Polygamy in the Bible

[Rico]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have but one word for you..................... AMERICA. Us Americans like to think everyone and everything should be the way we think they should be. Anything that doesn't fit into our American way of thinking needs to be reshaped and remolded into our image.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.

Yep, I would agree!

[Dora]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.

I can't for the life of me believe that so many of you guys buy into the idea that polygamy is NOT sin.

I also believe that owning slaves is sinful. Degrading human beings to the point of equating them to the value of so much livestock is dispicable.

Polygamy does the same thing to women - it devalues them. It places them in a vulnerable position and subsequently the negative results trickle down to their children.

Countries and cultures that still condone the practice are NOT, I repeat NOT Christian countries. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. still engage in this practice. Mormons have created their own religion to enable this practice.

In cultures that practice polygamy, abuse of women is rampant. What religion is it where they practice female castration? Why would men want to strip women of their ability to enjoy sex? Could it be that they want to suppress their desire to have sex with partners other than their husbands? Just more examples of men coming up with great ideas like chastity belts, etc. Crazy stuff!!!

How can you say that polygamy is "ok" with God? I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that God is pleased with placing women in a situation where they are subjected to abuse, neglect, and where they are objectified like cattle. If slavery is wrong, it stands to reason that polygamy is also wrong.

When Jesus set forth His principles for living and how to treat your neighbor, OUT went the idea that a human being can be bought and sold or that one person's worth is greater or lesser than another's.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dora

I can't for the life of me believe that so many of you guys buy into the idea that polygamy is NOT sin.

I also believe that owning slaves is sinful. Degrading human beings to the point of equating them to the value of so much livestock is dispicable.

Polygamy does the same thing to women - it devalues them. It places them in a vulnerable position and subsequently the negative results trickle down to their children.

Countries and cultures that still condone the practice are NOT, I repeat NOT Christian countries. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. still engage in this practice. Mormons have created their own religion to enable this practice.

In cultures that practice polygamy, abuse of women is rampant. What religion is it where they practice female castration? Why would men want to strip women of their ability to enjoy sex? Could it be that they want to suppress their desire to have sex with partners other than their husbands? Just more examples of men coming up with great ideas like chastity belts, etc. Crazy stuff!!!

How can you say that polygamy is "ok" with God? I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that God is pleased with placing women in a situation where they are subjected to abuse, neglect, and where they are objectified like cattle. If slavery is wrong, it stands to reason that polygamy is also wrong.

When Jesus set forth His principles for living and how to treat your neighbor, OUT went the idea that a human being can be bought and sold or that one person's worth is greater or lesser than another's.

Dora, when you say the word "polygamy" you picture in your head the abuse that women are enduring in Asia and Africa. When you say the word "slavery" you picture the horrendous abuse inflicted on slaves by America and many other nations in the slave trade.

"Biblical polygamy" and "biblical slavery" wasn't like these more recent institutions. In the Bible wives had far more rights and entitlements than the women in modern polygamous nations. In fact, if "biblical polygamy" were practiced in those nations they'd come light years forward in regards to respecting women and even a woman's right to conjugal enjoyment, ownership of property, etc. Remember, women in polygamous marriages in biblical times had their own servants and even had a right to own and operate their own trade, bringing a living into the family.

In addition, if principles of "biblical slavery" were observed the slave trade in early America wouldn't have been as terrible as it was and most slaves would have only experienced slavery as a gateway to citizenship and freedom. In a way, "biblical slavery", is more akin to what we might call "indentured servitude" today. Remember when poor English and the Irish imagrants would sell themselves into servitude for a period of time to gain passage to the new world and their eventual freedom? That is more in keeping with the institution of slavery.

You're comparing apples to oranges. If I believed for a minute that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others treated their wives like so many men treat their multiple wives in Asia and Africa today, I'd agree with you whole heartedly sis. But the Biblical institutions are far different from what we've seen practiced in our non-Hebraic cultures.

[TK Burk]

Would one of you brethren that believe polygamy is NOT a sin please explain this:

Matthew 19:8-9
(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.
(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.

(1) What did the “hardness” of their “hearts” have to do with that Law being added?

(2) What did Jesus mean by “SUFFERED you”?

(3) How was Moses’ Law different than what was first taught?

(4) Was what Jesus said to them different than what was written by Moses?

(5) Does different mean God does change His will in certain circumstances?

(6) If Jesus’ position is different than Moses’, would it be sin to NOT do as Jesus commanded and instead do as Moses allowed?

(7) Since the New Covenant removes a “stony heart” and gives a Born Again believer a “fleshly heart,” if a man uses this Law to divorce his wife, would it be a sin?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Would one of you brethren that believe polygamy is NOT a sin please explain this:

Matthew 19:8-9
(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.
(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.

(1) What did the “hardness” of their “hearts” have to do with that Law being added?

Because so many men would become bitter and desire to be separated from a wife, Moses expanded the stipulations of the writ of divorcement to spare the woman abuse at the hands of hard hearted and potentially abusive men.

(2) What did Jesus mean by “SUFFERED you”?

Jesus meant, "allowed you to divorce your wives".

(3) How was Moses’ Law different than what was first taught?

God never intended for the marriage contract to be broken.

(4) Was what Jesus said to them different than what was written by Moses?

Yes and no. The Law of God states....

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Both Jesus and the Law of God allows for divorce. Christ stipulates that the only proper grounds of divorce is for sexual infidelity. This was the original intent of the law. The "uncleanness" was meant to indicate her infidelity. However, Moses allowed divorce for less serious infractions in his application of the Law. Christ doesn't give them anything new. Christ clarifies bringing into focus the true meaning behind the original intent of the Law.

(5) Does different mean God does change His will in certain circumstances?

No. Jesus brought clarification to that which "Moses" confused by his being too lenient.

(6) If Jesus’ position is different than Moses’, would it be sin to NOT do as Jesus commanded and instead do as Moses allowed?

Christ's position is more strict than that of "Moses'" (a fallible man), but not different from the Law of God itself. Again, Christ clarified the Law that Moses was lax upon. Since Christ brings into focus the original intent of the Law of God we should obey Christ over Moses' allowances.

(7) Since the New Covenant removes a “stony heart” and gives a Born Again believer a “fleshly heart,” if a man uses this Law to divorce his wife, would it be a sin?

Again, the issue isn't the Law, it was the allowances made by Moses in regards to this law. God never intended this law to be expanded to include the petty things they used as grounds for divorce.

You will notice that this passage is about divorce not polygamy. This reveals that God never intended a man to divorce his wife (or wives) for any other reason than adultery.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

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

Pastor Salaz,

That’s a valid interpretation of 2 Samuel 12:8, but the commentator admits that oriental custom was for a king’s wives to be passed on to his successor. No “marriage” was required and the successor would be perfectly within his rights to have relations with them if he so desired. This is part of the offense Absalom inflicted upon David when he took and had relations with David’s concubines publicly. By doing this he was essentially declaring himself successor and victor over his father. And God would have granted David more riches and wives (perhaps through conquest). But David did evil in the sight of the Lord, again, not by having multiple wives and concubines…but because he took a woman who was married to Uriah and had then had Uriah killed.

Why is it at every instance where God could make his will perfectly known by rebuking men like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and various kings of Israel….God is silent? God quickly rebukes other sin. Read through the Psalms, look at how many times David is portrayed as walking in his integrity and being righteous. If polygamy is a “sin” the Psalms may be one of the largest chronicles of religious hypocrisy in Holy Scripture. Also, if it is a “sin”, David died in his sins and is currently in Hell. Why does Paul never speak against those in the OT who had multiple wives?

I believe that monogamy is a superior arrangement compared to polygamy. I believe it better provides for the needs of the family physically, emotionally, and spiritually. But I still just don’t believe that polygamy was or is a “sin”. Again, this is because marriage in the OT wasn’t so much a romantic affair like we see it today. It was like a business contract binding upon its participants. The participants set the boundaries of that contract and multiple contracts were legal. So legal, in fact, that God codified rights of inheritance in the Law in a polygamous framework. God recognized it.

So if one were to argue that monogamy is superior to polygamy by presenting examples of how it better meets physical, emotional, and spiritual needs, I’d probably agree. But what’s happening here is that men are not going that deep. They just want to say that it is a “sin” to perform a “quick sweep” on the issue. I don’t believe the men of the OT were in adulterous marriages. Abraham wasn’t an adulterer, nor was Jacob, or Moses. David’s only adultery was in relation to Bathsheba, God is silent about his multiple wives. Certainly if David were in sin prior to Bathsheba God would have confronted him as quickly as he did after Bathsheba.

[Dora]

I still can't believe the ratio of pro-polygamy versus anti-polygamy here. What is it 6 pro vs 2 anti? Crazy!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dora

I still can't believe the ratio of pro-polygamy versus anti-polygamy here. What is it 6 pro vs 2 anti? Crazy!

It shocked me too Dora. I didn't always believe this. I used to believe that it was absolute sin and adultery. I viewed Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon and all of them as slimy, smarmy men who were in deep set adultery....until I realized the implications of that line of reasoning. Then I began studying the social fabric of their society. I discovered that "biblical polygamy", while violating modern sensitivities, provided an umbrella of protection for wives in a world that would have brutalized them mercilessly. In God's order, women could find themselves in the home of a righteous man, loved, provided for, protected, entitled to certain rights and privileges, and even permitted to engage in trade and business in the authority of her husband's name. These women, especially the first wife, even had female servants of their own who attended their needs and care. In a world of brutality, abuse, and objectification "biblical polygamy" lifted women from their less than human condition in an evil and worldly society. Women living in the home of a godly man lived like queens compared to women in other cultures. The only issue was...people are human. Jealousies abounded, especially if one wife had more time with the husband or was able to raise up heirs and children to the husband. Remember, marriages were covenantal arrangements, often arranged by parents. The marriage covenant wasn't as romantic as we view it. It was an institution. Becoming a patriarch's wife was like becoming a partner in King David Inc., and your share of stock was determined by the number of children you could provide. Children were viewed as a blessing in so many ways. Not just being emotional joys to raise and care for. Children were heirs that ensured the family dynasty. Children tended to be the most trustworthy of workers caring for the family crops or flocks. Children also were charged to care for their parents as their parents aged, meaning the more children you had the better your retirement and care would be. Children were "social security". A blessing indeed. I'm not saying that there wasn't love and romance, but I want to properly describe that this institution was more than a "marriage" as we understand it today.

Dora, wives belonging to godly men were not abused. A godly man would love his wives and seek to provide for them and treat them equally and fairly.

While I may not entirely agree with some of the points given, I think the following article from GotQuestions.org offers a rather excellent answer to this polygamy question...

Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

Answer: The question of polygamy in the Bible is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy / bigamy in the Bible was Lamech in Genesis 4:19, “Lamech married two women…” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status) according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered. (1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? (2) How does God view polygamy today? (3) Why did it change?

(1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. The best anyone can do is “informed” speculation. There are a few key factors to consider. First, there has always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5% of the world population are women, with men being 49.5%. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatalities. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to the patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. Fourth, the significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable (to say the least) situation.

So, it seems that God allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, starvation, etc. In addition to the protection / provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period…causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only able to produce one child each year.

(2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes)” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring the having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. Please read - http://www.gotquestions.org/husband-one-wife.html. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach ... temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Ephesians 5:22-33, speaking of the relationship between husbands and wives, when referring to a husband (singular) always also refers to a wife (singular). “…for the husband is the head of the wife (singular) … He who loves his wife (singular) loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (singular), and the two will become one flesh … each one of you also must love his wife (singular) as he loves himself, and the wife (singular) must respect her husband (singular).” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy is allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church), and the husband-wife relationship, falls apart.

(3) Why did it change? It is not as much God disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God restoring marriage to His original intent. Even going back to Adam and Eve (not Eves), polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it was God’s desire for the problem never to have occurred. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves – removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws that the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.

Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps…but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.

So, I firmly believe that polygamy isn't a sin. It may not be ideal or necessary in today's world.... but it isn't a sin.