Is multiple wives (polygamy) a sin in moderation?

[gordon 2]

Sometimes when a string breaks, on a musical instrument it can sound like a window breaking --- What was a item of plucked and custom sounds that snapped to lament dead birds or the sounds of their flying into windows. Of great fatigues distressing sound breaks at the very end of the string's life itself and of it effortlessly, like the subject of songs engaged ---to what by great effort they were wound about.

The authority of a thousand laws of tuning made to fence in the mind, for one steady heart His gate made handy to the strings' breaking--- SNAPPED! to re-string. A new string to the tuner it is, ---I must must pluck to newer songs.

The idea for what is right must be born from the heart of Jesus, I venture that such a tuning will minister... no other to the commissions, tips, or sundry engagements of Christians. The fields of Grace are ripe for the workers.

 

[Spineyman]

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

Matthew 19:4-6
4 Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”…

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

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.

OK, so suppose the gospel is preached in a country where polygamy is legal. (Remember the Great Commission is about making disciples of ALL nations.) A man with two wives comes to the Lord and is baptized. How does this man demonstrate his repentance from polygamy if remaining in both marriages is indeed a sin? Does he need to divorce one or both of his wives?

In the case of a homosexual marriage, the answer is clear. Repentance from the homosexual partner needs to be complete and permanent. Further, I would disassociate myself from any church or missionary organization that did not absolutely insist on complete repentance, including divorce, in the case of homosexual marriage. But does polygamy deserve equal treatment? Is a missionary organization that allows converts to remain in legal polygamous marriages making the equivalent error as a missionary organization that allows gays to remain in homosexual marriages?

 

[j_seph]

OK, so suppose the gospel is preached in a country where polygamy is legal. (Remember the Great Commission is about making disciples of ALL nations.) A man with two wives comes to the Lord and is baptized. How does this man demonstrate his repentance from polygamy if remaining in both marriages is indeed a sin? Does he need to divorce one or both of his wives?

In the case of a homosexual marriage, the answer is clear. Repentance from the homosexual partner needs to be complete and permanent. Further, I would disassociate myself from any church or missionary organization that did not absolutely insist on complete repentance, including divorce, in the case of homosexual marriage. But does polygamy deserve equal treatment? Is a missionary organization that allows converts to remain in legal polygamous marriages making the equivalent error as a missionary organization that allows gays to remain in homosexual marriages?

One, baptism does ot make you any more or any less saved. If they are saved by Gods amazing grace, does that not show their faith? We are saved by his grace through faith. So how can one have faith in Jesus and proclaim salvation if they do not have faith in his words as well to be the truth? Therefore if they are truly saved then they believe Gods word. They will know that their lifestyle is a sin. IMO there should be 2 divorces on him. The bible does not completely forbid divorce. Also notice in that scripture it says wife not wives. His first wife is committing adultery with the 2nd wifes husband and the 2nd wife is committing adultery with the 1st wifes husband. IMO the rest of his life should be spent un-married and seeking Gods forgiveness.

Matthew 19:9
9 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.

James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

 

[gordon 2]

The children of people who once followed their prophets and into polygamy, and the children of gay people are they less equal in dignity one from the other? As Christians what is our social and individual obligation to them?Especially if we took the trouble to make converts to the way of Christ?

So it seems that the authority most used by Christians is the "Most Natural", ( whether gleaned from scripture or nature itself) of what is the correct course , " Are the children or is the social order better served due the maintaining or discontinuance of the practices?"

So with homosexuality, it seems not sanctioned by scripture at least when it was practiced as hedonist pleasure seeking. It is like fornication and adultery to the avowed monogamous--- a perversion-- a distraction.

On the other hand polygamy is an artifact of the prophet religions... its spiritual roots was not meant to be perverse, if not ideal... Now this is not to say that polygamy cannot descend into systemic hedonism and exploitation.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

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?

There definitely is a strong Romans 13 case against polygamy in the US, but there are some important distinctions in the law in many states. In all states, second and subsequent marriages conducted in those states are invalid. In many states, the illegal act is not _having_ more than one wife, it is the act of getting married when one is already married. Being a polygamist is often not the crime, but becoming one is. For example, in many states a polygamist who married more than one wife in another country is not committing an illegal act by being a polygamist, but they would be by marrying additional wives in the state.

 

[NE GA Pappy]

OP, In almost every thread I see you posting in you throw out the phrase

"Do not go beyond what is written."

I would sure like to see your reference for this in scripture.

 

[bigbonner]

What man in his right mind would want more than one wife?
Could you imagine all the Honey I need or want this stuff.

Unless they all had money , then that may be ok.

 

[Big7]

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

Me... Except my particular flavor believes that it is sin.
Not only sin but Mortal Sin. Adultery. Yes it's in the Bible. I don't try to memorize chapter and verse. Anyone can look it up as good as I can.?

Wasn't for that, I'd prolly have 6 and rest on Sunday?

 

[Artfuldodger]

Is it a sin to have multiple wives but not all at the same time?

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

OK, so suppose the gospel is preached in a country where polygamy is legal. (Remember the Great Commission is about making disciples of ALL nations.) A man with two wives comes to the Lord and is baptized. How does this man demonstrate his repentance from polygamy if remaining in both marriages is indeed a sin? Does he need to divorce one or both of his wives?

Therefore if they are truly saved then they believe Gods word. They will know that their lifestyle is a sin. IMO there should be 2 divorces on him. The bible does not completely forbid divorce. Also notice in that scripture it says wife not wives. His first wife is committing adultery with the 2nd wifes husband and the 2nd wife is committing adultery with the 1st wifes husband.

Your analysis and prescription is somewhat odd and unique in that it somehow imputes the sin of adultery onto the first wife based on the husband's actions of marrying the second woman. Doesn't it seem odd that the 1st wife would not be sinning simply because her husband has an adulterous affair with a 2nd woman, but if the husband marries the second woman, then the 1st wife is committing adultery? Most interpreters who teach that marriage is limited to one man and one woman would consider the 2nd marriage invalid (just as homosexual marriages are invalid), so that the 1st wife is not committing adultery. But applying your logic to homosexual marriages, a born again believer who divorces a homosexual spouse is not even free to marry. I disagree. Certainly a former homosexual who has repented and divorced a gay spouse is free to marry, as pointed out in 1 Corinthians and other places.

I am also struck by the irony of using Jesus' teaching against divorce to insist that a man should divorce both of his wives to demonstrate repentance commensurate with salvation.

IMO the rest of his life should be spent un-married and seeking Gods forgiveness.

Now, this is bordering on foolishness. Scripture describes having a spouse as a right and sensible choice for Christians to make, especially if temptation to sexual immorality is an issue. Further, the idea that one needs to spend the rest of one's life seeking forgiveness for past sin is also silliness. Once repentance is complete and the deal is sealed in water baptism, the Scripture encourages believers to move on into spiritual discipleship and service of making disciples rather than spending the rest of our lives "seeking God's forgiveness."

 

[j_seph]

Your analysis and prescription is somewhat odd and unique in that it somehow imputes the sin of adultery onto the first wife based on the husband's actions of marrying the second woman. Doesn't it seem odd that the 1st wife would not be sinning simply because her husband has an adulterous affair with a 2nd woman, but if the husband marries the second woman, then the 1st wife is committing adultery? Most interpreters who teach that marriage is limited to one man and one woman would consider the 2nd marriage invalid (just as homosexual marriages are invalid), so that the 1st wife is not committing adultery. But applying your logic to homosexual marriages, a born again believer who divorces a homosexual spouse is not even free to marry. I disagree. Certainly a former homosexual who has repented and divorced a gay spouse is free to marry, as pointed out in 1 Corinthians and other places.

I am also struck by the irony of using Jesus' teaching against divorce to insist that a man should divorce both of his wives to demonstrate repentance commensurate with salvation.



Now, this is bordering on foolishness. Scripture describes having a spouse as a right and sensible choice for Christians to make, especially if temptation to sexual immorality is an issue. Further, the idea that one needs to spend the rest of one's life seeking forgiveness for past sin is also silliness. Once repentance is complete and the deal is sealed in water baptism, the Scripture encourages believers to move on into spiritual discipleship and service of making disciples rather than spending the rest of our lives "seeking God's forgiveness."

The 1st wife should have divorced as soon as the hub started with the 2nd wife which would not be a sin to have divorced him. By sticking around she started adultery just as the other was and as her husband was. Please if you ever come across one of these scenarios in real life post it up so we can follow.

IMO instead of posting up what if this or that, think about how you could have posted something along the lines of "Hey let me tell you about what God did for me this weekend." or "Let me tell you about a man who can save your soul."

Your post started off as "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."

Based on this statement, I have to ask you what is a Christian. Because in this sentence you are stating that those who are teaching wrong information, and those who cannot make a strong biblical case are in fact "Christians". Kind of hard for me to say if they are teaching wrong information that is not in the bible that they are Christians.
I for one can say I do not know the bible front to back however I do know the one who gave it to us. Also, going to a lost person and quoting and reading the bible to them to make a biblical case is no where as near as powerful as your testimony of what God has done for you. Telling someone it is safe to go through say a dark cave and quoting them something that says it is safe to do vs. letting them know you have done it and it is completely safe and being able to show them what was gained by doing so tends to persuade others a little more.

In all honesty, you would do better as mentioned to share what God has done for you in your life, your fruits would be better than trying to start debates and offering things up to become debates.

At revival last week it was preached out of Matthew 13 about the tares and the wheat. We cannot separate the Tare from the Wheat. You cannot tell them apart for a time but in time the tare will make itself obvious and then let the Lord sort them out.

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

1 Corinthians 7
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duties to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife's body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband. Likewise the husband's body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

^^^^^To me, this is the clearest Scriptural prohibition of taking multiple wives. A woman does not have her own husband if he is married to more than one wife. Likewise, this passage obviously calls husband and wife to give themselves to each other in marital intimacy (sex) and not to deprive each other. There is no room to deprive one's wife of marital intimacy because the husband is fulling his duties to his other wives.

It's not that the conclusion relating to polygamy based on Matthew 19 is invalid, it's that it's an inference that is easier for the carnal mind to dispute since Jesus is basing his teaching on Genesis. If the logic applied to Genesis made polygamy forbidden, then why was it not forbidden for David and the patriarchs? It is harder for the carnal mind to see that Jesus is not only giving a new directive regarding divorce, he is giving a new directive regarding polygamy as well. The appeal to OT examples of polygamy is rendered moot by using 1 Corinthians 7 to help interpret Matthew 19. Polygamy may have been OK for David and the patriarchs, but the New Testament brings a different command.

Still, I would take care interpreting Scripture in ways that tend to make polygamy seem equivalent to homosexuality. Homosexuality is on a list of sexual perversions in Leviticus 18 that are described as the reason why God destroyed the nations of Canaan. Combined with Romans 1, we see that the sexual perversions of Leviticus 18 bring a very specific wrath both on the individual and on the nation that approves these things.

Following the instructions of Jesus as relates to marriage can be a great blessing. Today, my wife and I celebrate our 30th anniversary. When the preacher asked, "Who gives this woman ..." her father answered, "Her mother and I do." We exchanged our vows and God made us husband and wife. I am very thankful for many blessings, especially my wife. I won the lottery 30 years ago today. I still do. Thank you Jesus. Frankly, the instructions of 1 Corinthians 7 have been a bigger blessing to my marriage than Matthew 19. Matthew 19 leaves too much room for wives to manipulate husbands by withholding sex.

Can I have an amen?

 

[j_seph]

Matthew 19 leaves too much room for wives to manipulate husbands by withholding sex.

WoW
Glad my wife and I are as one flesh and it does not revolve around one or the other manipulating by withholding sex. That is enough for me to leave this conversation. If your wife would do that or you then seems you are not equally yoked to begin with. I am done up in here on this thread.

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?

 

[Israel]

I think there may have been something said lightheartedly that was not seen so?

I am reasonably sure our brother did not mean the basis for a healthy form of intimacy starts with "I don't care how you're feeling toward me babe, da Bible says if I feel like puttin' on a lil Barry White, ya gotta roll with it".

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

The 1st wife should have divorced as soon as the hub started with the 2nd wife which would not be a sin to have divorced him. By sticking around she started adultery just as the other was and as her husband was.

You seem to be asserting that by failing to immediately divorce her husband, the 1st wife is complicit in ongoing adultery. However, this ignores the fact that in most countries where polygamy is legal and widely practiced women don't really have the divorce rights that they do in the US. Further, you are assuming that the 2nd marriage is valid in the sight of God simply because it is legal. Most folks who argue on the basis of Matthew 19 believe that just as homosexual marriage is not valid in the first place, the 2nd marriage in polygamy is not valid. Why is a 2nd marriage valid in polygamy if a homosexual marriage is not valid?

Or are you trying to say that wives who are cheated on have a duty to divorce unrepentant husbands regardless of whether that infidelity is related to a 2nd marriage? I've often thought Hillary Clinton was complicit in her husband's infidelity, but this was under US divorce laws and seemed to be about political expediency. But to say that Hillary was guilty of adultery would be a stretch.

Please if you ever come across one of these scenarios in real life post it up so we can follow.

For Christians, churches, and Christian organizations that support or serve in countries where polygamy is legal, dealing with polygamy is common. Have a look at a map that shows countries where polygamy is legal. There are a lot of them. It is not possible to fulfill the Great Commission to "make disciples of all nations" without confronting this issue "in real life." Is it really true that you and your church do not support missionaries in any country where polygamy is legal? That you never receive solicitations for support from Christian agencies that serve any of these countries?

Now, you probably would not want to support purported "Christians" who approve of homosexual marriage. If your argument regarding polygamy is valid, then why would you want to support those who accept polygamous marriages?

IMO instead of posting up what if this or that, think about how you could have posted something along the lines of "Hey let me tell you about what God did for me this weekend."

I post a lot more personal testimonies in less anonymous forums where comments like "pics or it didn't happen" are uncommon. In 25 years of internet ministry, I've found that verifiability is important. Personal testimonies are harder for readers to verify in anonymous forums. I'm also more likely to be "throwing my pearls to pigs" with personal testimonies on public forums.

But discussions on what Scripture actually says are easily verifiable in Scripture. Sites like BibleGateway.com are just a few keystrokes away, and one does not even need chapter and verse if the quote is accurate. Further, Scripture itself is "living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword." Therefore, I tend to prefer Scripture to personal testimony on anonymous forums unless prompted by the Holy Spirit or addressing a specific question. Even then, I prefer to shift to private messaging for more personal material. I share a lot more with folks who take me up on my open invitations to go fishing than I do on public forums.

I also integrate more personal testimonies into my preaching, teaching of a weekly Bible study, and social media where most readers know me personally so that they don't tend to doubt all of the extraordinary things to which I can give testimony. Still, my approach to personal testimony is heavily laden with Scripture - because both the Word of God and my personal experience are that the real power is in the Scripture.

I for one can say I do not know the bible front to back however I do know the one who gave it to us.

The Great Commission is about teaching disciples "everything" God commanded. Paul declared to the Ephesian elders that he had declared the "whole counsel of God" to them. At some point in Christian maturity toward these ends, it is useful to know the Bible front to back. Reading every Book in the Bible completely requires an effort of about 4 chapters each day for a year. A Christian who is diligent with Scripture can easily have read every book of the Bible 5 times by the time they have been a Christian 5 years.

At revival last week it was preached out of Matthew 13 about the tares and the wheat. We cannot separate the Tare from the Wheat. You cannot tell them apart for a time but in time the tare will make itself obvious and then let the Lord sort them out.

The truth of this does not change our obligation to teach "everything" God commanded and to separate ourselves from folks who claim to be Christians but are unrepentant regarding the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

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?

A true Christian would never ask such a question. Do those seeking holiness yearn for scriptural support to justify worldly desires......Yes, lust? It’s utterly embarrassing that such a question would even be asked in a Christian environment.

 

[Israel]

A true Christian would never ask such a question. Do those seeking holiness yearn for scriptural support to justify worldly desires......Yes, lust? It’s utterly embarrassing that such a question would even be asked in a Christian environment.

Do you really think that's what he's doing?

Why do I see it so differently?

Now, the question of whether one should employ such a "provocative" method, and the motive for such provocation might be questionable, but all I see is a man getting others to consider whence certain convictions about certain matters arise. Even if leaving all practicality aside (what does one "teach" when confronting a culture in which polygamy is not presumptively forbidden?) the deeper question remains...how much of what we off handedly assume...is either based in scripture, or forbidden specifically by it?
We may never find ourselves preaching in such a culture (regardless that some surely do) and the whole of this particular question may seem moot. But the deeper matter from where convictions arise, remains. Are we simply working from (in this case) "western traditions" or if called to, will we teach according to the Lord's instructions...or our own persuasions?

Oh, don't misunderstand, this is always a central issue, do any "speak for (in) the Lord"? Do all? None?

May all? I don't find any prohibition to that, but even an exhortation..."Let him who speaks speak as the oracles of God". A man convicted in truth of what he speaks...bearing both responsibility to his words and not much "this way and that" in such speculations that the whole of the church now suffers. It's a great way to learn stuff. Will we bear with grace the opprobrium speaking in the Lord must bring? Touching matters the Lord may want touched?

Or are we so naive as to imagine the church "today" (or is it merely pride?) sits forward on its pew just waiting eagerly to hear all the Lord instructs? If so, it puts the lie to far too much of what the scripture speaks...(and probably speaks of our own assumptions)

But, there remains the question..."who are the one(s)" who will not endure sound doctrine? Who will heap to themselves teachers? Who will experience the famine of hearing? Who will teach the traditions of men as the commandments of God? Who will be the "put out" while others say "let God be glorified?" Who may bend, who may break, who may stand? Who will betray brother to death? Will we, like Peter, simply assume..."that could never be...me?" But who will hear a Lord say we know what we do believe..."we speak what we do know"...and not just in mimic repeat it? Can any? Can all? Mimics are not without hope...but...when shown mimics, have they a better hope?

A sign appointed to the rise and fall of many in Israel...


Right it is we get probed. Tested. Jesus endured it. None of us has yet suffered having a loved one poke their hand into us. Or invited one to. Or...have we?


The measure of maturity is in precise measure to the bearing of contradiction. Me? I don't like it much...but admitting that is wholly due to seeing the deeper cost of being a liar.

Probably as much as, and no less than the worst, I have yet certain authority issues...of being told "how things are". But dads do that, and good dads never let up.

Good dads the Lord called evil, not for the shaming, but for the reproof to a better sight of the true Father.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

A true Christian would never ask such a question. Do those seeking holiness yearn for scriptural support to justify worldly desires......Yes, lust? It’s utterly embarrassing that such a question would even be asked in a Christian environment.

It is unwise to place questions of what is and isn't a command of Scripture in the category of things "a true Christian would never ask." When Jesus was tempted by the devil, he answered, "It is written ..." If Jesus can be tempted in every way and yet not sin, yet gave us the example of using Scripture to answer temptation, we can regard it as OK to seek specific Scriptures to answer specific temptations.

I'd go so far as to observe that purported Christians who look diligently for what IS and IS NOT actually in Scripture are more noble and likely to be genuine. Fake Christians are more like the toddlers who put their fingers in their ears when their parents give an instruction - they prefer not to know where the boundaries are - thinking this makes them less accountable.

Further, one would be in error to judge motives for understanding the real commands of Scripture to be an inclination to justify sin. A lot of my posts in this thread and others are about fulfilling the Great Commission to "teach everything" God commanded without making the yoke of following Jesus to heavy by adding religious traditions to God's actual commands. I've also pointed out our need as Christians to understand what does and does not constitute sexual immorality to effectively implement the instructions of 1 Corinthians 5 relating to separating from other purported Christians who are persistently unrepentant in their sexual immorality.

There is lots of dead legalism in American Christianity. If we are not willing to address the hard questions regarding what Scripture actually instructs and what are human additions, we don't have a lot of hope of life. And even if we manage some semblance of life in our churches, we'll still be turning lots of people off to the gospel by retaining human traditions and teaching them as God's instructions.

 

[gordon 2]

Quote" Further, one would be in error to judge motives for understanding the real commands of Scripture to be an inclination to justify sin. A lot of my posts in this thread and others are about fulfilling the Great Commission to "teach everything" God commanded without making the yoke of following Jesus to heavy by adding religious traditions to God's actual commands. I've also pointed out our need as Christians to understand what does and does not constitute sexual immorality to effectively implement the instructions of 1 Corinthians 5 relating to separating from other purported Christians who are persistently unrepentant in their sexual immorality.

There is lots of dead legalism in American Christianity. If we are not willing to address the hard questions regarding what Scripture actually instructs and what are human additions, we don't have a lot of hope of life. And even if we manage some semblance of life in our churches, we'll still be turning lots of people off to the gospel by retaining human traditions and teaching them as God's instructions." end quote.

Thanks for sharing this...