Oh Those Wacky Polygamists

1. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 says 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.'"

2. Lamech was the first man in the Bible to have more than one wife. He was never condemned. Lamech was a murderer, but that had nothing to do with his having more than one wife. Cain was a murder, but that didn't have anything to do with him not having a wife (yet).

3. Abraham had more than one wife and was never condemned for it. Hagar was sent away because of her mocking of Sarah and Isaac, not because she was Abraham's second wife.

4. Esau had three wives. Jacob had four. Neither were condemned.

5. Moses had at least two wives. Zipporah was one wife (the Midian). Moses' wife spoken of in Numbers 12 is called a Cushite, therefor she couldn't be Zipporah and therefor must be a second wife. In Judges 4 it is stated that Moses had a Father in law who was a Kenite, therefor its safe to assume Moses had at least three wives. It is possible though that each wife died before he took another.

Moses was never condemned for having more than one wife.

6. Gideon had multiple wives and was never condemned.

7. David was called a man after God's own heart. David had more than twenty wives. Only two sins of David are recorded: the first was his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, the second was for numbering Israel.

God never rebuked David for having multiple wives.

In fact, in 2 Samuel 12:8 in response to David's affair/murder w/ Bathsheba, God states:

'And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.' (ESV)

If God gave David multiple wives, then God would have been participating in David's sin.

8. The allowance for polygamy is the same in the O.T. as it is in the N.T.

God in Exodus 21:10 gives his rule for the provision of wives: "If he take another wife, her food, apparel and duty of marriage he shall not diminish."

1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6 are not provisions against multiple wives. What they state is that ministers and elders need to have a family i.e. at least one wife.

Certain modern translations of the Bible say "husband of only one". The Greek does not say this.

In the Greek there is no 'only'. There is no 'only' in the King James Version either. The word for 'one' in the Greek is 'mia,' and according to Strong's it can mean one, first, or a certain.

Some Greek scholars point out that this word in other places is translated as the article 'a' and should be translated that way in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. This means that it really says "husband of a wife." In other words, a married man. The context proves this for it says 'if a man know not how to take care of his own household, how shall he take care of the house of God.' If a man is not married and has no children, then he has no house to take care of and no experience, and is therefor unfit for leadership in the church.

9. Parables were used containing multiple wives.

In Matthew 25 the Bridegroom takes in the five wise virgins. Jesus is the Bridegroom and these wise virgins are to depict those believers who have oil in the lamps and in their vessels. The bridegroom marries five. That is a plural wives marriage. If it were wrong, Scripture could have made the same point by using two virgins, one wise and one foolish, with the Bridegroom marrying only one.

Alright, that's the jist of their argument(s) as far as I can tell. I'm now going to not care about it for a couple of weeks.

ok...wow....there's so much faulty theology here it's going to take time. One simplest point I'll make just to start is that man (Biblical heroes) did A LOT of sinful things that God did not automatically condemn them for i.e. Samson went town to town sleeeping with prostitutes. But it still doesn't justify to go along in sin. We're not called to be holy like Abraham, Moses, David....we're called to be holy like God

Illman, I think that they are saying that it is not sinful to be a polygamist, and so you can still be holy and be one.
This argument reminds me a lot of the exclusive psalmody argument in its "The OT narrates it and the NT doesn't contradict it" theme. It's just a lot more distasteful in its outcome.
I think I would personally say that it is a cultural issue - Biblically neutral, and mandated by the elders of the Church in a given time and place.

Interesting. My only quibble is about the bridegroom/virgins/oil parable. As I understood it, the ten virgins were not selectable as brides; they were more like bridesmaids, attendant to the story's wedding. But the main point is that it's a parable, like so many other allegorical religious texts..

I have to start by saying I have not thought about polygamy in any real methodical way, but that my first reaction is it might not be a sin. I don’t like polygamy and think the whole practice opens a whole can of worms, but I am not sure it is sinful. I cringe even saying that because I might just get unloaded on by those who have really studied the subject or those who are a bit more discerning than I.

I know you probably don’t want to deal with hypotheticals but if you are in the mood my thought is this. If polygamy is an outright sin then I would think we would have some logical or scriptural approach to dealing with it in the church. What do we do in the case of a converted Muslim who has taken his limit of four wives and has children by three of them?

Heh heh... I should get Jim Jordan in here. He would p3wn those who speak for polygamy.

It is true that the Bible is semi-vague on polygamy for many reasons. Deuteronomy 17:17, however, tells a king not to multiply wives. Leviticus 18:18, is about not marrying two sisters (for obvious reasons). Twins, Basil. Twins.

What it boils down to is what is Genesis trying to say to us? Does "the two shall be one flesh" only pertain to sex, or does it mean more than that...

Also, 1 Tim. 3:2 and Tit. 1:6 state: "husband of one wife" not "husband of only one wife." And as far as modern translations, all of them say, "husband of one wife." The Vulgate is included in the "certain translations" as well.

I think a lot of those arguments are pretty bad.

But consider the guy in Country X who already has three wives and is converted to Christianity by a missionary. It doesn't seem wise to ask him to divorce twice, given the promises made to the women, etc.

That's a lot different than joe reconstructionist from Infernal, VA getting the idea that polygamy is the ultimate way to isolate himself from the catholic tradition.

Anyway...

I do remember a cover story in National Review on the benefits of polygamy from about 1993 or so.

1. This verse is used to state the oneness and authority of scripture as stated by God himself in order that God be glorified.

2. Yes, Lamech is the first polygamist of the Bible, but notice it comes off the heals of the fall. God didn’t make Adam and two Eves or vice versa. And once again, just because someone sins, doesn’t mean God zaps them with lightening automatically.

3. Also, the condemning argument serves for Abraham and thereafter. Plus, the Hagar justification doesn’t stand. Sarai was Abram's only wife, but since she thought she wasn’t bearing children soon enough, she gave Hagar to Abram. So his taking of another wife wasn’t honoring or normal, it was an act of distrust; the chapter earlier (15) God made the covenant with Himself and Abram that he’ll have children through Sarai.

4. Again, I’ll use the condemning argument. I know there’s a case for what’s cultural, but it begs the question: just because it’s cultural does it make it right? There could be lifestyles today we count as cultural normality, but could be evil in the sight of the Lord. Who knows, but thanks to God’s grace he doesn’t zap us on the stop.

5. (Condemning argument) This point is almost exact to Matt 19:3-12 where the Pharisees challenge Jesus on the basis of divorce. ESV Matthew 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" Translation: If God’s word is true, and God spoke through his prophet Moses, and God detests divorce, but God doesn’t contradict himself (point 1), then why was ok then but not today? Or: If people were polygamists back then and God didn’t condemn them, then why was it ok then but not today? ESV Matthew 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” Here the case of God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility is present. But notice that “but from the beginning it was not so.” 4 verses earlier Jesus states the marriage of one man and one woman—Adam and Eve—before the fall.

6.(Condemning argument)

7. “Only two sins are recorded” (not true, only these are emphasized), but does that mean he only sinned twice? A lot of things occurred in David’s life, but the author has only chosen so much to tell us. As for 2 Sam 12:8, we know from point 1 above, all scripture is perfect. Then was God sinning if he participated in giving David more wives? Obviously not. God’s sovereignty/human responsibility serves a role in this case, in that God is saying, “Hey, I have given you more than you need and you’ve taken more than you need and you’re still discontent?” It’s actually a testimony of God’s grace for not condemning David in the first place with his sin.

8. Justifying Exodus 21:10 is laughable. The context is for the laws dealing with slaves. The context is that if a man sells his daughter into slavery, and the son of the new master is married to the slave, but takes another wife, then the son cannot neglect the original female slave, but is responsible for making provisions ie. “food, clothing, marital rights.” Basically, when you sin, here’s how to handle the situation.

ESV 1 Timothy 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…
There doesn’t have to be a translation of “only” because it is implied within the meaning of “mias,” not “mia.” Mias is an adjective cardinal genitive feminine singular. Meaning: it can mean only one, first, certain, but because it’s a cardinal number in the singular feminine genitive form (and along with the context), it means emphatically only one. This would even correlate to v12 describing the deacons only as husbands of only one wife (NAS).

As for the “they have to be married in order to be in a leadership role” is a bad argument. If that were true, then a lot of the major and minor prophets, Jesus, some of the disciples, Paul, Timothy,….were “unfit” to be leaders. But more importantly, we need to look at the broader context of why 1 Timothy and Titus were written. 1 Timothy was written to the church of Ephesus because of it’s saturation of Gnoticism and decadent Judiasm. It was common for the Greco-Gnostic culture to have more than one wife. Paul is writing to contrast this lifestyle in the appeal for Christian separation and holiness--hence the marriage analogy of Christ and the church (singular) in Eph 5. Paul wrote Titus from Corinth which was much of the same backdrop for his consistent theme of sexual purity and holiness. This is also the theme of 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul’s charge and purpose was written to combat those in the church who literally had more than one wife. This is not just a fact based solely from a Biblical historical perspective, it’s also from a secular historical perspective from the letter of Diogmentes.

9.This parable is a parable. It’s an analogy that’s used for the common person during the culture period that any common person would understand. Anyway, justification for polygamy based upon a parable is absurd. Jesus is not pointing towards the characters of the parable, he’s pointing to who they represent (I’m sure there’s some formal title for this kind of fallacy). That’s why it’s a parable. That’s like saying because Jesus used the subject of vineyards in his parables, we’re all supposed to start vineyards.

I don’t want to be the Reformed snob and act like I can answer every question. I do recognize the mysteries involved of why God allows certain things and others He doesn’t. Again, it goes back to two main mysterious but beautiful subjects—God’s sov/human response and His grace. Also there is the argument for the original intent in creation. We know what was, and after sin, what became. The intent is not for the origination of sex, but for marriage. If that were true, then we could have sex before marriage, but scripture has a clear stance on that. Gen 2 is God ordaining marriage of husband and wife, not simply guy and girl. God giving Eve’s hand in marriage to Adam is even analogous to today’s ceremonies. The union is 1+1=1. The same analogy used in Eph 5. and Revelation’s Christ returning for his bride the church. I know this can be explored and defended more but I’m sick of typing…

The whole argument seems like an attempt to define religious entitlements.

I thought one of the BIG points of Christianity was that Christians should "go the extra mile" (a reference to a Roman law that required young boys to carry solder's packs for a mile) even when not religiously required.

I for one, am sure glad that JC didn't let a lack of obligation keep him from hanging on a cross for me.

Anyway,
Polygamy is illegal in this country. Intentionally breaking the law is a sin.
Therefore polygamy is a sin if for no other reason than it's illegal.

Dword,
I like your general point (I think). Too much effort is made to define Christianity as a construction of what is and is not permitted - what can I do without getting in trouble.
I think that when it gets down to laying down the rule, it is the job of the church elders.
But for everybody else, it is very fun to talk about polygamy. That's why being Reformed is so fun! There is an endless community debate.

Illman you make some very good points. The last paragraph of point 8 is insightful into the culture of the day.

Dword, I agree with you that it would be a sin to wed multiple wives in this country, and I am glad that is the case. It really removes this as being an issue.

But here is another question: In thinking about the wall like effect that sin has on our relationship with Christ I can’t help but wonder why those heroes of the OT like David, Moses, Abraham, Solomon, and others who were polygamist why they would have had the closest most intimate relationships with God?
I mean, I know the wall of guilt that appears in my relationship with Christ when I have a lusty thought much less if I were to be sleeping with multiple women. Where was the conscious of these greats in the OT, and why did none of them stand up for righteousness and deal with this sin in there lives?

It must be safe to assume that God did not lay it on their hearts, which I see is a point that Illman was making. I guess I have a hard time viewing polygamy as a sin. I have read the OT several times and have read through the law which goes into great detail on all kinds of odd sins. I do not recall polygamy being brought up. Did I miss a verse on polygamy?

In another thought what if you take the analogy of Christians being the brides of Christ, and that husbands are to emulate Christ in their relationships with their wives, and if that was the case I could see some on the far right using the analogy as a mandate to have multiple wives, which would seem to negate the significance of Dword’s comment on it being a sin in this country.

I don't know man... I'm skeptical about the motives behind this whole issue.

I mean, are pro-polygamists making these arguments because they have an honest intellectual curiosity about the boundaries of sin? Or, are they basically a bunch of horny Christian guys who want to bang a lot of chicks and have it be "OK"?

As a sinful dude, I suspect the latter motive is more likely.

Re: gid, I don't think that it was sinful for Abraham, David, etc. but we're not in the same situation. There are continuities between OT & NT and then there are the other situations. This I think is one of the latter. As Jesus said, "From the beginning it was not so...God made them male and female"

On the other hand, I agree that a converted African polygamist is in a very different situation than some ultra-reconstructionist American intellectual.

Re: gid, I see your turmoil about why certain things weren't impressed on the hearts of these "greats" in comparison to others. I think part of that is realizing they weren't really "greats" in the first place. What I mean is, we often carry a high perspective of the Biblical heroes becuase of their relationship/acts of faith in history. Therefore, we automatically emulate the person resulting from God, rather than emulating God behind the person. Yes, our perspective of the saints should be proud and honoring, but we too often make them the heroes of the Bible where in fact God and his faithfulness to his people is the real hero.

This should cause a difference then what is preached and heard from the pulput. Rather than "be like Moses or Abraham or David or Esther or Ruth or Elijah or ...." It should be..."because of God's continual faithfulness, lead a life in proper response, with your motivation being your new found identity (Christ) and gratitude."

A lot of things have been said, but I am a little interested in the fact that two things have not been considered:
1. Does polygamy only refer to one man have many wives, or could it also mean one woman having many husbands?
2. Is there a point where it would simply be wrong because it would be unloving to your first wife/spouse? I'm guessing that if a Christian man who loves his wife asks her, "So, honey, what do you think of me taking another wife?" she would be less than excited. In fact, I would imagine that if this were a serious question, there would be feelings of hurt, betrayal, insufficiency, and so on.

I recognize that you could make all sorts of arguments based on headship or even that those emotional responses are a result of being raised in our particular culture, but I think they are still rather significant.

And really, even more than I want to have these questions answered, I am intrigued by the simple fact that they haven't been raised yet.

Niki,
I don't see why a woman couldn't have a bunch of husbands if a man could have a bunch of wives.
Personally, I doubt that any of us are taking this seriously, and that's why the relational aspects have not been brought up. But now that you have brought it up, it is interesting that in the Bible it is the women who are asking their husbands to take more wives - not the other way around. Sarai and Rachel are the ones I'm thinking of.

So, if the ramifications of multiple wife polygamy are already fairly interesting and amusing, imagine the world where it does go both ways, so to speak. I have five husbands, three are also polygamists, they have multiple wives, several of those wives also have multiple husbands. . . and so on. Imagine what this does for building community.

Huh... that's how it works in Soddy Daisy. Maybe they are more progressive than is often thought.

GREEK 3391. mia mee'-ah one or first:--a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

MUST B THE HUSBAND OF mia mee'-ah WIFE......MIA...ONE .OR .FIRST OR .UNITY ..AS .ONE..___ HOWEVER THE GREEK WORD --HICE ),, IN GEREK IS MEANING - A PRIMARY # 1 AND NO MORE,...

MIA MEANS FIRST, UNITY, ONE AS IN UNITY OR ( A )CERTIAN NOUN, (NOT A PRIMARY # 1 ..AND NO MORE,..INVOLVED. THAT GREEK WORD IS LIKE IT IS, AS I SAID 1 HICE # 1 PRIMARY NUMBER 1

LETS DIVIDE THE WORD IN 100 % TRUTH. NOT OPINION.. OR FANTASY.
?
MARK 10:8 __AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH: SO THAT THEY ARE NO MORE TWO,BUT ONE (MIA) FLESH.____..(MIA).....ONE .OR .FIRST ..OR .UNITY ..AS .ONE

MARK 10:8 __AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH: SO THAT THEY ARE NO MORE TWO, BUT ONE (MIA) FLESH.
.
(MIA).....ONE .OR .FIRST ..OR .UNITY ..AS .ONE

..ON THE FIRST \ DAY OF THE WEEK ___ MIA IS USED AS FIRST AS WELL IN THE HOLY BIBLE

...1 Corinthians 11:9 MAN WAS NOT MADE FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN. NEITHER WAS MAN
CREATED FOR WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FOR MAN."

...TITUS I:6 __ IF ANY MAN IS BLAMELESS, THE HUSBAND OF (((MIA /)) WIFE, HAVING CHILDREN THAT BELIEVE, WHO ARE NOT ACCUSED OF RIOT OR UNRULY._______MIA ONE OR FIRST: AGREE,,,, FIRST,((( MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF HIS FIRST WIFE))),,,,,, THE HUSBAND OF ((( FIRST /MIA))) WIFE
/////////////////////////NOT FORSAKING THE WIFE OF HIS YOUTH ....EPH 5:31

FOR THIS CAUSE SHALL A MAN LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME (((ONE/MIA))) FLESH.
/ MIA ONE OR FIRST: AGREE, FIRST

,,,HERE IS COMANDMENT FOR AGAINST THE WOMEN THAT WANT THE PAGAN PRACTICE OF MORE THAN 1 HUSBAND,,, _____1CO 7:2 ___ FOR I AM JEALOUS OVER YOU WITH A GODLY JEALOUSY: FOR I ESPOUSED YOU TO (((ONE/HICE A PRIMARY NUMERAL; ONE:))) HUSBAND, THAT I
MIGHT PRESENT YOU [AS] A PURE VIRGIN TO CHRIST.

JUST LOOK AT THE SIMPLE FLOF OF GODS PERFECT WORD RUNNING IN CONTINUITY.....PAY VERY CLOSE CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING
WORDS IN {{{{{ BRACKETS }}}}}OK WATCH....NEVERTHELESS, TO AVOID FORNICATION, ____LET EVERY MAN HAVE HIS {{{ OWN \ HEAUTOU }}} WIFE, AND LET EVERY WOMAN HAVE HER {{{ OWN \ IDIOS }}} HUSBAND.

AGAIN ......_____LET EVERY MAN HAVE HIS {{{ OWN \ HEAUTOU }}} WIFE, AND LET EVERY WOMAN HAVE HER {{{ OWN \ IDIOS }}} HUSBAND

THE VERY SIMPLE WORDS,, { OWN } IS IN GREEK,, 2 DIFFERENT WORDS,___2 DIFFERENT MEANINGS,,,,__LET EVERY MAN HAVE HIS {{{ OWN \ HEAUTOU }}} WIFE, AND LET EVERY WOMAN HAVE HER {{{ OWN \ IDIOS }}} HUSBAND

OK
EVERY MAN HAVE HIS OWN WIFE

(((((( O W N - HEAUTOU - HEH-OW-TOO' ) ==== (((PRONOUN OTHERWISE OBSOLETE AND THE GENITIVE/MEANING GENITIVE ADJ : SERVING TO EXPRESS OR INDICATE POSSESSION; "POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS HIM (HER, IT, THEM ALSO [IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PERSONAL PRONOUN OF THE OTHER PERSONS SELF (- SELVES ) OUR (THINE) OWN (-SELVES ), ")))

THIS THE ORIGIONAL GREEK THE ORIGIONAL MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD OF THE WORD ( OWN - HEAUTOU / RELATING TO THE HUSBAND ) ….AND NOTHING……NOT ONE THING …. ADDED OUTSIDE THE QUOTATIONS I ADDED OF THE MEANING OF THE WORD GENITIVE

OK, EVERY WOMAN HAVE HER OWN HUSBAND.

OWN ; - IDIOS - ID'-EE-OS ( OF UNCERTAIN AFFINITY; PERTAINING TO SELF, THAT IS, ONE'S OWN; BY IMPLICATION PRIVATE OR SEPARATE: HIS ACQUAINTANCE, WHEN THEY WERE ALONE, APART, ASIDE, DUE, HIS (OWN, PROPER, SEVERAL SEPERATE), HOME, (HER, OUR, THINE, YOUR) OWN (BUSINESS), PRIVATE (-LY), PROPER, SEVERALLY-SEPERATE, THEIR (OWN).))))

NOT ONE SINGLE PLURAL WORD BIG DIFFERENCE.......

In second-century Rome, marriage contracts between two men of the same age were permitted,

BUT ROME OUTLAWED POLYGAMY TO ITS SLAVE CITIZENS BECAUSE THE PRACTICE CAUSED THEM TO GAIN POWER AND WEALTH FROM THE TIGHT FAMILY STRUCTURE AND WORKING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON GOAL.

JESUS TOLD THE STORY OF A MAN PLANNING TO MARY 10 WIVES , THE PARABLE OF A MAN PLANNING TO MARY 10 WIVES , AS JESUS KNOWING POLYGAMY WAS A BIBLICAL HOLY ,FORM OF MARRIAGE . HE TOLD US THE SYMBOLIC STRUCTURE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AS TO The ten virgins in Matthew 25__________ were LIKE VIRGINS waiting for the return of THE BRIDE-GROOM. ///.......AS JESUS KNOWING POLYGAMY WAS A BIBLICAL HOLY ,FORM OF MARRIAGE

Five wise virgins went into the marriage FEAST while five foolish virgins did not have that privilege. ...

YET IN THIS HOMOGAMIC HOMOMAGAMANIC CULTURE AND IN THE POSTS WE SEE DO WE HAVE THE OUTLAWING OF BIBLICAL POLYGAMY

while Tolerating&CELEBRATING ORGIES, prostitution AND GAY MARRIAGE INTERNET BEASTALITY CHILD PORN AND PEDEPHILIA FOR UPPER CLASS CITZENS ..

IT SEEMS ABRAHAM AND JACOB AND EVEN JESUS WERE PERVERTS, IN THE EYES OF MODERN MAN,,,..

...TITUS I:6 __ IF ANY MAN IS BLAMELESS, THE HUSBAND OF (((MIA /)) WIFE, HAVING CHILDREN THAT BELIEVE, WHO ARE NOT ACCUSED OF RIOT OR UNRULY._______MIA ONE OR FIRST: AGREE,,,, FIRST,((( MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF HIS FIRST WIFE))),,,,,, THE HUSBAND OF ((( FIRST /MIA))) WIFE
NOT FORSAKING THE WIFE OF HIS YOUTH Malachi 3:15,16 that say God is against one who deals treacherously with the wife of his youth (forsaking first wife) and that he hates divorce

DEU. 3:11 Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day:

12 Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein;

13 And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied;

14 Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage;

DEU. 3:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

//////////////////
shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold./////////////////////////////////////

SAYS NOTHING CONDEMNIING POLYGAMY OR HAVING MORE THAN ONE HORSE OR BAG OF GOLD OR SILVER OR ONE OR COW. OR SHEEP, OR GOOSE. BUT IN MULTIPLYING,, DONT MULTIPLY TO THE POINT OF THINE HEART BEING TURNED AWAY,, POLYGAMY IS SO HOLY AND SO MUCH A BLESSING IN THE BIBLE. THAT IT IS NOT TO BE ABUSED..IN MULTIPLYING IN EXCESS...ADDING A FEW GOOD WIVES WOULD B A BLESSING...BUT MULTIPLYING IN THE EFFECT THAT ONES HEART IS TURNED AWAY,,.. THOU SHALT NOT DO..POLYGAMY IS NOT EVEN THE SUBJECT.....WHY LIE ?

Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree,/MIA and give their kingdom unto the beast,/MIA-- day of the week,GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS one or first-a certain- agree

1 Cor 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS one or first-a certain- agree

Mark 16:1-2 Very early in the morning, on the first/MIA-- day of the week,GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS one or first-a certain- agree

Matt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first /MIA day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS one or first-a certain- agree

Rev 9:13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a /MIA voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS mee'-ah /one or first-a certain- agree, first, one, X other.

1 Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of FIRST /MIA wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, Malachi 3:15,16 that say God is against one who deals treacherously with the wife of his youth (forsaking first wife) and that he hates divorce.

Matt 5:19 [Jesus saith] Whosoever therefore shall break one /MIA of these least commandments..[ONE AS AMONG MANY MORE]. GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS mee'-ah /one or first-a certain- agree, first, one, X other.

Matt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one /MIA flesh? GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS mee'-ah /one or first-a certain- agree, first, one, X other.

Matt 21:19 And when [JESUS] saw a /MIA--- fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS mee'-ah /one or first-a certain- agree, first, one, X other. GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS mee'-ah /one or first-a certain- agree, first, one, X other.

Acts 28:13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one /MIA day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli: ONE /MIA IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. JOINED. FIRST / 1 2 3 ..ECT

Rev 17:13 These have one /MIA mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS one or first-a certain- agree

Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS one or first-a certain- agree

Matt 17:4 Then answered Peter,[if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one /MIA for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.]. MIA, ONE /MIA IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. JOINED. FIRST / 1 2 3 ..ECT

Luke 14:18 And they all with one /MIA--- consent began to make excuse. --IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. JOINED. FIRST / 1 2 3 ..ECT

Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one /MIA piece, doth not light a candle,---ONE /MIA IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. JOINED. FIRST / 1 2 3 ..ECT

Acts 21:7 [-- and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one /MIA day. /MIA
8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, ONE /MIA IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. JOINED. FIRST / 1 2 3 ..ECT

2 Cor 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. ONE /MIA IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. JOINED. FIRST / 1 2 3 ..ECT

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. ONE /MIA IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. ONE /MIA IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. JOINED. FIRST / 1 2 3 ..ECT

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after the first /MIA and second admonition reject; /MIA flesh? GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS mee'-ah /one or first-a certain- agree, first, one, X other.

Rev 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one /MIA of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS mee'-ah /one or first-a certain- agree, first, one, X other.

Rev 13:3 And I saw one /MIA of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: ONE /MIA IN THE BIBLE IS USED TO REPRESENT SUCESSION, OR AMONG OTHERS. JOINED. FIRST / 1 2 3 ..ECT GREEK 3391 MIA OR MIAS one or first-a certain- agree.

Oh, Those Wacky Monogamaniacs.

I HAVE 6 HAPPY
WIVES. AND HAVE NEVER PUT AWAY ANY ONE, OR DIVORCED...WHY DIVORSE, ? GOD SAID DONT DO IT..NO NEED FOR DIVORCE..