Great website detailing scriptural validity of polygyny

[wmfinck]

Okay, then name the other four wives.

Paul says to the Corinthians "I have espoused you [plural] ... a pure virgin [singular]". Israel may be many members, but we are only one "wife" to Yahweh.

[Commander00McBragg]

I'm not an anti-Paulite but when it comes to a [seeming] conflict in scripture, those red words of Messiah always become the superior authority for me

[wmfinck]

When there seems to be any conflict in Scripture - Paul or not - it is the interpretation that is wrong, and not any Scripture. The word "bride" as it appears in the Revelation? That is singular also. And John the Baptist, in the gospel, says "He who has the bride [singular] is the bridesmaid". Of course, Yahshua had more than one disciple, but collectively there was only ONE BRIDE.
Hope this helps.
Bill

[PastorVisser]

I'm not an anti-Paulite but when it comes to a [seeming] conflict in scripture, those red words of Messiah always become the superior authority for me

Indeed - the Words of Yahsua trump the lusts of man:

Mat 19:3-5; "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife [singular]: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mat 19:8-9; "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives [plural]: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife [singular], except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. "

[JamesTheJust]

Good lord I have enough problems with one wife.

The scripture mentions marriage many times in the New Testament and always in the singular sense.
I Corinthians chapter 7 and Ephesians chapter 5 to name a few. But when speaking of those within the leadership of the assembly (a position to which all men of YHWH should aspire, IMO) it is very clear, he should be the husband of one wife.

1 Timothy 3:2
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.

1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

And then in I Corinthians chapter 7, we are admonished that if we are already married, we should not seek a divorce and if we are single, we should not seek marriage (unless we burn with sexual desire); leaving more time for the work of The Lord.

My first sentence was made in jest, however, there is the seed of truth in that things of this world necessarily diminish the time we have for pursuits of The Kingdom.

[davethenobody]

So much for mortifying the flesh. There are web sites that quote scripture to justify dope smoking, pedophilia, faggotry and just about any sin you can name, simply by invoking some tenouous references to the BIble. Many are run by jews, all are run by degenerates and misfits who are unable to restrain their sordid proclivities. Are we to lend credence and acceptance to those debauched concepts as well?. As for attempting to use our Father as an example with which to justify fornication I can think of no greater blasphemy right now, although I am sure I will think of something later on.

If it is a matter of such great import that men be permitted multiple sexual partners then please feel free to do so. Let not yourselves feel in any way constrained by obedience to God or the example of our savior who remained celibate his whole earthly life, or by the admonition of your kinsmen who's righteousness such ideas may seek to corrupt. Are we to presume that because of the lack of any specific reference proscribing a certain activity that it is therefore by such an omission to be condoned?. Do we, or should we not have the inate abillity gifted to us enabling us to discern right from wrong without having to be told on each and every occasion that our actions or motives for those actions are at best questionable, or worse morally reprehensible?. Such practices may have been lightly condoned several millenia ago in the spiritually and culturally arid deserts of the middle east, but such practices are not now, neither have they ever been acceptable in civilized White Western European society and that should tell us something.

It is my long standing experience that if something is called into question either by our concience or by our fellows then that alone is a good indication that the matter is dubious to say the least and therefore best avoided, otherwise it would never have been drawn into question. Can there be any motivation or justification for any man requiring more than one wife beyond his own unbridled lust?, I think not. As for seeking endorsement for such morally bankrupt behaviour from scripture I would venture to suggest that one is standing on extremely dangerous ground. Finally on this issue, let us not for one moment loose sight of how this makes our beloved and most blessed women feel.
Is it not enough that they should be regarded and portrayed as mere sex objects by the world at large without having to feel that they have been reduced to nothing more than objects of physical recreation, receptacles for unwanted semen, or mere brood mares by their Israelite husbands and sundry menfolk.

We spend far to much of our time seeking reasons why we can, without ever stopping to ask if we we should!.

[wmfinck]

Bravo! Bravo! Great sermon, Dave!
Modern-day Pharisees seek occasions in The Word by which they can justify their lusts. The Talmudists did these same things. They ignore any reason why Our Redeemer may have said "male and female He made them" or "a man shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife". It does not say "male and femaleS" nor does it say "cleave to his wiVES".

[PastorVisser]

These ‘free-love’ hippies should stop calling themselves CI if they refuse to teach what our mentors did.

In all my years I’ve NEVER heard Swift, Comparet, Butler, Gullett nor Beam teach such tripe.

Seeing as they refuse the Words of Christ we should consider them wannabe Mormons.

[NicoChristian]

Polygamy seems only to work in times of war, when many men die in war and thus leaving an excess of females for all the remaining males. In peaceful times polygamy can be destructive, as shown in the fundamentalist Mormon church. Due to an equal birth ratio it's not possible for one man to have up to twenty wives each. Many men will not even have one wife. In the Mormon community the elder men get preference over the younger and thus many young men are expelled simply so that one old guy can greedily collect twenty something wives. I don't think polygamy should be pushed to such an extent that young eligible men are expelled simply for elder men to take all the women. Even Muslims only have up to four wives, what man honestly needs more than three wives. A man with more than twenty wives is more of a whore-monger than anything else. He can't honestly take care of and love each one of them.

[Nayto]

Ah, I see even internet forum threads can be resurrected!

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned that Paul said that an elder should have no more than one wife. Regardless of anything, it's just not a good idea. My one wife keeps me busy enough and if I had more than one where would I get time to serve God?

Polygyny (did I say that right?) probably has its place in certain situations, but as of right now I'd say it is completely unnecessary and probably the product of lust.