Um, Pat, please pick up the closest copy of the New Testament. You will see you are in error.
Huh? What did I just read?
Huh, what is Robertson’s problem? 1 Timothy is very clear.
Robertson is a freaky freemason who’s mind is going.
His organization reeks of that weird greed and avarice.
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/23/meaning-husband-one-wife-1-timothy-3/
1 Timothy 3
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop (or elder), he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
How to hell do these men live with multiple wives, that is what I want to know.
Must be like living in a barn with a bunch of gut shot cats.
Chrislam PR man?
Depends on which bible he means. Nothing in the Masoretic texts about polygamy, except that it was common. Jews only gave up polygamy in the year 999 after all.
Perhaps Pat in his dotage is trying to come to terms with some long term “indiscretion”.
It was not in the original plan for sure and certainly Jesus did not say that it was a good thing. His words were that a man should leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. Not wives.
Yet because it is not specifically ruled out then it can taken that having more then one wife is acceptable if not the ideal. However the reality of Christianity is that once you are a Christian taking more wives is generally not done.
It falls into the same category as slavery. Once Christianity settles into a culture it starts disappearing.
Slavery begins to vanish because Christians are commanded to treat their slaves justly and slave who are also Christians are to be treated as brothers. You do not sell your brother, you do not take their children from them, you do not force your sister into your bed, you do not beat them to make them work harder. Slavery quickly loses it financial and prurient appeal.
A Christian man is commanded to love his wife, not tolerate her, not put up with her but love her. He is to give her honor. Taking a second wife tears at the first wife's heart. It is not loving to do that. And you can not give equal honor to both wives. He may not take a wife to puff up his ego or as a trophy.
The end result is polygamy loses it's appeal.
So it also begins to vanish.
Not because there are rules against it but because the rules for living a Christian life and having a Christian heart mean that it no longer fits into your manner.
How long before they gang up?
There should be a verse somewhere that simply says, “Dude, you don’t need that kind of punishment!” :)
God certainly didn’t laud it.
On the other hand, divorce, unmarried sex, and lack of a father certainly are specifically condemned many times. Zero people who waste a lot of precious air huffing and puffing over polygamy without putting considerably more effort into eradicating these sins which God condemns over and over have their head overly aligned to the Bible.
OMG...why would any man want multiple mother-in-laws?
The article bent what Pat Robertson said. Polygamy was result of mans fall and is first recorded in Cains genealogy Genesis 4:19. Certainly the the king was not to have lots of wives, Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: but there is no command not to have multiple wives in the old Testament.
I don’t even want one woman.
God designed the universe and the birth rate of males and females is generally equal.
1 Cor 7:2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
Old Testament:
Eph 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (wife is singular)
The command to kings not to have too many wives was given after polygamy was already popular.
The Greeks and the Romans forbade by law polygamy. Because it was the law, the Church made polygamy a sin because
“whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”—Romans 13:2
Thanks, Capt. Obvious!
And a man can take care of several wives whereas one wife can't take care of several husbands," the CBN chairman said.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! That simply doesn't follow!
Except for the issue of uncertain paternity, and perhaps high female mortality due to child birth, the most-efficient system (from the point of view of economic security) would be, say, two men and one wife.
Even in technologically primitive societies - like the Bronze Age civilizations of the Old Testament or the Iron Age civilizations of the New Testament - one wife should be perfectly capable of maintaining a household and raising the children of two men - who, according to Robertson, are usually off at war, anyway. And two men could better provide for the material needs of a wife and children than just one man.
Regards,
Christ has one bride.
That’s the model, Patty boy.
This smells like the “Jesus never condemned homosexuality (so it must be okay)” talking point the homosexuals make when there are plenty of other OT and NT places in the Bible condemning homosexuality.
Church elders are expected to be “the husband of one wife” but that’s not a blanket denouncement of polygamy, only for those who aspire to higher office within the church. I suspect, just like the homosexual claim, that the issue wasn’t a big item on the agenda at the time.
And, yes, dear old Pat is reaching senility.