Polygamy is scriptural!

[Tim]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

 

[Sola scriptural]

But the NT inserts the TWO shall become.
[/quote]No, it doesn't. The Vorlage text includes the phrase as retained in the LXX.

1 man.
1 woman.
1 lifetime

2 people. God's original and continuing standard for a marriage.
[/quote]

I'm not an original languages expert, so you have an advantage over me.  I consulted online English translations and of twenty two all but two DO NOT have Two.  New Living translation did, but don't think I will trust that one.  Are you referencing Hebrew Torah as the vorlage for LXX?  If so, majority of English translators missed TWO.

 

[Sola scriptural]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

 

[Tim]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

Mark 10:6 indicates along with the verses following that God created union with one man and one woman. It fails to mentioned multiple unions - just one. While the Church is a group of people, it is also presented as a body (1 Corinthians 12:12). A wife also is one body, but with many parts. So. The union of man and woman (one flesh) and Christ and Church (one flesh) isn't that of multiple, but single union.

The trinity is one but three also. You don't separate those.

I belong to the Church of Christ. I am his hand. My fellow brother is Christ arm. We belong to the same body. not individual bodies - but one and the same.

 

[Sola scriptural]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

Mark 10:6 indicates along with the verses following that God created union with one man and one woman. It fails to mentioned multiple unions - just one. While the Church is a group of people, it is also presented as a body (1 Corinthians 12:12). A wife also is one body, but with many parts. So. The union of man and woman (one flesh) and Christ and Church (one flesh) isn't that of multiple, but single union.

It doesn't need to mention more than one because one man/one woman is the basic unit for marriage.  You cant have marriage without one man and one woman (the prototype).  Is silence of another woman implicit of exclusion or a prohibition?  That I remember, no polygynist in scripture married two at one time...I may be wrong.

I believe it's a matter of eisegesis vs exegesis.  I look at the whole of scripture and see God allowing, regulating, and even telling David he would have given him more wives if he had asked instead adultery and murder and conclude that God cannot lie or be inconsistent.  By my best interpretation of scriptural polygamy is multiple MARRIAGES (covenants) of one man and one woman, exclusive of the other, not ONE marriage applied to multiple women. 

Based on Roman tradition, which transferred to Catholicism, which led to Protestantism and then into hyper dispensationalism all demanded monogamy, even though OT is filled with references to it.  This leads to eisegesis from a presumed basic premise, and then reading into any verse a support for that position, regardless of the countless verses to the contrary.  Using the whole counsel of God I tend to speak where God speaks, and stay silent where God is silent.  God speaks about polygamy and regulated it, he was silent in prohibiting it. 

That being said, I am still troubled more by Matthew 19 and a woman and man being in adultery after a remarriage.  Got to study that one.

The trinity is one but three also. You don't separate those.

Don't know about you, or if I am correct in doing so, but I do when I pray...to the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and in Jesus' name.  I was taught that trinity consisted of three separate PERSONS, each consubstantial with the other, with individual roles in the godhead, but united in one.

I belong to the Church of Christ. I am his hand. My fellow brother is Christ arm. We belong to the same body. not individual bodies - but one and the same.

Multiple marriages are the same.  Each individual one man/one woman relationship and any offspring of that relationship constitute ONE family...the parts make the whole.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Ah. You know that doesn't have any relationship with anything.... Its all poetry....

 

[praise_yeshua]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

Funny. You say its a reference to a collective and then deny that collective is singular in the passage. Bad methods produce bad outcomes.....

The fact still remains. The "collective" not the "individuals" is what is referenced. It is still a one husband, one wife, and one life type that Cassidy schooled you on.

 

[Sola scriptural]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

Funny. You say its a reference to a collective and then deny that collective is singular in the passage. Bad methods produce bad outcomes.....

The fact still remains. The "collective" not the "individuals" is what is referenced. It is still a one husband, one wife, and one life type that Cassidy schooled you on.

In grammar, collectives are used as singular.  "Team" is a singular noun, but singular collective.  One person is not a team, he is a player.  Two or more players is a (singular) team. 
From an online dictionary:
A collective noun names a group of individuals or things with a singular form. Examples of collective nouns are: faculty, herd, team. There are collective nouns for people, animals, objects, and concepts. The use of a singular or plural verb depends on the context of the sentence.

Ekklesia is singular in grammar but multiple in its collective makeup.  The saints (individually) form the collective.  Each saint has an individual relationship with Christ based on their individual accountability, but are part of the collective singular whole.

Husband...covenant....wife #1...children
Husband...covenant...wife#2...children

wife#1, wife #2, all children..........ONE FAMILY for the husband to love.  Each singular individual is loved, but that doesn't deny the love for the collective, singular, whole!

If there were any contradictions...I apologize.  It's not my intent to do that.  I know what I think, but sometimes it doesn't come out right in words....especially when explanations address multiple replies.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

If so, majority of English translators missed TWO.

No, they didn't. The Mesors missed the "two." The Vorlage text has the "two" in the text.

 

[Sola scriptural]

If so, majority of English translators missed TWO.

No, they didn't. The Mesors missed the "two." The Vorlage text has the "two" in the text.

Interesting!  Thanks for this.  As I said earlier in the thread, I am here to learn, as much as I am to share what I've learned while studying this out.  But that begs the question:  " How many other scriptures does the Masoretic texts mistranslate and have caused us to interpret things in a different manner? "  I am not an original languages expert (I've already admitted that).

But a question back to you as well:  "Is this verse necessarily a proof verse against polygyny?  Mosaic law regulates it, and there are no explicit condemnations either.  God told David in 2 Samuel 12: 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.

God cannot lie, and He cannot contradict himself.  Is it possible that EACH time a man in the OT took a wife, he became ONE FLESH WITH HER FOR LIFE?  Why the exclusivity?  Absent a direct proclamation of prohibition in OT, I don't see how this establishes monogamy only, just the prototype of marriage and the permanence of it...regardless of how many are involved.

In my opinion from study, OT seems to condone and even encourage in limited circumstances.  NT is only implicit, to vague, or even silent.  This is why I'm still experiencing the the dissonance in my mind.  In my hermaneutical approach, I won't concede conflicts in OT and NT. 

Thank you so much for new information to consider.

 

[lnf]

In the NT, I was drawn to 1Cor 7.  Paul ?waffles? a bit about what is commandment from God and what is his own opinion, but after he states the benefits of celibacy, he acknowledges the reasons to marry.  Where he mentions marriage, it is always in the singular.  His own/Her own.  I interpret this as one husband/one wife.  Paul advocates against divorce except where the couple is unequally yoked.  I don?t see where Paul mentions polygamy, so I don?t see where anyone could claim that he advocates it, even tacitly. 

As I understand the OT, the laws concerning ?a brother?s wife? had a specific purpose ? to provide an heir for a widow with no children.  In those times, land inheritances passed down through the male line.  If a man died without an heir, there was no land claim continuity, hence the necessity for a brother to provide an heir to a widowed SIL.  As I understand it, a child conceived of that sort of union was considered, in the eyes of the law, to be the legal child of the deceased man.

Quote from Sola scriptural:  Polygamy was established by man?  Maybe, but if it was, God didn't mind regulating it (reference Leviticus 18 and 19) and didn't list it as an abomination.

OK.  I reviewed these chapters.  Leviticus 18 has a bunch of ?thou shalt nots?.  Leviticus 19 outlines the penalty for having sex with a betrothed slave.  Well, praise God, that she will only be scourged and not killed, because she was not free.  Whyever in the world would Sola scriptural reference these two specific chapters as a proof text? 

Let?s consider Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.  At first blush, this seems to be in direct conflict with the scriptures that call for this very thing:  Genesis 38, Deuteronomy 25 and Ruth 4.  How do we reconcile this?  Well, it seems to me that there is an exception given to childless widows so that the land inheritance of her deceased husband will not be lost.

Let?s also consider Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.  Even though God used the circumstances of Rachel/Leah to His glory, the scriptures describe a dysfunctional relationship between these two sisters.  Is their story an advocation for polygamy?  I think not!

And as far as Sola scriptural?s claim that God didn?t list polygamy as an abomination in Leviticus 18, I give you this: 4 of the last 5 verses in Leviticus 18 mentions abominations:

26:  Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27:  (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

28:  That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29:  For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30:  Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

In closing, I admit that I am no great Bible scholar, but I see no NT scriptural support to advocate for polygamy.  Yes, there are plenty of OT scriptures that mention it, but a mention does not equate to an advocation. That is one aspect of the scriptures that make them trustworthy?the Bible relates truth without hiding or excusing the sins of the people involved.  As for Sola scriptural?s statement that Jesus? lineage included polygamy, well so what?  Romans 8:28:  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 

Like I said, I am no great Bible scholar.  This particular topic is a new study for me.  But this is what I found within the word of God in just a few short hours.  I know it?s not an exhaustive study, but it has certainly settled my mind on the issue. 

 

[Sola scriptural]

You are correct.  I have acknowledged that NT never promotes polygyny.  For the most, it is silent, or passive.  It was essentially illegal, or highly frowned upon in Hellenistic societies, so why address something that didn't really exist?

Where he mentions marriage, it is always in the singular.  His own/Her own. 

Correct.  To take another's wife is adultery...prohibited in Torah.  But what if she's a maiden, or un betrothed?

As I understand the OT, the laws concerning ?a brother?s wife? had a specific purpose ? to provide an heir for a widow with no children.  In those times, land inheritances passed down through the male line.  As I understand it, a child conceived of that sort of union was considered, in the eyes of the law, to be the legal child of the deceased man.

Correct.  But it shows an instance where polygyny was not ideal, but not prohibited, or even "dirty".  Should a widow be deprived of that today, to prevent future government dependency?  I don't think I've ever promoted "ideal", only lack of sin.

OK.  I reviewed these chapters.  Leviticus 18 has a bunch of ?thou shalt nots?.  Leviticus 19 outlines the penalty for having sex with a betrothed slave.  Well, praise God, that she will only be scourged and not killed, because she was not free.  Whyever in the world would Sola scriptural reference these two specific chapters as a proof text? 

The law is our schoolmaster, not a yoke.  Never said anybody had to follow specifics, only precepts.  If you caught someone sleeping with the boss to curry favor, what would be the appropriate response today?  Certainly not whipping, but a big reprimand!

Let?s consider Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. 

I always presume God cannot contradict himself.  I think this applies if the brother is still living.  It's that whole adultery thing. 


Let?s also consider Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.  Even though God used the circumstances of Rachel/Leah to His glory, the scriptures describe a dysfunctional relationship between these two sisters.  Is their story an advocation for polygamy?  I think not!

Jacob didn't marry the two sisters with the explicit purpose to vex either one. He wasn't trying to create undo strife in the family.  He had no choice if he wanted to marry the bride he truly wanted!  The dysfunction?  Yes.  Is dysfunction explicit in disapproval?  Jacob's existence in a far away land was a result of dysfunction in his monogamous household (he was always a rival to Esau).  But the two sisters seem to get along better once they both conceive.  Oh, and God didn't chastise Jacob for staying around 7 more years for another bride, nor for taking some extra hand maids from the two sisters.

And as far as Sola scriptural?s claim that God didn?t list polygamy as an abomination in Leviticus 18, I give you this: 4 of the last 5 verses in Leviticus 18 mentions abominations:

Where is the abomination of polygamy?  I missed it.

In closing, I admit that I am no great Bible scholar,

I don't claim to be either.

the Bible relates truth without hiding or excusing the sins of the people involved. 

Polygamists whose sins were pointed out, but not never about polygamy:
Abraham: Deceiving two kings and almost causing his wife to commit adultery. Unbelief in God providing seed.
Jacob: Deceiving, Wrestling with God? ( not sure it as a sin)  Favoring the sons of his favored wives.
David: Murder, Adultery
Solomon:  heart was turned from God by his wives (could happen with one wife)

Hope this helps in your study on the matter.  I don't demand anyone come to the same conclusions I am coming to, but the journey of study is its own reward.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

Funny. You say its a reference to a collective and then deny that collective is singular in the passage. Bad methods produce bad outcomes.....

The fact still remains. The "collective" not the "individuals" is what is referenced. It is still a one husband, one wife, and one life type that Cassidy schooled you on.

In grammar, collectives are used as singular.  "Team" is a singular noun, but singular collective.  One person is not a team, he is a player.  Two or more players is a (singular) team. 
From an online dictionary:
A collective noun names a group of individuals or things with a singular form. Examples of collective nouns are: faculty, herd, team. There are collective nouns for people, animals, objects, and concepts. The use of a singular or plural verb depends on the context of the sentence.

Ekklesia is singular in grammar but multiple in its collective makeup.  The saints (individually) form the collective.  Each saint has an individual relationship with Christ based on their individual accountability, but are part of the collective singular whole.

Husband...covenant....wife #1...children
Husband...covenant...wife#2...children

wife#1, wife #2, all children..........ONE FAMILY for the husband to love.  Each singular individual is loved, but that doesn't deny the love for the collective, singular, whole!

If there were any contradictions...I apologize.  It's not my intent to do that.  I know what I think, but sometimes it doesn't come out right in words....especially when explanations address multiple replies.

Might you take a lesson from Abraham. He had one wife through which the promise would come. He had another wife that produced the child that still torments the offspring of Abraham.

Christ has one wife. Though that wife may be part of a collective. Its still the singular wife of promise. The proper wife. The only wife.

We can argue grammar to the "cows come home"..... but its that simple.

 

[Billy]

Me thinks this is Martin Luther Hyles from the old forum.....

Didn't you just get out of prison?



Billy

 

[Sola scriptural]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

Funny. You say its a reference to a collective and then deny that collective is singular in the passage. Bad methods produce bad outcomes.....

The fact still remains. The "collective" not the "individuals" is what is referenced. It is still a one husband, one wife, and one life type that Cassidy schooled you on.

In grammar, collectives are used as singular.  "Team" is a singular noun, but singular collective.  One person is not a team, he is a player.  Two or more players is a (singular) team. 
From an online dictionary:
A collective noun names a group of individuals or things with a singular form. Examples of collective nouns are: faculty, herd, team. There are collective nouns for people, animals, objects, and concepts. The use of a singular or plural verb depends on the context of the sentence.

Ekklesia is singular in grammar but multiple in its collective makeup.  The saints (individually) form the collective.  Each saint has an individual relationship with Christ based on their individual accountability, but are part of the collective singular whole.

Husband...covenant....wife #1...children
Husband...covenant...wife#2...children

wife#1, wife #2, all children..........ONE FAMILY for the husband to love.  Each singular individual is loved, but that doesn't deny the love for the collective, singular, whole!

If there were any contradictions...I apologize.  It's not my intent to do that.  I know what I think, but sometimes it doesn't come out right in words....especially when explanations address multiple replies.

Might you take a lesson from Abraham. He had one wife through which the promise would come. He had another wife that produced the child that still torments the offspring of Abraham.

Christ has one wife. Though that wife may be part of a collective. Its still the singular wife of promise. The proper wife. The only wife.

We can argue grammar to the "cows come home"..... but its that simple.

I presume you are a universalist?
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Want to avoid the grammar on this one?  ALL (collective) should come to repentance?  No individual responsibility?  Care to reconsider grammar?

I do follow Abrahams example...to an extent.  I have ONE wife...but if I took a second, would you condemn me when God never did?  Isn't that Pharisaical, Talmudic?

How about the lesson of not letting your wife "wear the pants"?  Is that implicit here enough?  I think so.  Maybe that's the true lesson here, and judgment...not polygyny. 

I choose to speak where God speaks, and stay silent where He is silent.

 

[Sola scriptural]

Me thinks this is Martin Luther Hyles from the old forum.....

Didn't you just get out of prison?



Billy

Is this in reference to me?  Don't know this MLH guy, but I did spend a year in prison once......as an employee!! .

 

[praise_yeshua]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

Funny. You say its a reference to a collective and then deny that collective is singular in the passage. Bad methods produce bad outcomes.....

The fact still remains. The "collective" not the "individuals" is what is referenced. It is still a one husband, one wife, and one life type that Cassidy schooled you on.

In grammar, collectives are used as singular.  "Team" is a singular noun, but singular collective.  One person is not a team, he is a player.  Two or more players is a (singular) team. 
From an online dictionary:
A collective noun names a group of individuals or things with a singular form. Examples of collective nouns are: faculty, herd, team. There are collective nouns for people, animals, objects, and concepts. The use of a singular or plural verb depends on the context of the sentence.

Ekklesia is singular in grammar but multiple in its collective makeup.  The saints (individually) form the collective.  Each saint has an individual relationship with Christ based on their individual accountability, but are part of the collective singular whole.

Husband...covenant....wife #1...children
Husband...covenant...wife#2...children

wife#1, wife #2, all children..........ONE FAMILY for the husband to love.  Each singular individual is loved, but that doesn't deny the love for the collective, singular, whole!

If there were any contradictions...I apologize.  It's not my intent to do that.  I know what I think, but sometimes it doesn't come out right in words....especially when explanations address multiple replies.

Might you take a lesson from Abraham. He had one wife through which the promise would come. He had another wife that produced the child that still torments the offspring of Abraham.

Christ has one wife. Though that wife may be part of a collective. Its still the singular wife of promise. The proper wife. The only wife.

We can argue grammar to the "cows come home"..... but its that simple.

I presume you are a universalist?

Nope. I have been called an Open Theist by some but my beliefs differ greatly. I'm kind of a mix between "all the above".

Let me also say, that you owe aleshanee an apology. You were out of line. Be gracious and apologize.

Want to avoid the grammar on this one?  ALL (collective) should come to repentance?  No individual responsibility?  Care to reconsider grammar?

I just didn't want to get into a draw out argument over "ENGLISH" grammar. God chose the "elect" a "collective" in Eternity. Not individuals. To make such an argument is rather silly.

I do follow Abrahams example...to an extent.  I have ONE wife...but if I took a second, would you condemn me when God never did?  Isn't that Pharisaical, Talmudic?

Your wife might matter more than anyone. What you might do isn't what God does. God had tolerated many things among His won. You mentioned his "long suffering". He won't "suffer" things forever.

Take another wife if your wife wants you to and if the law will allow it. I don't have any "skin" in the game.

How about the lesson of not letting your wife "wear the pants"?  Is that implicit here enough?  I think so.  Maybe that's the true lesson here, and judgment...not polygyny. 

I don't make such arguments. Not going to defend them.

I choose to speak where God speaks, and stay silent where He is silent.

No you don't. No one does. God's silence isn't approval. I'm sure God will speak and change tons of opinions one day.

 

[Sola scriptural]

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that of a husband and wife.

Last I checked, we have no Polygamy relationship between Christ and the Church.

Seems like the implication is clear. God wants: Man/Wife, Christ/Church. Not: Man/Wife/Wife, or Man/Man/Wife, or Christ/Other god/Church, or Christ/Church/Family ... etc

Addressed this earlier.  Church (ekklesia) is not a singular noun...it's a collective noun (i.e.  team, group, family, senate). 

If Christ says he loves his church, he is not speaking of a single entity.  He is speaking of a collective of millions or billions individually grouped into one.  The example I used earlier was of your family.  If you say you love your family, do you love one thing, or all the people in your family?  Each of us is part of the assembly married to Christ INDIVIDUALLY.  A man can have multiple wives with each of them having an INDIVIDUAL covenant with him.  The entire group, including children are his family...(ekklesia/assembly) that he loves in the collective.

Funny. You say its a reference to a collective and then deny that collective is singular in the passage. Bad methods produce bad outcomes.....

The fact still remains. The "collective" not the "individuals" is what is referenced. It is still a one husband, one wife, and one life type that Cassidy schooled you on.

In grammar, collectives are used as singular.  "Team" is a singular noun, but singular collective.  One person is not a team, he is a player.  Two or more players is a (singular) team. 
From an online dictionary:
A collective noun names a group of individuals or things with a singular form. Examples of collective nouns are: faculty, herd, team. There are collective nouns for people, animals, objects, and concepts. The use of a singular or plural verb depends on the context of the sentence.

Ekklesia is singular in grammar but multiple in its collective makeup.  The saints (individually) form the collective.  Each saint has an individual relationship with Christ based on their individual accountability, but are part of the collective singular whole.

Husband...covenant....wife #1...children
Husband...covenant...wife#2...children

wife#1, wife #2, all children..........ONE FAMILY for the husband to love.  Each singular individual is loved, but that doesn't deny the love for the collective, singular, whole!

If there were any contradictions...I apologize.  It's not my intent to do that.  I know what I think, but sometimes it doesn't come out right in words....especially when explanations address multiple replies.

Might you take a lesson from Abraham. He had one wife through which the promise would come. He had another wife that produced the child that still torments the offspring of Abraham.

Christ has one wife. Though that wife may be part of a collective. Its still the singular wife of promise. The proper wife. The only wife.

We can argue grammar to the "cows come home"..... but its that simple.

I presume you are a universalist?

Nope. I have been called an Open Theist by some but my beliefs differ greatly. I'm kind of a mix between "all the above".

Let me also say, that you owe aleshanee an apology. You were out of line. Be gracious and apologize.

Want to avoid the grammar on this one?  ALL (collective) should come to repentance?  No individual responsibility?  Care to reconsider grammar?

I just didn't want to get into a draw out argument over "ENGLISH" grammar. God chose the "elect" a "collective" in Eternity. Not individuals. To make such an argument is rather silly.

I do follow Abrahams example...to an extent.  I have ONE wife...but if I took a second, would you condemn me when God never did?  Isn't that Pharisaical, Talmudic?

Your wife might matter more than anyone. What you might do isn't what God does. God had tolerated many things among His won. You mentioned his "long suffering". He won't "suffer" things forever.

Take another wife if your wife wants you to and if the law will allow it. I don't have any "skin" in the game.

How about the lesson of not letting your wife "wear the pants"?  Is that implicit here enough?  I think so.  Maybe that's the true lesson here, and judgment...not polygyny. 

I don't make such arguments. Not going to defend them.

I choose to speak where God speaks, and stay silent where He is silent.

No you don't. No one does. God's silence isn't approval. I'm sure God will speak and change tons of opinions one day.

First, Aleshanee and I have been in an extended PM conversation, but since it is PM, I choose not to talk about content.  I will say all is cool.

Second, it seems polygyny is the least of our disagreements now that I know your soteriological viewpoints a little more.  We have a totally different viewpoint on individual soul responsibility...but that's for another thread.

Third, the prospect of another wife was purely rhetorical.  It was to make a point.

Fourth, you say God "suffered" polygyny.  Do you have a verse for this?  People keep lumping it in with divorce, but quite frankly, polygyny is the polar opposite of putting away...it's adding!

Fifth, you won't argue that the problem is that Abraham let Sarah wear the pants...because that critique wasn't in scripture...correct?  Well, the same could be said of the critique of polygyny...it isn't there!  You can argue an implicit point, but I can't (for the record, I won't either, but again, rhetorical for sake or making a point)?

Sixth,

I choose to speak where God speaks, and stay silent where He is silent.

No you don't. No one does. God's silence isn't approval. I'm sure God will speak and change tons of opinions one day.
[/quote]

Gods silence isn't disapproval either if you want to be consistent.
I try to be consistent, so can you give me an example of where I might speak or be silent when God doesn't? (Serious question...I'm very introspective)
God will silence us all eventually, and speak disapproval, change opinions, and judge.  When he does, I'm sure he'll change your views on soteriology, and polygyny...and leave mine intact ...attempted levity alert...

 

[praise_yeshua]

First, Aleshanee and I have been in an extended PM conversation, but since it is PM, I choose not to talk about content.  I will say all is cool.

Good. She is a special individual. Gifted. I think everyone here basically recognizes that in her. Those who don't... .don't matter.

Fourth, you say God "suffered" polygyny.  Do you have a verse for this?  People keep lumping it in with divorce, but quite frankly, polygyny is the polar opposite of putting away...it's adding!

I'm not everyone and I don't have a specific verse. Indirectly, I think we can apply...

Act 17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

God has tolerated many things among humanity. Things He didn't like. I can't directly throw polygamy in that group. I can saw that the indirect evidence says otherwise.

Fifth, you won't argue that the problem is that Abraham let Sarah wear the pants...because that critique wasn't in scripture...correct?  Well, the same could be said of the critique of polygyny...it isn't there!  You can argue an implicit point, but I can't (for the record, I won't either, but again, rhetorical for sake or making a point)?

Abraham didn't put up much an argument. You can't deny the child born to the second wife.... can't be compared to the children born to Keturah. One has endlessly harmed the seed of Abraham. The other hasn't.

Gods silence isn't disapproval either if you want to be consistent.
I try to be consistent, so can you give me an example of where I might speak or be silent when God doesn't? (Serious question...I'm very introspective)
God will silence us all eventually, and speak disapproval, change opinions, and judge.  When he does, I'm sure he'll change your views on soteriology, and polygyny...and leave mine intact ...attempted levity alert...

I wouldn't say indirect evidence is equal to silence. God often leaves it up to us.... to put the pieces together. Lets say Silence isn't approval and indirect evidence isn't direct disapproval.

I will add that having more than one wife.... often leads to neglect of one and preference of the other. Jacob had to fight that himself. I can't say its ideal. I don't think anyone can.

 

[Sola scriptural]

First, Aleshanee and I have been in an extended PM conversation, but since it is PM, I choose not to talk about content.  I will say all is cool.

Good. She is a special individual. Gifted. I think everyone here basically recognizes that in her. Those who don't... .don't matter.

I guess I matter then, because I recognize it

Fourth, you say God "suffered" polygyny.  Do you have a verse for this?  People keep lumping it in with divorce, but quite frankly, polygyny is the polar opposite of putting away...it's adding!

I'm not everyone and I don't have a specific verse. Indirectly, I think we can apply...

Act 17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

there goes that application thing again...I can apply LOTS of things to this verse, that's called eisegesis.  Correct exegesis is idolatry...specifically polytheistic idolatry of the Greco-Roman kind.  Denying God, and breaking one of the 10 Commandments is what God is winking at...not polygyny.

God has tolerated many things among humanity. Things He didn't like. I can't directly throw polygamy in that group. I can saw that the indirect evidence says otherwise.

Fifth, you won't argue that the problem is that Abraham let Sarah wear the pants...because that critique wasn't in scripture...correct?  Well, the same could be said of the critique of polygyny...it isn't there!  You can argue an implicit point, but I can't (for the record, I won't either, but again, rhetorical for sake or making a point)?

Abraham didn't put up much an argument. You can't deny the child born to the second wife.... can't be compared to the children born to Keturah. One has endlessly harmed the seed of Abraham. The other hasn't.

Cant deny that harm, but can you deny the blessings to the whole world from Jacob's seed from ALL his wives and handmaidens...It's called the tribes of Israel

Gods silence isn't disapproval either if you want to be consistent.
I try to be consistent, so can you give me an example of where I might speak or be silent when God doesn't? (Serious question...I'm very introspective)
God will silence us all eventually, and speak disapproval, change opinions, and judge.  When he does, I'm sure he'll change your views on soteriology, and polygyny...and leave mine intact ...attempted levity alert...

I wouldn't say indirect evidence is equal to silence. God often leaves it up to us.... to put the pieces together. Lets say Silence isn't approval and indirect evidence isn't direct disapproval.

correct, but have you ever done an ink blotter test?  What people piece together from those amorphous images is myriad.  They are used in psychology to see tendencies in personality, etc.  if you rely on putting the pieces together based on Western, Catholic/Protestant engrained, unconscious indoctrination, then, of course you arrive at monogamy only.  Monogamy (however twisted we practice it) is all you've ever known and seen.  of course it seems logical to you. If I am only scriptural (hence the moniker) I don't have to piece anything together for myself...God already has done it for me.

I will add that having more than one wife.... often leads to neglect of one and preference of the other.
So then you advocate having only one child?  If you have more than one, you might neglect the others in favor of the first.

Jacob had to fight that himself. I can't say its ideal. I don't think anyone can.
Coming around to my side?  I've never argued ideal...in fact...still do have some open doubts based on Matthew 19. That's my last mountain.  I've never advocated, or claimed ideal.  In fact the poll bears out that nobody else who agrees that it's not a sin is an advocate either.