I have been in the past called out on Vox's blog for "adding to the burden" before because I support the church's ban on polygamy. The people who tend to think this way cite Abraham, Hosea, Solomon, David and others as examples of God tolerating polygamy, but there is something very dangerous in relying on the standards of the Old Testament. Yes, as Mark Call pointed out, the Old Testament law does accommodate polygamists, but the New Testament is pretty clear that those who choose to live under the letter, and not the spirit, of the law will be judged by the letter and not the spirit of the law. For me, that is where the religious arguments fall apart.
Jesus makes it quite clear that God is very passionate about his hatred of divorce. Not only that, but God clearly considers sexual intimacy in marriage to be an act which binds a man to his wife until death. It is a "signing" of the marital contract in God's eyes. Jesus comes out with some pretty harsh words toward those who do not take marriage seriously, and his words lend greater support to a divine disgust toward polygamy, not an acceptance of it.
As always, the sword cuts both ways. The doctrine of grace allows the sinner to be imperfect and get into heaven without works, but it requires that one not have a lawyer's mindset toward the law. Every religious defender of polygamy on Vox's blog knows that the other side to grace is that God expects a man to be happy with one wife. There is no reason why a man should need more than one woman in order to be happy and to have his needs met. Anything beyond that one woman is based on a sinful desire, and that's the flip side of grace coming into play. God can turn it right back around and say that even though you did what was technically right by getting a second wife, not a sex partner, you are still commiting adultery. If a man can become an adulterer by simply lusting, then how much worse is it for a man to defile his relationship with his first wife by dividing his duties and love?
That brings me to the final point. A man cannot have two masters, and the relationship shown in Ephesians 5 is one of a man not splitting his attention between his wife and other women. It's easier to understand if you accept another Biblical truth: Jesus did not die for the sins of everyone, but rather he died only for the elect. Who the elect are, and how they came to be chosen, is a perfectly legitimate discussion, but there is nothing to show that Christ paid the price for every human being's sin. As such, it is important to realize that Christ's death was specifically for the elect that would form the church and that that was the only group intended to be the recipient of salvific grace by God. Christ did not divide his effort, it all went to the elect.
I think you are on to something here...if Yahweh permits polygyny, then it must be acceptable for some...that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for all...if a second or subsequent wife is the result of a lustful desire for OPP, then it would not be acceptable; however, if there are other reasons, and the decision is arrived at through prayer, I don't see why the church should have an all-out ban on something that is clearly permitted by Yahweh...
Heh, that was my point all along on this topic! The reason that polygamy is sinful is that one woman should be enough to satisfy the sexual and emotional needs of any straight man. It's perfectly legitimate for him to not be satisfied by one who is not being a wife, but a typical woman isn't like that without some provocation on the man's part. A man who feels the need to "add wives" is in 99 cases out of 100 doing so because he wants to get laid, not because he just wants to spread Godly loving around.
People like Vox don't seem to appreciate the power of the Holy Spirit. God can take what was intended for evil, in this case, polygamy, and use it to build his people on Earth. Doesn't mean it's not sinfully motivated, and that God didn't have to "grit his teeth" a little in order to get through it.
Mark 10 in particular would seem to imply that God is clearly setting the record straight once and for all about marriage. It's between one man and woman. I think it's safe to say, after reading that chapter, that God never approved of his people's polygamy and was now saying that he would no longer accept it as legitimate.
There are also Paul's writings to consider, one of which says that a woman exercises similar authority over her husband's body as he does over hers; that she belongs to him and he to her. In that context, I don't think you can have split ownership where a man gives 50% of himself to one woman and the other half to another woman.
I am understanding your views a bit better, but if you'll allow me to just shake your thinking a little. If Jesus only forgave the elect. What was he talking about in the Lord's prayer?
You'll only receive forgiveness if you forgive.
If we only did that to those in the family of God, we are no better than the heathen of that day.
He wanted us to do more than that.
You must forgive everyone. Whether they accept it or not is also important.
Polygamy has always been wrong. God has a better plan in mind than we do. Some people are just questioning the reasoning behind the disallowance thereof. In the end, it all comes down to what God says. We can just try to understand better while we are here.
I want to add, that it makes me think more about the subject of forgiveness, and how much we don't deserve it. Thanks for your insights. I actually agree with you more of your stuff than you think, I think. :)
On the subject of who Christ died for.
Romans 5:6; 5:8
2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (15 tells about who received it)
See also:
2 peter 3:9
1 Timothy 2:4
I am glad he came, lest I were to be eternally lost. He led me to believe. He didn't make me do it.
Roland,
I agree with you 100% that we have to forgive everyone who seeks our forgiveness, and we should forgive even those that don't, but God doesn't work that way. God doesn't forgive every person of their sins. That's my point. The New Testament frequently references the "elect," the people who God has chosen to forgive and adopt into his family. We must exemplify forgiveness because we have sinned, but God has not sinned thus it is his prerogative to choose who to forgive, why they are to be forgiven and how much he will tolerate from them.
The Lord's prayer, as I recall, also does not extend a universal offer of salvation. It is a request to forgive us as we forgive those who sin against us.
Far too much "We know BETTER what God is thinking" than His own Word here. Just a few examples --
"God never approved of his people’s polygamy and was now saying that he would no longer accept it as legitimate." (gotta make up stuff 'between the lines' for that one, eh?)
He had ' "to “grit his teeth? a little in order to get through it.'
"Anything beyond that one woman is based on a sinful desire..."
...AND SO ON...
Too bad God can't be consistent with the traditions of men, in spite of His own Word ("I change NOT..."; this god I see written about above seems as capricious as a Roman pseudo-diety.
As to Mark 10; the difference between "putting away" and divorce has been covered quite a few times on Vox's blog. I can't help but wonder if the only REAL problem so many pious monogidolators have is the thought that there are men who don't just "F 'em and leave 'em", the American way, rather than actually take care of a second or third forever, as He said. Any posters here ever sleep with a second woman? Where is she now? Does she have a get (certificate of divorce)? Hey! Is she the REAL "wife of your youth", wherever she is?
Sorry, Difster - on licensing I agree 1000%, it's none of Big Brother's business. It's none of Big Brother's 501-c(3) whore church's business, either, of course. But on the Biblical issues, the above is lousy exegesis, and WAAYY too much of what Yeshua rightfully hammered the Pharisees for - hypocrisy, and replacing His Word with men's vain traditions.
The last paragraph really reveals something - intended or not:
"A man cannot have two masters...[or thus two wives!]"
In a matriarchal society like the US has degenerated into, this is a disgustingly true statement.
Do I have to paint a picture?
The Head of the man is Christ; who is Head of his house? There's an heirarchy there, folks, and it's not a simple "one-to-one".
Mark,
How about this, so we can settle this like gentlemen. You show me evidence in the Bible where God sets forth a clear openness to polygamy or even a general mandate for it, as opposed to a mere tolerance of it as shown by your past quotations from Exodus, and I will be willing to concede your point. Fair enough?
One more thing. You ought to consider being more patient with those who disagree with you. Some of us come from different schools of thought, mine being Calvinist a hair's distance away from Wesleyan-Arminianism. Calvinism seeks in part to interpet the Bible as one total revelation, not in pieces, in order to gain a holistic understanding of God's nature, will and creation.
I assume also that you are familiar with the concept of the "two wills of God." God may say in Ezekiel 18 that it is his will that none should perish, but Romans 8 and 9, among others, suggest that God has in fact made up his mind that some sinners shall be condemned to a state where they cannot repent. God did that to Pharaoh, for example. The decision to harden his heart was made before the world began and so God in fact "predestined" the destruction and damnation of Pharaoh. It may seem to someone like Vox that God simply hardened his heart, but since other parts of the Bible are clear that salvation and damnation were achieved before time began, God actually chose to condemn Pharaoh before even the world began. His sin was the basis for that, but in the end God determined that it was unacceptable to allow him to repent, hardened his heart and sentenced him to damnation.
Mark,
I am willing for the sake of argument to agree that there might be men out there that might be able to take a second wife with legitimate intentions. Now, with that established, would you be willing to agree that the majority of men out there are not capable of taking a second wife without doing so for sinful reasons?
I never suggested that a man ought to serve his wife the way that a servant serves his master, what I was getting at is that there is a legitimate reason to doubt whether a man can be fully devoted to two women. My reading of Paul's writings is such that a man must give his undivided loyalty to the woman he has married. Call that a sloppy theology all you want, but you have two choices: give full weight to Paul's word and acknowledge that every word in the canon is true, or say that Paul was "off the mark" and condemn all of the canon with it.
It is a request to forgive us as we forgive those who sin against us
And that means if we don't forgive those who sin against us, we are ... still forgiven?
Don't look at them, look at what happens to you if we do not forgive. If we don't then God won't.
It actually is that simple.
"Now, with that established, would you be willing to agree that the majority of men out there are not capable of taking a second wife without doing so for sinful reasons?" - MikeT
No argument there, MikeT...I would probably agree that a "majority of men" aren't capable of even taking care of one as the Bible outlined.
(And just so the record is clear - neither was I. There is "none worthy", I thank Him for His mercy, grace, blessing, salvation, provision...)
"My reading of Paul’s writings ...two choices: give full weight to Paul’s word and acknowledge that every word in the canon is true, or say that Paul was “off the mark? and condemn all of the canon with it."
On this score, I'd have to start by not accepting the premise. Paul himself (on marriage, no less) pointed out that he, not Adonai, suggested celibacy. Furthermore, my own study has convinced me that (as Peter said!) Paul can be difficult to understand, and his words "twisted by the untaught" (2 Peter 3:16).
Paul was a Torah scholar of the first magnitude; He knew the "Law" (Torah; I much prefer the translation "Teaching and Instruction" to 'law', for clarity) as well as any scholar alive, and he knew his SAVIOUR didn't change it! (Galations is probably the book most 'twisted' by this misunderstanding, but that is a long other discussion perhaps for some other time.)
Suffice it to say that by being VERY careful to make fine distinctions WITHIN a very Torah-consistent basis, he HAS been misconstrued.
Briefly, he didn't argue against God's teachings, just men's legalistic "adding of burdens" to them. (Easy example: Yeshua, when confronted on the Sabbath, NEVER changed the Sabbath, or what He Himself had WRITTEN about it, just men's crappy interpretations - "don't heal", for one.)
Oh, and don't forget translational bias; I can definitely (and have) point to such in Scripture.(example: Some Bible translations have the word "Easter" in them associated with the Resurrection; no WAY that can be correct, of course.)
I'll break this one here, since I don't know the length limits.
Polygyny is an interesting subject, but really only a piece of what I see as the bigger issue: understanding the Bible as Yeshua emphasized:
"It is Written", rather than "You have heard it SAID that..."
A bit more, to answer -- just briefly, there's MUCH more -- your challenge.
Sure - easy. (some repetition here with VP, but I'll try it differently).
Ten years ago, when I was first struggling to "see if these things be true", as you no doubt are, a man who was debating the topic with me said, "OK - you can't show me where polygyny is PROHIBITED (and, despite protestations, he was right) but I can show you where it is REQUIRED." (that was the Law of the Levirate; "if brothers live together"; one dies, leaving no heir.)
I regarded that as pretty compelling logic, until a pastor with three wives gave me a far better Scriptural proof:
Can you show me where God calls _Himself_ a sinner? Or where He, by His own Word, shows Himself a liar? See Eze. 23:4, and the same imagery in Isaiah, where God refers to Himself as a polygynist. Is God a murderer? An adulterer?
I will contend that when we see something that LOOKS like a contradiction, we should accept Him at His Word, and study a bit harder. God gave Saul's wives to King David, a "man after God's own heart", and "would have given him more." He forgave David's adultery and murder, but not his polygyny, which He in fact abetted.
God did not murder Pharoah. (I am neither Calvinist, or dispensationalist, of course.) Pharoah had a CHOICE; but, when he made it, the die was cast. (As another teacher once summarized it - You get to choose whether to dance with the bear. But, once the choice is made, the bear decides when the dance is over.)
I hope at least the point is clear; there's FAR more Scripture (see jay c's exegesis on VP via his links, quite extensive, easy to find).
Yeshua COULD have "clarified" polygyny as he did adultery as "lusting in one's heart" but he simply DID NOT. He could have chosen another parable other than 10 virgins, five of whom became brides (yes, another translational concern, no doubt; nevertheless, He left NO DOUBT about lust in the heart, did He?)
We differ about some issues of Scripture, no doubt, Mike. So do wives within a family, or men in the Master's house. He has already warned us that He will say to many who believed themselves saved, in spite of disobedience, "I never knew you." For myself, I'd much rather be loved as one of his brideS (many, I pray) than force-fit into the mold of a "One True Bride" that seems to reject His Headship, and may be caught out looking for lamp oil
Lastly, no doubt, Roland, it's an admonition:
"If you do not forgive...neither will your Father forgive you." He makes it clear.
Oh, and this addition, Re: Paul, lest my own comments be misconstrued, or sidetracked by 'legalism':
"...he didn’t argue against God’s teachings, just men’s legalistic “adding of burdens? to them. " - MC
He was also careful to stress the conditional properly:
"Because He FIRST loved us..."; grace, faith, salvation...; it's not circumcision, or food, or whatever, that really matters; it is what He did.
But neither did he preach destruction of God's 'teaching and understanding': "Shall we sin more, that grace may abound? Heaven forbid!"
The commandment for obedience remains as Yeshua said: "If you love Me, keep My commandments."
Then as now, He didn't change what He had written, just clarified that "you have heard it said that..." is not at all the same thing.
Interesting. I admit that I am beginning to grow open-minded toward the idea that polygamy may be acceptable, but I remain dubious as to whether it is morally sound for any man to desire. Regardless, I think you have a point. Scripture seems to be quite clear that God does not smile upon men taking multiple wives, but does not condemn their behavior if they do so with noble intentions. So, I guess the approach that the church should use is to require that any man who wishes to take another be in good favor with his wife (he's meeting his first obligation) and have the means to continue providing. Would you agree that the church should not bless the marriage of a man that the elders rightfully beleive is entering into the marriage with ungodly intentions?
I am curious, though. Just where did you find a pastor with three wives?
Glad to hear it, Mike...the key is that we TRULY be "teachable" (which has a great similarity to "humble" or "meek" in that context), and genuinely able to read His Word for what it says, not what we think it ought to.
I'm personally skeptical of "noble" intentions. I'll give you another, far more likely, example - which I think if you check Paul's teaching on marriage might well serve as another "polygyny COMMANDED" template!
A unsaved, unmarried man sleeps with a woman (assume she's not married, no adultery). Maybe he had to make some promises in order to gain the "conquest". He does the Basic American Thing, scratches his first notch into his bedpost, puts her away, and goes looking for another.
She sees it more seriously than he does, and "carries a torch" for the guy. Meanwhile, he starts studying the Bible for himself, comes to faith, and finally marries another woman.
Now comes the first one, never married, and suggests to him that he check out the Bible for himself; I Cor. 7, perhaps.
There are multiple variations on this theme, all common in "post-Christian Amerika". Bottom line here is that our moral mess is a result of serial monogamy, not polygyny, and that many of those scenarios which could involve women "put away" without cause (adultery), "departed unbelievers", and the like is worth careful consideration.
There are for more marriages (and things which SHOULD be 'marriages') entered into with "ungodly intentions", and people who come to faith late and look to actually meet their obligation, than you might think.
As for guys just looking to get laid, they have plenty of license already in this society, and there are probably more of them who are already elders than the polygynists you worry about ;)
"...where did you find a pastor with three wives?"
Initially I met this one on the web, of course, but there are far more (NON-Mormon) than you might think. I've met Baptist preachers, rabbis, and many others who know that what the Bible says is not what they can admit publicly.
Check out the list of links I posted on Vox's blog a couple of times (I can retry sometime if needed), or do a web search:
"Messianic, patriarchal, polygyny, Christian" should return quite a few good ones.
OK - two links repeated:
J. W. Stiver's _Eros_Made_Sacred_ :
(on-line e-book; read this!)
http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/Stivers-Intro.html
Tom Shipley's _Man and Woman in Biblical Law_
and website:
http://www.newcovenantpatriarchy.com/
This is the work that makes the iron-clad case.
Again, some very interesting stuff to consider.
The thing about sex is that it is legitimate to get married to someone in part so you can make love to them. It is, after all, a legitimate human physical and spiritual need. The question is... are you doing it just so you can get laid or do you love the person and enjoy their company outside of sexual considerations?
I freely admit that that is part of the reason I want to get married to my girlfriend. We've been together for six months and have been friends for 1.5 years. We both want to "do it right," and I want to also be a husband, let her homeschool our kids so that they can be brought up in an educated, civilized and Christian manner. IMO that's what the separation is. Any man who doesn't talk seriously with his wife-to-be about what he wants beyond that is going to be doing it for the wrong reasons since he basically just wants license to screw.
At this point since she has shown a complete willingness to be a loving wife and mother, I would personally respond "yes" to that question.
"...are you doing it just so you can get laid..."
There's a more patriarchal way to phrase the question, Mike - one that I like better, since it seems to me to be the essence of the marriage question, another way to look at it.
The thing that a true Biblical perspective seems to me to bring (as opposed to the "monogamy-only, trade 'em in later if it doesn't work out") is this:
It is no longer a question of "is she the ONLY one for me?" It instead should be:
"Am I willing to take care of her FOREVER?"
No excuses, a covenant; "cover", in every sense of the word.
Glad to hear it, MikeT...
it was meant to be rhetorical, of course ;)
Blessings,
Wow. That was good to read the whole way through. I still believe that God always intended for a one to one relationship. But, some very good insights.
funny how so many say Yahweh original intent was one on one. Did they go ask him? It certainly isn't in His word. Yeah, I know, the "One flesh" thing, but Paul also said you can be 'one flesh' with a prostitute. Yes, it is the same Greek words used. So what does 'one flesh' mean? Something different than what many folks seem to think.
That brings me to the final point. A man cannot have two masters, and the relationship shown in Ephesians 5 is one of a man not splitting his attention between his wife and other women.
I didn't notice that during the first read. Funny thing, how western culture has corrupted the way the author's thinking. See, what he says would be true if the woman is the head of man. But Scripture is clear that man, as the head of the woman, is the master, and that's why a woman is forbidden to have more than one husband. A master can have many servants, but the servant can only have one master