Polygamy And Adultery: Are They Actually Sinful?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by MMurphy, Jul 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. So, as we're all aware of from some secularists is that the OT allows polygamy. Regardless of the legal ramifications why are we so harsh on it?

    Additionally, the polygamous nature of some OT accounts has some implications about our understanding of adultery. That is, in most accounts I've read adultery is concerned with unfaithfulness on the woman's part. Notice Mathew 5:31-32 speaks exclusively about the woman and her new husband being guilty but not the first husband (note the NLT writes this differently from a literal translation).

    Have we misunderstood the meaning of scripture?
  2. Is it sin? Yes. The implication on matt 5:31-32 is that the first husband puts a stumbleing block in front of his wife and the second husband. If the divorce was given due to fornication then that sin has already been
    see also 1 tim 3:2, 1 corinthinians 7:2, titus 1:6,
  3. Rev 21:8 But as for the cowards and the ignoble and the contemptible and the cravenly lacking in courage and the cowardly submissive, and as for the unbelieving and faithless, and as for the depraved and defiled with abominations, and as for murderers and the lewd and adulterous and the practicers of magic arts and the idolaters (those who give supreme devotion to anyone or anything other than God) and all liars (those who knowingly convey untruth by word or deed)--[all of these shall have] their part in the lake that blazes with fire and brimstone. This is the second death. [Isa. 30:33.] (AMP)
  4. Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

    Deu 17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the Lord said to you, You shall never return that way.
    Deu 17:17 And he shall not multiply wives to himself, that his [mind and] heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

    1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

    Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--
    Tit 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
    KingJ likes this.
  5. Its seems some are on this forum to promote every ungodly thing, and to challege every true and right thing that God has established in Christ...why these people are allowed to continue and can not be seen as the trouble makers they are, is a mystery to me?
    Ravindran likes this.
  6. #6 Major, Jul 13, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2014
    Agreed! It is absurd to even consider a response to such a question IMO!

    What really disturbs me is that some of these same people are allowed to debate Bible doctrine as if they knew what the doctrine really was.
    Mitspa likes this.
  7. Amen my brother! I must admit that I do not get it.

    Some call this action "liberalism".
    Some call it "expression".
    Some call it freedom of "speech".

    I in my old country way of thinking call it SIN!

    Proverbs 27:19 in the Bible, as it says...................
    "As a face is reflected in water, so the heart reflects the person."

    What it's saying is that what you put into your heart defines what kind of character you have, and what kind of person you are.
    Ravindran likes this.
  8. I actually had a legitimate question. But I'll be sure not to ask them anyone.
  9. Deuteronomy 17:17 is one of the verses that explicitly teaches against polygamy. And if God's level of adultery is even something as much as looking at a woman with lust in our hearts, then the bar has been set at a high level.

    Both polygamy and adultery are grievous sins, and for very good reason.
    Ravindran likes this.
  10. I understand all that, but in the bible I've never seen an example of adultury wherein the a married man is with an unmarried woman.

    Inasfar as I know that would be a permitted form of polygamy. I see the 'don't multiply you wives' but even the twelve tribes came from Jacob in a bigamous relationship.
  11. Do you understand the New Covenant is the standard for a believer in Christ, and because a weakness is seen in the Old, that is not an example of Gods Will? The New Covenant makes clear that Gods Will is for one man and one woman to live in covenant with each other.
    Major likes this.
  12. Consider this as we are both Catholic; the Catholic Church speaks explicitly against adultery.

    Paragraph 2380-2381 says this: "Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry."

    "Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents' stable union"

    Furthermore, in paragraph 2387, it talks about polygamy: "The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children."

    This is the Church's interpretation of Scriptural explanation for adultery and polygamy, which are that each are very wrong.
    KingJ and Major say Amen and like this.
  13. Perhaps. I don't know I've not seen it so clear as you state. Obviously I'm not going to go around promoting such things, but I just don't see the rules there against polygamy.
  14. Haha Lysander I'm not Catholic. I do accept the Catholic teaching on this front, but especially as it pertains to marital vows of fidelity. But in the Bible I don't see the prohibition against polygamy. So I don't know what that therefore entails.
  15. See comment #9. Larry says it all my friend!

    Now when you say..........."I actually had a legitimate question, but I'll be sure not to ask then anyone".

    Does that mean your original question was not a legitimate one??? Just asking!
  16. Have you ever herd of the term......."Implied Truth".

    Do a google search of that term and it will help you I think.
  17. No, this is something I've seriously been wondering about. I have never seen an example in the Bible where a married man who lies with an unmarried woman is considered adulterous. And the only implications I see are that of it being tolerated but not ideal.

    I certaintly don't believe in infidelity, but if the parties concerned understand it will be a polygamous relationship, I still think that's wrong but I don't see a prohibition against it.
  18. As I have indicted to you, real in depth Bible study would benefit you greatly and maybe it would answer some of your rather immature questions.

    Did you look up the tern ..."Implied Truth".???????

    Here is a lesson for you under the heading of "Implied Truth"............

    The very first marriage, Adam and Eve, in many ways serves as a prototype, if you will. Notice that God knew that it was not good that Adam be alone and God provided for Adam a "help meet" (counter part that was a complement to Adam, Gen. 2: 18). Observe how God did not simply provide another man, but for Adam God made woman, the "glory of the man" (Gen. 2: 18ff., I Cor. 11: 7ff.). Hence, same sex marriage is not part of God’s arrangement for the marriage bond (see Rom. 1: 22ff.). Moreover, appreciate the fact that when God instituted marriage, it was one man and one woman (Gen. 2). If polygamy is the "ideal," as some are teaching, why, then, did not God create Eve, Sue, Jane, etc. for Adam?

    As for NOT being in the Bible, would you care to explain the verses in the 2nds reading of the Law, found in Deut. 17:16-17..........
    "16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17).

    Malachi 2:14 says.........
    "14: Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15: And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

    God's plan, His ideal situation was 1 man, I woman who produced children. But dirty old men, being dirty old en are sinners and are depraved and it was man that decided he needed more than one wife. IT was sin back then and it is sin now.
  19. Well I think that this truth is quiet evident, and has been well understood in Christian circles for all these years.
  20. I thought tradition didn't matter? It was also understood that the pope was the successor of St Peter, yet we did away with that.
    Huntingteckel likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page