Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 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. | ||||||
2 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | charis | 68326 | ||
Dear Swordman007, Greetings in the name of Jesus! Ok, you win. I wouldn't want to be taken to task on this one! :-) Friend, if you have the financial wherewithal to support multiple wives and children, great. If you are able to sort out the 'priorities' among your family members, including affection, attention and disbursment of your legacy, great. If you are able to circumvent the laws of the land (at least, America and Japan, as well as the majority of the world), great. If you can find women who are willing to 'share' you with others, great. And finally, if you are convinced that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, great. I won't stop you. But for me, I can afford but one wife with subsequent children, and they need my full attention and legacy (for what it's worth! :-)), and I would rather obey the laws of the country in which I serve God, and I know that Junko is NOT willing to 'share' me with anybody! :-) And finally, I disagree with your interpretation, but still don't want to be 'taken to task' on this issue! Just out of curiosity, are you a practicing polygamist, planning on polygamy, or just working on the hypothesis? Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
3 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68376 | ||
Greetings, Charis. I like your sense of humor. I am the kind of person who can laugh at himself with "gusto". Concerning your comment about 'my' interpretation, well, it does not require any interpretational skills to read the clear language of the scriptures where God gave king David several of his wives into his bosom (which is deeply intimate teminology for those who would argue otherwise). As for the "legacy" issue, well, again, there are many ways of insuring that each wife and her children are cared for and properly represented within the family under the headship of the husband. This is really a non-issue to those of us who know better, so I can understand your wondering about it. Now, onto the comment about "circumventing the laws of the land." To what laws are you referring? Are you talking about the laws concerning a man having more than one marriage license at a time? What definition, in your own thinking, actually is authoritative in defining marriage; God's, or man's? God's definition of marriage says nothing about legal entaglements with the state, nor does it mention vows, exchanges, acknowledgements, ceremonies, licenses, or anything else that has become culturally acceptable (traditional) today. The traditions of white Europe (Rome and Greece in particular) is not mentioned within scripture as being an authoritative replacement of God's definition of marriage. Anyway, if a man is bound to a woman, and she is bound to him within their hearts, and they become one flesh, then God has already declared them to be "one flesh" (married). There is no law in this land that requires a man to go and acquire a license for his God-ordained bond to his wife. The law simply says that he is limited to only ONE license at a time. So, if a man has taken a wife to himself in accordance with God's ultimate and authoritative definition of marriage, then what laws of this land has he violated or "circumvented" as you say? In case you decide to mention the idiotic anti-cohabitation, allow me to demonstrate something to you: Those very states who have anti-cohabitation laws do not go after all those casanovas who are impregnating multiple women who live in different houses, but they will go after the man who is taking responsibility for his multiple wives and children under his own roof. Hypocrisy abounds in this country and in its many present-day laws. In the spirit of keeping this Biblical, I will say that I have debated this issue with two very well known Th.D.'s in this country, and both were brought to silence. It was not a public debate, but rather a private one. Being that both men are well educated in philosophy, church history and theology, both knew better than to use the many lame arguemtns that the common, uneducated laymen is prone to use from the scriptures. Both of these men know Hebrew and Greek VERY well, but they had simply never been brought to this point and depth of study on polygamy until after they challenged me on this issue. Both are top professors in two of the most highly prestigious theological universities in the country (I must decline mentioning their names). The reason I am mentioning them is that they both indicated that although my case was "quite compelling," they adamantly declared to me that they would never change their position in the eyes of their students, the public and their wives (imagine that) since they had their "image" to uphold (and their marriages since I know that they are both married to rabbid feminists). So you see, it comes as no surprise to me that men and women will both consider the threat of peer pressure to be more than they are willing to handle if ALL of God's word is allowed to be the final authority in relation to their beliefs that they reflect outwardly. In other words, "going against the flow", or "rocking the boat" is simply too much to ask of most professing believers, especially of those who are in positions of prominence. Those two highly educated men admitted that they would continue declaring polygamy to be wrong to their students and their churches simply on the basis of cultural bias (and fear for their own marriages). Oh, and before I forget, the vast majority of the cultures of this world allow for polygamy. You are quite incorrect to assume that polygamous cultures are in the minority. Mongamous cultures are actually in the minority, not the other way around. You should do your homework more thoroughly before stating what is so patently false. I am not saying that polygamy portrays the vast majority of the families in those cultures, only that the vast majority of cultures in this world ALLOW polygamy. I hope this offers some insight for you and others. Your brother in Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||