Polygamy problematic?.

But for the law of the land [Romans 13:1-5], the Bible allows for polygyny. It disqualifies men from becoming elders or deacons [1 Timothy 3:2, 12] and, because of that, is discouraged in the New Testament, generally.

It would be similar to a man wanting to marry a 15yo young lady. If local laws conferred majority upon her, it would be acceptable. Since ours do not, it is unacceptable here.

In cultures where polygyny is accepted, it does not conflict with a profession of Christianity. Even if unfair, polyandry and other iterations of polygamy have no Biblically acceptable contexts.

Ann77 said:

I was having a discussion with someone who holds to Polygamy as being unproblematic. He asked me why I thought it was. I basically said it would hurt the wife by viewing her as not enough for him and would create a caste system. This was his response. How would you tackle this in a biblical way?

"Accordingto that reasoning, having more than one child is basically saying that the firstborn wasn't enough. Since scripture is ripe with sibling rivalry (Cain and Abel, Ismael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau), one can construct a religion trying to correct that tendency, by espousing a one child policy; then its adherents can come and ask questions similar to yours, about why, throughout scripture, God seems OK with having more than one offspring"

Click to expand...

Let’s look at what God says:
‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’ Genesis 2:24 (KJV) - note the emphasis on singular (one wife, not wives).

New Testament passages:

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

And

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

Also, a study of the marriages in the Old Testament where a man had more than one wife shows clearly the problems that were created by going against God’s Word. You don’t need to look any further than Abraham, Sarah and Hagar and the mix-ups that this polygamous marriage brought: the world is still paying for this mistake now, centuries later.

Also, look at the issues with Jacob, Leah and Rachel (although Jacob was tricked by his father in law, Laban); the jealousy Between the two women created havoc in that marriage.

Any man (or woman, for that matter) who finds polygamy acceptable does not have a sound understanding of God’s word. It was never God’s intention for marriage to be anything other than one man and one wife.

Sabertooth said:

But for the law of the land [Romans 13:1-5], the Bible allows for polygyny. It disqualifies men from becoming elders or deacons [1 Timothy 3:2, 12] and, because of that, is discouraged in the New Testament, generally.

It would be similar to a man wanting to marry a 15yo young lady. If local laws conferred majority upon her, it would be acceptable. Since ours do not, it is unacceptable here.

In cultures where polygyny is accepted, it does not conflict with a profession of Christianity. Even if unfair, polyandry and other iterations of polygamy have no Biblically acceptable contexts.

Click to expand...

Not sure how Romans 13:1-5 advocates polygamy?

There is also a biological aspect to be considered. There are about an equal number of male and female births. If polygamy were widely practiced this would result in a fairly large fraction of the male population left with no potential mates. Such a situation is rife with potential social evils like prostitution and rape and even the importation of foreign wives.

HelenScot said:

Let’s look at what God says:
‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’ Genesis 2:24 (KJV) - note the emphasis on singular (one wife, not wives).

New Testament passages:

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

And

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

Also, a study of the marriages in the Old Testament where a man had more than one wife shows clearly the problems that were created by going against God’s Word. You don’t need to look any further than Abraham, Sarah and Hagar and the mix-ups that this polygamous marriage brought: the world is still paying for this mistake now, centuries later.

Also, look at the issues with Jacob, Leah and Rachel (although Jacob was tricked by his father in law, Laban); the jealousy Between the two women created havoc in that marriage.

Any man (or woman, for that matter) who finds polygamy acceptable does not have a sound understanding of God’s word. It was never God’s intention for marriage to be anything other than one man and one wife.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Polygamy is valid but not ideal. It's in our nature for the matrimonial bond to be exclusive. Polygamous marriages solve that problem by forming a heirarchy first wives second wives. Poloygamous marriages because of it's inherent difficulties give more evidence of the true nature of the marital bond.

Ann77 said:

The law of the land has redefined marriage as including same-sex couples. Not sure how for we can take Roman's on this but I see your point.

Click to expand...

The law of the land does not compel anyone to marry their own sex (by allowing it), but it limits us to one consenting, eligible mate who has reached majority. Honoring God limits us to Edenic marriage [Genesis 2:24], under those terms.

If our laws would legalize polygynous marriage, the Bible holds no objection other than stated above. (The rules against incest, particularly Leviticus 18:18,* could further apply, but not every Christian would agree to them.)

* "Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive." Leviticus 18:18 NKJV

That disqualifies marrying two or more sisters at the same time. (Jacob/Leah/Rachel predates Leviticus.)

Ann77 said:

I was having a discussion with someone who holds to Polygamy as being unproblematic. He asked me why I thought it was. I basically said it would hurt the wife by viewing her as not enough for him and would create a caste system. This was his response. How would you tackle this in a biblical way?

"Accordingto that reasoning, having more than one child is basically saying that the firstborn wasn't enough. Since scripture is ripe with sibling rivalry (Cain and Abel, Ismael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau), one can construct a religion trying to correct that tendency, by espousing a one child policy; then its adherents can come and ask questions similar to yours, about why, throughout scripture, God seems OK with having more than one offspring"

Click to expand...

I'd start by admitting that they might have a point. (I'd need to think a lot harder to be sure).
There might be love between siblings or there might be terrible rivalry.

You also have a point - it might cause hurt in the current marriage, but it might not.

Probably best to question whether it is just your own opinion on the matter? Or that of God.

Is there a straight up verse somewhere that forbids polygamy for people?

HelenScot said:

Not sure how Romans 13:1-5 advocates polygamy?

Click to expand...

If our laws were to legalize polygyny, like it did same-sex marriage, the Bible holds no objection to it (apart from 1 Timothy 3:2, 12).

Confused-by-christianity said:

Is there a straight up verse somewhere that forbids polygamy for people?

Click to expand...

Depending on the laws of the land,

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.
For there is no authority except from God,
Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God,

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.
Do you want to be unafraid of the authority?
For he is God’s minister to you for good.

But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain;
Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake." Romans 13:1-5 NKJV

We are only allowed to oppose the "law of the land" when it compels us to disobey God, directly.

Legally recognizing only

• one consenting marriage
• to an eligible mate
• who has reached majority

does not violate our faithfulness before God.

Ann77 said:

There's an order to be fruitful and multiple by God after we see the created order of the first marriage--one man and woman. No where in scriptures has God commanded more wives to one man in a marriage.

There's this logic I saw elsewhere: Overseers and deacons had to be monogamous (Titus 1:6, 1 Tim 3:2, 12) but I cannot find any explicit such directive for marriages generally, although some have tried to extract such from Matt 19:1-12.

There remains the passage in 1 Peter 2:9 -

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Note also:

• Rev 1:6 - and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
• Rev 5:10 - You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God

The logic goes that because the Israelite priesthood was monogamous, so should be the Christian community because God has called us to be a kingdom of priests.

Click to expand...

Just settle for it as your opinion then?
Nothing wrong with that - it's how you honestly interpret the scriptures. It's how most of the west see marriage as well.

To say it's not just opinion, but definitely what God wants - That's a hard one (for me - with my level of knowledge).

Polygamy mentioned in scriptures was for various reasons.

A patriarchal system was instituted and because of that system everyone was now able to access at least "middle management" for issues that come up in life instead of going to the Top.

In several instances polygamy was mandated. If a brother died for some reason then his spouse was to be married to another brother and the child of that union was to be for the deceased brother. The book of Ruth is central to this theme of a kinsman Redeemer.

Then we have Moses.
Who after receiving the Law took a "barbarian" wife. (Cushite) obviously it was at the direction of God.

King's of Israel were often started out with two wives. There was no number limit placed on them.

Then we have polygamy in the New Testament.
The average wealthy Roman Businessman in various places had a wife that was of Roman upper society that was married for Business purposes or political reasons. The man also usually had a "consort"/girlfriend that was for true companionship. The Society wife would have offspring for carrying on the family name and was an heir. The consort's children...they didn't fare so well. But actually the girlfriend's status of being a consort was a recognized position in Roman society as having the ear of the man. Societal wives usually despised/disrespected their husbands for being placed first in name only but not function in their husband's hearts.

Paul, in a bit of a sarcastic jab at the situation, called both girlfriend and wife equally "wives" in the Pastoral letters.
Which of course infuriated and insulted Roman society because Romans only had one wife...but his letter was addressed to Timothy and was considered a form of an internal memo.
Kinda a backhanded fashion of telling Timothy that he could get married but only to one woman and no consort was going to be allowed and not to allow a wealthy person to take a leadership role.

But basically in all instances because of the role and opportunities for women no one suggested that support (in both directions) or in other words the symbiotic relationships with the multiple women and the only man be destroyed.


And in these modern times with everything on television I viewed a couple of programs covering a plural marriage...
The guy in the marriage was always hen pecked far more than I could ever withstand in any shape whatsoever.
Any thoughts that being in a plural marriage was about hedonism went right out the window, the door, and the chimney...
The children and the henpecking completely controlled the husband's life. He never caught a break...ever... even in his "down time".
So it became even more obvious that a person in such a position had no time to actually be of service to a church group.

Ann77 said:

I was having a discussion with someone who holds to Polygamy as being unproblematic. He asked me why I thought it was. I basically said it would hurt the wife by viewing her as not enough for him and would create a caste system. This was his response. How would you tackle this in a biblical way?

"Accordingto that reasoning, having more than one child is basically saying that the firstborn wasn't enough. Since scripture is ripe with sibling rivalry (Cain and Abel, Ismael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau), one can construct a religion trying to correct that tendency, by espousing a one child policy; then its adherents can come and ask questions similar to yours, about why, throughout scripture, God seems OK with having more than one offspring"

Click to expand...

Because man was created first female polygamy is adultery

Sammy-San said:

Because man was created first female polygamy is adultery

Click to expand...

(That is called polyandry...)

Polygyny is the only model found in the Bible, but it is never clearly stated why. (My best guess would be that in polygyny, children would be clear on who their fathers were. Children from polyandrous marriages cannot be.)

Sabertooth said:

(That is called polyandry...)

Polygyny is the only model in the Bible, but it is never clearly stated why. (My best guess would be that in polygyny, children would be clear on who their father was. Children from polyandrous marriages cannot be.)

Click to expand...

It's not sexism that there are some gender restrictions. Women being clergy over men and wearing no shirt is not appropriate even though men are allowed to do it in the same circumstances. Everything has an order and a purpose. Men can't have a baby.

Sammy-San said:

It's not sexism that there are some gender restrictions. Women being clergy over men and wearing no shirt is not appropriate even though men are allowed to do it in the same circumstances. Everything has an order and a purpose. Men can't have a baby.

Click to expand...

It would be wrong to assume you know fully what that purpose is, or that you have understood the purpose perfectly of course

Confused-by-christianity said:

It would be wrong to assume you know fully what that purpose is, or that you have understood the purpose perfectly of course

Click to expand...

That's endless genealogies. You're right.

Sammy-San said:

That's endless genealogies. You're right.

Click to expand...

You mean - what are the purpose of these endless genealogies?