Polygamy Question

That is what I was addressing when I made the statement above that you questioned, bapmom.

And rbell, even as recently as a few weeks ago I would have agreed with you that monogamy was the ideal, but now I am not nearly as sure about that. Would like to see more scripture on this, if you can supply. Like I said, God is not wanting for words and I don't believe He left anything out.

This is not to say we should embrace polygamy in our own culture. Obviously this is highly optional and outside the norm even in those cultures where it is practiced.

 

rbell just posted the Scriptures I would have used too. What astounds me amity, about what you are saying is your attempt to make a one-man/one-woman marriage mean something other than it means.

please forgive me, when it's late and Im tired my "well, duh" buttons go off worse....... :laugh:

my point is, you cannot have one man who has a one-man/one-woman marriage who is also married to more than one woman.....that means he is no longer in a one-woman marriage.

 

Okey-dokey, bapmom, tell me what you propose to do about polygamy in the church, then.

 

Honestly I don't see any of the scriptures you are referring to as endorsing monogamy one way or the other. Can you be more specific? Like what in Song of Solomon, for example? And what makes you think that the passages on ministers and deacons endorse mongamy as as "God's highest expectations." Are ministers and deacons somehow God's highest creations? And what does Galatians 3:28 have to do with marriage?

 

Aww....c'mon, Amity. What's one extra serving, eh ?:laugh:

 

• Song of Songs is not directed at a harem, or group of women. It is a lover, and beloved...one man, one woman.
• Ministers & deacons are not "God's highest creations," but as leaders of the Church, they are to be examples. And the phrase "husband of one wife" literally means "one-woman man." It is clear that God expects monogamy from His leaders. It would thus seem that if that is God's expectation from those who are most accountable, it must be the best model of a Christian home.
• Let's face it: polygamy as practiced in Scripture may have in some ways helped the ladies (from an economic standpoint, it kept widows from being completely destitute, as they were provided with heirs)...but men got the 'benefit' of "multiple wives." IMO the revolutionary concept of the NT was equality--not equal roles, but equal worth in God's eyes. Monogamy is the epitome of equal worth. Once again...God spells out differing roles for men and women, but they are equal in His sight. Hence Galatians 3:28 is demonstrated in monogamy.

If monogamy is not God's ideal, then is purely a cultural construct...and we have no basis to encourage it. Amity, I'm not really sure what your objection is here.

 

I don't see this without some specific scripture. As I said before, there are no group sexual relations going on in ordinary polygamy, at least. Maybe somewhere, but not that I have ever heard of.

Don't necessarily see this either. There could be other reasons for requiring monogamy of ministers and deacons, as I earlier said. It is human reasoning that makes the leap to the inherent superiority of monogamy.

I was with you all the way up to a point. That is a leap too wide for me to jump, I am afraid. But I agree lust is probably rarely the reason behind polygamy anymore than it can be said to be the reason behind mongamy as well, at least. And women do definitely receive the MAIN benefit in a society in which being unmarried is heavily penalized, as is the case in most traditional societies.

Well, of course it is a purely cultural construct, as is polygamy. Marriage itself is not a sacrament. It is not an ordinance. It is not a religious office at all. And that is a major factor behind my reasoning, actually. It is a purely secular contract. Of course the Bible regulates it, but the Bible regulates other purely secular social arrangements, as well.

There is another argument for monogamy that in my opinion is the strongest argument, although I don't necessarily endorse it because, as I said before, marriage is not a sacrament. I have given this final argument a lot of thought, though, but I am not going to make it for you! You will probably come up with it yourself, and I have my answer for it, too.

I have got to get off soon and doubt I will have time to contribute more for a few days. I mention this because because I don't want you to think I went off in a huff!

 

Amityamityamity...you've forgotten a very important issue...

Polygamy means multiple in-laws. How can that POSSIBLY be of God?



:laugh: <---loves his in-laws, but couldn't resist THAT one-liner.

 

my very first post was in agreement with John of Japan about how he said it is often handled on the mission field. I wouldn't suggest anything different than what he said about it. The man who is married to more than one wife cannot abandon his obligation to all those wives simply because he becomes a Christian. He has promised to support all of those women and his children with them. The only solution I can see is that he needs to live in marriage with just one of them (pick one - often it is the first wife, but in these cultures there is very often a most important wife who has the "lead role"? I guess you'd call it?) So he picks one and commits to staying in a truly monogamous relationship with just her, but he keeps the other wives in their own houses and he continues to support them as he did before.

 

Why should he do that? The committment to living with a spouse is clearly scriptural ("let them come together"). It seems anything we do to try to get around polygamy violates some important scriptural precept.

And very funny, rbell.

 

This is speaking about divorce in particular, but the subject of adultery is very interesting the way it is worded.

Verses 5 and 6 seem to be pretty clear to me that God intended for one man to be with one woman. Aside from the fact that God created one "helpmeet" for Adam, named Eve, and no more than that, this text shows that a man is to cleave to his wife (singular) and the twain (two) shall be one flesh. If the two are now one flesh, and the man marries another, is he no longer the one flesh with his first wife? If he becomes one with his second wife, then either his first wife ceases to be part of his flesh or she is now a third of his flesh. In any event, since she and her husband are now one flesh, then she is also married to his new wife.

That aside, what I wanted to really get at is verse 9. He who puts away his wife (again singular) and marries another commits adultery. Now, is it only adultery if he divorces his first wife before the second marriage? If I am the husband of 5 wives, decide I don't like one and divorce her, and then marry another, does it mean that then and only then have I committed adultery? As long as I stayed married to the others, I am free to marry as many as I want, yet if I divorce even one, I am no longer allowed to marry anymore? That doesn't seem to make much sense. It seems to me that adultery and/or fornication should never have been a problem. In lieu of being branded for fornication, I could just make the girl my 6th wife first. In lieu of committing adultery with a married woman, I could get permission from her husband to be her second husband. After all, if a man can have multiple wives, there is no reason a woman can't have multiple husbands.

So, adultery and fornication should not really exist, if polygamy is acceptable.

It is clear to me, from verse 9, that if the man had not put away his wife, and still married another, he would still have been guilty of adultery.

Add to all that the fact that Jesus mentions wives (plural) when speaking to them as a group in verse 8, yet in every other place the word wife (singular) is used in reference to a particular man and his one spouse. Were the men allowed to have multiple wives, I think the fact that Jesus had already used the plural wives would indicate that he would have done so again in referencing more than one wife to a man.

In answer to the question, what should the church do? Well, if a married man in our church told us that he had married another woman, I would bring charges against him for adultery and the church would exclude him. One of us would then likely inform the authorities about him.

Whether polygamy should be allowed in society or not, it has no place in the Lord's church.

James

 

I really, really don't think this is something we would be "hearing about!!"

Um, just goes to show how few women really understand men! I guarantee lust is a part of it. I've read horror stories off and on in the news for years about both Mormon and Muslim polygamy. There is a regular trade in young female slaves from various countries being sent to Islamic countries. We men can be really horrid.:tear:

 

Seems to me there are some here that have no problem with polygamy?

I wish there were a poll going on this one!

I was thinking about the "two becoming one flesh" statements in Scripture. If you are "one" with someone else, what does that mean in multiple marriages? For the record, I believe the becoming one with another person refers to more than the physical, it is something emotional and spiritual also.

Just when you think you've seen it all on the BB, a thread comes along with Baptists seemingly supporting polygamy... :tonofbricks:

Have I read this wrong?

 

Don't have time for much, but I want to remind you that there were quite a few on here who said "let it be" in the first round of discussion. I am just still waiting for some scriptural condemnation of polygamy.

At any rate, whiole sounding off wjth views, be sure to say what you would do about polygamt in the church!

 

A lot has been quoted to you about how the Bible defines marriage. Bro. James had a great post, among many other peoples' contributions.

Are you really saying that the only thing you will accept is a four word verse that says "Do not commit polygamy!"

As someone said above, the unity in marriage between one man and one woman is multi-faceted.

I disagree that marriage is purely a social construct. It is not a sacrament but it is something that God designed.

 

I agree, great post by Bro. James.

Adam and Eve, leave and cleave, the two becoming one flesh--I don't see how it can be denied that God's original plan is one man and one woman. There are just two many passages on this, as others have pointed out. God allows some things that were not His original plan simply because of the hardness of the heart of humans.

And of course, since we Baptists do not believe in sacraments, marriage is no more a sacrament than baptism, the Lord's Supper or footwashing are! (we Baptists call them ordinances, no matter how we include them).

 

You confuse me...

You condemn the use of modern music on other threads.
You condemn the use of missionaries on other threads.
You condemn the use of instruments in other threads...

And you do this all because the Bible is silent about it.
You refuse to have Sunday School because the Bible doesn't mention it.
But you would allow polygamy?

Now you seem to support polygamy?
Now you want a proof text to condemn polygamy?

Give me a proof text to condemn Sunday School.

And if the Bible is silent about polygamy, then God must be for it?
Wow.

Polygamy is a sin. It is impossible for 2 to become 1 when you have a group of 7 or 8 wives.

I agree with JoJs original post in this thread.

 

I ask my wife and she said it was One Woman and One Man! So, that settles it for me.

BBob

 

:laugh: :laugh:
I didn't even need ask! I taught her how to punch right years ago. But I sure love her, anyway, so who needs another!

 

I agree w/ JoJ as well, but don't tell him...he might get all proud on us.

Tim is right. There is inconsistency afoot when you use the "regulative" principle for Sunday School, instruments, and the like, but skip over to the "normative" principle for polygamy.