Polygamy and Concubines?

[DavidMatthew]

To make a long story short, the past couple years I've been struggling to find a home church of any sort. After leaving the church I had gone to most of my upbringing, I began to really question what was taught to me growing up, and trying to find a basis for all things I was taught in the Bible. As I have found out, many things my church taught me growing up simply weren't based in the scripture.

That said - Something I've been curious about lately is the issue of polygamy and concubines.

While I have no interest in marrying more than one person, nor do I have an interest in acquiring any concubines, it has bothered me that it seems unanimous across the churches I've been to that such things are sinful, when I can find no basis in scripture for such a thing. I would ask a pastor, but seeing as I don't really have one in my life I can trust right now, it is a bit difficult.

In fact, most scripture (both Old and New Testament) either supports it, or stays silent on the issue. And with many Old Testament leaders such as Abraham, Jacob, Saul, David, Solomon, etc... all having polygamist marriages, and many of them having concubines - it makes me wonder why such practices are frowned upon.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm - Also has some interesting scripture on the issue.

Basically, could anyone clarify why polygamy (and concubines) are frowned upon by the modern church? Preferably with scripture to back it up?

I have quite a few more questions, but I'll leave those for another time.

[larry2]

Hi DavidMatthew, I did not read all that link but does the following scripture make any sense to you?

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.

Titus 1:6   If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 

Acts 17:30  "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" This is a verse intended at thinking wrongly of God but I believe many things of old can come under these things needing correction in man.

If you go back to Abraham with Hagar God did not approve of that union and did not bring our Savior through Ishmael for instance.

[phoebe]

I would go back to the first man and the first woman.  God didn't create a multitude of women for Adam, He gave him one woman.  Everything after that is man's idea.  Jesus reinforced this with two becoming  one--not three or four become one.  The call for church leaders to have one spouse is just icing on the cake.

[ex cathedra]

I would go back to the first man and the first woman.  God didn't create a multitude of women for Adam, He gave him one woman.  Everything after that is man's idea.  Jesus reinforced this with two becoming  one--not three or four become one.  The call for church leaders to have one spouse is just icing on the cake.





scripture truths like this that you have pointed out are often overlooked as people dwell on the examples God shows us that goes against his will.

thats why God provides us with well trained pastors to point out the obvious when because of our sin natures it becomes less obvious.

[DavidMatthew]

I promise I don't wish to be difficult, but here are the first thoughts that come to mind
-

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;

That only talks about church leadership, not the individual Christian.

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

I'm not a deacon either. Why doesn't Paul simply say that nobody should have more than one wife?

Titus 1:6   If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 

If you read the rest of the chapter, it is clear that he again is talking to the leadership of the church, not to individual Christians. That pretty much is true for all of 1st/2nd Timothy and Titus.

Acts 17:30  "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" This is a verse intended at thinking wrongly of God but I believe many things of old can come under these things needing correction in man.

That verse only works if you are to assume that polygamy, etc... is a sin.

If you go back to Abraham with Hagar God did not approve of that union and did not bring our Savior through Ishmael for instance.

But our Savior did come from the line of David/Solomon - both of who had many wives and concubines - Also, read Genesis 16. God clearly blessed Hagar in Genesis 16:9-10 - "Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count." "

I would go back to the first man and the first woman.  God didn't create a multitude of women for Adam, He gave him one woman.  Everything after that is man's idea.  Jesus reinforced this with two becoming  one--not three or four become one.  The call for church leaders to have one spouse is just icing on the cake.

It isn't unreasonable, but generally when it comes to sin, God is pretty explicit on what sin is. Also, the verse regarding two becoming one flesh - there is nothing that says a man cannot become one flesh with more than one wife.

Again, I'm not wishing to be difficult, I just am bothered that a practice that is so looked down upon isn't explicitly, or even implicitly condemned in scripture when it comes down to the average Christian. Jesus also seems to be completely silent on the issue.

[ela]

In 2 Pet. 2:14 and Heb. 13:4 and in the 10 Commandments it speaks about adultery....meaning being married to one and then have relations with another...which is what Polygamy is. Only in Polygamy, the 2nd is known by the first and taken as a "wife".

[chosenone]

proverbs 5v15
be faithful to the wife of your youth.
1 Cor 7v2
Let each man have his own wife, and let each women have her own husband. (singular)

[Volkmar]

I think Phoebe is answering from a right perspective by looking at God's original intent.  As she said, much of what follows after Gen. 3 are examples of humans attempting to be their own god, and at their best coming to a realization of their need for God's Light and Grace.

From a New Test. perspective I think Eph. 5 gives us a picture of God's intent and the assumptions from which Paul taught and encouraged;

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The picture I get is that Christ gave himself up sacrificially for one wife--the church--not many wives.  In view of this "mystery" Christ has but one wife.  In view of that reality Paul tells the Ephesians that each man is to love his own wife at least as much as he loves himself.


Is polygyny proscribed?  Not explicitly.  Is it God's desire that polygyny be "normal" practice?  I doubt it.  Even in the case of Abraham and Sarah when they began to have doubts about God fulfilling his promise about descendants and proceeded to solve the problem in the customary cultural way did God turn away from them because of their lack of faith?  No.  However, God only fulfilled His promises through Isaac, the "seed of promise" and Ishmael became a thorn in the flesh of Isaac's descendants.

It is also apparent from the OT narrative that God often bore with and allowed His people to choose to do other than what was best in His eyes.  Israel wanting a king is one example.  The temple of Solomon is another.  Numerous examples--too many to list here.

Essentially, polygyny is an expression of men's attempts to exercise dominance over women and other men through fecund reproduction.

In all countries except those under Sharia law (or places where some kind of animism is the prevailing religion) polygyny is considered illegal.



Questions:

1.  If it is right for a man to have many wives, is it also right for a woman to have many husbands?  If not, why not?

2.  In "non-reformed" Mormonism the practice of polygyny was considered a moral duty.  Do you think that practice produced or illustrated a warped Christology?  Why was it not part of their dogma that women were to practice polyandry? 



V

[DavidMatthew]

I think Phoebe is answering from a right perspective by looking at God's original intent.  As she said, much of what follows after Gen. 3 are examples of humans attempting to be their own god, and at their best coming to a realization of their need for God's Light and Grace.

From a New Test. perspective I think Eph. 5 gives us a picture of God's intent and the assumptions from which Paul taught and encouraged;

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The picture I get is that Christ gave himself up sacrificially for one wife--the church--not many wives.  In view of this "mystery" Christ has but one wife.  In view of that reality Paul tells the Ephesians that each man is to love his own wife at least as much as he loves himself.


Is polygyny proscribed?  Not explicitly.  Is it God's desire that polygyny be "normal" practice?  I doubt it.  Even in the case of Abraham and Sarah when they began to have doubts about God fulfilling his promise about descendants and proceeded to solve the problem in the customary cultural way did God turn away from them because of their lack of faith?  No.  However, God only fulfilled His promises through Isaac, the "seed of promise" and Ishmael became a thorn in the flesh of Isaac's descendants.

It is also apparent from the OT narrative that God often bore with and allowed His people to choose to do other than what was best in His eyes.  Israel wanting a king is one example.  The temple of Solomon is another.  Numerous examples--too many to list here.

Essentially, polygyny is an expression of men's attempts to exercise dominance over women and other men through fecund reproduction.

In all countries except those under Sharia law (or places where some kind of animism is the prevailing religion) polygyny is considered illegal.



Questions:

1.  If it is right for a man to have many wives, is it also right for a woman to have many husbands?  If not, why not?

2.  In "non-reformed" Mormonism the practice of polygyny was considered a moral duty.  Do you think that practice produced or illustrated a warped Christology?  Why was it not part of their dogma that women were to practice polyandry? 



V

Finally, an explanation that truly makes sense. It was your reflection on Abraham and Sarah that made it 'click' so to speak. So as I understand it - While God may not turn polygamists away, it isn't a part of His grand design for our lives. As such, it is more blessed to have only one wife (or even no mate, according to Paul)?

Not that I don't appreciate the scripture provided by the other members, it just didn't feel as 'air-tight' of an answer. Does that make sense?

Also, as far as the questions after go, I would assume both polygyny/polyandry would be allowed assuming polygamy was blessed, but given the entirety of your posts, I don't feel that is really the case anymore. 

[Volkmar]

I think Phoebe is answering from a right perspective by looking at God's original intent.  As she said, much of what follows after Gen. 3 are examples of humans attempting to be their own god, and at their best coming to a realization of their need for God's Light and Grace.

From a New Test. perspective I think Eph. 5 gives us a picture of God's intent and the assumptions from which Paul taught and encouraged;

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The picture I get is that Christ gave himself up sacrificially for one wife--the church--not many wives.  In view of this "mystery" Christ has but one wife.  In view of that reality Paul tells the Ephesians that each man is to love his own wife at least as much as he loves himself.


Is polygyny proscribed?  Not explicitly.  Is it God's desire that polygyny be "normal" practice?  I doubt it.  Even in the case of Abraham and Sarah when they began to have doubts about God fulfilling his promise about descendants and proceeded to solve the problem in the customary cultural way did God turn away from them because of their lack of faith?  No.  However, God only fulfilled His promises through Isaac, the "seed of promise" and Ishmael became a thorn in the flesh of Isaac's descendants.

It is also apparent from the OT narrative that God often bore with and allowed His people to choose to do other than what was best in His eyes.  Israel wanting a king is one example.  The temple of Solomon is another.  Numerous examples--too many to list here.

Essentially, polygyny is an expression of men's attempts to exercise dominance over women and other men through fecund reproduction.

In all countries except those under Sharia law (or places where some kind of animism is the prevailing religion) polygyny is considered illegal.



Questions:

1.  If it is right for a man to have many wives, is it also right for a woman to have many husbands?  If not, why not?

2.  In "non-reformed" Mormonism the practice of polygyny was considered a moral duty.  Do you think that practice produced or illustrated a warped Christology?  Why was it not part of their dogma that women were to practice polyandry? 



V

Finally, an explanation that truly makes sense. It was your reflection on Abraham and Sarah that made it 'click' so to speak. So as I understand it - While God may not turn polygamists away, it isn't a part of His grand design for our lives. As such, it is more blessed to have only one wife (or even no mate, according to Paul)?

Not that I don't appreciate the scripture provided by the other members, it just didn't feel as 'air-tight' of an answer. Does that make sense?

Also, as far as the questions after go, I would assume both polygyny/polyandry would be allowed assuming polygamy was blessed, but given the entirety of your posts, I don't feel that is really the case anymore. 

I'm glad what I had to say was helpful.  I simply expanded on what Phoebe had already said.

Perhaps we're too concerned with "air-tight" answers at the expense of "seeking the mind of Christ."



V

[chosenone]

I do think that some verses ARE watertight on this. If the Bible says let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband what is there to question about that?. Keep the marriage bed pure. Where does it say marriage beds? Be faithful to the wife of your youth. Not wives, but wife.I cant see how this can be questioned.
Apart from one or two mormons sects, there arent any churches today that would accept a man or a woman having more than one spouse surely (or rather one spouse and one live in lover) Also for countries in the west at least, only one spouse at a time is legal anyway,and I am sure we arent to break the law of the country that we live in.
Any man or women who has 2 people living with him, is being unfaithful to his/her true spouse.

[Johnb]

Now what do we do when we spread the good news to cultures that multiple spouses is widely accepted?  Do we tell those folks they must choose which wife to keep?  How do you decide which is the one that should be kept?  How do you tell the children of the cast off wife's that they are illegitimate?  Perhaps we need to take off our American glasses.

[Volkmar]

Our natural default tendency in dealing with "issues", especially those of sexual/marital situations, is to proof-text then "legislate".  When we resort to "legislation" in dealing with fellow Believers we effectively by-pass the rightful role of the Holy Spirit that dwells within each of us (Believers) and resort to a conformity mandated by law--and that law, however well meaning, is an expression of our fear of something being "out of control."  The root of law is fear.  Perfect love displaces fear.

If our eyes are opened to behold the reality of the Risen Christ, then our affections will be captured by His heart.  Law and legislation are not only un-necessary, but constitute a poison to the life of the Spirit.


It's difficult for Christians to refrain from being Therapeutic Moralist.   

[Saul 25]

Well, polygamy and concubines were never called sin in the bible,sorry but that is the truth.  Now in American it would be a sin simply because it is against our laws.  Also there was a good example that God created one man for one woman, so this would certainly seem to be the plan of God.
Men started having one than one wife early on and I guess that it was because more woman than men(just a guess).  At any rate it got way out of hand as time went on.
  I am sure that multiple wives was never part of Gods plan, but at the same time the actual act of having more than one wife in the bible is not called a sin in itself.
  The bible speaks of a time when seven women will want to marry one man and that appears to be in the future.  Also, Jesus used the story of the man who was to marry several women, there is nothing in that story that suggests that for one man to marry several women is not proper or correct.
  Having said all that I cannot imagine why any sane man would want to have more than one woman.

[Replevin]

     Many people assume that polygamy was because of a desire to dominate women. I think that it is more likely that it resulted from a set of practical realities that existed in ancient times. One obvious one is that in ancient warfare it was the men who went to war and thus depleted the male population and left more women than men. Combine that with the economic realities of ancient times where war widows and other single women did not have opportunities to support themselves financially. The association with wealth and having many wives seems more the mindset than domination of women.

      I do think that there is a cultural difference in how marriage was seen , as well. The practical side of having many babies and also the economic realities were more emphasized than the romantic aspect which dominates modern thinking.

    There is a cultural aspect of polygamy. I do think that the scripture teaches one wife. But I also think that there are assumptions made about polygamous societies that are putting our cultural values upon them in way that is not an honest attempt to understand the mindset behind polygamy.

   

[chosenone]

     Many people assume that polygamy was because of a desire to dominate women. I think that it is more likely that it resulted from a set of practical realities that existed in ancient times. One obvious one is that in ancient warfare it was the men who went to war and thus depleted the male population and left more women than men. Combine that with the economic realities of ancient times where war widows and other single women did not have opportunities to support themselves financially. The association with wealth and having many wives seems more the mindset than domination of women.

      I do think that there is a cultural difference in how marriage was seen , as well. The practical side of having many babies and also the economic realities were more emphasized than the romantic aspect which dominates modern thinking.

    There is a cultural aspect of polygamy. I do think that the scripture teaches one wife. But I also think that there are assumptions made about polygamous societies that are putting our cultural values upon them in way that is not an honest attempt to understand the mindset behind polygamy.

   

yes I think you are right about the fact that in the OT days, there were generally far more women than men, and generally women couldn't support themselves. Of course now apparently there are slightly more men than women so that doesn't apply, and in the west anyway, women can and do support themselves and the govt has support for those who have children etc if they have no husband.

In the Mormon sects where some of the men have many wives, (most of them marrying teenagers), they send the boys away at a certain age because there aren't enough women for them to marry, so how can that be acceptable?. My opinion and observation of them is that they just wants loads of sex with loads of young women(some only children) and send their sons away to make sure they can do this.They also tell the women that they have to accept this or they wont go to heaven. How convenient.

[Saul 25]

I think that what is being done to those poor girls in the polygamy sect of Mormonism is horrible and should be stopped.  At first I just thought that several adult women wanted to marry the same man(strange but not all that awful),later on I came to understand they they were threatening young girls with hell fire if they did not consent to marry some old geezer.
  In my opinion this is using God in order to force innocent girls into prostitution, except in that prostitution the girl also has babies.  Also,running off the young men who would naturally be their mates is deplorable.

[Replevin]

   I don't think that polygamy fits very well in our modern society. The practical and cultural reasons have changed.

     I think that scripture did not say much about it in the Old days because it was done for different reasons then. Today , there are still financial concerns about child support and alimony. There are still issues of child custody. But it does not have the same pressure as it did in ancient times when the focus was quite different.

      When we read the bible stories about Jacob and Leah and Rachel , it has a much more legal feel to it. There is a contract for Jacob to work for seven years for Rachel. Also the use of concubines is written in a matter of fact practical way as opposed to a sexual thing.

      The Bible does not suggest that Abraham was wrong for sleeping with Hagar. The sexual aspect of it is ignored. It seems to focus more on his taking matters into his own hands to make the promised child happen.I think it is the heart issue that matters and not the legalistic rules that control the outward behaviors. I do believe that there is such a thing as objective morality. But in some cases it is relative depending on the context and the heart attitude.

[chosenone]

I think that what is being done to those poor girls in the polygamy sect of Mormonism is horrible and should be stopped.  At first I just thought that several adult women wanted to marry the same man(strange but not all that awful),later on I came to understand they they were threatening young girls with hell fire if they did not consent to marry some old geezer.
  In my opinion this is using God in order to force innocent girls into prostitution, except in that prostitution the girl also has babies.  Also,running off the young men who would naturally be their mates is deplorable.

yes these men who do this will have to face a very angry God one day I am sure.It makes me cringe to think of what these guys do and dare to say its Gods will. Ugh.
Its a good place to be a phoedophile I guess, when you can 'marry' a young girl of no more than 13 or 14. Then they have to have loads and loads of kids themselves.

[Volkmar]

   I don't think that polygamy fits very well in our modern society. The practical and cultural reasons have changed.

     I think that scripture did not say much about it in the Old days because it was done for different reasons then. Today , there are still financial concerns about child support and alimony. There are still issues of child custody. But it does not have the same pressure as it did in ancient times when the focus was quite different.

      When we read the bible stories about Jacob and Leah and Rachel , it has a much more legal feel to it. There is a contract for Jacob to work for seven years for Rachel. Also the use of concubines is written in a matter of fact practical way as opposed to a sexual thing.

      The Bible does not suggest that Abraham was wrong for sleeping with Hagar. The sexual aspect of it is ignored. It seems to focus more on his taking matters into his own hands to make the promised child happen.I think it is the heart issue that matters and not the legalistic rules that control the outward behaviors. I do believe that there is such a thing as objective morality. But in some cases it is relative depending on the context and the heart attitude.

I appreciate your comments in both post.


V

[phoebe]

I would go back to the first man and the first woman.  God didn't create a multitude of women for Adam, He gave him one woman.  Everything after that is man's idea.  Jesus reinforced this with two becoming  one--not three or four become one.  The call for church leaders to have one spouse is just icing on the cake.

It isn't unreasonable, but generally when it comes to sin, God is pretty explicit on what sin is. Also, the verse regarding two becoming one flesh - there is nothing that says a man cannot become one flesh with more than one wife.

Again, I'm not wishing to be difficult, I just am bothered that a practice that is so looked down upon isn't explicitly, or even implicitly condemned in scripture when it comes down to the average Christian. Jesus also seems to be completely silent on the issue.

Dude.  You just swept me under the rug!

Two things:

1)  Remember that "two become one" is pre-fall.  Why be warned of a sin if you had no comprehension of sin or its consequences?

2)  There was no need to mention consequences of multiple wives when there was only one choice.  In that situation proclaiming monogamy would be like saying you can only have the red one when the red one is the only one.  Or like saying if you take three different colors-when there is only one color-you'll be in trouble.  It would have been pointless, would have made no sense to the only man and only woman.

Too many thoughts are swirling around in my head right now.  I am considering the idea that "one flesh" is the child that is the result of the "cleave", the cementing, the physical consummation of the relationship, and the two parts - one part man and one part woman - "become" a baby, "one flesh".  "for this cause" is procreation, the "be fruitful and multiply".  Possibly the greatest argument against abortion: what God has joined (dna to dna?), let no man separate.  Maybe for stem cells, too.  Huh.  Gotta give that some more thought.  It seems logical to me for some passages that have always had me  .  Doesn't answer your question about polygamy, just asks more questions.

I don't read anywhere that God gave Adam more than he could handle, I mean, one wife.  Not even after the fall.  It was that rascal Lamech who broke away from monogamy and "took" two wives.  But he wasn't exactly someone one would want to emulate as it seems he killed a couple of fellas for looking at him cross-eyed.

I think there are MANY things that are not "sin", but are still outside that which pleases God.  So, is the goal just to refrain from committing a blatant sin, or is the goal to please God?  It isn't a sin not to "go to church" every Sunday, but it pleases Him when we gather together in His Name.

[Scarecrow]

I think this link may help you understand if you are willing to spend some time reading:

http://biblicalfamilies.org/doc/HistoryOfMarriage-1869.pdf

I began my studies when I was confronted by a Muslim gentleman that stated "Why do Christians condemn a man for having more than one wife when their scriptures do not?"

http://www.e-sword.net/

Is one of the tools I used to try to prove him wrong. Eventually I did numerous topical studies...the one on adultery was interesting...you will not find a man with multiple wives accused of adultery unless he sleeps with another man's wife.

You are right in stating that it is not sinful for a man to have more than one wife; you will also notice that monogamists will go to considerable extremes to defend their false doctrine, but that's ok...they feel the same way about polygamists...

[Memphis Dwight]

Phoebe's statement that God made only one man and one woman and that this rules out polygyny is fallacious.  Because if that is a law, then all remarriage post divorce or death of one spouse would also be wrong.  If a man's only wife died, then he has used up his quota because God made only one wife for one man.  ;)

[Eagle]

Nothing like acceptance to lead folks into thinking they are OK.

[Scarecrow]

So...someone discovers the truth in the scriptures...but that particular truth doesn't match your doctrine...so you leave a sarcastic remark...somehow that does not cause me to consider your point of view as any more credible...hmmm

[Memphis Dwight]

"thankfulldad" is another poster that tends to just drop in, do a drive-by semi-judgemental quip (not scripturally connected) then run off. 

I don't really need their worn out cliche denunciations.  I can make up my own.  Here's one:  "Oh,  Memphis Dwight.  When will you ever learn?  You and your polygamists buddies, always looking for loopholes.  Tsk Tsk tsk."

[phoebe]

Phoebe's statement that God made only one man and one woman and that this rules out polygyny is fallacious.  Because if that is a law, then all remarriage post divorce or death of one spouse would also be wrong.  If a man's only wife died, then he has used up his quota because God made only one wife for one man.  ;)

You don't get it.  It isn't about "law".  It's about the state of and the desires of the heart in pleasing God and bringing Glory to Him.

[Memphis Dwight]

Phoebe's statement that God made only one man and one woman and that this rules out polygyny is fallacious.  Because if that is a law, then all remarriage post divorce or death of one spouse would also be wrong.  If a man's only wife died, then he has used up his quota because God made only one wife for one man.  ;)

You don't get it.  It isn't about "law".  It's about the state of and the desires of the heart in pleasing God and bringing Glory to Him.

Okay, you've got my attention.  Where is the rationale and scriptures to back up this statement? 

More specifically, what does it mean and where can it be found in the bible? 

Because God has shown honor to the men that have cared for many wives at once.  And He has displayed anger at those that have refused this duty. 

[Scarecrow]

The "Adam had only one wife" argument is actually a good place to start...

An individual called "Corey" on Yahoo Answers put it quite well:

"Yes, I agree Genesis is a good place to start.

If we arrive at the conclusion of Genesis teaching monogamy only, it is because of a logical fallacy. One doesn't have to be a philosopher to see this is a problem; a little common sense will suffice. This would be arguing from a particular to the general which is putting the cart before the horse. If we use this form of logic in interpreting the details of Genesis we develop many scenarios that none of us would dare say. I will structure several arguments using the common reasoning brought to the text and demonstrate how ludicrous this conclusion is.
1. The first marriage was monogamous therefore all marriages must be monogamous.
2. The first child born was male therefore all first born children must be male.
3. The first man and woman were married therefore every man and woman must be married.

The first conclusion rules out Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Ezra, Gideon and most of the heroes of our faith, the second conclusion rules out many of us having daughters first and the third conclusion rules out our Lord and the Apostle Paul.

This upside down logic violates good common sense. We wouldn't dare claim 2 and 3 so why are we claiming 1. If you reject argument 2 and 3 you must reject 1. If you stand on argument 1 you must stand on 2 and 3 because they are built on the same logic.

I could continue with this and show the monogamy only interpretation violates all the rules of hermeneutics"

[chosenone]

"thankfulldad" is another poster that tends to just drop in, do a drive-by semi-judgemental quip (not scripturally connected) then run off. 

I don't really need their worn out cliche denunciations.  I can make up my own.  Here's one:  "Oh,  Memphis Dwight.  When will you ever learn?  You and your polygamists buddies, always looking for loopholes.  Tsk Tsk tsk."

Thats what you do. You want something sinful (sex with a woman who isnt your wife), so you try to find something in the Bible that supports you. It doesnt wash and it wont wash when you meet with God. Maybe you could do what The Bible says and be faithful to your wife. Then you would be honouring God and your wife. Maybe you could let your wife satisfy you at all times, as the Bible says, instead of lusting after another woman.Maybe you could be faithful to the wife of your youth as the Bible says. Now that would be a thought. We can all try to find ways of sinning and justify it to ourselves and others, but when you stand before God He will know. It isnt worth it surely, for your salvation???

[Scarecrow]

"You want something sinful (sex with a woman who isnt your wife)"

Oh please....will you ever have a grain of understanding?

Show me ONE...JUST ONE example from the scriptures where a man was accused of sinning because he had more than one wife. You cannot because there is no such example.

IT IS NOT A SIN! It never has been, and it is not, and it never will be. I am very familiar with all of the anti-polygamy arguments and they simply "don't wash" and will not "wash" with God either. Leviticus chapter 18 specifically lays out what is sexually sinful, and a man having more than one wife isn't in there, nor is it stated to be sinful anywhere else.

You will not find Abraham, David, Gideon, or a number of other individuals in the Bible with more than one wife ever accused of being sinful for having more than one wife. The may have committed sins, but were never accused of sexual sin because they had more than one wife. I think you are forgetting that God gave David the wives of Saul, and a Priest of the temple built by Solomon gave one of the kings two wives, this king was said to do what WAS RIGHT in the eyes of the Lord!

If you don't want to participate in polygyny nobody is forcing you to, but you do not have the right to deny anyone else that may understand the scriptures differently than you from practicing what the scriptures clearly do not prohibit. I think it is likely that those promoting the monogamy only doctrine will be held accountable for the false teaching they are promoting.

[Cobalt1959]

"You want something sinful (sex with a woman who isnt your wife)"

Oh please....will you ever have a grain of understanding?

Show me ONE...JUST ONE example from the scriptures where a man was accused of sinning because he had more than one wife. You cannot because there is no such example.

IT IS NOT A SIN! It never has been, and it is not, and it never will be. I am very familiar with all of the anti-polygamy arguments and they simply "don't wash" and will not "wash" with God either. Leviticus chapter 18 specifically lays out what is sexually sinful, and a man having more than one wife isn't in there, nor is it stated to be sinful anywhere else.

You will not find Abraham, David, Gideon, or a number of other individuals in the Bible with more than one wife ever accused of being sinful for having more than one wife. The may have committed sins, but were never accused of sexual sin because they had more than one wife. I think you are forgetting that God gave David the wives of Saul, and a Priest of the temple built by Solomon gave one of the kings two wives, this king was said to do what WAS RIGHT in the eyes of the Lord!

If you don't want to participate in polygyny nobody is forcing you to, but you do not have the right to deny anyone else that may understand the scriptures differently than you from practicing what the scriptures clearly do not prohibit. I think it is likely that those promoting the monogamy only doctrine will be held accountable for the false teaching they are promoting.

Actually, you are, in essence, doing the exact same thing that others do to legitamize their sin.  Perhaps we could start a religious movement that it is perfectly ok to commit adultery.  You could really have fun with that one.  People who claim to be both practicing homosexuals and Christians attempt to make the Bible jump through all kind of hoops to justify their life style, but it doesn't work for them either.  Doesn't much matter.  As others have said, you will be the one who has to stand before Christ at some point and answer for living your life directly against His directives.  And no argument you can dream up will be good enough to work.  So you can twist scripture, you can ignore scripture, you can base your twisted doctrine on a position of biblical silence, the end result will be the same.  Youwill be called to answer for failing to head conviction and failing to consider correction when you received it.

[Scarecrow]

"Actually, you are, in essence, doing the exact same thing that others do to legitamize their sin.  Perhaps we could start a religious movement that it is perfectly ok to commit adultery.  You could really have fun with that one.  People who claim to be both practicing homosexuals and Christians attempt to make the Bible jump through all kind of hoops to justify their life style, but it doesn't work for them either."

You seem to have missed the part where homosexuality and adultery are both clearly stated to be sinful. Again, I challenge you to give me one verse from the scriptures stating that it is sinful for a man to have more than one wife...you can't, it doesn't exist. By associating something sinful with something that is not sinful you prove yourself to be a liar and deceived! In order to defend your errant doctrine of monogamy it is you that are jumping through hoops. You have no alternative but to attempt to group sinful behavior with polygyny in an effort to defend your longstanding false doctrine...nice try, but it doesn't work...your attempt is still nothing less than a lie.

"Doesn't much matter.  As others have said, you will be the one who has to stand before Christ at some point and answer for living your life directly against His directives.  And no argument you can dream up will be good enough to work."

I look forward to the day I hear "Well done good and faithful servant". There is no sin in a man having more than one wife; if there is any sin it is in the errant doctrine of forced monogamy and the other false teachings of the church. Since it is me that will be standing before the Lord on the day of judgment, why then make it illegal for me to have more than one wife? If I am wrong I answer for my sin, but if you are wrong your sin is far greater for using the government and legal system to impose a false doctrine upon me where no such law is warranted. I truly an concerned for those in the church teaching the things they are, and those blindly following these teachings as I once did.

"So you can twist scripture, you can ignore scripture, you can base your twisted doctrine on a position of biblical silence, the end result will be the same.  Youwill be called to answer for failing to head conviction and failing to consider correction when you received it."

Not true. I came from the same monogamy camp you now dwell in. It is the thorough study of the scriptures that exposed the lies of the church. Those teaching and those blindly following the errant monogamy doctrine and the other false doctrines of the modern church are the ones that will face the very condemnation you have pronounced upon me.

So...let me ask...have you taken my challenge of studying adultery from a truly biblical perspective yet? I think not or your words would not be so ignorant. Get yourself a little scriptural education and then look into the things I have been explaining to you and anyone else reading these posts.

[Cobalt1959]

"Actually, you are, in essence, doing the exact same thing that others do to legitamize their sin.  Perhaps we could start a religious movement that it is perfectly ok to commit adultery.  You could really have fun with that one.  People who claim to be both practicing homosexuals and Christians attempt to make the Bible jump through all kind of hoops to justify their life style, but it doesn't work for them either."

You seem to have missed the part where homosexuality and adultery are both clearly stated to be sinful. Again, I challenge you to give me one verse from the scriptures stating that it is sinful for a man to have more than one wife...you can't, it doesn't exist. By associating something sinful with something that is not sinful you prove yourself to be a liar and deceived! In order to defend your errant doctrine of monogamy it is you that are jumping through hoops. You have no alternative but to attempt to group sinful behavior with polygyny in an effort to defend your longstanding false doctrine...nice try, but it doesn't work...your attempt is still nothing less than a lie.

"Doesn't much matter.  As others have said, you will be the one who has to stand before Christ at some point and answer for living your life directly against His directives.  And no argument you can dream up will be good enough to work."

I look forward to the day I hear "Well done good and faithful servant". There is no sin in a man having more than one wife; if there is any sin it is in the errant doctrine of forced monogamy and the other false teachings of the church. Since it is me that will be standing before the Lord on the day of judgment, why then make it illegal for me to have more than one wife? If I am wrong I answer for my sin, but if you are wrong your sin is far greater for using the government and legal system to impose a false doctrine upon me where no such law is warranted. I truly an concerned for those in the church teaching the things they are, and those blindly following these teachings as I once did.

"So you can twist scripture, you can ignore scripture, you can base your twisted doctrine on a position of biblical silence, the end result will be the same.  Youwill be called to answer for failing to head conviction and failing to consider correction when you received it."

Not true. I came from the same monogamy camp you now dwell in. It is the thorough study of the scriptures that exposed the lies of the church. Those teaching and those blindly following the errant monogamy doctrine and the other false doctrines of the modern church are the ones that will face the very condemnation you have pronounced upon me.

So...let me ask...have you taken my challenge of studying adultery from a truly biblical perspective yet? I think not or your words would not be so ignorant. Get yourself a little scriptural education and then look into the things I have been explaining to you and anyone else reading these posts.

Ah yes, it's the old "You don't believe as I do so you don't read your bible and your ignorant" argument.  Very persuasive.  Well, then again, not so much.  Lots of people go around with flawed beliefs based on their own human desires and not God's word and try to intimate that others are stupid because they don't believe as they do.  That is one of the classic earmarks of a cultic belief.  Good job.  You will wait in vain for "good and faithful servant" and what you actually hear is going to be one ugly surprise to you.  God was pretty clear as to what the definition of marriage was in Genesis 2:24.  It's impossible to misunderstand unless one willingly wants to.  Would you say that abortion is acceptable simply because there is no specific command against it?  I guess the camp you come from believes that they have suddenly discovered some amazing hidden truth that the church has otherwise been ignorant of for almost 2000 years.  I don't think so.

[Scarecrow]

"Ah yes, it's the old "You don't believe as I do so you don't read your bible and your ignorant" argument.  Very persuasive.  Well, then again, not so much.  Lots of people go around with flawed beliefs based on their own human desires and not God's word and try to intimate that others are stupid because they don't believe as they do.  That is one of the classic earmarks of a cultic belief.  Good job."

Actually it is based on a very thorough study of the scriptures. I have spent hundreds of hours studying the topics of marriage, adultery, fornication, divorce, etc... in order to learn what God has to say about them rather than what men have decided that God meant to say. Should you approach the scriptures with an open mind and allow the holy Spirit to lead you in God's truths you will find a number of errors with Cathoilc and Christian doctrine. The problem is that most people are too lazy to make the effort, too fearful of what they might find, and too ingrained in a doctrine they were taught. The Bible states that many will be deceived; what better tool for Satan to use than the "church" itself?

"You will wait in vain for "good and faithful servant" and what you actually hear is going to be one ugly surprise to you."

Ahh...so now you usurp the authority of God and condemn me...wow...any way...back on topic...

"God was pretty clear as to what the definition of marriage was in Genesis 2:24.  It's impossible to misunderstand unless one willingly wants to."

You might find in my other posts that I completely agree with you. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. If you manage to continue reading beyond Genesis (which is where most "Christians" put their Bibles down and completely lose track of them) you will see that God limits a woman to one husband, one covenant. A man however is not limited to only one wife and only one covenant.

If we take the circumstances before the fall and assume that circumstance dictates law then we have a few problems to deal with. Before the fall Adam was naked, had one wife, was employed in agriculture, and commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Now, according to the monogamy doctrine it is therefore sinful to have more than one wife, wear clothing, work as in any field other than agriculture, and be single or not produce many children. Certainly even you can see the flaw in this "logical assumption".

"Would you say that abortion is acceptable simply because there is no specific command against it?"

Abortion has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but my position is that abortion is the intentional cessation of life beyond conception and is murder. It is also my understanding that if a believer or non-believer has an abortion they will answer to God for it, not me. If she is a member of my congregation I will counsel her against abortion/murder, but anyone outside of my congregation is for the Lord to deal wit, and He is much more powerful and persuasive than me.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

If your "Church" wishes to teach and enforce a specific doctrine you have every right to. What you don't have the right to do is use the government and the law to impose your doctrine upon me and my church. Again, the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws are soon to be overturned and for very good reason, they are exceptionally poor law.

"I guess the camp you come from believes that they have suddenly discovered some amazing hidden truth that the church has otherwise been ignorant of for almost 2000 years.  I don't think so. "

Actually you couldn't be more wrong (surprise, surprise, surprise). This topic has been discussed long before the Bishop in Rome was considered to be the "Pope". Here is a rather interesting publication from 1869 about the history of polygyny, although I doubt you will actually read it, it is likely that many following this thread will..

http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/doc/HistoryOfMarriage-1869.pdf