Polygamy in the Bible

[musingsofacac]

This is one of those topics that cause people to squirm in their seats anytime we come across it in Church services or Sunday school.

I was raised in conservative Baptist churches my whole life and still attend one today. When a pastor or Bible teacher would come across Polygamous practices in one the Patriarchs(like Abraham,Jacob,Gideon,David, and who could leave out Solomon) they would say it was sin God overlooked, but he was not happy with, just like divorce.

If they did not say that they would say look at how much trouble all these guys had because of their polygamy?

But look a little closer and you will see that God was not condeming polygamy, in fact he never condemns it as far as I can see, he was condeming their actions around it.

Abraham was condemned for taking Hagar, not for polygamy, but because he did not have faith that God would give him a child through Sarah. Sarah's jealousy was aroused by Hagar's child being a threat as the first born. Later after Sarah died Abraham took another wife and then concubines(slave wives) and there is absolutely no condemnation of this in the Bible.

David was not condemned for taking many wives, but was instead condemned for taking another man's wife. Nathan even told him that God gave him the wives of Saul and asked how he could take another man's wife.

I have had some point to the example of Adam and Eve in the garden, and if God meant for a man to have more than one wife, then he would have given him many wives. The problem is that Biblical example does not bind, it only allows, as long as that example is not presented as wrong behavior.

So the fact that Adam had only one wife, allows us to practice monogamous marriage, but it does not in my opinion bind us to monogamous marriage. But I believe based on my own study of the Scriptures, that the practice of polygamy by the man of faith(Abraham) and the man after God's own heart(David) allows the practice of polygamy. NO I am not a polygamist, but I will no longer condemn the Patriarchs for being so.

Some might point to when God said the King should not multiply wives as God's prohibition against polygamy. The problem with that is, number one he is referring to the King, not all men. Just like the Priests had different standards for marriage(like they could not marry a divorced woman), so to the King did as well. But also in the same passage the King is told not to multiply horses or gold or silver, does that mean that king could have only one horse and one piece of silver and one piece of gold? Of course not.

It talking about the King hording horses, silver, gold or wives. Solomon is a good example(or really bad one) of a king hording wives with his 700 wives and 300 concubines. That's what God was condemning in my opinion.

I would like to here your points of view, especially differing ones.

 

[Tangible]

Personally I agree with you. Polygamy is illegal in the US and we must abide by the laws of the land. Also, a man who wants more than one wife had better have lots of time and resources to invest in them, and must treat them equally.

But no, I don't believe there is any explicit biblical injunction against polygamy in either the old or new testaments.

 

[musingsofacac]

Personally I agree with you. Polygamy is illegal in the US and we must abide by the laws of the land. Also, a man who wants more than one wife had better have lots of time and resources to invest in them, and must treat them equally.

But no, I don't believe there is any explicit biblical injunction against polygamy in either the old or new testaments.

Well thats no fun, I wanted someone to disagree...LOL. Well there is still time.

I would argue though that the Government has no place defining marriage because marriage was created and instituted by God. Think about it this way - what if the government said you could not get married till you were 30, do you have to wait till your 30?

What if the government said you can't marry someone of another race even though God never forbids that for Christians?

What if the government told you that you could not married in a church, that you were required to get married in a court room?

There are some places the Government has no right to be(even though we have allowed them to creep in) they have no place in the marriage, the family or the church but we have allowed them in all three places.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[musingsofacac]

I think the reason that most Christians don't want to address the issue of polygamy is because we have had centuries(really well over a 1000 years) of conditioning.

The Jews were very polygamous for at least 3 centuries after Christ because the Romans did not like it and kept trying to pass laws to get rid of polygamy in Israel but it still continued.

I think many men believe if they openly pro polygamy their wives would give them a lot of grief, even if they were not trying to actually practice it.

Polygamy and feminism are arch enemies and that probably one of the biggest reasons it is such a taboo such in America today.

 

[Shane R]

Marriage is compared to Christ's relationship to the church, his bride. Coupling this with Christ's own words, phrased with singular pronouns, in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 indicates a Divine preference for monogamy.

It seems the Jews of Jesus' day were more interested in easy divorce than polygamy. This is another circumstantial piece of evidence.

 

[Nanopants]

Considering the divorce and remarriages practiced by Western society, even in cases where one does not remarry, I'd say we practice a form of non-monogamy, except we tend to discard and mistreat our spouses when we're done with them. The polygamous saints (granted they weren't perfect) at least tended to keep them around. In other words, if you think polygamy is bad, we're far worse.

 

[musingsofacac]

Considering the divorce and remarriages practiced by Western society, even in cases where one does not remarry, I'd say we practice a form of non-monogamy, except we tend to discard and mistreat our spouses when we're done with them. The polygamous saints (granted they weren't perfect) at least tended to keep them around. In other words, if you think polygamy is bad, we're far worse.

Nanopants,

That is a good point. Although as far as divorce goes women actually are the primary instigators of divorce. Almost 70 percent of all divorces in the US are filed by woman, and the majority of them are not for abuse or infidelity on the part of their husbands. Most are just for the typical garbage excuses "like we have just grown apart".

Where I would agree with you is that Polygamy in the Bible actually protected women. Many times a man would marry a woman, and most marriages were arranged. If the woman was cranky battle ax society still frowned on divorce. Many people have the false impression that divorce was easy before Christ uttered his words about in the NT.

The truth is it was still majorly frowned upon in the OT and unless you had something serious against your wife you did not divorce or everyone around you would look down on you.

So instead of divorce, you would simply marry another woman and still continue to care for your first wife(including clothing her, feeding her and you were still required to have sex with her).

But that was not the only reason for polygamy - many times if a woman was infertile her husband would take on a second wife so that he could have sons.

Still another reason for polygamy was the care of widows, like with leverite marriage where the Mosaic law commanded than a man marry his brother's widow and the first son produced from that union would technically be his brother's heir and inherit his brother's estate.

There are lots of other reasons for polygamy...but I will bring those up later if discussion continues.

 

[musingsofacac]

Marriage is compared to Christ's relationship to the church, his bride. Coupling this with Christ's own words, phrased with singular pronouns, in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 indicates a Divine preference for monogamy.

It seems the Jews of Jesus' day were more interested in easy divorce than polygamy. This is another circumstantial piece of evidence.

I agree that the Christ and his bride are mentioned in the singular. But I don't think this expresses God's preference for monogamy.

Would you argue that God was expressing his preference for polygamy when he pictured himself as having two wives in the OT?

Ezekiel 23:1-4(NASB)

23 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother; 3 and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and there their virgin bosom was handled. 4 Their names were Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister. And they became Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And as for their names, Samaria is Oholah and Jerusalem is Oholibah.

The facts come down on the side of polygamy.

God regulated polygamy in the OT and never condemned it. Saying that because Christ's bride is singular means nothing if we see that God is pictured as a polygamist in the OT.

Without a direct command changing things(as we see many things changed in the NT from the OT) polygamy remains legal under God's law and approved by God.

 

[Nanopants]

Is it just me or are the brides of the Bridegroom being overlooked here?

 

[ananda]

Patriarchal polygamy is not prohibited in Scripture (one man, multiple wives). On the other hand, one woman cannot have multiple husbands, though.

 

[musingsofacac]

Is it just me or are the brides of the Bridegroom being overlooked here?

Nanopants - actually thats a good point. But many ant-polygamists try and say they were actually "brides maids", not brides. I reject that interpretation and agree with you they were actually brides.

 

[musingsofacac]

Patriarchal polygamy is not prohibited in Scripture (one man, multiple wives). On the other hand, one woman cannot have multiple husbands, though.

Agreed - polyandry(a woman having more than one husband is forbidden) but polygyny(a man having more than one wife) is allowed.

Some will say "that's not fair", and to those I say, if you want fair then you need to throw out the Bible, because much of the Bible and God's ways are not "fair" by modern 21st century standards.

The Bible clearly states that woman was created for man, and not man for the woman. This is why polygyny is allowed for the man, but polyandry is forbidden for the woman.

 

[Nanopants]

Well, it is, under the law. Some Jewish Scholars consider only Noahide laws to be applicable to Gentiles, however, meaning that it may not be explicitly forbidden to all of humanity. Regardless, polyandry does exist, is and has been practiced in some cultures, and I couldn't separate those unions in good conscience as an evangelist, since to do so for the sake of the opinions of my own culture would be rather selfish of me, as well as destructive.

 

[Nanopants]

What about adultery? Is it impossible for a man in the context of polygamy, assuming it is not unlawful?

I think the example of David shows otherwise, where he did commit the sin with Bathsheba, though he had been given wives. That being the case, I don't think it was because he went beyond the bounds of monogamy but because he committed a form of infidelity, unfaithfulness, or betrayal, that being something not so easily defined in legal terms.

 

[Nanopants]

The actual sin is outlined by Nathan as follows:

And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man... -2 Sam 12:1-7

 

[ananda]

Adultery, according to a strict interpretation of Torah and Messiah, is defined as this one event: when any man engages in sexual relations with a married (or betrothed) woman.

Any man (whether married or not) who engages in sexual relations with an unmarried, unbetrothed woman is not committing adultery. After engaging in such relations, she is in effect married to him.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Adultery, according to a strict interpretation of Torah and Messiah, is defined as this one event: when any man engages in sexual relations with a married woman.

What about a married man that has sexual relations with another woman, whether she is married or single?


.

 

[Nanopants]

Adultery, according to a strict interpretation of Torah and Messiah, is defined as this one event: when any man engages in sexual relations with a married woman.

Not when a married woman has relations with a single man, or when a single woman with a married man, or a married woman with a married man?

The most convenient thing to do to expedite the bureaucratic processes of managing the mess that infidelity creates is to draw strict boundaries, though the boundaries themselves are not the definition of infidelity.

Law must be subject to morality, not the other way around. If it were not, then we can legislate immorality, and, by some strange magic, make it moral.

 

[ananda]

Not when a married woman has relations with a single man,

Yes, that's adultery

or when a single woman with a married man

No, that's not adultery (if she's truly single and not betrothed). However, once they engage in relations, they're married.

or a married woman with a married man?

Yes, that's adultery (unless they're married to each other).

The most convenient thing to do to expedite the bureaucratic processes of managing the mess that infidelity creates is to draw strict boundaries, though the boundaries themselves are not the definition of infidelity. Law must be subject to morality, not the other way around. If it were not, then we can legislate immorality, and, by some strange magic, make it moral.

Scripture defines strict boundaries regarding adultery, but that involves a social structure not really practiced today in the mainstream.

 

[musingsofacac]

Well, it is, under the law. Some Jewish Scholars consider only Noahide laws to be applicable to Gentiles, however, meaning that it may not be explicitly forbidden to all of humanity. Regardless, polyandry does exist, is and has been practiced in some cultures, and I couldn't separate those unions in good conscience as an evangelist, since to do so for the sake of the opinions of my own culture would be rather selfish of me, as well as destructive.

Well as Christians we are under the Law of Christ meaning the New Testament. We can still learn about God's nature from the Mosaic Law(thus we can learn he allowed polygyny but not polyandry). The NT those brings forward some of the Mosaic laws(such prohibitions against marrying close relatives like mom, dad, aunt, uncle, brother, sister). The NT also restates God's order in creation that woman was created for man and not man for woman.

Thus if I were a missionary enforcing the law of Christ found in the NT I would have to have a polyandrous relationship broken before they could enter the church as members. It be the same if I were to come across a gay couple, if it violates NT law, its forbidden and we are commanded to put out of the church those who are in open public violation of God's law especially in regards to marriage.