One wife

[Jim Monck]

I am using a very helpful read the Bible through in a year book where you read some OT, NT, Psalms and Proverbs each day. I confess in my reading of the OT through however that it raises lots of questions. The violence is not a lot different than that we condemn in our day. Here is another question (well if I am brave enough to ask).

Well before I get brave let me assure you I have one wife, only one, only ever had one and don't plan to ever have another, but......

In the OT a number of God's best people, example David, had more than one.
Where does the Bible make it clear a man should only have one.

In the NT Paul talks about a minister having just one, but when you read Paul he makes it clear it would be better for the work of the ministry if you didn't have any. Is this just a compromise he makes? None is best but no more than one.

Maybe I shouldn't read the OT if I'm actually going to think about it. Maybe it is best to just remember a few good stories and then kind of slide by the rest.

[Joel Merrill]

With some people I would have to ask, how many would be enough?

Joel

[Jim Monck]

Clearly for King David, who wrote most of the Psalms, one was not enough and yet he is discribed as a man with a heart for God and God clearly blessed him time and time again.

I agree with you Joel, let's just divert attention away from the question. Did you know David killed a bear?

Now that may seem harsh but I really do have a heart for a serious issue; does our not dealing with many questions from the Bible divert many young people from our churches?

Read the latest Holiness Today. Maybe it doesn't matter that the church is not growing in the United States, other areas of the world are.

[Joel Merrill]

Clearly for King David, who wrote most of the Psalms, one was not enough and yet he is discribed as a man with a heart for God and God clearly blessed him time and time again.

I agree with you Joel, let's just divert attention away from the question. Did you know David killed a bear?

Now that may seem harsh but I really do have a heart for a serious issue; does our not dealing with many questions from the Bible divert many young people from our churches?

Read the latest Holiness Today. Maybe it doesn't matter that the church is not growing in the United States, other areas of the world are.
I'm at work right now and I don't have my Bible with me or time to write a studied reply. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to divert attention away from the question. I think I have seen scripture early in the Bible, before David, where God indicates that his plan is for one man and one woman. I think verses that are read at every wedding about a man leaving his mother and he and his wife becoming one, are speaking of one wife. I don't know why God allowed David and others to have wives and concubines. I have wondered the same thing.

Joel

[Jim Monck]

Joel you are right, the words are found in Genesis 2. It is interesting that when they are spoken neither Adam or Eve had a father or mother to leave.

Jesus speaks about them in regard to divorce but really is quoting Genesis 2.

It is also interesting that he says the man is to leave his family; I've seen marriages stuggle because the girl could not leave and yet that is not the command and in studying marriage in the NT the groom goes and gets the bride and brings her home. That is the great picture of Christ coming for his bride.

Now in Genesis 2 there is only one groom and one bride but to be honest that is all there was. This also introduces the idea of where did all the people come from if Adam and Eve's kids did not marry each other.

Now I am honest enough to say we may not have answers to many of our questions but I think many in our day would be more impressed by that admission.

I heard Rob Bell say in a message that one of the biggest things he had to come to grips with was that Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew. Kind of an interesting thought that may help us deal with how Jewish Christians were for a long time.

Thanks for at least entering into some thoughts on the subject of how to deal with the OT in talking to people today.

[Billie Goodson]

This also introduces the idea of where did all the people come from if Adam and Eve's kids did not marry each other.


I know this is a secondary question on this thread -- but, Adam and Eve's children simply had to marry their own brother/sister. However, the reason we have issues today with that practice is because the likelihood of certain conditions being inherited through family trees with no branches ( I couldn't think of another way to say it -- the idea of the Charlie Brown Christmas tree did come to mind...sorry).

This would not have been the case with the offspring of Adam and Eve since they were descended directly from created beings and the likelihood of undesirable genes/chromosomes being inherited was non-existent.

This does raise the argument that those traits were basically evolved traits, which also seems to argue against good evolution. (I am using traits to speak of the chromosome/gene what-cha-ma-callits).

This made sense before I started writing it....

[Wilson L. Deaton]

... through family trees with no branches ( I couldn't think of another way to say it...

I always liked this description of inbreeding: "Their family tree looks like a ladder." :basic05

Wilson

[Joel Merrill]

I know this is a secondary question on this thread -- but, Adam and Eve's children simply had to marry their own brother/sister. However, the reason we have issues today with that practice is because the likelihood of certain conditions being inherited through family trees with no branches ( I couldn't think of another way to say it -- the idea of the Charlie Brown Christmas tree did come to mind...sorry).

This would not have been the case with the offspring of Adam and Eve since they were descended directly from created beings and the likelihood of undesirable genes/chromosomes being inherited was non-existent.

This does raise the argument that those traits were basically evolved traits, which also seems to argue against good evolution. (I am using traits to speak of the chromosome/gene what-cha-ma-callits).

This made sense before I started writing it....

I've always thought the same thing about Adam and Eve's off spring.
As far as Evolution goes, those that study our universe have discovered "laws" that operate in nature. One of the most fundamental is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, often called the law of entropy, say that any physical system left to itself will decay. This is one of the best arguments against Evolution.

Joel

[Cindi Hammons]

Billie,

My husband's family has a history (long time ago) of marrying cousins. In fact, he is descended from one man 6 different ways (I think...it may be 8). Family History computer programs get bogged down and don't work well for him.

We call his family tree....

The Family Wreath.

[Billie Goodson]

I don't know that the situation you describe is that different than many others in small rural areas Cindi. It was always amazing at home to go somewhere and meet someone to find out that they were the nephew of uncle ___ who was ___ cousin who was ____'s brother. The old saying about six degrees -- we hardly ever got past 3. I think many small rural areas are similar. Many of the people there stay there, meaning the available pool is somewhat limited. I know I have cousins that married other cousins, however, they aren't related to each other -- then again, I am sure some probably are.

[Jim Monck]

Billie:

Does the idea that certain traits no longer are pure open the door for the arguement homosexuals make?

I realize I'm thinking of serious questions here but these are real issues if we are going to reach people in the United States. How do we do it without honest dialog or should we just say that in sharing our faith those will respond that choose to, but that makes us more Calvinistic than Wesleyan.

[Billie Goodson]

Billie:

Does the idea that certain traits no longer are pure open the door for the arguement homosexuals make?


I guess if one accepts the position that homosexuality is genetic (there, I found the word), then the above statement could be argued. For the record, I don't buy into that. From what I learned about genetics, we are given two traits (one from each parent). The combination of a dominant and recessive trait will always have the dominant win. So if that is true, then is homosexuality a dominant or recessive trait? You can argue that with either answer to that question, it just does not make sense.


I realize I'm thinking of serious questions here but these are real issues if we are going to reach people in the United States. How do we do it without honest dialog or should we just say that in sharing our faith those will respond that choose to, but that makes us more Calvinistic than Wesleyan.

From my experience, and it applies even on this forum, most people are not interested in dialog. Dialog involves both parties being equal in the discussion, most are far more simply interested in pushing their own belief system and not caring about the others. I myself am very guilty of that sometimes.

I am not sure your above statement would be correct in regards to Calvinism -- our sharing would have nothing to do with God's election of people. That is one of the inconsistencies of the hyper-Calvinist -- God will choose those whom he chooses, independent of any outside agents. Our witnessing can have not effect on God's election.

[Jim Monck]

Billie: Your last statements about Calvinists is not correct (well I really mean it could have another view.)

In fact, I just read an article by John Piper on that very issue in regard to preaching and prayer. Billy Graham beleives he is the agent God uses to call those he has elected. Piper says that is what we believe prayer is all about, the agent through which God brings His will.

For us Wesleyans that is hard to get a hold of but for Calvinist they question why we pray. Aren't we asking God to do something.

Years ago T.W. Willingham said, "how much do you have to agree on theologically to get to heaven?" I think the answer is not much but that cuts both ways. Just think of all the goofy things I can believe and still get in. Maybe that is why we should follow Christ closer than Paul. Now that is not easy because like Paul I like to think I have the answer to everything. He wrote letters with his answers and then wrote another one when he had to reajust his answer. Jesus told a story and said, think about it.

Back to my point about reaching people today, they like to dialog; that is what makes many say they don't have time for church but spend hours on the blogs, etc.

One of the best times I have ever had was speaking at a church that had an hour after my sermon for people to talk with me about it. It was great to learn what they heard, what they had questions about and what they heard me say that I don't think I did.

I wish NazNet was large enough to have serious discussions as well as who won American Idol. By the way is "Idol" a Christian concept?

[Billie Goodson]

Billie: Your last statements about Calvinists is not correct (well I really mean it could have another view.)

In fact, I just read an article by John Piper on that very issue in regard to preaching and prayer. Billy Graham beleives he is the agent God uses to call those he has elected. Piper says that is what we believe prayer is all about, the agent through which God brings His will.

For us Wesleyans that is hard to get a hold of but for Calvinist they question why we pray. Aren't we asking God to do something.



If they (being Billy Graham and Piper) believe that their actions have anything to do with the God's unconditional election (that is the U in TULIP), then they would at best be moderate Calvinists and not subscribing to Unconditional Election. You cannot place a condition, and then say unconditional -- at least not logically.

I do agree that many want to dialog, but, sadly there is not much of that in church. That is what small groups are really key in providing -- the Sunday morning worship service is just not a really good forum for dialog. If we don't have small group study times available, and fervently promote them, then the "casual" attender misses those opportunities and they don't get that which they most need for their own personal growth.

[Judy Hamilton]

Gentlemen and Cindi
Thank you for the sincere chuckles embedded in this thread when making mention of David and inbred cousins. I admit to difficulty in regards to unconditional election and generally leave this discussion to others to debate. I have no the desire to hijack this tread and turn it into a debate Calvinist vs Wesleyan only to say that if the Calvinist are correct..then I am eternally grateful I was prechosen to be a Christian.

Now in regards to Cindi's husbands family wreath..my family also has such a wreath created when my maternal Aunt became the second wife of my paternal grandfather (my granddad divorced my his first wife in case your thoughts entertained bigomy:basic02)
When my mother's sister married my father's father, my Aunt Doris when saying "I Do" became my step-grandmother, and my father became my uncle. Granddad and Aunt Doris had a child, who is three years younger than myself. We grew up as children the best of friends..had our squabbles and on good days when we were in agreement, he related to me as his cousin, when he tried to get his way he would, smack dab in the middle of children's bantering, would invariably switch to the role of my uncle. Both were correct.His name is Allen and he is indeed by blood, my first cousin and my uncle.

I relate well to the old tune I'm My Own Grandpa (http://www.ziplo.com/grandpa.htm)

Have a good day guys and Cindi..you kick started mine with a refreshing chuckle or two

Judy..who is her own cousin and niece:basic02

[Cindi Hammons]

Exactly!

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I relate well to the old tune I'm My Own Grandpa (http://www.ziplo.com/grandpa.htm)


I was only about half-way through your post when I thought I needed to look up, "I'm My Own Grandpa," and post a link.... I read further and there it was!

See how much we think alike!!!

Wilson

[Jim Monck]

Judy you have just made a confession that may come close to shaking the church with your honesty. Anyone who knows the song, "I'm My Own Grandpa," also had a chance of asking many of the Old Testament people we have questions about face to face.

It sure was a great song; they just don't write good songs like that anymore.

[Judy Hamilton]

I was only about half-way through your post when I thought I needed to look up, "I'm My Own Grandpa," and post a link.... I read further and there it was!

See how much we think alike!!!

Wilson

Wilson..in all humility and candor, and with the love of Christ for you as my brother in Christ..I am sad to admit that the times we have thought alike have been few :)

Thanks for the smile..we need to do this more often.

Judy

[Jim Monck]

If they (being Billy Graham and Piper) believe that their actions have anything to do with the God's unconditional election (that is the U in TULIP), then they would at best be moderate Calvinists and not subscribing to Unconditional Election. You cannot place a condition, and then say unconditional -- at least not logically.

I do agree that many want to dialog, but, sadly there is not much of that in church. That is what small groups are really key in providing -- the Sunday morning worship service is just not a really good forum for dialog. If we don't have small group study times available, and fervently promote them, then the "casual" attender misses those opportunities and they don't get that which they most need for their own personal growth.

I take it you have not read any John Piper. I think we do miss one of the strengths of our Calvinist friends; it is called the divine imperitive. Besides the soverienty of God obedience is extremely important. God has not only predestine who but how and they are a part of the how.

When I was in college I used to think the ongoing arguement about Calivinism was just that. I do think now that we have to admit it is an issue that comes up over and over in real life among people that have never used the word theology. Example: Why does a good God allow war? Why do good people suffer? Why didn't God save my son? Much of our theological questions are great for the class room or people who enjoy that kind of thing, but this one will come up in life in lots of ways over and over.

I agree with you about the importance of small groups. I wish I could feel that they provide a real setting for most to honestly confess and openly share troubling questions. For those that do it is truly great. But have you pointed out that in most cases there is not much connect between what is preached Sunday morning and what a small group talks about.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

OK, Jim, having entered the thread on a light note a couple of times, the time has come for me to actually address the issue:

Perhaps monogamy/polygamy is more cultural than we wish to admit.

I find it hard to overlook the whole Jacob story. He isn't just a side character with polygamy on the side that is ignored or swept under the rug. He is praised for his dedication in working for a second wife after having the first. Furthermore, each of these wives gave their husband a servant as wives three and four. It was then these four wives who became the mothers of the twelve tribes! That's a pretty big honor/role if such a relationship is as inherently (as opposed to culturally) sinful as we believe it to be.

Furthermore, given the extreme importance we place upon it, it is puzzling that it wasn't the 11th commandment or at least an expansion/attachment to the adultery commandment. (Adultery is sex with someone other than your spouse. If you have two spouses, it wouldn't apply.)

While I believe that there are an awful lot of Biblical principles that speak to monogamy as being God's plan for us, it is hard to ignore that it isn't spelled out more clearly. This speaks to the issue of cultural influence again.

Let me give an example of a Biblical principle on the issue that may be culturally based: Biblically, we are taught to love our spouses. A person could argue that this an argument for monogamy because if we really loved our spouse we wouldn't want another, and we wouldn't hurt them that way, etc. However, Biblically, there is no basis to think that we couldn't love two spouses equally! God can love us all. We can love multiple children. We can love multiple sibliings. We can even love multiple enemies. Why do we think we can't love multiple spouses? Furthermore, if we were taught from day one that multiple spouses was the norm, etc., perhaps the jealousy and hurt wouldn't be there. Afterall, I can understand that my parents love me and my sisters, and I can accept that my sister loves me and my other sister. Why couldn't I accept that my spouse can love me and another spouse?

We are taught by Jesus that God allowed for divorce because we couldn't accept his plan. Maybe, just maybe, we are led to monogamy precisely because God knows that we can't handle polygamy. We have too many problems with favortism, jealousy, etc. Perhaps it is our sinfulness that led us to need exclusiveness in our most intimate relationships....

A long time ago I started a thread about Adam and Eve and clothing. Perhaps clothing was necesary because of lust and exploitation, etc. If we all loved perfectedly and weren't prone to lust, objectifying people, etc., perhaps the planet would be one large nudist colony which is actually the way God intended. In other words, modesty, is only a God-given value that is necessary due to our sinfullness. Maybe, just maybe, monogamy is the same way.

How's that for some wild and crazy speculation?

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

We are taught by Jesus that God allowed for divorce because we couldn't accept his plan. Maybe, just maybe, we are led to monogamy precisely because God knows that we can't handle polygamy. We have too many problems with favortism, jealousy, etc. Perhaps it is our sinfulness that led us to need exclusiveness in our most intimate relationships....

How's that for some wild and crazy speculation?


I can live with it. It's not all that wild and crazy to me.

[Jim Monck]

I agree with Hans; it seems a thoughtful honest reply.

It does raise a couple questions:
1. If clothes were to help us not have sinful attitudes, why do most Nazarene pastor's wives need a new wardrobe before going to General Assembly?
2. Will we all be nude in heaven? (which is where I may be before days end if any pastor's wives read number one.)

Ok, one more question, is heaven really populated now with bodies? The bible speaks of our spirits going but our bodies waiting the resurrection. (I have got to stop listening to sermons by Rob Bell. He believes the mind should be active in listening to preaching not just the emotions.)

[Mark Metcalfe]

Will we all be nude in heaven? (which is where I may be before days end if any pastor's wives read number one.)


Archie Bunker said that we'd be "smooth all over."

Jacob is a good example; King David is a little different, I think, because the king's wives were more about the monarchy (alliances, etc.) than one man's desire to have a collection of women.

Although I acknowledge that polygamy existed, perhaps the Scripture that "no man can serve two masters" applies. I mean, I am not sure that one CAN love two or more wives equally. Certainly Rachel was favored over Leah.

My wife said I can have as many wives as I want: a cleaning wife, a cooking wife... but she insists on being the bedroom wife.

Mark

[Carol Kane]

Cindi and others... You guys made my night!!! I have never laughed so hard and then tried so hard not laugh and be serious. I can so relate. My dad's nephew married my moms baby sister. So My Uncle is my uncle by marriage but my cousin by birth and we have the sasme grandma. Of course my aunt tells me not to go into the family ties stuff cause it just makes us look bad. :rolleyes: I like the idea of a family wreath, it sure explains my family. My grandmother on my dads side married her 3rd cousin so, that is another oddity. Glad there are others out there and even admit it!!!!:fav18

[Gina Stevenson]

Here, IRL, just know of a couple of such instances. Years ago, a good friend ended up marrying someone she'd tho't, until jr high school was her cousin. Then, finding that her dad had adopted her mom's kid when marrying her, and that he wasn't her cousin, they---years later---married, so she ended up keeping her last name.

Then, another friend, when visiting her folks' family over in the Netherlands, met some relatives she'd never met before when in her 20's. Ended up hanging out/sightseeing with this one 3rd cousin. They've now been married about 25 years (live here now, after living in the N'lands for several years).

[Brad Mercer]

The Bible is much clearer in its teaching on divorce than in its teaching on polygamy. I don't remember his name but some prominent archbishop or cardinal in the days of debate about Henry VIII's desire to keep going through wives until he found one who could bear him a son said that, while both divorce and polygamy were wrong, the scriptural prohibition would be less clear and therefore it would be better if Henry practiced polygamy in adding wives than divorce in replacing them. I'm not convinced that we ever do have only those two options, but if we did, I'm not sure the cleric's view was wrong.

How's that for "off the beaten path?" ;-)

Brad

[Gina Stevenson]

You guys! Can hardly believe this thread, sometimes, tho' I'll have to agree there's been wonderment at all the wives some of the people have had in the OT, and it seemed to be treated as "OK."

Along this line, there was an afternoon show (yeah, with my back hurting badly again---please do pray!---the last 10 days/2 wks, I've been lying down more than normal, so was on the couch, clicking around a bit), can't even recall which one, that went like this:

There was this guy who had two wives, six kids between them, and they all lived under the same roof, "sharing" this "husband." Gross! Anyway, they'd tried a 3rd wife for a few years, but it "didn't work out," so they were back to two wives/one husband. The kids were on later (kept it on longer than was sane, as I could not believe it! they weren't even Utah Mormons!), and some wanted nothing to do with it, and one or two were thinking it might be a possibility. No thank you! Anyone see that bizarro program?