Polygamy...Was Never God's Plan

Tinker Grey said:

Yeah. But the OP indicates that it was "never" God's plan. So did God's morality change?

Click to expand...

No, man's heart did. God at times allowed for cultural differences. It was the cultural obligation of kings to have multiple wives, usually for the sake of peace between nations. It was not the cultural thing for the rest of the population, only kings and other high ranking rulers. But it was not His original plan

Gen_2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

It is rather impossible to be one flesh with several wives. He said cleave unto his wife---not wives.

It did not start till Lamech.
Gen_4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

1Ti_3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti_3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Tit_1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Tinker Grey said:

But not all men. Nothing in the Bible prohibits polygamy. So, admit you are wrong.

All bishops and deacons maybe men (sexist much!) but not all men are bishops/deacons.

Click to expand...

However, all Bishops and Deacons came from the laity!! So admit yo0u are wrong!

And, as has been noted:

HIM said:

General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers. Non-Christian members who would like to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, should start a thread in the Christian Apologetics forum.

Click to expand...

I think polygamy was part of God's plan, at least in regards to certain people. The twelve tribes would not exist if not for Jacob having four wives. Yet in so far as it's a general template for humanity to live by, polygamy was not intended for all times and places and people. This much I think is clear by Genesis 1-3, which provides the base from which human relationships should be.

The Church has always rejected Polygamy as well. There is no record of the Apostles presiding over a polygamous marriage and we see monogamy as the standard throughout the early history of the Church up until today.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I think polygamy was part of God's plan, at least in regards to certain people. The twelve tribes would not exist if not for Jacob having four wives. Yet in so far as it's a general template for humanity to live by, polygamy was not intended for all times and places and people. This much I think is clear by Genesis 1-3, which provides the base from which human relationships should be.

The Church has always rejected Polygamy as well. There is no record of the Apostles presiding over a polygamous marriage and we see monogamy as the standard throughout the early history of the Church up until today.

Click to expand...

God knowing the beginning to the end used our short comings to bring about His will, but they were not part of His plan

The Narrow Way said:

It all boils down to selfishness. A man who is a polygamist only thinks of himself. He doesn't think or care about the women and children that he is harming because he cannot control his lust.

Click to expand...

Lustful selfishness. But I think it is a bit much to say they do not care about the women and children. However they definitely have not thought it through. Because as you brought out the Bible plainly shows such a arrangement definitely seems to cause problems without fail. BTW we are friends on FB.

The Narrow Way said:

Hi There! I feel bad! I'm not sure who you are . I left FB after the election and haven't been back there...I'm on MeWe now. Come on over .

Click to expand...

I have.
Don't feel bad how would you know. I am Scott Myers.

While I'd tend to agree with you that polygamy didn't work out well most of the time, Master Herbalist, it might be better to only label something SIN that is defined by the Law as SIN. Paul mentioned he wouldn't have known what sin was apart from the law, and in another place sin is described as the transgressing of the law. Even 1 John 3 mentions the definition.

I haven't yet found anything in the Bible that says we have the authority to define sin, although there was a system to help figure out where the lines were in unclear situations of administration of the Law, a kind of binding arbitration given to the Priests and Tribal leaders and later to the Apostles to "bind and loose." None of that conveys the idea that anyone anywhere was given the authority to define or redefine SIN. God alone set up His standards and His comment about Himself is that He doesn't change. On that we can anchor our hope!

The Church can make any doctrine they want and people can have opinions too, but the authoritative definition of sin is reserved for the One who will judge sin through His Son Jesus who died for our sins. As to opinion, one of the reasons I agree with you that polygamy is not a favored status was from seeing how Solomon was pulled away from God by the influence of his multiple wives and concubines. But to be fair, David seemed to stick with culturally similar women and he didn't leave his love for God even though he made some awful decisions from which he repented as best as he could. From that I might conclude it could be the kind of woman married, rather than the number of women married, if that were my only data. But from knowing the adult child of a polygamist who discussed how it didn't go well, and even more-so from the example in Genesis, God's comments about marriage, the Revelation and Paul's comments about the Church as the Bride of Christ and Jesus's comments about marriage, I'd say the data is stacked in favor of monogamy. When looking at the goal of family and community stability, one man-one-woman unity with the goal to be married until death seems the plan God had for marriage.

God allowed polyandry too (more than one husband). He didn't send down sulfur on communities who practiced that, but it was not the ideal God was looking for.
Matthew 19:8 He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts, but it was not like that from the beginning."
God permits things for a time, but it's not what He wants ultimately.

Greengardener said:

While I'd tend to agree with you that polygamy didn't work out well most of the time, Master Herbalist, it might be better to only label something SIN that is defined by the Law as SIN. Paul mentioned he wouldn't have known what sin was apart from the law, and in another place sin is described as the transgressing of the law. Even 1 John 3 mentions the definition.

I haven't yet found anything in the Bible that says we have the authority to define sin, although there was a system to help figure out where the lines were in unclear situations of administration of the Law, a kind of binding arbitration given to the Priests and Tribal leaders and later to the Apostles to "bind and loose." None of that conveys the idea that anyone anywhere was given the authority to define or redefine SIN. God alone set up His standards and His comment about Himself is that He doesn't change. On that we can anchor our hope!
... family and community stability, one man-one-woman unity with the goal to be married until death seems the plan God had for marriage.

Click to expand...

@Greengardener: I tend to agree mostly with your post, Monogamy may be God's initial ideal for mankind, but one cannot deduce from that that anything else is by definition sin. There is simply too much information in the OT but also the NT that al least seems to support, regulate and sometimes even command Polygyny (one man, possibly multiple wives). Polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) however always has been forbidden. The Bible mostly simply assumes a Polygynous society without judgement.

Much has been written on this topic but for a good (almost academic-style) Biblical analysis I would suggest reading this article from Prof. William Luck: 14. On the Morality of Biblical Polygyny | Bible.org. That saves repeating arguments that have been documented excellently elsewhere.

Two main points I'd like to illustrate though here:

- to say anything apart from the Biblical ideal is sin is incorrect. If this were true (and the ideal obviously is monogamous marriage), then staying single intentionally would be sin as well. And that is not the case as e.g. Jesus and Paul did exactly that. Conclusion: the argument that Polygamy is a sin because it differs from the ideal does not work.

- the requirements for elders/deacons to be a 'one woman man' (this is the literal Greek phrase there, the Greek language does not have a word for 'husband' or 'wife') could have meant multiple things; as Prof. William Luck points out: it is quite probable that Paul is disqualifying a womanizer from church office, but not discussing Polygamy vs Monogamy (because Roman/Greek society was formally only monogamous, unlike Jewish society).

Polygamy at the time of Jesus and Paul in Jewish society was still common, and yet nowhere prohibited in the Torah, prophets, Jesus or Paul. Judaism in Europe formally banned Polygamy in around 1000 CE, but this was to be in effect for only 1000 years. Sefardic Jews (e.g. Spain) and Yemenite Jews never even had this ban at all.

John the Baptist got himself killed basically because he accused Kind Herod of adultery because he married the wife of his brother (which was forbidden by the Torah). But he didn't criticise Herod for the other 9 wives he had at the same time (because that was fully legal under Mosaic Law ).

ReluctantTheologian said:

@Greengardener: I tend to agree mostly with your post, Monogamy may be God's initial ideal for mankind, but one cannot deduce from that that anything else is by definition sin. There is simply too much information in the OT but also the NT that al least seems to support, regulate and sometimes even command Polygyny (one man, possibly multiple wives). Polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) however always has been forbidden. The Bible mostly simply assumes a Polygynous society without judgement.

Much has been written on this topic but for a good (almost academic-style) Biblical analysis I would suggest reading this article from Prof. William Luck: 14. On the Morality of Biblical Polygyny | Bible.org. That saves repeating arguments that have been documented excellently elsewhere.

Two main points I'd like to illustrate though here:

- to say anything apart from the Biblical ideal is sin is incorrect. If this were true (and the ideal obviously is monogamous marriage), then staying single intentionally would be sin as well. And that is not the case as e.g. Jesus and Paul did exactly that. Conclusion: the argument that Polygamy is a sin because it differs from the ideal does not work.

- the requirements for elders/deacons to be a 'one woman man' (this is the literal Greek phrase there, the Greek language does not have a word for 'husband' or 'wife') could have meant multiple things; as Prof. William Luck points out: it is quite probable that Paul is disqualifying a womanizer from church office, but not discussing Polygamy vs Monogamy (because Roman/Greek society was formally only monogamous, unlike Jewish society).

Polygamy at the time of Jesus and Paul in Jewish society was still common, and yet nowhere prohibited in the Torah, prophets, Jesus or Paul. Judaism in Europe formally banned Polygamy in around 1000 CE, but this was to be in effect for only 1000 years. Sefardic Jews (e.g. Spain) and Yemenite Jews never even had this ban at all.

John the Baptist got himself killed basically because he accused Kind Herod of adultery because he married the wife of his brother (which was forbidden by the Torah). But he didn't criticise Herod for the other 9 wives he had at the same time (because that was fully legal under Mosaic Law ).

Click to expand...

What was once allowed---such as brothers and sisters marrying---came a time when God said no more.

Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

NT rules are one wife. And it wasn't just for bishops and deacons as all church elders came from the laity.

In respect to modern times I consider polygamy (and its kindred) unethical. I don't feel it honors the sanctity of the union God designed. Denial is an aspect of self-control which is a fruit of the spirit. I can't avail myself to everyone nor should I permit a partner to do the same. The bond is holy and to regard it otherwise opposes the Most High in my opinion.

As the proverb says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."

~bella

mmksparbud said:

What was once allowed---such as brothers and sisters marrying---came a time when God said no more.

Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

NT rules are one wife. And it wasn't just for bishops and deacons as all church elders came from the laity.

Click to expand...

When the Apostles during the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) lay down the rules and morals for Gentile believers, their framework of reference is Mosaic Law. So when 'abstaining from sexual morality' was prescribed in Acts 15: v20 + v29, the sexual morals of the OT clearly are referred to and applied to Gentile believers as well - they simply had no other valid framework available. Neither Jesus or John the Baptist banned or even criticised Polygamy; to the contrary - Jesus emphasises the Law to the smallest detail had to be taught and done (Matthew 5: v19).

Using Paul's requirement list for Elders and Deacons using the ambiguous phrase 'one woman man' as the only source then for a supposed NT ban on Polygamy seems rather questionable to me; especially given the fact we're not exactly sure what Paul meant by that, and the sharp contrast of such a supposed NT rule with the OT message. A variety of interpretations have been given over time for the phrase:
- a man with exactly one woman/wife
- a man with a maximum of one woman/wife (at any time, or over his lifetime)
- a man who has not been divorced
- a man who never has remarried after his 1st wife died or left
- a man who is faithful/loyal to his 1st woman/wife his marriage (not sending her away unjustly)

A literal reading (the first option: exactly one woman/wife) is impossible because that would disqualify Paul himself from Eldership - saintly singles also qualify we presume. Btw it should be noted the word for 'one' (Greek: 'mia') sometimes can also be translated 'first' in some NT verses.

I would urge any reader to read William Luck's careful treatment of this famous phrase (see 14. On the Morality of Biblical Polygyny | Bible.org); and then ask himself the question whether Paul's eligibility statement can be taken as overturning OT law, and declaring sin what God clearly allowed before (that's a rhetorical question ).

The entire nation of Israel built up from the sons from Jacob's four wives; God's gift of King Saul's women (plural) to David (2 Samuel 12: v7-8), God portraying himself as being married to two sisters (Jeremiah 3: v6-10, 31: v31-32; Ezekiel 23), the righteous priest Jehoiada picking two wives for the righteous King Joash (2 Chronicles 24: v3). The good King Abijah being commended of his blessing with 14 wives (2 Chronicles 13: v21). The list of instances where multiple wives and a large offspring were seen as a blessing from God is impressive. To me it seems highly unlikely that such blessings, all of a sudden, in NT times would be declared a sin just because of Paul's eligibility list.

The pattern in Acts is that we see Gentile believers have less laws to obey than the Jewish believers, not more. A sudden new ban on polygamy would counter that. To think that ban was introduced by the Apostles to me comes across as a light-founded assumption. As Paul argues that sin is defined by the Law (Romans 7: v7), for Paul it would not have made sense then to suddenly declare polygamy to be a sin while the Law did not.

For the interested reader I would encourage to also read the excellent historical overview and treatise on Biblical Polygamy from a Jewish perspective by Blaine Robison: Polygamy ~ Updated Edition ~ Blaine Robison, M.A.

Personally speaking, I think Paul's eligibility list may have one of three possible meanings:
- a maximum of one woman/wife for an Elder/deacon (as that may leave more time for ministry), or
- faithfulness/loyalty to his first wife
- disqualifying womanizers (Prof. William Luck's preferred interpretation); as the target audience for the relevant letters was predominantly Roman or Greek and not Jewish - Paul's wording makes sense for a nominal monogamous (Roman, Greek) audience; not for a Jewish (and therefore partially polygamous) audience.

I always understood it as one man and one woman. More wives was an OT thing.

Matthew 19:4-6

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

So they are no longer two but one. Jesus doesn't day anything about three become one or four become one, it's two become one.

The Narrow Way said:

It never ceases to amaze me how much of the Bible many Atheists know.

From the beginning of the Bible, right at Creation, God gave Adam ONE wife, to the end of the Bible where Timothy said that the Bishop and leaders in the CHURCH should be the husbands of ONE WIFE. Yet, those who want to follow their carnal desires search high and low to find ONE VERSE that APPEARS to contradict the entire rest of the Bible! And I say APPEARS because I don't believe the Bible EVER contradicts itself. The "apparent contradictions" are our fallible human misunderstandings.

Click to expand...

It would probably be more convincing if you were to address just how this verse doesn't say what it appears to rather than just saying 'I'm right and you're wrong'

Vinter said:

I always understood it as one man and one woman. More wives was an OT thing.

Matthew 19:4-6

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

So they are no longer two but one. Jesus doesn't day anything about three become one or four become one, it's two become one.

Click to expand...

Polygamy was still common in Jesus' time according to Josephus and archeological evidence. And it was only banned in European Judaism in about 1000 CE, not for theological reasons but to harmonise Jewish society there with the Christian one.

Apart from its prevalance, the most important question is whether it was a SIN to have multiple wives; something that would had to be defined by Mosaic Law (according to Paul in Romans 7:7). And God chose not to define that as a sin apparently.

All Jesus' statements regarding marriage relate to the issue on what grounds a man could send away/divorce his wife; Jesus' answer from Matthew 19:4-6 deals with the question in Matthew 19:3:


In Jesus' time the big debate raged between the school of the Rabbi's Hillel and Shammai (Houses of Hillel and Shammai - Wikipedia), who disagreed on what would be allowable grounds for sending a wife away. E.g. Hillel stated a man could divorce his wife for trivial reasons like burning a meal, while Shammai argued this could only happen for a serious transgression.

Jesus was inquired about his position in the Hillel / Shammai debate of his day and clearly on this point chooses the Shammai side. Jesus argues for the permanence on the bond and unity created by marriage, but in no way does he abolish what the Law said on polygamy, or what his Father said to King David in 2 Samuel 12:7-8. If Jesus would have declared polygamy a sin, it would amount to saying God acted in an evil way to donating King Saul's wives to King David.

The protection of the rights of a wife is a big thing in Mosaic Law; similar to the fact that God wants widows and orphans to be protected and taken care of as well. Jesus says a man cannot simply discard his wife. It's all about the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 - what constitutes grounds for divorce? (see e.g.: When is a Man Allowed to Divorce his Wife? - TheTorah.com)

The new Jewish believers in Jerusalem in Acts didn't throw Mosaic Law out of the window; they kept it passionately (Acts 21:20).

ReluctantTheologian said:

Polygamy was still common in Jesus' time according to Josephus and archeological evidence. And it was only banned in European Judaism in about 1000 CE, not for theological reasons but to harmonise Jewish society there with the Christian one.

Apart from its prevalance, the most important question is whether it was a SIN to have multiple wives; something that would had to be defined by Mosaic Law (according to Paul in Romans 7:7). And God chose not to define that as a sin apparently.

All Jesus' statements regarding marriage relate to the issue on what grounds a man could send away/divorce his wife; Jesus' answer from Matthew 19:4-6 deals with the question in Matthew 19:3:

3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful [for a man] to put away his wife for every cause?​

In Jesus' time the big debate raged between the school of the Rabbi's Hillel and Shammai (Houses of Hillel and Shammai - Wikipedia), who disagreed on what would be allowable grounds for sending a wife away. E.g. Hillel stated a man could divorce his wife for trivial reasons like burning a meal, while Shammai argued this could only happen for a serious transgression.

Jesus was inquired about his position in the Hillel / Shammai debate of his day and clearly on this point chooses the Shammai side. Jesus argues for the permanence on the bond and unity created by marriage, but in no way does he abolish what the Law said on polygamy, or what his Father said to King David in 2 Samuel 12:7-8. If Jesus would have declared polygamy a sin, it would amount to saying God acted in an evil way to donating King Saul's wives to King David.

The protection of the rights of a wife is a big thing in Mosaic Law; similar to the fact that God wants widows and orphans to be protected and taken care of as well. Jesus says a man cannot simply discard his wife. It's all about the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 - what constitutes grounds for divorce? (see e.g.: When is a Man Allowed to Divorce his Wife? - TheTorah.com)

The new Jewish believers in Jerusalem in Acts didn't throw Mosaic Law out of the window; they kept it passionately (Acts 21:20).

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for all the information. It's very informative and most helpful.

I never thought about what this meant in detail until now. Clearly Mosaic law is upheld.

Acts 21:24
"Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law."

Even here it talks about how to handle meat and sexual immorality, for the non jewish and still there is no frowning upon polygami or abolishing polygami.

Acts 21: 25
"As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

I must say I am a bit dumbfounded.

@Vinter: indeed, it was mostly overlooked by Western (Gentile-based) Christianity that Jewish believers in Jesus still were zealous in keeping the Law - the book of Acts is very clear and explicit about that. And that to Gentile believers just those 4 rules from Acts 15 were applied; a very small subset from Mosaic Law. But as the decision makers in Jerusalem at that time had nothing else but the Law of Moses as their reference framework, there is no other option but to interpret 'sexual immorality' with the definitions from the Torah; as all those Apostles were keeping the Law themselves. Of course basic universal laws like 'not stealing or murdering' was also a rule, but that wasn't mentioned because of its obvious universal applicability. Note that Gentile believers also did not have have a compulsory day of rest; like the Sabbath (=Saturday) or Sunday.

In Mosaic Law, the Levirate marriage (marrying your brother's widowed wife if he didn't have any children with her) was kind of compulsory; regardless of the original marital status of the surviving brother. That simply implies polygyny in itself.

Formal monogamy is a native element of Greek and Roman society, not the Jewish one. Western Christianity somehow adopted the Roman/Greek model, possibly as sexuality in general came to be regarded as something evil in itself; asceticism was well developed in the early Church. E.g. when a married man became Bishop it occurred he was expected to send his wife to a monastery because he was not expected to have sex anymore. Check St. August's views on sexuality (see eg Augustine's View of Sexuality). Also think of the dogma of Mary's eternal virginity that was universally supported as a belief in the early church until the Reformation.

@ReluctantTheologian

Thank you for the information.
So to put put it realy simply, the only thing that keeps christians from Polygami today, is the man made laws that each nation have and christians themselves who don't believe in polygami or dislike polygami?

Vinter said:

@ReluctantTheologian

Thank you for the information.
So to put put it realy simply, the only thing that keeps christians from Polygami today, is the man made laws that each nation have and christians themselves who don't believe in polygamy or dislike polygamy?

Click to expand...

Well, those reasons indeed, but others as well:
- sustaining two or more wives and their children requires wealth; so it is no surprise that only wealthy men (kings etc.) could afford to have more than one wife.
- commonly polygamy number-wise only happens if there is surplus of child-bearing age women; if that is not the case it can't happen
- more wives, more children cost a lot of time: if you want to be a pastor, elder or missionary for God's Kingdom, time-wise it may not be fully compatible. Maybe that is one the reasons Paul specifies 'one woman man' for elders/deacons, but we're not fully certain of that.

In the US, Europe or places like Australia it is perfectly legal to have/live with more than one woman as 'wife' in the Biblical sense; yet many countries do not allow Government recognition for the additional marriage. Other countries have legalised official polygamy but only for Muslims (Indonesia, Malaysia). In many African countries it's legal for all.

Just to be clear: I am not campaigning for polygamy; I'm just stating it is not sin in God's eyes - and there may be situations in which a man having more than one wife is a better solution than for single women to stay alone and remain childless, or rear children fatherless.