Polygamy in the Bible

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I’d like to address some of the points made in the posts above by Bro. Salaz to add some insight from this side of the discussion….



God expressly stated through the prophet Nathan that He gave David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addition God also stated that he would have been more than willing to give David even more of these same things if David so desired. Yet David still chose to commit Adultery with Bathsheba. What is interesting here, is that God not only expresses that he gave David multiple wives and that he would have even given David more…but God only rebukes David for his sin with Bathsheba. Lastly even the Law of God allows for more than one wife and illustrates inheritance rights for the wives and children.

Here’s the deal….if polygamy is sin God sinned in giving David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addiction if God was only “tolerating sin” it was on his own account…because God himself never rebuked man for polygamy.

Also, you mention the Mishnah and the Talmud. I find that VERY interesting. Because my wife is from a Jewish family and I’ve sat and talked with two rabbis (Rabbi Press and Rabbi Kopmar) on more than one occasion. I firmly believe that this will make your argument far MORE complex. First, because these are not the, “Word of God”; second, because both the Mishnah and the Talmud both express strong rabbinical opinions in favor of polygamy explaining it’s ethics, especially in regards to in heritance rights. So you’re citing sources that agree with us! LOL

Where you are quoting from does not explicitly state that God gave David Sauls wives to be his own. No where do we find that David married them or took them into his palace. There are a small minority of scholars that believe that Davids sixth wife Eglah might have been a wife or concubine of Saul, however we find no proof of this. You are carrying this to an extreme to say that God would have Given him even more wives. Where is the proof in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. Are there any scholars that have held this view. If So Who.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary
2Sa 12:8 I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives--The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

I also have a brother in law who is Jewish and have conversed with him and have gone to their synagogue for their children's celebrations. I have talked with their rabbis in the San Fernando valley near Reseda on several occasions. The Mishnah and Talmud are discussions like we are having here expressing various points of view. In many synagogues this is how they kept track of genealogies of the families through the centuries. My sister didn't convert to Judaism as he wanted her to, as she was raised Apostolic, but backslid and she would have had to deny Jesus was God.

I don't know who pointed out that the Pharisees were the more liberal and the Sadducee's more conservative. Being that the Sadducee didn't believe in the resurrection they were more liberal and lived for the here and now. They were the priestly line and more aristocratic. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. The Sadducee believed in a more literal view of the Torah and the Pharisee's belief in the oral Torah by which they interpreted the Torah hermeneutically. For this reason the Sadducee held to a more strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the Torah The Pharisee was to find the intent of what the passage meant.

Thanks for the insight from your side

Pastor Salaz

[Aquila]

Original intent once again is spelled out by Jesus. Not because this is Gods design but because of the hardness of our heart to hear and do the will of God.

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I believe we should do our best to speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where they are silent. In the above text you reference Jesus is specifically condemning the Pharisees for what is known as, “serial monogamy”. You see, the Pharisees (and men in general) were marrying only one woman…but then divorcing her and marrying another as though women were disposable objects. Jesus wasn’t addressing polygamy but rather divorce. Jesus NEVER directly addresses polygamy. However, Jesus was questioned by the Sadducees about Liverite Marriage, a marriage in which a man’s widow was married off to his brother (even if that brother were already married). The Sadducees asked about what would happen in the resurrection (which they didn’t believe in) if a man died and his wife were married off to his six brothers, each of them dying in turn until she finally died. They wanted to know who’s wife she would be in the resurrection. Here was ample opportunity for Jesus to say, “Men often received his brothers wife in addition to his own, but I say unto you that from the beginning it was not so. For a man should have one wife.”, but Jesus didn’t. Jesus nowhere rebukes the implicated idea of polygamy in this text. However, Jesus does answer their question by stating that those who take part in the resurrection will not marry or be given in marriage because they will be like the angels in heaven.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe we should do our best to speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where they are silent. In the above text you reference Jesus is specifically condemning the Pharisees for what is known as, “serial monogamy”. You see, the Pharisees (and men in general) were marrying only one woman…but then divorcing her and marrying another as though women were disposable objects. Jesus wasn’t addressing polygamy but rather divorce. Jesus NEVER directly addresses polygamy. However, Jesus was questioned by the Sadducees about Liverite Marriage, a marriage in which a man’s widow was married off to his brother (even if that brother were already married). The Sadducees asked about what would happen in the resurrection (which they didn’t believe in) if a man died and his wife were married off to his six brothers, each of them dying in turn until she finally died. They wanted to know who’s wife she would be in the resurrection. Here was ample opportunity for Jesus to say, “Men often received his brothers wife in addition to his own, but I say unto you that from the beginning it was not so. For a man should have one wife.”, but Jesus didn’t. Jesus nowhere rebukes the implicated idea of polygamy in this text. However, Jesus does answer their question by stating that those who take part in the resurrection will not marry or be given in marriage because they will be like the angels in heaven.

You sidestepped the question of original intent. Jesus did the same. lol He ignored the divorce trap they were trying to set and went back to what he set up in the beginning in Mt. 19. In Mt 22 he once again ignores the question and now speaks about the ends. Talk about cosmology and Teleology In heaven we neither marry or are given in marriage but are like the angels. The issue was sanctioned by God in the Law for the preservation of women and continual family care, but the real issue our relationship to God and eternity. Here is another portion of scripture that happened before the law.

Gen 38:1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.
Gen 38:2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
Gen 38:3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.

First off Judah marries? a Canaanite woman and has children. While he is with the Canaanites he takes a wife for his firstborn. The Lord slays him. His father tells his second son to go in to her and marry her and bear children to his Brother.

Gen 38:6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
Gen 38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

God did not sanction this did he? Yet what he did displeased the Lord. Took his brothers wife or spilled semen onto the ground?

Was this a God ordained union or a common practice during patriarchal times.

Why would God put this into the annals of human history in the middle of Josephs account of being sold into slavery and of his keeping himself pure from Potiphars wife. There was no law prohibiting Adultery at the time was there? Joseph eventually married the daughter of an Egyptian priest (royalty). Judah married a Canaanite woman and caused his sons to do the same. Judah lost his wife and went into a supposed harlot. His daughter in law No law prohibiting this was there? Sin or Ok? Kind of a strange passage that God instructed Moses to record.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

You sidestepped the question of original intent. Jesus did the same. lol He ignored the divorce trap they were trying to set and went back to what he set up in the beginning in Mt. 19. In Mt 22 he once again ignores the question and now speaks about the ends. Talk about cosmology and Teleology In heaven we neither marry or are given in marriage but are like the angels. The issue was sanctioned by God in the Law for the preservation of women and continual family care, but the real issue our relationship to God and eternity. Here is another portion of scripture that happened before the law.

Gen 38:1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.
Gen 38:2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
Gen 38:3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.

First off Judah marries? a Canaanite woman and has children. While he is with the Canaanites he takes a wife for his firstborn. The Lord slays him. His father tells his second son to go in to her and marry her and bear children to his Brother.

Gen 38:6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
Gen 38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

God did not sanction this did he? Yet what he did displeased the Lord. Took his brothers wife or spilled semen onto the ground?

Was this a God ordained union or a common practice during patriarchal times.

Why would God put this into the annals of human history in the middle of Josephs account of being sold into slavery and of his keeping himself pure from Potiphars wife. There was no law prohibiting Adultery at the time was there? Joseph eventually married the daughter of an Egyptian priest (royalty). Judah married a Canaanite woman and caused his sons to do the same. Judah lost his wife and went into a supposed harlot. His daughter in law No law prohibiting this was there? Sin or Ok? Kind of a strange passage that God instructed Moses to record.

That is a VERY complex story. A simple description is that God struck Onan dead because he refused to honor Er, his brother, by raising children up in Er's name. This is part of Liverite Marriage,

Deuteronomy 25:5-6
5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

So Onan's sin was in refusing to raise up children in his brother's name...not spilling his seed upon the ground.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That is a VERY complex story. A simple description is that God struck Onan dead because he refused to honor Er, his brother, by raising children up in Er's name. This is part of Liverite Marriage,

Deuteronomy 25:5-6
5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

So Onan's sin was in refusing to raise up children in his brother's name...not spilling his seed upon the ground.

This occurred 430-500 years before the law ever existed. It pre-existed the Levirate Marriage in the Law of Moses.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

This occurred 430-500 years before the law ever existed. It pre-existed the Levirate Marriage in the Law of Moses.

I never really thought that much about it, but very interesting point Pastor Salaz.

Perhaps Moses embodied an ancient principle in the Law of Israel?

For example, we know that Abraham tithed his war spoils from Sodom to the King of Salem. From my understanding, in ancient times, it was customary to give a 10% peace offering to local rulers. This linked the two in covenant like an alliance. The lesser served the greater and the greater provided protection and provision for the lesser. We also see Jacob vowing to give God a tenth of his increase if God would bless him. Abraham and Jacob obviously understood this principle long before the Law required a regular tithe from the increase of the land.

[Aquila]

What was happening in the days of Noah/Noe?

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Did God tolerate sin? Yes he did! Who did Jesus go and preach to? Those that were disobedient as we see above. Disobedient in marriage. They didn't believe God, no faith, did their own will and condemned themselves. Hard hearts. The same thing that saves some condemns others. Doing Gods will and intention for us to have a blessed and prosperous life. Otherwise it brings hardships and condemnation. The ark and baptism symbols of faith and obedience. If we believe, we do what God says, if we don't we show unbelief or lack of faith.

I think you missed what Jesus was actually saying. Jesus wasn’t addressing sin. Jesus was addressing preparedness. There is nothing wrong with eating or drinking. There is nothing wrong with marrying a wife or giving one’s daughter in marriage. What Jesus is pointing out is that at the end of the world people will be going about their lives like they’ll live forever in spite of the signs and the warnings. People will be celebrating, marrying, and planning families in spite of the Bible’s warnings to be ready (just as those rebellious souls were doing in the days of Noah).

There isn’t any reference here to “marital sin”.

[Aquila]

The Word specifically mentions this disobedience as one of the reasons why God brought judgment. It mentions as in the days of Noah so shall it be when God brings judgment again. Not by flood this time though.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Just because they were not born out of Gods original intent did not mean they wouldn't become men of Renown and mighty. They still were sinful and judgment came. If they had faith in God and did righteousness by trying to fulfill Gods Laws to the best of their ability God did not condemn them to hell as a sinner but their faith was counted unto them as righteousness. Hebrews 11. Just as we do not fulfill every detail of the moral law yet our faith is counted to us for righteousness. The ceremonial law is fulfilled in Jesus and we no longer have to deal with the types and shadows but we still have to fulfill the moral law to please God not to be saved. How many men of renown do we have now that are men of God but still do unrighteous deeds. I count myself in on that one. Yet my overall testimony is clearly seen because I have faith in God.

First, I’d like to point out that this text’s interpretation has been highly debated for thousands of years.

To properly understand it, the term “sons of God” has to be properly defined.

Some claim that the Hebrew for the term “sons of God” is used throughout the Hebrew Scripture for angels (namely the book of Job and the Psalms). The “Jewish oral traditions” prior to the first century hold the interpretation that these “sons of God” were fallen angels who materialized (as they do occasionally throughout the OT) and took the “daughters of men” in unholy marriages. Their children (giants, the men of renown) were regarded as being half human and half devil having supernatural powers. The book of Enoch explains that these fallen angels taught mankind witchcraft, grand scale warfare, and general mysticism. In addition, since these “daughters of men” aged and the fallen angels didn’t, they taught women how to make themselves look younger and more attractive by using what we call “make-up” (this would explain that there is a demonic origin to make-up). With this demonic invasion of earth violence and debauchery began to fill the earth and Hell was attempting to thwart the birth of the Messiah by poisoning the human line with demon/human spawn. However, Noah was righteous and pure in his “generations”, meaning he was faithful and pure bred. So God sets out to preserve the line of the Messiah, and the only option God has is to save Noah and destroy the earth to thwart Hell’s attempt to derail God’s plan of salvation. God sends a flood and the “sons of God” (the angels that left their first estate) are bound in chains of darkness to await the day of judgment. However the giants, or men of renown, are left to die in the flood. But there is an issue confronting Heaven. These men of renown are part devil and part human. Since these fit nowhere in the paradigm of creation their spirits are left to roam the earthly plane and today are known as “demons” and “unclean spirits”. These spirits desire to live in body again to live out their sinful nature but their only way of doing so is through “demonic possession”. When a man or woman sins it tempts these spirits to congregate in their lives. When the person opens themselves up spiritually these spirits entrench themselves like an unholy infestation in the human psyche and spirit. It goes deeper from here….but you get the point. Not only to ancient Jewish sources hold this view, but even the historian Josephus illustrates that it was the preeminent view in mystical Judaism during the time of Christ. This subject alone could lend itself to an interesting discussion.

And yet others interpret the “sons of God” as being the righteous line of God’s people and the “daughters of men” being the daughters of the unrighteous or ungodly. It is argued that the “sons of God” took the “daughters of men” all of which they chose. The issue according too sources that hold this view isn’t that the sin was polygamy….it was being unequally yoked. When the godly marry the ungodly sin will result because the ungodly will influence the godly to do wickedness. If polygamy was a sin, God would have done well to rebuke mankind for the practice quickly instead of enabling man’s sin and even giving wives as blessings as he did in the case of King David. However, this interpretation also doesn’t explain why their children were unique. Nor does it agree with the most ancient sources of Jewish teaching.

My point? My point is that this isn’t as “cut and dry” as you presuppose that it is. And by bringing Jewish oral tradition into the mix....you're going to make this very complex and find that your sources oppose your position.

[Rico]

I am surprised that this thread has made it to page 60. How many different ways can you show that the Bible isn't against polygamy?

[LUKE2447]

Rico, how long does it take people to realize that God never says it is and also involves himself in giving more than one wife. Why? Because it is not a sin. All the opportunity he had he never gives a iota or jot against it. Yet, let's ignore all that, say God is a liar and changes his opinion all the time and really meant "this" which he never said. Talking about adding to God's Word and putting words in God's mouth. The argument against polygamy is about as liberal of a interpretation as one can get.