This article seeks to defend and add actual exegesis to Martin Luther's position on polygamy as a valid form of marriage today. I will open and close my article with his comments:

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do with the matter." (De Wette II, 459, pp. 329-330.)

Have you ever wondered why God never condemned polygamy? It's not hard to prove from the Old Testament and the New Testament that polygamy was, and still is, a valid form of marriage and is not sinful.

Old Testament law on Polygamy
The Scriptures are clear that polygamy was, and still is today, a valid form of marriage. God nowhere condemns godly men for having more than one wife. Abraham had a wife, and then he married her maid (Genesis 16:2-4); Jacob married Leah and Rachel (Gen.29:23-30; 31:17; 32:22) and then he married Leah and Rachel's handmaids, Zilpah and Bilhahand (Genesis 30:1-24; 37:2); Judge Gideon had many wives and a concubine (Judges 8:30-31); Elkanah married Hannah and Peninnah (1 Sam.1:2); David married Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam.25:42-43; 30:18), then later took more wives (2 Sam.5:13) at Jerusalem (1 Chron.14:3), In 2 Sam.12:7-8, God gave David these multiple wives as a blessing (and said He would have given him more if asked), just as anointing him as king over Israel, protecting him from Saul, and giving him the house of Israel and Judah were also blessings from Him; King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3) , Ashur married Helah and Naarah (1 Chron.4:5); Shaharaim married Hushim and Baara (1 Chron.8:8 ); Abijah had 14 wives (2 Chron.13:21) , Jehoiada the priest had 2 wives (2 Chron.24:3). Also, God never condemned ungodly men for having more than one wife either: Lamech (Gen.4:19), Esau (Gen.36:2,6), King Rehoboam had 18 wives (2 Chron.11:21); King Belshazzar had many wives (Dan.5:2-3). In addition, after war-time, many women would marry one man because of the shortage of men available due to there being killed (Isaiah 4:1).

We find our brother Paul referring to the polygamy of Abraham without a hint that it was sinful (Galatians 4:22).
When we study the Old Testament law concerning polygamy, we find that when the singular "wife" is used, those laws could apply to monogamy or polygamy (Deut. 22:13, 22), and when the plural "wives" is used, those laws only apply to polygamy. (Deut. 21:15-17). The Law stated that a man could take another wife as long as he still provided for his first wife (Exo.21:10). This is what the apostle Paul calls "due benevolence" (1 Cor.7:3). The law protected the rights of the firstborn son concerning his inheritance in the case where the father preferred another wife over his mother (Deut. 21:15-17).

The law commanded that any man who had sex with a virgin was to marry her (Deut. 22:28-29). There is nothing in this text that supports the idea that only single men are to marry in this instance. This law protected and ensured the woman that her food, clothing, and marital rights and duties would not be diminished. This also protected the woman from the reproach of not being able to find another man to be her husband because she was no longer a virgin and, furthermore the reproach of possibly never being able to have children. The man, single or married, needed to be responsible for his fornication and the woman needed to be protected.

The law commanded a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother's wife if he had no children with her (Deut. 25:5-10). Again, there is nothing in this text that supports that this law was limited to only single brothers. The law did have some restrictions on polygamy, such as a man not marrying the sister or mother of his wife (Lev. 18:17, Lev. 20:14). Another restriction admonished the king against the acquisition of too many wives (Deut. 17:17), and, in particular, foreign wives, because they would tend to tempt him towards their gods (1 Kings 11:1-8 ). Solomon sinned, not because of the fact that he had many wives, but because he married women from foreign countries, and he did not tear down their places of worshipping false gods (Deuteronomy 7:3). It would also appear that Solomon broke this law in that he multiplied seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines to himself (1 Kings 11:3). Solomon abused the right to take more than one wife and no doubt had difficulty in meeting the sexual needs of so many women. David, on the other hand, did not break this law, as was discussed earlier (2 Samuel 12:7-8 ).

Objections to Polygamy
1. "Polygamy is adultery."
At one time, I thought that polygamy was the same thing as adultery until I actually took the time to study the matter. Since adultery was punishable by death under the law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-23), and the law allowed, regulated, and as was seen earlier, would command polygamy in certain instances; adultery cannot be seen as synonymous with polygamy. Men and their wives were not put to death for having polygamous marriages!

It is very important that we look to the Scriptures to define what "adultery" is instead of holding to a slanted Western definition of adultery. In the U.S., adultery is seen as a married individual having sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, besides their spouse, married or single. U.S. law on this matter reflects the ideas of Roman culture and the apostate Roman Catholic Church and is not aligned with God's law.

The Scriptural view of the wife is that she is the property of her husband. Therefore, any man who had relations with her was guilty of breaking the 8th commandment as well, "You shall not steal" and was to be put to death along with the adulterous wife. As already discussed, if a single or married man had sex with a virgin or unmarried woman, he was commanded to marry her.

2. "Polygamy violates 'the two shall be one flesh.'"
Neither God nor Moses saw any violation or contradiction of Genesis 2:24 to the law which not only allowed polygamy but, as was seen earlier, in some cases commanded it. It would be strained exegesis to say that God, in Genesis 2:24, is establishing some kind of monogamous law that excludes, or somehow condemns, polygamy. Exegetically and contextually, Jesus' point, in Matthew 19:4-6, when he cites Genesis 2:24, is the indissolubility of marriage, for He says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate." The expression "one flesh," insofar as it relates to the structure of marriage, refers to the indissolubility of a man and his wife within a marriage, whether it be monogamous or polygamous. This was our Lord’s point in quoting the Genesis passage, and in no way condemns polygamy.

Now, what about Saint Paul's expression 'one flesh'? Far from being a certain revelation concerning monogamy, the Pauline usage would illustrate, rather the broadness and flexibility of this Old Testament expression. For Paul, this unity in the 'flesh' is not confined to the conjugal union of one husband and one wife, nor is it limited to the bonds of kinship. Even a man who joins himself to a prostitute becomes 'one flesh' with her (1 Corinthians 6:16-17). This kind of unity is obviously not exclusive in the way that a monogamous union is supposed to be, for a man can become 'one flesh' with any number of prostitutes. According to this use of the expression, it would follow also that a man becomes 'one flesh' with more than one wife in a society which accepts this form of marriage. If a sinful prostitute can become "one flesh" with many men, then why would it be inconceivable that a godly man like David could have been "one flesh" with the wives God gave him?

Individually, each Christian that is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17). Just as another Christian’s union with Christ does not, in any way destroy the oneness of my union with Christ, so it is that a man may be one flesh with more than one wife. Christ knows, receives, and becomes one Spirit with His virgin(s) (Matt. 25:1-13).

It is important to recall that the real background to marriage in ancient Israel, the background against which the biblical passages on marriage are to be seen, was the larger community of the family and the clan. Marriage was not understood primarily in terms of the husband-wife relationship, and certainly not in terms of an exclusive relationship between only two persons. Marriage was regarded as a social instrument required for the preservation and continuation of families and clans. Through daughters being married into different families, there was a mutual strengthening of kinship bonds-each family giving its own flesh and blood to other families.

"Flesh" has a wider social or kinship meaning found frequently in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 29:14; 37:27; Lev. 18:6; Judges 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:12-13; Neh. 5:5; Isa. 58:7). 'One flesh', is not confined exclusively to only two persons. The several children of one mother are 'one flesh' with her, by reason of their unity in generation and in maternal love. The relationship between the mother and each child, respectively, may even be regarded as a union of 'two' in 'one flesh', without thereby excluding the other children from this same relationship with their mother. So, by reason of a socially valid polygamous marriage, a man may be conjugally united with each of his wives, respectively, as 'two' in 'one flesh'-both in a carnal sense and in terms of kinship.

3. "The Church is pictured as the BRIDE of Christ, not brides!"
Some try and hold onto a "middle" ground of polygamy which is "The Bible may teach that polygamy is not sinful, but since God is pictured as a monogamist in the Bible, it's not God's ideal for marriage today." Yes, the Church, in most Pauline contexts, is described as the bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:22-33), but then again Paul will describe the Church as a plurality of persons: a husband must love his wife, "as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body" (cf. Ephesians 5:28-33; 1 Corinthians 6:15; 12:27). In theological jargon, this is called "corporate personality", the bride (singular) symbolically representing we/members (plural).

It is not entirely true that the Father and Christ are only portrayed as monogamists in Scripture. God is either pictured as being betrothed or married to two women (sisters) - Judah and Israel (cf. Jer. 3:6-10; 31:31-32; Ezk. 23:2-4). Also, during the transition period between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant ages (AD 30 - AD 70) God was still married to (or betrothed to) OC Jerusalem (even while she was a harlot), while at the same time betrothed to another woman - NC Jerusalem ("from above" the Church). God divorced the OC harlot bride/wife in AD 70 while consummating His marriage to the NC bride/wife in AD 70 at His parousia (Matt. 24-25/Rev. 17-21).

4. The dispensational view: "polygamy was only for Israel in the Old Testament who were under the law; monogamy is the Scriptural norm for believers, today in the New Testament who are under grace!"
I reject the premise that morality and application of God's moral standards contained in the old law for Israel have vanished along with its theocratic status. Certain aspects of God's law for Israel stem from His eternal holiness and justice and know no geographical and ethical barriers. Israel and her law's moral and socio-political standards of justice are applicable to us today because they stem from God's holy character. Men can either form laws for societies proceeding out of their own hearts and imaginations, or they can go to God's word and submit to what His standards of divine justice are for human societies. Much of God's civil law that was given to Israel is purely reflective of His holiness and His standards for justice (what is right and what is wrong). Since God's holy character never changes, His standards of what is right and what is wrong, and how evil workers are to be punished, should never change either.

Those who do not favor taking God's law as the ultimate standard for civil morality and public justice will be forced to substitute some other criterion of good and evil for it. The civil magistrate cannot function without some ethical guidance, without some standard of good and evil. If that standard is not to be the revealed law of God, then what will it be? In some form or expression, it will have to be the law of man - the standard of self-law or autonomy. And men will either choose to be governed by God or to be ruled by tyrants. Because of the merciful, restraining work of the Holy Spirit in societies, we do not see at every stage in history these stark polarities coming to expression; most societies will, to some measure, strive for conformity to God's law, even when it is officially denounced. However, in principle, the choices are clearly between God's law and man's law, between life and death for a society.

Concerning marriage, any religious group or nation that ignores the moral standards set forth in God's law surrounding marriage, polygamous or monogamous, will be held accountable by God for their actions.

5. Polygamy is condemned by Paul when he addressed the qualifications for deacons and Elders. "Elders and deacons are to be the husbands of ONE wife"! (1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:6)

First of all, this passage is not addressed to all believers in Christ but applies only to elders and deacons. Period. We cannot take something that only applies to a specific group of men, and applies that to all men in general. This would be taking a verse out of its context.

Secondly, notice, these passages do not say "only" one wife. The Greek word that "one" is translated from here is word #3391, mia, and is also translated as "an" or "the first" in other parts of scripture. Thus the emphasis would be that an elder needs to be a married man, having children and that he must not have divorced his first wife. For example, in the following passages, the word "an" is the same word translated "one" above:
Matthew 21:19,"And when he saw a fig tree in the way..."
Revelation 9:13, "And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice..."

Likewise, Elders and deacons are to be the husbands of a wife, and have children, because if he cannot rule his own household, how can he rule the assembly of Christ? This passage does not limit him to only one wife, that is not its point. The purpose for these qualifications is stated in 1 Timothy 3:5, "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the assembly of God)?" The point is that he must be able to rule his wife and children and if he has multiple wives, and is able to rule them, so much the better! Any man who can love and rule multiple women, and make them happy, according to the Word of God, is certainly qualified to rule a congregation of many other believers!

Another example of how the word "one" is translated is when scripture speaks of Christ having risen "the first day of the week" (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2,9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1,19), the phrase "the first" is translated from the same word that "one" is translated from above. Thus, it can also read as follows, "Elders and Deacons are to be the husbands of the first wife." Again, the purpose for these qualifications is stated in 1 Timothy 3:5, "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the assembly of God)?" And if an elder or a bishop was divorced from his first wife, he would be violating God's Law regulating polygamy, which states, "If he takes him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish" (Exodus 21:10). In other words, if an elder or a bishop was not still married to his first wife because of divorce, but married to other women, then he would be diminishing his first wife's food, raiment, and her duty of marriage, and therefore evidences that he does not know how to rule his own house, and therefore cannot rule the assembly of God.

Some might object to this interpretation that an elder needs to be a married man with children because they say Paul was an elder but was a single man. Even though Paul was unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:, a glance at Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon and Zodhiates Word Studies will reveal that 'unmarried' is used to denote both 'bachelors' and 'widowers'. It refers to those who are not currently married, whether they have never been married or were once married and have been widowed, or divorced. The parallelism thus suggests that in 1 Corinthians 7:8 'unmarried' refers only to widowers', and not to any bachelor or single person. Paul himself could have been a widower. Especially since the Bible implies that Paul was married! As a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; 26:5) Paul must have been married because there were no single Pharisees. Also, Paul himself defended his prerogative to take a wife and bring her on his journeys with him as other apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5).

Due to the "present distress" (1 Cor. 7:26), Paul advised, "that it is good for a man to remain as he is:" This "present distress" was a situation unique to the earlier church due to the persecution that was prophesied by Daniel and Jesus. The Church did go through severe “tribulation” “distress” (Matt. 24/Luke 21) beginning around AD 62 with the death of James. And in faithfulness to Jesus’ warnings, the Church also fled to the mountains of Pella when they saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem in AD 66 - thus escaping the coming “wrath” (cf. Luke 21). Side note - It is ridiculous that the Catholic Church demands that its leaders be celibate, when in fact the Bible requires that the Elders and Bishops be married so the Church can look at their marriages and families in order to see if they can lead and rule with grace and purity. If they can, then they might be considered for leading God’s people/family. This is another example of religious tradition trying to override Biblical teaching on marriage.

6. The law of Polygamy could have changed. For example, Before the Mosaic law, a man was allowed to marry sisters (Genesis 29), but the Mosaic law changed this law and prohibited marrying sisters (Leviticus 18:18)
Is it possible that Leviticus is taken out of context or not properly being understood here? This is how it reads, "Thou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as a rival, to uncover her unclothedness in opposition to her, while she is yet living" (Septuagint). As we can see, this text does not simply forbid the taking one wife to another, but the doing it in such a manner or for such an end, that he may vex or punish, or revenge himself of the former; which probably was a common motive amongst that hardhearted people to do so. When Jacob married two sisters (Genesis 29), his intent and purpose were not to vex them. Therefore, Jacob did not violate God's Law, and nothing was changed.

And again God was betrothed or married to two sisters (Judah and Israel) - see #3.
Polygamy, Divorce, and Remarriage in the New Testament

Even though a man can marry more than one woman without being charged with "adultery", a woman cannot marry more than one man (Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39), and that if a woman is involved with another man, she will be charged with adultery. The reason the man is not mentioned by Paul is because, according to the law, a man could marry another woman while his first wife was still alive and not be guilty of adultery.

In matters of divorce and remarriage, it is Paul's pattern of writing in 1 Corinthians 7 to apply something to both the wife and the husband if it indeed applies to both. Both a wife and a husband are admonished not to divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Both the husband and the wife are commanded not to divorce in the case that they are married to an unbeliever (vs. 12-16). But only the wife is told that she cannot be joined to another as long as her husband lives. (vs. 39).

Therefore, the Biblical position on remarriage is the following: If a woman is divorced unjustly by her husband, she may not remarry another because she is bound to the first as long as he lives. If a man is divorced by his wife, he may remarry another, but he must pray for his first wife’s return and accept her back as his wife if she does return (1 Corinthians 7:11). If a man divorces his wife unjustly, he may not remarry another, as it would then be considered "adultery" (Mark 10:11).

Understanding polygamy and accepting it as a valid and Biblical form of marriage today is very crucial because it brings healing and knowledge to those who have found themselves divorced by a spouse, as well as giving understanding and wisdom to missionaries who preach the gospel to polygamous families in other countries. It is my sincere prayer that you have experienced some healing and/or gained wisdom and understanding from what God's Word has to say on this subject of polygamy.

Is Polygamy beneficial in recovering from severe times of war?
Isaiah 4:1-
“In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace.”

John Gill-
“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man,... Not in the days of Ahaz, when Pekah, son of Remaliah, slew in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand men in one day, 2 Chronicles 28:6 as Kimchi thinks; for though there was then such a destruction of men, yet at the same time two hundred thousand women, with sons and daughters, were carried captive by the Israelites, 2 Chronicles 28:8 but in the days of Vespasian and Titus, and in the time of their wars with the Jews; in which were made such slaughters of men, that there were not enough left for every woman to have a husband; and therefore "seven", or a great many, due to one man to marry them, contrary to their natural bashfulness.”

Gill is not exactly sure how to apply this passage so he offers a possible spiritual meaning to it (not sure I would agree with his though). And it may be that there is a spiritual meaning involved, but my point is that even using this imagery suggests that a polygamy is a valid form of marriage.

In context, the “in that day” definitely seems to be pointing to the salvation and judgment period of AD 30 - AD 70. God removing the “bloodstains” of Israel (Isa. 4:4) refers to God’s judgment in avenging Israel’s sin of blood guilt going all the way back to Genesis (Abel) and extending to the NT prophets that were sent to Israel and put to death by the Jews and their leaders right before the Temple was destroyed in their AD 30 - AD 70 “this generation” (cf. Matt. 23:29-38).

We know from history that there were a lot of men who died and a large number of women who survived without husbands and Christian “survivors” as well who fled to Pella right before the Romans attacked Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-32). If some or many of these women ended up repenting after the AD 66 - AD 70 siege realizing it was God’s judgment upon them for their rejection of the Messiah, I wonder if there were Christian men (and their female spouses) who had compassion on these women, and brought them into their home through marriage? If this possible scenario took place (even in just one case), would it have been just and the compassionate thing to do?

During times of war when a large population of men has been depleted, it may be a just and good thing to see the benefits of polygamy. Although it may be a matter of debate for some if mandating polygamy in this situation is the right course of action, the very least we could say is that it attempts to reach out to the single women and cover their shame. However, my suspicion is that this was a hoax started by a Muslim source since it was written in Arabic. And the other dead give away is that men and their wives would be “forced” to comply. I don’t believe it's the government's role to either forbid polygamy as a valid form of marriage, or the government’s role (or a husband’s) to “force” it.

Final Thoughts
I find it amazing that our country was founded upon a Judeo/Christian moral ethical standard in formulating our laws and yet now we have legalized homosexual marriage and yet condemn a valid form of marriage - polygamy. At this point whoever has the most powerful lobby influences law in America. Homosexuals have a very powerful voice in Washington - therefore they get their way (gay marriages). Feminism has a very powerful voice and therefore will continue to try and make polygamy illegal.

Christians need to form their views on valid and invalid forms of marriage based upon what the Bible teaches - and not based upon what our Western culture or Feminist influences dictate. And our country needs to get back to the Bible as a guide to morality and forming laws on marriage. Selah.

There is, of course, another question that needs to be answered - "If Christians want to enter into a polygamous marriage can they do so in the U.S.?" Scripture is very clear that we are to obey the laws of the land (Romans 13) and right now they make polygamy illegal. So to be on the safe side I would say "no" or suggest that isn't a great idea. One could always move to a country where it is lawful.
But this begs another question perhaps - "Is marriage the states or governments place to dictate?" I'm still pondering this one. If two (a monogamous relationship) or three (polygamous) people want to have a Pastor perform a ceremony and they state their vows (commitments) in front of witnesses --- why doesn't that constitute a "marriage"? If not why not? Perhaps in this way, Christians could pursue valid forms of marriage without fear of the Government?

Again, Martin Luther wrote the following on polygamy and the role of the civil government:
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do with the matter." (De Wette II, 459, pp. 329-330.)

There is actually a case involving a reality TV polygamist Kody Brown and his wives, which is awaiting a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They argue the state's ban on polygamy violates their right to privacy as consenting adults and religious freedom under the First Amendment. I tend to agree! It shouldn’t surprise us, however, that the state is appealing the lawsuit brought by Brown and his wives.

I agree with Luther's position on polygamy and that the civil government should not forbid it (and I agree with others that it violates our First Amendment). My main goal in writing this article has been to provide exegesis for the position that Luther and other Christians have had over the years. There really is no reason why the Church (having made the exegetical case) or governing bodies of our U.S. government should seek to condemn Christians and non-Christians from seeking polygamous marriages. If a man wants more wives he is free to do so. If the first wife would like a sister wife (perhaps her best friend or sister she has always been close to) to help form a family unit providing further support and additional fellowship that is her right. However, if a man wants to pursue a polygamous marriage and lifestyle his first wife should be informed of this and agree with it when they got married. To spring on her that he wants an additional wife when that is not what she signed up for (so to speak) would not be proper or right in my opinion.

Hopefully, your response to the exegetical evidence in this article won’t be a continuance in emotional hardness:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-sullivan/polygamy-is-not-sinful-a-biblical-defense/10152724070919364/

MZLady39:
Brother,
It was not and is not God's will for polygamy in Christianity.
The Lord clearly states in His Word (Genesis 2:24) that "a man shall leave his father's house & cleave unto his wife".
The same God who created the woman from the man....joined them together as 1 husband & 1 wife.
However, humans have free-will and can choose to make their own decisions in life (Ex. Abraham, Solomon, etc...)
Any choice we make has consequences...
Maybe it's not always about whether something is "sinful" or "not sinful, but rather that God gives us examples of how to do some things in order to save us from future irrevocable problems...
Now is it that you want multiple wives & need justification for it?

bennyann:
A bishop then must be blameless , the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:2

Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Timothy 3:3

What does it mean to be 'husband of one wife'? Is this not English? What's the difference between one and only? If another wife has him as husband, wouldn't that mean he is a husband of more than one wife?

So will you call yourself 'blameless' if you're the husband of more than one wife?

I'm not someone who likes to twist Scriptures to my taste. But if the bishops, deacons and elders are asked to live such lives before they can lead then I prefer to live that life since it's the highest calling, highest sacrifice in God's house.

Why should I then stoop so low to be in a polygamous marriage? What will now be the difference between so called Christians and the heathens?

Christians are meant to live a life worthy of emulation, a life that prevents future bitter lessons. If you want to live for yourself, fine. But those of us that have decided to live for God, we are the light of the world. We will represent Jesus well and people will follow that light to Jesus.

Why should you leave the instructions given to some to be a proper reflection of Christ so others can follow, but you so much opt for the one that will make people stagger.

First of all we live for God, then we live for others. The truth is as a Christian, we do not live for ourselves.
That's why most times we don't make use of the full grace in Christ because others won't understand and they may fall through it. We live in a way, our brothers don't fall because of us.

OP, there's no harm in going by your desires, but I hope you will come back to share your lessons after you've began the journey of not following the instructions given to elders?

mrvitalis:


That's Timothy opinion ..

Not God

mrvitalis:


That's Timothy opinion ..

Not God

Amberon:
Escape strategy. All the new testament prophets had the holy spirit for guidance.

Didnt God himself say 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife , and they two shall become one flesh.

Why didn't God say a man shall be joined to his wives and they three, or four or five shall become one.

My dear Christianity is not by force. Just don't twist the words of God.

mrvitalis:

They had the holy spirit and still conflicted each other ??

damosky12:




Oya show us the conflicts oh.

mrvitalis:


The story if the birth of Jesus us the same right ??

Read Mathew, mark ,and John

Amberon:
Escape strategy. All the new testament prophets had the holy spirit for guidance.

Didnt God himself say 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife , and they two shall become one flesh.

Why didn't God say a man shall be joined to his wives and they three, or four or five shall become one.

My dear Christianity is not by force. Just don't twist the words of God.

damosky12:


Don't be ignorant. Matthew, Mark and John aren't doctrinal books. They are history. A closer analysis of them will produce clearer details.

Show us from the epistles how the new testament prophets contradict each other.

damosky12:


Don't be ignorant. Matthew, Mark and John aren't doctrinal books. They are history. A closer analysis of them will produce clearer details.

Show us from the epistles how the new testament prophets contradict each other.

MZLady39:
Brother,

Now is it that you want multiple wives & need justification for it?

bennyann:


You have the spirit of God in you, don't you? That's what we use to know the truth when there are confusions.

So which one do you think that Spirit of God in you will go for? Polygamy or monogamy?

I leave everyone's spirit to judge and not their flesh.

Note.: that wasn't Timothy's opinion.

raphieMontella:

If two can become one flesh.. ..
Give me a comprehensive reason why 3 can also not become one flesh.
Give scriptural reference condemning polygamy for floor members of the church.

frosbel2:


So all God's henchmen in the bible married more than one wife and then God decided 2000 years later to make it a sin for anyone else who wants to marry more than one wife ??

Thank God I have been de-brainwashed from religious myopia and dogma.

frosbel2:
Do you know that this skewed view of marriage and sex which we emulated from the western world that is primarily responsible for the high degrees of sexual immorality among priests, pastors and so called men of God?