Polygamy...Was Never God's Plan

[Reluctant Theologian]

All you have to do is read the Bible story of Abraham or Jacob and see the misery that having MULTIPLE WIVES brings into a home, to KNOW that POLYGAMY was never God's plan. It brings no more happiness today than it did back then.

As Christians, if we want God's blessing on our family, we need to follow the PLAN He gave us from Creation ~ ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN

I fully agree the one man - one woman would be the ideal, yet it is a Christian caricature to depict Jacob's marriages like that (for the purpose of portraying polygamy negatively); how different is the view of TNK scripture:

Ruth 4: 11

.. May YHWH make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. ..​

 

[Whyayeman]

Yet another Old Testament quotation keeping women in their place.

I have just had another glance at Ruth. In the story she was no doubt a good woman, but dependent on a man whose motivation is deeply suspect.

Men are always 'taking' wives in the Bible - a significant word choice. Not a word to use these days...

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Yet another Old Testament quotation keeping women in their place.

I have just had another glance at Ruth. In the story she was no doubt a good woman, but dependent on a man whose motivation is deeply suspect.

Men are always 'taking' wives in the Bible - a significant word choice. Not a word to use these days...

In the book of Ruth Boaz may be the real hero and an archetype of Jesus the Messiah as redeemer. Ruth is begging him to marry her (while Naomi had planned for her to seduce him at nighttime), Boaz (although much older and wealthy) agrees to her request. Why would you think of him negatively?

 

[Whyayeman]

That is one reading, but I suggest going back to it and considering the fact that Boaz does very well out of it. He gets another wife, young and a good worker; he obtains Naomi's land through the brother or cousin of her late husband. Ultimately Boaz becomes quite powerful, being the great grandfather of King David.

Meanwhile, Naomi, who complains of how unfairly she has been treated by God, gets nothing. Maybe she got the cash from the sale of the farm, but it does not say so.

Naomi resorts to subterfuge in her desperation and plots with Ruth to seduce Boaz. Boaz, however, has already shown a keen interest and put Ruth in his debt - not very Messianic!

But I enjoyed revisiting the story in my King James Bible!

 

[RDKirk]

That is one reading, but I suggest going back to it and considering the fact that Boaz does very well out of it. He gets another wife, young and a good worker; he obtains Naomi's land through the brother or cousin of her late husband. Ultimately Boaz becomes quite powerful, being the great grandfather of King David.

Meanwhile, Naomi, who complains of how unfairly she has been treated by God, gets nothing. Maybe she got the cash from the sale of the farm, but it does not say so.

Naomi resorts to subterfuge in her desperation and plots with Ruth to seduce Boaz. Boaz, however, has already shown a keen interest and put Ruth in his debt - not very Messianic!

But I enjoyed revisiting the story in my King James Bible!

Naomi would continue living with Ruth and Boaz, as Ruth had already indicated her complete devotion to Naomi, and it was Naomi who was actually the blood relative of Boaz.

And remember that David's father was only a sheepherder, not a powerful man, so there is no indication that Boaz was anything more than well-off.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

That is one reading, but I suggest going back to it and considering the fact that Boaz does very well out of it. He gets another wife, young and a good worker; he obtains Naomi's land through the brother or cousin of her late husband. Ultimately Boaz becomes quite powerful, being the great grandfather of King David.

Given his age, wealth and status, Boaz already would have had a previous wife or even wives (and of course children) at that time. He notices Ruth's righteous past and behaviour and is impressed by it. Observe how no remark is made by him about her beauty; and she is a foreigner as well (so almost 2nd class resident in Israel). The whole story portrays Boaz as a righteous redeemer who out of kindness agrees to redeem and marry Naomi.

I don't suggest Boaz may not have enjoyed marrying Ruth as his much younger 2nd (or possibly even 3rd) wife, but that is not the point of the story at all. It's about Boaz's grace and Ruth's morally right decisions.

Meanwhile, Naomi, who complains of how unfairly she has been treated by God, gets nothing. Maybe she got the cash from the sale of the farm, but it does not say so.

Naomi's debts from the past are gone, her bitterness disappears, she's taken care of by Boaz and Ruth, and she gets a grandson - that's quite a bit

Naomi resorts to subterfuge in her desperation and plots with Ruth to seduce Boaz. Boaz, however, has already shown a keen interest and put Ruth in his debt - not very Messianic!

The redeeming and righteous behaviour is the Messianic bit; and is Jesus not keen on his bride the church? The key point is that Naomi/Ruth ask Boaz to marry Ruth; it's their request, and he responds to that request in the most gracious righteous way possible. Now that makes my heart beat faster

But I enjoyed revisiting the story in my King James Bible!

Glad to hear that, although it could have been any decent translation

 

[Whyayeman]

I acknowledge that the interpretation you have offered is orthodox. I don't wish to argue against it because it is a pretty story told that way. Of course I do not see the righteousness in quite the same trusting light as Christians are wont to.

He notices Ruth's righteous past and behaviour and is impressed by it.

But come on! When does a man notice the righteousness of a pretty girl? I think the story has lost some of its sexual content through the serial translations, the work done exclusively by monks. I think my interpretation is better!

We should return to the topic. The Moderator is never far away!

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I acknowledge that the interpretation you have offered is orthodox. I don't wish to argue against it because it is a pretty story told that way. Of course I do not see the righteousness in quite the same trusting light as Christians are wont to.

I, orthodox? I like your humour

But come on! When does a man notice the righteousness of a pretty girl? I think the story has lost some of its sexual content through the serial translations, the work done exclusively by monks. I think my interpretation is better!

Certainly Boaz may have noticed how pretty she was, but her beauty or his sexual interest is not the focus/intent of the story. I agree nowadays Western Christians tend to whitewash the sexual content that is definitely in it - most notably Naomi's plan for Ruth to seduce Boaz unseen in the middle of the night, and uncover his genitals (I incline to the hypothesis that 'uncover his feet' means 'uncover his genitals'). But all of that doesn't change the main thrust of the story and its glorious message of deliverance by righteous living.

Nowadays I observe most people feel very uncomfortable and highly suspicious of ANY relationship where the partners are very unequal in age, wealth, power, etc., while the Bible is full of those relationships and is not critical of that at all.

At the apex of that is the relationship between GOD and mankind, or Jesus and the Church, all very unequal in everything, yet also very good

 

[Whyayeman]

I like your humour

And I like yours.

Nowadays I observe most people feel very uncomfortable and highly suspicious of ANY relationship where the partners are very unequal in age, wealth, power, etc., while the Bible is full of those relationships and is not critical of that at all.

I think polygamous marriage is full of such inequalities. Boaz could just as easily have married Naomi to give her protection - and he would have got her farm without the trouble of negotiating with her uncle or paying for it.

But, no, he went for the nice young pretty one. Plus ca change!

 

[Tinker Grey]

And I like yours.



I think polygamous marriage is full of such inequalities. Boaz could just as easily have married Naomi to give her protection - and he would have got her farm without the trouble of negotiating with her uncle or paying for it.

But, no, he went for the nice young pretty one. Plus ca change!

BTW: Jewish scholars debate just what went on that night: What Did Ruth and Boaz Do on the Threshing Floor?

 

[Whyayeman]

Well I never! I'm not the first to doubt the purity of Boaz?

 

[Whyayeman]

The Bible tolerates polygamy so I have to disagree with the original post.

It tolerates the dominion of men over women, advocates the execution of adulterous women, is comfortable with enslavement and the sale of daughters into slavery.

It is just not for me, I suppose.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

The Bible tolerates polygamy so I have to disagree with the original post.

It tolerates the dominion of men over women, advocates the execution of adulterous women, is comfortable with enslavement and the sale of daughters into slavery.

As surprising as it may be to you: I actually agree to all of that; yet one addition: the Mosaic Law (OT) also commands the execution of adulterous men, not just the women.

Yet I love the Bible

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I think polygamous marriage is full of such inequalities. Boaz could just as easily have married Naomi to give her protection - and he would have got her farm without the trouble of negotiating with her uncle or paying for it.

But, no, he went for the nice young pretty one. Plus ca change!

He could certainly also have married Naomi But she didn't ask for that, or maybe thought Boaz would be less interested in her given her age (she carefully planned for the marriage bid to be successful: perfume, etc.). She did know Ruth was relatively young, and thus needed a husband - in itself a good plan; Naomi just shouldn't have planned all of this through seduction; yet it all worked out well in the end; Hallelu-yah !

 

[Whyayeman]

it all worked out well in the end

Let us agree on that. I have enjoyed this exchange.

Yet I love the Bible

I love the language of the King James I Bible - and who wouldn't? I love the language of Shakespeare which is contemporary with it. You don't have to believe the stories of either to enjoy them.

As an aside: it is said (without much evidence) that Shakespeare was on the committee that did the King James translation. In the King James Version of Psalm 46, the 46th word from the beginning is ‘shake’ and the 46th word from the end is ‘spear’. Another good story that does not need to be true to be enjoyed!

 

[xser88]

Saying polygamy is wrong because some people in those relationships will struggle isn't a compelling argument, monogamous relationships struggle just as much. How is a man supporting several women selfish? And you can't force the women to participate. practically, couldn't having other wives make some tasks easier, or help with each other's kids? It wasn't a sin if God was using it, Jesus genealogy came through the polygamy of David. In the bible, if your brother dies before producing children from his wife, you are to marry and impregnate her if you're married or not. Isn't polygamy a picture of the mystery of Christ as the Groom and the billion of Christians as His bride? If a man in Africa who was married to several women was converted to Christianity, should he commit the sin of divorce? It may not be ideal but I see no verse making it a sin.

 

[Whyayeman]

Saying polygamy is wrong because some people in those relationships will struggle isn't a compelling argument, monogamous relationships struggle just as much. How is a man supporting several women selfish? And you can't force the women to participate. practically, couldn't having other wives make some tasks easier, or help with each other's kids? It wasn't a sin if God was using it, Jesus genealogy came through the polygamy of David. In the bible, if your brother dies before producing children from his wife, you are to marry and impregnate her if you're married or not. Isn't polygamy a picture of the mystery of Christ as the Groom and the billion of Christians as His bride? If a man in Africa who was married to several women was converted to Christianity, should he commit the sin of divorce? It may not be ideal but I see no verse making it a sin.

If it is so good would you consider it for yourself either as husband of several wives, or as a co-wife sharing with one or more women?

I do not see much polygamy in modern Christian societies.

 

[xser88]

If it is so good would you consider it for yourself either as husband of several wives, or as a co-wife sharing with one or more women?

I do not see much polygamy in modern Christian societies.

In my case, my wife wouldn't care to be part of a polygamy relationship, but for the reasons, I stated I don't believe it's a sin. Reading the entire bible you can easily see it gives credence to socialism being ideal. It warns against striving to be rich. Probably in no other country does the verse apply "for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evils" than here in America from its birth till now. Many verses, parables, and biblical historical events support socialism. And many verses, parables, and biblical historical events condemning striving to be rich or making money the bottom line. The bible supports debt forgiveness. Here are a few verses
Matthew 19:23
Matthew 21:12
Matthew 6:24
Luke 6:27
Isaiah 2:4
Matthew 5:5
Mark 10:21-25
Acts 2:44-45
Galatians 6:2
Acts 4:32-35
Luke 3:11
Matthew 19:21
These verses and more show socialism is more moral and ideal. The Bible doesn't prescribe any specific economic system, but the Bible explicitly denounces greed and the lack of care for your fellow man.
So capitalism isn't a sin, but it isn't ideal.
I see polygamy like this, it isn't ideal, but isn't a sin.

 

[Whyayeman]

xser88, I think you are one of the few posters here who has used New Testament references extensively.

I agree - I certainly do not see polygamy as sinful. I just think it sits very awkwardly with the idea of equality between the sexes. I guess that most posters on this thread are men. The only (self-identified) woman has very strong views and is worth a look.

As for the New Testament and socialist ideas, I agree with you again. I am reminded of a famous British Christian socialist, Donald Soper, who would declare to his atheist comrades that for him the brotherhood of man was founded in the fatherhood of God. He was a Methodist minister and his socialism, which for him was part of his moral outlook, was rooted in that faith.

 

[stevil]

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.

This response doesn't address the question.

The response of
"The "apparent contradictions" are our fallible human misunderstandings."
is a cop out. It is brushing the question under the rug. fingers in ears, head in the sand.