Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hank | 6172 | ||
King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Polygamy was not uncommon in Old Testament times. Did God endorse polygamy then? Does He now? | ||||||
2 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Makarios | 6206 | ||
Absolutely not! :-)In the Old Testament, we read that David (1 Sam. 25:39-44) and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3) had many wives. However, God forbade polygamy (Lev. 18:18) when He gave the law to Moses and the Israelites. In Deut. 17:17, we read that a king 'shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away' which foretells Solomon's ultimate undoing (1 Kings 11:4). In the garden of Eden, God gave to Adam one wife and not several, and the one man and one woman would join together and become 'one flesh' (Gen. 2:21-25). This is a relationship that is exclusive between one man and one woman, not shared between one man and several women. So God does not look favorably on polygamy nor did He ever endorse it.In the New Testament, we read in Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2 that a man should be the husband of but 'one wife'. So God remained steadfast against polygamy in the New Testament as He does today. Scripture does not give us room to interpret this any differently. It is clear that God intends marriage to be between one man and one woman, since marriage itself is a reflection of God's relationship to His church, whom He will rejoice over (Isaiah 62:5). Will God have many brides? Absolutely not! Scripture is clear that God will be married to His one and only bride, the church. And the church is the only bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 19:7, 22:17). In this way, we can see that polygamy is soundly denounced by Scripture and that God does not look favorably upon it. | ||||||
3 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68317 | ||
Dear friends, please understand that I am not a Mormon. I am a Southern Baptist. Polygamy existed as a foundational marriage structure LONG before Mormonism was ever known on this planet. It is interesting that many will jump onto the bandwagon of condemnation when the issue of polygamy is brought up. Many say that God's Law prohibited a man from having more than one wife, and yet they say this at the expense of ignoring the fact that God's Law made governing provision for a man to have more than one wife in Deut, 21:15. Lev. 18:18 is not in any way a prohibition against a man having more than one wife. God Himself gave king David five of his 18 wives as is revealed in 2 Sam. 12:8. Is God therefore sinning against His own moral absolutes? Also, the use of the verses dealing with a man multiplying wives to himself is also a common blunder made by many. The same context deals with a man multiplying horses and chariots to himself. Are we then to assume that it is wrong for a man to own more than one horse, or more than one car (chariot)? Not so. The idea of multiplying women, horses and chariots had to do with pride in one's wealth. If one multiplies these things (or anything else for that matter) as a form of pride in one's social "status", then he has done so for the wrong reason. The patriarchs fell not because they had more than one wife, but because they sinned. If having more than one wife were a sin, then one would have to accuse God Himself of sin, especially when He provided imagry of His being a polygamist Himself when He called Judah and Israel His "wives". God would certainly not associate Himself with that which He considered to be sin, and He certainly would not have given king David several of his already multiple wives. Where it is true that God gave Adam only one wife, this is an argument with no merit when applying it with such broad meaning that stretches it FAR beyond the intent within Genesis. God also gave Adam a Garden to tend, but He did not give the rest of us a Garden. Have we been cheated? Not at all. God aldo gave Elisha power that He did not give to Abraham. Does that mean that Abraham was cheated because he was not given the same power. It is my hope that the many falacies in the reasoning presented against polygamy can teach us all to be more succinct and powerful in our reasoning and presentation. Then we move on to Titus and Timothy. Suppose that we leave the popular translation intact. The prohibition is only against bishops (overseers) and deacons from having more than one wife, not the laity. Translating the Greek word (mia) as "one" is actually inconsistent with the context of these verses. It makes more sense to translate (mia) as "first" wife, just as the Greek Lexicons show us. This gives greater consistency to Paul's instructions. It makes far better sense to say that a bishop and a deacon should STILL be married to his first wife, therefore not having been divorced since divorce is a poor example to the Church, and VERY anti-family. To think that Paul would suddenly throw in the issue of plural wives out of nowhere is beyond textual consistency and introduces incontinuity. Many people try to speak authoritatively by declaring that God intended there to be only one man and one woman in marriage, but this is a declaration with no real teeth. It denies God's clear teaching on this issue. It rests itself upon the grounds of misinterpretation and transliteration of the root texts from which our Bibles were translated. Yes, God has many "brides". If we are the "bride" of Christ, that "bride" is still composed of MANY individuals. The imagry is consistent. Several wives are joined togeher into one family unit through a common husband, just as we are joined together into one body through a common Lord. If God did not look favorably upon polygamy, then He certainly did a good job of saying absolutely nothing against it to all the prophets and patriarchs who practiced it across more than 1000 years. Does this sound absurd? It is my thought that we would do better to abstain from pitting God's word against itself and read it for what it says. I can reasonably take to task any who add meaning into key verses that clearly is not there. Any of us can weave a doctrinal tapestry by pulling verses out of context. The REAL challenge is keeping that tapestry from unraveling when pulling on the many wild threads hanging loose. | ||||||
4 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68321 | ||
You said "... the use of the verses dealing with a man multiplying wives to himself is also a common blunder made by many. The same context deals with a man multiplying horses and chariots to himself. Are we then to assume that it is wrong for a man to own more than one horse, or more than one car chariot)? Not so. The idea of multiplying women, horses and chariots had to do with pride in one's wealth" IMHO, this statement invalidates your entire argument. If you actually believe that a wife is a woman owned by a man to show off his wealth, then you clearly have no idea of what Biblical marriage actually is. You said "It is my thought that we would do better to abstain from pitting God's word against itself and read it for what it says. ... Any of us can weave a doctrinal tapestry by pulling verses out of context. The REAL challenge is keeping that tapestry from unraveling when pulling on the many wild threads hanging loose." I agree; you have demonstrated the difficulty. Please cite a passage that represents "God's clear teaching" that the perfect relationship ordained in the Garden was not normative. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
5 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68362 | ||
Greetings, Steve. When I addressed the issue of multiplying wives in relation to horses and chariots, the context was simply addressing multiplying, not ownership. I never said anything about ownership in relation to wives. The air castle you are pointing at has long since been blown away by the winds of reality. Your observation is similar to my stating that the dog has a bone, and then you come along and make issue with the hair on his body when his hair was not at all what I was talking about. In other words, you made issue with a non-issue. What exactly, may I ask, is your point in twisting my statement into something that I was not saying? I am simply perplexed about your motives, that's all. As to your statement that I claimed to know of a declaration made by God that polygamy was His perfect ideal for marriage is a fabrication. What I was saying is that pointing to Adam's having been given only one wife IS a historical fact, but no statement can be found in Genesis, or anywhere else for that matter, where God indicated that we are bound to having only one wife since only one was given to Adam. How do we know that Adam did not take another wife before he died at the age of 950 (I think that was his age at death)? We cannot really know one way or the other. If one is going to point to what Adam was given when he was still perfect, then we should be consistent with the ENTIRE image of his situation rather than picking and choosing which parts we deem to be valid for everyone else and which are not. He was also given a perfect garden, we were not. So? God gave king David several of his wives, you were not. So? If polygamy were a violation of God's perfect ideal for mankind, then it sounds like you are essentially accusing God of violating His own perfect ideal. Is this realistic simply because God did something that violates your personal sensibilities and conscience? I always try to give others the benefit of the doubt. Having been well schooled in philosophy, and therefore knowing how to lay out the facts and rationally paint a picture by what is given, it is quite shocking at times to behold the irrational meanderings we see at times by those who defend a position purely from the basis of emotion rather than logic, reason and fact. This is not an indictment against you personally, only an observation that it is easy for any of us to fall into the trap of unreason when our sole motivation rests purely upon emotion. I too was adamantly against a man having more than one wife.....until I allowed God's word to speak for itself rather than adding what is not there, and taking away from what is there. A good point to make here is that God's ideal for marriage is obedience to His commandments AND mutual love toward one another, regardless of its being lived out within polygamy or monogamy. Yes, there are limitations, such as a woman having more than one husband. Polyandry IS a direct violation of God's Law concerning adultery, which is defined as a man desiring and/or having sexual relations with another man's wife. To go outside of this definition by adding other dynamics such as is common today, we then stand as accusers against such men as Moses and Abraham. Redefining adultery by today's warped standards is to declare that those men, and many others of the patriarchs, died as non-repentent sinners. As for me, sir, I am not going to attempt usurping the throne of Christ by declaring to be sin what clearly is not sin. I have been guilty of this before, but have since repented. I am not saying that you made issue with sin, but I am. Sin has a clear definition within scripture that defines it as "missing the mark." If polygamy is a form of "missing the mark," (less than God's perfect will?) then you would have to logically declare it to be sin. We should therefore expect to see David, Abraham, Moses, and many others burning in the pits of Hell considering that they are never shown to have reprented of having a plurality of wives, therefore having died as non-repentent sinners. Remember, the word of God says that adulterers will not enter the Kingdom of God. Good day, my friend. In Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
6 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68520 | ||
Hi, Don; You said: "What exactly, may I ask, is your point in twisting my statement into something that I was not saying? I am simply perplexed about your motives, that's all" It was you who compared "multiplying women" to "multiplying horses" and you who mentioned pride in wealth in the context of having multiple wives. I don't blame you for backing off somewhat. You said "As to your statement that I claimed to know of a declaration made by God that polygamy was His perfect ideal for marriage is a fabrication" I made no such statement; I challenged you to find Scripture rather than speculation to back your assertion that Adam just got short-changed when he was only given one wife. As for your comments about David, it is foolishness to assume that David's example is normative. When Jesus taught about marriage, he didn't point to David as his example, he pointed to Adam and Eve (one man, one woman). I'm afraid that being "well schooled in philosophy" has blinded you to God's word. Understanding the Bible is less dependent on the ability to "lay out the facts and rationally paint a picture by what is given" than on the ability to discern the character of God. I suggest that is the meaning Proverbs 3:5-6: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight" Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
7 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68562 | ||
Perhaps I should say "touche'", but that would be far too great a compliment toward you endictment. Backing off? There is no need to back off when my statements are not read for what they say. One must pay attention to question marks that I put in place, which means that I am not necessarily making a statement, but rather asking a question, be it ever so absurd at times, in order to make a point or to question you about something. As to philosophy blinding me, well, that is strictly subjective from your perspective. My no longer being captive to a socially engineered theology concerning a plurality of wives hardly qualifies my being labeled "blind", especially when you say such a thing only from your own personal system of standards. I could provide a rebuttal by saying that you are anti-intellectual, as Dr. Charles Stanley once addressed in a very interesting sermon, but then that would be a return sucker punch. Sorry, but I prefer not to play such games. Thanks anyway. Don |
||||||
8 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | justme | 68570 | ||
Sordman007:I have read the notes you have written and the answers thar were sent back to you. You bring some interesting points to the forum. I wish you would take a few minuets of your time and tell us something about yourself in the Update User Info. on the top under of Resources. That way we can respond better, and know you a litter better. You are clearly well educated, and know much more than the basic Christian. That tells me you have studied hard or been educated someplace. I enjoy reading notes that offer a challenge to ridged thought. I hope to enter this dialogue some other time, but welcome to the forum. justme |
||||||