Is polygamy forbidden only for church leaders?

[Guest]

"First of all I must say that what God tolerated in the ages prior to Messiah's reign has, to my mind, no relevance to the issue of polygamy for us today."

Except there is zero indication that Polygyny (the specific form of Polygamy practiced by Israel) was ever tolerated. This keeps being thrown into the discussion without proof that it is the case. Please establish that the practice was merely tolerated.

"We could just as well argue that concubines are acceptable and that it is good and proper to father children by a widowed sister-in-law."

Actually, I'd be happy to argue the concubine angle, it's harder to argue for Levirate Law because we have no hereditary possession to protect as an Israelite male did.

"Neither do I see any support for the acceptability of polygamy in the instructions to Timothy regarding elders. The language regarding widows in 1 Tim. 5:9, literally 'of one man wife', corresponds to that regarding elders in 1 Tim. 3:2, literally 'of one wife husband', so also in Titus 1:6. If the passages indicate some men were polygymists they indicate some of the women were too!"

You've lost me entirely on justifying polyandry and I know of no one who reads the original language like you apparently do, to justify it. The fact is that one of the requirements of being an elder is also being a man. But I have heard no one argue that represents and ideal to be striven for. Maybe that's because women cannot become men. There are several things on the list that could be viewed as mere conditions and not ideals and in fact the concept that monogamy is an ideal is not expressed elsewhere in scripture.

"The 'of one man wife' statement seems most likely to mean a man who has not divorced a wife and remarried, except on the grounds of fornication. Absent the exception allowed by Jesus, wouldn't the man be considered to be an adulterer because he was still married to his first wife in the eyes of God?"

Why would a man be an adulteror when he is still married to his first wife? As long as he is married to his second wife and she brought no impediment to the marriage, he's just married to two women. You bring with you the assumption of necessary monogamy to create the myth that two women automaticly represents adultery. I don't think you can prove that case from scripture.

"Jesus informs us the husband and wife are joined together, 'no longer two but one flesh'. If three more wives are added, are the five now one flesh?"

No, the man would be one flesh with each of the wives, the wives would not be one with each other.

"If polygamy was acceptable to Jesus, in Matt. 19:9 why didn't Jesus tell them if they wanted a new wife to go ahead and marry her, just don't get rid of the first one one?"

Frankly, I think that is one of the clear messages of the passage, since the sequence of events is a divorce for unjust cause and replacement. No divorce, no adultery, it's as simple as that. Where have you a statement of anyone in scripture that two wives represent a sin? An elder with two wives would simply cease to be an elder, he is not said to sin in having two wives. No place in scripture says this.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

What are the beliefs of the "hierarchicalist camp?" I have never heard of this term. Thanks!

[Guest]

Rae,

I thought I had a post regarding this but so far I haven't located it. In your own post under Christian Living/ Ethics regarding lying, dated 12/17/2004, you took what I would call a hierarchichalist position regarding the Hebrew midwives.

The hierarchichalist position is that sometimes there is a conflict in obeying God's commands. When the midwives lied to save the lives of the babies the law of love took precedence over the law of truth telling; there was no sin. The absolutist would say they sinned, lying is always wrong, but they can seek forgiveness.

Norman Giesler has explained all the various positions well in a book on Christian ethics; my copy is probably over 30 years old - very interesting.

How's the baby? We have a new grandson. You should have had the grandkids first!

In Christ, Homer

[Guest]

Hugh,
Are you saying its ok for a man to have 2 wives?
If so, I will tell my husband because after 30 years
I could use someone to keep him happier...........

[Guest]

I am saying that is OK, perfectly alright as a matter of fact. In general though I would not recommend it for people who need to be "happier" than they are with their present wife. If you are serious in what you say, it sounds more to me that you feel that you are not a good wife to your husband, that doesn't speak to his need or desire for another wife.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Hugh,

Let me try one more time.

First of all I must state that polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament the same way divorce was tolerated although "from the beginning it was not so". In Deuteronomy 24 we find divorce permitted because of "the hardness of their hearts". Because they were mean. Not only was divorce permitted, it was also commanded in Ezra 10, yet we know God hates divorce Malachi 2:16! The same verse indicates He hates violence but in certain cases He allowed or even commanded it. So the practice of the patriarchs means nothing to me in this matter.

As followers of Messiah, empowered by the Holy Spirit, we are to adhere to a higher standard than the crude behavior exhibited in the prior dispensation. Jesus came to accomplish more than die for our sins.

I would ask you to consider again Jesus statement "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery. How? Because he has two wives! Polygamy is adultery! If polygamy is acceptable, Jesus argument fails. He is saying that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage and if the first marriage still stands the second marriage is adultery and not just polygamy. If the first marriage was actually void, there would be no adultery or polygamy. Seems very clear to me. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear".

I am curious what your definition of sin is. I understand sin to be "missing the mark", not the mark we set for ourselves, but the mark God sets. Not what God permits but what He desires of us. Outside His will we sin.

In Christ, Homer

[Guest]

"First of all I must state that polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament the same way divorce was tolerated although 'from the beginning it was not so'. In Deuteronomy 24 we find divorce permitted because of 'the hardness of their hearts'. Because they were mean. Not only was divorce permitted, it was also commanded in Ezra 10, yet we know God hates divorce Malachi 2:16! The same verse indicates He hates violence but in certain cases He allowed or even commanded it. So the practice of the patriarchs means nothing to me in this matter."

Homer, you're making the argument that because Polygyny is like divorce it is both reluctantly permitted but actually hated. Great, except that I don't know where you draw that conclusion from. So you can try 400 times if you wish to communicate to me how it is that God "reluctantly permitted it" and like the other thing he reluctantly permits, divorce, he really hates it and you will never get me over the critical hump of accepting this view. Why? Because there is not one place in scripture that says it's a bad thing or a reluctantly permitted thing or hated as you find with divorce. I would even go so far as to say that shows a misunderstanding of God's attitude towards divorce, though an understandable one.

"I would ask you to consider again Jesus statement 'I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery.' How? Because he has two wives! Polygamy is adultery! If polygamy is acceptable, Jesus argument fails. He is saying that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage and if the first marriage still stands the second marriage is adultery and not just polygamy. If the first marriage was actually void, there would be no adultery or polygamy. Seems very clear to me. 'He who has ears to hear, let him hear'."

It seems very clear to me that you're reading things into the passage. No, the reason it is adultery is because the first wife in this example was put away for invalid reason. If the cause was valid ("except for fornication") there was no adultery on the part of the husband. This is in fact the first and only place in scripture where it is said that a man could commit adultery against a woman at all.

Jesus view on the law is that it is still in place, in fact he proceeds from his affirmation of the law in Matthew 5 to make his famous remark about lusting in your heart being equivalent in severity to adultery in your heart. If anything Jesus is prone to making the condemnations of the law more far reaching, touching on more of our activities, than we would. Thus, at least for the Jewish audience he speaks to, during his life on this earth, Jesus is more severe about the application of the law that most of his Jewish bretheren. The law then, is in place, so what does it say? Remember, that in stating that Moses gives the law, Jesus does not downgrade it, he and Moses are prophets in the same mold. He says this about Moses, Moses foretells Christ's coming as a prophet like himself. Now to the law of divorce, given to Moses, by God. Deuteronomy 24:1(NASB)

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."

Since we know that Jesus does not (at least in this time frame) take away from the law, he has to be abiding by it. The Pharisees that asked about this question of law were seeking more liberty in it than it gave. They had made vague the "uncleanness" of the passage so that it allowed them a righteous divorce for virtually any reason. Christ does not, going back to Matthew 19, Jesus says "except for immorality" and defines what the uncleanness is. It's adultery. Jesus again defines the law as not permitting what we would like it to, instead being more restrictive and far reaching than we would prefer. Lusting after a woman is adultery. Divorce is not sanctioned for just any reason or displeasure of a husband, but only for her adultery which is the "uncleanness" of Deuteronomy 24.

You make the argument that the first marriage still stands, thus there are two wives, thus it is adultery. Aside from the fact that multiple wives are never said to be adulterous this does not reflect the structure of the Law Jesus honors. Deuteronomy 24:2(NASB)

"...and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife.."

Is this a Polyandry then? No, becauses verses 3 & 4 say;

"..and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance."

The marriage ceased at the point of the writ of divorcement, but not until. The woman could go out and become another man's wife. It is clearly wrong for her to do so per Christ's comments, but she could do it. It's not a polyandrous marriage to two men, because if the second husband was to send her away or if he were to die, "her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled." This is likened to a defilement of God's land, which he gave to Israel. If the first marriage is still in place, she might return to her former husband, and could.

Also, God does accept divorce as valid. God does it himself in Jeremiah 3. The supposition that marriage cannot be disolved by divorce alone is disproved by the given example in Deuteronomy 24, and the permanent ratification of that disolving if the woman were to go on to become the wife of another man. The pollution is so severe that even if her next husband were to die, she could not return to the first. That second man must divorce her for her to go away from him, and how is it that a divorce from the second husband is necessary, if she were still in a marriage with the first? The argument disintigrates entirely with Jesus own words. John 4:16-18(NASB)

"He said to her, 'Go, call your husband and come here.'  The woman answered and said, 'I have no husband.' Jesus said to her, 'You have correctly said, "I have no husband"; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly'."

How could the woman have had five husbands? Did the first four die? Why is she not the wife of the last man? Could it be number 5 has not divorced her?

In Matthew Jesus upholds the double standard of divorce, again reiterating the permission as being only given to men. He clarifies the structure of the law to countenance remarriage by the man, only in the event of his wife's adultery. The verse clearly states there is an exception for all men whose wives have committed adultery against them and clears the path for them to marry again, provided their cause of action was adultery on the part of their wives. Scripture has a number of double standards, repeated, reinforced and named as Godly and all throughout the New and Old Testaments.

"I am curious what your definition of sin is. I understand sin to be 'missing the mark', not the mark we set for ourselves, but the mark God sets. Not what God permits but what He desires of us. Outside His will we sin."

I don't see polygyny as missing the mark and can prove that in God's law given to Moses, there is a compulsion to be polygynous, even though it is only the side effect of another action.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

In Matthew Jesus upholds the double standard of divorce, again reiterating the permission as being only given to men.

I have never thought about this. Is it permissible for only a man to divorce his wife if she is unfaithful? What if the husband is having adulterous relationships? I always assumed that this verse applied to both men and women, but it doesn't say women. It says if a man divorces his wife. Is a wife divorcing her husband just something that was completely not an option in that culture and so that's why nothing was said about it? And since it is okay in our culture then it would be okay? Or does it still stand that only a man can divorce his wife if she is unfaithful but not the other way around?

[Guest]

First let me distinguish between what is legally considered to be a divorce in our society, and what a divorce was in God's law. I think the latter is governing and where civil law is more permissive, Christians simply should not go.

"I have never thought about this. Is it permissible for only a man to divorce his wife if she is unfaithful?"

Jesus in Matthew 19 readily concedes that it does occur without adultery, but then proceeds to pronounce it faithlessness on the part of the man who does so. In Matthew 19 Jesus addresses a hypothetical divorce and excludes all men who divorced for the reason of their wife's adultery from his forthcoming condemnation. Thus we learn it is possible for a man to divorce a woman for any reason, but only just to do so for one cause, that being her adultery.

"What if the husband is having adulterous relationships? I always assumed that this verse applied to both men and women, but it doesn't say women."

It takes courage to admit noticing this, it does not say women may divorce. Both Jesus and the passage he quotes in Deuteronomy make it clear that it is men who may divorce women. This is not to say that men do not commit adultery, but adultery, as defined in the Old Testament (disregarding for now Jesus addition or clarification in Matthew 19) is only a man having sex with another man's wife or another man's betrothed. The sin is a sin, the man who commits the adultery is an adulteror. The sin however is against two parties. It is against God, and it is against the husband who's wife or betrothed was involved. The sin of adultery, even including Jesus declaration about it in Matthew 19 is never against a wife. It is in fact only possible for a man to commit adultery against his ex wife, and only if he had abandoned her unjustly through divorce for no cause, and then only if he married again afterwards.

"Is a wife divorcing her husband just something that was completely not an option in that culture and so that's why nothing was said about it? And since it is okay in our culture then it would be okay? Or does it still stand that only a man can divorce his wife if she is unfaithful but not the other way around?"

It still stands that only a man can divorce his wife. I use the term as the scriptures define it. I think that any contested divorce in which a man contests the act by his wife, is no divorce at all. I assume both persons in this case to be believers.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

HUgh,
Do you attend a church building or home fellowship group?