See, Here’s Why
By admin | June 18, 2008
No, we do not fight to decriminalize polygamy… One reason for this position you can find here:
Ex Polygamy Cult Member Shares Tale of Sex Control
There are so many weirdos out there who think polygamy is a great idea, and who are completely ungodly people, wicked and evil… Would you choose to fight a fight that such people profit from ? They are God’s enemies.
Topics: apologetics | 6 Comments »
For the Record
By admin | May 20, 2008
Just incidentally:
We are not fighting to decriminalize polygamy. God will see to that. We are contending for the faith, showing Christians that the book they claim to rely on does not condemn polygamy, but portrays it instead as a valid and useful tool of dominion.
Not everything that man’s law calls criminal is sin… and many things that are perfectly fine with courts today are abominable in the eyes of God.
Topics: apologetics | 4 Comments »
Right and Wrong - A Matter of Guessing ?
By admin | May 2, 2008
The bible is very clear about right and wrong. God is explicit about what He likes and what He hates (see for example Exo 20:5-6, Deu 12:28-31, or Pro 6:16-19), about what we are supposed to do (Exo 20 and following chapters, for example), and about the rewards or punishments for our actions (for a general overview, see the blessings and curses of Deu 28).
If a person in the bible is punished or destroyed, there is no doubt about the why - Scripture tells us the reason. Pharaoh and his whole army are destroyed because God wants to make it absolutely clear that it is He, not Pharaoh, who frees the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (Exo 14:18). Moses does not enter the promised land because he did not follow God’s instructions exactly as he was told (Num 20:7-12). Onan is killed by God because he does not fulfill the duty laid upon him by the regulations for Levirate marriage and refuses to father an heir for his late brother (Gen 38:8-10). David is punished for adultery and murder by proxy after he impregnated the wife of Uriah, the Hittite (2 Sam 12:7-14). These are just a few examples: We are never left in the dark about the reasons for punishment, and since God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts not our thoughts (Isa 55:8), we do well to rely on what the bible reveals about God’s reasons instead of speculating about possible reasons for this, that or the other.
Given this fact, what really amazes me is that while many people would agree to what I just stated, when it comes to God’s ideas about marriage, they would rely precisely on said speculation. People would claim that, while Scripture does not condemn polygamy, it still favors monogamy, not outspokenly so, but one could clearly tell by looking at the marriages we find portrayed in the bible. They would point out that polygamy causes strive, that the husbands are “harangued” and the wives rivals, and that exemplary marriages are always monogamous. So from all this one could infer, they argue, that polygamy is sinful whereas monogamy is what God wants. Hmmmm…
Like I just said, God tells us, in Scripture, what He wants and what He does not want. In terms of polygamy, He never punishes anyone for polygamy, and if there is strive, it is because husbands fail to do what God told them to do. In Rachel’s and Hannah’s case, for example, their husbands favor them over the other wive(s), which is why they are barren (Gen 29:30-31 and 1 Sam 1:1-6) - God explicitly tells husbands not to diminish the rights of one wife if another wife is taken (Exo 21:10), so having a barren wife is the punishment for failing to follow God’s rules in this regard.
If you pick up your bible and read it, cover to cover, you will not come away with the idea that there are different forms of marriages, one good, one bad, but you will find that as far as Scripture is concerned, marriage can be a man and one wife just as well as a man and more than one wife. Everything the bible says about marriage (and divorce) is said about both monogamous and polygamous commitments, Scripture does not make a difference between the two. Bible scholars do, Christianity does, but Scripture doesn’t.
We should let Scripture shape our world view instead of allowing our modern world view to cloud our view of Scripture.
Topics: apologetics, biblical plural marriage, christian polygamy, plural marriage | No Comments »
What Abigail said, Part 2
By admin | April 17, 2008
Here is Abigail’s second comment:
Abigail | hainanmom@yahoo.com
Whoa, that’s really taking Isaiah 4 out of context. Did you ever bother to read Isaiah 3 and discover WHY all those women were willing to be the husband of one man (even when the husband didn’t feed and clothe them) ??? This is a prophecy about a time of punishment and tribulation for Jerusalem and Judea.
Let’s see…basically, God is taking away bread and water from Jerusalem, the wise men, the strong men are no more, children are running the show, the men are all dying in battle…and yeah, because there isn’t many men left, women are grabbing up any man that’s still standing…this is a prophecy about a chaotic time with dreadful results.
That is hardly a legitimate argument for polygamy, anymore than it is a legitimate argument for children to rule the city (which also happens in the prophecy). You’re gonna have to do better than that.
Well, it would behoove us to also read a little further in Isa 4 then in order to find out what the whole polygamy thing leads to:
“And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, “We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach.” In that day the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and honor of the survivors of Israel. And he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem, when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.” (Isa 4:1-4)
So those polygamous families are the beautiful and glorious branch, and not the dreadful result of a chaotic time, as you put it… Like you said, this is prophecy, and what is prophesied is that those left over, those that stand until the end (Mat 24:13, but compare Matthew 24 and 25), will be who God will start over with, and those men will be rather desirable, it seems.
As for what the women say, please consider Exo 21:10:
“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.” (Exo 21:10)
“Only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach” quite obviously refers to marital rights, in other word, having offspring, children. That is what these women want from their husband. They say they will take care of the other two things a husband owes his wives, so to speak, but the third one is what they are after, quite well in accordance with the dominion mandate of Gen 1:28. You find Rachel saying the same thing when she finally gives birth to Joseph:
“Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son and said, “God has taken away my reproach.” And she called his name Joseph, saying, “May the LORD add to me another son!” “(Gen 30:22-24)
See, from a casual reading only you do not come to an understanding of Scripture as you will miss all the references, all the meat of the matter and come away, like many people do, dissatisfied, thinking that the surface layer is all there is, and probably run off to find something more “spiritual” in its stead. Scripture indeed says what it means and means what is says, and it does so in its entirety, which is why the entirety of Scripture has to “back up” your understanding of each and every verse.
One last thing: It does not do anyone any good to pull the ad hominem thing. Classifying our arguments as weak or saying we would have to do better than that does not make your arguments stronger, I suppose you know that, but makes you appear as being rather emotional about the whole issue.
Topics: apologetics | 4 Comments »
What Abigail said, Part 1
By admin | April 17, 2008
Here is the first of two comments Abigail sent to our other site (polygamy.joshuahshouse.com)- I will paste them in full length, and comment on them right here in the post.
Abigail | hainanmom@yahoo.com
Your argument that the reason for Paul requiring bishops/elders/deacons to be the husband of one wife is weak — because you are wrong in your past tense wording “he should have raised his children well” — the scripture in I Timothy is present tense — “having his children in subjection” “ruling his children” — it doesn’t say that the children have to be teenagers or adults to prove that he’s a good father — just that he should be ruling them well and they should be obedient to him.
Furthermore, in all the instructions given to families in the New Testament, it ALWAYS speaks of the husband and ONE wife - I Cor 7:2 - “Let each man have his own wife” “the husband is the head of the wife (not wives) — etc. Notice it doesn’t say, let each man have his wives. That doesn’t even seem to be a consideration. Proverbs 5 even says “Have joy in the wife of your early years…why take another woman in your arms?”
Furthermore, the whole idea of marriage in God’s eyes is for the husband and wife to be joined together as ONE flesh — how can that happen when there’s multiple wives?
Moreover, you are the one who is twisting scripture when you give your personal opinion (not God’s) that “There is nothing good about the fact that women can take care of themselves nowadays - it is a fruitless, unfruitful existence for a woman to be unmarried, and not at all desirable” — the scripture explicitely says that it is GOOD for them to remain unmarried (as Paul was) if they are able to be chaste, for a woman that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and mind. The Bible says that marriage is good and honorable, but there is also special blessing for those who are single (as long as they can deal with no sex) because they aren’t so cumbered with the things of the world.
You say
“it doesn’t say that the children have to be teenagers or adults to prove that he’s a good father — just that he should be ruling them well and they should be obedient to him.”
Please tell me then, at what age do you think it can be determined that “his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” (Titus 1:6) ?
If you want to rely on the New Testament alone to speak about marriage, please go ahead and do so, but Proverbs 5 would not have to mention the bit about the wife of one’s youth if she was the only one. If you take Exo 21:10 into consideration, you see the context. Interestingly enough, Exo 21:10 is also the context in which to view Isa 4:1, but more about that later.
About the “one flesh” thing: Please consider 1Co 6:16. If you can be one flesh with a whore, quite obviously it is a rather fleshly thing that we are dealing with here - big surprise there: Scripture says what it means and means what it says.
You say
“you are the one who is twisting scripture when you give your personal opinion”
Well, since my opinion is not Scripture, it is difficult to twist Scripture when I state my opinion. But be that as it may, of course the bible also mentions celibacy as one calling, just as monogamy and polygamy are different callings. But if is was so good for women to remain unmarried, like Paul was, please tell me how you reconcile that with the dominion mandate of Gen 1:28. Yes, Paul said he wished everyone was like him, but if that indeed was a statement that you can apply generally speaking, God’s dominion mandate would be neglected. Scripture doesn’t contradict itself though, so you need to come to an understanding in which both statements are valid. Hence my opinion that, given the dominion mandate, it is indeed undesirable and fruitless, unfruitful, for a woman to be unmarried, even if society nowadays thinks otherwise. There might be some called to celibacy, of course, but given Gen 1:28, that’s not the norm, but rather the exception.
Topics: apologetics | 3 Comments »
Apologetics, again
By admin | April 17, 2008
This post is for the Australian visitor from polygamy.joshuahshouse.com
If you wish to pursue your line of questioning, this is the place to do it. 
Topics: apologetics | No Comments »
The Biblical Concept of Love
By admin | March 25, 2008
When it comes to the biblical concept of love, here too, like always, we need to let God define His terms and not Noah Webster or any other dictionary author. To love God means to keep his commandments (Joh 14:15), to love the brethren means to follow God’s commandments concerning the community, and to put the evil away from among the brethren if necessary - again, a concept of responsibility, by the way.
Loving the brethren means not to murder and not to steal, not to covet and not to bear false witness, not to commit adultery and not to forget your parents (the concept of a multi-generational family, incidentally). Not to murder includes protecting the brethren from a potential murderer, not to steal means also protecting the community from a potential thief and so on and so forth, so the commandments point to the bigger picture of you not doing these things PLUS doing your bit to prevent these things from happening in the community.
Where is the romance in this ? The main aspect of love in the bible is loving God and keeping His commandments, which includes caring for the safety of the brethren, and mainly describes taking responsibility as God commands, both within a marriage and within the community.
Topics: Potential Sister-Wives, biblical plural marriage, christian polygamy, plural marriage | No Comments »
If Polygamy Was Sin…
By admin | March 24, 2008
In the bible you find plural marriage not only to be a common and accepted form of marriage, but also a protected one. The biblical definition of “marriage” is not “one man one women”, but “becoming one flesh” (Gen 2:24), and since according to Paul you can become one flesh with a whore (1 Co 6:16), it is by no means restricted to “one man one woman as such”, but to “one man one woman at a time”. The point about marriage in the bible is that it is a lifelong commitment, a lifelong responsibility, and it is formed by the act of becoming one flesh - no church, no state necessary. By sleeping with someone, you marry him or her. That’s the biblical concept of marriage, it is as simple as that.
If polygamy was sin, why would God tell David through the prophet Nathan that He has not only given him his predecessor’s wives into his arms, but would also have given him more if that was not enough? But David had to run off and sleep with a married woman (adultery = sleeping with a married woman, the marital status of the man does not figure into the definition), and then kill her husband by proxy (murder) - see 2 Sam 12:8.
If polygamy was sin, why would a man be required to take his widowed sister in law and produce offspring with her in order to provide an heir for his untimely deceased brother, no matter if he was married already or not (Deu 15:5-10) ? This, by the way, is also contrary to the common incest laws.
If polygamy was sin, why would the law of Moses specifically provide for the first wife and protect her from being cast aside for a ‘younger model’, as man in his fallen state is prone to do (Exo 21:10)?
If polygamy was sin, why would Jesus portray himself as the bridegroom to ten virgins, five of which proved themselves to be unprepared and therefore unworthy (Mat 25:1-13)?
And if polygamy was sin, why would God portray Himself as the husband of two wives to make His point about the idolatrous nature of His people (Eze 23)?
Marriage, according to Scripture, can be either polygamous or monogamous. The important bit about marriage, however, is that it is a lifelong commitment, a covenant not to be broken by man - the only exception being the woman committing adultery (Deu 24:1, Mat 19:9). Adultery and whoremongery are sexual relationships outside this marriage relationship, not inside of it. You cannot commit adultery with you own wife, or be a whoremonger with your own wife. That’s why the marriage bed of a polygamist is undefiled (Heb 13:4).
Topics: apologetics, biblical plural marriage, christian polygamy, plural marriage, polygamy | 13 Comments »
Marriage References in Scripture
By admin | March 23, 2008
Let’s continue where we left off last time we talked about marriage, and elaborate a little on what Scripture has to say about marriage.
Like we said, to read romantic notions of marriage, i.e. exclusivity between one man and one women into biblical marriage is to insert a secular, romanticized concept into the bible that is simply not there.
If you want to point to the “Song of Solomon” for notions of romantic love, please remember who Solomon was and how many wives he loved - and yes, he sinned in not listening to the commandment not to multiply wives to himself as the king (Deu 17:17), and in marrying foreign wives who turned out to be a snare to him with their foreign religions (1 Kings 11:1-6). And Jesus came through this line, came through people like Abraham and Jacob, through the union of Judah and Tamar, David and Bath Sheba, Uriah’s widow, all of whom were people who in some way or another lived in a polygamous relationship, or in the case of Judah and Tamar, had issues with the Levirate marriage commandment - check it out in Matthew 1 and the respective chapters in Genesis, 2 Samuel and 1 Kings.
If you want to point to Paul talking about letting every man have his own wife and every women her own husband (1 Cor 7:2) to prove that Paul advocates monogamy, please look at the two different Greek words translated as “own” here and you will find that they both pertain to the man, that both state possession from the man’s perspective - her “own” husband is her “proper” husband, the husband that properly possesses her, just as his “own” wife, “own” being a reflexive pronoun here, is the wife that he possesses, that belongs to him, that he is responsible for. If you look at the language, this verse is not a verse pointing to exclusivity with regards to how many wives a man can have, but rather to a woman belonging to one man alone, thus pointing to the responsibility on the part of the man, but doesn’t indicate quantity when it comes to wives.
Besides, the context in 1 Co 7:2 indicates the reason for marriage in the first place: to avoid fornication. Men have to take responsibility for every woman they sleep with for by sleeping with a woman, a man makes her his wife. Even in today’s world, by the way - a marriage that is not consummated is not a valid marriage in court, but could be dissolved based on the fact that it was never consummated, since it can legally be considered null and void. So the biblical standard is kept up here in this regard.
The bible uses no specific term for polygamous relationships, but simply calls having a wife or more than one wife “marriage” - and whenever “marriage” is mentioned in the bible, it refers to the biblical definition of marriage that includes both polygamy and monogamy, and not to a modern day definition of marriage that is based on a romantic concept and a social preference, in our small part of the world, for this romantic ideal.
Topics: apologetics, biblical plural marriage, christian polygamy, plural marriage, polygamy | No Comments »
Polygamy- is it godly
By admin | March 22, 2008
Someone asks: polygamy is it godly?
Naturally, our position is that indeed a polygamous family is godly…always has been and always will be. In the Scriptures there is no differentiation between monogamy and polygyny. It’s all the same, ie. marriage, and we all know what God has to say about marriage.
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Mark 10:9 ESV
Topics: apologetics, biblical plural marriage, plural marriage, polygamy, polygyny | No Comments »
« Previous Entries