The popular believe is that christianity does not allow polygamy. Is it really so? Let's take a quick look at men of old. Abraham, Jacob, David etc. They all have more than one wife. If God were against it, he would have told Abraham straight trhat he was against it. To me, you can take as many as you can adequately take care of. What the bible is against is injustice. Here is what Deut 21:15 say: if a man have two wives , This tect shows that it is OK to have more than one wife. However, you must do justice. Read this through vs 17.

I know a lot of people will be saying: But that is old testamant. So what? Even, if you read 1 Tim 3 1-8, Apostle Paul was particular about those aspiring to the office of bishop and that of deacon. To my own understanding, it is only the clergy class and deacons that are disallowed from having more than one wife. What do you think? Peace

you must be a very rich man contmplating marrying more than a wife despit all thse "awry" economic coditions

MisterMan:

The popular believe is that christianity does not allow polygamy. Is it really so? Let's take a quick look at men of old. Abraham, Jacob, David etc.

I no fit laugh. So "Abraham, Jacob, David, etc." were CHRISTIANS? You do well!

MisterMan:

I know a lot of people will be saying: But that is old testamant. So what? Even, if you read 1 Tim 3 1-8, Apostle Paul was particular about those aspiring to the office of bishop and that of deacon. To my own understanding, it is only the clergy class and deacons that are disallowed from having more than one wife. What do you think? Peace

The same Paul speaking to Christians in Corinth who were not of "the clergy class and deacons" in 1 Cor. 7:2 -- "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband". Was he asking them to sell out to polygamy?

Lol. . . you don't need Scripture to justify wetin dey your mind.

To Pilgrm.1:
I beg nothing day my mind oooooooooooooooo.

pilgrim.1:

Lol. . . you don't need Scripture to justify wetin dey your mind.

To Gift:
I beg no put word for my mouth. Dat one no be wetin I dey think. Person no fit talk wetin him understand for bible?

cgift:

you must be a very rich man contmplating marrying more than a wife despit all thse "awry" economic coditions

Common Pilgrim.1, the Apostle that reccommends celibacy will definitely not think polygamy is desirable. It is good here to distinguish between what the Apostle thinks and what God say

@MisterMan,

MisterMan:

I beg nothing day my mind oooooooooooooooo.

Well, the Bible wey you dey quote talk say, "Out of the abudance of the heart, the mouth speaks" (Matt. 12:34). So you no go blame me for reading your thoughts as you posted, abi?

MisterMan:
To Gift:
Common Pilgrim.1, the Apostle that reccommends celibacy will definitely not think polygamy is desirable. It is good here to distinguish between what the Apostle thinks and what God say

I knew that would be your next bus-stop. Paul was not recommending celebacy as many people have tried to imagine. In the same 1 Corinthians, he wrote:

"But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
--- 1 Cor. 7:9

The same apostle actually recommended marriage for Christian leaders (1 Tim. 3:2 and Tit. 1:6), those who are not leaders (1 Tim. 5:14), as well as clearly stating that "marriage is honourable in all things" (Heb. 13:4).

I don talk am - sontin carry your mind waka reach where you arrive!

pilgrim.1:

@MisterMan,

Well, the Bible wey you dey quote talk say, "Out of the abudance of the heart, the mouth speaks" (Matt. 12:34). So you no go blame me for reading your thoughts as you posted, abi?

I no gree. This one na: Out of the understanding of the bible, the mouth speaks. I go come dat your UK give u konk for head

Read what the apostle said. You will know that he recommended it. I can bet it with u, if he had his way, he would not recommend but make it compulsory

MisterMan:

I no gree. This one na: Out of the understanding of the bible, the mouth speaks. I go come that your UK give u konk for head

Read what the apostle said. You will know that he recommended it. I can bet it with u, if he had his way, he would not recommend but make it compulsory

then you will be charged with assault and battery, you try it

Yes this is a very Good topic. I must thank Misterman

On Sunday here in Ghana I listened to a Muslim Cleric and Christian Minister on radio argue about this topic. The Muslim Cleric quoted a lot of "Bible scripture" to support his claim that a man can marry as many wife as he wanted. The Minister on the other hand did little to do justice to this topic.

It is looking as if the people of the world know the bible and they are bending the truth to suite the doctrine of hell. On the other hand the Church is sleeping Dancing and collecting the offering in Church.



I will be reading from this thread. Let us see mature people quoting Scripture instead of being personal.

you know i've actually always wondered about this topic! if king solomon and co could do as they pleased in the women department and still be loved by God, then i wonder if the Bible really has anything against polygamy. then again, if we say these people were not christains and we look to Christ for the definition of christainity, does the fact that Jesus never married make marriage a no no? just thinking out loud!

If you want to know Gods mind on this look to the very beginning of creation. In the begining he made them one male and one female. He said a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife (not wives). One man and one woman become one flesh. In this union, there is no space for another person. Or else the one flesh entity wil be destroyed. The destruction of that 'one flesh' perfect union initiated by God (whether by polygamy or adultery) has caused most of the immorality problems in the world today.

See Gen 2:23-25; Matt 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9.

The argument of the Moslem and his backing can be seen in the passage below.

KJV
2 Samuel 12
7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's[b] wives[/b] 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.

9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Another version
2 Samuel 12
7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul.

8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.

So the above passage is what the Moslem quoted. Any defence of one man one wife quotes?

Sorry I have been away for some time. I did not realise that pple have been responding. A big thank you to Backslider for that piece of text. That certainly gives more insight into the argument. To be honest, I did not know that the text exists. A lot of pple have been quoting the bible passage that a man shall leave his mother and mother and shall cleave unto his wife and (they will say not wives) the two shall become one flesh. Sure, but we have to read this in context of marriage. I don't mean to be vulgar here, another meaning that you can adduce here is that of sex. Why don't you look at it from this view: A man will leave his father and mother, rent his own house and start making love to his wife. This means that he should not put his wive under the influence (unneccessarily) of the wife's in-laws. Some mothers-in-law could be terrible. In order to guard against that, it is better to have his own flat. It also means that there should not be group sex. It could be between the wife and the first wife today and the man and another wife the next day. No 'blue film" I may be wrong here since there is no biblical text to back it up, just my stupid thought, but I feel that we should look at things in context. To me the phrase: the two shall become one, does not mean that they will have one head, two arms etc.

Pple love to say that God created them male and female. Here, we don't have armaphrodite (at least that is not God's purpose). Here, I don't mean to de-mean our female folks, from the account of creation (NOT MY VIEW), women are supposed to be afterthought. It was only when God observed that Adam was lonely that He created women. If Adam was not lonely, would God have created female? No (Not according to bible text)

Let me quote Lafile: If you want to know Gods mind on this look to the very beginning of creation. In the begining he made them one male and one female. He said a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife (not wives). One man and one woman become one flesh. In this union, there is no space for another ,

The account above is very simple: God created them male and female. Sure. God does not want an armaphrodite. Simple. Cleaving together in this case means something in the realm of love making. Sarah would not be there when 'something' is happening between Abraham and the slave girl, yet she knew what was going on. This is the case generally.
What about David and his wives? Solomon and his 1000 wives/girlfriends will have it one at a time. Peace.

On a lighter note:

IDINRETE:

then you will be charged with assault and battery, you try it

Assult and battery ko, Assult and touchlight ni

God or no God, Bible or no Bible, Christianity or no Christianity, common sense tells me that I ought to marry one wife. One woman is enough trouble already.

MisterMan:

A lot of people have been quoting the bible passage that a man shall leave his mother and mother and shall cleave unto his wife and (they will say not wives) the two shall become one flesh. Sure, but we have to read this in context of marriage. I don't mean to be vulgar here, another meaning that you can adduce here is that of sex. Why don't you look at it from this view: A man will leave his father and mother, rent his own house and start making love to his wife. This means that he should not put his wive under the influence (unneccessarily) of the wife's in-laws. Some mothers-in-law could be terrible. In order to guard against that, it is better to have his own flat. It also means that there should not be group sex. It could be between the wife and the first wife today and the man and another wife the next day. No 'blue film" I may be wrong here since there is no biblical text to back it up, just my stupid thought, but I feel that we should look at things in context. To me the phrase: the two shall become one, does not mean that they will have one head, two arms etc.

Before you allowed your thoughts to run amok , it would have been good if you had considered your premises with much more scrutiny. There is a phrase there that says "cleave to his wife" and you pointed out - not wive[b]s[/b] - where does that make provision for other wives or 'wife-in-laws'? Obviously the cleaving (or joining) in this case is marriage (for the man has to leave his father and mother), and it makes no allowance for others for it says the two shall become one.
What does the latter part mean (two becoming one)? There are only two active verbs in that passage; leaving and cleaving. "Becoming" in this case is not an active verb, rather it is a consequence - thus it is obvious that 'becoming one flesh' is not something that either the man or the woman does, it is a consequence of the earlier two actions; leaving and cleaving (in marriage). In cleaving, they (two) become one - becoming one is not another activity that is distinct from the cleaving. The very act of cleaving results in oneness. Eph 5;31 also refers to it, showing us that in the eyes of God, the two are no longer seen as individuals but as a single entity.
They keyword here is the cleaving (or joining or uniting). The real question is; what kind of cleaving is this case? and who do you cleave to? If you cleave to your wife (in marriage), you will become one with her (in the eyes of God).
However, it is possible for one to unite onself with (ie cleave to) one who isn't one's wife - a wrong type of 'cleaving' (see 1Cor 6:16) and by so doing 'become one' with her - this latter case is a clear violation of God's order and it only shows us the gravity of sexual immorality in the eyes of God by contrasting it with our need to unite ourselves with the Lord in spirit (verse 17). Thereby presenting a clear admonition to desist from such acts. If you truly understood the biblical context, there is no need for the 'blue film', lol

Pple love to say that God created them male and female. Here, we don't have armaphrodite (at least that is not God's purpose). Here, I don't mean to de-mean our female folks, from the account of creation (NOT MY VIEW), women are supposed to be afterthought. It was only when God observed that Adam was lonely that He created women. If Adam was not lonely, would God have created female? No (Not according to bible text)

Bros, na your view, not the creation account. The woman was not created as an afterthought. Let me explain - when God asks man a question, is it because he doesn't know the answer? or he wants the man to realize and see himself? Did God know beforehand that man would sin? He did; and he already made the provision via the lamb that was 'slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev.13:8, 1Pet. 1:20).
God is omniscient. Verse 18 of Genesis 2 clearly shows that God knew that it was not good for man to be alone, here he had already purported to "make him a help meet for him" - showing that that need could not be met in any of his existing creation at that time (ie animals), yet in the next verse God decided to show him animals and let man realize this need. The fact that God decided to show man his need (ie for a wife) does not mean that he had not been aware of the need himself, nor that he had not planned to create the woman. It was to allow the man to realize the special place the woman has in relation to him and God's creation in general.

So again, no need for the rest of your post. Cheers .

Bros, na your view, not the creation account. The woman was not created as an afterthought. Let me explain - when God asks man a question, is it because he doesn't know the answer? or he wants the man to realize and see himself? Did God know beforehand that man would sin? He did; and he already made the provision via the lamb that was 'slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev.13:8, 1Pet. 1:20).

God is omniscient. Verse 18 of Genesis 2 clearly shows that God knew that it was not good for man to be alone, here he had already purported to "make him a help meet for him" - showing that that need could not be met in any of his existing creation at that time (ie animals), yet in the next verse God decided to show him animals and let man realize this need. The fact that God decided to show man his need (ie for a wife) does not mean that he had not been aware of the need himself, nor that he had not planned to create the woman. It was to allow the man to realize the special place the woman has in relation to him and God's creation in general.

So again, no need for the rest of your post. Cheers .

@ Ricadelide
I love this. Thanks.

@ Topic
Polygamy was never God's ideal plan for man as has already been explained just like so many other things that came up as a result of sin. But though not categorically called 'sin' in the Bible, God sort of 'allowed' it probably due to the fact that it was the prevailing culture in the society then, but that did not make it right. And for those qouting the patriachs that were involved in polygamy, a closer look at their lives , you will notice that with the exception of the Kings(David and Solomon) and a few others, circumstances led the others into polygamy. Abraham took another wife b/c Sarah was barren, Jacob was tricked by his father in-law into taking Leah his first daughter instead of Racheal who he actually laboured for. Even at that, they could not escape seeing the
consequences of their choices. It brought problems and strifes within the homes; Hagar despising Sarah which eventually led to her been driven away, Jealousy and envy b/w racheal and Leah which led to an unhealthy competition for their husband's love, this was also extended to the children (remember Joseph and his brothers). And this is still happening today. Even David and Solomon were not exempted, check their family lives and you can't help but notice the negative impact of polygamy especially among the children.