Polygamy

Status
Not open for further replies.

ClaireZ

Senior Veteran
Apr 29, 2004
3,225
251
USA
✟12,188.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi all,

I have been following a thread in the philosophy/morality section, where some are advocating polygamy for Christians.

I have been doing some research and visiting some sites, but it still seems to be an uphill battle with these people.

Does anyone have some good sites, or materials that can show why polygamy is wrong? They claim since it was practiced in the OT, that it is still ok today.
 

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟15,952.00
Faith
Protestant
I do not think polygyny is a sin. I think that:
* Christians should avoid polygyny in western society where it is illegal - we are told to respect and obey the law, so long as it does not prevent us from worshipping and obeying God. Polygyny is not a commandment in the Bible, it is a freedom - a freedom we must freely forfeit when the law of the land says so
* It is undesirable in western society - most people, non-Christians included, find it abhorrant. Therefore, in order to reach those outside the faith, we must empathise and understand them. We would not wear shoes in the house of one of the reprobate if they asked us to remove them. We should therefore not alienate ourselves so strongly from witnessing to them by making ourselves uneccessarily despised. As Paul said, "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." - 1 corinthians 9:20-22. So while polygyny may not be sinful, we prevent ourselves from becoming the best we can to reach others
* We have no infrastructure - there is not the support, financially, culturally or emotionally, for people to deal with polygyny. Therefore it is much harder to maintain a stable polygynous relationship (I speak from my own musings here, and stories I have read, not from experience) in western society. In order for it to become easier there would need to be a radical change of culture in a short time. War that wipes out a good deal of men may necessitate polygyny. Moving to a society that accepts polygyny may bring the change. Young men and women are not brought up in our culture to deal with polygyny. Keeping a stable monoganous marriage becomes harder in a society that promotes partnering without marriage, but marriage is still tolerated and accepted. How much harder will a polygynous relationship be in a culture that not only does not practice it, but also despises it?

I think that, because of culture, polygyny is an unwise relationship to enter. Practicing it in western culture I cannot see it honouring God. You will be excluding yourself from friends, family, and the reprobate, and maybe even your church (even if the leadership supports you, chances are the congregation will not). You will be pleasing your own desires instead of sacrificing things which are not sinful for you to take in order to serve God better.

So I recommend strongly against it for the Christian.

On the other hand, in societies where it is accepted and works, I see no reason for a Christian to:
a) Avoid taking more than one wife
b) Divorcing all but one of his existing wives when he marries
 
Upvote 0

Dad Ernie

Well-Known Member
Nov 28, 2003
2,079
142
78
Salem, Oregon, USA
Visit site
✟2,980.00
Faith
Protestant
ClaireZ said:
I have been following a thread in the philosophy/morality section, where some are advocating polygamy for Christians.

I have been doing some research and visiting some sites, but it still seems to be an uphill battle with these people.

Does anyone have some good sites, or materials that can show why polygamy is wrong? They claim since it was practiced in the OT, that it is still ok today.
Greetings ClareZ,

The best I can do is offer these verses:

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Polygamy was never accepted or pronounced by God. That was man's doing. Marriage was intended to be of one man and one woman right from the beginning. Any other belief is in rebellion to God's commands as shown above.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟15,952.00
Faith
Protestant
Dad Ernie said:
Greetings ClareZ,

The best I can do is offer these verses:

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Polygamy was never accepted or pronounced by God. That was man's doing. Marriage was intended to be of one man and one woman right from the beginning. Any other belief is in rebellion to God's commands as shown above.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie


Those verses can, in the greek, be translated as "the husband of a wife" - not talking about specific numbers, but rather recommending that any men chosen for these roles are ideally married.

Tell me - if polygyny was such a problem that Paul sought to ban Christians from it, why is this the only mention of "one wife" in the Bible? Why doesn't Paul list polygyny when he talks about those excluded from heaven, or when he mentions a list of sexual immorality? Essentially you are saying that Paul put in the requirement "the husband of one wife" specifically to counter polygynists. Yet we hear no mention of this "problem" anywhere else.

I think it is far more likely that Paul was recommending a Deacon or Elder be married, rather than recommending they have specifically one wife.
 
Upvote 0

YahwehLove

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2004
1,637
45
✟2,033.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Others
tyreth said:
Those verses can, in the greek, be translated as "the husband of a wife" - not talking about specific numbers, but rather recommending that any men chosen for these roles are ideally married.

Tell me - if polygyny was such a problem that Paul sought to ban Christians from it, why is this the only mention of "one wife" in the Bible? Why doesn't Paul list polygyny when he talks about those excluded from heaven, or when he mentions a list of sexual immorality? Essentially you are saying that Paul put in the requirement "the husband of one wife" specifically to counter polygynists. Yet we hear no mention of this "problem" anywhere else.

I think it is far more likely that Paul was recommending a Deacon or Elder be married, rather than recommending they have specifically one wife.
huh interesting

I wonder why God created ONE woman for Adam?
 
Upvote 0

Jaywalk

Regular Member
Feb 26, 2004
94
10
66
Boston, MA
✟7,892.00
Faith
Christian
tyreth said:
Those verses can, in the greek, be translated as "the husband of a wife" - not talking about specific numbers, but rather recommending that any men chosen for these roles are ideally married.

Tell me - if polygyny was such a problem that Paul sought to ban Christians from it, why is this the only mention of "one wife" in the Bible? Why doesn't Paul list polygyny when he talks about those excluded from heaven, or when he mentions a list of sexual immorality?

The early church had a problem in that many of the new converts came in with more than one wife. Either the church would have to accept this arrangement or require that one wife be divorced. That would be a severe hardship on the rejected wife. In the end, the polygamous relationships were accepted as a less-than-ideal arrangement. If it is not explicitly condemned, nothing nice is said about it either. Even in the Old Testament, polygamy is just reported on, never praised.

As far as the translation issue goes, translating that as just an indefinite article is a pretty big stretch. For example, "Deacons must be husbands of only one wife." (I Timothy 3:12, ASB). Why the "only" modifier? I went through a bunch of translations and couldn't find one that chose to translate that as "a wife".
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟15,952.00
Faith
Protestant
Jaywalk said:
The early church had a problem in that many of the new converts came in with more than one wife. Either the church would have to accept this arrangement or require that one wife be divorced. That would be a severe hardship on the rejected wife. In the end, the polygamous relationships were accepted as a less-than-ideal arrangement. If it is not explicitly condemned, nothing nice is said about it either. Even in the Old Testament, polygamy is just reported on, never praised.

Where have you read about these struggles of the early church, and how you know that it is in connection with the passages Paul wrote?

As far as the translation issue goes, translating that as just an indefinite article is a pretty big stretch. For example, "Deacons must be husbands of only one wife." (I Timothy 3:12, ASB). Why the "only" modifier? I went through a bunch of translations and couldn't find one that chose to translate that as "a wife".

You shouldn't expect to find "a wife" if the translators decide it is saying "one wife". Here is an explanation, including precedents to show that it is not unreasonable translation to say "a wife":
http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIA.html
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClaireZ

Senior Veteran
Apr 29, 2004
3,225
251
USA
✟12,188.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dad Ernie said:
Greetings ClareZ,

The best I can do is offer these verses:

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Polygamy was never accepted or pronounced by God. That was man's doing. Marriage was intended to be of one man and one woman right from the beginning. Any other belief is in rebellion to God's commands as shown above.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

Thanks Dad Ernie :wave:
 
Upvote 0

tqpix

Deist
Apr 18, 2004
6,759
122
Vancouver
✟16,046.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Romans 7:3 said:
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
[bible]Exodus 20:14[/bible]

[bible]Deuteronomy 5:18[/bible]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟15,952.00
Faith
Protestant
moosiz said:
Okay, so the Bible does not advocate sex before marriage and that sex is a special bond between two people yet it accepts being married to two at the same time? Isnt that some form of adultery - if not legal adultery, surely spritiual

The Biblical definition of adultery is a man having sex with another man's wife.

Therefore, it is not a sin for two unmarried people to have sex. However, once they have had sex they become the same as if they were married.

If an unmarried man has sex with a married man's wife, that is adultery.

If a married man has sex with another unmarried woman, that is not adultery.

If a married woman has sex with anyone but her husband, she commits adultery.

Again, Biblically adultery is only a man (married or unmarried) having sex with another man's wife.

The Bible therefore permits men to have multiple wives, but does not permit women to have multiple husbands.

The Bible doesn't actually command marriage - just whatever your culture practices is fine. What it does say is that when two people have sex - that is when you become one flesh (ie, what we consider married).

Edit: Since people invariably judge you based on things like this - No, I am not practicing polygyny. I don't have any plans. I would suggest to anyone to betray their spouse and break their promises. In Western society our wedding vows include promising ourselves to one person only. So whether or not the Bible permits you to take a second woman, your promise to God in your wedding prohibits you from doing so.
 
Upvote 0

Dad Ernie

Well-Known Member
Nov 28, 2003
2,079
142
78
Salem, Oregon, USA
Visit site
✟2,980.00
Faith
Protestant
ab1385 said:
The thing that I find interesting is that all the verses used to show monogamy is correct would be just as able to say that 'singleness is wrong'...

Greetings AB1385,

If taken out of CONTEXT of the WHOLE Bible, then yes, being single might be construed to mean it is wrong. Jesus & Paul though, make it plain that singleness is actually preferrable IF a person can handle it. But marriage is NOT a sin.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie
 
Upvote 0

Swordman007

Truth Seeker
Dec 12, 2004
187
5
✟802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
tyreth said:
I do not think polygyny is a sin. I think that:
* Christians should avoid polygyny in western society where it is illegal - we are told to respect and obey the law, so long as it does not prevent us from worshipping and obeying God. Polygyny is not a commandment in the Bible, it is a freedom - a freedom we must freely forfeit when the law of the land says so

Good point, but there is a problem: There is no law on the books of any state prohibiting a man from having a plurality of wives in the eyes of God. In other words, there is no law requiring that a couple acquire a license/certificate for their marriage, unless they wish the state to recognize their marriage. In other words, there are no moral implications attached to that piece of paper from City Hall.

* It is undesirable in western society - most people, non-Christians included, find it abhorrant. Therefore, in order to reach those outside the faith, we must empathise and understand them. We would not wear shoes in the house of one of the reprobate if they asked us to remove them. We should therefore not alienate ourselves so strongly from witnessing to them by making ourselves uneccessarily despised.

Pushing this idea to the point of removing our freedom that we have in Christ, especially in the area of marriage, is a gross misapplication of scripture, for it is reflected in no one place of which I am aware.

As Paul said, "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." - 1 corinthians 9:20-22. So while polygyny may not be sinful, we prevent ourselves from becoming the best we can to reach others

The problem with your application of Paul's words is that you are trying to slap them against the side of marriage, and hope that they stick. It is fallacious to apply his words to any and all aspects of life by the subjective standards of your own thinking, especially those that clearly are the right of all believers and unbelievers alike (speaking of marriage in general), even if they violate the social sensibilities of those around us. The fact that we speak of Christ in public is an offense to many who disbelieve Christ. Do we then stop speaking of Him in public? No.

I would say that a man who parades his having a plurality of wives, using it like a battering ram to prove a point, has a problem that he needs to deal with before it does harm to himself and/or his family. To those who would disagree with anyone having a plurality of wives, he is simply a married man without his having to place his wives on display for the purposes of offense. THAT is the thrust behind Paul's words, as is evidenced in his dissertation about meat sacrificed to idols. He did not say that one cannot eat such meat, only that he not do so in front of those who are easily offended (weaker) over such meat being eaten by professing believers.

* We have no infrastructure - there is not the support, financially, culturally or emotionally, for people to deal with polygyny. Therefore it is much harder to maintain a stable polygynous relationship (I speak from my own musings here, and stories I have read, not from experience) in western society.

Based upon my own observations of polygyny, which includes 17 families I have met thus far, they have plenty of support from many within the culture around them, and they have no more problems from an economical standpoint than monogamous couples, and some are living a lifestyle of which most monogamists can only dream (not because they are rich, but because they have a multi-income household).

Don Dean
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Swordman007

Truth Seeker
Dec 12, 2004
187
5
✟802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dad Ernie said:
Polygamy was never accepted or pronounced by God. That was man's doing.

Really? Then why did the Lord identify Himself with polygyny with Israel and Judah being His wives (plural) if He is opposed to it? Why did He give David a plurality of wives if it is not acceptable for a man to have more than one? Why did the Lord make governing provision for a man to have more than one wife in His Law if He is opposed to it? To say that it is only man's doing is to ignore the obvious declarations, actions, and imagry put forth by the Lord Himself.

Dr. Don Dean
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.