“I’ve already answered this with scripture.”
No, you have answered it with your incorrect and illogical interpretation of scripture. You must first re-read scripture and compare it with your statements.
Then you must admit that this is possible before you can progress to a better understanding.
” You seem to be very preoccupied with defending polygamy. Not accusing you of anything, but you need to ask yourself why this is important to YOU.”
My motivation is irrelevant to what the scripture states. With all due respect, that is a specious argument and you know it. I have not challenged your motivations but I could do tit for tat. Why is monogamy so important to you? ...See how that works?
“Yes, polygamous marriage (of a man with more than one wife) can be legitimate in the sense that the covenants are binding. But marriage is a covenant that requires the consent of both parties. Coercing a bride to agree to accept other women is ungodly, selfish, and lustful. It is not the self-sacrificial love that Christ demonstrated and which the New Testament commands Christian men to emulate. Further, any man who pledged to “forsake all others” in his marriage vows would be a covenant breaker to practice polygamy. A woman who willingly agreed to allow this (she would have to agree in the marriage covenant or the marriage would be fraudulent) would be foolish and should look for a husband who will love her as Christ loves His bride.”
You are extrapolating that all wives in polygamous marriages are not happy. That is simply a false over generalization easily disproven by a simple web search unless you think there are thousands of polygamous bots on the net. As for “forsake all others” does that appear in the bible? if not, then it is irrelevant to g*d’s word. I’m going out on a limb and claim it is not in the bible. why bring it up then? —because your argument is that weak that it does not support itself.
“There are specific warnings about polygamy even in the Old Testament.”
Those are all interpretations. Jesus descended from a polygamous marriage. So if it is true then Jesus is what— a warning to us that our descendants will be cursed?
“Deuteronomy 17:17
Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.”
The consensus translation is take many wives, not multiply wives. Either way, does not put a hard math limit on the number of wives. And is only relevant for kings. Biblical monogamy absolutists have a habit of dropping context. Why do they drop context? Weak argument. Why do you drop argument? Either you did not know about it (ignorance) or you felt it detracted from your argument (fraud). Which was it?
“Guess what. That’s exactly what happened to Solomon. He disobeyed and committed very serious sins of idolatry because of this disobedience.”
OK, Solomon (a) took many wives and (b) committed idolatry. You can’t state that (a) caused (b) just because (a) was a precondition of (b). Solomon could have ignored his wives. His sin was idolatry, not polygamy. A person can be influenced by any other person. The relationship between the persons is rather immaterial.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idolatry
1 : the worship of a physical object as a god.
the bible specifically did not say the sins of idolatry and polygamy. If polygamy was a sin, then logically we could expect the bible explicitly to condemn Solomon for the sin polygamy also. Then everyone would be clear. But the bible does not do so. That is consistent with the contention that polygamy is not a sin.
“We can go down the list of every person who had more than one wife in the Old Testament. And every one of them had severe consequences due to it. Show me one person who did not.”
Jesus was the product of a polygamous relationship. So are you contending that Jesus is a severe and negative consequence? Just because some bad things happened to people and were noted does not mean that good things did not happen as a result as well. The part that is missing in your argument is that just because bad things happen to people who do certain practices, those certain things caused the bad things, and therefore the certain practices are sinful. Polygamy is never described as a sin. And no proof exists that bad things happen to polygamists, either in the past or now. You’ve got to bridge those logical gaps in the bible and they can’t be bridged because the words and the logic are simply not there.
“And there are no examples of Christians in the New Testament having multiple wives.”
But Jesus is a Jew and lived under OT law. The NT describes a part of Jesus’ life. Not necessarily his full life. There is no requirement that the NT include polygamy, any more than a requirement that the NT include how to make bronze. It’s not relevant to the main points that the NT communicates. The absence of polygamy in the NT does not prove polygamy is a sin any more than making bronze is a sin. Your logic is severely flawed if you contend otherwise.
” In fact, in the New Testament, leaders could not have multiple wives. Polygamy was a disqualification for leadership. Even being divorced and remarried was a disqualification.”
So says Paul (not Jesus). For bishops (not laity).
“1 Timothy 3:2 & 12
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach... Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”
“Christ and Paul”
No, just paul
even taught that there were advantages for the servants of Christ to never marry at all and dedicate their lives to God’s service. Christ and Paul did this. However, Christ Himself will be married in eternity to His bride, which is the Church. He is the pattern and example to follow, and He does not have multiple brides. He also sacrificed Himself for the Church.”
OK, that’s for bishops and Jesus. What about laity? Nothing. And it’s Paul, and Paul is on record as explicitly giving opinions in his letters. He’s not Jesus. If Jesus thought something important then he would have stated it clearly. Jesus never stated anything about polygamy. It’s either permitted or not important according to the words of Jesus. “I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.”
“Desiring to have multiple sexual partners reveals lust and covetousness which is not about a man putting his wife first.”
You contention only— not in the scripture!!
” A wife is not there merely to meet the husband’s needs. He is to meet hers also. This is a challenging job that is impossible to do with multiple wives.”
Your contention only— nowhere in the scripture!!
“That is the same argument that homosexuals often make about Jesus not specifically addressing homosexuality.”
Now you are straining and trying to use some form of dissembling. I said nothing about homosexuality one way or another. I am only addressing polygamy in the scriptures. You are introducing another topic and trying to use guilt by association. Let me cut you off right there— homosexuality pro or con is not relevant to polygamy. They are two different topics. Equating them in any way to try to prove something by any projected similarity is dissembling. Be honest in your arguments.
“Polygamy was not being practiced within Judaism during Christ’s earthly ministry.”
It was not banned within Judaism until the 11th century. Before then it was legal in Jewish law.
“It was not particularly common among the Gentiles of the early church either.”
Legally it was fairly common outside of Roman law— which probably explains Paul’s aversion to it for bishops.
” The apostles had to deal with widespread fornication which was clearly forbidden and had to be abandoned by anyone who came to Christ.”
So?
“Jesus taught a higher law.”
I quoted Jesus teaching. And Fairly prominent Jesus at that. Matthew 5 is the Sermon on the Mount— where Jesus speaks directly to the laity. Don’t lecture me on higher Jesus saying versus Lower Jesus saying. You just make yourself sound more and more silly and ignorant.
“The apostles gave instructions for getting married and how for men to treat their wives. Nowhere is there any consideration for Christians engaging in polygamy.”
So?
” If someone was converted who had multiple wives, he could be a Christian but not a leader.”
In Paul’s *opinion*. Not OT g*d’s law. Not Jesus’ law. Paul’s *opinion*. For *bishops*.
Read the bible! For the Nth time, Don’t just parrot out other people’s unfounded misinterpretations.
“He could not set the proper example for other Christians. There is a lot of warning in the New Testament about those who wanted to go back to the Mosaic Law as the standard of morality. Jesus demanded more. As I’ve already pointed out, the Pharisees were focussed on what was permitted in marriage rather than what God actually commanded.”
“God does not command anyone to engage in polygamy. He never did. He warned people of the consequences. He gave us a different example to follow. He gave us a higher doctrine of what He intended in the pattern of marriage. A true follower of Jesus is not looking for loopholes to do his own will and be selfish. He is looking to please his Master, and this means either celibacy or faithful fidelity to his one spouse. When these ideals can not be achieved, those who follow Christ seek to get as close to the ideal as is possible.”
None other biblical scholar than Martin Luther read the bible but could not find a specific argument against polygamy: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” Maybe you are claiming Martin Luther did not read the bible carefully enough? Or that the quality of his scholarship should be brought into question? I am mentioning this because you seem to perceive it as a fringe position when it is actually not so.
It sounds like you are hung up about sex and ashamed about it for some reason. You are using the bible to justify spreading your sexual hangups to others. Maybe you should consider Seeking professional help.
“I will add that I am only speaking as to what Christians should do. God’s perfect Law permitted polygamy as part of a legal system in an imperfect world. It would not be unreasonable for Christians to accept and tolerate polygamy outside of the Church as a less-than-ideal practice, but not an abomination like homosexuality. (Homosexuals are welcomed to become Christians but must abandon their homosexual practices.) But it would also be a step backward for society in my opinion, just like slavery was also tolerated in the Old and New Testaments. Yet Christ came to set people free, not lead them into bondage.”
I am not here advocating homosexuality either directly or indirectly. In fact I could go through the entire exercise I went through on marriage and the bible for homosexuality. Personally I am not a fan of homosexuality. However, it is difficult for me to justify, morally, entering someone else’s home, sneaking into their bedroom, and observing their private sexual practices with a consenting adult of either gender. Hiding under someone else’s bed to enforce my concept of sexual morality is more abhorrent than any sexual act between two or more consenting adults under any circumstances. That’s where I draw the line, and I don’t even need any book (even the bible) to help me draw that line.
How about you?
“My motivation is irrelevant to what the scripture states. With all due respect, that is a specious argument and you know it. I have not challenged your motivations but I could do tit for tat. Why is monogamy so important to you? ...See how that works?”
No, it’s an entirely Biblical argument. Not specious. A proper understanding of the Bible and the correct interpretation of it requires submission to it. James says it is to be received with “meekness” and engrafted into our lives.
John 7:17
If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.
The difference is that I am not looking for proof texts to support that I would prefer to be able to copulate with many beautiful women. This is a base instinct that all of us fallen men can potentially be enticed by.
When our understanding of the message of the Bible is in conflict with what we would prefer it to say, that’s a good indication we are not allowing our own preferences to dictate what it means.
“You are extrapolating that all wives in polygamous marriages are not happy. That is simply a false over generalization easily disproven by a simple web search unless you think there are thousands of polygamous bots on the net.”
I’m not talking about subjective experiences. There might be millions of people in long-term homosexual relationships that claim to be “happy.” That’s not proof they are approved by God. When examples are given in the Bible, they are for our learning, according to 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 15. ALL of the examples of polygamy in the Bible are bad. You cannot provide a single example of an exemplary, “happy,” polygamous marriage.
There are two model marriages in the Bible: Adam and Eve, and Christ and the Church. There are a number of other positive examples of relationships within marriages. In fact, Jacob’s love for Rachel and his willingness to work for seven years to win her hand in marriage is a positive example, even though he ended up being tricked into a polygamous relationship.
“As for ‘forsake all others’ does that appear in the bible? if not, then it is irrelevant to g*d’s word. I’m going out on a limb and claim it is not in the bible. why bring it up then? —because your argument is that weak that it does not support itself.”
Because breaking covenants is condemned by God in the Bible over and over again.
2 Samuel 21:1-2
Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, “It is because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house, because he killed the Gibeonites.” So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. Now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; the children of Israel had sworn protection to them, but Saul had sought to kill them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah.
Here Israel had entered into an unwise covenant, contrary to the will of God, yet God punished them for not keeping it. Even if polygamy is permissible in the Bible, it is never commanded. So, if someone ignorantly included the phrase “forsaking all others” in his wedding vows but later decides that the Bible permits him to take additional wives, then he is still a covenant-breaker.
When you make a promise, you are supposed to keep it:
Psalm 15:4
In whose eyes a vile person is despised,
But he honors those who fear the Lord;
He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
“Jesus descended from a polygamous marriage. So if it is true then Jesus is what— a warning to us that our descendants will be cursed?”
Jesus also descended from David through Bathsheba. By your logic that would justify murdering a man to avoid getting caught committing adultery with his wife. But the text does not support your arguments.
“the bible specifically did not say the sins of idolatry and polygamy. If polygamy was a sin, then logically we could expect the bible explicitly to condemn Solomon for the sin polygamy also. Then everyone would be clear. But the bible does not do so. That is consistent with the contention that polygamy is not a sin.”
The difference is in the remedy. The way to remedy idolatry is to stop doing it and destroy the idols. Neither Solomon nor David could undo what had been done by entering into marriages that were wrong to begin with. Even though David’s marriage to Bathsheba was based on great wickedness, after he repented the marriage was still valid. He could not put her away as that would have just added to the evil. Yet, because of this, evil would never depart from the house of David—a terrible judgment.
2 Samuel 12:10
Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.
But unlike Sodomite “marriages” this could not be remedied by ending it. The marriage was valid and permanent.
“But Jesus is a Jew and lived under OT law. The NT describes a part of Jesus’ life. Not necessarily his full life. There is no requirement that the NT include polygamy, any more than a requirement that the NT include how to make bronze. It’s not relevant to the main points that the NT communicates. The absence of polygamy in the NT does not prove polygamy is a sin any more than making bronze is a sin. Your logic is severely flawed if you contend otherwise.”
Your comparison between polygamy and making bronze is somewhat analogous to the false teachers in Paul’s day who compared sex with eating food. Paul replied that even though the belly is made for digesting food, the body was not made for committing fornication.
The Bible tolerates the existence of polygamy and slavery. It advocates for monogamy and freedom. The Bible has a lot to say about those who do according to their own will. When a person tries to fit the Bible and Christian life into doing what they want to do, it leads to doctrinal error and twisting the scriptures, and ultimately destruction. Following Christ is about surrendering our will to His. It is not about getting what I want.
“I am only addressing polygamy in the scriptures. You are introducing another topic and trying to use guilt by association. Let me cut you off right there— homosexuality pro or con is not relevant to polygamy.”
Sorry. It does not work that way. The subject is sexual morality and fidelity. If several adults share the same house but never engage in anything remotely sexual, then we are not discussing polygamy but a lease contract. Polygamy implies a sexual component. ALL of what God says on the subject of sexuality becomes relevant to the discussion.
“OK, that’s for bishops and Jesus. What about laity? Nothing. And it’s Paul, and Paul is on record as explicitly giving opinions in his letters. He’s not Jesus.”
I never said that the Bible forbids polygamy—at least not explicitly. But the same can be said of Muhammad’s child marriage to Aisha. There is no specific age requirement in the Bible to be married, but the very concept of marriage implies the ability of both parties to understand on some level the nature of the covenant they are entering into and be able to consent to it. So the Bible also does not say you cannot marry a rock, but it does not need to say it in order to know that this would not be a marriage.
But the idea that these are merely opinions of Paul underscores just how far an obsession with justifying polygamy can lead a person into error. Paul gave wise, Spirit-led “opinions” on certain matters which he explicitly declares to NOT be commandments. This includes how Christian parents should treat marriage for their children as they enter adulthood. Paul encourages celibacy, but only if a person is able to do so without it causing him or her to sin. Christ taught the same thing. Remember “not all men can receive this saying”?
1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
It is the very nature of Paul’s writings being scripture that indicates they are not merely opinions. His apostolic authority confirms the same. Further, Peter confirms this:
2 Peter 3:15-16
And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
“Jesus never stated anything about polygamy.”
It’s funny (ironic) that this is a frequent argument homosexuals use to justify homosexuality. Of course they ignore that Jesus does address the general sins of lust and fornication which obviously include homosexual sin. Likewise the Bible does not need to describe every possible way murder can be committed in order to condemn it. No one can say, “Yeah, but it does not prohibit strangling.”
The Bible is full of commands of what we are supposed to do. Where is the command to enter into polygamous marriages? If God commands it, who am I to oppose it.
“It sounds like you are hung up about sex and ashamed about it for some reason. You are using the bible to justify spreading your sexual hangups to others. Maybe you should consider Seeking professional help.”
You’ve lost it. To suggest that defending the God-ordained, Biblical pattern of monogamous marriage as exemplified by God’s order at creation and His divinely arranged marriage between Christ and the Church means I have “sexual hangups” and need “professional help” is the most ludicrous argument you’ve made so far. This is textbook projection for anyone who has taken even an introductory psychology course.
“However, it is difficult for me to justify, morally, entering someone else’s home, sneaking into their bedroom, and observing their private sexual practices with a consenting adult of either gender. Hiding under someone else’s bed to enforce my concept of sexual morality is more abhorrent than any sexual act between two or more consenting adults under any circumstances. That’s where I draw the line, and I don’t even need any book (even the bible) to help me draw that line. How about you?”
It’s weird to discuss a matter on the basis of what the Bible teaches and then to suddenly switch gears in your closing argument to make the discussion about societal and legal standards. We may agree when it comes to how the law in a post-Christ culture should operate.
But this is not a privacy matter. It has to do with the environment that children are raised in. It has to do with whether someone can be legally harassed and punished for their religious beliefs when it comes to homosexual relationships. The Supreme Court decision creating so-called “homosexual marriage” came from a setup which involved tricking the police into entering a private residence to catch two men in a homosexual act so that they could be charged and the charge could be contested. They didn’t really want privacy. They were never content with privacy. When certain activities become legally sanctioned, the outcome is that others are forced to accept it to some degree or another in the public square. And when children are involved, it impacts all of society.