowd that's 61 percent female and 39 percent male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.
  
• On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America's churches.
  
• This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.
  
• Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.
  
• As many as 90 percent of the boys who are being raised in church will abandon it by their 20th birthday. Many of them will never return.
  
• More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only two out of six attend church on any given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.
  

(from a review of the book "Why men hate going to church"

click here)

Using these figures, I would say we are talking about roughly 4.5 million women that will never marry a believing man, that isn't engaged in serial monogamy.

The future looks even bleaker when you consider what he says about boys abandoning their faith by the age of 20.

And sooo......?

Are you seriously using these figures (Which may or may not be accurate) to try and justify polygamy?

What obligation does the church have, at all, of insuring that women get married?

Chapter and verse, please.

[Lionroot]

Are you seriously using these figures (Which may or may not be accurate) to try and justify polygamy?

Not at all. That issue is already covered in scripture. I was addressing Buttero who wrote:

I wouldn't have gone through all of that except to once again explain why I believe

polygamy is not a sin

.

.

.

.

From a practical standpoint, I see no need for polygamy to take place today. There is no shortage of eligable single men or women. In addition, most men have trouble supporting one wife, let alone multiple wives. In a future time however, necessity may dictate that we return to allowing polygamy to take place because of war. In Russia, the idea is being contemplated today because of a shortage of men. It is my opinion that

the practice is not sinful

.

I was instead asking about the churches that forbid to marry.

BTW, feel free to find your own figures. I would love to see what you find.

What obligation does the church have, at all, of insuring that women get married?

None, whatsoever. However they do have an obligation not to obstruct what God allows, especially when that obstruction forbids obedience.

1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for

it is better to marry than to burn

.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3

Forbidding to marry

, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1Ti 5:14

I will therefore that the younger women marry

, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

1Ti 5:15 For

some are already turned aside after Satan

.

So let me ask you: What obligation does the church have, if at all, in forbidding these women from marrying?

Chapter and verse, please.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Lionroot