Polygamy

[David Hersey]

I conclude that polygyny was at least at sometime in history within the will of God. I have not found any verse in Scripture where it is specifically condemned by God for the general population of His people. What do you think?

Polygamy was never ever in the will of God.

Matthew 19:4-8

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
KJV

From the beginning God meant for one man to have one wife.

[Steven Rasberry]

Yes, God did not take many ribs and make Eve, Eve 2, Eve 3 etc. "Two" shall become "one".

1+1 = ?

[John VanSickle]

It should also be pointed out, as I once heard Dave Emery preach from the puplit at K-town, Abram's resort to Hagar represented a lapse of faith. God had already promised a son from Abram's own body (Genesis 15:4), and as Genesis 2:24 teaches, Abram was already one flesh with Sarai. Therefore, the promise was for Sarai to bear Abram a son, and God makes this clear later in the Genesis account. But Abram did not follow through, and so fell into a lapse of faith.

[Steven Rasberry]

Well pointed out verse brother.

[revgill87123]

Did you know there were 40 different people practicing in the bible God never commanded against it and neither did Jesus. Here are the names of the 40
Abdon* Abijah Abraham Ahab Ahasuerus
Ashur Belshazzar Benhadad Caleb David
Eliphaz Elkanah Esau Ezra Gideon
Heman* Hosea* Ibzan* Issachar** Jacob
Jair* Jehoiachin Jehoram Jerahmeel Joash
Lamech Machir Manasseh Mered Moses
Nahor Rehoboam Saul Shaharaim Shimei*
Simeon Solomon Terah* Zedekiah Ziba*

Also just so you know

"ADULTERY" --- na`aph (pronounced: naw-af') in the Hebrew means, "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock". This applies to the Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in Matthew 19:9) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, in putting her away so as to "replace her") that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty. He had CAUSED his first wife to "break her wedlock contract". And of course, that first wife for "breaking her wedlock contract" with her first husband, and the "second husband" for participating in that act, are both guilty too. But notice, the SECOND WIFE is not guilty of anything. And if the first husband had not put away his first wife, but instead kept her as well as marrying the second wife, he would not have CAUSED his first wife to "break her wedlock contract". Hence, he would not have been guilty of any Adultery in any way. Indeed, Adultery simply and only means "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock".

"ONE FLESH" --- "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24, referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8, 1_Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31. A man is "one flesh" with EACH woman with whom he copulates, whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot). When a married man, who is therefore already "one flesh" with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being "one flesh" with the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1_Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be "one flesh" even with an harlot. As even a married man, therefore, can become "one flesh" with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be "one flesh" with more than one woman, without negating his being "one flesh" with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being "one flesh" with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e., 1_Corinthians 6:17: "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." As EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, so too may EACH woman be joined as "one flesh" with one man. Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as "one flesh". For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). The term, "one flesh", could not otherwise allegedly mean that a man could not be "one flesh" with more than one woman because three things did indeed happen. 1) Moses did marry two wives. 2) Moses did author such other verses as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. 3) Jesus Christ did not speak against Moses' being "one flesh" with two wives. Hence, the Scriptures reveal that Jesus and Moses knew what "one flesh" meant when Moses authored Genesis 2:24: a man may be "one flesh" with more than one woman.

1_Kings 11:3-4: Solomon multiplied wives (up to 1,000!) which was prohibited and prophesied that a king would do in Deuteronomy 17:17. But that passage in 1_Kings 11:3-4 says his father David's heart was "perfect". Indeed, as the previous verse of Deuteronomy 17:16 also prohibits a king from multiplying horses, no one would read that to think that it suggests that a king was somehow not able to have/add more than one horse! As such, there is a clear difference between multiplying and merely adding. And this can be seen as the difference between Solomon and his father David. Where Solomon had multiplied (i.e., stored-up, hoarded), David had only added his 18+ wives. (In Genesis 25:1, "Then AGAIN Abraham took a wife... Keturah". The word,"AGAIN", there translates to add --or "augment"-- in the Hebrew. And, indeed, Abraham was adding his third wife Keturah to himself.) So, Solomon's sin was multiplying wives (which turned his heart away from God) while his father David had simply added wives. Hence, adding more than one wife is biblically acceptable (just as David did), whereas multiplying wives (just as Solomon did) is what was prohibited in Deuteronomy 17:14,17.

If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Exodus 21:10.

Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in Exodus 20:14.

"If a man have two wives..." Deuteronomy 21:15a.

The passage of Deuteronomy 21:15-17 is a specific instruction in the Law Itself to any man with "two wives". If polygamy was a sin, then it would not be possible for a "man to have two wives" in the Law.

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

"Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time."
Leviticus 18:18.

Occasionally, some people confuse this simple verse to assert it as "proof" of some prohibition of polygamy.

Actually, however, it proves just the opposite!

This verse simply prohibits a man from marrying two sisters while both of them are alive. Moreover, the phrase, "beside the other", in that verse, rather emphatically makes it clear that this is speaking in terms of the man being married to them at the same time.

The fact that this verse is even instructed actually PROVES that polygamy is otherwise a valid marriage possibility!

After all, if polygamy was really a sin anyway, it would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary to specify a prohibition against marrying sisters anyway! That is, if it was truthfully a sin for a man to marry more than one wife anyway, then OBVIOUSLY he would not be able to marry two sisters beside each other in their lifetime!

It is additionally important to also note something about the previous verse (not listed here, Leviticus 18:17) and its relevance to this verse 18 here. Namely, the previous verse 17 prohibits a man from uncovering the nakedness of a mother and her daughter. That is also, by such implied instruction, clearly also meaning that it is a prohibition from marrying both mother and her daughter. That makes that also another proof that polygamy is Biblical by the fact of it even being instructed.

But even beyond that, whereas that previous verse 17 only spells the matter out as being "not uncovering the nakedness" of a mother and her daughter, this verse 18 here is even more explicit.

Namely, this verse 18 even more explicitly includes the word "WIFE". A man shall not take sisters TO WIFE beside each other in their lifetime. This makes it even more explicitly clear that this is talking about a man marrying more than one WIFE, just not being allowed to marry sisters while they're both alive.

Therefore, this is a very clear and simple prohibition ---but not against polygamy. Rather, the instruction is clear that men may not marry sisters beside each other while they're both alive.

Thus, this verse is actually another clear PROOF that polygamy really is Biblical!

One of the most commonly attempted arguments against polygamy makes the assertion that polygamy is supposedly not the "original plan of God for marriage". This assertion is based solely upon two sequential factors.

Jesus's reference to "at the beginning" in Verse 4 of the Matthew 19:3-9 passage, and thus,


the "Beginning" story: Adam and Eve.

That "at the beginning" phrase, which Jesus used there, of course, was only addressing divorce, not polygamy.

Moreover, there is an additional very exegetically important matter to note about all this. Namely, the very story of "the beginning" (with Adam and Eve) ---indeed, the entire book of Genesis (which starts with the first three words, "In the beginning")--- was written by Moses. And Moses was a polygamist with two wives! Certainly, the very mortal author of the story "at the beginning" would know what he wrote and whether his own polygamy was not part of "God's plan" (if it was not)!

Accordingly, it is clear that that phrase, "at the beginning", is simply not relevant to the topic of polygamy, anyway.

Nevertheless, though, that phrase is what forms the basis for the subsequent factor pertaining to Adam and Eve.

Namely, the argument asserts that, because the Scriptures only record that God seemingly only made "one Eve" for Adam, that somehow implies an "original plan of God for marriage" only for monogamy. The resulting implied speculation from that is that polygamy is to be perceived as somehow against that perceived "original plan of God for marriage".

Upon deeper investigation, however, that speculative assertion does not hold up.

If doctrine would hold people to a perceived "original plan of God", then at least two things must also be binding upon mankind. For examples,

people must only walk around in nudity, and


people must never die.

Of course, to suggest such things is an absolute absurdity.

According to the Bible, the reason that those two examples are obviously not binding as doctrine is because of Adam's sin. That sin of Adam had forever after changed (as it were) the "plan of God" as applies to us for doctrine.

The Scriptures inform us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). From that, the Bible further explains that, "Wherefore, as by one man [[ i.e., Adam ]] sin entered the world, and death [[ entered the world ]] by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12.)

When Adam sinned, death entered in.

Adam's sin is why we now die. And it is also why we now wear clothes rather than remaining nude, according to Genesis 3:21.

The fact that we now wear clothes and do die is the proof that we are no longer under any perceived "original plan".

So what has God planned for us instead? He gave us "the second Adam", which is Christ, that we might have life everlasting in Him (per John 3:16.).

"And so it is written,
The first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam [[ which is Christ ]] was made a quickening spirit."
1 Corinthians 15:45.

The first Adam brought death by his sin. The second Adam, which is Christ, brought life by His righteousness.

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,
but that which is natural;
and afterward that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth, earthy:
the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:46-47.

Adam was of the flesh, while Christ is of the Spirit.

Because Romans 8:1 shows us that we are to walk in the Spirit and not according to the flesh, we are certainly NOT supposed to follow after the example of the first Adam (who was of the flesh), but after the second Adam (who is of the Spirit), which is Christ.

With this now realized that we follow after the "second Adam", Christ, we look to Christ as the example set for us in the true and current "plan of God for marriage". And this is explicitly confirmed and explained for us in Ephesians 5:22-25.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it".
Ephesians 5:22-25

This is very explicit. The "plan of God for marriage" is detailed as being modeled after, not the example of the first Adam (of flesh) and his wife Eve, but after the example of the second Adam, which is Christ (of Spirit) and His Churches.

Following this model, each husband is to love his wives as selflessly, "footwashingly", and life-givingly as Christ so loves the Churches (that He laid down His life in the depth of such love). So too, each wife is to love her husband as each Church so loves the one and only Christ Jesus.

As there is only one Christ for the Churches, there is only one husband. And as there are more than only one Church loved by Christ, it would not be sinful if there be more than one wife, of course.

This is confirmed, of course, by the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. The Lord Jesus Christ described Himself as the polygamist Bridegroom for the "five wise virgins", which are the Churches.

So, in conclusion, what we see is that the "plan of God for marriage" is very explicitly NOT after the model of the fleshly, death-causing first Adam and his (Scripture-recorded) apparent "one" wife, Eve.

Rather, the Bible is clear that the current "plan of God for marriage" is after the model of the Spiritual, life-bringing second Adam, Christ, and His Churches.

So why is Polygyny wrong again? Not trying to except it for myself cause I already do. Just tryn to educate. Good people are being put out of churches and run out of neighborhoods for doing some thing that God does not condem! I am sure this will be useless and futile to many but maybe some people will read the Word of God instead of letting a wester Pegan culture rule over them with no truth what so ever!
Remember it was Christians who burned the witches in Salem! People just listen to a preacher then make a judgement. Matter of fact don take my word study the word of the Lord for your self!
Revgill87123

[John VanSickle]

Did you know there were 40 different people practicing in the bible God never commanded against it and neither did Jesus.

And all of these men are excellent examples for us to follow.

No, wait, they're not.

In point of fact, we know that many of these men were very ungodly fellows who received strong rebuke from the Lord, and in other cases the polygyny led to trouble. Some were pagans. In the remaining few cases, we know nothing more than that these men were polygamists.

As for neither God nor Jesus commanding against it, remember that God never told Cain not to kill his brother. If the absence of a prohibition constitutes approval, there is no limit to the nuttiness that is approved.

"ADULTERY" --- na`aph (pronounced: naw-af') in the Hebrew means, "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock". This applies to the Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in Matthew 19:9) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, in putting her away so as to "replace her") that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty.

No. Jesus did not say that the man causes adultery, but that he commits adultery, and that it is not by putting her away that he does so, nor by any subsequent marriage on her part (the Lord did not even reference the divorced woman remarrying), but by his own marriage to another partner. Matthew 19:9 very plainly does not support your interpretation.

Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as "one flesh".

Exactly how is a marriage "God-joined" vs. not "God-joined?" How can I know whether my marriage is a "God-joined" marriage or not? It's very clear that Jesus is claiming all marriages to be "God-joined," by virtue of the fact that God is the author of marriage.

For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1).

Was Zipporah still alive when Moses married the Ethiopian woman?

Hence, adding more than one wife is biblically acceptable (just as David did), whereas multiplying wives (just as Solomon did) is what was prohibited in Deuteronomy 17:14,17.

If this isn't the pretzel logic of the day... If at one point I have one wife, and then later I have two, I have indeed multiplied my wives (by two).

If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Exodus 21:10.

Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in Exodus 20:14.

"If a man have two wives..." Deuteronomy 21:15a.

If you seek to justify yourself by the Torah, you become obligated to obey the entirety of the Torah.

It does your position no good to refer to instances where the Old Testament speaks about polygyny without condemnation. Not a single person here has argued that God prohibited polygyny at all times for all men. We are all perfectly aware that polygyny received no direct condemnation from God during the Old Testament period, and that some men who are very highly regarded practiced it. However, all of this was before or during the time in which the Law of Moses was in effect. We are now in the period after the Law of Moses. We cannot assume that activities which went without condemnation in the Patriarchical era or the Mosaic era will enjoy the same status in the Gospel era. Abraham was allowed to eat pork, but Moses was not. Moses was prohibited from working on the Sabbath, but Abraham was not and neither are we. Under the law of Moses, if someone killed your brother, you had the personal right to kill the murderer, but under the Gospel dispensation we must leave such affairs to the civil authorities. Abraham was prohibited from having a permanent abode, but Moses and you and I are free to dwell in one. The mere fact that something was allowed to Abraham and Moses is insufficient to prove that it is allowed to us.

One of the most commonly attempted arguments against polygamy makes the assertion that polygamy is supposedly not the "original plan of God for marriage". This assertion is based solely upon two sequential factors.

Jesus's reference to "at the beginning" in Verse 4 of the Matthew 19:3-9 passage, and thus,

The Lord said, "from the beginning," and not "at the beginning." The whole point of Matthew 19:4-6 is that God is the author of all marriages, by virtue of having created the opposite sexes that join in marriage.

That "at the beginning" phrase, which Jesus used there, of course, was only addressing divorce, not polygamy.

God had a divorce law in the Garden of Eden? That's a new one.

Moreover, there is an additional very exegetically important matter to note about all this. Namely, the very story of "the beginning" (with Adam and Eve) ---indeed, the entire book of Genesis (which starts with the first three words, "In the beginning")--- was written by Moses. And Moses was a polygamist with two wives! Certainly, the very mortal author of the story "at the beginning" would know what he wrote and whether his own polygamy was not part of "God's plan" (if it was not)!

That Moses penned the words of the Genesis account, I will not call into doubt; but that no more makes him the author of the Genesis account than Tertius is the author of the Roman epistle. And it is far from certain that a man fully understands all of the implications of the books that he has merely penned; Ephesians 5:32 states with finality that the full meaning of marriage was purposefully held secret until the time of Christ.

Namely, the argument asserts that, because the Scriptures only record that God seemingly only made "one Eve" for Adam, that somehow implies an "original plan of God for marriage" only for monogamy.

"Seemingly only made 'one Eve' "? Do you mean that there is another Eve that has somehow escaped our notice?

"somehow implies"? God either believes that one wife for one man is the ideal, or He doesn't:

• If He thinks that monogamy is the ideal, then you need to explain why you may set aside His ideal for something you prefer.
• If He doesn't think that monogamy is ideal, then you need to explain why He made only one wife for Adam.

The resulting implied speculation from that is that polygamy is to be perceived as somehow against that perceived "original plan of God for marriage".

In the same way that idolatry is to be perceived as somehow against that perceived "original plan of God for worship."

Upon deeper investigation, however, that speculative assertion does not hold up.

Words mean things. It is not a "speculative assertion" to infer that what God did in creation represents how He wants things to be.

If doctrine would hold people to a perceived "original plan of God", then at least two things must also be binding upon mankind. For examples,

people must only walk around in nudity, and

people must never die.

God brought clothing to the man and the woman, and He drove them from the Garden to prevent their partaking of the fruit that would render their flesh immortal. He instituted both of these changes. He did not then say, "Oh, yeah, Adam, you can go have a few more wives if you want." Some things changed, some things did not.

The Scriptures inform us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). From that, the Bible further explains that, "Wherefore, as by one man [[ i.e., Adam ]] sin entered the world, and death [[ entered the world ]] by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12.)

The fact that we now wear clothes and do die is the proof that we are no longer under any perceived "original plan".

It is proof only that two of the features of the garden are now lost in this life. It does not prove that everything has changed.

So what has God planned for us instead? He gave us "the second Adam", which is Christ, that we might have life everlasting in Him (per John 3:16.).

Because Romans 8:1 shows us that we are to walk in the Spirit and not according to the flesh, we are certainly NOT supposed to follow after the example of the first Adam (who was of the flesh), but after the second Adam (who is of the Spirit), which is Christ.

With this now realized that we follow after the "second Adam", Christ, we look to Christ as the example set for us in the true and current "plan of God for marriage". And this is explicitly confirmed and explained for us in Ephesians 5:22-25.

Except the part about Christ having an earthly wife at all, let alone more than one.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it". Ephesians 5:22-25

This is very explicit. The "plan of God for marriage" is detailed as being modeled after, not the example of the first Adam (of flesh) and his wife Eve, but after the example of the second Adam, which is Christ (of Spirit) and His Churches.

Following this model, each husband is to love his wives as selflessly, "footwashingly", and life-givingly as Christ so loves the Churches (that He laid down His life in the depth of such love). So too, each wife is to love her husband as each Church so loves the one and only Christ Jesus.

The verses refer to wives in plural only when the husbands are also in plural, but you change that in your doctrine. Why?

As there is only one Christ for the Churches, there is only one husband.

There is only one church. The very verses to which you refer so state. The only time that the term church is rendered in the plural in Scripture is when it refers to distinct congregations, situated in different, geographically-separated locations. When not speaking of multiple congregations, the word church appears strictly and exclusively in the singular.

And as there are more than only one Church loved by Christ, it would not be sinful if there be more than one wife, of course.

Except, as I duly noted, there is only one Church established by Christ. He did not say, "Upon this rock I will build my churches," but, "Upon this rock I will build my church."

This is confirmed, of course, by the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. The Lord Jesus Christ described Himself as the polygamist Bridegroom for the "five wise virgins", which are the Churches.

No, the wise and foolish virgins together symbolize one kingdom (in, again, the very verses to which you refer). Paul, and others, time and again affirm that the kingdom of heaven is the church. One kingdom, one church. There is more than one virgin in the parable so that Jesus can illustrate the fate of those who are prepared for His coming vs. those who are not; you can't have one virgin who is both prepared and not prepared. They sum up to ten because ten is the number used in the Bible to symbolize humanity.

And I note something else: Jesus does not claim to be the bridegroom in the parable.

So, in conclusion, what we see is that the "plan of God for marriage" is very explicitly NOT after the model of the fleshly, death-causing first Adam and his (Scripture-recorded) apparent "one" wife, Eve.

Don't include me in your "we."

Rather, the Bible is clear that the current "plan of God for marriage" is after the model of the Spiritual, life-bringing second Adam, Christ, and His Churches.

Again, there is only one church.

So why is Polygyny wrong again?

First, because the civil authority prohibits it. This is no small thing in God's eyes. He requires us to obey the civil authority, excepting only those situations where the civil authority requires us to disobey God. I have read the Bible from Genesis to Maps, and there is not one jot or tittle that commands you or me or any man to have more than one wife. We are permitted one, in old times men had more than one without rebuke from the Lord, but at no point was any man condemned for having only one wife. On every page of the Bible, no man sinned by having only one wife. Therefore we can obey the civil law without disobeying God, and therefore God requires that we obey the civil law. At no point does God authorize us to disobey the civil law in a matter on which God permits us greater freedom in His own laws.

Second, because a man who obeys God's command to love his wife is not going to seek another.

Third, because 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 states:

Nevertheless, because of fornication, let each man have a wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife to the husband. The wife does not have power over her body, but the husband, likewise the husband has no power over his own body, but the wife.

The original Greek is very clear: No wife, under this command, shares her husband with another woman. Where there is but one husband, there is but one wife.

[Dick Sztanyo]

Good job, John.

There were so many errors in the "rev"s post that it was difficult to know exactly where to begin. You did a nice job of segmenting those issues, and then responding appropriately to each of them.

[revgill87123]

Although some were pagan it never says God condemed any of them for polygamy! Also Polygamy led none of them into trouble. As for you saying none of them are fit too follow or not knowing any thing about them beyond being a polygamist I can post much info on a lot of them. Also what about Gideon,David,Caleb,Eliphaz,Ezra,Heman,Hosea ,Jacob,Manasseh who came back to God,Moses& Solomon. These men did great things through God! Sure some disobeyed God at one point or the other. We all have! To say we haven't would be a straight out lie. There is only one man on this earth to do no wrong and none of us are him! These men were not ungodly fellows as you put them. Polygamy led none of them into trouble. David because he slept with Uriahs wife and then sent him off to war to be slain. That is what got him into trouble. He did how ever come back to God.

To say That the law of Moses no longer apply would mean that the ten commandments are no longer needed. I doubt that. He is the same God just cause time has changed doesn't mean God has. God does not change. Jesus even said he didn't come to change Gods' word.

You say that because polygamy is illegal it is wrong. There are people overseas who are put to death for even discussing God or Jesus. I guess since that is the law you think it is ok? Do you think that people should refrain from speaking the word of God? From what you are saying since it is found illegal in that place then it should not be praticed. You must ask your self whos laws are more important, Cesars or Gods'? I choose to follow Gods' law. I mean hey it's legal for gays to get married in some places I guess God is cool with that too huh? I mean after all it is legal. Also in some countries polygamy is legal, so is it ok there?

For a person being put too death for murder we still have that in a few places, it's called the death penalty. I don't believe in it, but we do have it. I would rather have a person have too live with what they have done and give them time to repent for what they have done.

Also I did not say the verse was from the Garden of Eden but from Jesus explaining divorce, good way to try and change up what I have put on there.

Mainly I have noticed you have broken up much of what I have said and commented only too suit what you would like to point out instead of comenting on a whole. The fact that you lied right off the back and said all the men who practised were bad men and not of God when they were. I have backed up every thing I have had too say with scripture as to where you have only backed up with YOUR perception of things. Sorry, but I have a hard time really believing some one who talks on perception more then using scripture to back it all up. I am not a scholar so the bible is all I use to back what I say. Then again that is all I need to back it up.

Not every one will just take your word for it. I for one will not. Being raised in Christian polygamy I have seen the blessings that come from it. I have also seen the hatred caused by people who were taught otherwise. I have seen people be told by a preacher it was wrong so they automatically attack people who are different from them. Did you even know that the concept of monogamy was a pegan practise long before it was a Christian pratice?

Now first off for the people who are going berate me for my spelling and so forth nothing I can do. This is my second language. For the people making threats. I am not afraid I have God and he states "Do not touch my anointed!" Sad people feel it must come too that in a PM. I just delete them and go on with my life. This will probably be my last post on here I am on too many forums as is. I was just told people on here only go on personal beliefs. I was hoping this person was wrong but I see now they weren't. Thanks but no thanks! Also just remember to be excepting of those who are different. Just because you believe in monogamy doesn't make you exempt from worshiping with us. If a man show up with both of his wives then you shouldn't turn them away either. That is all I'm really trying to say.

Did you know there were 40 different people practicing in the bible God never commanded against it and neither did Jesus.

And all of these men are excellent examples for us to follow.

No, wait, they're not.

In point of fact, we know that many of these men were very ungodly fellows who received strong rebuke from the Lord, and in other cases the polygyny led to trouble. Some were pagans. In the remaining few cases, we know nothing more than that these men were polygamists.

As for neither God nor Jesus commanding against it, remember that God never told Cain not to kill his brother. If the absence of a prohibition constitutes approval, there is no limit to the nuttiness that is approved.

"ADULTERY" --- na`aph (pronounced: naw-af') in the Hebrew means, "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock". This applies to the Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in Matthew 19:9) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, in putting her away so as to "replace her") that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty.

No. Jesus did not say that the man causes adultery, but that he commits adultery, and that it is not by putting her away that he does so, nor by any subsequent marriage on her part (the Lord did not even reference the divorced woman remarrying), but by his own marriage to another partner. Matthew 19:9 very plainly does not support your interpretation.

Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as "one flesh".

Exactly how is a marriage "God-joined" vs. not "God-joined?" How can I know whether my marriage is a "God-joined" marriage or not? It's very clear that Jesus is claiming all marriages to be "God-joined," by virtue of the fact that God is the author of marriage.

For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1).

Was Zipporah still alive when Moses married the Ethiopian woman?

Hence, adding more than one wife is biblically acceptable (just as David did), whereas multiplying wives (just as Solomon did) is what was prohibited in Deuteronomy 17:14,17.

If this isn't the pretzel logic of the day... If at one point I have one wife, and then later I have two, I have indeed multiplied my wives (by two).

If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Exodus 21:10.

Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in Exodus 20:14.

"If a man have two wives..." Deuteronomy 21:15a.

If you seek to justify yourself by the Torah, you become obligated to obey the entirety of the Torah.

It does your position no good to refer to instances where the Old Testament speaks about polygyny without condemnation. Not a single person here has argued that God prohibited polygyny at all times for all men. We are all perfectly aware that polygyny received no direct condemnation from God during the Old Testament period, and that some men who are very highly regarded practiced it. However, all of this was before or during the time in which the Law of Moses was in effect. We are now in the period after the Law of Moses. We cannot assume that activities which went without condemnation in the Patriarchical era or the Mosaic era will enjoy the same status in the Gospel era. Abraham was allowed to eat pork, but Moses was not. Moses was prohibited from working on the Sabbath, but Abraham was not and neither are we. Under the law of Moses, if someone killed your brother, you had the personal right to kill the murderer, but under the Gospel dispensation we must leave such affairs to the civil authorities. Abraham was prohibited from having a permanent abode, but Moses and you and I are free to dwell in one. The mere fact that something was allowed to Abraham and Moses is insufficient to prove that it is allowed to us.

One of the most commonly attempted arguments against polygamy makes the assertion that polygamy is supposedly not the "original plan of God for marriage". This assertion is based solely upon two sequential factors.

Jesus's reference to "at the beginning" in Verse 4 of the Matthew 19:3-9 passage, and thus,

The Lord said, "from the beginning," and not "at the beginning." The whole point of Matthew 19:4-6 is that God is the author of all marriages, by virtue of having created the opposite sexes that join in marriage.

That "at the beginning" phrase, which Jesus used there, of course, was only addressing divorce, not polygamy.

God had a divorce law in the Garden of Eden? That's a new one.

Moreover, there is an additional very exegetically important matter to note about all this. Namely, the very story of "the beginning" (with Adam and Eve) ---indeed, the entire book of Genesis (which starts with the first three words, "In the beginning")--- was written by Moses. And Moses was a polygamist with two wives! Certainly, the very mortal author of the story "at the beginning" would know what he wrote and whether his own polygamy was not part of "God's plan" (if it was not)!

That Moses penned the words of the Genesis account, I will not call into doubt; but that no more makes him the author of the Genesis account than Tertius is the author of the Roman epistle. And it is far from certain that a man fully understands all of the implications of the books that he has merely penned; Ephesians 5:32 states with finality that the full meaning of marriage was purposefully held secret until the time of Christ.

Namely, the argument asserts that, because the Scriptures only record that God seemingly only made "one Eve" for Adam, that somehow implies an "original plan of God for marriage" only for monogamy.

"Seemingly only made 'one Eve' "? Do you mean that there is another Eve that has somehow escaped our notice?

"somehow implies"? God either believes that one wife for one man is the ideal, or He doesn't:

• If He thinks that monogamy is the ideal, then you need to explain why you may set aside His ideal for something you prefer.
• If He doesn't think that monogamy is ideal, then you need to explain why He made only one wife for Adam.

The resulting implied speculation from that is that polygamy is to be perceived as somehow against that perceived "original plan of God for marriage".

In the same way that idolatry is to be perceived as somehow against that perceived "original plan of God for worship."

Upon deeper investigation, however, that speculative assertion does not hold up.

Words mean things. It is not a "speculative assertion" to infer that what God did in creation represents how He wants things to be.

If doctrine would hold people to a perceived "original plan of God", then at least two things must also be binding upon mankind. For examples,

people must only walk around in nudity, and

people must never die.

God brought clothing to the man and the woman, and He drove them from the Garden to prevent their partaking of the fruit that would render their flesh immortal. He instituted both of these changes. He did not then say, "Oh, yeah, Adam, you can go have a few more wives if you want." Some things changed, some things did not.

The Scriptures inform us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). From that, the Bible further explains that, "Wherefore, as by one man [[ i.e., Adam ]] sin entered the world, and death [[ entered the world ]] by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12.)

The fact that we now wear clothes and do die is the proof that we are no longer under any perceived "original plan".

It is proof only that two of the features of the garden are now lost in this life. It does not prove that everything has changed.

So what has God planned for us instead? He gave us "the second Adam", which is Christ, that we might have life everlasting in Him (per John 3:16.).

Because Romans 8:1 shows us that we are to walk in the Spirit and not according to the flesh, we are certainly NOT supposed to follow after the example of the first Adam (who was of the flesh), but after the second Adam (who is of the Spirit), which is Christ.

With this now realized that we follow after the "second Adam", Christ, we look to Christ as the example set for us in the true and current "plan of God for marriage". And this is explicitly confirmed and explained for us in Ephesians 5:22-25.

Except the part about Christ having an earthly wife at all, let alone more than one.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it". Ephesians 5:22-25

This is very explicit. The "plan of God for marriage" is detailed as being modeled after, not the example of the first Adam (of flesh) and his wife Eve, but after the example of the second Adam, which is Christ (of Spirit) and His Churches.

Following this model, each husband is to love his wives as selflessly, "footwashingly", and life-givingly as Christ so loves the Churches (that He laid down His life in the depth of such love). So too, each wife is to love her husband as each Church so loves the one and only Christ Jesus.

The verses refer to wives in plural only when the husbands are also in plural, but you change that in your doctrine. Why?

As there is only one Christ for the Churches, there is only one husband.

There is only one church. The very verses to which you refer so state. The only time that the term church is rendered in the plural in Scripture is when it refers to distinct congregations, situated in different, geographically-separated locations. When not speaking of multiple congregations, the word church appears strictly and exclusively in the singular.

And as there are more than only one Church loved by Christ, it would not be sinful if there be more than one wife, of course.

Except, as I duly noted, there is only one Church established by Christ. He did not say, "Upon this rock I will build my churches," but, "Upon this rock I will build my church."

This is confirmed, of course, by the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. The Lord Jesus Christ described Himself as the polygamist Bridegroom for the "five wise virgins", which are the Churches.

No, the wise and foolish virgins together symbolize one kingdom (in, again, the very verses to which you refer). Paul, and others, time and again affirm that the kingdom of heaven is the church. One kingdom, one church. There is more than one virgin in the parable so that Jesus can illustrate the fate of those who are prepared for His coming vs. those who are not; you can't have one virgin who is both prepared and not prepared. They sum up to ten because ten is the number used in the Bible to symbolize humanity.

And I note something else: Jesus does not claim to be the bridegroom in the parable.

So, in conclusion, what we see is that the "plan of God for marriage" is very explicitly NOT after the model of the fleshly, death-causing first Adam and his (Scripture-recorded) apparent "one" wife, Eve.

Don't include me in your "we."

Rather, the Bible is clear that the current "plan of God for marriage" is after the model of the Spiritual, life-bringing second Adam, Christ, and His Churches.

Again, there is only one church.

So why is Polygyny wrong again?

First, because the civil authority prohibits it. This is no small thing in God's eyes. He requires us to obey the civil authority, excepting only those situations where the civil authority requires us to disobey God. I have read the Bible from Genesis to Maps, and there is not one jot or tittle that commands you or me or any man to have more than one wife. We are permitted one, in old times men had more than one without rebuke from the Lord, but at no point was any man condemned for having only one wife. On every page of the Bible, no man sinned by having only one wife. Therefore we can obey the civil law without disobeying God, and therefore God requires that we obey the civil law. At no point does God authorize us to disobey the civil law in a matter on which God permits us greater freedom in His own laws.

Second, because a man who obeys God's command to love his wife is not going to seek another.

Third, because 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 states:

Nevertheless, because of fornication, let each man have a wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife to the husband. The wife does not have power over her body, but the husband, likewise the husband has no power over his own body, but the wife.

The original Greek is very clear: No wife, under this command, shares her husband with another woman. Where there is but one husband, there is but one wife.

[Trent Childers]

To say That the law of Moses no longer apply would mean that the ten commandments are no longer needed.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

[David Hersey]

Being raised in Christian polygamy I have seen the blessings that come from it.

There is no such thing as a Christian Polygamist.

God's plan has been for one man and one woman to be married for life. It was set up that way in the beginning and God's will for that has never changed. Any marital arrangement other than that would be in opposition to the will of God.