Posted 10:52 AM by Gene

ChapmanForPresident08.com

Posted 4:22 AM by Gene

Hi Melanie,

I agree 100% with your thoughts. I'll post them on the blog.

Gene

Hi Gene, this is Melanie, Robert's wife. I enjoy a good debate with someone who will listen to someone's opinions other than their own, and be open minded enough to give them some thought. I have read, with an open mind, your thoughts on polygamy and have a few that I'd like to throw into the ring.

Robert told me you appreciated my comments regarding some men not being able to emotionally take care of even one wife, therefore the discussion of polygamy would be mute on that point alone. But I do have some other reasons. I do not think that polygamy is a sin. I think it could be for some, if there heart was purely fulfilling the lust of the flesh "that" would be sin, even if they just had one spouse. However, when polygamy was an accepted way of life there were reasons other than men wanting to bed more than one woman and not being able to control their lust. Abraham, for example, was given a concubine by his wife to bear him a son in her place. It had some dire consequences though. Even Sarah, who thought nothing of the custom, suffered unbearable emotional pain because of her actions. Even though Ishmael was by law and custom HER son, she had him cast out. That's pretty tough consequences for the child and the servant.

The main reason for multiple wives was procreation, the more children the more help you had, which ultimately meant greater wealth.(Not to mention, God instructing man to replenish the earth.) Women had great incentive in sharing their husbands. It meant more hands. Quite simply an agrarian society lends itself to needing as many people as you can feed to support itself. That incentive no longer exists. I can say with certainty that no woman today would willingly share her husband. Because God made us that way. I know that there are women who say they can, but they are so deceived. The pain they feel... I think the only way you could understand would be if God revealed it to you. A man can not understand that without God's revelation. Even ungodly women who are involved in any kind of promiscuity and tell themselves they are empowered and it's freedom are deceived. Any woman who is involved in a sexual relationship outside of a monogamous marriage, has to continually deal with the pain she feels, whether she admits it, or even realizes it. It is a lie to believe that some women can handle it.

And in regards to your suggestion that "the focus of a bishop is to be heavily on the work of God so that his drive for women in not a primary as others", really came across offensively to me for some reason. That statement makes it sound like it's OK for laymen to just let their lust of the flesh run rampant. It is no more important for a pastor to do that than ANYONE else. Maybe the bishop didn't need the extra hands if the body was helping to meet the more base needs of his family. He probably received most of their food, etc from the body therefore his one wife would not have to be out in the field growing all the food, grinding the wheat, making all the clothing, raising the children, washing all the clothes by hand at the river, carrying water from the well (do you see my point?)... I believe it was also custom that the widows gave their life to do nothing other than serve the church. The pastor probably had to "cover" them as well as his own family. Also, from a pastor's daughter's point of view, they are so busy taking care of everybody else in the church they don't even have time to take care of one wife and her children.

I hope this came across clearly. I told Robert I would rather have this conversation face to face. It's very hard to get some things across without the human touch. Especially, conveying things from the heart.

Melanie

Posted 7:46 PM by Gene

"One Wife"

Since I stirred so much controversy last week in my sermon entitled, "Polygamy," I felt this would be a good time to explore the qualification of both a bishop and a deacon to be the husband of "one wife."

We read in I Timothy 3:2, "A bishop (ie. pastor) must then be blameless, the husband of one wife." And in I Timothy 3:12, we read, "Lets the deacons be the husbands of one wife." The word "one" in both texts means, "first" or "one." It is the Greek word, "mia."

John MacArthur says the word means, "a one woman man" in his famed commentary. I can't draw that from my studies, but I respect the real possibility that I may not be as well studied as Pastor MacArthur, so I shall yield to his stature as a great Bible teacher at this point.

Clearly, a man in church leadership is to be not given to sexual relationships with multiple women. His focus is to be heavily on the work of God so that his drive for women is not as primary as others.

There has been great debate on the meaning of the word, "one" in relationship to divorce and remarriage for pastors in church history. The fact is that a "first" wife is the preferred wife in God's plan for a minister. I would not and could not tell a man that this text negated his being either a bishop (ie. pastor) or deacon, myself. But I respect those who go to the absolute end of possibilities in rejecting divorced and remarried pastors and deacons. I respect those who oppose me as a pastor, were I ever to remarry, given that my first wife left me for another model years ago.

My position has always been that in America we are in a mess; if God brings a better pastor to the flock than I, I'll gladly hand him the keys to the door.

There are many many different directions of technical meaning we can place on divorce and remarriage. My suggestion is, stay together at all costs if you want God's absolute perfect will for your life.

respectfully,

Pastor Gene Chapman

Posted 12:13 PM by Gene

You, David, make the following third assertion:

"Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Repeated several times in the New Testament:
Matthew 5:27
Matthew 19:18
Romans 13:9

A concubine, by definition (even your definition), would most certainly
be outside of wedlock, and that makes the relationship a sin of
adultery."

Ok David,

To answer, a concubine is a type of second teared wife, who has no authority to claim social standing or benefit after her man is dead. "Adultery" is done when one mate cheats on the other -- a behind the back kind of thing. Polygamy assumes that all parties know of one another and are in harmony with the social environment of polygamy. The Mormons are known to have many wives, and these wives live often next door to each other, if not in the same house. A concubine is just another form of wife. She has less social standing in the home and no right to benefit from the family upon the man's death, but she is no adultress, according to my examination of Scripture.

I'm not even sure we can say with certainty that President Clinton was in adulty, according to Scripture. Monica Lewinsky was an "unmarried" and "never been married" woman. If she were married or had been previously, we might have a biblical arguement for adulty, but I don't see it in the Greek or Hebrew. She was a concubine, whom his his wife, we're told, knew nothing about. If Mrs. Clinton had done such a thing, it would be clearly adultry, as she was married to a husband.


Posted 11/29/2003 01:24:53 PM by Gene Chapman
In I Corinthians 7:2 we read, " Nevertheless, to avoid fornication (uncommitted sex), let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." The "Topic" again is "fornication" (uncommitted sex), not singular and plural words.

For example, we often see in Scripture, God using terms like, "the church" and then, "the churches that are in Asia." Is the Church universal or are there many local churches. One is singular, the other plural. One doesn't negate the other. Infact, there are individual churces (ie. local gatherings), but they are part of the to-big-to-be-seated-in-one-location universal church.

So when we read a singular use of a term, it doesn't mean that a whole matter is resolved. We must still address the fact that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and there is nothing I find indicating that it is a sin in 2003 for this lifestyle to continue, other than for church leaders (see: I Timothy 3:2). (Sadly, I am a church leader, so no polygamy for me.)

Posted 11/29/2003 01:12:33 PM by Gene Chapman
Ok David, on the first point, you present "Matthew 19:3-6." I would respectfully direct your attention to Matthew 19:3, which you forgot to quote: "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it not lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

The Hermaneutic Principle used to interpret this verse is the "Topical Principle." So the topic is divorcing your wife "for every cause." I don't see polygamy addressed here, I'm sorry.

In your quote, you address the idea that "the TWO shall become ONE flesh." I agree. We could infer from the text that monogamy is the presumed preferred state of a marital relationship from youre quotation, but I still don't see King Sol

Posted 12:12 PM by Gene

"Polygamy"

Polygamy is the state of having more than one wife or concubine.

Years ago at Baylor University, I was a scholarship student studying undergraduate Law, but my focus was to become a lawyer/ preacher like the Father of The Reformation, Dr. Martin Luther, with whom I'd been compared by the American Press back in 1986 and 1987, as I'd challenged Pope John Paul II's Catholic theological assumptions with my billboard ministry. My liberal theology professor knew I was a hard core Bible thumper Fundamentalist in those days, as we had often verbally spared in class. Oneday, he became upset with my presumed astonishment at his assertion that Moses crossed the Red Sea in shallow water, as I said before the class, "That's amazing that God drowned Pharaoh's entire army in ankle deep water." The class laughed at the professor.

Then the professor charged back at me, "I'll give you or anybody in here an extra "A," if you can show me where in the Bible, Old or New Testament, it does away with polygamy." I took his offer, as did many of my fellow students in the class.

In the end, I never got that extra "A." He beat my fundamentalist assumptions on that point, and made me a better student of the Bible and even the U.S. Tax Code, as result. My assumptions mean nothing, if I can't back it up with chapter and verse, I learned.

In I Kings 11:3, King Solomon is reported to have 700 wives and 300 concubines. All it says negative of this is that Solomon's wives turned his heart away form God. I guess the concubines didn't play a role in this turning away from God. Who knows?

A concubine is like a second wife -- a woman who lives in the home but is not an heir to the man's property in any way. There are no marital obligations that must be fulfilled by the man's family to the concubine, were he to die. Nothing in the Bible does away with this lifestyle. In other words, you're not a sinner for having a live-in woman.

The New Testament does indicate that a church pastor/"bishop" (I Timothy 3:2) is not to be polygamous. He is to be the husband of "one wife." In other words, he is a one woman kind of man. It is interesting that this bishop is the head of the local church and not the tail. I think the preferred state for a godly man is to be prepared to be a bishop or "deacon" (vs. 12), and that requires that you not be a many woman type of man.

If, however, you see polygamy in your life, I couldn't and wouldn't oppose your lifestyle. Having a concubine or a wife or two is not a cut and dried sin in the Bible, so who am I to oppose it? I'm not God, and God didn't oppose it. Just be careful that you're not hiding these women from one another, as it would be immoral to portray yourself as being married or in a concubine relationship to one or more women, while not.

respectfully,

Gene Chapman, Pastor