Pt. 3 of Refuting 10 Common Objections Against Polygamy
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 07. 2024
- This is final episode, by refuting the modern day western mindset which forces in the Prescriptive Monogamy concept, Mike Allen methodically debunks some of the common objections people have against the practice of polygamy. By demonstrating Biblically, statistically and logically, he reveals how these arguments are unfounded. In defense of Biblical Marriage, Mike’s goal is to restore within the society’s cultural mindset God’s intended purpose for marriage. Particularly, as it relates to the plural marriage practice of a man having multiple wives.
Any questions or comments, do type them in the section below. Thanks, keep “DIGGIN’ IN THE WORD!”
Mike’s sources used are:
•Holy Bible...
•As of July 1, 2018, there were 161.13 million males and 166.04 million females living in the United States. www.statista.com/statistics/2....
•There’s 219k women compared to 2.1 million men incarcerated in the US: November 2018 report by the Prison Policy Initiative...
•2,132,853 marriages:
-782,038 divorces (45 reporting States and D.C.)
Sources: National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends
pdf icon
[PDF - 47 KB] (data shown are provisional 2018)...
•Divorce Rate: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divor....
•Bradley R.E. Wright, Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2010), p. 133...
Download a free copy of my Ebook on “Biblical Polygamy”:
www.digginintheword.biz/landi...
6 Camera Beginner Landing Page:
www.digginintheword.biz/begin...
Hondo Solomon, Author, Polygamist Papers:
•www.amazon.com/Polygamist-Pap...
Keep preaching this please! Wake people up and restore our culture!
+@mr.lukecage7405
Thanks for the encouragement!
I love these videos! They helped me so much. TMH definitely humbled me in this regard as I used to judge it, yet we judge things we simply do not understand. Each time I judged something, I got hit with it in my life. Now I’m living the family dynamic I used to judge. lol TMH is funny. I hope to see more from you soon!
Lol, well thanks for your encouraging TMH response and for sharing your experience, in short! I too believe that this is a topic that is often misunderstood. God Bless you and your family Sis!
The failure to accept polygany as Biblical has led to the misunderstanding of scripture on divorce and remarriage is adultery. People don't want to accept there is a different standard for men and women.
Thank you so kindly for spot on your comment Brother! You offer a valuable point too often missed!
What is your interpretation of the versu in Timothy where it say a deacon must be the husband of one wife?@@digginintheword-withmikeallen
NORMAN IVINS the word ‘one’ used in 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12 is translated from the Greek word ‘mia.’ It is better translated as the word, ‘first.’ Meaning that the passage works better, saying, “he should be the husband of the ‘first’ wife.” Now understand that this passage was written to instruct leadership for a Greek congregation. Greeks back then didn’t practice polygamy within public marriage, so there would have been no need to prohibit polygamy within this text. Plus, the issue with the Greeks was that they were notorious for giving up on marriage to replace one spouse for another. Not the kind of monogamy taught in Scripture. Therefore, the best interpretation is that in order to be a Deacon a man must be faithful to his first wife. This is why Moses commanded that if a man took on another wife, he couldn’t abandon the first one, Exodus 21:10.
Thank you for these videos they have really changed my life for the better
I am truly blessed to hear they have positively impacted you! Thank you for your kind words! Stay well!
Subscribed. Too much truth to ignore.
Hahaha 😂! Thanks Brethren!
Very wise God, that is a common problem I must’ve asked majority of our people. Both God and Goddess and Alike. They take and place the creation above creator.
+@jordanglasper1064 we are in a lost generation. Sad to say!
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen too true. It was prophesied..
On point. Accurate, and factual. I dont see how anybody can argue against any of these facts that this Brother has brought up here. Shalom!! Salute!!
Shalom Shalom! All praises to The Most High Yah!
Test all spirits!!! My people perish because of the lack of knowledge
God sent youtuber. Keep up doing good work. Now since you doing this in English, I will plan on doing this in Ukrainian and Russian.
Yes Brother, get this truth out there!!! I love it!
A ton of thanks to you.. for explaining this very very very sensitive topic series wise. love you so much and God bless you brother. Deuteronomy 17:17...?
+john vinaybabu, you’re welcome Brother! Indeed as sensitive as it is, it is very much necessary! Please share it, and I’m glad you’ve gotten something out of it! Much love and His blessings back at ya!
I am new to this way of marriage thank you for all the help
Well I am so glad you found some value in my video content! All the best to you!
Hey bro, I have a question. I know that there were polgynist in the old testament and it was regulated in exodus 21:10. Were there any polgynist in the new testament?
Thanks for your good question! Most likely there were. However, before we look into the NT, let’s first start with the fact that Josephus wrote in the late first century that it was the “ancient practice among us (the Hebrews) to have many wives at the same time” (Antiquities of the Jews XVII, 1:2). He also stated that, “Herod the Great of the Nativity story had ten wives” although not noted within the NT itself (Ant. XVII, 1:3).” Then although we have early church fathers who were against it, they nevertheless confirmed it continued beyond the first century. Also, there is the evidence within Roman laws enacted in 212, 285 and 393 showing that although polygyny was very much part of Hebrew culture since before, beyond and even after the first century, it was the Roman Government which was the culprit to encroach upon its practice and not the NT. For although there are no NT passage that explicitly list actual ‘polygynists in it, it is likely there were some due to the practice of slavery that carried over into its period. For you pointed out about Exodus 21:10 in your preface, however that passage also includes the practice of slavery. Of which, many women became concubines in the Old and New Testament periods. For even Paul and Peter each referenced that it continued in their writings, so why should we not assume that there were at least those who engaged in polygyny? So I say, looking at polygyny’s continuance in Hebrew culture beyond the first century and that there were no passages condemning its practice in the NT, while slavery at the same time was still deemed lawful and that it was the Romans who enacted laws against it, I’d say there’s a good chance that there were polygynists in the NT. Hopefully, I make myself clear!
Additionally, it wasn’t until the year 1022 when Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages for priests (monogamous or polygamous). That means, polygyny actually existed legally, amongst priests, within the universal church for the first 1,000 years of its existence until deemed otherwise.
Hi brother , I’d like to ask u so many questions because I’m a bit confused now.
+controlla ova dweet Greetings! First, are you a Brother or Sister? Second, what are questions and third, what is confusing you now?
Yes polygyny is good. No elders can’t have more than one wife. A 30 second search of the Strong’s Greek lexicon shows that ‘mia’ comes from ‘éis’ which is the Greek numeral ‘one’.
I would like to like this video a second time....
Thanks for your kind remarks my Brother!
Since Solomon had concubines therefore sex outside marriage is not considered a sin as well? As also not listed in Lev 18.
Is there any thoughts on this? Thanks brother
+1973Sphinx thanks for your comment and question! Sorry for just getting back to you! I would say that a marriage union in and of itself consists of a man committing himself to a woman verbally with a vow and with consummating it with sex. According to Genesis 16, Abraham made a commitment to take on Hagar as his wife, although she remained his slave, classifying her as being his concubine. One who was his wife, because she had lower status as a slave. Therefore, Solomon’s concubines were just technically his wives but of a lower status. Now as for sex outside of marriage, although it is not classified as a sin, it does come with negative unethical stigma on the man’s part, because a man was required to seek a woman’s family’s permission before touching or marrying her (Exodus 22:16). However, to pay for sex outside of marriage, that certainly is considered to be sexual immorality, because although sex in and of itself causes a man to become one with whomever he has intercourse with, it is thus idolatrous if it is not based on a vowed commitment by the man to that woman (1 Corinthians 6:9-20). For that there is utterly sinful.
Can you please refute the argument that I read which is if polygamy were allowable, the illustration of Christ’s relationship with His Body (the Church) falls apart (Ephesians 5:32)
@@Christsoldier__
Certainly.
First His Body is a metaphor and not the actual thing. The actual thing it symbolically represents is His Assembly of those He’s called. All His Body used in Scripture represents is that He has only cooperate/unified Body of believers. He doesn’t have multiple bodies even though the one He does have is one plural unit. This we know is because that same body began back at Mt. Sinai. That’s why Stephen said that The Angel of Yahweh (Christ) spoke to Moses and that very same One Body/Assembly in Acts 7:38, saying, “38 “This is the one who, in the congregation (Assembly) in the wilderness, was with the angel (Christ) who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai and with our fathers; the one who received living oracles to pass on to you.”
Second, just because Israel was One Body of believers that is not to yahweh didn’t intend on Drew Israel, adding on other nations. This is why he told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. Even Israel itself is comprised of two nations in one, so there’s that pattern of multiple people, multiple nations, existing as one body of people. In fact even Yahweh speaks of Israel being 2 distinct Brides of His in Jer. 3 and Eze. 23. Take that further, even Jesus (Yeshua) speaks of those of He’s coming back for as multiple distinct people in Matt. 25:1-13.
Therefore, what am I saying here? Paul’s analogy does not contradict polygamy, and it certainly does not imply that a man can only have one woman. Such inference does not square with the rest of Scripture.
🔥🔥🔥
+M D’yzward thanks!
Great series
+Gene Williams thanks a great deal! I’m glad you enjoyed and to The Lord of all, be praised!
Come on with it!
Can u explain is what is adultery according to the bible
Sure.
Lev. 20:10, says “¶ ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” This is the closest passage to explaining what adultery is, and it can be seen here in the context, adultery is based on the status of whether the woman is married or not. If she is married, the wife of another man, then she is an adulteress if the man she has sex with is not her husband.
The man she has sex with becomes an adulterer no matter if he is married or not. The passage says nothing about the man’s status, but only the woman’s. Then on the flip side, a man on the other hand, is permitted to take on multiple wives, according to Exod. 21:7-11 & Deut. 21:15-17.
So "marriage to one wife" should be interpreted as married to the first wife? Can you verify that?
Certainly! In Exodus 21:1,7-11, the initial wife was of a husband who decides to take on another wife in addition to her is considered his first wife. Also, in Malachi 2:13-17, the first wife is considered the wife of a man’s youth. However, in this passage, also she has become ‘one’ with him, according to vs. 15 because the Holy Spirit has united them as ‘one’ in order to bring forth godly offspring. Notice, nothing is said about him not having such oneness made with more wives, but the problem was that these men were treacherously putting away their first wives to take on foreign wives. Simply said, no where does the Bible say or imply that a man can only marry one wife. Only the contrary.
Can you touch on Deuteronomy 17:17 a man should not Multiply wives pls
The problem with using this passage to say or think that a man should not have multiple wives is to not understand its context. Read from vs. 14 and you’ll see that the same prohibition against multiplying wives is the same prohibition against multiplying horses or pieces of silver or gold.
Now is Yah really saying here that a man can’t have more than one horse, piece of silver or gold? No the context is about kings going to nations like Egypt to build wealth, power and alliances rather solely trusting in Him. Pagan kings focused on and trusted in these things to stay in power and lead their people. However, Yah didn’t want kings in Israel to do the same.
This is also why He didn’t want them multiplying wives as pagan kings often did in those day to make alliances by marrying women from rival kingdoms. Not that a king or man couldn’t have more than one woman no more than he could have one piece of gold, silver or horse. The context answers your question for you here.
Have you ever done a video of at what point in life females are allowed to marry?
Thanks for the great question! No I haven’t, but that sounds like a good topic to add to my list of to do videos, to do down the road!
I am curious to what story you would invent to explain away marrying your sister which happened in the beginning. You said that God doesn’t change, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Okay then why did He gave His people laws that prohibits them to marry their sisters?
I wish I did have a story, but actually, there is no story. Laws were increased via the progressive revelation of God overtime. By the time we got to the law of Moses, the 613 laws, there were many laws that did not exist in the beginning in the garden. Dude, this is easy! Obviously, all of these laws were not necessary in the beginning, so the impetus that demanded there be laws put in place is not that God changed, but that man changed as he became more sinful and corrupt overtime.
I do agree that polygamy is not a sin according to the Bible. But because the church says it is, it gives the woman a reason to control and manipulate the Christian man without fear of being replaced.
Non Christian women definitely treat their men better because they know they can lose them…
+@georgeteo8797 Yes Christianity is the main culprit as it is what established Prescriptive Monogamy in the west and wherever it conquered. It is the driving force, I would say, in the west today.
i am starting to come into the truth of the word.
I recently picked up my 1st bible and have read some of it and have flipped through different scriptures to refer to.
i have not read the whole bible but i have done a lot of research on the Word of God, and have come across polygny.
once im financially set, i would like to have multiple wives.
could you do a full break down how to set up a successful polygnist union and structure.
If i have 3 wives for example, are we al supposed to be living under one roof
or am I supposed to provide 3 homes for the 3 wives.
If I'm to provide each wife with a home, am I only supposed to live with 1 wife,
or should i be bouncing around between houses to see them.
I never figured out how to make that part work out yet.
i understand that this polygnist topic is quite controversial between followers of the bible.
it's even controversial in the hebrew community too. some hebrew israelites camps support it,
while ive seen other hebrew israelite congregations that specifically state on their website that they dont condone polygamy.
Thats bringing confusion and uncertainty whether that is sinful or now. A lot of the prophets had more than 1 wife and Yah didn't turn away from him. They were still his beloved children.
Even though i feel that i wanna go through with polygny in the near future, i will still go to Yah personally for answers in order to know for sure if this practice is ok.
Thanks for your comment here, My Brother! Shalom, and sorry for taking so long to answer! I just came across your comment. Since there is a lot to consider and go into concerning this life, I suggest, if you haven’t you subscribe to Hondo Solomon’s Channel. He did a number of videos on all you inquire about. I’m in the process of putting out more material myself. I pray all goes well for you! Many Blessings!
One question can you elaborate in mark 10 i believe when jesus is talking about divorce and he says if any man divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery? this is one verse that is brought up as man can only marry one woman.
Thanks for your question Brother!! In Mark 10, yes Jesus is talking about divorcing one’s wife in exchange for or then be marries another, he commits adultery. He is not talking about polygyny where a man marries an additional woman while remaining married to his current wife. For polygyny and adultery are not the same thing, Biblically. If that was the case, even most of the Biblical writers of the OT would have been stoned to death, because adultery is a capital offense. Plus, on average, every married man that came out of Egyptian bondage, including Moses, had multiple wives.
Thus, they all would have been stoned based on the Law.
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen Understood. So if a wife leaves and divorces her husband he can marry another woman. However, if he is the one who leaves his wife he cannot marry another woman?
I am with you in polgany. This is just one verse that the other side like to cherry pick. Paul gives different standards for husbands and wives - he tell the woman she must remain unmarried if she leaves her husband. He does not give the same instruction to men. It would be interesting to know if the verse in mark was mistranslated or added for men
@@NI-pi2ne good question! Now the fact that Mark 10 states that neither the man nor the woman are to be in the spouse exchange business is the overall point that Jesus makes here. Marriage is not a get in when you want and get out when convenient contract. God intended it last until death. However, there are exceptions for a man leaving it, with conditions, than a woman when the contract has been breached by the opposite party. Nevertheless, Jesus is not saying that a man cannot have multiple wives here. Again, the passage is about divorce, not polygyny.
@@NI-pi2ne I certainly agree that the passage is cherry picked. Yes Paul certainly does reveal the distinctions between men and women in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. However, he says in verse 1 and 2, “1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.” Now upon first glance at theses verses, it appears Paul is equating the man’s ownership in marriage to the woman’s. That they equally possess one another in the same way. However, when we take a closer look into the Greek that it is translated from, it tells a different picture. The translated word in that vs. for ‘His own,’ in Greek is - ‘heatou,’ which means something owned exclusively by him and no one else. While ‘Her own’ in Greek is - ‘idios,’ which means that she could have a shared ownership of him with others, making her peculiar to him, but not the other way around. You see, Paul used these two distinct terms to show that his teaching was still in line with Old Testament Law and practices. A woman must be monogamous, while a man is not necessarily mandated to be.
I just wonder what the meaning of Mark 10;6-9 means But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. And I have to wonder why God didn’t create Adam and Eves… just Eve… and then what the equation will be when it says the two shall become one… one Adam and Eves will be what…
The fact that God allowed it doesn’t necessarily mean that was God’s intention in the first place. My two cents…
Greetings,
I hope all is well with you and yours! Since you’ve commented on my previous video, I’ve been working on putting together new content and a few Ebooks. And, after being asked by a number of viewers, I’ve put together a FREE Ebook on “Biblical Polygamy,” so I would like to share the downloadable link with you in mind: www.digginintheword.biz/landing-page
Enjoy! Shalom and many Blessings to you and yours!
- Mike Allen
Had a few questions I wanted to ask about polygyny, Idk if you are still taking them from here. From the USA. Also asking this for someone from Russia.
1. Regarding Christian Denominations, I'm pretty sure all of them have rules against Polygyny, with the exception of Lutherans and Anglicans only allowing it to those who have not converted yet. Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestantism have been pretty heavy on anti-polygyny. From which group would you recommend for a man to look into if he were interested in practicing polygyny regarding leniency from women and the community?
2. Would you recommend conservative areas over liberal in the US. If so, where exactly? Had a tenancy to notice that both sides are against it for different reasons. Conservatives because of "tradition"(Unless they were libertarians) and Left because of the Fem word. How would politics of a place determine if it is suitable or not.
3. Same as 2, but regarding Russia. It was decriminalized, and also allowed for Muslims in certain parts. Fem word is also not as strong there. Would other eastern slavic countries(Belarus, Poland) also be a better option or worse?
4. Regarding looks, is it likely for an above average woman in looks to deny or be more stubborn then a woman average in looks. Would this choice or acceptance also be impacted differently if the man himself was high value and looked solid versus an average man.
5. Would socioeconomic status of the man or from the up bring of the woman also make a difference regarding 4.
Thank you for these videos, it really helps out in learning how to deal with enforced monogamy arguments. Hope to hear from you soon!
Thanks for your questions!
1. On this one, I would not recommend any Christian denominations, because these main line denominations each subscribe to Greco-Roman ideology in terms of what marriage is and how it should function.
2. Here, I’d say conservative areas are more ideal for owning your own land, homestead, lower taxes and to be able to best protect your family as you’ll have less restrictions in being able to defend yourself and property.
3. On this one, I say choose the best state that allows the most liberties and that will allow you to thrive economically with autonomy in building wealth which is most beneficial to living a polygynous lifestyle.
4. On this one, women are generally drawn to well rounded high valued men than not. However, although high valued men usually get the best pickings, I say for any man, whether high valued or average, the most valuable tool is knowing how to pick a right woman. Just because woman is fit and pretty, that does not conclude that she has been prepared to be a high valued wife. A good wife is one that has been prepared, so discerning her family background is key.
5. Yes, both socioeconomics of the man and a woman’s upbringing each make significant impact.
Hopefully, this helps! Glad to hear you’re getting value out of my content!
Many Blessings to you and yours!
Mike
How do you exactly marry a women thru God
So you don't fall into formication?
I'm new to reading the bible
I'm reading the NT first
Good question! There’s always been two ingredients to establish a marriage. One, there must be a commitment one must make to leave mother and father and join to his woman. Two, the marriage is sealed upon having sex. Sex consummates the marriage which means that sex completes it.
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen I appreciate it
@@NoLimitsFunGarage hopefully it helps! Take care Brother!
Womans and mens attack me and a female wen whe talk why i suffer ?
If we suffer with the Messiah brother, we will reign with him stand fast and see his salvation. God bless you brother.
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen ok bro hope jesus take us soon whe tired of suffering
You see a lot that many choose not to see. But I would say Exodus 21 referred to concubines, not wives, the Bible commands us to distinguish between these two different roles. My channel explores and articulates what this means if you’d be interested. But most of what I go over, you’ve already broached, my channel so far just focuses on concubines.
Thanks for your comment and observation! I know that there is a distinction between a wife and concubine in terms of rank and duty. However, are you saying that a concubine is not a wife at all, and if so, exactly where does the Bible say this?
All of this I go into much more detail in my playlist on concubines.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 thanks for responding and giving a well sufficient answer. We most certainly agree on the distinctions. However, I think the point of where we seem to be in disagreement at is with the nuance of the word ‘wife.’ It is my view that a concubine, although not free to go into contract for herself, is a ‘wife’ with a lower rank. Her contract, of course, is inferior to that of a free woman, as Paul so eloquently put it in Galatians 4. Nevertheless, it is a contract mentioned of in Exodus 21:7-8. Yes, the penalty for another man humbling her is less severe and she can certainly be put away more easily. However, what gets me is the fact that Scriptures, nevertheless, calls her a wife (ishshah) in Genesis 16:3; 30:4,9; Then there’s David’s son who slept with his concubines in which God calls them his wives in 2 Samuel 12:11 and 16:21.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 well one thing for sure, it’s a breath of fresh having this discussion with you! I appreciate your insight and respectfulness! Indeed, I also agree with your sentiments on the state of affairs about this topic not being rightly divided in the western church.
Now as far as there being no contract, that’s exactly what Exodus 21:7-11 implies, particularly in vs. 8, that the man that purchases the slave girl and later decides to put her away has broken faith with her by dealing “treacherously” with her. Meaning that there was an agreement/contract made with her that she would be his secondary wife/concubine, but he reneged on her. Note, this word “treacherous” is the word “bagad” which is also found in Malachi 2 in reference to wives being discarded “treacherously.” In other words, it’s the exact same principle as in Exodus 21. The very reason, I believe, God uses the hypothetical example there of a slave wife/concubine to show that He desires that even she should be treated with dignity as it relates polygyny and marriage in Israel. And yes, the word wife or woman is used interchangeable with Hebrew and Greek, showing that a wife only means that she a woman that belongs to a man, which is why God said to David, once again, that “an enemy form his own household would sleep with his wives (in other words, his women).” Also, not only is a concubine called a “pilegesh” in Hebrew, she is also called “ishshah” as well. Denoting that she belongs to her Ish (man). However, I agree that this is a matter of semantics, and what matters the most is the distinctions made between a wife of covenant vs. a concubine.
Also, actually there are two words for the word betrothal in Hebrew. One is “aras” which is to espouse a woman to be the wife of a man and then there’s “charaph” which is when a maidservant is acquired and designated for a man. In each, they are translated as a betrothal like in Leviticus 19:20 and Deuteronomy 22:23. In each case, the woman is not only “betrothed,” she’s called an “ishshah.” Let me know your take on this, my friend.
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen Oh yes, I do not deny there is a contract between a concubine and her man or her master, I agree with your assessment on concubinal contracts found in the “designation” of Lev.19 and Exodus 21. I am simply distinguishing between a concubine contract and a marriage covenant; the differences between the concubine contract and the marriage covenant are all those things we already spoke of.
As far as the “dealing treacherously” passage, I believe this is one of the most mistranslated and misunderstood verses in Exodus. People think it means that a man is not allowed to sell her to foreigners because he’s has broken faith with her, but the converse of that would lead to an even worse treachery. If the verse really meant that he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners only because he has dealt treacherously with her, then that necessarily implies that he WOULD be allowed to sell her to a foreign people IF he dealt fairly with her.. but do you see how that contradicts everything the OT teaches about Israel? God brought Israel out of Egypt, out of slavery, they are not to be slaves to a foreign people at all (more on this in Leviticus 25). The passage is poorly translated because bad punctuation changed the entire meaning (no such punctuation exists in the Hebrew manuscripts). It is more accurate to read it as, “To sell her to a foreign people, he shall have no right in dealing treacherously with her!” (This is the literal English from Hebrew sentence structure- see Biblehub inter linear Bible). You see, the verse is saying that it would be very treacherous of him to sell her to foreigners, therefore he shall have no right or power to do it.. Israel is not to be cast off to foreign enslavement, that would be one of the worst things he could do to her, it is the ultimate breaking faith with her. What sense does it make that he would be allowed to do this if he was treating her fairly? Such an interpretation makes no sense to me.
I am unprepared to respond to in detail to the Hebrew words for “betrothal” you brought up. I will have to do further study on it but I’m glad that you have brought this to my attention. I think it’s important that we have a systematic and consistent understanding of these laws.
Thanks for the utterly biblical views shared
Thank you Brother for your encouraging comment! Blessings to you and yours!
What a bunch of twisted lies!!
Now everybody wants to live like this after they bullyied people destroyed matrimonies while doing this behind altars not madr by God whe the church body not a building and made them repent at pentecostal church honestly I belive alot blaspheme the holy ghost if this topic true which i hope it is THIS THE DARK SECRET SPIRITUAL REASON THE WORLD ITS AT WAR HAPPY FAMILY HAPPY NEIGHBORD. SO SICK JESUS COME BACK QUICK GBU BROTHER STAY SAFE.
Yes Polygamy has always been with us. Even among those who claim to be against it. God Bless you too Brother!
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen so true ty my brother i feel peace once again
@@ShortyBang7s you’re welcome! Keeping fighting the fight and contending for the faith…
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen yes bro the peace of God be with us to continue this blessing
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen you will always be my pastor bro never met someone so honest and helpful like you bro
I think u missed out the 6th commandment of "ADULTERY" that Jesus fulfilled this law also.
We are indeed under the law.
1tim.3.1
One wife becomes first wife? Oh wow u sure know how to twist n turn your words
Mia = a
One = ένας (énas
First = πρώτα (próta
The word of God is the same yesterday today n tomorrow.
If you are insinuating that the 6th commandment which is adultery is somehow the same thing as polygyny, please show me at least one scripture that says this.
What do you mean that we are under the law?
On 1 Tim. 3:2, let me help you further. Maybe it didn’t sink in. Go to Strong’s online and look up mias. It is define as - an irregular feminine of heis; one or first -- a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.
I assure you there’s no twist here. Even modern day translations acknowledge that one is not the correct transliteration for mias in this passage, such as the NET, NLT, NIV, CEV versions.
Im praying for you brother because you are wrong an Iboray Yah opens up your eyes
It’s not enough to claim someone is wrong. Even Torah teaches that to condemn someone, there is a demand for “two or three witnesses,” so that burden is on you Mam (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Also Proverbs says, “One who gives an answer before he hears, It is foolishness and shame to him (Proverbs 18:13). In other words, where is thy proof?
Well, I must say you have done a great job in explaining your point of view on Polygamy, and you are right and wrong, and this is what I mean. Jesus said in Matt 5:17, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. The key word in this scripture is Destroy, and there is a difference between modifying something as opposed to destroying something. Jesus did indeed change or modify the law, but He did not destroy it. One of the meanings I like about change or modify is, it means to replace something with something else, especially something of the same kind that is newer or better! (Sounds Familiar) You see, we know for a fact that Jesus changed the law, for example, under the Law of Moses, it was and eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but in Matt 5:38-39, Jesus said, Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (This is an example of change not destroy) In Matt 5:43-44, Jesus said, Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
This is another example of change and not destroy. The simple fact that we don't have to sacrifice animals for our sins anymore is an example of change and not destroy. There's a lot that we can point out that shows how Jesus modified the law even though He didn't destroy it. We have what I like to call Principal laws and Formality laws, Principal laws never change and they are defiantly not destroyed, but the Formality laws are what's been changed, those rigid observance of rules. When it comes to Principles laws like the Ten Commandments, of course we still abide by them, they are Principle, and the best thing about it is, because of what Jesus did for us on the cross and the Power of His Resurrection, those laws are written in our hearts as believers! And this is how Jesus fulfilled the law by modifying it and making it better, that why the Word says in Hebrew 8:6, But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. This represents the old law being modified or changed for something better, but not destroyed!
In 1Tim Ch 3, the word one in the Greek does mean what you said, but here's the problem, you left out the other words or meanings that the Greek reveals to the reader about one, the other meanings to one in the Greek is, a certain, agree, first, and just one. In order to know which word or meaning someone is referring to, we must look at the context by which it is being used in a sentence, and when you look at how it's being used in that sentence, it is clearly referring to just 1 wife and also saying that it is good that the Bishop marries only one time, not divorcing his wife and marring another wife if there is not proper grounds for a divorce, like Jesus mentions in Matt 19:9, And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. You see, this is a reason Paul said a Bishop must be blameless, because if he divorces his 1 wife and it does not fall under this ground for divorce, would be in blame. And Jesus also said what God has put together, let no man take apart, however, we all know that every marriage is not put together by God, and Paul is relating that a Bishop of all people should be in a marriage joined by God the Father, because they should be and example!
A very important thing to remember is, in John 1:17, it says, For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. You are still justifying the law of Moses, and your missing what Grace and Truth is saying, 1 man and 1 wife joined together as 1 in Christ Jesus! One last thing about our God the Father, you are so right, God does not change, and His principles are eternal, God is always Good, God is always Holy, God is always Love, His Character never changes, but the written Word shows us on more than one occasion where God changed His mind on things, for example, remember when God was getting ready to destroy His people mentioned in Exodus 32:14, and Moses interceded for them and God repented from destroying them, remember in 2 Kings 20:1, when God sent Isaiah the Prophet to Hezekiah to get his house in order, because he was going to die, but Hezekiah caused God to repent from the Words He spoke through Isaiah. These are a few examples, I also have a Word that I have spoken about concerning what God spoke to my heart about Polygamy and why it's not justified in our new and better covenant, that I did a video on a while back, but this that I have spoken is true in God's Word. I see a lot of potential in you, you are very knowledgeable and have so much to offer, but there are some things God wants you to get a true understanding about, because many people are following what you are teaching and this Polygamy is wrong.
Well thank you for your comment, Brother Dartanion! However, you claim that I’m right and wrong, and to prove I’m wrong, at least, you used a number of passages to somehow show how I’m wrong. Nevertheless, nothing can be further from the truth, so I’d like to show that it is you who are wrong on this subject of Polygamy:
On Matthew 5:17, you focused on the word “destroy” as the key word to consider and that the word “modify” or to “change” is what Jesus did when neither the word “change” or “modify” is even mentioned by Him in the passage. However, Jesus Himself make His own contrast in 5:17, when He said, “I did not come to destroy but to FULFILL.” My Brother, “fulfill” is the contrasting word here Jesus use and contrasts destroy with.
Now let’s define these two terms:
>to destroy means - to deprive of force, annul, abrogate, discard, according to Thayer’s Lexicon. Thus, if we keep ourselves from mistakingly eisegeting the text here, we should realize that Jesus was actually teaching that when it comes to “Law,” He was not coming to to deprive its force, nor annul, abrogate or to discard it anyway. That’s why the word He does contrast it with us, “fulfill,” which is actually more fitting than to “change” or to “modify.”
>to fulfill means - "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be…,” according to Thayer’s Lexicon. It is to “to make the will of whatever God’s law says full or complete, according to Strong’s. In other words, Jesus came to only finish what the law started by making known what it truly already meant, coming from the mind of God. That’s why Moses said, concerning the Messiah, that The Lord said, “….I will put My words in his mouth, and He will tell them everything I command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18) Brother Dartanion, Jesus was only claiming He came to give a better explanation of what God has already said. Not “change” or “modify” it, because the issue was that the people of His day were being fed false interpretations and not what God had originally intended in the Law. Now, you’ll see more of what I mean as we proceed further and examine the rest of the passages you used.
I’ll continue this in the next reply:
On Matthew 5:38-39, notice that He starts off with, “Ye have heard that it hath been said…” Not that, “It hath been written what hath been said.” In other, Jesus was only correcting and exposing here what God originally meant by giving these principles. Now why I say this is because you would have to go back to the Law to actually get what He was teaching her. The “eye for an eye” passage comes straight out Exodus 21:22-25, as it reads,
“22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Notice, the part that says, “the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” For “eye for an eye” was a monetary penalty to be executed only after a “Judge” would have examined all the evidence and made a decision on the matter. Decisions rendered, as in fact, in this whole particular chapter of Exodus, judicial case law was to be executed by those in authority. For they were decisions an appointed judge in Israel was instructed to weigh in on and adjudicate. That’s why in 21:1, God said to Moses, “1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.” For these were matters that were extremely important, so an impartial judge was to mediate in order to prevent citizens from going rogue on one another, which is actually what happened at times. However, citizens were to exercise what the Prophets understood and taught, before the NT, like in Proverbs 24:29, that commands, “Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work.” For by Jesus’ day, Dartanion, we can only imagine what the Scribes and Pharisees were falsely teaching on these principles. Therefore, this passage is not an example of Jesus making a “change” or “modification” to the Law, in this regard, but rather this was He bringing back true understanding of what God always meant by the principle of “eye for an eye.”
On Matthew 5:43-44, again, this yet another example of Jesus communicating a more proper and “complete” interpretation on of what Moses had already taught back in Exodus 23:4, saying that, “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again…” And also as Solomon said, “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink…” In other words, it was already codified within the law to exercise loving one’s enemy over vengeance, because as the famous passage written by Moses goes in Deuteronomy 32:35, where the Lord says, “Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.”
Thus, by now, Dartanion, I guess you get the picture. Jesus did not come to “change” or to “modify” what the Law was written to communicate from God. At least from a moral and civil perspective, and no, the fact that we no longer “sacrifice animals for our sins” is not what Jesus was talking about in the previous two passages you used. For you appear to mix His necessary replacement of the sacrificial atonement system that only dealt with the ceremonial requirements of the Law with the Moral and Civil aspects of it. Now that, the sacrificial system and its ceremonial requirements, is what was needing to “change,” because the old system could not make the worshipper perfect, because it was only there temporarily to cleans and could not make the conscience perfectly clean (Hebrews 9:1-15; 10:1-14).
However, when we talk about things like abstaining from revenge, loving our enemies or having a civil system that adjudicates on the people’s behalf concerning marital rights or property, on the other hand, we are talking about perpetual functions of the Covenant God made with Israel. That’s why His Moral and our need for Civil Codes are ever necessary. For to this, Paul taught not in the past but the present tense, in Romans 13, that we are to, “1….be subject to the governing authorities” and still, “8…love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” And, in this same book, Paul also said in 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (or uphold) the law.”Therefore, my Brother, as you correctly put it, “Principles do not change.” That’s why, when it comes to the principles of God’s moral and civil aspect of law, Jesus only came to give better exposition of it, but not to “change” it.
Thus, to uphold laws concerning what prevents revenge, hatred and civil unrest is exactly what “The Ten Commands,” are there to prevent. For that is exactly why polygyny is also included in Exodus 21, following right after Exodus 20 (where God gave the Ten Commandments). It deals with the moral functions God intends for us to always follow, so Exodus 21 is a guide for adjudicator’s who were instructed to make court decisions on legal matters in Israel. See verses 21:7-11 where God told Moses how the Judges were to weigh in on the many polygamous relationships that had already existed in Israel. Nevertheless, if He took issue with the practice, I’m sure He would have said so, “from the gate,” especially coming out of idolatrous Egyptian bondage. Not when Jesus arrived some 1,600 years later, at the sermon on the mount. For remember, Paul said, “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” (Romans 7:12) Note, he said that it “IS,” not was “good” or “holy.”
On 1 Timothy 3, Paul was talking about the “first wife” and not “having only one wife” for Bishops, because that is exactly what Moses wrote when God wanted him to regulate a polygamous system that already existed, in Exodus 21:10-11, once again. For the principles here in 1 Timothy 3 is that a Bishop can take on an additional wife, providing he maintains the first one. Just as kings, priests, prophets, judges and pastors in Israel were able to. For God never took issue with men accumulating wives. However, the Bishop is not to do away with his first wife, to then marry another, for God’s law obligates him to the first wife (Exodus 21:10-11; Malachi 2:10-16). He is not to engage in “wife swapping,” which is exactly what the Greeks, at Ephesus, were culturally accustomed to, before converting to the Gospel in 1 Timothy 3.
Now, I’m not sure if you are aware that the Greeks and Romans practiced “serial monogamy,” excessively, in the first century. That’s why Dr. R. D. Alexander and Laura Betzig both emphasized that the Greeks did not practice state official polygamy. However, the Jewish historian Josephus, on the hand, said concerning polygamy, that it was an, “ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time” and that it continued in his day, according to other of his writings. Therefore, in historical context, the Greeks did not practice polygamy, in lawful marriage, but the Israelites did, because it is exactly what God gave them. That’s why, God even said to David in 2 Samuel 12:8, “I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!” You see, my Brother, it was God who gave David what you falsely now call, “wrong.”
Also, you mentioned on 1 Timothy 3 about its immediate context. Well, I’m not sure if you’re aware that the word “mias” Paul used for “one,” he also used within this same letter for a widow, when he said in 1 Timothy 5:9, “Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man…” Now we know here that he’s certainly not talking about polyandry, because just as with Greek men at Ephesus, Greek women did not engage in polygamy, in lawful marriage. However, the words he uses in this phrase are exactly the same in Greek for a wife, saying, “the wife of one man,” while in 3:2 he uses it for then men, saying, “the husband of one wife.” Note, neither passage is talking about polygamy, because it was irrelevant to the culture Paul was speaking to. For this simply is also why other translators like NIV, NLT and CEV each translate mias saying that the wife or husband is to instead be “faithful” in marriage. Also, 5:9 is not talking about never remarrying either, because younger women, back then, were encouraged to remarry in vs. 14. Therefore, once again, there was no cultural reason for translators to falsely translate “one” from the word mias, because, once again, the Greeks did not even practice polygyny, in lawful marriage. Only the Hebrews did. Besides, the first English translation was only developed between 1522-1536, shortly before the Catholic Church banned polygamy, in the strongest sense, back at the Council of Trent in 1563. Proving that there was an agenda the Catholic and Protestant Churches had against polygamy, at such time, so the idea of them to interpolate a “one woman to one man” doctrine was not far fetched.
On Matthew 19, you’re mistakingly conflating fornication and divorce with polygamy. Nevertheless, I challenge you to demonstrate to me where in Matthew 19 was Jesus talking about polygamy, because the matter being discussed here was only about divorce and a man “swapping” his wife for another, which is exactly what Jesus condemned in Matthew 5:31-32, Paul in 1 Timothy 3:2, Malachi in 2:10-16 and Moses in Exodus 21:7-11. All of these passages prohibits and condemns divorcing one’s wife treacherously and then marrying another. Therefore, my Brother, divorce and fornication is not the same as polygyny, in the Bible, or else God would have never allowed it. And, if it is, then men like Moses, Abraham, David, Gideon, Elkanah all should have been stoned to death, because adultery is a capital offense in Scripture (Leviticus 20:10).
On God changing His mind in the passages you’ve cited about Moses interceding for Israel and Hezekiah praying, because he faced judgment, note that each deal with His eternal principles of mercy not what He codified in His laws concerning the “change” He eventually made on the sacrificial system in Hebrews 7.
Finally, a good portion of the NT actually quotes and teaches believers to follow principles taught in the Law of Moses. That’s why, concerning the NT, the Apostles all taught and didn’t shy away from the law to teach moral and civil principles (Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 2:4-9; 1 Corinthians 9:1-12; 14:34; 1 Peter 3:1-6; James 2:14-26). For it was the very Scriptures used as they wrote the NT and taught from, but not in a modified way, but with a fuller understanding. For it has been said that, “The OT is the NT concealed, while the NT is the OT revealed.” I know I said a lot here, but I think you’re worth the effort, my Brother!
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen Yes sir Brother, I look forward to talking with you about this, stay tuned!
@@DartanionJohnson no doubt. Looking forward to your reply!
Where do you live that people have to wear masks outside
+Gene Williams in NYC. This was recorded two years ago in June when restrictions began to be lifted. Although not mandated, many people elected to wear masks out of concern.
@@digginintheword-withmikeallen We were all wearing masks then for sure. Peace
Hello brother, 1 Corinthian 7:29 is proof polygyny was very present in the Church. Also, 1 Corinthians 7 has been mistranslated.
Greetings Brother, yes. I am aware of these verses in how they imply that polygyny did exist within the NT Church. Sad thing is that these are clear proofs that there has been a cover up on part of the western church to bury the truth!
How so? What don't you understand about "own" don't you think if Yah wanted it to understood you polygynists think He would've inspired Paul to do So!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh my God praise God that there are people like you who can stand for the truth. In a monogamous marriage women have that tactic of manipulating men driving them away from God. One such a scenario is what happened in the garden of Eden. And the other scenario was between David and his first wife Milcah. But you know what God did, He punished Milcah with Barrenness and separated her from King David. Milcah died barren for trying to manipulate King David not to dance for God. This kind of control women do in monogamous marriages to their men, won't be possible in a Polygamous marriage