• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Polygamy Conspiracy

OttoM

OttoM

Member
Male
The father of the Protestant movement, Martin Luther, said this about polygamy:

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.”

The English Bible from William Tyndale in 1537 had Matthew 5:28 translated this way:

But I say to you that whosoever looks on a wife, lusting after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Martin Luther died in 1546.

The 24th Session in the Council of Trent in 1563 forbid a man from being married to more than one woman.

King James Bible came out in 1611. It changed Matthew 5:28 to “woman:”

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

After the council of Trent made polygamy forbidden - all translations for Matthew 5:28 were changed from “wife” to “woman” to help support enforced monogamy. It doesn’t matter if the translation came from Protestants, Orthodox, or Catholics. If you can find one translation after 1563 that correctly translated Matthew 5:28 to “wife” please let me know. I can not find one.

Furthermore, King James in the early 16th century declared polygamy as illegal. And persecuted men with jail time. Therefore, this tells me that the Catholics and the Council of Trent had influence on the Protestant church in terms of church doctrine. So we went from Martin Luther in the 15th century being pro polygamy to the early 16th century king James persecuting polygamists. America also followed suit in terms of persecution and making it illegal.

This tells me that the Protestant movement was hijacked; and all three churches were likely under a conspiracy against the Holy Spirit. Against the word of God. Against Christendom. The evidence is in the translations after 1563 (council of Trent), and the un-just persecution of polygamy.
 
Last edited:
frederick said:
Was Martin Luther pro poygamy, or was he just accepting of it in the sense he wasn't anti-polygamy?
Click to expand...
His very deliberate phrasing makes it plain to me that he was interested in the principle of laying down his presuppositions and being honest about the truth, whatever it looked like, and not in restricting his brother's exercise of it, no matter how distasteful it was to him. Is that not how you interpret it?
 
Earth_is- said:
The English Bible from William Tyndale in 1537 had Matthew 5:28 translated this way:

But I say to you that whosoever looks on a wife, lusting after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Click to expand...
Which is why it's important to understand the original language, whether or not the translators insert a bias.

Yahushua spoke Hebrew (and quoted Scripture in it) and Aramaic, and the understanding would have been crystal clear to His listeners. It was 'isha,' and in context HAD to mean 'wife.'
 
Matthew 23:13
Woe is to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven before men. You yourselves go not in, neither do you suffer those who come to enter in.

Matthew 11:28-30
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Let's examine the below verse, however, the way the modern day church teaches it:

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You will find that this is a very heavy burden. Adultery is one of the most serious sins from the Mosaic Law. The punishment was stoning, which was the same punishment as a man lying with another man. The way the church teaches this - if a 16 year old Christian goes to a beach and sees a very attractive young, un-married woman and it leads to lust in his heart - he's in danger of the lake of fire. If that is the case - who is saved?

In the Mosaic Law - even if the man’s lust leads to the man seducing the un-married virgin - the punishment isn’t stoning. He simply has to marry her - after getting permission from her father. And pay the bride’s price to her father. Now - the boy’s father should teach his son to never have his lust for his own girlfriend lead to sex. Why? Because he needs to have full control over whether to marry her. If he finds something about her he dis-likes - he can end the relationship. But if he took her virginity - he’s stuck with her; even though she may have some very pagan beliefs.

Also Paul says through the Holy Spirit that if a man burns with lust - the prescription is marriage. Not fornication. Not adultery. But Biblical marriage. Which could mean more than one wife.

Matthew 23:13
Woe is to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven before men. You yourselves go not in, neither do you suffer those who come to enter in.

^ how many of these pastors/preachers/priests that are in-correctly teaching Matthew 5:28 have only seduced one woman in their entire life (their own wife, hopefully)? How many have never lusted for another woman? Does this mean when a man has sex with own wife he must close his eyes, therefore, not lust for a woman?

Matthew 5:28 - the way the modern church teaches it - is a very heavy burden and it’s possibly closing the kingdom of heaven before countless men.
 
Last edited:

Polygyny, Matt. 5:28, and Attraction

Since being married about 3 years ago, my wife has asked me some hard questions. We were watching a movie and a scantily clad woman came on the screen and she asked, "What does it do to you when you see a woman dressed like that?" I didn't have an answer. At the time I believed the traditional...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org
 
frederick said:
Was Martin Luther pro poygamy, or was he just accepting of it in the sense he wasn't anti-polygamy? Just wondering if you have additional information.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call him pro polygamy, just neutral on the subject as he couldn't find a scriptural reason to oppose it. He went back and forth in his actual behaviour. He actually authorised a polygamous marriage for Phillip of Hess, trying to keep this secret. However, during his lifetime, the Lutherans joined forces with the Catholics to crush the polygamous Anabaptists of Munster. Basically, he saw the truth but did not think it was a hill worth dying on, because there were bigger issues at stake in the reformation in his view.
 
FollowingHim said:
I wouldn't call him pro polygamy, just neutral on the subject as he couldn't find a scriptural reason to oppose it. He went back and forth in his actual behaviour. He actually authorised a polygamous marriage for Phillip of Hess, trying to keep this secret. However, during his lifetime, the Lutherans joined forces with the Catholics to crush the polygamous Anabaptists of Munster. Basically, he saw the truth but did not think it was a hill worth dying on, because there were bigger issues at stake in the reformation in his view.
Click to expand...
I don't think he would support today's protestant churches that are extremely anti-polygamy. To the point where they are calling the men adulterers, and they should repent of their sin by divorcing their plural wives. As the Spirit of Truth says in 1 Timothy 4 - these men have been seduced by demonic spirits. They are teaching lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron.
 
FollowingHim said:
I wouldn't call him pro polygamy, just neutral on the subject as he couldn't find a scriptural reason to oppose it. He went back and forth in his actual behaviour. He actually authorised a polygamous marriage for Phillip of Hess, trying to keep this secret. However, during his lifetime, the Lutherans joined forces with the Catholics to crush the polygamous Anabaptists of Munster. Basically, he saw the truth but did not think it was a hill worth dying on, because there were bigger issues at stake in the reformation in his view.
Click to expand...
These Anabaptist were way more crazy than just polygamy. Stuff like end of world is coming, communal property (early form of communism), force usage against non-believers etc....

I may not remember all issues with them, but polygamy was always side issue in texts I had read about them.
 
NVIII said:
His very deliberate phrasing makes it plain to me that he was interested in the principle of laying down his presuppositions and being honest about the truth, whatever it looked like, and not in restricting his brother's exercise of it, no matter how distasteful it was to him. Is that not how you interpret it?
Click to expand...
I haven't had opportunity to research his position hence my question.
 
Earth_is- said:
^ how many of these pastors/preachers/priests that are in-correctly teaching Matthew 5:28 have only seduced one woman in their entire life (their own wife, hopefully)? How many have never lusted for another woman? Does this mean when a man has sex with own wife he must close his eyes, therefore, not lust for a woman?

Matthew 5:28 - the way the modern church teaches it - is a very heavy burden and it’s possibly closing the kingdom of heaven before countless men.
Click to expand...

I'd venture to say that 100 percent of men or very close to it sitting in any church today has lusted after a woman. That includes all the pastors and church staff. So if the correct reading is woman, not wife, then every single man sitting in a church has committed adultery in his heart.

If you say you haven't ever lusted after a woman, you're lying.
 
NBTX11 said:
I'd venture to say that 100 percent of men or very close to it sitting in any church today has lusted after a woman. That includes all the pastors and church staff. So if the correct reading is woman, not wife, then every single man sitting in a church has committed adultery in his heart.

If you say you haven't ever lusted after a woman, you're lying.
Click to expand...
The word lust, in Matthew 5:28, is from the same Greek word Paul uses in Romans 7:7 and is translated  covet. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus is explaining the condition of the heart that initiates adultery; it is the violation of the commandment against coveting the wife/woman who belongs to another man. The Septuagint uses the same Greek word which is translated covet in Exodus 20:17.

Not all looking is coveting in the sense of taking for one's self the woman who belongs to another man. I know that's how some understand the Matt. 5:28 passage, but we need to be careful with the distinction because Jesus is referencing the Ten Commandments and dealing with the heart condition behind the action of adultery.
 
frederick said:
The word lust, in Matthew 5:28, is from the same Greek word Paul uses in Romans 7:7 and is translated  covet. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus is explaining the condition of the heart that initiates adultery; it is the violation of the commandment against coveting the wife/woman who belongs to another man. The Septuagint uses the same Greek word which is translated covet in Exodus 20:17.

Not all looking is coveting in the sense of taking for one's self the woman who belongs to another man. I know that's how some understand the Matt. 5:28 passage, but we need to be careful with the distinction because Jesus is referencing the Ten Commandments and dealing with the heart condition behind the action of adultery.
Click to expand...
I agree King Jesus is referencing to 'coveting,' which is a heart issue. Coveting usually leads to other sins like murder, theft, and of course adultery. A man that is coveting something his neighbor has can not fulfill the commandment - 'thou shall love thy neighbor.'

But back to the teaching of Matthew 5:28, and the way it's taught in churches today. It's an extremely heavy burden on Christian men. I believe only by the grace of God can a man that believes Matthew 5:28 is referring to any woman can fulfill this commandment. I believe it's even contrary to how our Creator made us to fulfill this commandment - "be fruitful and multiply." I would even venture to say many would be better off not ever entering a church that teaches Matthew 5:28 in-correctly. Because Matthew 5:28 taught in-correctly can lead you to sinning very seriously against King Jesus. But Matthew 5:28 taught correctly makes a lot of sense, and is a very light burden. Very simple - don't mess around or covet for another man's wife. Just like you wouldn't like someone coveting or messing around with your own wife. Simple. Logical. Loving. Righteous. That's our God.

Psalm 119:103
How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

Luke 11:46
“Woe to you as well, experts in the law!” He replied. “You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load.

I love our Savior - Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Remember that it doesn’t prohibit lusting after/coveting the neighbor’s unpromised daughter.

(Betrothed is considered a man’s wife)
 
Earth_is- said:
I would even venture to say many would be better off not ever entering a church that teaches Matthew 5:28 in-correctly.
Click to expand...
We have talked about this in other threads but I will say it again here, the idea that finding girls attractive or fantasizing about them as a teen is the sin of lust no different from using pornography is very harmful. The hopelessness this mindset can cause is overwhelming and so young men give in to pornography because they don't see a difference between that and checking a girl out at the mall or even church. Then top it off with shame and feminism and you just crushed young men for a generation.
 
NS4Liberty said:
We have talked about this in other threads but I will say it again here, the idea that finding girls attractive or fantasizing about them as a teen is the sin of lust no different from using pornography is very harmful. The hopelessness this mindset can cause is overwhelming and so young men give in to pornography because they don't see a difference between that and checking a girl out at the mall or even church. Then top it off with shame and feminism and you just crushed young men for a generation.
Click to expand...
Worse.

If they got children, they will teach them same crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top