In his quest to make a point, Bishop Dag Heward Mills of Lighthouse Chapel took several verses of scripture out of context and made several cringe illustrations which I felt were seriously below his intellect and shouldn't have come from him. I would have expected such statements to come from these street pastors and local preachers but not from a seasoned man of God like DHM.
I would touch on these discrepancies but before I do, I want to state that I am in no way condemning the MoG or trying to say that I know better than he does. But we all have been gifted with wisdom and the Holy Spirit to assist us so we can know when something isn't right.
1. He said that there are many scriptures that support divorce and then went on to quote some. I believe he erred big time here. He took these verses out of context just to illustrate his point. He mentioned Ezra 10:19 as a sign that God approves divorce but when you read Ezra 9 you'll understand that these marriages were against God from the beginning. The people of Israel after conquering their enemies, took their sons and daughters and intermarried which they shouldn't have done.
For the men of Israel have married women from these people and have taken them as wives for their sons. So the holy race has become polluted by these mixed marriages. Worse yet, the leaders and officials have led the way in this outrage.”
Your servants the prophets warned us when they said, ‘The land you are entering to possess is totally defiled by the detestable practices of the people living there. From one end to the other, the land is filled with corruption. Don’t let your daughters marry their sons! Don’t take their daughters as wives for your sons. Don’t ever promote the peace and prosperity of those nations. If you follow these instructions, you will be strong and will enjoy the good things the land produces, and you will leave this prosperity to your children forever.’
But even so, we are again breaking your commands and intermarrying with people who do these detestable things. Won’t your anger be enough to destroy us, so that even this little remnant no longer survives? Ezra 9:2, 11-12, 14 NLT
So this isn't the same as marrying under God's covenant and then divorcing because they lied or are jobless. So this verse can't be used to justify divorce.
2. He then mentions Luke 18:29 as an act of divorce which couldn't be further away from the truth. This verse was talking about attachment. It was talking about the rich man who held onto his possessions as such when Jesus told him to give them out and come follow him, he couldn't.
When Jesus heard his answer, he said, “There is still one thing you haven’t done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was very rich. When Jesus saw this, he said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!
Peter said, “We’ve left our homes to follow you.” “Yes,” Jesus replied, “and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Luke 18:22-24, 28-29 NLT
This is in no way justifying divorce. But simply stating that if you choose to follow Jesus at the expense of your other possessions, you'll be rewarded. It's like Soldiers going to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight wars. They have families and businesses back home but chose a higher calling to pursue. Doesn't mean they don't have wives or children back home, they still do but preferences have changed and they have chosen to go to war than stay home.
3. Then it gets really interesting when he shifts to Polygamy and quotes 1 Corinthians 11:14 which never even mentioned Polygamy.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. I Corinthians 11:4-5, 13-15 NKJV
Paul was addressing men/women praying, prophesying in CHURCH and how they ought to appear. This has nothing to do with Polygamy or animals but it's amazing how the Bishop was able to twist the verse to suit his narrative.
4. Next up was Paul's letter TO TIMOTHY teaching him how to lead the people of Ephesus. In one of those letters, Paul addressed Timothy's frequent sicknesses and urged him to take a little wine as well.
No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities. I Timothy 5:23 NKJV
Note, he didn't say don't drink water ANYMORE and he certainly wasn't telling the church to drink wine SOCIALLY. It was for an intended purpose and that's it.
5. And Paul never said women shouldn't PREACH. This was talking about speaking in tongues publicly. When you go back to 1 Corinthians 11 (see above) you can clearly see that Paul acknowledged women praying and prophesying in CHURCH. So why would he now, 2 chapters later, say that women should keep mute? He might have been referring to 1 Timothy instead but this verse wasn't talking about that.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 1 Tim 2:11-12
6. In the final parts of the video, he mentioned some figures in scriptures and said that we are their followers. That's inaccurate because we follow only Jesus Christ. We aren't called Timothians, or Paulians or Abrahamians or Davidians. We are called Christians because we follow Jesus Christ. The word followers in that verse just means to imitate what they did in certain vices i.e. faith and endurance. Not their sexual preferences.
I believe the MoG truly wanted to address the futility of marrying more than one wives or going through a rigorous divorce process but in his approach, he deviated big time. And as such, it makes his argument flawed. In conclusion, I don't believe in Polygamy, there's no where in the Scriptures where Polygamy marriage was pleasing to God. All the men who had multiple wives in scriptures had a terrible outcome and had God wanted us to have multiple wives, he would have created several Eves for Adam. But He knew one was more than enough for him to fulfill his purpose so He gave him one. Also as far as divorce is concerned, I'll just leave y'all with what Jesus Christ himself said.
Hesaid to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 19:8-9 NKJV
Sothis is clear. You are not too remarry again if you divorce someone based on anything other than sexual immortality. If you decided to divorce because of job, disagreement, money, even physical abuse, you are not to remarry someone else. But if they cheated on you and you divorce them, you are free to marry again.
I hope I was able to help straighten this issue!? May God continue to give us wisdom and patience to present the Gospel unadulterated.