Why didn't God rebuke David's polygamy?

[janxharris]

Romans 7:1-3
Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

Assuming that the above is the same for men, David, when he married his second wife (2 Samuel 2:2), also became an adulterer. (See also 2 Samuel 5:13). I have found no scripture that remonstrates against this but rather a verse that seems to commend it:

1 Kings 15:5
For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

I would be grateful for anyone who might throw light on this issue which has troubled me for some time.
Thanks.

 

[gmm4j]

Here's my quick answer...

You start out with God making one helper for Adam.

Then, before the Law, as early as Gen 4:19 Lamech married two women, there is polygamy mentioned without rebuke. (Though it is not God's original design)

Then there is actually instruction in dealing with two wives in Deut 21:15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...

Then of course you have Solomon who didn't know when to stop...

1 Kings 11:2-5
Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.


Ultimately, I think it probably falls into a similar category as divorce.

Matt 19:7-9
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 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."


And then finally you get back to God's original intent...

1 Tim 3:2
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,

 

[gmm4j]

Why didn't God rebuke it through Scriptural history? Not sure.

 

[janxharris]

oops

 

[janxharris]

Here's my quick answer...

You start out with God making one helper for Adam.

Then, before the Law, as early as Gen 4:19 Lamech married two women, there is polygamy mentioned without rebuke. (Though it is not God's original design)

Then there is actually instruction in dealing with two wives in Deut 21:15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...

Then of course you have Solomon who didn't know when to stop...

1 Kings 11:2-5
Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.


Ultimately, I think it probably falls into a similar category as divorce.

Matt 19:7-9
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 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."


And then finally you get back to God's original intent...

1 Tim 3:2
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,

Thanks gmm4j
Okay, so your point is that it is permitted but not actually part of God's plan.
It is very curious, is it not, that within the God's Law we have an example of God bending His original 'ideal' and allowing man, through the hardness of his heart, to have his own way (Mat 19, as you mention)? This has always struck me, especially when you consider that adultery is one of the Ten Commandments. One can't help but wonder how permissive God is? Worshipping a different God is an absolute taboo, but adultery, it would seem, is different. I also wonder if atheists don't have a field day because of all this? It is an uncomfortable feeling not having a suitable answer.

If God merely permits without actually being best pleased with such conduct, why does God say of the polygamous (and, therefore, adulterous) King David :
For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite?

Also Deut 17:16,17
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

 

[childofdust]

Why didn't God rebuke David's polygamy?

That's not all God should have rebuked David for! And maybe he did. Scripture is not a complete catalog of all of God's actions in all of history.

So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.

Assuming that the above is the same for men,

You should never assume. In ancient Israel, a woman was owned by her husband. She was property. Her actions affected the honor and status of her husband and family. If a wife had sex with another man, the wife has committed adultery—not because she had sex with someone outside marriage, but because she had sex with someone who wasn't the man who owned her. A married man could go out and have sex with as many women as he wanted and it wouldn't be adultery unless the women he had sex with were married/owned by someone else. In that case, then, since the woman he has sex with is owned by another man, he has committed adultery against the man—not the woman. The Hebrew word for “husband” in the Old Testament actually means “owner” or “master”: בעל. Even today in Modern-day Israel, if you go to Tel Aviv, there is a thriving sex industry where Jewish men who are married and want to have sex with someone who isn't their wife, can find a woman who is has been certified and verified as never having been married, have sex with that woman, and then go back to their wives, without ever having committed adultery. So in ancient Israel, if three women were owned/married to one husband, so long as they had sex with him and him alone, no adultery was possible because adultery can only happen against a man and it can only happen in the context of someone else's ownership.

I would be grateful for anyone who might throw light on this issue

No problem. Here's the light: 1. scripture says nothing about marriage being between one man and one woman. The ancient Israelite and pagan world, as well as scripture itself, say the opposite: multiple wives and concubines are normal social and official governmental custom. 2. Scripture was written within a historical context. It is, therefore, limited by the context in which it was written. If it was not written within and according to that context, then it would not be understandable by people. That's the reason, for instance, why the Cherub guarding Eden is said to hold a flaming sword instead of a semi-automatic gun—because guns didn't exist and if it said semi-automatic gun instead of flaming sword, no one would have a clue what that was. It would be nonsense. So 3. even though we here in America and in a few other places in the world have this historically brand-new concept of marriage as only being between one man and one man for life, and even though we perceive of polygamy as morally wrong, gross, and simply ludicrous to imagine, for us to judge a text for violating cultural or social norms that exist now, but did not exist then, is to commit an atrocious anachronism. Like blaming Pharaoh for losing a battle because he didn't drive a tank. Scripture doesn't align with modern perceptions, morals, and norms because it was composed within and according to perceptions, morals and norms in the ancient past. In that ancient past, adultery was only applicable to a male who owned another woman and there was no limit on the amount of women a male could own.

 

[Lilly Owl]

God made one helper of Adam but according to Jewish lore that was Lilith before it was Eve. Lilith was cast out because she refused to be relegated to a lesser status for being female.

It's an interesting question in the OP.
In this passage particularly. Polygamy isn't condemned. Rather, it's defined by allotment and inheritance what should be allotted due to birthright in a polygamous union.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

“If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.

 

[mandelduke]

Thanks gmm4j
Okay, so your point is that it is permitted but not actually part of God's plan.
It is very curious, is it not, that within the God's Law we have an example of God bending His original 'ideal' and allowing man, through the hardness of his heart, to have his own way (Mat 19, as you mention)? This has always struck me, especially when you consider that adultery is one of the Ten Commandments. One can't help but wonder how permissive God is? Worshipping a different God is an absolute taboo, but adultery, it would seem, is different. I also wonder if atheists don't have a field day because of all this? It is an uncomfortable feeling not having a suitable answer.

If God merely permits without actually being best pleased with such conduct, why does God say of the polygamous (and, therefore, adulterous) King David :
For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite?

Also Deut 17:16,17
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

I’m not going to get in some kind of Theological Debate, but I will say this. If you knew how much God loves King David you would watch how you look at him.

 

[janxharris]

That's not all God should have rebuked David for! And maybe he did. Scripture is not a complete catalog of all of God's actions in all of history.



You should never assume. In ancient Israel, a woman was owned by her husband. She was property. Her actions affected the honor and status of her husband and family. If a wife had sex with another man, the wife has committed adultery—not because she had sex with someone outside marriage, but because she had sex with someone who wasn't the man who owned her. A married man could go out and have sex with as many women as he wanted and it wouldn't be adultery unless the women he had sex with were married/owned by someone else. In that case, then, since the woman he has sex with is owned by another man, he has committed adultery against the man—not the woman. The Hebrew word for “husband” in the Old Testament actually means “owner” or “master”: בעל. Even today in Modern-day Israel, if you go to Tel Aviv, there is a thriving sex industry where Jewish men who are married and want to have sex with someone who isn't their wife, can find a woman who is has been certified and verified as never having been married, have sex with that woman, and then go back to their wives, without ever having committed adultery. So in ancient Israel, if three women were owned/married to one husband, so long as they had sex with him and him alone, no adultery was possible because adultery can only happen against a man and it can only happen in the context of someone else's ownership.



No problem. Here's the light: 1. scripture says nothing about marriage being between one man and one woman. The ancient Israelite and pagan world, as well as scripture itself, say the opposite: multiple wives and concubines are normal social and official governmental custom. 2. Scripture was written within a historical context. It is, therefore, limited by the context in which it was written. If it was not written within and according to that context, then it would not be understandable by people. That's the reason, for instance, why the Cherub guarding Eden is said to hold a flaming sword instead of a semi-automatic gun—because guns didn't exist and if it said semi-automatic gun instead of flaming sword, no one would have a clue what that was. It would be nonsense. So 3. even though we here in America and in a few other places in the world have this historically brand-new concept of marriage as only being between one man and one man for life, and even though we perceive of polygamy as morally wrong, gross, and simply ludicrous to imagine, for us to judge a text for violating cultural or social norms that exist now, but did not exist then, is to commit an atrocious anachronism. Like blaming Pharaoh for losing a battle because he didn't drive a tank. Scripture doesn't align with modern perceptions, morals, and norms because it was composed within and according to perceptions, morals and norms in the ancient past. In that ancient past, adultery was only applicable to a male who owned another woman and there was no limit on the amount of women a male could own.

This is a shocking read childofdust. Surely you are not serious???

 

[janxharris]

I’m not going to get in some kind of Theological Debate, but I will say this. If you knew how much God loves King David you would watch how you look at him.

Eh? Please would you explain?

 

[janxharris]

1. scripture says nothing about marriage being between one man and one woman. The ancient Israelite and pagan world, as well as scripture itself, say the opposite: multiple wives and concubines are normal social and official governmental custom.

This has to be false childofdust; surely you impugning the good name of God? If adultery does not mean what most people think it means then the words of scripture become meaningless.

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 19:4-6
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

 

[mandelduke]

Eh? Please would you explain?

1st of all there is no polygamy law in the old or New Testament secondly, David paid dearly for his sins. Do not condemn someone that The Living God has found innocent.


Samuel 12

Nathan Rebukes David12 The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”

15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”

19 David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked.

“Yes,” they replied, “he is dead.”

20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.

21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”

22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
24 Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; 25 and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah.[c]
26 Meanwhile Joab fought against Rabbah of the Ammonites and captured the royal citadel. 27 Joab then sent messengers to David, saying, “I have fought against Rabbah and taken its water supply. 28 Now muster the rest of the troops and besiege the city and capture it. Otherwise I will take the city, and it will be named after me.”

29 So David mustered the entire army and went to Rabbah, and attacked and captured it. 30 David took the crown from their king’s[d] head, and it was placed on his own head. It weighed a talent[e] of gold, and it was set with precious stones. David took a great quantity of plunder from the city 31 and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brickmaking.[f] David did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then he and his entire army returned to Jerusalem.


Psalm 32
Of David. A maskil.[a]
1 Blessed is the one
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
2 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord does not count against them
and in whose spirit is no deceit.
3 When I kept silent,
my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
4 For day and night
your hand was heavy on me;
my strength was sapped
as in the heat of summer.

5 Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, “I will confess
my transgressions to the Lord.”
And you forgave
the guilt of my sin.

 

[iambren]

This is easy....polygamy is not a sin!

You keep using the word "adultery" to these men when they were NOT committing adultery. They married their women, provided for them, had kids with them etc. It would be wrong to beat them, abandon them, or grossly disfavor them over the other wives.

Also, realize that this is a practice TODAY--there are Christian brothers who come to Christ, having multiple wives, and they are forbidden by the church to put away their wives without biblical cause eg adultery.

Surmising--there may have been times past where war decimated the # of eligible men for the women. Single women may have been at risk and physical danger on her own so polygamy provided a way for them to be protected into a family. God may see that as a very humane haven for women. So we must be slow to throw rocks on a provisional marriage that was useful throughout the ages.

 

[janxharris]

This is easy....polygamy is not a sin!

You keep using the word "adultery" to these men when they were NOT committing adultery. They married their women, provided for them, had kids with them etc. It would be wrong to beat them, abandon them, or grossly disfavor them over the other wives.

Also, realize that this is a practice TODAY--there are Christian brothers who come to Christ, having multiple wives, and they are forbidden by the church to put away their wives without biblical cause eg adultery.

Surmising--there may have been times past where war decimated the # of eligible men for the women. Single women may have been at risk and physical danger on her own so polygamy provided a way for them to be protected into a family. God may see that as a very humane haven for women. So we must be slow to throw rocks on a provisional marriage that was useful throughout the ages.

Thanks iambren.
I think you mean, when you say that 'polygamy is not a sin', that polygamy for men is not a sin, but it is for women.

I cannot accept this. Again, our atheist friends would have a field day. I feel myself loosing faith as we speak.

Surely polygamy was permitted but was not actually originally part of God's plan just in the same way as divorce was (as Jesus made reference in Mat 19)?

1 Timothy 3:2
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

 

[janxharris]

1st of all there is no polygamy law in the old or New Testament secondly, David paid dearly for his sins. Do not condemn someone that The Living God has found innocent.


Samuel 12

Nathan Rebukes David12 The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”

15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”

19 David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked.

“Yes,” they replied, “he is dead.”

20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.

21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”

22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
24 Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; 25 and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah.[c]
26 Meanwhile Joab fought against Rabbah of the Ammonites and captured the royal citadel. 27 Joab then sent messengers to David, saying, “I have fought against Rabbah and taken its water supply. 28 Now muster the rest of the troops and besiege the city and capture it. Otherwise I will take the city, and it will be named after me.”

29 So David mustered the entire army and went to Rabbah, and attacked and captured it. 30 David took the crown from their king’s[d] head, and it was placed on his own head. It weighed a talent[e] of gold, and it was set with precious stones. David took a great quantity of plunder from the city 31 and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brickmaking.[f] David did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then he and his entire army returned to Jerusalem.


Psalm 32
Of David. A maskil.[a]
1 Blessed is the one
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
2 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord does not count against them
and in whose spirit is no deceit.
3 When I kept silent,
my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
4 For day and night
your hand was heavy on me;
my strength was sapped
as in the heat of summer.

5 Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, “I will confess
my transgressions to the Lord.”
And you forgave
the guilt of my sin.

Saint Paul considered polygamy as adultery (Romans 7). If this only applies to women, then I think Christianity has a serious problem explaining this to non-believers.

I haven't actually condemned David. Why do I need to 'watch how I look at him (King David)'? This sounds like a threat. Is it?

 

[iambren]

I still don't think it is adultery. Adultery is when you have sex with someone who is spouse of another or with someone while YOU are a spouse. Adultery crosses covenantal bounds thus leading to disruption of the home.

Romans 7 "3 So then, if she(being married) has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress." True

The ideal probably was and still is one man/one woman but God permitted polygamy as allowable(not sinful) for the reaons I've listed in a less than perfect world.

 

[angelmom01]

The question could also be asked as to why, according to Sam 12:8 posted above, did God give David not only his master's house but his master's wives?

Even if we were to claim that having multiple wives is not, in and of itself, considered adultery, isn't having the wives of another man considered adultery?

Yet God only seems to condemn David for the taking the wife of another man because it was not a wife given to him by the Lord?

 

[iambren]

The question of polyandry or a woman having several husbands on the face of it does not seem to be a sin either, at least I don't have at present an answer for that. I did have a patient once who had a buddy who was hurt in the Middle-East wars. He came home to his wife and the two men shared her in a loving arrangement. He said to me--"We have a polyamorous arrangement". I think that would be hard to do but these relationships do exist.

BTW, I made a friend when in seminary named Peter from Tanzania. He said that often men of many wives there were found to be very nice, warm people. He told of one man who got saved but had 10 wives. The church said that he was to keep them, provide for them materially and sexually equally. He was not allowed,however, to become a pastor due to the scripture "husband of one wife" requirement.

 

[janxharris]

The question could also be asked as to why, according to Sam 12:8 posted above, did God give David not only his master's house but his master's wives?

Even if we were to claim that having multiple wives is not, in and of itself, considered adultery, isn't having the wives of another man considered adultery?

Yet God only seems to condemn David for the taking the wife of another man because it was not a wife given to him by the Lord?

Hi angelmom01,
Saul died in 2 Samuel 1 before David took these women as wives.

 

[janxharris]

I still don't think it is adultery. Adultery is when you have sex with someone who is spouse of another or with someone while YOU are a spouse. Adultery crosses covenantal bounds thus leading to disruption of the home.

Romans 7 "3 So then, if she(being married) has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress." True

The ideal probably was and still is one man/one woman but God permitted polygamy as allowable(not sinful) for the reaons I've listed in a less than perfect world.

If you are defining adultery as, 'when you have sex with someone who is the spouse of another or with someone while YOU are a spouse', then anyone taking a second wife (or husband) would be committing adultery.

I'm finding it difficult to come up with a definition of adultery. Also, how does one define marriage?