Is polygamy forbidden only for church leaders?

[Guest]

"Are you Reconstructionist?"

Not even a little bit.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Hugh,

I hope and pray you are doing well on your new medicine and am sorry your proceedure failed to solve the problem.

I am still baffled by your position on adultery/polygamy. Regarding Matt. 19 you stated: "...the reason it is adultery is because the first wife in this example was put away for invalid reason." you also stated: "adultery...is the unfaithfullness of a man in throwing a woman out of her rightful position in a family and depriving her of her support and status."

You insist that the woman is divorced, man has "put asunder what God has joined together" and the only sense in which what you describe as adultery is commited is that the man unjustly divorced her. How then can another man be said to commit adultery by marrying her? (Matthew 5:32 - "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.") The new husband hasn't put her away unjustly; the only way he can be said to commit adultery is because in God's eyes she is still the wife of her first husband.

[Guest]

"I hope and pray you are doing well on your new medicine and am sorry your proceedure failed to solve the problem."

Thanks Homer, it pretty much solves it as long as I take it. It seems to have the less than attractive side effect of making me feel very blue and empty in the later part of the day. About 3pm, like clockwork, life doesn't seem worth living. Perhaps I had better schedule a nap then.

"I am still baffled by your position on adultery/polygamy. Regarding Matt. 19 you stated: '...the reason it is adultery is because the first wife in this example was put away for invalid reason.' you also stated: 'adultery...is the unfaithfullness of a man in throwing a woman out of her rightful position in a family and depriving her of her support and status'."

Yes, in the single case where it is said that a man commits adultery against a woman, a concept by the way that isn't clearly seen until Jesus words in this one specific instance.

"You insist that the woman is divorced, man has 'put asunder what God has joined together' and the only sense in which what you describe as adultery is commited is that the man unjustly divorced her. How then can another man be said to commit adultery by marrying her? (Matthew 5:32 - 'whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.') The new husband hasn't put her away unjustly; the only way he can be said to commit adultery is because in God's eyes she is still the wife of her first husband."

He commits adultery because as we know from Romans 7 that she remains bound to the first husband while he lives, even though divorced from him. This also gives lie to the notion of some that her adultery against her former husband automaticly destroys the bond. It's a difficult concept to understand in western culture but the woman remains obligated to her ex husband who has divorced her, she is his sexual territory. Jesus points out an exception in Matthew 19 that bears resemblence to Exodus 21.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

wow! What an interesting discussion! I have a question for steve....

when you said.. God Himself is even represented as having two wives simultaneously (Ezekiel 23:2ff), I was wondering if you could expound a bit on the context of the passage. It's probably me not comprehending it fully. I would love to see more of an explanation of it.

Thanks!

[Guest]

Jeremiah three does that as well.

[Guest]

Allegory in Ezekial 23 and Jeremiah 3 are referred to repeatedly in support of polygamy, passages that do not have the subject of marriage in view and are of no use in settling this question. You would do well to stay far, far away from Jeremiah 3. The very same people spoken of as God's wives are also spoken of as being His children; does this make God a polygamous husband to His children, thus validating incest as the passage is said to validate polygamy? I hope these passages, which have nothing to do with Christian marriage, aren't brought into the discussion again nor the Old Testament rules and regulations which are irrelevant, dead as a doornail. We are Christians only, not Proteus-like Christian/Jew/patriarchs.

Rather than looking for a model of marriage in Old Testament allegory and laws which do not have Christian marriage in mind at all, consider the model of Christ and the Church which is given as a specific model for Christian marriage. Furthermore, I would challenge you to look at every passage in the New Testament regarding the marriage relationship of the husband and wife. Every instance presupposes monogamy. There is not one case where a husband (singular) and wives (plural) is mentioned or even alluded to. In the Law we find rules regarding polygamous marriage, quite the opposite in the New Testament, where the rules fit monogamy.

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul states a shocking sexual ethic in a patriararchical culture, "...the husband does not have authority over his own body but the wife does." Authority means prerogative, EXCLUSIVE RIGHT. How much plainer could it be?

It has been asserted that "men can not commit adultery against their wives". When Jesus said looking with lust at a woman was equivalent to adultery, did He only mean another man's wife? Is it not adultery of the heart if she is unmarried? If that is the case wouldn't Jesus have said "fornication of the heart"? Or is it perfectly OK for a married man to lust after single women?

In Christ, Homer

[Guest]

"Allegory in Ezekial 23 and Jeremiah 3 are referred to repeatedly in support of polygamy, passages that do not have the subject of marriage in view and are of no use in settling this question. You would do well to stay far, far away from Jeremiah 3. The very same people spoken of as God's wives are also spoken of as being His children; does this make God a polygamous husband to His children, thus validating incest as the passage is said to validate polygamy?"

No, the reference to children is a term of endearment. The point is only that God depicts himself as having two brides. If you want a reference of such a term of endearment relating elsewhere to brides, and not in an incestuous way, you can look to Paul in 1st Corinthians 7, verse 36,

"But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry." (American Standard Version 1901)

Depending on the version, what is translated elsewhere as "Betrothed" or "his virgin" is translated as "His virgin daughter", I can supply other instances, it does not mean literal daughter if it is used in conjunction with a bride. However, I am sure you would acknowledge that in some way we relate to God as father, and we as children, to God as Husband and us as bride. The only point about this verse remains that God when using the bride analogy, also depicts himself as having two. If God depicts himself as having two, I would be reluctant to condemn polygynous marriage. God does not depict himself as a murderer.

"I hope these passages, which have nothing to do with Christian marriage, aren't brought into the discussion again nor the Old Testament rules and regulations which are irrelevant, dead as a doornail. We are Christians only, not Proteus-like Christian/Jew/patriarchs."

So, maybe we shouldn't get married at all? The Jew/Patriarch engaged in Monogamous marriage as well, I have no idea why you hold one form sacred and the other profane.

"Rather than looking for a model of marriage in Old Testament allegory and laws which do not have Christian marriage in mind at all, consider the model of Christ and the Church which is given as a specific model for Christian marriage."

2nd Corinthians 11 is a model of Polygynous marriage and the Saducees question involving the woman in Levirate marriage has to be viewed as polygynous to maintain credibility.

"Furthermore, I would challenge you to look at every passage in the New Testament regarding the marriage relationship of the husband and wife. Every instance presupposes monogamy."

Actually, I just gave you two places where it is not.

"In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul states a shocking sexual ethic in a patriararchical culture, '...the husband does not have authority over his own body but the wife does.' Authority means prerogative, EXCLUSIVE RIGHT. How much plainer could it be?"

So the possessive implication of one verse, which YOU claim to be exclusive, is your basis for monogamy? It isn't said to be exclusive, it's said to be someone else's. That non exclusive right, belonging to others, is supported by Exodus 21.

"It has been asserted that 'men can not commit adultery against their wives'. When Jesus said looking with lust at a woman was equivalent to adultery, did He only mean another man's wife? Is it not adultery of the heart if she is unmarried."

Nope.

"If that is the case wouldn't Jesus have said 'fornication of the heart'?"

Obviously not, he avoided saying just that.

"Or is it perfectly OK for a married man to lust after single women?"

More that it might be impossible to do so.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

I find it difficult to believe that Praak is not being asked to leave this forum. I know Damon was asked to and wonder if he's been allowed to return.... This is weird!

[Guest]

"I find it difficult to believe that Praak is not being asked to leave this forum."

I find it strange myself when you will not show your face, and I in turn am functioning in the open. Hi there, my name is Hugh McBryde, and yours? By the way, who is Damon?

[Guest]

Prakk
My name is Lee this will be my last message to you or this forum.
I am offended at this pologomy nonsense sounds mormon to me.

Have a nice day!