While it is generally accepted now by most, at least in the US, that polygamy is not biblical, I wish to address old testament times prior to the Exodus of God's people from Egypt. Did you think that God ever intended it? I would like your biblical basis for why you believe as you believe. So that I don't influence you, any, with my opinion or beliefs; I will come at a later time and address my own question :excited:
Actually, you left out something...The elders also couldn't be "novice" nor given to wine (bishops) nor much wine (deacons). Notice the difference from bishops to deacons concerning the consumtion of wine. Also notice that every believer has to be a novice at the beginning of our salvation. So this shows that having only one wife is office related and not speaking of morality. Just as it's not a sin to be a novice.
Also, we should consider that if Polygamy wasn't practiced in the churches during the time of Paul, Paul would not have had to even make the statement that a bishop/deacon could only have one wife, because it would not have been an issue. So even that fact that he brought it up shows that it was practiced, yet he never spoke against it and most importantly, neither did The Lord And Saviour Jesus Christ.
When I referred the passage that says elders should be the husband of one wife, I was referring to Titus. Titus lists all the things I said it lists, and a couple more. But it doesn't say anything about elders not being novices, nor given to wine, or about deacons not being given to much wine. Though the Bible says these things, it doesn't say them in Titus. So please don't think I left these things out because I was trying to distort the scriptures. I left them out because I was quoting from Titus, which doesn't mention them.
To respond to your main point though, I still think deacons should not be given to wine, even though, as you say, the scripture says they mustn't be given to "much" wine (1 Tim. 3). I think Paul, in this case, emphaisises what "bishops" (litterally "overseers" who oversaw their local church, as opposed to overseeing several churches - see Phil. 1) must do, because it is silly to expect the general people in the church to obey the commands, if the leaders are not obeying the commands. By saying the bishops must not be given to "wine" and the deacons to "much wine", Paul was not, I think, saying it's fine for deacons to be given to wine, so long as its not "much" wine, but rather, that there is a commandment to all not to be given to wine, but it's more important for the life of the church that the bishops (who have more authority than deacons) in particular obey this commandment, than it is for the deacons to obey this commandment. That seems to me to be the purpose of "much wine" as opposed to "wine". It was to emphaise to bishops that because they have more authority than the deacons, it is their specific duty to show the deacons how to live, by their own conduct. It is clear Paul wanted the leaders of a church to set the example for the congregation to follow, because he says to Titus, "Show yourself to be a model of good works" (Titus 2:7). So by saying deacons must not be given to much wine and bishops to wine, it were as if Paul had said, "Bishops and deacons remember, you mustn't be given to wine. You're meant to be finding your comfort in God, not drink! But you bishops, remember that expecially!"
About Older men Paul says "Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness" but about younger men, he says to Titus, simply, "Urge the younger men to be self-controlled". Does that mean the younger men don't have to be sober-minded, dignified, sound in love and faith etc..., because these commands are just addressed for "older men"? Of course not. These are commands for all men, not just older ones. The same is true when he gives an address for elders, saying they should be the husband one wife. This is a command for all Christian men, not just for elders.
As far as bishops not being novices (and the following paragraph is applicable to similar commands), this, like you say, is not because it's wrong to be a novice. But Paul is not saying there are different moral rules for experts and novices. Rather, he is saying there are practical things to consider when it comes to who should be an elder. "He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil." (1 Tim. 3:6). Its not wrong for a novice to be an elder because its okay for a novice to become conceited, but its not okay for an elder to become conceited. The same moral rule applies to both. Neither must become conceited. But Paul recognises that an experienced Christian is more likely to not become conceited, and because this sin is bad for all members of the church, but particully bad for the life of the church if the leadership fall into it, he advises Timothy that novices shouldn't become elders.
As far as polygamy being common practise in the early church, I think that historically speaking, it was not, and that it had died out in common practise a few hundred years before Christ came. But I also think that, even if it hadn't, that doesn't mean anything, since there were plenty of sins that were common practise in the early church, and that it doesn't make it right.
I just want to respond to one more point from one of your previous posts. You said,
"Maybe if we accepted Polygamy as we should, there wouldn't be all the adultery and prostitution we see in our society. Also, we probably wouldn't see all the divorce and remarriage that we see, seeing that so many are divorced do to "cheating", (usually the man)"
Firstly, we have to remember that not having two wives is no excuse for adultery, and I'm sure you weren't saying it was. But we also need to remember that Paul says it's better for converts to remain as they were when they came to know Christ. Paul envisaged a host of single people in the church, not seeking to get married. Just a quick point, Paul said "I have not recieved this command from the Lord" but had previously said about another matter "I recieve this from the Lord" and had proceeded to quoted the words of Jesus ministry while on earth. By saying he hadn't recieved it from the Lord, he meant he had not heard of Jesus ever commanding this particular thing while on earth, and NOT that the Holy Spirit hadn't inspired him to write what he did. Regardless, he says the following before he says "I have not recieved this command from the Lord" He says,"since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own WIFE, and each woman her own husband." and "the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his WIFE". He wants the two to become one flesh, and by this they are to be kept from temptation, "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Cor. 7) Paul says, "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Cor 7:9) but this he addresses "to the unmarried" (1 Cor 7:8) NOT to those who are married already (his command to them comes later)! This alone should show us that Paul wanted marrages to consist of one man and one wife.
So, Biblically, in a Christian marriage, there is to be, not a husband and WIVES, not a wife and HUSBANDS, but a husband and a wife. Just as there is only one bride of Christ, a Christian man should have ONE bride, and love her "as Christ loved the church".
Many times you have used the words "i think" yet you're trying to say that having more than one wife is against the commandment of The LORD. The WORD of GOD Clearly states that fornication, homosexuality, murder, getting drunk, lying, cursing, pride, and such like are against the will and commandment of GOD, yet never is it stated that a man having more than one wife is sinful.
We should not teach cultural practices as the commandment of GOD, as did the Pharisees whom Jesus Christ Called Hypocrites, lest we as they did, end up condemning the "guiltless".
The burden of Proof is on those who teach that bigamy/polygamy is sinful now , though clearly it wasn't in the times of David, Gideon, Jacob, Moses, Abraham, and others who had more than one wife, and yet were never corrected by GOD for doing so (with the exception of King Solomon who married unGodly women, and a King was not to multiply wives to himself (multiplying is different than adding)).
Now though the New Testament Scriptures focusses more on The life and teaching of Christ And not on the personal lives of the characters, we see not where in the New nor the old testaments where having more than one wife is sin. In fact Moses even gave instructions concerning those who were in such a situation saying...
"If a man have two wives, one beloved , and another hated , and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated ; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated , which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath : for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Deu 21:15-17
With sins Moses mentioned we saw consequences such as stoning, but with having more than one wife, we see no such thing.
So once something which was sinful/was sinful in the Old Testament becomes sinful in the New Testament, such as reasons for Divorce, GOD makes the change clear to us. We don't see that we a man having more than one wife.
We have been raised and brought up in American society which has been saying that this is sinful since before we were born. But we know that man's laws are ever changing and not always a reflection of the Will of ALMIGHTY GOD.
American law in some cases allows for homosexuality, abortion, and such which are against the Will of GOD.
We should can something sinful just because we don't like the practice.
In the Holy Word of GOD we see Men of God Who had no wife (such as Jesus Christ, Paul, and John the Baptist); Men of God who had one wife (such as Peter and Isaac); and Men of God who had more than one wife (such as Gideon, Jacob, and David). Yet none of the these practices are stated to be sinful anywhere in the Word of God.
With the qualifications of bishops and deacons, we can see those things which were considered sinful mentioned again in the writings of Paul telling the saints to obtain from such; but that's not the case when it comes to having more than one wife. We see it mentioned no where else, but in reference to The qualification for becoming a bishop/deacon.
Also, a woman having more that one husband was sinful in the Old Testament and Paul brought the same to light again in the new testament (Romans 7:2-3, I Cor 7:39). He could have done the same concerning a man having more than one wife, but he didn't, because as Paul stated,
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. Amen.
I think it *is* explicit in the NT that polygamy is a sin. And obviously, you don't. But, I don't think we're going to get much further with this. I think we'd just end up repeating ourselves and going around in circles, and repeating ourselves and going around in circles! Anyway, its been nice chatting to ya, lovejoypeace777.
It would be cool to hear what you have to say Veggie! :waving:
We'll agree to disagree. GOD'S WORD speaks for Itself. I've learned not to tell God's Word what it says, but to allow it to tell me what it's saying. Often times we have a belief and study Scripture through the eyes of the belief we already have. We should rather come to The Word of God open are yielding to be taught by the Word Itself. Be Blessed, in Christ's Love. Amen.
