I was bored this afternoon and so I decided to do a few searches for biblical truths and stuff online, just to see what other people had to say. Eventually I found my way to polygyny, multiple wives, for those of you who are unsure, and what I found was astounding. The general consensus is this: That God never specifically calls the practice sinful but nothing good ever comes out of stories of men with multiple wives so it must be sinful!
News flash: If God didn’t call it sinful, its not sinful.
News flash 2: Nothing good ever comes out of the stories of those who followed the God of the bible either, so should we stop doing that as well?
With regard to the first point: Since sin separates us from God and leads to eternal death it becomes extremely important that we know exactly what God considers sinful and what He doesn’t. Fortunately, unlike other fickle ‘gods’, the God of the bible gives some clear and concise documentation on what offends Him: Adultery, fornication, murder, rebellion, etc. He even provides documentation on what constitutes these things. For example Numbers 35 gives us definition of murder and what we call manslaughter, so that we know that if a man causes another mans death accidentally, without intent or without malice, he may be found not guilty of murder and stayed from execution by the deceased family’s avenger.
God never called a man having more than one wife sinful, but it makes modern people uncomfortable, so it MUST be sinful, right?
Sure, if you completely ignore Gods word.
God commanded the men of Israel that, if their brother dies before giving his wife a child that “her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” so that her firstborn child can carry the name of the dead brother, that his name can be carried on. There is no indicator that this is only to happen of said living brother is unmarried. Why? Because men are permitted to have more than one wife! In fact it was very, very bad if the living brother decided he didn’t want to carry out this commandment! The sin of Onan, which is often attributed to “the sin of masturbation”, was not that he “spilled his seed”, but that he stopped himself short from impregnating his brothers wife after his brother had died, seemingly only wanting to bang her, but not giving her, or his brother, the honor of a child to bear his name.
Jacob got hosed in his marriage to Rachel and was instead tricked into marrying her sister, but married Rachel a week later! How’s that for you? Real, verified SISTER-WIVES.
God blessed David by giving him many wives, and even offered to give him MORE (2 Sam 12:8) if David had only asked!
God blessed Solomon with hundreds of wives. His downfall was not that he had so many wives but that he let them turn his heart from the one true God. If you can prove otherwise through scripture, post your proof!
The point is that God did not “permit the sin of polygyny” for a certain period of time or to certain people. In no place does God permit sin to take place and in no place does God encourage or entertain the prospect of INCREASING someone’s sinful behavior! What God are these people serving???
“Well what about 1 Timothy, Snapper? ONE. WIFE!”. Well, yes, and no. 1 Timothy speaks to those seeking the office of deacon, so its not a rule that applies to every man. Also it is unclear whether that is a restriction or a requirement. Should a man seeking to be deacon have ONLY one wife? Could be. A man with many wives may be so split in his time and efforts that he may not make a good deacon in a church. Of course, it could be a requirement, that the man have at least ONE WIFE. This would also make sense because that man would have experience in running a household, which was also a requirement of being a deacon, as seen just a verse or two later:
4 One that can rule his own house honestly, having children under obedience with all honesty.
5 For if any cannot rule his own house, how shall he care for the Church of God?
For this requirement to be fulfilled a man must have at least one wife. Without at least ONE WIFE, he cannot fulfill this requirement and, thus, cannot fulfill the role of deacon.
With regard to my second point: If we base our understanding of what is sinful based on the “bad things that happen to those who practice said practices” then worshiping God is sin! Almost every person in the bible SUFFERS because of their belief and dedication to God. Very few people in the bible are shown to have lived trouble free lives for their belief or following God, so then what?
Look, I understand we don’t practice polygyny in the West, well, Christians don’t, but pastors and bible study writers have no excuse for their careful avoidance of the subject because it is, in fact, distorting the Word of God.
God did not “permit” the sin of polygyny for a time.
Bad things did not happen to people in the bible ONLY because they had more than one wife. In fact, the bad things that happened say more about the men in question and the women they married than they do about the institution of polygyny. Surprise! Mankind is sinful, married or not!
The fact of the matter is that Western christians don’t practice polygyny firstly because the church took over being the arbiter of marriage from God centuries ago. The bible doesn’t give specifics on license or ceremony for a man to make a woman his wife, it only says that if she is a virgin and a man lie with her, they are married! Somewhere, some time, some place, the church decided it was going to be the defining party in who was married by virtue of a ceremony, witnesses and all that. None of that comes from the bible.
Secondly Western christians don’t practice polygyny because it offends Western women who demand to be the center of a man’s life once they are married. Sure the running gag of a man getting hit with a purse by his wife for looking at a cute, young girl is hilarious, but its also very, very sad. Men are expected to be so henpecked and controlled that simply LOOKING at another beautiful woman, because she is beautiful, is considered offensive and sinful! “Well that’s lust, Snapper!”, you might say, to which I would reply, “Then you have zero idea what lust is.”. I wonder if it would be as funny if a guy punched his wife for looking at well dressed man?
I know I have spoken to this point in the past, and I suppose it is something that will come up every so often because its something that confounds both new and old believers, and apparently is still something that even learned christian men have to muck up because chivalry and feminism.
Personally I think a lot of problems in the West could be alleviated if christians went back to biblical polygyny, but that is a post for another day. If you don’t believe polygyny is a good thing then, great, but remember, that’s your personal opinion, and you shouldn’t try to sell it off as an offense to God, because, brother, if that’s what your doing you may know your bible, but you lack understanding.
That, or you’re just scared of what accepting the fact implies.
Snapper's Domain 
I see a number of “likes” on this post from new people on this post. I wonder how many actually have read it or just posted a like based on its hashtags or through bots. I wonder how many would remove their like if they actually read through the post.
We’ve come to the same conclusion through reading about it. The only difference we probably have with you, is that having more wives does tend to create more mayhem, even if the man is godly and trying to lead well. Human nature is just so prone to sin and evil, adding more people to the relationship is making it more prone to bad consequences.
But other than that, your post is right!
Thanks, even though my comment was more over what I think are bots liking the post because it falls under the keyword “marriage”.
Does having more wives tend to create more mayhem? Probably, but so does having more kids or more extended family (of which I am well aware). My aunt and uncle have 11 children, 9 of which are girls….wait, maybe 8. To say their lives aren’t mayhem is silliness, but its also full of a tremendous amount of love and understanding. You know what has caused them trouble? My aunt’s assertion that she is some kind of spiritual guru who needs to lead her husband rather than be obedient to him and witness to him through her obedience rather than her book smarts. Its the equivalent of biblical nagging, and it makes me sad. This uncle used to be one of my favorite to hang out with a a kid because he liked to do all manner of silly things when the kids were around and he was a bit of an oddball, for several reasons. Now he’s just a defeated and decrepit old man who’s wive constantly chides him and who’s children, well, most of his children, and mostly the girls, think him a failure. Is he? Who knows. He held a family of nearly a dozen together for years, and I’m sure there were times of feast and famine, but nobody died and everyone seems very well adjusted considering.
More PEOPLE = more mayhem. Wives or not, it seems.
Yea who knows about all the likes… I wonder about that, too, sometimes.
That is horrible about your uncle!!! So tragic! I agree that more people in general, create more mayhem. But children are wives are very different in my opinion. There’s a lot of old literature on the Mormons when they had several wives, and how hard it was for one man to manage several women at once. Just sounded **horrible** LOL. At least children you can discipline better and they’re kind of innocent in ways that adult women just aren’t! Couple that with adult women being possibly more evil, and the weaker sex overall, it *could* be a lot harder than what it’s worth.
Your poor uncle… that’s just so sad.
“At least children you can discipline better…”
As men used to be able to do with their wives.
I don’t doubt having more wives can be difficult for men, but looking at the concept from our modern standpoint is to look through a blurry glass. We have barely an inkling concept of ancient mans ability to control his household, given that so much as raising ones voice at ones wife now days constitutes abuse.
Yes, it really is horrible. A year or so ago he had a serious cardiac issue and is almost completely crippled, last I heard. They live several hours away and my aunt either divorced him or “separated” from him because she felt she was being abused. This is the same aunt that told me that a man having sex with his wife with the sole purpose of enjoying himself is committing fornication. She is one of the reasons I started investigating how the church delivers is “translations” of scripture.
“News flash: If God didn’t call it sinful, its not sinful.”
Then you could argue that things like necrophilia or pedophilia aren’t sinful because it doesn’t explicitly say it’s a sin in the Bible, right? Can a wife have multiple husbands? It doesn’t say it’s a sin…
The ideal example of marriage was given when God created Adam and Eve. One man, one woman in a lifelong relationship. Jesus referred back to them when he was talking about marriage and divorce. God could have given Adam multiple wives but He didn’t. ‘Two will become one flesh”, not three or four, etc. I’m curious why you want Christians to practice polygany.
Also, even if polygyny became legal, how would it actually work in the real world? There would be a lot of pressure on the men to make enough money for his large family. Would there be a limit on how many wives you could have? How would you deal with jealousy among the wives? What about legal issues like if the husband is in a coma and the wives disagree on what to do, etc?
And I think you’re ignoring the real world consequences of polygany. Here’s an article talking about how in polygamous communities like the FLDS, rare disesases spread easily because eventually everyone is related to each other. It also mentions how some young men are kicked out because there’s not enough wives for every man: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170726-the-polygamous-town-facing-genetic-disaster
Hi, Kayley, and thanks for commenting. I started typing out a very long reply, but I figured you likely didn’t want to read a book, so I will do my best to keep it short and sweet, but will expand if you would like.
The law of the old testament is not destroyed, as per Jesus’s words to the pharisees in Matthew 5, though much of it is no longer applicable to anyone living today, namely the laws regarding the priests (since there are no more of the priests of Aaron and Jesus has become our new high priest) and the laws for the nation of Israel, which was destroyed and was only recently re-established as a new kingdom. This leaves Gods moral laws which are still very much applicable and tell us what is sin and what is not. God is clear in these laws that the handling of the dead is always considered unclean and thus, sex with a dead body would be considered sinful.
The bible states that wives are bound to their husbands until death, but it does not hold the same restriction on husbands. A woman can have only one husband over her. A husband can take as many wives as he sees fit. Men and women are not held to equal sexual standards in the bible. If a married woman has sexual relations with a man who is not her husband she has committed adultery, but a man does not commit adultery unless he has sex with a woman who is another man’s wife. HOWEVER, a man who has sex with a virgin makes her his wife, as per scripture.
Yes, Jesus referenced Adam and Eve when he was talking about marriage and divorce, but I think people make the mistake of thinking of the bible as “well Jesus said this” and “Paul said that” when in reality the entirety of the bible is God’s word delivered through different people, but it is all the word of God. Thus Jesus referencing Adam and Eve means nothing beyond a reference when speaking on the subject of polygyny because, as I pointed out, the bible speaks many times to God offering men multiple wives, God REWARDING women for giving their husbands another wife (in the case of Rachel and Leah, Genesis 30:4 and 9), and God instructing men in their responsibilities for taking on other wives (Exodus 21:10-11, Leviticus 18:18). So long as their was no enmity between them a man could even take sisters as wives (See the Leviticus verses). God even references himself as the husband to more than one wife
Polygyny is already legal in the West but only for certain religions and is not legally widespread. How would it work if it were legalized throughout the West? Well, yes, women would flock to men capable of supporting multiple wives and children and men would, hopefully, be wise enough to limit themselves to only taking on as many wives as they could support. Its a difficult thing to consider in modern times because back even a few hundred years ago divorce was either not an option or very frowned upon, as was adultery, so if a woman didn’t marry the “best man in town” she would not likely divorce her husband for a man of higher stature. Also there was no government support like their is now so a man had to be much more careful in keeping up his finances and know well how many people he could successfully support, as failure to do so could be the difference between feast and famine. In modern times few people care for responsibility or loyalty, but it doesn’t matter anyway because, surprise, surprise, polygamy and polygyny are already all around us, its just not named as such.
You see, with modern polygamy or polygyny there is no pressure on men to provide because the government steps in and takes control. I’m not sure where you hail from but in the states we have situations where a man may have fathered dozens of children with dozens of women and instead of caring for them he leaves and the women just take on government assistance. Biblical polygyny, in which a man is held to task by his faith in God, the other christian men around him and by his own family, as well as his wife’s family, would be wildly different, or, it could be assuming that Western christians stop loving divorce and feminism so much.
In small communities you are correct, health becomes an issue. I recently read an article on the proliferation of mental retardation in pockets of government housing due to inbreeding among those who live there. Why? Because one man with power or money in the community ends up fathering children with multiple women and because no one is aware of who is who the children end up meeting up when they are older and then having children of their own, never knowing they are half brother-sister. So, yes, the system does come with some problems when its done in the shadows and no one is aware of what is going on and with whom, but believe me, polygyny is alive and well in the U.S.
As long as this reply is the one I had previously was longer. Please feel free to ask any further questions or comment more, I only ask that you be civil and avoid name calling and unnecessary rudeness. Thanks again for reading and joining the conversation.
Also, please visit http://biblicalgenderroles.com for some really well researched information on the topic of polygyny and marriage in general. It is one of the sites that got me into doing my own study and research into what the bible actually says about marriage rather than listening to what everyone says the bible says about marriage.
Hi SnapperTrx,
Thanks for the response.
“This leaves Gods moral laws which are still very much applicable and tell us what is sin and what is not. God is clear in these laws that the handling of the dead is always considered unclean and thus, sex with a dead body would be considered sinful.”
But the verses about cleanliness are under the ceremonial laws, not the moral laws. Are Christians who work in funeral homes “unclean”? My point was: “If God didn’t call it sinful, its not sinful” was incorrect. Necrophilia isn’t explicitly stated that it’s a sin, but it’s implied that it is using other verses. I guess we agree on that.
“If a married woman has sexual relations with a man who is not her husband she has committed adultery, but a man does not commit adultery unless he has sex with a woman who is another man’s wife. HOWEVER, a man who has sex with a virgin makes her his wife, as per scripture.”
I’m curious about this statement. So having sex with someone means you’re now married to them? Then how would you define fornication? Why do you think Jewish people still had wedding ceremonies?
“Thus Jesus referencing Adam and Eve means nothing beyond a reference when speaking on the subject of polygyny…”
This is the same reasoning “gay Christians” use to justify “gay marriage”. Do you think there is an ideal model of marriage that God has designed?
“because, as I pointed out, the bible speaks many times to God offering men multiple wives,”
I think you’re referring to 2 Samuel 12:8, but God isn’t really saying He would give King David more wives, but how he blessed him already and how He would have blessed him more.
“God REWARDING women for giving their husbands another wife (in the case of Rachel and Leah, Genesis 30:4 and 9)”
It doesn’t say God rewarded Rachel by her giving Bilhah to Jacob, just that they had sex and Bilhah became pregnant. If God was rewarding Rachel, wouldn’t He have cured her infertility then so she wouldn’t have to use Bilhah?
“and God instructing men in their responsibilities for taking on other wives (Exodus 21:10-11,”Leviticus 18:18).
Just because God gave people a law about something doesn’t mean that it was His ideal. God also gave laws about divorce, but we know that He hates divorce.
“So long as their was no enmity between them a man could even take sisters as wives (See the Leviticus verses).”
Actually this is saying the opposite of what you wrote. It says to not marry your sister’s wife while your wife is still living and to not have sex with her sister.
“God even references himself as the husband to more than one wife”
Ezekiel 23 is about spiritual infidelity of Israel and Judah, using symbolic language. It’s not really an instruction on human marriage.
Thanks for answering my thought experiment questions. I’m also an American Christian. I know that polygany/polygamy/polyamory happens (maybe not legally in the US since it’s still illegal) but my argument is that it’s not originally God’s design for marriage and it’s not the ideal situation.
I have visited Larry Solomon’s blog before, and he does have some good points, but I don’t agree with many of the things he teaches. I don’t personally know any Christians (and I have many conservative, God fearing Christian friends) who take him seriously. I would recommend gotquestions.org since it’s more objective.
“I have visited Larry Solomon’s blog before, and he does have some good points, but I don’t agree with many of the things he teaches. I don’t personally know any Christians (and I have many conservative, God fearing Christian friends) who take him seriously. I would recommend gotquestions.org since it’s more objective.”
Ah, well if that’s the case then I see no reason to drag on a discussion, as I doubt either one of us would come to see the others point of view. The responses you have given me seem like the typical Western christian answers, and I would have answered the same years ago. I mean this as no slight against you, only that there is little chance of a meaningful conversation, as you have your mind set, as have I. Of course I’m always up for conversation, but I’ll leave that up to you.
EDIT: Actually, I’d like to go ahead and answer a couple of your responses, for clarification and so you know where I am coming from in case you don’t want to scour my blog.
With regard to marriage: Wedding ceremonies are celebrations of a marriage and nothing more. As per scripture a man made a virgin his wife by taking her virginity. If she was found not to be a virgin she would be stoned to death at her fathers doorstep. She was committing adultery since someone else is her husband. Fornication is anything sexual that is not adultery. God gives us instruction to avoid adultery and fornication. Pre-marital sex is not a thing, according to scripture. The man who takes a woman’s virginity is her husband, even without a ceremony. Sex after that is adultery. This is ignored by the majority of christians and most will scoff at the concept, but it is biblical and nothing in the scripture refutes or changes it.
I’m not sure what argument “gay christians” are using for what? God designed marriage to take place between men and women and explicitly speaks out against homosexuality. This doesn’t change the fact that a man can have multiple wives. Its still a man and his wife, even if it is “one of his wives”.
God included “wives” in what he would have given David more of. Why include it if its not part of what was offered? I’m not big fan of the theory that God just blurts out stuff when talking to us through the scripture. I’m not saying that is what you are doing here, but a lot of people act like every word in the bible was not written intentionally, and so they brush away certain things, like this. Among the many things God said he would have given David more of was wives. Not only that, but God tells David not more than a couple of verses prior that He had already given him many wives among other things, and then that he would have given more, of anything prior, if David had asked.
Rachel was an example of a wife giving her husband another wife. Leah, however, also being an example, was rewarded by God for the same thing in Genesis 30:17-19.
Nowhere in the bible does God give man instruction on how to do something that was not his ideal. God gives these instructions to husbands because that is what is required of husbands. If having multiple wives was sin God would not instruct us on how to do it right or better, but would instruct us to avoid it. Divorce is a horrible example because Jesus tells us in Matthew 19 that “8 ….Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”. Again, here we have Jesus saying that MOSES permitted divorce, but God does not. In Mark’s account of the same situation again Jesus says “What did MOSES instruct you” and then proceeds to tell the pharisees “MOSES permitted you to do this because the hardness of your hearts”.
God uses the example of a husband with more than one wife for a reason. Nowhere else in the bible does God use himself in the example of sinful behavior. Also in the NT Jesus uses the example of a man about to marry seven women (in the parable of the lamp oil) because it was, of course, normal for the time, but also not sin.
The fact of the matter is that multiple wives is not ideal for every man, but for some it is and it is not at all sinful or “not ideal” in the way many christians like to say “well it was permitted, but not ideal”. I’m permitted to buy a car but it would not be ideal for me to buy a Ferrari. Even if I could afford to purchase it my fiances could never keep up with maintaining it. In the same way one man may be happy to be married and have a wife, but a second wife may not be ideal for him for any number of reasons. It is never restricted from him, though.
Okay, I guess I went into more detail than I had thought, but this is something I am passionate about because the church of the West is suffering from being so watered down right now, and much of that reason is due to it being far too lax with Gods word. No, the law does not save us, we are only saved through the blood of Christ, but the law is there for our good to tell us what sin is, and the Western church doesn’t like that. They love divorce. They love feminism and rebellion. Asking them to be obedient to Gods commandments often solicits cries of “legalism”, which is untrue. Legalism is “do this to be saved”, not “avoid sin”. The Western church will fall, and be burned as dead branches, if it doesn’t turn itself around. It’s never too late, until its too late.
Thanks for the response again. I guess we understand the same verses differently, so I’ll just agree to disagree. I’ve never heard of an interpretation of the (ten, not seven) virgins with the oil lamps as supporting polygyny though. Most people understand them as being more like bridesmaids or part of the wedding party, not brides themselves.
The fact is monogamy was the norm in Jewish culture, not polygyny. The instructions for wives and husbands in the New Testament and in the Old Testament use singular words, as if assuming the man only has one wife. There’s never an example in the Bible where it’s stated as a good thing or better than monogamy. I guess some men might want another wife if they’re unhappy with their first but can’t get a divorce?
I don’t know what kind of church you attend or used to attend, but thankfully I don’t know any Christians who “love divorce” or feminism or rebellion. Maybe those people aren’t truly Christians.
No problem. In fact, I was just about to make a post about the church’s view on divorce but ended up seeing your comment first. I still plan on going through with it, but likely not until later this week.
The biggest support for polygamy is God using the 12 children from 4 different women, to form Israel, the most holiest nation and chosen race by God Himself.
I find it funny when people can’t wrap their heads around that simple fact. If God had really been against polygamy, He would have only used a couple of those kids, and never accepted what Jacob did.
Just food for thought.
Note: this response is off-topic from the thread, focusing on a comment made. The topic itself is sound: God permits- condones even- polygamy within the bounds the post demonstrates.
” [Israel:] the most holiest nation and chosen race by God Himself. ”
The lies within the Western Church.
Israel was no more holy nor wretched than her surrounding nations. The Baals are recorded time and again as placed above God, to the point that God divorces Himself from Israel (book of Isaiah). Israel- like all nations- was made of men, all of whom are born in and of sin.
The Jewish race were chosen by God *through which* to deliver His Son to the world. They are no more special than anyone else alive. They were to be ‘set apart’ and marked (dietary laws, circumcision) so that humanity could identify the Son when He arrived. They were merely the vessel, nothing more.
Why does Churchianity keep putting ancient Israel or the Jewish people on a pedestal? The Father did not (book of Isaiah), and nor did the Son (book of Romans). To remove all doubt, consider these realities:
* In order for a Jew to be accepted to (modern-day) Israel according to their Law of Return, the single qualifying question a rabbi will ask of an applicant is their belief of who Jesus was. The ‘correct’ answer is denial of His diety- better even to deny his having existed.
* Jesus said that the only way to the Father is through the Son. ANY man or woman who denies the Son will be denied by the Father. Conclusion: there are a lot of Jews going to Hell. Only those who are ‘Messianic’ stand a chance. But this goes for all people, even those who called Jesus by name in their acts and deeds may be turned away for their self-serving nature.
* Jesus time and again commends Gentiles in their acts and deeds, and the single recorded time of Him being amazed at someone’s understanding- impressed to the point of pointing out to his own followers- was the time a Roman Centurion asserted how Hierarchy works. A Gentile.
While not directly part of the comment, the notion of ‘Judeo-Christian’ is a misnomer. Yet another lie from the Great Deceiver. ‘Israel’ a true Christian understands as a metaphor for the Body of Christ. For even Abraham was saved -by faith- and it is through this same faith that all have access to the Throne. Bloodlines guarantee nothing.
I do agree that, as a people, Jews are no different than anyone else. They are sinners and can be just as wicked and cruel and bad as any other person on the planet. I do recognize, however, that they are people chosen by God and have a unique place in the grand plan, as is shown through the word. It would be wise not to stand against them as a people, but it is wrong and evil to think that, if they are doing wrong, one should look the other way.
I do agree that “Judeo-Christian” is an oxymoron, as both factions, AT THE MOMENT, have beliefs counter to one another, but we can see through the word that there will be a shift at some point, and that God still has important plans for the nation of Israel.
Should we stand with the nation of Israel so long as they do good? Yes. Should we SUPPORT the nation of Israel by sending them millions or billions of dollars and whitewash when they do wrong, absolutely not. They are people, and they give us no insight nor path to salvation beyond being in the bloodline of christ. They are just people.
From Kayley
“There’s never an example in the Bible where it’s stated as a good thing or better than monogamy.”
God blessing those children from 4 different women (some not even real wives!) is His decision, not yours.
IIRC there’s no glowing endorsement of monogamy either, throughout the bible. God promotes marriage with marriage being defined as between male and female. I mean, plenty of seemingly monogamous couples in the bible had trouble as well! Job and his wife. Ananias and Sapphira. Heck, even Adam and Eve. It seems everywhere there are people, there’s trouble. 😁
“The sin of Onan, which is often attributed to “the sin of masturbation”, was not that he “spilled his seed”, but that he stopped himself short from impregnating his brothers wife after his brother had died, seemingly only wanting to bang her, but not giving her, or his brother, the honor of a child to bear his name.”
the penalty for not impregnating your brother’s wife wasn’t death, it was public humiliation (and that was later when it became law). Onan wasn’t killed for masturbation or failing to impregnate his brothers wife. He was displeased God because he rejected his role in brining about the Messiah (the entire point of the OT).
last sentence should read “He displeased God because he rejected his role in bringing about the Messiah (the entire point of the OT).:
You’re just reinforcing my point by stating it differently. Onan was to impregnate his brothers wife, for whatever purpose, it was his duty, and he intentionally shirked it. He, apparently, wanted the pleasure of the act but not the responsibility of the result.
Paul in Timothy isn’t referring to bigamy or polygyny, he is referring to a divorced and remarried man.
In reference to what? The verses I reference, v1-5, show zero indication regarding divorce or remarriage, nor do subsequent or preceding verses reference anything regarding divorce or remarriage. Instead they indicate what I have shown here: That a man seeking the position of bishop be a husband and father, and that his house be in order as proof that he can handle the position. It makes no distinction between ONLY one wife or AT LEAST one wife.
Jesus restored marriage to its original intent/state – one man, one woman for life. God didn’t give Adam multiple wives. Marriage is created with the concensus of the will of the husband and wife (to God’s definition of marriage). Consent to carnal intercourse doesn’t create marriage, nor does the carnal intercouse itself. If it did, all carnal intercouse, rape, incestual molestation, regardless of her father’s will or approval would create marriage. The thing created is the thing willed.
Book and verse, please. As far as I can tell Jesus did no such thing. If you are referring to Jesus speaking to the Pharisees in Mark then I can see where you might come to that conclusion assuming that you ignore the preponderance of evidence counter to that argument in the rest of the bible. Polygyny was not an “accepted sin”, it was completely permissible otherwise God would have spoken directly against it as He did with everything He considers sin. Why would he be ambiguous about something that would separate us from Him, knowing that Paul tells us that “adulterers and fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom”?
And, you’re right, it DOES mean that rape and incest creates marriages, that is proven in scripture via Deuteronomy 22:28-29, wherein the example is given of a virgin, not betrothed, has her virginity taken by a man through force. This man is NOT sentenced to death, as he would be in the preceding verses where the girl was betrothed and thus promised to another man. Instead if he is found he is forced to pay a price to her father for taking her virginity and she is made his wife, and he cannot put her away for any reason.
In the case of incest, well, a man caught in an incestuous relationship would have been put to death, as would the woman he was in the relationship with, assuming she wasn’t being forced against her will.
Also, the will of the wife has nothing to do with it, as fathers could marry their daughters to whomever they chose, against the will of their daughters. The will of the woman only comes into play if she is a widow, as she is no longer under the authority of her father or her now dead husband, and can choose to marry whom she pleases.
For more insight please read Deuteronomy 22 which has plenty of examples of how the physical act of intercourse creates the bond of marriage, and not “the will”. If this were the case what would it matter if, according to Deut 22:13-21, a husband found his wife not to be a virgin? So long as her will was to marry him, right? But this is not the case. She has been found to be an adulteress, the wife of another man, and thus put to death.
The Bible was never intended to serve as the sole (or even primary) guide to the Christian faith. If it were, God would have made it like a catechism with clear instruction. Why should I believe your interpretation over the guy at “Biblical Gender Roles” who makes detailed arguments against “coitus creates marriage” (he agrees with you on polygyny)?
Excuse me? The bible was never intended as the sole guide to the christian faith? What then are its supplements, because I know of none! The bible IS our primary and sole guide to faith, hence, Sola Scriptura. If you are using some other documents or books as your guide to the christian faith then I would tell you that you are in error, as I would tell anyone.
I don’t expect you to believe “my interpretation” of anything, I expect you to take what I have read and take what you read at BGR and everywhere else and then READ YOUR BIBLE to determine what the truth is. Larry at BGR and I don’t see eye to eye on everything, but I would say that both of us are open to changing our minds on things with enough scriptural evidence. At the moment I don’t recall what his view are on “what makes a marriage”, but in reality you shouldn’t believe what either of us says but rather take what is said and hold it up to the mirror of scripture and scripture alone.
I’d like to know what religion do you follow, exactly?
Catholicism – the idea that Christ founded a visible Church – which wrote the Bible, canonized it, etc.
Sola Scriptura is a 16th century doctrine.
The BGR guy (along with 99.99% of historic Christians including the Protestant Reformers) says that coitus doesn’t make marriage
You say read you and read him – then read the Bible. I am saying that a person could live and read the Bible for 1000 years and still never know the truth. The Bible doesn’t self interpret.
Both you and BGR can’t both be right – so Sola Scripture fails on a pretty important teaching and conceptually.
Well last I checked God did not impart any other books of wisdom to man, and yes, I’m sure you might delve into the Apocrypha and all that jazz, but those books have failed to be accepted as canon to scripture by more learned men than both you and I. I’ll not convince you of anything here, and barring anything from the canonical bible not other book of advice or scripture will change my mind. Have a good day, and thanks for the input.
” Catholicism – the idea that Christ founded a visible Church – which wrote the Bible, canonized it, etc. ”
An idea held by Catholics alone, enshrined in Catholic teachings alone. The pious attitude held by Catholics as ‘spiritually superior’ is a mark of Pride. “Begone, Satan!” (Mt 4:10)
The pope is an anti-Christ. The entire notion of spiritual headship is gone the moment the roles of Prophet and High Priest were merged when the veil was torn. The perversion of the 10 Great Commandments in the RCC Catechism that counts 1 commandment twice in order to gloss over the commandment of not creating idols: the prayer that is offered to ‘Saints’ instead of to the Son. The doctrines taught in their schools are written by Rome, not God. The entire organization is full of spiritual rot. A game of grand theatrics and low T men trying to outdo each other in how ‘devoted’ they are to Christ. This is your ‘spiritual leadership’.
It is my repeated prayer that all my brothers and sisters in Christ who are mired in RCC culture, teachings, churches come out from under its lies. My prayer is that they are all good Christians, and bad Catholics. And I am reassured that the Shepherd is calling his flock even now.