What Message Does The Bible Send Re. Polygamy?

[bluebell]

2. No biblical text presents God as ever commanding polygamy. One might argue that God permitted it during the OT era, but there is simply no basis in the Bible for the claim that men were usually expected to have one wife but at times were commanded to take a plurality of wives, as Mormons commonly claim.

2 Sam. 12:8 is a biblical text which presents God as giving a righteous man multiple wives. That would seem to be more than simply 'permitting' the practice.

[Ariarates]

Thanks for all the links and references, people. I think I can now trace every mention of polygamy in the Bible. My conclusions are:

Polygamy is mentioned a number of times, never specifically ordained or condemned. To me, that indicates a cultural context. When the Bible goes into detail about polygamy, it is always "bad news".

I realize I may be guilty of presentism and cultural bias and probably give the feelings of the injured parties in these instances (usually women) more weight than the authors of the Bible would have, but that is nothing that I am ashamed of. Nor do I believe that something bad is actually good because it was the cultural norm at the time.

The Bible, then, is a book that has nothing affirmative/positive to say about polygamy. To me, pointing at the Bible seems a very weak defense for polygamy. It's like saying: "But Billy did it and if Billy does it, so can I".

And those are my two Euro-cents (that's 2.88 dollar-cents today).

[Zakuska]

Thanks for all the links and references, people. I think I can now trace every mention of polygamy in the Bible. My conclusions are:

Polygamy is mentioned a number of times, never specifically ordained or condemned. To me, that indicates a cultural context. When the Bible goes into detail about polygamy, it is always "bad news".

I realize I may be guilty of presentism and cultural bias and probably give the feelings of the injured parties in these instances (usually women) more weight than the authors of the Bible would have, but that is nothing that I am ashamed of. Nor do I believe that something bad is actually good because it was the cultural norm at the time.

The Bible, then, is a book that has nothing affirmative/positive to say about polygamy. To me, pointing at the Bible seems a very weak defense for polygamy. It's like saying: "But Billy did it and if Billy does it, so can I".

And those are my two Euro-cents (that's 2.88 dollar-cents today).

"Always" Bad News?

Nothing affrimative?

"Injured paries"

I guess thats all in the eyes of the beholder.

How was Hagar Injured in anyway? Her son became 12 princes and was greatly blessed.

[bluebell]

"Always" Bad News?

Nothing affrimative?

"Injured paries"

I guess thats all in the eyes of the beholder.

How was Hagar Injured in anyway? Her son became 12 princes and was greatly blessed.

Hagar was kicked out of her home with a small child. Regardless of the blessings that came later, i don't think it's possible not to call that an 'injury'.

In a sense though, you're probably right. Hagar probably would have never had children if sarah had not of given her to abraham and Hagar is greatly blessed through her child. I don't think it's possible not to acknowledge that as a blessing of polygamy.

[Samurai2012]

"Making it work?" and "Is polygamy ordained of God?" are 2 totally different questions. I would not say that David is a very good example.

Lets put it simply. Were in the bible is polygamy condemned? There are a few places were some people are told to have one wife, for instance in the case of a bishop. But I am not aware of any statements that "Polygamy is a sin". Jesus never condemned it.

Also consider the Law of Moses, there is a president set there that if a man die and leave his wife then the brother can take her. There is no exclusion if the brother already had a wife.

I think using the bible to condemn polygamy is on very poor footing. I would say the bible supports polygamy more than it condemns it.

I think the Bible is pretty much admissive that monogamy is the rule, and polygamy is the exception. Additionally, it appears that when one doesn't practice it within strict bounds of responsibility, you do have serious problems (David & Solomon) though in the same examples, it also shows problems that rise from living under an absolute monarchy as well. Both David and Solomon are good examples not just polygamy gone bad, but of the immense kinds of responsibility neccessary in making it work. Again, that's probably why polygamy will never be authorized again by the church, both church membership, not to mention the world in general don't really have enough people who could handle the responsibility involved as the Lord would allow for it.

[Zakuska]

Bluebell,

How so many people can twist Hagar into the martyr and "injured party" in the story is beyond me. Especially when the story says just the opposite...

Gen 21

9 ¶And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

Paul agrees...

Galatians 4

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Far from being the marytrs people are portraying, Hagar and Ishmael where responsible for the discord in Abrahams tent.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

bluebell,

You wrote:

How is this explanation consistent with the claim that Mormons often make that Joseph Smith fathered few or even no children by his multiple wives?

The sealings resulted in an extended family for Joseph even after his death. I believe it may have as much to do with dynastic families as it does with physical seed. Some of Brigham's physical offspring are sealed to Joseph and considered his family.

Of course it wouldn't bother me if he did have offspring from those marriages. I'm one of those funny Mormons who doesn't think God is as prudish as the Puritans.

[KevinG]

I have heard the argument that examples of polygamy in the Bible are "bad examples" but i don't buy that either. In some cases it was commanded of God.

In the case of Israel (Jacob) I saw more problems arising from jealousy and favoratism of a particular wife and her children as the root cause of the problems. Not the fact that there were multiple wives.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

This sorta reminds me of the conversation in another thread about praying to Jesus. We were never commanded to pray to Jesus, but there is no condemnation of it. Rob says, "It is OK to pray to Jesus". Paraphrasing of course. Now when we get to polygamy we find the same argument but for some reason you are against it. People practiced it in the OT, there is no commandment but there is also no condemnation. But Rob says, "It is not OK to be polygamist". Can you help me out here? Thanks

I'll try.

Human beings were in fact commanded to pray to Jesus. First of all, the Old Testament taught and commanded God's people to pray only to Jehovah (e.g., Gen. 4:26; 1 Chron. 16:8; Ps. 65:2; Is. 44:17; 45:20-22; Joel 2:32), and Mormons agree that Jesus was Jehovah. Second, Paul taught that Christians are those who "call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1:2) and that everyone who does so will be saved (Rom. 10:9-13). These passages are alluding to and quoting Joel 2:32, which speaks of calling on Jehovah for salvation. This shows that there was no change from the OT to the NT with regard to Jehovah/Jesus being the object of prayer. To "call on" a deity or to "call on the name of" a deity meant to address that deity in prayer with one's request or appeal for help. Prayer to Christ also has divine promises attached to it, as in 1 John 5:14-15, where John assures his Christian readers that if we ask the Son of God (see v. 13) anything according to his will we know that he hears us and will give us what we ask.

The examples of apostles and other Christian leaders praying to Jesus in the book of Acts are clearly to be understood as commending their prayers. Stephen, for example, the first Christian martyr, prayed to Jesus with his dying breath, showing Christ-like character in asking the Lord not to hold his killers' actions against them (Acts 7:55-60). Nothing in this or any other passage in the NT in which people pray to Jesus even hints that there was something wrong with them doing so, and in fact in context their praying to Jesus is clearly presented as exemplary. Read the passages I cited previously in context and this should be fairly obvious.

With regard to polygamy, not one person has yet addressed the argument I presented in context. I grounded my understanding of the Bible's view of polygamy on the revelation in Genesis 1-2 concerning the creation of the human race beginning with one man and one woman, and what the passage says about their union (Gen. 2:23-25). Please take a look at that part of my argument. I also cited texts in the Pastoral Epistles in which being monogamous is cited as an example of the kind of basic good character expected in Christian leaders.

When we look at the examples of polygamists in the OT, there are consistent patterns discouraging the notion that polygamy was a good thing. Trying to pick these examples off one at a time doesn't address the argument. Thus, the fact that the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible was the wicked Lamech is part of a cumulative-case argument for a pattern of disapprobation regarding polygamy; the argument can't be defeated by viewing Lamech's example as merely "an interesting factoid," as you put it. When men who were not wicked practiced polygamy, it never turned out well for them.

You wrote:

Abraham practiced polygamy and he was a prophet of God. Indeed, he was one of the greatest prophets of God.

The situation with Abraham is complicated. While he was married to Sarai (Sarah), for many years he had no other wives. When he was in his nineties, he was still childless, and had he died at that time a servant unrelated to him would have been his legal heir (Gen. 15:4-5). Abram (as he was then called) was persuaded by Sarai to have sexual relations with her maidservant Hagar in order to have a child (Gen. 16:1-3). This action shows that until this point in time Abram had no other wives or concubines. The text of Genesis clearly presents Abram's agreement to this arrangement as a mistake. Note the parallels between this passage and the account of Eve inducing Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit:

"So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.... 'And he [God] said to Adam, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree...'" (Gen 3:6, 17).

"And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.... Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife" (Gen 16:3).

These are the only passages in Genesis in which a man is said to have "listened to the voice of" his wife, a Hebrew idiom for obeying someone, and in both passages the man takes something at his wife's urging. (The point here is not that it is a bad thing for men to listen to their wives!) The clear implication is that Abram should not have obeyed Sarai and taken Hagar, just as Adam should not have obeyed Eve and taken the fruit. Not only was Abram not practicing polygamy under God's command, he was allowing himself to be manipulated in the matter by his wife Sarai. The rest of the narrative confirms this understanding, as things go sour immediately after Hagar becomes pregnant (see the rest of Gen. 16). The implication of the narrative in Genesis 16 is that Abram's marital relationship with Hagar was both short-lived and unfortunate.

As far as we can tell from Genesis, while Sarah lived Hagar was the only other woman with whom Abraham had sexual relations or had taken as a wife. Immediately after the account of Sarah's death, Genesis reports that "Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah" (Gen. 25:1), and it lists the children Abraham had by her (vv. 2-4). The narrative then distinguishes between Abraham's son Isaac as his principal heir (v. 5) and the rest of his sons as "the sons of his concubines" (v. 6). This statement probably refers to Keturah and Hagar (mentioned in v. 12) by the term "concubines" to distinguish their status from that of Sarah.

Thus, the evidence from Genesis shows that Abraham's taking Hagar as a second wife was a clear mistake, that he probably did not continue to have marital relations with her after she became pregnant with Ishmael, and that he apparently had no other wives while Sarah was alive.

[LeSellers]

Hagar was kicked out of her home with a small child. Regardless of the blessings that came later, i don't think it's possible not to call that an 'injury'.

Ishmael was in his late teens, at least. He was not a "small child". In those days, he would have been considered a full-grown man.

'Course, in those days, they didn't have child labor laws and government-controlled, tax-funded welfare schools to delay maturity and infantilize people until they were thirty as we do now.

In a sense though, you're probably right. Hagar probably would have never had children if sarah had not of given her to abraham and Hagar is greatly blessed through her child. I don't think it's possible not to acknowledge that as a blessing of polygamy.

Indeed.

But, you will recall that the reason Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham as a wife (Abraham did not] seek her out) was so the promise of an innumerable Abrahamic posterity would be achieved. Sarah was intent on fulfilling the commandment of the Lord. That she did not understand the full implications of that commandment/promise is evident, but she was a faithful follower of Jehovah.

Lehi

Edited August 4, 2011 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

You wrote:

In a sense though, you're probably right. Hagar probably would have never had children if sarah had not of given her to abraham and Hagar is greatly blessed through her child. I don't think it's possible not to acknowledge that as a blessing of polygamy.

Actually, in the context of Genesis (see my earlier post) a different conclusion is in order: this is an example of God bringing blessing out of human failing and sin. Such is the climactic conclusion of the book with regard to God using Joseph's brothers' sin to save Israel: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Gen. 50:20, cf. vv. 15-19; see also 45:4-8 ).

Edited August 4, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

I'll try.

Human beings were in fact commanded to pray to Jesus. First of all, the Old Testament taught and commanded God's people to pray only to Jehovah (e.g., Gen. 4:26; 1 Chron. 16:8; Ps. 65:2; Is. 44:17; 45:20-22; Joel 2:32), and Mormons agree that Jesus was Jehovah. Second, Paul taught that Christians are those who "call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1:2) and that everyone who does so will be saved (Rom. 10:9-13). These passages are alluding to and quoting Joel 2:32, which speaks of calling on Jehovah for salvation. This shows that there was no change from the OT to the NT with regard to Jehovah/Jesus being the object of prayer. To "call on" a deity or to "call on the name of" a deity meant to address that deity in prayer with one's request or appeal for help. Prayer to Christ also has divine promises attached to it, as in 1 John 5:14-15, where John assures his Christian readers that if we ask the Son of God (see v. 13) anything according to his will we know that he hears us and will give us what we ask.

The examples of apostles and other Christian leaders praying to Jesus in the book of Acts are clearly to be understood as commending their prayers. Stephen, for example, the first Christian martyr, prayed to Jesus with his dying breath, showing Christ-like character in asking the Lord not to hold his killers' actions against them (Acts 7:55-60). Nothing in this or any other passage in the NT in which people pray to Jesus even hints that there was something wrong with them doing so, and in fact in context their praying to Jesus is clearly presented as exemplary. Read the passages I cited previously in context and this should be fairly obvious.

With regard to polygamy, not one person has yet addressed the argument I presented in context. I grounded my understanding of the Bible's view of polygamy on the revelation in Genesis 1-2 concerning the creation of the human race beginning with one man and one woman, and what the passage says about their union (Gen. 2:23-25). Please take a look at that part of my argument. I also cited texts in the Pastoral Epistles in which being monogamous is cited as an example of the kind of basic good character expected in Christian leaders.

When we look at the examples of polygamists in the OT, there are consistent patterns discouraging the notion that polygamy was a good thing. Trying to pick these examples off one at a time doesn't address the argument. Thus, the fact that the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible was the wicked Lamech is part of a cumulative-case argument for a pattern of disapprobation regarding polygamy; the argument can't be defeated by viewing Lamech's example as merely "an interesting factoid," as you put it. When men who were not wicked practiced polygamy, it never turned out well for them.

You wrote:

The situation with Abraham is complicated. While he was married to Sarai (Sarah), for many years he had no other wives. When he was in his nineties, he was still childless, and had he died at that time a servant unrelated to him would have been his legal heir (Gen. 15:4-5). Abram (as he was then called) was persuaded by Sarai to have sexual relations with her maidservant Hagar in order to have a child (Gen. 16:1-3). This action shows that until this point in time Abram had no other wives or concubines. The text of Genesis clearly presents Abram's agreement to this arrangement as a mistake. Note the parallels between this passage and the account of Eve inducing Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit:

"So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.... 'And he [God] said to Adam, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree...'" (Gen 3:6, 17).

"And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.... Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife" (Gen 16:3).

These are the only passages in Genesis in which a man is said to have "listened to the voice of" his wife, a Hebrew idiom for obeying someone, and in both passages the man takes something at his wife's urging. (The point here is not that it is a bad thing for men to listen to their wives!) The clear implication is that Abram should not have obeyed Sarai and taken Hagar, just as Adam should not have obeyed Eve and taken the fruit. Not only was Abram not practicing polygamy under God's command, he was allowing himself to be manipulated in the matter by his wife Sarai. The rest of the narrative confirms this understanding, as things go sour immediately after Hagar becomes pregnant (see the rest of Gen. 16). The implication of the narrative in Genesis 16 is that Abram's marital relationship with Hagar was both short-lived and unfortunate.

As far as we can tell from Genesis, while Sarah lived Hagar was the only other woman with whom Abraham had sexual relations or had taken as a wife. Immediately after the account of Sarah's death, Genesis reports that "Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah" (Gen. 25:1), and it lists the children Abraham had by her (vv. 2-4). The narrative then distinguishes between Abraham's son Isaac as his principal heir (v. 5) and the rest of his sons as "the sons of his concubines" (v. 6). This statement probably refers to Keturah and Hagar (mentioned in v. 12) by the term "concubines" to distinguish their status from that of Sarah.

Thus, the evidence from Genesis shows that Abraham's taking Hagar as a second wife was a clear mistake, that he probably did not continue to have marital relations with her after she became pregnant with Ishmael, and that he apparently had no other wives while Sarah was alive.

Thanks for the reply Rob. It is well thought out.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Thanks for the reply Rob. It is well thought out.

I appreciate your saying that.

[bluebell]

bluebell,

You wrote:

Actually, in the context of Genesis (see my earlier post) a different conclusion is in order: this is an example of God bringing blessing out of human failing and sin. Such is the climactic conclusion of the book with regard to God using Joseph's brothers' sin to save Israel: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Gen. 50:20, cf. vv. 15-19; see also 45:4-8 ).

If this were the only example of polygamy in the bible, then i could agree with you, or at least see this interpretation as valid. When we add all the other examples together though, i don't see how the idea that 'polygamy is sinful' can be supported by the bible.

Could the 12 tribes of Israel have existed without polygamy?

[Vance]

This sorta reminds me of the conversation in another thread about praying to Jesus. We were never commanded to pray to Jesus, but there is no condemnation of it. Rob says, "It is OK to pray to Jesus". Paraphrasing of course. Now when we get to polygamy we find the same argument but for some reason you are against it. People practiced it in the OT, there is no commandment but there is also no condemnation. But Rob says, "It is not OK to be polygamist". Can you help me out here? Thanks

A double standard?

I am SHOCKED!! SHOCKED, I say!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

I appreciate your saying that.

Your Welcome.

I have a question that is not really related to this thread but I cannot find the other thread about praying to Jesus.

It is a "why" question. It might not have an answer.

The Israelites were indeed commanded to pray to Jehovah. Jehovah is Jesus. Why, when Jesus was here, did he tell his people that "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth". If we are to pray to Jesus why did Jesus tell us to pray to the Father? Why did Jesus not say "Just pray to me"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If this were the only example of polygamy in the bible, then i could agree with you, or at least see this interpretation as valid. When we add all the other examples together though, i don't see how the idea that 'polygamy is sinful' can be supported by the bible.

Could the 12 tribes of Israel have existed without polygamy?

I would add that is is through polygamy that Abraham's seed would be as numerous as the stars.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Moses had more than one wife.

[LeSellers]

On the first case [the Law of the Levirate marriage], the text says nothing either way [as to whether a married brother must take his widowed, childless sister-in-law as his wife], so to use this passage to infer a command to a married man to marry his deceased brother's widow is a stretch. The case involves a woman whose husband died before she had a chance to conceive any children, which meant, generally, that her husband died very young. Since older children tended to marry first, any surviving brother was likely to be single. But I'm not arguing the contrary that the text precludes bigamy; I don't think it says one way or another.

I

If, as you acknowledge, the text is silent on the matter, it makes no exception for the married brother. Therefore we are more than justified to conclude that his marital state is wholly immaterial and he must do so.

So important was this Law that the Lord killed Onan for failing to live up to his obligation, and, when Judah, out of fear that his third son would also die because of Tamar, delayed that marriage, Tamar tricked her father-in-law into fulfilling the requisition himself.

The whole book of Ruth revolves around this same theme: the next of kin was required to take the widow, and the name of the man who declined to obey the law was held in grave derision among his neighbors. (We notice that Ruth's son, Obed, was not seen as Mahlon's, but of Boaz. This is not unique. P(h)ares/z was not noted as Er's son, but Judah's in Jesus' genealogy.)

Here there is no wiggle room: plural marriage was required when the conditions were such that a married man had a widowed sister-in-law without child.

On the second case [a possibly married man had sex with an unmarried woman and was required to marry her], the option to pay the father would normally be taken if the man was already married.

You have anything to back up this bald assertion?

Plurality of wives was more than merely accepted by the ancients, it was the norm. There was certainly no reluctance to engage in the practice.

Recall that the Law forbade a man to marry more than one woman if that meant depriving the first wife anything to which she was entitled.

Her entitlements were exceedingly few: "consortium", clothing, food, and a house.

On the second case, the statute in this situation would be an accommodation to human sin: the woman, no longer being a virgin, would have had difficulty securing a husband, so requiring the rapist/fornicator to make good by her was a culturally appropriate means of protecting her.

While that is true, it is wholly beside the point. God commanded a man to take a second wife when the situation met the stipulations.

Neither of these cases establishes that polygamy is ever itself a good thing, even if either case ever involved polygamy. In both cases a woman whom men in that society would usually not wish to marry (whether a widow or rape victim or the like) had legal recourse to make sure she was not left to fend for herself (in a culture in which an unmarried woman's options were essentially nil).

Which makes polygyny a very good thing for this specific woman.

In context, such an interpretation makes no sense. Paul is giving a list of ideal characteristics of a man of impeccable character and reputation. One need not be married to be a person of good character. And if Paul was requiring church officers to be married, he would be imposing a requirement on them that he himself did not meet!

You make an assumption here (i.e., that Paul was not married). Two (at least) options present themselves:

• Paul was a widower
• Paul's wife refused to join the Church of Jesus Christ, and they were separated.

How many wives, in your opinion, would be too many?

How many wives (and their children) can the husband take care of? Whatever number exceeds that threshold is too many.

Lehi

Edited August 4, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

Ariarates,

Let me share a few thoughts that may help.

1. Genesis 1-2, the narrative of God's creation of the human race, provides the model for marriage (as we can see in Jesus' use of the passage in that way, Matt. 19:3-6). There in Genesis we see that God created a man and then created one woman to be his lifelong companion. The two of them were to function as complementary halves united as "one flesh" (Gen. 2:23-25). This passage therefore reveals that God's intention for marriage was that it was to be an exclusive, life-long relationship between one man and one woman.

Adam and Eve were the first pair. God created what was needed to start the race. It was not necessary for God to create more than one wife for Adam for that purpose. That cannot be use as an argument against polygamy. If God had created more than one wife for Adam, how many should He have created to convince you of polygamy? If He had created two, then you would have argued that two is the maximum. If He had created three, you would have argued that three is the maximum, etc. That simply is not a valid argument to bring. The only way is to observe God’s subsequent actions with regard to the principle.

2. No biblical text presents God as ever commanding polygamy. One might argue that God permitted it during the OT era, but there is simply no basis in the Bible for the claim that men were usually expected to have one wife but at times were commanded to take a plurality of wives, as Mormons commonly claim.

That is not true. There is at least one scripture that specifically commends or approves of polygamy:

2 Samuel 12

:

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house,

and thy master's wives into thy bosom,

and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah;

and if that had been too little,

I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

This clearly counts the wives that David had received among the blessings and rewards he had received from God. God did not just tolerate his plural wives, but gave them to him for a reward and a blessing. Other passages suggest that God did not look with disfavor on the wives of other prophets, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

3. The first polygamist in the Bible is Lamech (Gen. 4:19, 23), a thoroughly disreputable man whom Genesis reports bragged that he would outdo Cain in evil (4:24). Not exactly a model citizen!

That is irrelevant, when righteous men practised it too.

4. The Mosaic Law assumes that some men will have more than one wife but never actually endorses, approves, condones, or validates such a situation. While it does not explicitly censure or criticize a man for having, say, two or three wives, it does warn any man that might become king of Israel not to acquire many wives for himself (Deut. 17:17). Surely this text raises a serious question about men who take thirty or forty wives. Furthermore, the Law imposed various requirements in connection with polygamy that seem calculated at the very least to discourage the practice (Ex. 21:10-11; Lev. 18:17; 20:14; Deut. 21:15-17).

The requirement for the kings means carrying it to excess. It also discourages them from “multiplying horses” or gathering excess wealth. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have any horses, or just have one! It means that they shouldn’t carry it to excess. Surely, if God positively disapproved of polygamy, He could have just as easily forbidden it altogether (as He does homosexuality for example), but He never did. That suggests approval of the practice, provided it is kept within reasonable bounds, and practised in righteousness. Monogamy can be evil if practised in unrighteousness. Polygamy can be okay if practised in righteousness.

5. The NT states explicitly that being "the husband of one wife" is one of the characteristics to be sought in an elder (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). The lists of characteristics in which this description appears are generally descriptive of men of good character and reputation, which therefore presupposes that being monogamous was itself evidence of good character.

There are two significant points to be noticed in that verse. Firstly, if Paul recommends that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, it means that polygamy was practised in the early Church; otherwise the question should not arise in the first place. Secondly, Paul is notorious for his anti-femininism. He tells women to cover up their heads and keep quiet in church! He tells them not to get married. So his recommendation that a bishop should be the husband of one wife can be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Your Welcome.

I have a question that is not really related to this thread but I cannot find the other thread about praying to Jesus.

It is a "why" question. It might not have an answer.

The Israelites were indeed commanded to pray to Jehovah. Jehovah is Jesus. Why, when Jesus was here, did he tell his people that "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth". If we are to pray to Jesus why did Jesus tell us to pray to the Father? Why did Jesus not say "Just pray to me"?

Jesus was not discussing the question of which member of the Godhead is the proper addressee of prayer. In Matthew 6 Jesus was discussing the need for prayers that were neither hypocritical nor superstitious. In this context he gives the disciples a model prayer. It is not the only prayer, and the prayer does not specify that the Father must be addressed rather than the Son. In fact, if you'll notice, the model prayer does not include any reference to Jesus at all, not even a closing "in Jesus' name." Yet Mormons and orthodox Christians alike routinely use such wording in concluding prayers addressed to the Father. So the Lord's Prayer is not meant to settle this kind of question.

Traditionally, evangelicals address most of their prayers to the Father. However, we also pray to the Son, and there are contexts in which this is especially pertinent or appropriate, such as in praying to Christ for salvation.

[Sleeper Cell]

When we look at the examples of polygamists in the OT, there are consistent patterns discouraging the notion that polygamy was a good thing. Trying to pick these examples off one at a time doesn't address the argument. Thus, the fact that the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible was the wicked Lamech is part of a cumulative-case argument for a pattern of disapprobation regarding polygamy; the argument can't be defeated by viewing Lamech's example as merely "an interesting factoid," as you put it. When men who were not wicked practiced polygamy, it never turned out well for them.

There are also consistent OT patterns discouraging the notion that having more than one son is a good thing. After all, the first brothers mentioned in the Bible were Cain and Abel.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

Jesus was not discussing the question of which member of the Godhead is the proper addressee of prayer. In Matthew 6 Jesus was discussing the need for prayers that were neither hypocritical nor superstitious. In this context he gives the disciples a model prayer. It is not the only prayer, and the prayer does not specify that the Father must be addressed rather than the Son. In fact, if you'll notice, the model prayer does not include any reference to Jesus at all, not even a closing "in Jesus' name." Yet Mormons and orthodox Christians alike routinely use such wording in concluding prayers addressed to the Father. So the Lord's Prayer is not meant to settle this kind of question.

Traditionally, evangelicals address most of their prayers to the Father. However, we also pray to the Son, and there are contexts in which this is especially pertinent or appropriate, such as in praying to Christ for salvation.

Ok, I agree that most LDS and EV pray to the Father. And of course we do all things in the name of Jesus as per the Bible. I guess I am just a little perplexed why Jesus did not include himself in the model for prayer. I know the text does not say "You can only pray to the Father". That is not what I am after. I guess my question cannot be answered because Jesus was never asked it. There really is no scripture that asks the question. Oh well, thanks for the reply non the less.

Here is another question, why does no one ever pray to the HG? By extension he is co-equal with the Son and Father and is One God with them.

I know, I know, I am getting more obscure.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I would add that is is through polygamy that Abraham's seed would be as numerous as the stars.

I disagree. That promise has its fulfillment not in Abraham's physical posterity but in the billions of people of all nations and races who are accounted as Abraham's "seed" through their faith in Jesus Christ:

"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.' So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.... And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:7-9, 29).

"Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his seed that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his seed--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, 'I have made you the father of many nations'--in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" (Rom 4:9-17).

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Neither are they all children because they are Abraham's seed. On the contrary, 'Your seed will be traced through Isaac.' That is, it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children, but the children of the promise are considered to be the seed" (Rom 9:6-8 ).

Edited August 4, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

I disagree. That promise has its fulfillment not in Abraham's physical posterity but in the billions of people of all nations and races who are accounted as Abraham's "seed" through their faith in Jesus Christ:

"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.' So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.... And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:7-9, 29).

"Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his seed that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his seed--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, 'I have made you the father of many nations'--in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" (Rom 4:9-17).

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Neither are they all children because they are Abraham's seed. On the contrary, 'Your seed will be traced through Isaac.' That is, it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children, but the children of the promise are considered to be the seed" (Rom 9:6-.

This would have to do with the spiritual side of being Abraham seed. There is still a physical aspect to consider.

I believe the scriptures speak to us of all things spiritually as well as physically.