A few thoughts to get you thinking:
Cow fam said:
First, it should be noted that polygamy is never endorsed by God in Scripture
Levirate marriage
and is generally presented negatively when mentioned.
How many times is any marriage discussed at all, in either a positive or negative light? Not very often, scripture mostly talks about men only. I would be fascinated to do some actual statistics on frequency of mention of each, whether positive, negative or neutral. I don't think there's much difference between each but haven't worked it out yet.
I note that:
Christians should not use the behavior of Old Testament characters to direct their conduct
unless the underlying behavior is sanctioned by God in Scripture.
But he is quite happy to then present a big list of OT characters to demonstrate why you should NOT be polygynous:
Let us apply this principle to polygamy. The first polygamist was Lamech; incidentally, he also was a murderer (Gen. 4:19-23). In the Garden of Eden, God had instituted His perfect pattern for marriage – one man and one woman until death separates them. Having established the foundation for family life, God then commanded our first parents to procreate and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28, 2:21-24). If polygamy was better than monogamy God would have yanked two ribs from Adam and fashioned two women for him.
etc.
This is why Elkanah likely married Peninah; Hannah, his first wife, could not bear him children (1 Sam. 1:1-8).
Where does the bible say which was first? Irrelevant point though as their order proves nothing really.
Though much sin occurred and grieved God’s heart in ancient times, many of these offenses were not imputed as transgression because God had not yet posted His Law (Rom. 4:15, 5:13).
God HAD posted His Law! Most of his examples were from Judges and Kings, long after God had given the Law through Moses. This argument is fundamentally flawed.
When the Law came it put constraints on sin in order to show man that he was inherently sinful, condemned before God, and needed a Savior (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:24). ... Likewise, polygamy was not God’s model for marriage, but at the time the Law was given He only warned against it and put limitations on it (Duet. 17:17, 21:15).
Massive assumption here. Somehow he knows God's model for marriage better than Moses did.
Through the Mosaic Law, God proved to the Jews that they were Law-breakers and thus deserved judgment. However, in the Church Age, because believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, they not only have the capacity to keep the Law, but also to fulfill it in love; this represents God’s fullest intention for His children (Rom.13:8-10).
So if a man dies with no children, does he agree that his Christian brother has the capacity to keep the Law by taking his dead brother's wife as his second wife?
There was no possibility of fulfilling the Law in the Old Testament, and that is why the original pattern of marriage is not affirmed until Christ does so in Matthew 19:5-6, just prior to the advent of the Church Age.
But earlier he had affirmed that men were generally monogamous in the Old Testament, by attempting to show that the Bible gives few examples of polygamy and all are negative. So plenty of men were able to keep the "original pattern of marriage" in the Old Testament, how is the New any different in this regard? He is obviously taking Matthew 19:5-6 out of context also.
The Lord Jesus clearly states that unless a marriage covenant is dissolved for the case of adultery (some see this caveat only applying to the Jewish betrothal) any man marrying another woman commits adultery with her (Matt. 19:9).
This takes a careful study of the Greek, which others have done elsewhere.
The fact that a man would be disqualified from church leadership if he was a polygamist tells us what marital pattern is important to God.
Again the Greek is very revealing
The apostles each had either one wife or no wife (1 Cor. 9:5)
This verse doesn't say that at all. It was discussing whether the apostles should take "a believing wife" with them on missionary journeys. That says nothing about how many wives they might have had at home. To read my own ideas into the Bible just like he does, you could argue that given they had no contraception they would have been likely to have a few children at home too if they were married, so only those with more than one wife would have had the freedom to take "a believing wife" with them while leaving the children cared for at home, because the passage doesn't say "a believing wife and her children"...
and those in church leadership or in the office of a deacon could not be polygamists (Tit. 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12).
Back to the Greek...
Scripture records no example of any Christian engaging in the practice of polygamy;
Does scripture record any example of a Christian even having children? I can't think of one (but I stand to be corrected). Maybe we aren't supposed to have children either. :roll: The New Testament doesn't discuss people's personal lives much, it's more about doctrine, it doesn't give us many examples at all.
monogamy, however, is repeatedly shown to be the proper pattern for marriage (Eph. 5:31-33).
Why presume this is exclusive?
and why Isaac, who represents Christ in typology, never engaged in polygamy.
Scripture never says he was monogamous either, it just discusses one wife he had. No idea if he had others or not, I'm happy to presume he did not but wouldn't base my theology on such an argument from silence.
In vain, some have justified polygamy by referring to scriptural analogies and parables to show that God upholds polygamy. Some have used Jeremiah 3 to declare that since God had two wives, Israel and Judah, polygamy is acceptable. However, thorough study indicates that God made a single marriage covenant with the nation of Israel (Ezek. 16), but after the kingdom split, God poetically speaks of them as two adulterous sisters, not as two wives. The distinction was necessary as the spiritual adultery Judah was committing was more “treacherous” than Israel’s blatant idolatry. So to call God a “Polygamist” is insulting to Him; it is not an accolade of praise that Scripture renders to God and neither should His people.
Interesting argument here. But why does he think it is "insulting" to call God a polygamist? Or why would it be an "accolade of praise" either? Maybe he can be happy that this passage does not say anything to support polygamy, if so it doesn't oppose it either but just has nothing to say on the matter.
Some say that Christ married five virgins at one time in the parable of Matthew 25. Yet, the Lord is not specifically identified in the parable, nor does the text state that he married the virgins. In fact, the dispensational teaching of the parable is that when Christ returns from heaven with His bride at the end of the Tribulation Period, Spirit-indwelt Jews will be waiting on the earth for Him. This refined Jewish remnant will then celebrate with Christ at the wedding feast (Rom 9:25-28, 11:7-12, 25).
He also identifies the bridegroom as Christ, along with every other person I have ever heard speak on the passage, so stating He is not "specifically identified" is irrelevant. I am happy for someone to not find this passage as conclusive pro-polygamy evidence if they wish to explain it away, but the passage does make more sense when you accept polygamy.
Another major reason to reject polygamy today is that it is illegal under civil law in most cultures. As this prohibition does not contradict God’s law, it would be a sin to engage in polygamy where civil law prohibits it. Paul makes it clear that those who oppose civil authority are opposing God and will be judged (Rom. 13:2). How effective would gospel ministry be, if Christians engaged in what even the unregenerant know to be immoral?
Here it is illegal to physically discipline our children, do we obey that nonsense? The unregenerate "know" that if a wife is submissive to her husband that is immoral because she is being "oppressed" - do we follow that heathen line of thinking too? Let's base our theology on the Bible. Once we know what God says is right, we can then consider whether it can be followed in our society without breaking Romans 13:2. The world is NOT America, and it certainly is not banned globally, so we cannot base our theology on the biases of American lawmakers.
As in the days of old, polygamy today results from either human reasoning or lusting for what is beyond the expressed will of God.
Levirate marriage...
Although not His revealed will in the Old Testament, polygamy was not imputed as transgression; however, the Lord Jesus has reposted God’s pattern for marriage and commands Christians to obey it. Without any hesitation I can say that polygamy is a sin for the Church to engage in![/i]
A statement clearly based on a house of cards.
