Why Are Christians More Receptive to Divorce Than Polygamy?

[Albion]

If you read the entirety of that passage, Paul was saying men who feel lust should get married to prevent pre-marital sex. That is the immorality referred to, not men having multiple wives.

I consider that to be a completely mistaken reading of the passage. While Paul's advice is what it is as far as lust is concerned, the passage still closes the door to polygamy as a possible remedy.

 

[SleepingAtLast]

Actually not only is polygamy permitted, but in some circimstances it may be required. See "levirate marriage" or "yibbum" for more information.

I am not sure that the allowance for levirate marriage means that polygamy in general is permitted. This command was intended for a specific circumstance for specific reasons.

Polygamists also believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Polygamy is not the same thing as group marriage.

An important distinction for sure. I would re-phrase my statement to say that the Bible promotes God-honoring marriage as heterosexual and monogamous.

Things did not go all that well for many monogamists in the OT either. For example in the "ideal" monogamist family they brought sin into the world, got kicked out of the garden and then one of the kids ended up killing a sibling, etc. That is not evidence against marriage or family. That is just real life.

It wasn't intended to be an argument against marriage and family, but against the idea that polygamy is encouraged in Scripture. And you missed my point a little there. My point was that things became complicated when those individuals strayed from monogamy, which is notable given how common the practice was back then.

 

[cnystrom]

If you read the entirety of that passage, Paul was saying men who feel lust should get married to prevent pre-marital sex. That is the immorality referred to, not men having multiple wives.

I am not an expert in Greek, but there is another thing about 1 Cor 7:2 that most people seem to miss. In English in looks like there is a parallel equality with the man and the woman that modern readers like. But when one looks at the Greek one can clearly see that unlike in English, Paul used different words for "own" to convey different meanings.

1 Corinthians 7 Interlinear Bible

 

[cnystrom]

So I'm starting to get this idea that you seem to think that men should be allowed to be with as many women as they want, and that women should be a man's property.

No, that is 100% wrong. It matters not what I think. I only care about what God thinks. I want to remove my cultural lens and see God's truth.

If a Christian missionary goes into Africa and he breaks up a polygamous family because "polygamy is a sin", is he doing God's work or the work of Satan? That is the question.

When we defend "monogamy only" are we adding to what the Bible says? Does the Bible say "monogamy only" and if so, where does he say that? Or are we simply defending Western Civilization?

The OP I think is an excellent question. The Bible says much against divorce and yet the Church embraces divorce. The Bible says little if anything against polygamy, and yet the (Western) church abhors polygamy. There seems to be a serious disconnect there.

 

[cnystrom]

I am not sure that the allowance for levirate marriage means that polygamy in general is permitted. This command was intended for a specific circumstance for specific reasons.

I was responding to you when you said "divorce is permitted in some circumstances while polygamy is not." to point out that not only was it permitted, but in fact required under some circumstances.

An important distinction for sure. I would re-phrase my statement to say that the Bible promotes God-honoring marriage as heterosexual and monogamous.

First of all, good job for understanding the distinction. Many people have difficulty there. And of course we both agree that God honors hetrosexual marriage.

Now the last part, the "monogamy only" doctrine. Where does that come from? We know that women are bound to their husbands for as long as they live (Romans 7:2 and 1 Cor 7:39). This would prevent polyandry. Where are the corresponding verses that go the other way? Or where is any verse anywhere that would prevent a man from marrying a second wife? Where is the "I hate polygamy!" verse like there is for divorce? I just do not see it.

It wasn't intended to be an argument against marriage and family, but against the idea that polygamy is encouraged in Scripture.

The argument is not that polygamy is encouraged in scripture. I am not contending that you get extra points for polygamy. That is the Mormon position. My argument is that it is not a sin.

And you missed my point a little there. My point was that things became complicated when those individuals strayed from monogamy, which is notable given how common the practice was back then.

Polygamy is more complicated and difficult. No argument there. But then marriage is more complicated than staying single. And having children is more complicated than staying childless. More complicated is not equivalent to being sinful.

 

[SleepingAtLast]

First of all, good job for understanding the distinction. Many people have difficulty there. And of course we both agree that God honors hetrosexual marriage.

Now the last part, the "monogamy only" doctrine. Where does that come from? We know that women are bound to their husbands for as long as they live (Romans 7:2 and 1 Cor 7:39). This would prevent polyandry. Where are the corresponding verses that go the other way? Or where is any verse anywhere that would prevent a man from marrying a second wife? Where is the "I hate polygamy!" verse like there is for divorce? I just do not see it.

I would say most of my argument comes from implicit sources within Scripture. I do think it is notable that in the beginning when God created the world and all was "good," He created one woman and one man to begin to populate the earth. In Song of Solomon, the dialogue is between one woman and one man. In a general sense (save for the example you gave), the context in which marriage is spoken of across Scripture carries with it an implication that God's design for marriage is that it be between one woman and one man in a lifelong, monogamous union.

To give one explicit defense, however, I would point to Titus 1:6, where one of the qualifications laid out for those who would be appointed as elders/overseers is that they be a "husband of one wife." Does that make polygamy a sin? In the interest of intellectual honesty, I'm not sure that it does, however if it is on the list of ideal characteristics for those leading the Church, I think that only supports the idea that God's design for marriage was monogamy.

It is interesting to weigh this with the idea of levirate marriage that you brought up earlier. This is purely speculation on my part, but in the Old Testament, levirate marriage is a command given for the widow's sake, but in the New Testament there seems to be a shift in how widows are to be cared for, that the responsibility belongs to the whole covenant community meeting their needs rather than a close family member. It makes me wonder if part of this shift is due to shift in cultural practice.

Polygamy is more complicate and difficult. No argument there. But then marriage is more complicated than staying single. And having children is more complicated than staying childless. More complicated is not equivalent to being sinful.

I am talking about complications that move past what additional human relationships bring. For example, in the case of Abraham and Sarah, there was conflict specifically over the fact that the monogamy in their marriage had been compromised.

By the way, this has been a really interesting topic to think through more in depth. I appreciate the fruitful discussion thus far.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I think, this is a point that needs to be discussed. At no point did God in the Old testament say that he hated polygyny, in Malachi he said that he hated divorce. If anything, he told David that he is the one who gave him his WIVES. He went further to tell him that he would have added him more if he felt the ones he had were too few; would God support Adultery which he rejected in the Old Testament?

Which chapter in the Old Testament are you referring to?

When it comes to the New Testament, the issue of plygyny was never spoken against but the teaching on divorce was quite clear cut.

The issue is not whether one is more evil than the other (of which i think divorce is), but why people find it more acceptable to tolerate one which has been EXPRESSLY forbidden, and revolt against that which is not and which was even encouraged in the OT.

Divorces are usually results of relationship problems that make couples incompatible. Nobody wants to be in a terrible living situation that is directly caused by the spouse. Divorce should be avoided if possible, of course, but too often it is best for both people to live separately. That happened to my parents, who were married almost 30 years when they decided to legally separate and divorced a few years later.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There is something missing here that maybe only I thought about: a man having two wives for some time and later divorcing one of them. Is that divorce a sin?

 

[RDKirk]

I think the point was that divorce is explicitly prohibited in numerous places, but polygamy is essentially advised against once (?) in the passage you quoted. Yet Christians seem quite content with the more seriously condemned sin, yet take very seriously the lesser evil.

I hadn't actually realised this apparent hypocrisy before, until it was stated plainly here.

By the first century, polygamy had practically died out for the Jews and was illegal under Roman law. No reason to preach to the Gentiles about something that was already illegal and out of their custom to do.

Jews had already noted that in the OT, polygamy never resulted in any explicit happy endings, but the successful OT marriages were monogamous. They also noted that the wife to be loved was "the wife of your youth" which would have been the first wife arranged by a young man's parents. They had noted as well that the only polygamy given specific direction by God was to a brother's widow to ensure she had a son to care for her in her old age.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes - God never forbid polygamy, and many of the patriarchs had multiple wives and concubines.

Jacob was married to 2 sisters, and had the nation of Israel through them & their 2 concubines. Even God was “married” to 2 sisters: Israel & Judah...

Does God ever say that multiple wives is a sin?

God didn't say divorce was a sin, either, except under certain circumstances, and multiple wives were also a sin under certain circumstances. Neither was absolutely prohibited or absolutely permitted.

 

[GodLovesCats]

God didn't say divorce was a sin, either, except under certain circumstances, and multiple wives were also a sin under certain circumstances. Neither was absolutely prohibited or absolutely permitted.

That is not correct. The Bible makes in clear divorce is a sin. Maybe you got it backwards and divorce is in most cases a sin but permitted in certain situations.

 

[mmksparbud]

Both are wrong and against God's ideal. God made Eve for Adam, not Eve and Patricia and Jane and....
It was not until Lamech that man started taking more than one wife. What God permitted long ago, has nothing to do with what the apostles decreed that men where to have only one wife and Jesus hates divorce.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Every instance of polygamy in the OT was tainted with unhappiness. Abraham and Sarah brought discord to their family by bringing in that send 2nd wife that still is felt in the Middle east. Jacob ended up with all sorts of trouble for his wives. Much discord in the home of Hannah. There is not one happy home described in the OT with polygamy.
We were allowed to marry brothers and sisters at the beginning---that is what we all were and there were no genetic flaws to pass down, even after the flood. At one point God said no more. It is genetic disaster to do so now. Just because something was allowed before, doesn't mean it still is. When God says no more, He means it. He does not want polygamy, He does not want divorce.

Animals pick out their partners with greater discernment than most humans! It's usually females that decide whom to mate with. If they say no---than it doesn't happen. Birds esp. are notorious for being very fussy about whom they mate with---males have to put up a very vigorous display of their full strength and beauty first!! We'll mate with anyone handy!

 

[GodLovesCats]

Most nonhuman animals don't get married. The males are usually sperm donors - fathers who never even know if they have babies - for many species in the wild. If a queen mates two tomcats it is not a form of adultery because that is feline genetics.

 

[RDKirk]

That is not correct. The Bible makes in clear divorce is a sin. Maybe you got it backwards and divorce is in most cases a sin but permitted in certain situations.

The OT explicitly state conditions in which divorce is not a sin, as well as conditions in which divorce is a sin.

Divorce is a sin in the NT for believers, but Christ knows and holds accountable the party through which the sin came, despite who actually made the legal application.

 

[Dave-W]

Except that divorce is not explicitly prohibited in scripture, whereas polygamy is.

No, it is not. At least not “in scripture.”

 

[Kukus]

The interpretation of elder qualifications is a great litmus test for how a church thinks about marriage and singlehood. But even the most farfetched spin must admit that "husband of but one wife" rules out polygamous elders.

The acceptance of divorce is another litmus test. Logically, you can't romanticize marriage and also be excusing of divorce. If they try to do both then they are strangers to logical thought.

If you want to know whether something has relevance today, it helps to understand why it ever had relevance in the first place. There were in fact reasons. Divorce was bad in Biblical times because it caused financial hardship to women and children. Generally it was instigated by the husband. Nowadays, not so much.

It's said that divorce is emotionally devastating for children. What those who say this tend to leave out is any basis of comparison. Devastating compared to what? To growing up under a marriage full of bitterness? Divorce is most certainly less bad than that.

There's nothing magical about marriage. The world figured this out long ago, but Christendom still worships that idol. Divorce is part of the price we pay for expecting too much from marriage.

Where do you get the Idea that divorce was discourage because it was bad for the Woman? What if today when divorce is bad for the man (at least in western societies,) should we outlaw it for the same reason?

You coming up with doctrine based on the traditions of man rather than the word of God. The Bible never said that a woman can divorce his wife and remarry a richer man. It says, a woman cannot divorce her husband and then re-marry. She can only be reconciled to her husband; if not, she must stay single.

 

[cnystrom]

I would say most of my argument comes from implicit sources within Scripture. I do think it is notable that in the beginning when God created the world and all was "good," He created one woman and one man to begin to populate the earth. In Song of Solomon, the dialogue is between one woman and one man. In a general sense (save for the example you gave), the context in which marriage is spoken of across Scripture carries with it an implication that God's design for marriage is that it be between one woman and one man in a lifelong, monogamous union.

No argument that marriage is between one man and one woman, so arguments that it is will only be agreeed to. It is that last addition about monogamy that you add in, that is in dispute.

Let me challenge your implicit sources within scripture with my own example: What is the Bible word for polygamy? It is "marriage". The Bible does not even differentiate it. It never treats it as something different or strange. We only see polygamy as different from monogamy because of our Western Civilization heritage. The Bible does not reflect this division. Polygamous marriages were just as valid as monogamous marriages. The nation of Isreal was built on a polygamous marriage. Many of the ancestors of Jesus were polygamous. As far as the Bible is concerned it is just marriage.

To give one explicit defense, however, I would point to Titus 1:6, where one of the qualifications laid out for those who would be appointed as elders/overseers is that they be a "husband of one wife." Does that make polygamy a sin? In the interest of intellectual honesty, I'm not sure that it does, however if it is on the list of ideal characteristics for those leading the Church, I think that only supports the idea that God's design for marriage was monogamy.

There are a lot of problems and ambiguities with this argument.

First, notice that this word translated "one" here is the same word that is translated as "first" in Acts 20:7.

Some here argue that polygamy was not even a thing in the 1st century. If this is true, then this verse can not be a reference to polygamy.

There are at least 4 different possible meanings to this verse:

1. Must have a wife (be married)
2. Must be married to first wife (wife of youth)
3. Must have had no more than one wife total in history (never divorced)
4. Must have one and only one wife (must not be polygamist)

For those who argue that polygamy was not a thing in the 1st century then this verse must have nothing to do with polygamy and must mean one of 1-3.

If polygamy was a thing in the first century then it is still possible that meanings 1-3 are what Paul was getting at. We simply have to read the total context and decide for ourselves to resolve the ambiguity.

Here are two reasons why this verse is probably not the anti-polygamy verse some wish it to be:

1. It is too weak. If polygamy is wrong and a sin why not just say so clearly here or somewhere else?
2. A list of qualifications for leader is the wrong place for breakthrough teaching on morals. Surely it would have been discussed in more depth someplace else in scripture? It isn't.

Worst case scenario for the polygamy supporter is like you say: it is not a sin. It is just a polygamist can not be a church leader.

It is interesting to weigh this with the idea of levirate marriage that you brought up earlier. This is purely speculation on my part, but in the Old Testament, levirate marriage is a command given for the widow's sake, but in the New Testament there seems to be a shift in how widows are to be cared for, that the responsibility belongs to the whole covenant community meeting their needs rather than a close family member. It makes me wonder if part of this shift is due to shift in cultural practice.

Or that the Gentile believers were not familiar with the levirate practice, or obligated like a Jew was? I do not know.

Perhaps a more interesting question, is would it be wrong for a Christian today to do it?

By the way, this has been a really interesting topic to think through more in depth. I appreciate the fruitful discussion thus far.

Thank you. I have enjoyed the discussion as well. I hope they do not delete it!

God bless you.

 

[cnystrom]

God didn't say divorce was a sin, either, except under certain circumstances

The only circumstance for a Christian is that men have the exception clause (infidelity, with the example of Joseph). As far as I can tell Christian women have no divorce recourse at all. You said "circumstances" (plural). Do you know of any others?

and multiple wives were also a sin under certain circumstances.

Under what circumstances and what was the sin called?

 

[cnystrom]

There is something missing here that maybe only I thought about: a man having two wives for some time and later divorcing one of them. Is that divorce a sin?

Yes. If you take a wife you are supposed to keep her.

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk said: ↑
God didn't say divorce was a sin, either, except under certain circumstances.

The only circumstance for a Christian is that men have the exception clause (infidelity, with the example of Joseph). As far as I can tell Christian women have no divorce recourse at all. You said "circumstances" (plural). Do you know of any others?

The Mosaic Law permitted a woman to divorce a husband who refused to provide her with the opportunity of pregnancy and with that the possibility of sons to care for her in her old age. It provided a man to divorce his wife if "uncleanness is found in her."

Jesus didn't actually vary from the Mosaic Law here.

RDKirk said: ↑
and multiple wives were also a sin under certain circumstances.

Under what circumstances and what was the sin called?

When the wives were sisters.[/QUOTE]