Is multiple wives (polygamy) a sin in moderation?

[LittleDrummerBoy]

It is surprising to me how many things Christians believe and teach that are not actually in the Bible or for which Christians cannot make a strong Biblical case. Many ascribe to ideas like "Sola Scriptura" or "the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice." These doctrines are well supported by the Scriptural admonition, "Do not go beyond what is written." But many other doctrines are promulgated more on the basis of traditions of the church in America rather than actual scriptural support.

So what about having multiple wives at the same time? Is it a sin? Can you show that from Scripture?

 

[Artfuldodger]

I don't recall it being a sin. What is your importance or reasoning in figuring out what all is sin? I guess in a way we do need to know what all is sin if we are going to try to not sin.

Yet today we are more of a grace vs lordship salvation group Christians. We see this grace as being more important than "not sinning" as we didn't have much luck looking for salvation through that route.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Maybe if we can figure out the "list" it will help us deny salvation to the "others."
What about those in foreign lands that have never seen the "list." How does salvation work for them? It just seems like a better idea would be to teach them a change of heart. To somehow convey Jesus died for their inability to quit sinning.
Then teach them the Great Commandment. Somehow they should have this desire to "Love" after their individual conversion even if they don't know the "List."

 

[Artfuldodger]

Maybe if someone grew up a Jew and became a Christian, then he may be more into the "List" as that is what his version of Scripture was for him.
But a new Christian on a Pagan Island or village? Maybe not.

 

[blood on the ground]

Sin or not ... Who would want multiple wives?sorry!

 

[Artfuldodger]

Sin or not ... Who would want multiple wives?sorry!

I think I'd rather have a brother husband to help cut the grass than a sister wife.

 

[j_seph]

Matthew 19 4-6 states in red letters with as he meaing Jesus

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.

His wife not wives, singular not plural. This is a commandment given right here from Jesus. Back in Genesis at the beginning in chapter 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Again singular not plural.
It was Cain son that started with 2 wives leading up to the evil and corruptness that led to the flood and notice also Noah had one wife and his family was the family saved from the flood.

 

[ryanh487]

Multiple wives was a common cultural thing, not a God ordained thing. In fact, while it's not specifically highlighted in the Bible, Godly men having multiple wives always caused a ton of trouble for them. Abraham, for example, is responsible for the entire Arab nation and conflict around the globe because of his second wife. Jacob dealt with all kinds of strife in his life because of his multiple marriages. David as well, and Solomon even strayed from God because of his wives for a large portion of his life.

I believe God used their bad decisions in big ways, but that doesn't make those decisions any less Godly or against God's original design of Marriage as a reflection of the relationship between him and his church, and a one on one relationship.

 

[gordon 2]

Is the premise of the question correct? That the bible is final authority in all matters of faith and practice? I personal think this is incorrect.

Here's what some smart due said once about scripture:

" But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. " This was communicated to the foolish Galatians I think.

So it is not scripture for me that informs me not to do this or that. It is a belief in the golden rule... issued from a the Holy heart of Jesus who valued my freedom and the freedom of others more than any security. And I learn of it through the life of Christians and so the Holy Spirit which they cleave to and informs them.

But if the account of Adam and Eve qualify as scripture lessons... Adam and Eve when they were to paradise sought not to cover their shame with any alliance cause they had none ( no shame, no want of security) ... which to me seems the direction Christians look, back and forth and look forward too, in their lives.

(Systemized) and formally arranged multiple wives or husbands for Christians is a strange trajectory and considering the state of the world it would perhaps compound the chances of being handed more sprayed apples needing a good wash than is practical.

 

[GeorgiaBob]

Sin, the actual Greek word used in the New testament, is to miss the mark (not hit a bullseye), and implies an archer failing to win a prize. To sin is to fall short (not aim high enough) of God's plan for you. A sinner (all of us are sinners) is someone who has failed to hit the bullseye every time.

I tend to ignore the legalistic reappraisals of what is "sinful" and stick to simple faith. If a man (I use "man" because I are one and therefore, in truth, in God's eyes, and as scientific fact, I cannot identify as female) faithfully enters into a lifetime committed relationship with more than one woman, and the women accept, endorse, and approve of the relationship, and each other, then that faithful man may have scored a bullseye!

Of course, blood on the ground has a very, very valid point!

 

[Israel]

Were we to go by the fundamental premise that all and everything given of God is gift, and at that, good gift; not as a man might wrap one of those old gag gifts like the springy compressed snake in a can that when opened suddenly shoots out to a shock...we'd have some agreement.

And were we to look at the scriptures no less; that there is nothing "in them" given there to shock us, but given as all of wholesome good gift...(even if, or when,... we are shocked)...and even furthermore as claiming a fellowship (if we do) with Jesus Christ who states in one place:

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? KJV

And in another:

'Ye search the Writings, because ye think in them to have life age-during, and these are they that are testifying concerning me; and ye do not will to come unto me, that ye may have life; " YLT

Does anyone see an issue? Not a problem, not even a conundrum or paradox or something that is inconsistent...(but may even appear so!)...but an issue? Of right relationship to "the writings"...if we claim [any] right relationship (or any relationship at all) to Jesus Christ?
Do all writings testify of Jesus Christ? (each man is already answering)
Can the writings be broken?
Is eternal life in anyone or thing, other than Jesus Christ? (each man, again, is already answering)

I suspect that here no amount of "linear logic" is of any help. The circular logic (of which we are so often accused) is all and only what can prevail. The frustration of the linear must give way to the circular, but we may find the circular we draw in, or to, conclusion...is never concluded. We might just as well try and find the "end" to, or of, God.

I know I speak as a fool, and that's not a "confession" just an undeniable truth.
I am trapped. I am trapped in God. Whose end I still "feel for"...like a blind man..."where's the limit...so I don't...fall outside?" How far this way...how far that way? How foolish can a man be? Watch me.

The pain you feel in those two words, and so rightly so "watch me" is all, and at best I can give. Watch a man trying to "square this"...

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

to this:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Forget all the matter of whether "this" is only an apostle's granting (as I am sure argument might be made...O! make no mistake, I have known many many wise men who know to the dram where each portion of God is to go, is allowed to go, is purposed to go.) and consider only that if that argument is made...there are "others" who are to be committed to hold the sins of others..."against them".

Yikes! That last statement tastes like a piece of glass in my soup.

What am I into? How did this happen? How ..."much"...is forgiveable? Is this it? Really? Power given to man...to remit sin? How...by who? What? Even if "I" don't have it...well, somebody "got it". Was given it.

Now, if I throw this "in the mix"...(but I haven't, this is not "my recipe" at all!)

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. "

Talk about a circle! How big is it?

I simply can't square this, at all. No matter how right its appeal is, the "logic" of it is simply far too perfect for any linear arrival. You may think I belabor that, this matter of linear vs circular logic, or reasoning with God. After all, again...it is all and so much of which the disciple is accused by the wise of this world. But for us the end and beginning are all and always the same...God. Can it be...any other way? Is it? (each man already answers)

We asked for it! We wanted to be "like God"...and we have been given power to judge. Yikes! Listen to this of how much power there is "in it"!

And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Yikes again, and a thousand times yikes! A thousand thousand times! YIKES!
O! mercy mercy...me. I am judged by what I believe of the master! He allows it so! He allows me to believe...what I believe of Him! But...yikes! What if I find out I need more mercy than I apprehended? To share? I thought I took enough "for myself"...and hid it? Yikes! Yikes! How much do "I" need...to not so judge the master so that my own judgment does not come back upon me? Should I be scared? Is there enough...mercy? To turn a man who sees the master as a harsh man? Let me dig! Let me dig it all up! Quickly! Let me find how much is there...that even I might have some to give away...or at least bring to the bankers!

Is that you? Are you a banker? Can you multiply this to interest? Quick...do me that favor!

Do you hate looking at me, yet? Good.

As to linear logic:

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.


I got perfectly trapped. I will not recommend the linear logic...I don't have to.

And my circle remains, by the very virtue of its being "mine", always excruciatingly...small. And this ain't anything you see, except a man...caught.

PS: In regards to circle, circular, whole-ness, this comes to mind as something to which I find all linear reasoning shown of inutility:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

It is all an inside of the inside, in the inside. Doesn't lend itself to lines at all.

How can one, if ever seeing the Christ of God...reason to the Father's love being the same for the believer of Christ as it is, in all that it is, toward Jesus Christ Himself? No wonder some stuff just can't get in? Or be "carried out" to explain. For if I could find "the reason" for God to love me (us) implicit would be the, or "a" reason for Him not to. God forbid!

 

[gordon 2]

Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.
------------------

In my heart I swish that God has pleaded at man's heart in even the most ancient accounts of scripture, from Cain's fear to our Lord's fearlessness set on our apostles. To understand then for me is an appeal to the heart to understand and do by faith. To be though sure that God appeals to the mind or reason, the rational, to the logical systems of the sciences is error.


An appeal to the out-worldly heart, or the heavenly heart in man is where appeals can be had...

So it is that convictions of happiness (or what is good ) is of the heart and so the heart can know that faith without works is folly. Because logic will get you to the place that all works are not by choice it is natural for reason's mind to seek what not to do to please an authoritarian Divinity and thus salvation is not a relationship of equals in friendship. It is logical that a Potter be the author of his clay. But the clay once made a potter too, the heart must inform that both are to works.

Is the so called Great Commission a call to works, a duty natural or a law? It is a law to logic, a law of Grace from Grace and by logic to follow. Natural to the heart it is a work of Grace and item of spiritual life itself from the man of faith... a choice not to be lawful, but to be good as Grace is good.

13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. 14He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you.15Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine.

Why do we differ to scripture for declarations of what is to come? It is because we cleave to the knowledge of good and evil as being items of the laws of reason which seek law and yet know that logic itself is corrupted by this finding itself all in all...

But is this the all in all of Jesus? Is God seeking to appeal to the heart? Of what geometry is our Father's heart?

My heart tells me that God compares the married or marriage to the union of Himself to the Church and not His union to many churches. The union of the Church to Himself is not a description of marriage, but marriage is to God a description of His union with his people. Now this is logical. But what is not logical is why would God use something of fallen man's relationship to describe his relationship to man? My heart tells me God nurses our imperfections to get to what is still perfect in his creation and for these perfections I have faith as they are the seat of faith.

So scripture tells me what not to do due logic and Jesus tells me what to do by faith, or from motivations digested by my heart-- by my emotional makeup to which I will apply logic as to works...

So how do I dive to the deep of what God sees in marriage now when in heaven there is no marriage? The main difference must be that marriage now though of elements heavenly is equally in the shadows of death where in heaven there will be no such shadows-- death not of existence.

There is in the lawful man a desire to survive death through his offsprings...the more offsprings the more chances are of his survival. But the generations of the flesh are no match for the generations of faith. The generations of faith adopt offsprings that are not their own genetics as if they are... as if returned to the feet of Adam and Eve, and they are if of faith. So marriage is a relationship of faith which is all life affirming, all light, which transcends death and gives life a wholesome ever new and renewing vitality.

So to God marriage must be all life affirming with not a hint of the worry of death.

So why should I marry to one only in the here and now...? Well... the chances of death creeping into what was designed to be all life affirming is much less... And so my heart tells me out of the fears of Cain and of the fears of God to chose by faith for me and for my spouse the number of spouses to grace and not taint our lives and the lives of others.

Besides if we are made prophets in Christ our days should be busy enough that we would not find time to collect spouses out of our friendships...

Speaking of friendships... ISREAL.. I give 10 dollars to the Salvation Army if you yodel like Jimmy Rogers in your next song vid... As it is a sort of singing in tongues for cowboys... it would minister plenty... to those who's hearts seek melody over words in the above all... or for guys and gals like me who know its joys . There is much faith in a cowboy yodel, in my heart. It is as a fun-the-mental to me. : ) thanks bros.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

Several posts seem to be either asking, "Why is this an important question?" or asserting that it is not. I believe it is an important question for carrying out several duties as Christians even if we are not personally tempted toward polygamy:

1. In the Great Commission, Jesus directs us to "make disciples of all nations" ... "teaching them to obey everything I (Jesus) commanded ..." However, several other passages are very negative regarding adding to God's word, especially promoting traditions of men as commands from God. If j_seph is right and Jesus directly commanded marriage to be limited to one man and one woman (no polygamy), then Christians have a duty to get this right as we carry out the Great Commission.
2. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Christians are clearly instructed not to tolerate sexually immoral people in the church - to expel them and not even to eat with them. If polygamous marriages are as invalid as homosexual marriages (even where legal), then Christians have a duty to separate ourselves from practitioners of polygamy who claim to be Christians.
3. I anticipate the debate regarding polygamy is coming to the US within our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children either through marriage equality or perhaps US immigration policy "separating" families by not allowing immigration of more than one wife even from countries where multiple wives are legally sanctioned and valid. Many churches are now espousing the position that Biblical marriage is only valid between "one man and one woman". This creates a position and argument that polygamous marriages (even in countries that allow it) are equally as invalid before God as homosexual marriages. In our Constitutional government, there is nothing wrong with laws and immigration policies based in wisdom rather than righteousness, but Christians should not go beyond what is written in claiming polygamy is a fundamental issue of righteousness (sin) if it is more a question of wisdom. If polygamy is not a sin, comparing it with homosexual marriage weakens the case against homosexual marriage.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Several posts seem to be either asking, "Why is this an important question?" or asserting that it is not. I believe it is an important question for carrying out several duties as Christians even if we are not personally tempted toward polygamy:

1. In the Great Commission, Jesus directs us to "make disciples of all nations" ... "teaching them to obey everything I (Jesus) commanded ..." However, several other passages are very negative regarding adding to God's word, especially promoting traditions of men as commands from God. If j_seph is right and Jesus directly commanded marriage to be limited to one man and one woman (no polygamy), then Christians have a duty to get this right as we carry out the Great Commission.
2. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Christians are clearly instructed not to tolerate sexually immoral people in the church - to expel them and not even to eat with them. If polygamous marriages are as invalid as homosexual marriages (even where legal), then Christians have a duty to separate ourselves from practitioners of polygamy who claim to be Christians.
3. I anticipate the debate regarding polygamy is coming to the US within our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children either through marriage equality or perhaps US immigration policy "separating" families by not allowing immigration of more than one wife even from countries where multiple wives are legally sanctioned and valid. Many churches are now espousing the position that Biblical marriage is only valid between "one man and one woman". This creates a position and argument that polygamous marriages (even in countries that allow it) are equally as invalid before God as homosexual marriages. In our Constitutional government, there is nothing wrong with laws and immigration policies based in wisdom rather than righteousness, but Christians should not go beyond what is written in claiming polygamy is a fundamental issue of righteousness (sin) if it is more a question of wisdom. If polygamy is not a sin, comparing it with homosexual marriage weakens the case against homosexual marriage.

I would imagine if you had asked if homosexual marriage was wrong, you would have gotten more responses that it was wrong. Now when you ask about polygamy, you get a different response. I can now see where you are headed with this.

Maybe one sin is more defined than the other. Perhaps neither are.

Also, even if it is legal in the government's eyes and society's eyes, it may still be a sin. If in fact that one day polygamy is legal in the US. Has polygamy ever been legal in the US?

 

[gordon 2]

Several posts seem to be either asking, "Why is this an important question?" or asserting that it is not. I believe it is an important question for carrying out several duties as Christians even if we are not personally tempted toward polygamy:

1. In the Great Commission, Jesus directs us to "make disciples of all nations" ... "teaching them to obey everything I (Jesus) commanded ..." However, several other passages are very negative regarding adding to God's word, especially promoting traditions of men as commands from God. If j_seph is right and Jesus directly commanded marriage to be limited to one man and one woman (no polygamy), then Christians have a duty to get this right as we carry out the Great Commission.
2. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Christians are clearly instructed not to tolerate sexually immoral people in the church - to expel them and not even to eat with them. If polygamous marriages are as invalid as homosexual marriages (even where legal), then Christians have a duty to separate ourselves from practitioners of polygamy who claim to be Christians.
3. I anticipate the debate regarding polygamy is coming to the US within our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children either through marriage equality or perhaps US immigration policy "separating" families by not allowing immigration of more than one wife even from countries where multiple wives are legally sanctioned and valid. Many churches are now espousing the position that Biblical marriage is only valid between "one man and one woman". This creates a position and argument that polygamous marriages (even in countries that allow it) are equally as invalid before God as homosexual marriages. In our Constitutional government, there is nothing wrong with laws and immigration policies based in wisdom rather than righteousness, but Christians should not go beyond what is written in claiming polygamy is a fundamental issue of righteousness (sin) if it is more a question of wisdom. If polygamy is not a sin, comparing it with homosexual marriage weakens the case against homosexual marriage.

I don't think this should be a great political issue except where individuals are abused or abuse public resources to maintain polygamist lifestyles. Politicians cannot but legislate when law is required to protect people and their resources from abuse and this is the moral question they can deal with. But they cannot define what is a spiritually valid marriage.

As to the moral question of it, as to what is a morally fitting marriage set up, for this Christian and his use of scripture, I'll go with John... Or Jesus' statement in Revelations:


"Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy."

 

[Israel]

I don't think this should be a great political issue except where individuals are abused or abuse public resources to maintain polygamist lifestyles. Politicians cannot but legislate when law is required to protect people and their resources from abuse and this is the moral question they can deal with. But they cannot define what is a spiritually valid marriage.

As to the moral question of it, as to what is a morally fitting marriage set up, for this Christian and his use of scripture, I'll go with John... Or Jesus' statement in Revelations:


"Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy."

"Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy."

O!
Such precise distillation! It is too terrible! Too strong, too potent...too toxic to what is subject to toxicity!

It kills in immediacy! I have no evidences at hand by which I might assure myself! What can I say? I have done this or that? I have said this or that? I have labored in this or that? I have "adhered" to this or that? I am undone! I have no metric in myself to counter the dread truth of it, for I have been "let" to continue, and let to think of myself as pleases me in all my unknowing of where I appear! O, wretched man that I am! I am let...to think...of myself.

What can be done for such? Who can capture the eye? The "I"? Is there none...stronger than "I" to deliver from such a place? Can any wake a man? To sight?

 

[Israel]

Thanks be to God!

Through Jesus Christ!


I am the man!

goo goo, ga ga...

 

[Israel]

 

[Israel]

"I don't care if you exist"

To find that place where being is beyond one's own caring...

goo goo, ga ga...

 

[j_seph]

Several posts seem to be either asking, "Why is this an important question?" or asserting that it is not. I believe it is an important question for carrying out several duties as Christians even if we are not personally tempted toward polygamy:

1. In the Great Commission, Jesus directs us to "make disciples of all nations" ... "teaching them to obey everything I (Jesus) commanded ..." However, several other passages are very negative regarding adding to God's word, especially promoting traditions of men as commands from God. If j_seph is right and Jesus directly commanded marriage to be limited to one man and one woman (no polygamy), then Christians have a duty to get this right as we carry out the Great Commission.

Please understand it is not if J_seph is right. All I did was quote Gods Word and it seems pretty black and white to me.