This is a interaction I had on Facebook, and thought you all might enjoy.
For some context this was the original question asked.
And this starts out with me responding to his response to someone else, but starting with a response to his original post, which I'm not going to put on here.
(Him) "But there were not two. If God wanted it to be two women to one man I'm sure he would have created another women in addition to Eve, or even speak one into existence. To suggest that if there were two women God would have given Adam two women is nothing more than just a guess, fantasy. You're not in the mind of God to know this. Plus, as I said, if God wanted it to be so then he would have made it so. Don't add to scriptures please, thanks."
(Me) if a man having more then one wife is a sin, then why did God regulate it? You can't cherry pick verses, and ignore the ones you don't like.
Habakkuk 1:13 says "Your eyes are too pure to gaze upon evil; and you cannot tolerate wickedness. So why do you tolerate the treacherous? And why do you stay silent while the wicked devour those who are more righteous than they are?"
And Exodus 21:10 says "If he takes another woman for himself, he may not withhold from the first her food, her clothing, or her marital rights." So which is it, is polygyny lawful, or is God regulating/tolerating sin?
Another example is king Joash, 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 says "Joash did what the LORD approved throughout the lifetime of Jehoiada the priest.
Jehoiada chose two wives for him who gave him sons and daughters." It said he did what was right, and that included having two wive, that the the priest of God chose for him no less!
I think whether someone is for or against polygyny, they should be very careful about condemning someone of the other viewpoint, Proverbs 17:15 says "Exonerating the wicked and condemning the righteous are both a abomination to the LORD." So it would be a good idea to study the topic, indepth, before accusing people of adding to scripture.
(Him) "You need to read your Bible again. In Genesis God created one man and one woman and ordained that as the union of marriage. The fact that something is not a sin does not necessarily mean that God approves of it. Slavery for example. This was never part of God's plan for us and Jesus said that there will be no slaves in heaven. This goes to show that slavery isn't part of God's plan for us. You can have more than one wife if you want, but it's not under the union of marriage as God intended because if he wanted Adam to have more than one woman he definitely would have created another woman in addition to Eve, he did not and ordained both of them under the Union of marriage."
(Me) you're right! I do need to read my bible again, we all probably should.
Yes, God created a man, and a woman, but he also stuck them in a paradise garden, where they were vegetarian, and they ran around naked! So if you want to stick with "one man and one woman" then in order to be consistent you need to do those other things too. Just because something was made for one purpose, and then was given another doesn't make the second purpose any less valid.
So you are telling me that God had a opinion on what we eat, how we dress, even how we dispose of our excrement! But he just forgot to mention the fact that "oh yeah, by the way, I really don't approve of that practice, but I'm just going to wink at it here." I don't think so! God has never been subtle about telling his people how he thinks on anything! It has always been "thou shalt not!" In no uncertain terms.
Slavery is not wrong, when done biblically, it can't be, because God regulates it.
Jesus also said "nobody will marry or be given in marriage" (Mathew 22:30) so that means none of us should get married, because none of us will be doing that in heaven. See where that kind of logic takes you? Be consistent.
To be honest I don't want multiple wives, but I will support the biblical men who do.
Does God give bad gifts to people like David? Because he said "I gave you your master's house and your master's wives...." and then says if he had wanted more he would have given him more.
(Him) Yeah you definitely need to read the Bible, because after Adam and Eve sinned God made coverings for them to hide their nakedness. So running around naked is not being consistent with scriptures because God made Adam and Eve clothing.
God regulating doesn't mean God sees it as the right thing. If slavery was right before God there would be slaves in heaven but Jesus taught that there will be no slaves in heaven.
(Me) I'll do you one better, I have studied my bible, not just read it!
On a more serious note, telling me I need to read my bible, doesn't deal with my argument.
Yes, after Adam and Eve sinned God made them coverings, I was talking about pre sin, when they were vegetarian, naked, and living in a paradise. I maintain that yes, God made one man, and one woman, and they didn't have slavery pre flood, but God is designer, and sustainer of the universe, and therefore is the only one who can decide right from wrong. For use to say polygyny is a sin, is to speak where God has not spoken, or where he has even spoken in a positive sense.
Would God use sinful terms to describe himself?
Because if you read Ezekiel chapter 23 you will find that he describes himself as "married to two sisters" that seems pretty positive to me.
Now please don't come back at me with "you need to read your bible more," bring chapter and verse, and lets actually have a conversation about this.
Your slavery argument doesn't hold water. For one we are all going to be God's servants/slaves, but let's just say for arguments sake there are no slaves in heaven, scripture also says there will be no husbands and wives, so does that mean it is wrong to have them here on earth?
I also prefer the term indentured servitude to slavery, it has more of a paying off a debt connotation, verses stollen from his homeland, and sold like a animal into slavery, which for the record I do not agree with at all!
Looking forward to hearing from you.
(Him) Why are you talking about pre sin when we live in a post sin world? Why insist we live according to pre sin living conditions when we're not living in pre sin times?
Again, I never said having several wives was a sin, I'm just going off of scriptures. God created one man and one women and ordained them under the union of marriage. Jesus himself said that a MAN and WIFE shall be one, and only when divorced can they be married to someone else.
(Me) I am talking about pre sin because you are trying to adhere to a pre sin standard of "one man, one woman; it's not I, but you who are trying to insist we live by pre sin standards.
Okay, well it sure sounded like you were very anti polygyny.
The thing is you are saying you are going off of scripture, but it doesn't seem like you're using the whole scripture.
You can't judge a normal book by the first few pages, so it would stand to reason that you can't judge what a book (that was inspired by the infinite creator) has to say about one subject based on a few pages in the beginning.
So this term "one flesh" obviously isn't referring to a literal/physical joining, a man and woman don't physically turn into a homogeneous glob, so it is pretty obvious to me that it is speaking of becoming one in purpose, just as we are to become one with the Father and Christ.
So why can't a man have multiple women who share his same goals and passions?
Now the "only when divorced can they be married to someone else" is not what Christ said, in fact that goes contrary to God's law were he said in deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." and we know that Christ affirmed the law, and kept it perfectly.
What Christ was dealing with in Mathew 19 was "putting away" which was the act of a man sending his wife out of his house, without the bill of divorce, which left the woman in a state of limbo, where her husband didn't want her, but she couldn't remarry without possibly being accused of adultery.
(Him) Where did I say that I'm trying to adhere to a pre sin standard? Even Jesus said in Matthew 19:5 that , ‘For this reason a MAN (singular) will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE (singular), and the TWO (just as Adam and Eve were two) will become ONE flesh.
Jesus goes in to say "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” meaning that God is the one who joins the singular man and singular woman and binds them under the union of marriage.
If you also read the books of the apostles you'd notice that they always refer to a husband (singular) and wife (singular) every time they talked about marriage.
So the idea that a one man to one woman union of marriage is a pre sin concept is just false, unbiblical and heretical in my opinion.
Why can't a man have multiple women who share his same goals and passions? You can do what you want but don't try and misinterpret scriptures to validate and justify your worldview. Every time marriage is talked about in the Bible, it's always mentioned in the context of one man to one woman.
(Me) you didn't say you are trying to adhere to a pre sin concept, I said you are, and I will stand by that.
Well yeah! Of course it's a MAN and a WIFE, he has to start from somewhere! There is a stage in every man's life when he leaves his father, and mother, and goes from being a single guy, to married to his wife (guy don't typically marry two women at the same time).
So are you saying God did not join Jacob to Leah, Jacob to Rachel, Jacob to Zilpah, and Jacob to Bilah? All who are mothers of the twelve tribes of Israel!
The apostles using husband and wife in the singular hold no water when you take the whole of scripture, Psalms 119:160 says "The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever." So like I said in the beginning, 'you can't cherry pick verses, and not deal with the ones you dislike.
Haha! So I am the one misinterpreting scripture? I don't think so, if you had actually taken the time to study the subject with a open mind, you would have found that "monogamy only" is a purely Roman, and Greek concept, and has no foundation whatsoever in the bible.
So it is you, who is trying to shoehorn a culturally conditioned worldview into the bible.
(Him) "He has to start from somewhere". The assumption that the union of marriage between a man and a woman is the start of something is not grounded in scriptures. Marriage is marriage, it is not the beginning process of/for anything, especially something that involves the addition of other wives to the marriage union. Where are you getting these heretic teachings from? It's just laughable to those who have actually read and understand scriptures.
(Me) you haven't been really answering any of my questions, and I have let it go with most of them, but I keep asking questions, and you keep sidestepping/ignoring them, only to then pull some statement I made about a "man having to start from somewhere" and making some big deal about it, all while conveniently ignoring the question I asked which is
"So are you saying God did not join Jacob to Leah, Jacob to Rachel, Jacob to Zilpah, and Jacob to Bilah?).
Please answer the question, and stop hiding behind the skirt of assassinating my biblical understanding, and saying "this is how it was with Adam and Eve, therefore that is how it should be now" nevermind the fact that NOWHERE did God EVER condemn a man for having multiple wives.
And my understanding comes from studying the bible.
"
"
