Is Polygamy a sin?

[Mock]

I was randomly just searching stuff and I came upon polygamy and researched it some but to my surprise I really could not find anything debunking that Polygamy was a sin. Does anyone have know any scriptures saying Polygamy is a sin?. I mean at times I even feel like I could like/love 2 women but honestly I am totally fine with one and find it odd and unfair to women who are involved in polygamy.

 

[Sunbelt]

I was randomly just searching stuff and I came upon polygamy and researched it some but to my surprise I really could not find anything debunking that Polygamy was a sin. Does anyone have know any scriptures saying Polygamy is a sin?. I mean at times I even feel like I could like/love 2 women but honestly I am totally fine with one and find it odd and unfair to women who are involved in polygamy.

I believe polygamy is a sin if it is not a commandment from God.

 

[Matariki]

Though the bible does not necessarily condemn polygamy, it doesn't recommend it either. What it does state is that marriage is a lifelong spiritual and physical union between one man and one woman, and both are equal in the marriage. Polygamy, I find its devaluing and goes outside the concept of equality within a marriage. Are two women or more equal to one man and vice versa?

Here's what Jesus said: Mark 10:6-8 "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh."

There is no mention of wives or husbands in plural sense in this passage. So lets keep it that way.

 

[thesunisout]

I was randomly just searching stuff and I came upon polygamy and researched it some but to my surprise I really could not find anything debunking that Polygamy was a sin. Does anyone have know any scriptures saying Polygamy is a sin?. I mean at times I even feel like I could like/love 2 women but honestly I am totally fine with one and find it odd and unfair to women who are involved in polygamy.

I think this is a pretty good argument against polygamy:

Triablogue: Polygamy Is Condemned By Scripture

I get the conviction that polygamy is wrong..of course the flesh loves the idea, which is another sign of its immorality.

 

[DCJazz]

There may not be a 'direct' mention of polygamy in the bible, but it's covered by some other things we're not supposed to do. Such as lust after another woman/man (depending on your gender, naturally). After all, to want more than one wife, you've got to commit adultery... I really don't see why anyone would want more than one wife (yes I'm assuming from a male perspective) other than lust.

 

[tturt]

Matt 5:28 Yeshua said "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Everywhere I looked in Scripture it looked like man's idea not God's.

 

[revrobor]

It is not addressed in Scripture and doesn't really seem to be a big deal to the Lord. Check out the Old Testament leaders and see how many had multiple wives. Some even had concubines.

 

[BondiHarry]

I was randomly just searching stuff and I came upon polygamy and researched it some but to my surprise I really could not find anything debunking that Polygamy was a sin. Does anyone have know any scriptures saying Polygamy is a sin?. I mean at times I even feel like I could like/love 2 women but honestly I am totally fine with one and find it odd and unfair to women who are involved in polygamy.

Although polygamy is mentioned in the Bible I'm not aware of any scripture which endorses it. There are passages such as 1 Timothy 3:2 where a bishop is directed to be the husband of ONE wife. There is the direction that husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church (and there is only ONE church ie the body of believers). We are told that husband and wife become one flesh, that his body does not belong to him but to her (and vice versa). There is also the matter of divorce where a man is told NOT to put away the wife (singular) of his youth (unless for sexual immorality). All in all, I'm satisfied the Bible teaches marriage is the union of one man and one woman (and I think it is enough of a job fulfilling the role of spouse with one person ... it boggles my mind how one can think it would work with multiple spouses).

Anyway, this link discusses the topic: What does it mean to be “the husband of one wife”? • ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Though the bible does not necessarily condemn polygamy, it doesn't recommend it either.

Except that some of God's own actions remain points of rejection by most. Most prefer to ignore the fact that God gave men plural wives, even though He never did inspire a specific recommendation of it to all men. The Lord also never recommended we fly in jets, but we do all the same.

What it does state is that marriage is a lifelong spiritual and physical union between one man and one woman, and both are equal in the marriage.

How do you define "equal"?

Polygamy, I find its devaluing and goes outside the concept of equality within a marriage.

You mean God and the Patriarchs of our faith were all wrong? How so?

Are two women or more equal to one man and vice versa?

It appears that your concept of "equality" can be used to cast just about anything into the shadows of doubt. Until you define your definition of that subjective term, none of this makes any sense.

Here's what Jesus said: Mark 10:6-8 "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh."

There is no mention of wives or husbands in plural sense in this passage. So lets keep it that way.

Yes, we can certainly keep it that way so long as we ignore what all other scripture has to say on the subject...especially those pesky scriptures that shine the light of revelation upon your statements as patently false from what I've seen thus far. However, I prefer to reserve final judgement until I see your definition of "equality".

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. (Jesus)

BTW

 

[IrishCanadian]

Imagine all the aspirin you'd go through...

 

[BeforeThereWas]

There may not be a 'direct' mention of polygamy in the bible, but it's covered by some other things we're not supposed to do.

Would you mind sharing with us where it says no man is supposed to have plural wives?

Such as lust after another woman/man (depending on your gender, naturally). After all, to want more than one wife, you've got to commit adultery...

So, according to your interpretation of the Bible, we may expect to see Abraham and all the other patriarchs who had more than one wife burning in the pits of Hell for the sin of adultery?

Sorry, but the socially engineered theologies, of which you've chosen to become a product, contradict what's actually written in the Bible. I find it offensive when I see people professing to be followers of Christ Jesus who then turn right around and condemn to the pit of Hell the very Patriarchs of our faith.

I really don't see why anyone would want more than one wife (yes I'm assuming from a male perspective) other than lust.

Herein lies an example of the Lord's ways and thoughts being above man's as the heavens are above the earth.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Imagine all the aspirin you'd go through...

I'm personally acquainted with several families with plural wives, and the men have no need for such.

Now, I accept that you would need them for reasons I don't care to speculate, but your statement isn't universally true, experientially speaking

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

It is not addressed in Scripture and doesn't really seem to be a big deal to the Lord. Check out the Old Testament leaders and see how many had multiple wives. Some even had concubines.

Excellent observation. Most of them had plural wives.

One thing I'll say about concubines is that they were fully the wives of the men to whom they attached themselves...the only difference being that the offspring and the concubines themselves were not entitled to the inheritance, the crown, etc.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Although polygamy is mentioned in the Bible I'm not aware of any scripture which endorses it.

The common practice of applying sophistry in relation to doctrines not socially acceptable, or that violate personal sensibilities, is one of many avenues of dishonesty I see perpetrated, either intentionally or unintentionally, on a regular basis by so many.

We ALL do things not specifically mentioned in the Bible. You being on a computer, reading and posting in these forums isn't "mentioned" in the Bible, which, according to your own standard for reasoning, is therefore not endorsed by that same Bible.

Come on, folks. We ALL need to be honest and forthright with one another by avoiding the pitfalls of basic fallacies of the ignorant and dishonest so commonly practiced among the rejects of society. Their standard of thought and integrity are not something to which we should be stooping.

There are passages such as 1 Timothy 3:2 where a bishop is directed to be the husband of ONE wife. There is the direction that husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church (and there is only ONE church ie the body of believers).

If you are a bishop, then remain monogamous...by all means.

As for the other, well, the Lord gave men plural wives, which contradicts your assumptions in how that latter passage is to be interpreted. Nowhere in that context is it laid down that monogamy was at all the outflow meaning behind the words spoken. Nowhere does the context give us license to apply the words to whatever OTHER context we may subjectively choose on the basis of personal whim.

We are told that husband and wife become one flesh, that his body does not belong to him but to her (and vice versa). There is also the matter of divorce where a man is told NOT to put away the wife (singular) of his youth (unless for sexual immorality). All in all, I'm satisfied the Bible teaches marriage is the union of one man and one woman (and I think it is enough of a job fulfilling the role of spouse with one person ... it boggles my mind how one can think it would work with multiple spouses).

The inconsistent, theological tapestry you've woven together from patches and tatters of scripture has no continuity at all with what's actually written in the word of God. Therefore, the application of your statement above is meaningless.

[/quote]Anyway, this link discusses the topic: What does it mean to be “the husband of one wife”? • ChristianAnswers.Net[/quote]

I prefer to read what each individual has to say about something rather than waste time reading extraneous writings somewhere else on the web. If you can't defend your reasoning with honesty and integrity, in relation to what's actually written in the word of God, then all else is meaningless.

BTW

 

[BondiHarry]

The common practice of applying sophistry in relation to doctrines not socially acceptable, or that violate personal sensibilities, is one of many avenues of dishonesty I see perpetrated, either intentionally or unintentionally, on a regular basis by so many.

The man of God should take a keen interest in the moral teachings of God and doing so is hardly sophistry.

We ALL do things not specifically mentioned in the Bible. You being on a computer, reading and posting in these forums isn't "mentioned" in the Bible, which, according to your own standard for reasoning, is therefore not endorsed by that same Bible.

You're making grand assumptions about what I 'reason'. God is quite concerned about our moral behavior and gives us guidelines on how we should behave but He gives us great liberty in action when we have those guidelines as the basis for the things we choose to do.

Come on, folks. We ALL need to be honest and forthright with one another by avoiding the pitfalls of basic fallacies of the ignorant and dishonest so commonly practiced among the rejects of society. Their standard of thought and integrity are not something to which we should be stooping.

Then address the question posed 'is polygamy a sin?' I see a lot of words but no substance from the Bible in your tirade here.

as for the other, well, the Lord gave men plural wives, which contradicts your assumptions in how that latter passage is to be interpreted.

Did God give men plural wives or was that just a practice of men that the Bible takes note of? This is like the reasoning that God endorses slavery because He gave men guidelines on its practice. Slavery is not of God but a despicable practice of men and is an example of men doing something that God hates and refusing to give the practice up so God gives instructions that the slavers might be more willing to obey thereby improving the lot of the slaves.

Nowhere in that context is it laid down that monogamy was at all the outflow meaning behind the words spoken. Nowhere does the context give us license to apply the words to whatever OTHER context we may subjectively choose on the basis of personal whim.

Then start citing the Bible to show what it does teach about polygamy.

The inconsistent, theological tapestry you've woven together from patches and tatters of scripture has no continuity at all with what's actually written in the word of God. Therefore, the application of your statement above is meaningless.

And we are no closer to understanding what the Bible teaches about polygamy for the many words you are using.

Anyway, this link discusses the topic: What does it mean to be “the husband of one wife”? • ChristianAnswers.Net

I prefer to read what each individual has to say about something rather than waste time reading extraneous writings somewhere else on the web. If you can't defend your reasoning with honesty and integrity, in relation to what's actually written in the word of God, then all else is meaningless.

I would rather defend my reasoning with scripture as I have done. Men acting on their own honesty and integrity but ignoring the word of God is a recipe for disaster.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

The man of God should take a keen interest in the moral teachings of God and doing so is hardly sophistry.

That's a misapplication to what I actually said, but you have the freedom to assume whatever you wish.

/quote]You're making grand assumptions about what I 'reason'.[/quote]

Grandiose? No. Words have meaning. You specifically made reference to what is "mentioned" and "endorsed," as if those are the only measuring sticks of what's moral, allowed, or whatever you wish to call it. Now, you can try to detach that from a foundation for reasoning, but it would be a feeble attempt at best. If you didn't say what you meant, then please, by all means, clarify. I'm a reasonable man.

God is quite concerned about our moral behavior and gives us guidelines on how we should behave but He gives us great liberty in action when we have those guidelines as the basis for the things we choose to do.

Yes. I agree.

Then address the question posed 'is polygamy a sin?' I see a lot of words but no substance from the Bible in your tirade here.

It is sin only to those who personally would find it unacceptable in their own lives. There are those all around us who consider it sin to eat meat, and yet most of us still do so, out in public, in view of all. You see, I try to avoid the "cans of worms" (so to speak), but when the can comes rolling our way and we have no escape, then we've gotta deal with it head-on.

Did God give men plural wives or was that just a practice of men that the Bible takes note of?

It is literally written that the Lord gave David plural wives...unless one chooses to write off Nathan as a false prophet, or transliterate, and/or, by way of historical revisionism, demand that David merely "took care of" those women. I've heard before the panty-wasted effort foisted upon congregations by unlearned and/or dishonest, men standing behind pulpits.

This is like the reasoning that God endorses slavery because He gave men guidelines on its practice. Slavery is not of God but a despicable practice of men and is an example of men doing something that God hates and refusing to give the practice up so God gives instructions that the slavers might be more willing to obey thereby improving the lot of the slaves.

Selling one's self into servitude as a means of taking responsibility for irresponsible debt is almost always lumped into the debate over slavery. The Lord had no problem with the Israelites owning foreign slaves from warfare. Slavery was a merciful avenue in relation to being put to eh sword, as was the case in some accounts where the Lord instructed that NO slaves or spoils were to be taken, but rather killed and destroyed. I would hardly place bankruptcy as the higher standard, which allows people to walk away from obligation, and then demand that we're civilized.

I would rather defend my reasoning with scripture as I have done. Men acting on their own honesty and integrity but ignoring the word of God is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, you misapplied some scripture, and I pointed out the fallacies. Your own desire to reject the rebuttals is a personal matter, not one for me to correct with logic and reason you refuse to accept.

God's actions speak as loudly, if not louder, than written instructions that can be, and are, misinterpreted on a routine basis in order to create the socially engineered theologies that litter the landscape of modern theological thought and belief.

Blessings to you all.

BTW

 

[BondiHarry]

That's a misapplication to what I actually said, but you have the freedom to assume whatever you wish.

/quote]You're making grand assumptions about what I 'reason'.

Grandiose? No. Words have meaning. You specifically made reference to what is "mentioned" and "endorsed," as if those are the only measuring sticks of what's moral, allowed, or whatever you wish to call it. Now, you can try to detach that from a foundation for reasoning, but it would be a feeble attempt at best. If you didn't say what you meant, then please, by all means, clarify. I'm a reasonable man.

Yes. I agree.

It is sin only to those who personally would find it unacceptable in their own lives. There are those all around us who consider it sin to eat meat, and yet most of us still do so, out in public, in view of all. You see, I try to avoid the "cans of worms" (so to speak), but when the can comes rolling our way and we have no escape, then we've gotta deal with it head-on.

It is literally written that the Lord gave David plural wives...unless one chooses to write off Nathan as a false prophet, or transliterate, and/or, by way of historical revisionism, demand that David merely "took care of" those women. I've heard before the panty-wasted effort foisted upon congregations by unlearned and/or dishonest, men standing behind pulpits.

Selling one's self into servitude as a means of taking responsibility for irresponsible debt is almost always lumped into the debate over slavery. The Lord had no problem with the Israelites owning foreign slaves from warfare. Slavery was a merciful avenue in relation to being put to eh sword, as was the case in some accounts where the Lord instructed that NO slaves or spoils were to be taken, but rather killed and destroyed. I would hardly place bankruptcy as the higher standard, which allows people to walk away from obligation, and then demand that we're civilized.

Yes, you misapplied some scripture, and I pointed out the fallacies. Your own desire to reject the rebuttals is a personal matter, not one for me to correct with logic and reason you refuse to accept.

God's actions speak as loudly, if not louder, than written instructions that can be, and are, misinterpreted on a routine basis in order to create the socially engineered theologies that litter the landscape of modern theological thought and belief.

Blessings to you all.

BTW[/quote]

Yada yada yada. If I am wrong in my understanding of what scripture teaches about polygamy, there is no penalty for my being the husband of only one wife. If the polygamist is wrong and is in reality committing adultery whenever he sleeps with his multiple wives (beyond the first), well, NO ADULTERER will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[sprky777]

First, adultery is a man having relations with a woman that is married to another man. Lev. 20:10

It is not adultery for a man to have relations with an unmarried maiden, it is fornication.
It is not adultery for a married man to take another wife if the woman is an unmarried maiden.
Jesus calls it lust for a man to look upon a married woman with unjust desire.
That is the same as the commandment of God to not covet. covet = lust = unjust desire. It is not lust for a man to desire an unmarried maiden.
Therefore, a married man may look upon an unmarried maiden as desirable to have as a wife. he may take her as a wife in addition to the wife he already has. He now has two wives. Exodus 20:10

Scripture requires that he not take away from his first wife to provide for his second wife. He is to provide for all of his wives. Exodus 21:10

If his first child is born by his hated wife and his second child is born by his loved wife, the child of the hated wife still gets the primary inheritance. Deu 21:15

Scripture even gives guidelines as to who qualifies as a polygynous wife. Lev 20:14

 

[BondiHarry]

First, adultery is a man having relations with a woman that is married to another man. Lev. 20:10

If a married person has sex with someone who is not lawfully his wife (or her husband), they are committing adultery.

It is not adultery for a man to have relations with an unmarried maiden, it is fornication.

Yet Jesus said if a man lusts after a woman in his heart, he is an adulterer (Matthew 5:28).

It is not adultery for a married man to take another wife if the woman is an unmarried maiden.

It is adultery for a bishop. (1 Timothy 3:2)

Jesus calls it lust for a man to look upon a married woman with unjust desire.

Hmmm, my Bible doesn't limit lust to simply looking to a married woman, one can certainly lust after an unmarried woman.

That is the same as the commandment of God to not covet. covet = lust = unjust desire. It is not lust for a man to desire an unmarried maiden.
Therefore, a married man may look upon an unmarried maiden as desirable to have as a wife. he may take her as a wife in addition to the wife he already has. He now has two wives. Exodus 20:10

Well, Exodus 21:10 perhaps but than this was a direction to the children of Israel, not to Christians.

Scripture requires that he not take away from his first wife to provide for his second wife. He is to provide for all of his wives. Exodus 21:10

If his first child is born by his hated wife and his second child is born by his loved wife, the child of the hated wife still gets the primary inheritance. Deu 21:15

Scripture even gives guidelines as to who qualifies as a polygynous wife. Lev 20:14

Again, these are instructions to the Israelites, not Christians.

 

[Norah63]

Wait a minute let's turn this around. Today women make a lot of money, more than some men. Does is sound right that women should have many husbands?
In our society the plurality of mates is already rampant with divorce and just
living togeather. Is there anything else the world can offer that hasen't been
made to "look right" in society's eyes?