Scripturally, what's wrong with polygamy?

[Apollo Rhetor]

It is obvious in the paradox offered in 1 Corinthians 7:4. His body is not his own to 'become one flesh' with more than one woman and vice versa.

A good point that I have not considered before. I have some troubles with it however, even if I am not supporting polygyny. 1 Corinthians 11 (and in particular vs 3) establishes clearly that the head of woman is man, teaching clearly that the husband has authority over the wife. So it is clear that it is not in all things that the woman has ownership over her husband. John Calvin draws the same interpretation as me in that regard, and says that the meaning should be given from that which precedes it. He then concludes that this is a prohibition against polygyny again, because in regards to the marriage bed the husband has no authority over his body, nor the wife over hers. However, I cannot accept that Paul put in v4 specifically as a prohibition against polygyny. It doesn't fit the historical context, nor the rest of Scripture. It seems likely therefore to me that what is said in v5 is the reason that v4 exists: to show merely that in regards to sexual duty the husband has no right over his body to deprive his wife, nor the wife over her on to deprive her husband.

Certainly deserves more reflection, but at a cursory glance the above is my interpretation.

I should mention that Paul's repeated use of the singular "wife" seems to me a result of the cultural context. Polygyny was not common, and in the Roman empire it was forbidden. Therefore most men and women would have been much like us, taking only one husband or wife. Even in a society that allows it, it is uncommon. It would seem very strange and unnatural for Paul to take care to use the singular and the plural in regards to wife/wives if he supported it. In other words, the way Paul writes is what we would expect him to write if polygyny had not been marked a sin.

Why is it only obvious with Bathsheeba? David violated the Law forbidding the Kings of Israel to have more than one wife.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20

Did he also violate the law that forbids him from having more than one horse (v16), or more than one piece of silver and gold (v17)? These verses are clearly talking about excesses. It is only a cultural bias that can let one interpret "multiple wives" as a prohibition against more than one.

 

[snerkel]

And if it had said "wives" would you then have assumed that all men must have more than one wife?

What if? "What if's" are irrelevant. The verses are translated from singular to singular.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

What if? "What if's" are irrelevant. The verses are translated from singular to singular.

"What if's" are very relevant, because it shows if your interpretation changes dependant on cultural bias, or whether you are willing to apply your rules of interpretation consistently.

 

[snerkel]

"What if's" are very relevant, because it shows if your interpretation changes dependant on cultural bias, or whether you are willing to apply your rules of interpretation consistently.

Interpretation may change with "what if's", but, the rules of interpretation would not change.

 

[snerkel]

A good point that I have not considered before. I have some troubles with it however, even if I am not supporting polygyny. 1 Corinthians 11 (and in particular vs 3) establishes clearly that the head of woman is man, teaching clearly that the husband has authority over the wife. So it is clear that it is not in all things that the woman has ownership over her husband. John Calvin draws the same interpretation as me in that regard, and says that the meaning should be given from that which precedes it. He then concludes that this is a prohibition against polygyny again, because in regards to the marriage bed the husband has no authority over his body, nor the wife over hers. However, I cannot accept that Paul put in v4 specifically as a prohibition against polygyny. It doesn't fit the historical context, nor the rest of Scripture. It seems likely therefore to me that what is said in v5 is the reason that v4 exists: to show merely that in regards to sexual duty the husband has no right over his body to deprive his wife, nor the wife over her on to deprive her husband.

Certainly deserves more reflection, but at a cursory glance the above is my interpretation.

1 Corinthians 11 is addressing proper worship, a completely different topic from marriage.

I should mention that Paul's repeated use of the singular "wife" seems to me a result of the cultural context. Polygyny was not common, and in the Roman empire it was forbidden. Therefore most men and women would have been much like us, taking only one husband or wife. Even in a society that allows it, it is uncommon. It would seem very strange and unnatural for Paul to take care to use the singular and the plural in regards to wife/wives if he supported it. In other words, the way Paul writes is what we would expect him to write if polygyny had not been marked a sin.

It may have been forbidden, but it was practiced. In Matthew 4, John scolded Herod for marrying Herodias (the wife of Philip, Herod's brother).

Did he also violate the law that forbids him from having more than one horse (v16), or more than one piece of silver and gold (v17)? These verses are clearly talking about excesses. It is only a cultural bias that can let one interpret "multiple wives" as a prohibition against more than one.

False dilemma. The Law did not state a king could only have one horse or one piece of silver and/or gold. The Law, in this instance, was specific as to avenging their injuries in Egypt and take the horses from the Egyptians (Geneva Study Bible), thus the reference to Egypt.

Multiple wives on the other hand was very specific, in that, by having multiple wives it would distract the king from following the Law and accomplishing his duty as king of Israel.

 

[Phileo]

People always ask when did polygamy end, when did God stop tolerating it. He never ordained or sanctioned it. The question to ask is HOW DID IT EVER BEGIN?

That is how to find the answer. The Bible says God made them man and woman. Which in fact states that the first marriage ever performed was performed by God. Therefore He set the example in the beginning.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the "two" will become one flesh.

Yet Adam sinned and from there sin grew exponentially, (Cain killed Abel...etc)

Reading the lineage of Adam in Gen 4: everyone had one wife until verse
19 which is the beginning of polygamy. It started with Lemech. (He sinned)

Gen 4:17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.
19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.

The reason that God did not punish Lemech for sinning is because there was no Law yet. Therefore sin could not be assigned for his disobeying God.

Remember God did not call Cain a sinner; he did say that he was cursed by his own actions. But God did not call for him to be stoned as the Levitical law would have required... there was no law. In Fact God protected Cain from being harmed. Which shows that God is Just, He would not impute sin upon Cain where there had been no law given.

Gen 4:10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
13 Cain said to the LORD , "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not (assigned) imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So it is therefore no only Biblically and scripturally clear and sound that polygamy is not ever approved by God, but it is factually proven that it was a selfish act of disobedience committed by the Great-Great Grandson of Cain, who was named, Lemech.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

1. Polygamy did not necessarily begin with Lamech. Lamech is merely the first recorded instance of a polygynous man. Shall we then conclude that those who dwell in tents and have livestock, or those who play the harp and flute, are therefore sinning? After all, we are more certain that Lamech was the beginning of these things than we are that he was the beginning of polygyny. Lamech's two wives were not mentioned as a condemning feature, but rather because they were necessary to explain the history of his two sons, for whatever reason the Lord felt it necessary that we should know Jubal was the father of all those who play the harp and flute.
2. If your contention is that polygyny was permitted because there was no law to punish them by, then surely David and Solomon were to be stoned too. After all, the Scripture "the two become one flesh" was available to them through the Word that Moses wrote down. So they stand condemned as adulterers on multiple accounts, and the law was present to condemn them. Therefore, by this line of reasoning, God should have punished David, Solomon, and the other Kings and polygynists who were after Moses.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

False dilemma. The Law did not state a king could only have one horse or one piece of silver and/or gold. The Law, in this instance, was specific as to avenging their injuries in Egypt and take the horses from the Egyptians (Geneva Study Bible), thus the reference to Egypt. [/color][/size][/font]

It is not a false dilemna. For some reason the phrase "multiply horses" means something that he can have a few of said item that is multiplied, but not excesses, whilst "multiply wives" means only a single instance of said object (not referring to wives as objects, but more about the grammatical subject and object).
Why do you say that the multiple means different things. In my translation in the New King James the wording is identical, so an identical interpretation must be applied, unless we impute our own cultural opinions onto Scripture (in this case an unscriptural condemnation of polygyny).

Multiple wives on the other hand was very specific, in that, by having multiple wives it would distract the king from following the Law and accomplishing his duty as king of Israel.

The wording is precisely the same in my translation, and with my untrained eyes it is the same in the Hebrew. It says you shall not multiply horses OR return to Egypt to multiply them. Both are forbidden, not just taking horses from Egyptians for vengeance.

I would agree that Solomon had too many wives, and his heart was indeed turned away. On the other hand, David his father had far fewer wives and his heart remained with God, except for the one time when he murdered a man and committed adultery with his wife. Even so, that was not the same "turning away" that we understand the multiplying of wives to be protecting against. David's example shows us that having a few wives, but not multipling them to excess, does not turn your heart away. Solomon demonstrates how so many wives will turn your heart away.

 

[Unix]

Ge 4:23f: And Lamech said to his women, Ada and Salla, "Listen to my voice, women of Lamech, heed my sayings, for I have killed a husband in my bigamy, and a young boy in my lechery. For Chain is repaid sevenfold and Lamech seventy times seven.

So, verse 24 states that bigamy is one of the worst sins, that includes all types of polygamy

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Ge 4:23f: And Lamech said to his women, Ada and Salla, "Listen to my voice, women of Lamech, heed my sayings, for I have killed a husband in my bigamy, and a young boy in my lechery. For Chain is repaid sevenfold and Lamech seventy times seven.

So, verse 24 states that bigamy is one of the worst sins, that includes all types of polygamy

This "translation" is wrong, it's not even the same as what the Hebrew said. Where did you get it from?

 

[Phileo]

1. Polygamy did not necessarily begin with Lamech. Lamech is merely the first recorded instance of a polygynous man. Shall we then conclude that those who dwell in tents and have livestock, or those who play the harp and flute, are therefore sinning? After all, we are more certain that Lamech was the beginning of these things than we are that he was the beginning of polygyny. Lamech's two wives were not mentioned as a condemning feature, but rather because they were necessary to explain the history of his two sons, for whatever reason the Lord felt it necessary that we should know Jubal was the father of all those who play the harp and flute.
2. If your contention is that polygyny was permitted because there was no law to punish them by, then surely David and Solomon were to be stoned too. After all, the Scripture "the two become one flesh" was available to them through the Word that Moses wrote down. So they stand condemned as adulterers on multiple accounts, and the law was present to condemn them. Therefore, by this line of reasoning, God should have punished David, Solomon, and the other Kings and polygynists who were after Moses.

The clearest verse comes from Jesus in His teaching on divorce:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9, Mark 10.1-12)

The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.


"The saying is hyperbolic-that is, it has exaggerated, intensified force: because God does not accept divorce as valid, any man who divorces his wife is not really divorced, and if he marries someone else, he commits adultery. No one else in antiquity spoke of divorce in such strong terms. (Because most Jewish teachers allowed polygamy, they would not have seen marrying a second wife as adultery, even if they had agreed that the man was still married to the first wife. But Jesus eliminates the double standard; a man consorting with two women is as adulterous as a woman consorting with two men.)
Mark 10:11.

The complications introduced into morals by polygamy are not often considered. But the Bible sets them forth in plainness. The marriage of Abraham and Sarah seems to have been an original love match, and even to have preserved something of that character through life. Still we find Sarah under the influence of polygamous ideas, presenting Abraham with a concubine. Yet afterward, when she herself had a son, she induced Abraham to drive out into the wilderness this concubine and her son. Now Abraham was humane and kind, and it is said "The thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight" (Genesis 21:11). But he was in the toils of polygamy, and it brought him pain and retribution. A Divine direction may be hard to bear.
The conditions of Jacob's marriages were such that it is hard to say whether any of his children were of any other than of polygamous origin (Genesis 35:22-26). Where the family idea and affection went, in such mixed condition, is evidenced by the unblushing sale, for slavery in Egypt, of one of the brothers by the others (Genesis 37:28).
David was a singer of sweet and noble songs and wanted to be a righteous man with his whole heart. Yet, probably in common with all the military leaders and kings of the earth of his day, he had a polygamous career. His retributions ran along an extended line. There was a case of incest and murder among his children (2 Samuel 13). The son in whom he had most hope and pride organized treason against his throne, and lost his life in the attempt. David left his kingdom to Solomon, of whom much might be said, but of whom this can be said--evidently originally a man bright, keen-witted, wise, yet in his old age he went to pieces by the wiles of the women with whom he had loaded his harem. Partly by his extravagance in his polygamous life, and partly in attempt to build temples in distant places for the religions represented by the inmates of his harem, he bankrupted his nation. As a consequence his kingdom was divided at his death, and there was never again a united Israel (1 Kings 11:12). Polygamy may be justly charged with these untoward results.



'Deut 17:15,17 - Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (KJV) '

'1 Tim 3:1-2 - This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (KJV)'
​

Just because instance of polygamy, incest and divorce are in the Bible and may have taken place by men of God does not mean they are condoned by God or were part of his original plan.

Lemech was the first to commit the sin of incest... and it was a sin. If Adam was the first man and his generations are recorded, without missing one son or grandson in Genesis 2 then it is only logical that Lemech was the first to have more than one wife... every son before him had one. Sin was in the world... even though it was not imputed by the law... it had yet to be given... BUT it was still sin. No I never said or contended that polygamy was condoned because the law was absent.

David even repented (was sorry) of his polygamy

 

[snerkel]

This "translation" is wrong, it's not even the same as what the Hebrew said. Where did you get it from?

The translation appears to be an Aramaic translation.

[url]http://www.v-a.com/bible/old-testament.html[/url]

 

[Unix]

Yeah, you're right it is from that translation from Ancient Aramaic. Those manuscript-tablets appear to be from the 7th century B.C!

 

[Phileo]

I applaud the research!!!

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Just because instance of polygamy, incest and divorce are in the Bible and may have taken place by men of God does not mean they are condoned by God or were part of his original plan.

Lemech was the first to commit the sin of incest... and it was a sin.

This is not correct. I find no record of Lamech committing incest for me to reply to that claim. If you can point out the Scripture then I could help. However, there is no doubt that Lamech was not the first to "commit" incest. Incest was not always a sin. The wives of Cain & Seth would necessarily have had to have been their sisters. Therefore Cain & Seth were the first of those to "commit" incest. Fortunately for them incest was not a sin then, but was made so much later. Ever wondered why incest is forbidden? It is because if you marry your brother/sister, your children have a much increased chance of recessive genetic mutations becoming dominant, producing a physically and mentally inferior human child. This seems to me along the lines of God forbidding Levites with blemishes from becoming priests. Ultimately we weren't made to have mutations, this is a result of the fall. As such, the law prohibiting incest was not always so.

If Adam was the first man and his generations are recorded, without missing one son or grandson in Genesis 2 then it is only logical that Lemech was the first to have more than one wife... every son before him had one.

Two problems:
1. Is it recorded anywhere that Cain & Enoch had only one wife? Does it say anywhere that Seth, Enosh, Cainan or any of the line of Seth had only one wife? Does it say that they had another wife before Lamech took his second wife? No. The Scriptures are silent, so you cannot reasonably infer that Lamech was the originaly polygynist. For all we know Seth may have had three wives. Consider that the Scriptures make it clear that Jubal, son of Lamech, was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. Yet there is no mention at all that Lamech was the first of those to take more than one wife.
2. There is no certainty at all that the generations recorded in Genesis are complete. In fact, the Septuagint which is translated from earlier manuscripts than we have includes an extra man, Cainan, between Arphaxad and Salah (Genesis 10:24), which is also present in Luke 3:36. Scholars think that there is no reason to assume that "son" always refers to a direct son, but also can refer to grandson or great grandson. I'm not sure how this is relevant though. If we assume that the record is complete, then what exactly does it say against polygyny?

Sin was in the world... even though it was not imputed by the law... it had yet to be given... BUT it was still sin. No I never said or contended that polygamy was condoned because the law was absent.

What I'm saying is that you cannot infer that polygyny is sinful purely on a cultural basis. All the evidence I've seen against polygyny is merely an interpretation based on culture. ie, an unbiased reading would let anyone conclude that polygyny was not a sin. I will delve into the Matthew verses in more details now. I cannot find one Scripture that condemns polygyny that would allow me to then infer from other scriptures that certain sins were the result of polygyny.

David even repented (was sorry) of his polygamy

Where?

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9, Mark 10.1-12)

I'm almost certain I've already gone into this in this very thread, but in case I haven't I will explain clearly again. This is a good time to remind those who are new to this thread that it would be a good idea to read through it first before posting.

Read Matthew 5:32:

But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery

What then shall we say? That if a woman divorces her husband, but never lies with another man, commits adultery? Even though she remains chaste for the rest of her years? No. We interpret this passage given our understanding of adultery. The reason why he causes her to commit adultery is because Jesus infers that she will get remarried, and when she does she is committing adultery against her husband. We do NOT redefine adultery for this passage to make literal sense. We do not say that if you divorce and live alone that you commit adultery, because of this verse. We know what adultery is, so we know this passage means that only when she remarries does he cause her to commit adultery, because he has divorced her.

Exodus 20:14 says "You shall not commit adultery". The word "adultery" in the Hebrew, according to "The Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon" means:

1. lit. commit adultery
a. usu. of man, always with wife of another

(the rest is not relevant)

So, then, it is important to understand what the word "adultery" means so we can understand the words of Jesus.

The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.

Following these same rules, a woman who is divorced then commits adultery, according to Matt. 5:32. At the same time, I believe Matt. 5:32 holds the key to understanding this passage. How is that which is not adultery called adultery? What do I mean? When God prohibited adultery, it was the sin of one man having intercourse with the wife of another man. In this single commandment God condemned polyandry and permitted polygyny.

So let's take another look at the passage:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9, Mark 10.1-12)

1. If you read literally, as you are inclined to do, then this is talking about divorce only. So a man who keeps his first wife and takes a second is not sinning, because Jesus specified that "anyone who divorces his wife...commits adultery".
2. According to the definition of adultery the only reason a man could possibly commit adultery is by imputed guilt. What I mean, is that by divorcing his wife, he forces her to commit adultery, and the guilt of that is on his head for divorcing her. Just as if Jesus had said "if you let a man take a path that you know men will kill him on, then you have committed murder" - not because you physically took place in the act of murder, but you set in motion the events that would lead it to take place, thus sharing in the guilt. So to is Jesus here not saying that the man himself, by remarrying, commits adultery because he has been unfaithful, but rather because he forces his wife to commit adultery in order to survive. Precisely as described in Matt. 5:32.

What I'm saying is simple: don't redefine adultery to suit culture, but understand Jesus' words according to what the words he used mean. If you want to redefine adultery in Matt 19:8-9, then why not redefine it in Matt 5:32 also?

As for the rest of the post, that is just a diatribe that attempts to form connections between sin and polygyny - connections which are not present in Scripture. We know Solomon fell precisely because he took foreign wives, and the Scripture tells us so. However, nowhere is David's sins blamed on his polygynous lifestyle. You cannot make up reasons for his sin. What about Gideon? There is no recorded trouble in his life because of his wives. What then shall you say?

1 Tim 3:1-2 - This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (KJV)

Before I answer and give reason for this verse, I have a question for you:
Did Paul write "the husband of one wife" specifically as a condemnation of polygyny? Did he think to himself, "polygyny is rife in the church, and is inappropriate for our Bishops"? Is that why it's there?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I applaud the research!!!

Why? You think that this translation somehow affects polgyny? It's not even close to the original, and apparently the man who gathered it also sought details from the Gilgamesh Epic, hardly a canonical source. This has nothing to do with Christianity or with the pure, faithfully delivered Word of God.

 

[Phileo]

This is not correct. I find no record of Lamech committing incest for me to reply to that claim


Obviously that is an error on my part since you know that I first contended that he was first to commit polygamy... so being that I am fallible (not to mention dangerous ) on the keyboard I mistyped my intention ... please replace the word INCEST with POLYGAMY. Thank you for pointing that out. Otherwise I stand by my remark.

 

[Phileo]

The first time polygamy is ever mentioned in the Word of God is in this verse... obviously because having said the history of Adams generation this was the first time that it detered from what God had originally instituted. Now I am not here to make you believe what I see ... because you will obviously believe as you will. But this is what I see In Genesis 4


17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

I believe the generations are so complete because again chapter 5 reads the same names of the generations of Adam.
_____________________________________

David REPENTED of Polygamy
David had several wives. But after his tremendous sin of taking Bathsheba and having her husband murdered, David repented, in real heart-rending repentance. And he never repeated the sin. Very few seem to realize what actually happened.
See II Samuel 12:9-12. "Now therefore," said God (verse 10), "the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised ME, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." Notice, David despised GOD -- not merely the commandment of God, as in verse 9, but also the very Person of God! He did it by taking this woman as his wife. Therefore the sword was never to depart from his HOUSE.
The HOUSE OF DAVID, at that time consisted solely of these plural WIVES, and his children. This was a tremendous, super SIN. God was meting out tremendous super punishment. Now notice the next verse:
"Thus saith the Eternal, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house. . . ." His own house included his wives and children. What evil? God has just said the sword will now come upon his house -- his family. God continues: ". . . and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."
Notice -- this was to be done in the sight of THIS sun -- before that very day's sunset. God continues: "For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. The Septuagint Version translates it "this sun" here, as in the preceding verse. So a neighbor or neighbors defiled David's wives publicly, in the open sun that very day -- ravished them. God said "I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them unto thy neighbor." This was done publicly that very day.
But at that point, David repented. All that is mentioned, in this particular text, is: "And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Eternal" (verse 13). But you will read of David's private prayer of repentance to God in the 51st Psalm -- the prayer of a really broken and contrite heart. It was real repentance. David turned from polygamy.
The next words in this text in II Samuel 12 are: "And Nathan said unto David, The Eternal also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." However, the son to be born of this adultery was to die.

Even Concubines Put Away
Do you see what God did? He meted out to David a tremendous punishment -- God took all his wives, leaving Bathsheba only. With David's first and only legitimate wife, Michal, probably dead (see II Sam. 6:23), God also had cleared the way for Bathsheba to become the legal wife of David. Apparently this was done, that she might be the mother of Solomon, through whom God was to keep His unconditional, dynastic, promise to David -- a forefather of Jesus Christ -- and a prophet used in writing the Bible.
After this David was away from Jerusalem. But, returning, there were ten concubines (his former harem). Here is what David did with them:
"And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood" (II Sam. 20:3).
Just as David kept the ten concubines "in widowhood" -- that is, he had no relations with them, for they had been defiled -- so he put away his other wives (II Sam. 19:5-6) because they too had been defiled by a neighbor (II Sam. 12:11).
David had truly repented. He practiced polygamy NO MORE! When David was becoming old, he went "fully after the Eternal" (I Kings 11:6). He was "a man after God's own heart," because his heart was right. He did repent. He had been a warrior. In his younger life he went after many women. He had sown his "wild oats." BUT HE REPENTED!
His heart turned to GOD. His life's race ENDED in victory -- he "went fully after the Eternal." It is not the one who starts out with the biggest burst of speed, but the one who finishes first at the END of the race who wins it.
His son, Solomon, started out righteously, unselfishly, relying on God. But, "when Solomon was old," he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines -- it must have been a record harem. And his wives turned away his heart from God, and to their idols.
It was SIN! Regarding it, God's Word says: "Solomon did evil in the sight of the Eternal" (I Kings 11:6).
There was polygamy in ancient Israel. But it was SIN! God condemned it -- He never condoned or sanctioned it. They reaped what they sowed.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I had never noticed that David had lost his wives. However, you are incorrect as far as I can see in translating "this sun" to mean that very same day. It was not until Absalom went in with his concubines that this prophecy was fulfilled. The scriptures do not mention him losing his wives elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but you are just reading too much in Scripture. If David had never taken Bathsheba, God would never have pronounced judgement against Him. I'm not sure how you can set yourself up to claim David's punishment was the result of polygyny when the Scriptures clearly tell us it was adultery. In fact, the story Nathan tells in 2 Sam 12:1-4 reaffirms a life of polygyny. It does not say the rich man was sinning for having many lambs. It simply shows him as being blessed, yet despite this blessing he does something evil. Every single part of Scripture states that David's sin was adultery with Bathseeba against Uriah, and also murder. There is no mention of polygyny, and in fact all signs seem to say that if David had not taken Bathsheeba then God would have had no cause to condemn him.

I honestly think you are trying to pervert what the Scriptures say in order to defend a cultural norm. Polygyny I've found to have no Scriptural basis, and your attempts to deride it from the Old Testament are based on very unreasonable leaps of logic. I find no reason to believe that Nathan condemned David because of polygyny, and every reason to believe it was purely for adultery with Bathsheeba against Uriah.

I wish also to answer you about 1 Timothy 3:1-2, but I want you to answer my question first, which I asked before:
Did Paul write "the husband of one wife" specifically as a condemnation of polygyny? Did he think to himself, "polygyny is rife in the church, and is inappropriate for our Bishops"? Is that why it's there?

 

[Phileo]

I'm sorry, but you are just reading too much in Scripture...
If I'm not sure how you can set yourself up to claim ....
I honestly think you are trying to pervert what the Scriptures say in order to defend a cultural norm.....

First of all the conversation ends here... I posted, as is my right per the forum rules and like everyone here; the scriptures as I understand them.

To accuse me of perverting the scripture and setting myself up as anyone or thing other than a child of God who Loves the very Word that you accuse me of perverting is a major attack and insult against my intentions and integrity.

Surely I do not claim understand the God's every intention, His Thoughts and Ways may not be higher than your... but I admit they certainly are Higher than mine. Since you are not God... I can defend your right to have an opinion... but I will not be insulted, bullied or compelled to believe what you feel to be truth...just that you may seem wise in the eyes of man if not your own eyes.

I clearly believe that polygamy is not of God's intention and... whatever you believe at this point has become irrelevant to me, you lost any validity you had as far a sharing your thoughts with me, the moment you spewed your venom in my face.

So you have a good day and God Bless your life richly and graciously. There will be no further responses. I am not tall enough to reach as low as you are willing to go.

Good day.