Seventh-day Adventist polygamy viewpoints

Google search: Adventist Polygamy

Adventist Polygamy links:

• Family Planning Issues still foremost in African Society - link
  • DePaiva is equally concerned with the effects which polygamous relationships impact on family planning, and the role of women in a Christian society. These issues are being addressed in her ongoing study of how a Christian church should treat polygamy.
  • "I plan to present a case for a more effective and consistent approach to the way we should treat the polygamous family issue. The church has a tremendous responsibility to teach the Christian meaning of marriage, to offer guidance, as well as give pastoral support to those struggling with difficult marriage problems. I am set to treat this issue with a far greater consistency," says DePaiva.
  • "I am a victim of polygamy myself," says Nigerian-born Pastor Luka Daniel, president of the Adventist Church Africa Indian-Ocean Division, the headquarters from which DePaiva works. "Though I am a son of my father's first wife, I know, first hand, what family tension and rivalry is. Anything that can be done to solve the problem of polygamy, I will go for it," he readily comments.
  • The Adventist Church does not approve polygamous family relationships. "Accommodating polygamy in the church would create more problems than currently exist," says Pastor Daniel. "And the matter is not one of logic or polemics. It is a deeply rooted cultural problem."
  • Speaking from his office, just a short distance away from the busy metropolis of Abidjan, Luka Daniel shares his hopes for Africa. "Unless modern Africa can accept the idea of equality of humankind, so that people can be treated as persons with individual rights, polygamy will continue. I look forward to a time this equality of persons will become the culture of the modern-day Africa. Then polygamy will disappear more readily. I don't think that legislature or stringent measures will stop it."
  • Observing the modern trends in different parts of the world, among them the phenomenon of the so-called "serial marriages," as he puts it, Pastor Daniel is less than confident that the en vogue family life options have a better solution in the society at large. "Let us not move from polygamy to promiscuity, as seen in other parts of the world," he warns. Ray Dabrowski

• Link
  • Polygamy is another issue that was considered by the panel. The practice of polygamy is a concern in countries where the Adventist Church is growing and polygamy is common.
  • "I am comfortable with the Adventist Church's current statement on polygamy," says Luka Daniel, president of the Adventist Church in Western Africa. But, he adds, "Let's keep educating our people on the evils of polygamy."
  • Seventh-day Adventists do not accept polygamy. In an official statement on marriage, the church affirms, "The monogamous union in marriage of a man and a woman is affirmed as the divinely ordained foundation of the family."
  • "I think the church will grow in terms of how to reach the different people groups, the results of which I believe will be more baptisms, more people joining the church, more people getting to understand the call of our message because we are communicating to them in their own language within their cultural setup," Mbwana says. "It becomes easier for them to absorb and put into live practice the very principles of Christianity that we are passing on to them."

• An Inside Look at Polygamy
  • In the Bible, we have the inspired accounts of Jacob and others in the Old Testament who practiced polygamy. In the Old Testament, God constructs a fascinating narrative of the choices of individuals and their far-reaching consequences. He shows us the sure results of choices not in line with the original plan He gave to Adam and Eve in Eden. Then He leaves us to draw our own conclusions about the obvious implications for our own lives.
  • In Africa, polygamy is a fact of life. Islam encourages polygamy, stipulating that all wives be treated fairly and receive the same benefits. We live and work every day with children and adults who live in this situation. It seems clear to me that polygamous families develop much higher levels of competition and rivalry than is usually found in monogamous families. Often, this leads family members to form alliances among themselves and seek the help of charms, talismans and shamans. In our area anyway, the practice of polygamy seems to reinforce animism.
  • Wherever polygamy is a large part of the societal structure, it introduces a multitude of other personal, interpersonal and societal challenges. I can't tell you how many times I have looked on in utter disbelief, trying to wrap my mind around the discord, jealousy and competition of polygamous families. All of my friends who grew up in polygamous households attest to the perpetual pain and suspicion of this lifestyle. When polygamous families form the base of society, every human institution is affected.
  • I have been studying Susu culture for more than 10 years, but I am still challenged to grasp the full extent of the influence polygamy has on everyday life here. Everywhere I look, I see the devastating results and the impossibility of true peace.
  • So, what happens when we introduce the gospel into this setting? Is the practice of polygamy modified or eliminated? I personally believe the gospel eliminates all that destroys and denigrates humanity. Then it transforms people's thinking so God's ways become the impulse of the heart. Ultimately, the Susu people must decide whether the polygamous system builds people up or tears them down; draws them closer to God or corrupts His image.

• Should the "born a gay" lifestyle be baptized - Link
  • Readers will benefit from the following works which challenge the above "accommodation" hypotheses:
    • Ronald A. G. du Preez, Polygamy in the Bible (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1993);
    • Theodore D. Weld, The Bible Against Slavery: Or, An Inquiry into the Genius of the Mosaic System, and the Teachings of the Old Testament on the Subject of Human Rights (Pittsburgh: United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1864).
    • These two works offer compelling biblical evidence showing that God at no time tolerated polygamy and slavery as morally legitimate practices for His people.
  • On the issue of the subjugation of women or "patriarchy," see
    • George W. Knight III, The Role Relationship of Men and Women: New Testament Teaching (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1985),
    • Guenther Haas, "Patriarchy as an Evil that God Tolerated: Analysis and Implications for the Authority of Scripture," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, September 1995, pp. 321-326. Both authors have challenged the notion that male headship (in the home and church) is an evil practice which God tolerated.
  • Google search: polygamy site:www.adventistsaffirm.org
• link
  • But very few may realize that inherent in the above statement are two fatally flawed assumptions. First, the assertion assumes that the religion of the Old and New Testaments ever "deemed permissible" or accommodated the nonideal practices and injustices of polygamy, Jew/Gentile racism, slavery, and women's subjugation—practices later allegedly corrected by the "new revelation of Christian fairness and justice." This claim is a scholarly myth that responsible Bible scholars have invalidated. 26

    • 26. The argument above is the same kind used to justify homosexuality. The truth, however, is that the Bible writers never once "deemed permissible" the nonideal practices of polygamy, Jew/Gentile racism, slavery, and the subjugation of women. Readers will benefit from the following works that challenge the above "accommodation" hypotheses: Ronald A.G. du Preez, Polygamy in the Bible (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1993); Theodore D. Weld, The Bible Against Slavery; or, An Inquiry into the Genius of the Mosaic System, and the Teachings of the Old Testament on the Subject of Human Rights (Pittsburgh: United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1864). These two works offer compelling Biblical evidence showing that God at no time tolerated polygamy and slavery. Regarding the alleged issue of the subjugation of women or "patriarchy," George W. Knight III, Role Relationships of Men and Women: New Testament Teaching (Chicago: Moody, 1985), and Guenther Haas, "Patriarchy as an Evil That God Tolerated: Analysis and Implications for the Authority of Scripture," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society , September 1995, pp. 321-326, have challenged the notion that male headship (in the home and church) is an evil practice that God tolerated.

  • Moreover, the claim that the Bible writers accommodated or tolerated (some say encouraged) slavery, polygamy, and the subjugation of women-practices later allegedly corrected by the "Spirit's leading"-is a scholarly myth that responsible Bible scholars have invalidated.20 The Bible writers never once commended the practices of slavery, polygamy, and the subjugation of women. But they did repeatedly condemn the practice of homosexuality (see, for example, Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26ff. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8ff.).

Lawfully Joined - Joe Crews (1992-1994, founder of Amazing Facts) link

• To divorce an innocent companion and marry someone else is even more strongly condemned than the popular polygamy practiced in Old Testament days.

  Try to picture two kinds of family scenes for comparison purposes. In one home there are three wives, all married to the same man, each with one or more children. The families live together and the husband and father of the three families is always there to give disciplinary authority and security to the overall household. Now picture another situation. A man has been married to three women in succession. They have all borne him children and have been put away by divorce one after the other. The families are living apart, and the children are growing up under the trauma of financial and emotional insecurity without a father. Which of these imaginary situations do you perceive to be worse? The law of the land forbids one and accommodates the other. Perhaps if we could look at all the aspects purely from the social and humanitarian standpoint, we would say that the latter scene is worse than the former. Viewing it from the traditional Judeo-Christian position we would probably condemn the first family as being more clearly in the wrong. Looking at it solely from the Biblical perspective, is there really much basic moral difference between the two situations? According to the Scriptures, marriage is a lifetime commitment. To divorce an innocent companion and marry someone else is even more strongly condemned than the popular polygamy practiced in Old Testament days. Both are frustrating to God's plan and purpose. The children probably suffer more under the divorce procedures than under the polygamy plan, but neither can be defended nor tolerated under the searchlight of revelation. Whether several wives are married at the same time, or in succession, the will of God is violated. How can we explain the contradiction between Christian practice and Bible principle on this point? More and more church members are acting as if there were no restrictions on the number of marriages they can contract. The moral conscience of entire denominations has shifted and adjusted to the massive incidence of divorce within the church. Although the majority of Christian bodies have given formal assent to what the Bible teaches about divorce, there seems to be very little done in publicizing their position. Church officials and pastors often have to be pressed for a clear-cut statement of the official doctrinal position. The reason for this may hinge upon the embarrassing number who have continued as divorced church leaders with the tacit approval, at least, of the congregation. Unfortunately, if problems of divorce are not dealt with at the time they arise, it is impossible ever to sort out the issues and take any action later on. Because many such cases involve charges and countercharges, often unsupported by evidence, pastors are reluctant to be drawn into the explosive morass. Church boards also stay away from the unpleasant task of having to take sides against one of their own who has, perhaps, been a respected past leader in the church. Consequently the issues are left fuzzy. It is easier to give the benefit of the doubt and many guilty spouses are allowed to remain in unconditional fellowship even after remarriage. Admittedly there are difficult complications which seem to defy human solution. Each individual case is marked by its own bewildering circumstances. There may not be any satisfying answer that will be completely just and equitable for each party involved. But whatever action is taken by the church should be in complete harmony with the Bible counsel on divorce, and that counsel is not muddled or ambiguous. Jesus stated in the most positive language that only one condition could justify the act of divorce and remarriage, and that was adultery. "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" (Matthew 19:9). Please note that Christ charges adultery against a husband or wife who divorces a spouse and marries someone else, except when that spouse has been unfaithful. If the companion has been guilty of fornication (porneia, or sexual impurity) the exception would provide for the innocent one to divorce and remarry without guilt. The unusually severe position of Jesus on this subject of divorce has been the subject of endless debate. Even His Own disciples were astonished at the uncompromising nature of His position. They said, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry" (Matthew 19:10). There was no ambiguity in the minds of those disciples about what Jesus meant. They understood that He was forbidding all divorce and remarriage except on the grounds of adultery. Christ's response to their amazement confirms that they had the proper understanding of His statement. Until fairly recently, much to their credit, it can be said that most Protestant and Catholic church bodies have interpreted the words of Jesus very much like those listening disciples did. Unfortunately, with the mushrooming divorce rates, the Biblical doctrine has appeared more and more offensive and disagreeable to the growing number of divorcees within the church. Attempts have been made to reinterpret the doctrinal position of some of the churches on the subject, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It would be proper, at this point, to consider a sampling of the Spirit of Prophecy counsel which guided the early Seventh-day Adventist Church in the strong Biblical stand it took on the divorce issue. "A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant divorce, yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws of God." The Adventist Home, p. 34. "Your (one contemplating divorce) ideas in regard to the marriage relation have been erroneous. Nothing but the violation of the marriage bed can either break or annul the marriage vow...Men are not at liberty to make a standard of law for themselves, to avoid God's law and...standard of righteousness...God gave only one cause why a wife should leave her husband, or the husband leave his wife, which was adultery. Let this ground be prayerfully considered." Ibid., pp. 341, 342. "There are many unhappy marriages because of so much haste. Two unite their interest at the marriage altar, by most solemn vows before God, without previously weighing the matter, and devoting time to sober reflection and earnest prayer. Many move from impulse. They have no thorough acquaintance with the dispositions of each other. They do not realize that the happiness of their whole life is at stake. If they move wrong in this matter, and their marriage life proves unhappy, it cannot be taken back. If they find they are not calculated to make each other happy, they must endure it the best they can." Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 120. In one situation Mrs. White counseled that the moral offender should be permanently excluded from church membership. Details of the moral lapse are not clarified in the letter (later included in vol. 1 of the Testimonies). The recommended action shows that some violators of God's law should trust for salvation outside the church. "It is impossible for E to be fellowshipped by the church of God. He has placed himself where he cannot be helped by the church, where he can have no communion with nor voice in the church. He has placed himself there in the face of light and truth. He has stubbornly chosen his own course, and refused to listen to reproof. He has followed the inclinations of his corrupt heart, has violated the holy law of God, and has disgraced the cause of present truth. If he repents ever so heartily, the church must let his case alone. If he goes to Heaven it must be alone, without the fellowship of the church. A standing rebuke from God must ever rest upon him, that the standard of morality be not lowered to the very dust." Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 215. Based upon such statements from the Spirit of Prophecy and the unequivocal statements of Christ on the subject, the position was taken and held through the years that ones who deliberately abandoned an innocent spouse to enter a marriage relationship with another person would be committing adultery. They would be disfellowshipped from the church, and, furthermore, as long as they continued to live in that sinful relationship with someone whom they were Biblically forbidden to have, they could not be received back into church membership. This is in perfect accord with the Bible requirements of repenting and forsaking the sin. "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Proverbs 28:13 ). For many years the church operated under this sound spiritual principle with a minimum of controversy and discord. But as divorces became more commonplace in the world, the divisive custom began to make more and more inroads into the remnant church. Following his favorite mode of attack, Satan intruded little by little into the family of God with his pernicious, creeping compromise. Divorces for many unscriptural reasons became more frequent. Later the guilty, remarried spouses were bringing their new companions and applying for readmission into the church. Often the applicants were talented individuals who had once served as respected leaders and officers in the church. Sympathies were aroused, and deep emotional feelings began to favor the finding of some way to get the disfellowshipped ones back into the church. Almost anyone can empathize with fine, gifted people who ask for baptism, especially when they appear deeply sincere and committed. It is easy to take the impulsive position that these applicants should be accepted posthaste and assigned church responsibilities equal to their ability. But should such a decision be made on the basis of our feelings, or should it be made on the basis of the Word of God? As much as we might want to ignore it or deny it, these people have committed adultery, and are continuing to live in a relationship which the Bible calls sin. If God condemns this state of things, can the church dare to give its approval? By baptizing and receiving them into the body of Christ, we are assuring the candidates that they are children of God and are received by Him. But how can we comfort people with this assurance if they are still living out of harmony with God's law, and if God really does not approve them? Would it not be offering dangerous consolation which might lull them into a fatal acceptance of a nonexistent security? *Some might object to this course on the basis that forsaking the sin in this instance would involve breaking up another marriage, and two wrongs could never make a right. The answer to that objection is that we should not urge upon them what to do about their relationship. We can and should tell them exactly what the Bible says on the subject. Indeed, these people knew that truth long before they willfully involved themselves in the adulterous marriage.* This is what makes their situation so serious. The church should make it very clear that it can give them no comfort and approval beyond what the Bible gives. No pastor has any right to make an exception to what the Word of God teaches about adultery. The church and its ministers should let this couple know that there is no earthly authority which has a right to go beyond the counsel of God; therefore they do not qualify Biblically to enter the body of Christ. This is not saying that they cannot be saved. God has authority to make any exceptions He wants to make on the Day of Judgment. In His omniscience He understands the motives and secret circumstances, but He has not given His church the right to make exceptions, neither the conditions under which those exceptions could be made. Lines must be drawn where they are drawn in the Bible, and emotional personal sympathies should not be allowed to weaken that decision. Even if a church or pastor could be found who would accept a couple into church membership, even though they were living in an adulterous relationship, this would not enhance their chances of being saved. God's disapproval of the sin of divorce and adultery must be registered so as to impress the guilty ones of the awful nature of this transgression. Under the convictions of the Holy Spirit they will have to decide what to do about their unlawful marriage. No one should urge them to break up their present marriage. They must decide what should be done for their own salvation. Whatever their decision, the church should then encourage them to be faithful, attend church, and trust in the mercies of God. But to accept them back into the church would be altering God's Word to meet our desires instead of God's conditions.

• Christian Standards - Articles by Pastor Joe Crews link

• The "Hard Sayings" of Jesus and Divorce: Not Commandments but Goals - Journal of the Adventist Theological Societylink

  • Ron du Preez has written convincingly against polygamy, pointing out that God never commanded or even sanctioned it, even though he didnÕt outlaw it. There seem to be no examples of happy, contented polygamy in the Bible Ñnot even GodÕs marriage to Oholah and Oholibah in Ezek 23. He has also referred to divorce and remarriage as Òserial polygamy.Ó See his Polygamy in the Bible, Berrien Springs, Mich: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1993, and his ÒThe God-Given Marital Mandate: Monogamous, Heterosexual, Intrafaith,Ó JATS, 10/1Ð2 (SpringÐAutumn 1999): 23Ð40. Certainly fidelity and monogamy were as much the creation ideal in MosesÕ day as in our own, yet God allowed what He hated (Mal 2:16). Experiential evidence, based on divorced people we know who are now submitted to his will, suggests that God continues to grudgingly tolerate the divorce He hates, even though it hurts him, because He knows our hearts are hard. Remember, even though He says ÒI hate divorce,Ó this does not mean divorce is the only sin He hates.

• link

  • Polygamy in the Bible, by Ronald A. G. du Preez Jacob did it. So did Abraham, David, and, of course, Solomon. Today, as well, millions of Muslim and African men have more than one wife. Polygamy is a significant problem for the Church in some countries. If a man has multiple wives but wants to join the church, should he be allowed to do so if he agrees to take no more wives? Should he be welcome to attend church, but refused membership until he sets aside all but his first wife? What is GodÕs will in this difficult matter? What does the Bible say? Dr. du Preez, Professor of Religion at Solusi University in Zimbabwe, is a committed biblical ethicist and theologian who shows that the seemingly ÒlovingÓ thing may not be the biblical thing. He reveals that plural marriage in the Bible is never condoned by God and always leads to suffering. He argues that sin is sin, and while God loves sinners, they must repent and turn away from their sins if they are to be forgiven and born again. How can they truly repent of a sin they do not give up? $19.95 Mail your prepaid order to: ATS Publishing, P.O. Box 86, Berrien Springs, MI 49103

• Du Preez - Epics & Ethics link

  • Allow me to illustrate: In November 1998, I was pleasantly surprised to receive a long-distance call from a good friend of mine, a former student missionary who had been my roommate 20 years earlier. For an hour I listened as he told me about his personal perusal of the Scriptures, his investigation of stories of the marital practices of God-fearing men, and his conclusion that polygamy is permissible for a committed Christian. In fact, in subsequent e-mail communication, he has proposed that it might be Òthe moral duty of a godly manÓ to Òtake the responsibility of husbandingÓ and Òproviding for more than one wife.Ó4 Now, he has made it plain to me that, while he is not proposing that one should take any woman already married, one of his major concerns is the need to provide a direct father-figure and husband for the many less-than-ideal singlemother homes which exist today. In fact, he writes: ÒWhat if God has in mind, as a hitherto unrecognized part of the last days Elijah message,Ó a Òresurgence of menÓ who Òare willing to shoulder the responsibility of being husbands to more than one woman?Ó5 And, by the way, this is not an isolated incident among SDAs in the USA. Several years ago, while I was still researching and writing my project dissertation on polygamy in the Bible, someone from the General Conference of SDAs contacted me with a request to assist with a ÒproblemÓ they were having with a person, who turned out to be an academy teacher, who had produced a lengthy document in which he concluded that plural marriage is a fully acceptable practice for contemporary Christians. In our subsequent communication this man indicated that he believed that this teaching was actually part of Òpresent truthÓ for Adventists.

• Challenges of Sexually transmitted diseases link
  • Utmost care should be taken when making such an intervention to make it clear to the individual(s) and members of the community involved that this extreme measure should in no way be misconstrued as a scriptural sanction for sexual intimacy outside marriage.

1. Sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage. Sexuality is a loving gift of the Creator to humanity (Gen 1:26, 27). The gospel calls believers to an appreciation for and stewardship of their sexuality in harmony with the divine purposes (1 Cor 3:16, 17; 6:13-20; Eph 5:1-8; Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 4:3-7). In God's plan, sexual intimacy is reserved for a man and a woman within the bounds of the marriage covenant (Gen 2:24, 26; Exod 20:14; Proverbs 5; Song of Sol 4:12; 8:8-10; 2:6, 7; 3:5; 8:3, 4; Hos 3:3; Heb 13:4). Sexual fidelity within marriage is crucial to convey a full understanding of God's metaphor comparing marriage to His relationship with His people (Isa 54:5; Hos 2:14-23; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:6-9; 21:9).

2. Sexual intimacy outside of marriage is immoral and harmful. Such intimacy has detrimental effects on individuals (Lev 18:6-3; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:18), as well as on the marriage relationship (Prov 5:1-23). It is identified by Scripture as part of the sinful life (Gal 5:19; Col 3:5).

3. God recognizes human frailty. His divine will for human beings and His intent for creation are unchangeable (Mal 3:6; Matt 5:17-20; Acts 20:27). His absolute love for human beings and His redemptive intent are equally unchangeable (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:35-39; Eph 1:1-14; 3:14-19; 1 John 4:7-10). The gospel message, centered in Jesus Christ, binds these truths together (Ps 85:10; 1 John 2:1,2).

God's grace is the only hope for fallen humanity (Rom 3:23, 24; 5:1, 2, 20; Eph 2:1-5). He is patient and long-suffering with human frailty (Num 14:18, 19; Ps 86:15; 103:13, 14; Hos 11:8, 9; Jonah 3:1; 4:10, 11; Matt 23:37; 1 Tim 1: 15, 16). Though God's grace does not give license to sin (Rom 6:1, 2), it is through such grace that God accomplishes His redemptive intent in the circumstances resulting from sin (Rom 5:12-21). God's practical dealings in cases of divorce (Deut 24:1-5; Ezra 10:10, 11; Matt 19:7, 8), polygamy (Exod 21:10; Deut 17:17; 21:15-17; Matt 19:4, 5), the introduction of flesh foods (Gen 1:11, 12, 29, 30; 9:3; Lev 3:17; 11:47), and provision for an earthly monarch (1 Sam 8:7; 10:19; Hos 13:11) offer examples of interventions short of God's ideal. Through such cases, we see His grace and mercy at work in a world deformed by sin.

4. The Church conducts its mission in a fallen world. Existing conditions contrast sharply with God's ideal. Both believers and unbelievers are vulnerable to sexual immorality as one of the tragic results of sin (John 17:15; 1 John 2:15). The Church is called to minister to believers and unbelievers alike, reaching and reclaiming sinners (Matt 28:19; Mark 2:17; 2 Cor 5:20, 21), nurturing the growth of believers (Eph 2:19-22; 4:11-13, 15; 1 Thess 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18), uplifting the infinite worth of each individual (Isa 43:3, 4, 7; Matt 12:12; Luke 12:7; 15:1-32; 1 Peter 1:18, 19), protecting the weak and vulnerable (Rom 15:1; 1 Thess 5:14; Heb 13:3), promoting and preserving life and health (John 10:10; 1 Cor 6:19; 3 John 2), and calling men and women to take up their lofty position as God's chosen and holy people (Eph 4:1; 5:8; 1 Peter 1:15, 16; 2:5, 9). The ministry of the Church is both to meet individuals where they are (1 Cor 3:1, 2; 7:1-28), and to call them to a higher standard (Luke 19:5-10; John 8:3-11; Acts 17:18-34).

5. A spiritual development process is anticipated in the Christian life. Change for the Christian involves both conversion (John 3:3, 7; Acts 3:19; Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 5:17) and growth (Prov 4:18; Luke 2:52; Eph 3:17-19; 4:11-15; 2 Peter 3:18). At conversion, believers accept Christ's perfect life as their own by faith and experience a Spirit-led transformation of values (John 3:5; Gal 2:20). Both external and internal forces may provoke relapses in thought or conduct (Gal 5:16-18; 1 John 3:20), but commitment to grace-induced progress in the Christian life (1 Cor 15:10; Phil 3:12-14; Col 1:28, 29) and reliance upon God-provided resources (Rom 8:5-7; Gal 5:24, 25) will produce growth toward Christlikeness (Gal 5:22-25; Eph 5:1).

The Scriptures call for human beings to progress morally and spiritually throughout their lives (Luke 2:52; 1 Cor 13:11; 14:20). Planning for and facilitating such growth is integral to fulfilling the gospel commission (Matt 28:20; Eph 3:14-24). It is the task of religious education to attend to individual development and to present truth in ways that hearers can understand (Matt 11:15), causing them to stretch but not to stumble (Rom 14:1-21; 1 Cor 8:9-13). Though some allowance may be made for the unlearned or immature (Matt 13:34; John 16:12; Acts 17:30; 1 Cor 3:1, 2), over time individuals should progress toward a more complete understanding of God's will (John 16:13) and a fuller expression of love for God and one another (Matt 22:37-39; John 13:35; 8:9; 13:11; 1 John 3:14; 4:11, 12). Under God's blessing, the clear presentation of the gospel and careful attention to the disciple-making process will bear spiritual fruit, even among those who have been involved in sexual sin (1 Cor 6:9-11).

• link

  There are several instances in the Scriptures in which God tolerated some kind of human departure from His original plans, as in the cases of polygamy (see Gen 16:1-15; 29:15-30; Genesis 24, etc) and divorce (see Matt 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12). There are also other cases in which early Christians were counseled to respect some specific cultural elements, as in regard to women wearing a veil while praying or prophesying (1 Cor 11:2-16) and women being silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34, 35). But the overall tenor of the Scriptures is that its religion was directly "against its environment." If one starts looking inductively for discrepancies within the Scriptures, he or she will end of "finding differences rather than agreement and unity."9 As a matter of fact, according to Ellen White, "all who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them" (GC 527). But if, on the other hand, one starts looking deductively for the self-testimony of Scripture, he or she might end up disclosing an underlying unity capable of binding together its various parts. Many apparent inconsistencies might be harmonized by moving from the broad thematic frameworks of the Scriptures into their smaller details, rather than by starting already with those details without understanding the basic frameworks to which they belong.

• link

  Another aspect of Scripture that troubles the modern mind is the divine command to Isra­el to engage in war and execute entire nations. Israel originally was organized as a the­ocracy, a civil government through which God ruled directly (Gen. 18:25). Such a theocratic state was unique. It no longer exists and cannot be regarded as a direct model for Christian practice. The Scriptures record that God accepted persons whose experiences and statements were not in harmony with the spiritual principles of the Bible as a whole. For example, we may cite incidents relating to the use of alco­hol, polygamy, divorce, and slavery. Although condemnation of such deeply ingrained social customs is not explicit, God did not ­necessarily endorse or approve all that He permitted and bore with in the lives of the patriarchs and in Israel. Jesus made this clear in His statement with regard to divorce (Matt 19:4-6, 8). The spirit of the Scriptures is one of restoration. God works patiently to elevate fallen hu­manity from the depths of sin to the divine ideal. Consequently, we must not accept as models the actions of sinful men as recorded in the Bible. The Scriptures represent the unfolding of God's revelation to man. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, for example, enlarges and expands certain Old Testament concepts. Christ Himself is the ultimate revelation of God's character to humanity (Heb. 1:1-3).

• link

  Pastor Doug: Solomon, we expect, will be in Heaven. Abraham, Jacob. That doesn't mean God condones polygamy, is that right? Caller: Indeed. Pastor Doug: In the same way, there will be people in Heaven who went to church on Sunday - and maybe didn't go to church on any day because they didn't know about what day was the Holy day. But when a person knows God's will in any of these areas and they say, 'I'm not going to do God's will,' the Bible is clear in the New Testament: If we sin willfully after we receive the knowledge of the truth, there is no more sacrifice for sins. So anyone, um, whoever contends that you can willingly break God's commandments and still be exempt, that's not Biblical. And that's my argument: What does the Bible say?

• link

  • The very survival of our society and church leans heavily upon the family unit, where a basic truth must be clear-that men are fathers and women are mothers. Men and women are equal as humans but entirely unique as creatures. They are not only distinct genders sexually, but almost every aspect of their natures is different. Men should never try to be women, and women should never try to be men. These differences should be evident, maintained, and yes, even emphasized in everything from the way we walk and talk to the way we work and dress. God established that husbands should be the servant-leaders of the home. "Unto the woman he said, ... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16. Now, we must not rush past this verse. Some have argued that the passages regarding man's leadership role reflect the biases of a male-dominant culture. but notice that the command in Genesis 3:16 came directly from God-not from Peter, John, or Paul. It has also been said, "We can't take these Scriptures regarding male leadership seriously because they were based on eastern traditions and don't apply today. After all, there were laws regarding slavery and polygamy in Bible times." True, but God never commanded people to have slaves or multiple wives. Rather, as Jesus said, it was because of "the hardness of your heart he Moses wrote you this precept." Mark 10:5.

  • Biblically, a husband could overrule the vow of the wife, but the wife could not overrule the oath of her husband. "Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void." Numbers 30:13.

• link

  • Dressing for the Occasion There was a time when God winked at the wearing of jewelry and other evils such as slavery and polygamy. It was not because He approved of these practices, but because His people had bigger problems to deal with at that point in time. Acts 17:30, 31 tells us: "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." Why? "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness." We are living in the days just before the coming of Jesus-a time in which the church is being judged. "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God." 1 Peter 4:17. As an illustration of the judgment process, God gave to His people the Day of Atonement. It fell on the tenth day of the seventh month in the Jewish year and was a solemn day on which the Lord would sanctify and judge the children of Israel. In preparation, the people conducted a thorough personal examination. They were filled with an attitude of confession, repentance, and humility. "For it is the Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be cut off from his people." Leviticus 23:28, 29, NKJV. On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest – who normally wore a jeweled vest and fine garments that were symbolic of the glories of heaven – changed into a simple, white linen robe. It is his plain dress that we should emulate, because we live during the prophetic Day of Atonement. Just as the entire camp of Israel was required to clean and change their clothes on Judgment Day, so are we who live in the judgment hour just before Jesus returns to earth called to purify our hearts and to separate ourselves from all pagan influences.

• link

  • How could a God of love make a statute in Leviticus 25 allowing slavery? Was slavery a curse against blacks? What does slavery say about God's character? I don't believe it was ever God's plan for anybody to be or own slaves.We must remember that many of the ordinances in the Bible are meant to protect civilization and people from activities or customs of which God didn't approve. For instance, there was rampant polygamy in Bible times. Part of the reason for this practice was that war was a way of life and there were probably 10 women for every man. Unfortunately, it was shameful for women to never have a family. In Isaiah 4:1, it says that during those times, seven women would take hold of one man.Yet because polygamy is often discussed and apparently unpunished throughout the Bible, this doesn't mean it was God's will. In the same way, Jesus said divorce was not God's will, but He made that provision because of the hardness of men's hearts.He made these laws to protect the second wife—and he also made laws to protect slaves.He isn't endorsing slavery.

• link

  • How do the standards for the modern home compare with those of Noah's day? His neighbors were polygamists. But our civilization scorns this practice. Surely, its evils are apparent in those areas where it's still legal. However, in one respect, open polygamy is not as vicious as the common brand of tandem polygamy, which permits as many wives or husbands as one wishes to collect, provided they are taken in succession or in rotation. The old-fashioned kind at least did not deprive the children of their father and mother as our shameful divorce procedures do. Could immorality have been any more widespread in the days of Noah than today? Anyone who thinks so, must be ignorant of the Kinsey reports. There's no need to dwell further on such wickedness. It would be impossible to exaggerate.

• link

  Great struggles of conscience take place over the resolution of delicate problems involving political and cultural relationships in various countries. There is often a strong debate over whether policies should be applied to the world field or only to the geographical area where the problem has broken into the open. Local leaders sometimes are inclined to press for church-wide regulations to cope with a situation in their country or island which looms larger than life at the moment. Should concessions be made for the world field in order to accommodate these complications peculiar to only one area? Surely this would be the quickest way to dilute the message and weaken the work in other fields. A test situation in Borneo may have nothing to do with the work in Russia or America. In countries where polygamy is practiced, policies must be formulated to meet the problem, but it would have little relevance to the rest of the world. If concessions need to be made (short of violating a moral principle) let it be done only for those affected, and not for the entire denomination. To mitigate our world stand on polygamy because we feel sympathy for a group of our members in one area who are placed under special trial would be a compromising move for the church. The same can be said of countries where the Sabbath is a special problem. Our hearts go out to parents in certain countries where the children are forced to attend school seven days a week. We are tempted to back off from the strong biblical stand our church has taken on the Sabbath in order to spare our suffering people from imprisonment or even worse. But what a mistake it would be to change a Bible principle for reasons of feeling or circumstance. Any circumstance must be God's stance or it is wrong to accommodate it. Then there are countries where cultural mores make it difficult for our people to conform to the church's stand on the wearing of jewelry. Local marriage customs may dictate wearing nose jewels, bangles, necklaces or rings. Again there is pressure on the governing body to make a denominational ruling which will allow for some leniency in the area of adornment in order to relieve a local situation. It should never be done. History has already taught us that such actions diminish the strength of any church, and lead to sterility and death.

• Samuele Bacchiocchi - http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_53.pdf
  • On Divorce and Church Leaders - Exclusion of Polygamists. Some, as John Calvin, have understood the phrase "husband of one wife" to exclude polygamists from church leadership.1 This interpretation is discredited by two main considerations. First, there was no need for this qualification since no Christian, whether church leader or not, was allowed to practice polygamy. Second, in New Testament times polygamy was generally outlawed in the empire and thus it hardly needed insistence by Paul.2
  • Sometime ago I spoke in a church where the last two pastors had an affair, which eventually caused them to divorce their wives. The first elder told me that what the pastors did became contagious. Over a period of two years about 30 families broke up in this 700 members congregations. This example helps us appreciate why the Bible holds church leaders to higher standards.
  • THE MARRIAGE COVENANT: A BIBLICAL STUDY ON MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE - link
    • Continuity. Becoming "one flesh" also implies continuity. We cannot become one flesh with a succession of husbands and wives. This is why the modern practice of serial monogamy must be rejected as immoral: it defeats the Biblical purpose of marriage which is to develop a permanent "one flesh" relationship. The "one flesh" principle excludes polygamy and extra-marital relationships of all kinds, because no man can become "one flesh" with more than one woman. The Old Testament persons who violated the "one flesh" principle by taking more than one wife paid the price for their transgressions. Problems of all kinds developed in their families as their wives became jealous or felt exploited, degraded, or hated.
  • http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_55.pdf
    • Second, homosexuality is no more inborn than adultery, polygamy, bisexuality, or bestiality. They are all distortions of human inclinations and sexuality. If homosexual orientation excuses the sin of homosexual desires, does it not imply that other sinful orientations (such as compulsive lying, compulsive adultery, compulsive racism, compulsive stealing, compulsive disobedience to authority, etc.) should all be excused as irreversible sinful conditions? Wherein, then, lies the power of God's transforming grace?
    • Moreover, the claim that the Bible writers accommodated or tolerated (some say encouraged) slavery, polygamy, and the subjugation of women—practices later allegedly corrected by the "Spirits leading"—is a scholarly myth that responsible Bible scholars have invalidated.20 The Bible writers never once commended the practices of slavery, polygamy, and the subjugation of women. But they did repeatedly condemn the practice of homosexuality (see, for example, Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26ff. 1 Cor 6; 1 Tim 1:8ff.).
  • link
    • Progressive Revelation. Another important principle to remember is the progressive nature of God's revelation. Even if some allegorical Old Testament passages seem to speak favorably of the wearing of jewelry, it does not necessarily mean that God approved the practice. We must remember that not everything that was allowed in Old Testament times is reflective of God's ideal for His people.
    • Typical examples are polygamy and divorce, which were allowed in Old Testament times because of the insubordination and stubbornness of the Israelites. We do not find explicit condemnation of such practices in the Old Testament. It is only when we come to the New Testament, where Christ reveals to us more fully God's plan for our lives, that we find explicit condemnation of divorce and polygamy as contrary to God's ideal for His people. We shall see that the same principle of progressive revelation applies to the wearing of ornaments-a practice condemned implicitly in the Old Testament (Gen 35:1-4; Ex 33:1-6; Is 3:16-21) and explicitly in the New Testament (1 Tim 2:9-10; 1 Pet 3:3-4).
  • link
    • It is evident that Allah has no respect for a woman's emotions and rights. He treats women as disposable objects. By contrast the Biblical God teaches that "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies" (Eph 5:28). "The wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:4). This mutual equality and complementarity taught by the biblical God, is foreign to the Koranic God. The polygamy and servile concubinage taught by the Koran, destroys the dignity of woman, the beauty of the home, besides discrediting the morality of Allah's character..
      **
    • HERE WE STAND: EVALUATING NEW TRENDS IN THE CHURCH. - The book (over 800 pages) is printed by Review & Herald, but published by Adventist Affirm.
    • Different authors examine the following issues:
      • 1. New Methods of Church Growth
      • 2. New Questions on Doctrines
      • 3. New Views on Creation (the evolution-creation debate in the Adventist church)
      • 4. New Styles of Worship and Music
      • 5. New Issues on Marriage (polygamy, homosexuality, divorce & remarriage, etc.)
      • 6. New Changes in Local Church Leadership
      • 7. New Structure for the Church (congregationalism, etc.)

• andrews.edu
  • Doctrate of ministry program - graduates and their project titles
    • http://www.andrews.edu/sem/dmin/project/dissertation_titles/dissertations_alumni.pdf
      • 1981 - Jean-Jacques Bouit - A Christian Consideration of
        Polygamy
      • 1993 - Ronald Alwyn du Preez - Polygamy in the Bible with Implications for Membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church
  • To Understand Scriptures - A tribute to the academic and professional career of William H. Shea, this festschrift incorporates articles from 25 of his colleagues, friends, and former students. Topical sections range from the Hebrew Scriptures and the Book of Daniel to the Greek Scriptures, archaeology, and biblical-theological studies. Includes "Does Levirate Law Promote Polygamy?" by Ron du Preez

google search: polygamy site:present-truth.org
google search: polygamy site:salmun.cwahi.net

• atsjats.org
• andrews.edu
• biblicalperspectives.com

• ron du preez
  • link - 18 pages
    • In discussing the thorny problem of plural marriage, the writer
      stated that to refuse to baptize a practicing polygamist into the SDA Church was
      a Òserious example of cross-cultural confusion. - 3 - Borge Schantz, ÒOne MessageÑMany Cultures: How Do We Cope?Ó Ministry, June, 1992, 8.
    • Various biblical scholars have analyzed these passages and have come to several conclusions regarding the essence and meaning of marriage. - 18 - See, for example, Samson Osimbo Obwa, Polygamy Among the Southern Luo of Kenya: A Critique of Both the Practice of Polygamy and the Reaction of Mission-Founded Churches to It in the Light of Biblical TeachingÓ (M.A. thesis, Columbia Graduate School of Bible and Missions, 1978), 50-56; Samuel H. Dresner, ÒHomosexuality and the Order of Creation,Ó Judaism 40 (Summer 1991): 309; Davidson.
    • However, beyond being simply a sexual relationship approved by society, marriage in the first chapters of Genesis involves a divine dimension. Genesis 1:27 says that God created them, Òmale and female,Ó and charged them to be Òfruitful and multiplyÓ (1:28). This conjugal relationship is explicated further in the following chapter. Genesis 2:18 records the words of God: ÒÔI will make him a helper.ÕÓ In other words, it was God who decided to create Òa suitable companion Ó (2:18, TEV) for the man. Then, it was God who Òbrought her to the manÓ (2:22) to be his wife. Thus, both passages specifically state that God is the originator of the marriage relationship.
    • George Bush comments: ÒAs for polygamy, it is clearly forbidden by the fact that a single pair only were created, and by the terms of the command, that a man shall cleave to his wife (not wives) only;Ó George Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Genesis; Designed as a General Help to Biblical Reading and Instruction, 2 vols. (New York: Newman and Ivison, 1852), 1:69 (emphasis original).
    • Even Eugene Hillman, who attempts to prove that polygamy was legitimate according to Mosaic Law, admits that Òif we accept it as divinely revealed truth that our species started from only one pair of human beings, then certainly the original marriage must have been monogamous. - 29 - Eugene Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1975), 151.
    • 32Ibid., 58, 62. Furthermore, Makanzu notes, additional support for monogamy comes from the fact that the Song of Songs Òcannot be understood in the context of a polygamous marriage;Ó 59.
    • In Ellen WhiteÕs words: This first marriage is an example of what all marriages should be. God gave the man one wife. Had he deemed it best for man to have more than one wife, he could as easily have given him two; but he sanctioned no such thing. - 35 - Ellen G. White, ÒMarriages, Wise and Unwise,Ó The YouthÕs Instructor, 10 August 1899,
      437.
    • 36 - Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 182; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), 24; cf. Walter Trobisch, who calls monogamy ÒGodÕs original and final will;Ó Walter Trobisch, My Wife Made Me a Polygamist, ÒHere Is My Problem,Ó Series 1 (Kehl/Rhein, Germany: Editions Trobisch, 1980), 21.
    • Faith - Genesis 2:18 records GodÕs words: ÒÔI will make him a helper suitable for him.ÕÓ The Revised English Bible (REB) states: ÒÔI shall make a partner suited to him.ÕÓ Similar to the REB, other versions interpret the crucial phrase as Òa suitable companionÓ (TEV), Òone like himselfÓ (BBE), and Òwho is like himÓ (S&G). These Bible versions better capture the true essence of the Hebrew term kenegd?, which means a Òcounterpart,Ó44 one ÒÔcorresponding to him.ÕÓ45 Obviously, for Eve to be a truly suitable partner to Adam, she had to have the same basic faith perspective as her spouse. Studies by Umberto Cassuto and others appear to bear out this contention that the Bible indicates a compatibility of ethical and religious beliefs as part of the original marital pattern.46 The ExpositorÕs Bible Commentary suggests that the context of Genesis 2:18 shows that the woman is to be a partner with the man in the areas of both family and worship. (47)
    • A second passage in the creation story that suggests this indispensable religious concord is located in Genesis 2:24. The man and woman are to cleave to each other and become Òone flesh.Ó This is a covenant partnership, a mutual dependence and a genuine reciprocity in all areas of life,48 which is impossible for two who hold differing religious convictions.
    • Ellen White consistently spoke out against marriage between an unbeliever and a believer, which she defined as one who has Òaccepted the truth for this time.Ó49 These interfaith marriages are Òforbidden by God,Ó50 and are prohibited in the Bible.51 Thus, she admonishes that it is better to remain unmarried than to commit ÒsinÓ52 by violating GodÕs clearly revealed will.53
    • Some have felt that one of the contributing factors to the depravity of humanity was the practice of polygamy.74 However, this conclusion has been challenged.75 For example, Welch states that in the text it is neither stated nor implied that the marriages between the Òsons of GodÓ and the Òdaughters of menÓ were polygamous.76 Thus, he maintains: ÒWe must conclude that any attempt to establish a causal relationship between polygamy and the Flood is not warranted by the text itself.Ó77
    • The phrase in contention is located at the end of Genesis 6:2 and reads literally, Òand they took for them wives of all whom they chose.Ó Most versions render this clause similar to the NASB: ÒAnd they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.Ó But, as Robert Jamieson remarks, Òthe phrase Ôtook them wives of all which they choseÕ evidently implies something very different from the simple exercise of a free choice.Ó78 Jamieson concludes that this phrase indicates the practice of polygamy.79 This understanding is clear in the Jerusalem Bible: ÒSo they married as many as they chose.Ó80 This translation appears to be a legitimate rendering of the passage under consideration.
    • Thus, GodÕs direct judgment of polygamy by means of the flood, while saving only monogamous couples in the ark, makes plain His will concerning the number of partners in a marriage.
    • In contradistinction to those who were destroyed by the flood, when one looks at the biblical record it is clear that each of the four couples saved in the ark had a monogamous, heterosexual, intrafaith marriage. Ellen White notes: ÒNoah had but one wife, and their united family discipline was blessed of God. Because NoahÕs sons were righteous, they were preserved in the ark with their righteous father [see Ezek 14:14, 20].Ó116 Apparently, by preserving in the ark only those who were not involved in polygamous, homosexual, or interfaith conjugal relationships, God was conveying His divine approval on the marital pattern that He had originally established in Eden.117
    • In view of this current crisis, it would be well for all Christians, including Seventh-day Adventists, to promote and reemphasize GodÕs original standard and pattern for marriageÑthat everyone needs to abstain from all polygamous, homosexual, interfaith sexual alliances, and to uphold the God-given marital mandate as set up in Eden: monogamous, heterosexual, intrafaith conjugal relationships.
    • As Ellen White indicated: ÒHeaven looks with pleasure upon marriage formed with an earnest desire to conform to the direction given in the Scriptures. Ó124 Referring to the edenic original, she noted: ÒWhen the divine principles are recognized and obeyed in this relation, marriage is a blessing; it guards the purity and happiness of the race, it provides for manÕs social needs, it elevates the physical, the intellectual, and the moral nature.Ó125 If conscientiously adhered to, this plan for marriage will prove to be Òone of the greatest blessings ever given to the human family.Ó126
  • Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Bible link - mention Ronald A. G. du Preez
    • Excellent commentary on the situation of Jacob, pg. 186
    • Page 203 - Judges 19-21 - "text of terror" portraying the explosive nature and destructive capacity of decadent sexuality