Concubines

[Armistead14]

Polygamy was not necessarily approved in the OT or NT. It was regulated in the OT, as polygamy was part of that Middle Eastern culture. Also, Adam was not created with multiple wives-only Eve. God thought one woman was sufficient for one man. Jesus affirmed this by referring to the oneness of the Adam-Eve relationship.

In the OT, Lamech was the first polygamist. After this it became more common in the culture. The patriarchs had multiple wives, and polygamy was regulated. The Biblical record is quite honest in relating the problems and conflicts within a polygamist society.

All this being said, new Christians who are polygamists within their culture should be tolerated and taught a better way. Let them keep their wives and not take any more. Also, teach that the generation after them should not be polygamists. That is a far better way than breaking up existing families with multiple marriages. I do not teach or recommend that current monogamous Christians adopt polygamy.

Polygamy was clearly approved by God, sanctioned by the high priest and the bible is clear with numerous statements that God blessed or gave men more wives. Polygamy wasn't regulated, it was the norm, but yes, you had to be able to afford more wives.

We have nothing to suggest that God intended one man for one woman or even if he did, he certainly allowed and blessed other relationships.

There are no more problems with polygamy that monogamy, as I think DH once said, the world fell into sin under monogamy....so much for one man one woman that brought the world into sin. The conflicts we see in polygamy were never related to the marriage, but to sin, such as paganism.

 

[DamianWarS]

Polygamy, concubines or mistresses were comimon in the church 1000 years after Christ death. Polygamy was common during the time Christ walked on the earth and he didn't address it, nor did the apostles. We have one verse where Paul exhorts Deacons to "be the husbands of one wife." If you study that culturally and in context he was probably referring to polygamy and that it's best for pastors so to speak to only have one wife as many would hinder his work. It had nothing to do with pastors divorcing and remarrying.

culturally in roman law polygamy was illegal.

1 Timothy 3:2 says " An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..."

later in the text in 1 Timothy 5:9 when Paul is talking about widows he says "A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man..."

3:2 says "the husband of one wife"
5:9 says "the wife of one man"

the greek confirms this in the exact same wording. So however you understand 3:2 you must apply the same meaning to 5:9 and the same goes for the reverse. With that said if 3:2 should mean polygamy than 5:9 should mean polyandry. culturally and contextually speaking the idea of "polyandry" (a woman having more than one husbands) is just not realistic and this largely supports that this wording is to be understood as divorced marriages not polygamy.

I don't know how this changes the conversation or the point you were trying to stress but it simply is irresponsible to say polygamy is suggested in 3:2.

 

[Armistead14]

The words are correct, but who do they apply?

An overseer or Deacon was to be the husband of one wife, note, this verse was given to only those in power in the church, not the general population of men.

Only men could have numerous wives, not women.

Many bibles translate this verse as simply being faithful in marriage and nothing to do with numbers of wives, but considering the greek words I don't see it.

Compare that with history, secular and of the early church, polygamy was still the norm of jewish christians and even some gentiles. Many of the writings of early church fathers endorsed polygamy/concubines, even for priest, but more in the case if their wife was barren.

Yes, polygamy among christians clashed with Roman monogamy, but was still allowed until the Roman church gained power and put polygamy aside around 1000AD to protect church property. Also, why the Romans had one wife, they kept numerous mistrisses and gay sex was also a norm for married men.

 

[DamianWarS]

Your statement that no place in scripture God gives clear evidence of either promoting or not promoting polygamy is interesting to me.

For one...I have shown such clear evidence by direct action of God in one instance, and by accepting the choices of so many faithful men throught the ages without the slightest hint of displeasure in so many others, that this statement simply is not correct. Clearly God has actually "promoted" it just as He has promoted the more traditional form of marriage. Remember, God Himself gave David additional lovers and stated He was willing to give more. God was dspleased with David's adultery with Bathsheeba, but not because it created a "non-traditional" marriage as He Himself had already provided that. He was displeased because of the destruction of another marriage and taking of a life for selfish coveteous reasons. What this tells us is that God is far more concerned with how we treat each other than He is with our individual choices on such matters. Anyone who states that Jesus words limited marriage to one man and one woman is reading that conclusion into them as I have already shown.

Simple declarative statements such as yours, though made with the sincerest of convictions, do not overturn what is plain biblical testimony.

I'm assuming your statement of "clear evidence by direct action of God in one instance" to support polygamy is in 2 Samuel 12:8 which states "I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!"

the assumption here is that God supports polygamy because he gave David more than one wife and it was considered a blessing from God thus polygamy is God ordained. I agree that this is something God gave to David as this verse shows however I don't think it shows us that polygamy is God made-idea approved and ordained by him as a general subject. The issue is the dominate cultural practice and idea in the ancient world that multiple wives equals blessings and approval from God and than the contrast with this is the idea tthat 1 wife equals a limited blessing from God.

I only see the above as an example where marriage is shaped by culture and God contextualizes his blessings through that culture's idea of what a blessing should be. The NT is written with monogamy as an assumption and although verses can be used to discredit polygamy its text should be considered a basis on the subject. In the same way OT is written under the assumption that polygamy equals prosperity and blessing and just as the NT verses can be pulled to support one side so can OT verses be pulled to support the other but they both should be considered a cultural basis on the subject and not significantly contribute to the conversation. To use these verses as your major supporting argument would be irresponsible.

So what can be used then on the subject? We should instead take the natural God designed form of marriage ordained from creation between 1 man and 1 woman. This was before the fall so we know it is not a corrupted concept. We know it is a value that can and should extend outside of the fall of man by Gen 2:24 which says "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." validating this as extending outside of the Fall. This same passage is further emphasized by Jesus himself when defining marriage in Mat 19 saying that we should not look to the design of man but to the design of God from the beginning. It is also emphasized by Paul in his epistles when talking about issues of marriage and sex so we know this concept also extends not just beyond the fall but into early NT christian living. I see this as the only responsible way to approach the subject where the other verses, OT and NT, can only be responsibly seen as a pretext on the subject and not solid enough to support any side.

 

[DamianWarS]

The words are correct, but who do they apply?

An overseer or Deacon was to be the husband of one wife, note, this verse was given to only those in power in the church, not the general population of men.

Only men could have numerous wives, not women...

in 3:2 they apply to an overseer and in 5:9 they apply to the widow. So if "only men could have numerous wives" then 5:9 is in violation of the idea that "husband of one wife" is referring to polygamy as the exact same wording is used for widows saying "wife of one husband". If women could not have numerous husbands than both 3:2 and 5:9 should be interpreted the same way meaning previous relationships ending in divorce unless you mean to suggest that 5:9 is talking about polyandry which would be absurd but at least consistent.

 

[Armistead14]

I'm assuming your statement of "clear evidence by direct action of God in one instance" to support polygamy is in 2 Samuel 12:8 which states "I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!"

the assumption here is that God supports polygamy because he gave David more than one wife and it was considered a blessing from God thus polygamy is God ordained. I agree that this is something God gave to David as this verse shows however I don't think it shows us that polygamy is God made-idea approved and ordained by him as a general subject. The issue is the dominate cultural practice and idea in the ancient world that multiple wives equals blessings and approval from God and than the contrast with this is the idea tthat 1 wife equals a limited blessing from God.

I only see the above as an example where marriage is shaped by culture and God contextualizes his blessings through that culture's idea of what a blessing should be. The NT is written with monogamy as an assumption and although verses can be used to discredit polygamy its text should be considered a basis on the subject. In the same way OT is written under the assumption that polygamy equals prosperity and blessing and just as the NT verses can be pulled to support one side so can OT verses be pulled to support the other but they both should be considered a cultural basis on the subject and not significantly contribute to the conversation. To use these verses as your major supporting argument would be irresponsible.

So what can be used then on the subject? We should instead take the natural God designed form of marriage ordained from creation between 1 man and 1 woman. This was before the fall so we know it is not a corrupted concept. We know it is a value that can and should extend outside of the fall of man by Gen 2:24 which says "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." validating this as extending outside of the Fall. This same passage is further emphasized by Jesus himself when defining marriage in Mat 19 saying that we should not look to the design of man but to the design of God from the beginning. It is also emphasized by Paul in his epistles when talking about issues of marriage and sex so we know this concept also extends not just beyond the fall but into early NT christian living. I see this as the only responsible way to approach the subject where the other verses, OT and NT, can only be responsibly seen as a pretext on the subject and not solid enough to support any side.

So if we go back to the example of the way it was before the fall, should we also not all run around naked?....If a one man woman is what we should do because it was pure and natural, the same logic would apply to nudity.

Fact is, we can't go back to what God may have or not intended before the fall and claim it's the way we should live or that it would be better. God ordained what he saw as sin or not after the fall, he certainly didn't have a problem with polygamy/concubines.

 

[Armistead14]

in 3:2 they apply to an overseer and in 5:9 they apply to the widow. So if "only men could have numerous wives" then 5:9 is in violation of the idea that "husband of one wife" is referring to polygamy as the exact same wording is used for widows saying "wife of one husband". If women could not have numerous husbands than both 3:2 and 5:9 should be interpreted the same way meaning previous relationships ending in divorce unless you mean to suggest that 5:9 is talking about polyandry which would be absurd but at least consistent.

The verse isn't reference to men, it's in reference to church leaders. Again, wives could only have one husbands by law, the general population of men were allowed as many wives as they could afford., I agree one connects as you say, but again the command is to overseers and widows over 60, not towards the general population of men.

The bible allowed widows to remarry, they weren't punished or refused from church list of help jf they were widowed a dozen times, marriage was allowed due to death of a spouse. Notice the age limit, 60 for widows, at old age marriage was rare, families were to provide, if they couldn't the church did. If you study the historical church history, it appears a widow under 60 was expected to find another husband to provide for her before the church did. The age limit wasn't given to men.

The only other possibility is the verse should read "faithful to their wives" as many bibles translate, which could be plural or singular, but that wouldn't denote divorce or remarriage wasn't allowed for church leaders.....it was.

We must also look to other criteria, should a pastor be refused a position if he divorced based on adultery, his wife died and he remarried? Reading this verse as you do, a pastor couldn't even remarry if his wife died and still preach, but that is contrary to scripture. The bible clearly allowed divorce and remarriage based on adultery, death or if an unbelieving spouse left. Same for a woman, if she was widowed young and remarried, then this verse would exclude her from list and that was just wasn't the case of the early church.

I agree it is a hard verse, studied historically and in context of how the early churched accepted polymany, the verse implies a pastor should only have one wife at a time, taken morally, it seems to apply a pastor should be faithful to the woman he married, my guess it applies to both. Still we knew men were not charged with adultery for having numerous wives.

The verse can have nothing to do with divorce and remarriage is my point for a pastor or widow.

 

[WinBySurrender]

... yet we see in the Bible - the holy and infallible Word of God - that it is was perfectly acceptable to have concubines.

Wow, have you ever got that wrong. Just because men in the Bible - particularly kings and the rich - had concubines does not mean it is "acceptable", only that they had them. God defines marriage as one man and one woman. He defines sex outside of marriage as adultery and fornication. No where does He approve of multiple spouses or sexual indulgences with women not their wives (or with men not their husbands) but defined these things as sin. These practices by men otherwise faithful to the word of God will have suffered loss of heavenly reward at the Bema Seat of Christ, where all men reckoned righteous by faith in God (as was Abraham and other Old Testament saints) must pass by before entering heaven. Not for condemnation, but for rewards "stored up in heaven" by their actions in this Earthly life. Or, in the case of many, lack of rewards for the same reasons.

God does not approve of concubines. I'm sure a lot of people on this thread have told you that, but in coming across it for the first time, I went to the OP to see what started the discussion, and found this.

 

[dayhiker]

I find it very hard to talk about intend and blessings with regard to marrying more than one wife. I just don't see the Bible saying God's, Moses', Jesus' or the apostles' intent is such and such. I do agree that culture plays a big role.

I see no law or indication in the OT that God has a problem with plurality of wives. Moses had 3 wives, God stands up for Moses taking a 2nd wife in Num.12. I go with Moses writing Gen.1-3. So since Moses wrote it, and had 3 wives, God defends Moses with a 2nd wife gives me the idea that Moses didn't write Gen. to say one husband one wife.

Also as pointed out God gave David several wives and indicated He was willing to give David more wives. If it was as wrong as the church says it is today, I don't see how God could do that even given a culture that would then be contrary to God's "intent."

The way I read Mat.19 is that Jesus was asked about divorce and he answered their question. He wasn't saying that Moses and David and many others were wrong, cause then I think He would have been saying God was wrong to support Moses and David with several wives.

Rome did have a law saying marriage was monogamous. But Jews were against that law and had successfully partitioned Rome and received an exemption. So we see Jerome making fun of Jews waking around with more than one wife.

As I said I don't know people's intent, nor to I know Paul's intent with saying a church leader should have one wife. But I think its so that they wouldn't get in trouble with Roman law. They were Gentiles not Jews for the most part.

So what about today. Well, we are aware of the diversity of people. Most people have no interest in more than one relationship. But there are some that don't want to live under a monogamy rule. Where a woman has one husband or two isn't an issue with me or as I understand what God what God as said in the Bible. What is at issue is are they treating each person with respect and love. Last night a meet a woman with 2 men. They had 4 children. It was a blessing to she how well they worked together to look after their kids. Too short to know the details of their life, for sure. But I'd give them as high a grade as any parents in the 3 hours I got to observe their parenting skill.

 

[DamianWarS]

So if we go back to the example of the way it was before the fall, should we also not all run around naked?....If a one man woman is what we should do because it was pure and natural, the same logic would apply to nudity.

As I mentioned in my post this is validated by extending outside of the context of the fall in Genesis 3:22, by Jesus in Mat 19, and not to mention Paul who all show that this isn't merely a before fall value and it extended not only immediately after the fall but well into NT Christian living. If the same confirmation was for nudity I would also promote nudity in the same way but as it stands I am not aware of nudity being a value outside of the fall endorsed by other biblical authorities like Moses, Jesus or Paul like the value of marriage as Genesis 3:22 states it is.

Fact is, we can't go back to what God may have or not intended before the fall and claim it's the way we should live or that it would be better. God ordained what he saw as sin or not after the fall, he certainly didn't have a problem with polygamy/concubines.

we can go back because Jesus himself endorses this definition and literally tells us to go back to the beginning to define marriage in Mat 19. If nudity had the same endorsement than I would say the same thing however since it doesn't I don't promote it. I understand your point but I have a hard time disagreeing with Jesus.

 

[dayhiker]

Well, Win ... we didn't come to our view without hundreds of hours of study.
I was tempted to say almost everything you said in your paragraph isn't Biblical.
But lets just start with a simple question. Where does God define marriage as one man and one woman? Let's not read our culture into it as that is a major mistake we often make in our hermeneutics.

thanks

Wow, have you ever got that wrong. Just because men in the Bible - particularly kings and the rich - had concubines does not mean it is "acceptable", only that they had them. God defines marriage as one man and one woman. He defines sex outside of marriage as adultery and fornication. No where does He approve of multiple spouses or sexual indulgences with women not their wives (or with men not their husbands) but defined these things as sin. These practices by men otherwise faithful to the word of God will have suffered loss of heavenly reward at the Bema Seat of Christ, where all men reckoned righteous by faith in God (as was Abraham and other Old Testament saints) must pass by before entering heaven. Not for condemnation, but for rewards "stored up in heaven" by their actions in this Earthly life. Or, in the case of many, lack of rewards for the same reasons.

God does not approve of concubines. I'm sure a lot of people on this thread have told you that, but in coming across it for the first time, I went to the OP to see what started the discussion, and found this.

 

[DamianWarS]

The verse can have nothing to do with divorce and remarriage is my point for a pastor or widow.

You seem to never directly reconcile verses 3:2 and 5:9 but instead interpret 3:2 assuming polygamy and 5:9 assuming multiple husbands based on death or some other nonsense you use to cloud the subject. However you interpret one the other must be interpreted the same so if 3:2 is to mean polygamy than 5:9 should mean polyandry... or if 5:9 is to mean whatever you think it means than 3:2 assumes the same meaning. This isn't some sort of riddle that Paul is writing and he uses the exact same wording in 3:2 and 5:9 because they mean the same thing.

 

[WinBySurrender]

But lets just start with a simple question. Where does God define marriage as one man and one woman? Let's not read our culture into it as that is a major mistake we often make in our hermeneutics.

thanks

I'm not going to make this a debate over same-sex marriage, which is often where you want to go with it. Suffice to say, Adam was not give a male mate.

Genesis 2 NASB23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh ; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. [Emphasis added]
​

In other passages regarding instructions for a Godly marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, it is apparent marriage is defined biblically as between a man and a woman, one each. Now, I could go into a long dissertation about how historically, legally, psychologically and biologically marriage is confirmed to be one man and one woman, but I'm not going to derail the thread, and if you wish to respond, please do so via PM, as I will not respond here. That is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Armistead14]

You seem to never directly reconcile verses 3:2 and 5:9 but instead interpret 3:2 assuming polygamy and 5:9 assuming multiple husbands based on death or some other nonsense you use to cloud the subject. However you interpret one the other must be interpreted the same so if 3:2 is to mean polygamy than 5:9 should mean polyandry... or if 5:9 is to mean whatever you think it means than 3:2 assumes the same meaning. This isn't some sort of riddle that Paul is writing and he uses the exact same wording in 3:2 and 5:9 because they mean the same thing.

How can they mean the same for all, when they are clearly in references to two situations, church leaders and widows over 60?

Your ignoring scriptual and historical law...read carefully, men were allowed multiple wives, women were not. You're trying to connect the verses to mean all people, they're implied to two instances. Still, putting in context with other verses, it's clear overseers and widows could remarry due to the 3 reasons I mentioned and there was no sin in that remarriage. Should we throw out all the verses from Christ and Paul in other places, no we use them in context to study.

I agree with you that what it means for one, it means for the other, overseers and widows to have one spouse at a time during marriage or possible just to be faithful spouses. There is no other command that the average joe couldn't have as many as he wanted, women could not. This is backed by all the historical church evidence that polygamy was never considered sin by the early church, the earliest creeds do not call it sin, no early council called it sin, it was common in the church until put away by the RCC to protect church property.

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree with you that what it means for one, it means for the other, overseers and widows to have one spouse at a time during marriage or possible just to be faithful spouses. There is no other command that the average joe couldn't have as many as he wanted, women could not. This is backed by all the historical church evidence that polygamy was never considered sin by the early church, the earliest creeds do not call it sin, no early council called it sin, it was common in the church until put away by the RCC to protect church property.

you define it as "to have one spouse at a time during marriage or possible just to be faithful spouses". this is a double meaning that you do not fairly apply to both passages of 3:2 and 5:9 and honestly it seems to be only there so you can reconcile the inconvenient wording of 5:9. Since you rightly reject that woman can have multiple husbands in that context widows are then excluded from your first condition "to have one spouse at a time during marriage" but its a good thing you made it a double meaning so you can maintain some kind of consistency... whew that was a close one. This is a little ridiculous and you are fooling no one. All that seems clear is that your are desperately trying to reconcile the two together while still maintaining that 3:2 is talking about polygamy. You can't say "what it means for one, it means for the other" when really you only mean that to be half true. I am trying to be responsible with the interpretation and not trying to think of some hidden double meaning. All it seems you have done is taken the proper meaning and superimposed polygamy as a condition for 3:2.

What "husband/wife of one wife/husband" means its not altogether clear as the text does not define this. So this means the best thing we can do is use other scripture to help define it while being responsible to the context and the best place to start is in other Pauline epistles. Since the text itself cannot responsibly commit to polygamy as a condition and other Pauline epistles approach the subject of marriage with a monogamous assumption then polygamy should be reasonably disqualified. Instead we could use 1 Corinthians 7 as you have pointed out to help us define what this means which would more fairly represent your second condition of being faithful to your spouse.

 

[dayhiker]

Hi Win,
I must have erad Gen.1-3 a hundred times. Even preached it a few. But this is a narrative not a definition as I read it. Do you think Moses wrote it? If so why did Moses take 3 wives and break the word that he wrote?

Yup, 1 Cor.7 and Eph. has some good advice on marriage, but I've not seen a definition there. The advice would work just as well for a monogamy or a poly relationship as best I can tell.

I'm not going to make this a debate over same-sex marriage, which is often where you want to go with it. Suffice to say, Adam was not give a male mate.

Genesis 2 NASB23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh ; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. [Emphasis added]
​

In other passages regarding instructions for a Godly marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, it is apparent marriage is defined biblically as between a man and a woman, one each. Now, I could go into a long dissertation about how historically, legally, psychologically and biologically marriage is confirmed to be one man and one woman, but I'm not going to derail the thread, and if you wish to respond, please do so via PM, as I will not respond here. That is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Armistead14]

you define it as "to have one spouse at a time during marriage or possible just to be faithful spouses". this is a double meaning that you do not fairly apply to both passages of 3:2 and 5:9 and honestly it seems to be only there so you can reconcile the inconvenient wording of 5:9. Since you rightly reject that woman can have multiple husbands in that context widows are then excluded from your first condition "to have one spouse at a time during marriage" but its a good thing you made it a double meaning so you can maintain some kind of consistency... whew that was a close one. This is a little ridiculous and you are fooling no one. All that seems clear is that your are desperately trying to reconcile the two together while still maintaining that 3:2 is talking about polygamy. You can't say "what it means for one, it means for the other" when really you only mean that to be half true. I am trying to be responsible with the interpretation and not trying to think of some hidden double meaning. All it seems you have done is taken the proper meaning and superimposed polygamy as a condition for 3:2.

What "husband/wife of one wife/husband" means its not altogether clear as the text does not define this. So this means the best thing we can do is use other scripture to help define it while being responsible to the context and the best place to start is in other Pauline epistles. Since the text itself cannot responsibly commit to polygamy as a condition and other Pauline epistles approach the subject of marriage with a monogamous assumption then polygamy should be reasonably disqualified. Instead we could use 1 Corinthians 7 as you have pointed out to help us define what this means which would more fairly represent your second condition of being faithful to your spouse.

We are at an impass due to cultural law supported by biblical scripture, that a woman could not have many husbands, but a man could. I am totally agreeing with you, that these verses clearly teach that an overseer and widow should be the spouse of one when married. I disagree that they can have only one spouse in a lifetime, the bible gave 3 acceptable reasons for divorce, following those guidelines I see no sin in a widow or overseer to remarry and retain their status.

The history and writings of the early church back my viewpoint, I can name numerous early church fathers until about 1000AD that supported polygamy based on scripture, you can point to Roman greedy Popes that outlawed polygamy long after the early church. Numerous church leaders and even Roman priest were polygamous or supported it. Even those that were against polygamy like Justin stated it was common in the early church. Numerous others against polygamy stated God allowed it to procreate, that it would be sin in some cultures, not sin in others....no scripture to back it up, just opinion.

I clearly stated several bibles translate this as simply being faithful, but I stated I did not hold to that opinion, so not holding two positions on this end. The fact is greater minds than ours have debated this since the early church, the early church say no sin in it, the later Roman church did....I'll stick with the early church fathers that knew the greek.

Polygamy certainly wasn't sinful during the OT and it was common during Christ time, many new converts were polygamous, you never see them being told it's sin. If polygamy wasn't sin in the OT, did God somehow change his mind on sin in the NT period? At best we see other cultures coming into place and God giving more status to love in marriage than property rights.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Hi Win,
I must have erad Gen.1-3 a hundred times. Even preached it a few. But this is a narrative not a definition as I read it. Do you think Moses wrote it? If so why did Moses take 3 wives and break the word that he wrote?

Moses took only two wives, and the second only after Zipporah died. And yes, I know Moses wrote it. That's the major separating difference between our perspectives.

Yup, 1 Cor.7 and Eph. has some good advice on marriage, but I've not seen a definition there. The advice would work just as well for a monogamy or a poly relationship as best I can tell.

As it only refers to husbands loving their individual wives, you don't see it as defining because you wish to ignore it.

 

[dayhiker]

Do you have a reference for Zipporah dying before Moses marries the Cushite woman?

The 3rd wife of Moses is referred to in Judges.1:16 .. The descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, the Kenite ...

So we have a Zipporah, a Cushite and a Kenite. I read that as 3 wives for Moses.

I don't ignore that the words in the NT for woman/wife is singular. I just observer that it was the Roman law to only have one wife, while God's law allowed more than one wife and the Jews pushed Rome to get permission to have an exemption from that law. Also a man isn't married to a group of women, but to an individual wife. So he is to love his wife and not diminish that love if he takes a second wife as the law of Moses allowed. So personally, if the law of Moses allowed then God allowed. Just as God allows us to be single and not fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply. No sin and no displeasure from God either way.

 

[WinBySurrender]

The 3rd wife of Moses is referred to in Judges.1:16 .. The descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, the Kenite ...

Do you not understand that is Jethro, Zipporah's father? Silly question ... obviously you don't.

So we have a Zipporah, a Cushite and a Kenite. I read that as 3 wives for Moses.

You can read it that way if you want. As I've just pointed out, that would be a gross error.

...while God's law allowed more than one wife ...

Please show me that in the Law. Chapter and verse please. Post it here for all to read.

... and the Jews pushed Rome to get permission to have an exemption from that law.

What man does in contravention of God's Law does not prove he follows God's Law, it proves he is a sinner! We're done here.