[greenbear]

Hi PaulB,

Yes, there are occasions in the OT were things happened that are contrary to the norm, but the historical recording of them isn’t the spiritual endorsement of them.

Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. He had two wives at the same time.

The twelve tribes of Israel came from Jacob's loins by 2 wives and their handmaidens.

David was married to Michal Saul's daughter, Abigail, Bathsheba, and that young woman to keep him warm in his old age, maybe others, I don't remember.

Elkanah had two wives. Samuel the prophet was his son through Hannah.

Maybe these multiple marriages were contrary to the norm but the patriarchs and King David and the father of Samuel were certainly not incidental to God's plan.

How many wives does or will God have?
How many god's do believers in the God of Israel have?

It was not allowed by God that a woman could have more than one husband at a time ever at any time in history.

It was allowed by God for a man to have multiple wives at the same time throughout most of history.

Marriage is a similitude of God's relationship with His people, both Israel and Christ's body the church and perhaps by other saints when the new earth is created, (I'm not sure about that).

All I know is that Muslim gentleman with seven wives would be be ignoring Paul's admonitions and instructions as to how believers are to conduct their affairs if he abandoned six of his wives and his children by them. I suppose if it could be determined from scripture that he is not joined to the last six by God he could offer dowries and try to marry them off to other believers, that is assuming the six women are believers, as well. But once he took his second wife wouldn't he have been breaking the law by staying with the first one according to Deut 24:4? If that's the case then David and Elkanah would have been breaking the law of Moses. I honestly don't know the answer. What I do know is that if my husband took another wife he would have trouble in the flesh. That is an understatement.

[PaulB]

Hello again!

Thank you for sharing your examples from the Old Testament it is good food for thought.

If I were to tell you that you have to keep the commandments you would probably reply by saying that that is Old Covenant and Christ has fulfilled it and you would be right! But you do seem to be using the opposite kind of philosophical rule by which to interpret the NT rather than approaching the OT with the words of Christ on the subject.

There is no doubt in my mind that God has allowed things to take place throughout history that needed to take place even though it would seem unimaginable until it was done (Judas betraying Jesus was all included in that!)

I also recognise the following: Nu.22:28 “And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?”

This doesn’t prove that we should expect that to happen again (these are exceptions to what Asses were originally created for!).

Marriage is unquestionably there as a shadow representing Christ and His church (not churches – but church) Eph.5: 31-33 “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” (nothing plural there).

There is much more to marriage than what we see here on earth it has an original design by a designer! Now if a wife can only have one husband (as you say) but a man can have a multitude of wives then how does that fit into the Passage above.

We must approach this subject from the basis of Christ as the final revelation on the matter;

Mt.5:31-32 “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

Yes there were the things that went before “BUT I SAY UNTO YOU..”

Mt.19: 3-10 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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.And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”

This is how seriously Jesus takes marriage and its original purpose – these words were so convicting that His disciples thought that it is better to stay clear of such a demanding ordinance. Re-marriage didn’t seem to be a problem for them and they knew how (by their traditions which they would have formed from OT interpretations) to justify exceptions to the rule. So Jesus gave it to them as it stands (and was always to have stood) and this is what Paul is picking up on in Ephesians chapter 5.

There is no way that a handful of examples from the OT can possibly outweigh the authority of what Jesus Himself has to say on the matter as He created marriage. I would rather hear Christ on the matter than those in the OT who are fallen creatures and did not have the light that He has.

After saying this – I am enjoying our interaction as this is helping us all to dig deep and weigh all of the given evidence.

God bless you Greenbear

PaulB

[greenbear]

PaulB,

It is a pleasure to discourse with you as well, brother. I do believe I have enjoyed reading every post you have ever posted.

I am in no way endorsing polygamy. You are absolutely right in saying that from the beginning God meant for one man and one woman to marry. I don't think I even need to comment on the question of whether a man can marry a man or a woman a woman. The practice of homosexuality is an abomination to God. Jesus gave the final word on marriage. His words are the final authority on any topic.

Yet, we are informed that God allowed, even worked through marriage with multiple wives. He allowed for it although it was not how he created marriage in the beginning. He also allowed for putting away His first wife Israel for a time, and taking a second wife, the Church.

Consider these verses.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

I would ask why Paul found it necessary to stipulate that bishops, deacons, etc. be husbands of one wife if there were no members of the church who had more than one wife? If only one wife was allowed in those times among the gentiles, why did Paul bother to mention it? The leaders of the local churches were to perfectly represent Christ and His church in that way. We should keep in mind, as well, that they were not to be single, either. They were to be married to one wife.

I believe I am right in my answer about your example of the Muslim man but I am certainly not dogmatic about it. I just don't see what other answer there could be. I will ask my husband what he thinks. Your example of the muslim man with seven wives is a very good one. I appreciate the opportunity to "dig deep and weigh all of the evidence given", as you said.

May God bless you as well, PaulB

[Amanda S.]

Greenbear

I would ask why Paul found it necessary to stipulate that bishops, deacons, etc. be husbands of one wife if there were no members of the church who had more than one wife? If only one wife was allowed in those times among the gentiles, why did Paul bother to mention it?

Yes, we have to wonder a great deal of why Paul said certain things don't we? We could wonder that the reason he stipulated that a bishop or deacon be the husband of one wife is to differentiate between the OT where leaders such as Moses were permitted to have more than one wife.

I don't think I even need to comment on the question of whether a man can marry a man or a woman a woman. The practice of homosexuality is an abomination to God. Jesus gave the final word on marriage. His words are the final authority on any topic.

Believe it or not I recently got into a rather heated discussion over homosexuality not too long ago. A homeschooling "christian" friend said that while sodomy was wrong and an abomination in the OT the fact that very little if anything was said to the church that it wasn't necessarily wrong. There were things in the OT that were an abomination that we don't consider as an abomination now, according to her argument...I am not at all trying to hijack as this could be debated on another thread but you did remind me of this discourse

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Amanda S.

Greenbear



Yes, we have to wonder a great deal of why Paul said certain things don't we? We could wonder that the reason he stipulated that a bishop or deacon be the husband of one wife is to differentiate between the OT where leaders such as Moses were permitted to have more than one wife.




Believe it or not I recently got into a rather heated discussion over homosexuality not too long ago. A homeschooling "christian" friend said that while sodomy was wrong and an abomination in the OT the fact that very little if anything was said to the church that it wasn't necessarily wrong. There were things in the OT that were an abomination that we don't consider as an abomination now, according to her argument...I am not at all trying to hijack as this could be debated on another thread but you did remind me of this discourse

Oh, really? I reminded you of that discourse?
What does that have to do with me? I'm tiring of insinuations that I only apply Paul's words as having anything to do with the church. I'm also tiring of false accusations about what I have and haven't said. I think we're through discoursing.

[Amanda S.]

Greenbear,

Oh, really? I reminded you of that discourse?

Again no insinuations.

You said and I quote:

I don't think I even need to comment on the question of whether a man can marry a man or a woman a woman.

Believe it or not, that is up for debate among some Christians

[greenbear]

Believe it or not I recently got into a rather heated discussion over homosexuality not too long ago. A homeschooling "christian" friend said that while sodomy was wrong and an abomination in the OT the fact that very little if anything was said to the church that it wasn't necessarily wrong.

OK Amanda, you got me... I'm still discoursing.

What did your friend say when you shared these verses with her? These are just from Paul's letters. And sodomy is dealt with by Peter and Jude and John, as well.

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

[Amanda S.]

Greenbear, she stated that homosexuality may not be best, but that we all lie, covet etc and we sin everyday so how is homosexuality now this big bad abomination in the church age. Well, much like the argument that is given for marrying an unbeliever.

Also, that the Lord would not punish someone for the way He made them.

According to her 2 people of a different sex can love each other in a romantic way and as long as they don't sodomize each other then it's acceptable.

Luke 17:34 has 2 men in bed together...

Just her arguments.

[greenbear]

Brother PaulB,

The first words out of my mouth tonight when my poor husband came home from a hard day of work were, very loosely quoted:

What would you say to a new convert (a muslim convert) who has come to Christ in repentance and tears, wants to serve Him with all of his heart, but he has seven wives?
I am not playing the devil's advocat - but I am curious as to how we would deal with such a case as Christians (especially if he has had a child with every one of them!

After an unguarded moment of staring at me as if I were a crazy person he asked:

"What country does he live in? What are the laws in that country regarding polygamy?"

After a another few moments of my worried conjecture about how much he has actually thought about this topic in the past, and determining then and there to never agree to move with him to a Muslim country (or Utah, for that matter), I realized that the point he was making is that there is no biblical "law" against having more than one wife. There are, however, laws of human government that we are to obey. If there is a biblical law against multiple wives, we don't know about it. Is it God's perfect will? No.

You cited Jesus:

Mark 10:2-12 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

My husband pointed out the context is about a man putting away his wife. The context is not about whether you should have more than one wife. There is no question that Jesus says that from the beginning God intended one man and one woman. But whether or not a man is allowed to have multiple wives is not the topic He was addressing in that passage.

If you disagree with this, then I have a few questions for you:

Where in scripture does God say that Abraham, Jacob, David sinned by taking more than one wife?

Where does it say in the scriptures that Leah and Rachel weren't both the wives of Jacob?

Where does it say in the scriptures that either Leah's or Rachel's children were illegitimate in God's eyes? Or those of their handmaids (Jacob's other two "wives")?

If there was no biblical law against taking multiple wives back then, when did that change? We are speaking about a law prohibiting the practice. We are not speaking about what is God's perfect will in the matter.

If there is no law given about taking multiple wives in scripture then wouldn't the muslim man be disobeying Jesus by putting away any of his wives according to His own words "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"?

Your sister In Christ,
and the sole wife of one husband, thanks be to God!

Jennifer

[Amanda S.]

Hi Jessica,

We got off topic with the topic of homosexuality, but I was just curious what you thought of this speculation I had mentioned earlier.

Greenbear Quote:
I would ask why Paul found it necessary to stipulate that bishops, deacons, etc. be husbands of one wife if there were no members of the church who had more than one wife? If only one wife was allowed in those times among the gentiles, why did Paul bother to mention it?

Me:
Yes, we have to wonder a great deal of why Paul said certain things don't we? We could wonder that the reason he stipulated that a bishop or deacon be the husband of one wife is to differentiate between the OT where leaders such as Moses were permitted to have more than one wife.

Both are speculations.