Why Just One?

Gry9293 said:

There is a reason for it just as there is reason
a nonbeliever wants to know why God tolerated men having multiple wives in the Bible...as if they would become a believer.

Click to expand...

So what is the reason?

Usually Wrong said:

I understand the biblical model for marriage is one man and one women for life. I recently had a curious nonbeliever ask me why God tolerated men having multiple wives in the Bible. What would your response be?

Click to expand...

Men having more than one wife is like drinking alcohol. its not ideal but not a sin.

I dont think marriage itself is idea and I think genders exist because God knows we are but flesh. I think the first human was created masculine directly in Gods image. I think the book of Corinthians supports this.

jayem said:

The ancient Hebrew tribes were strongly patriarchal. The OT was written by these men (Moses and others) so it reflects their culture and social traditions. Women were certainly valued, but more akin to the way property is valued. If a man could afford it, he could have 2 or more flocks of sheep, and 2 or more wives/concubines. And though the 10 Commandments forbids adultery and coveting another’s wife, it doesn’t forbid a man from marrying multiple wives.

Click to expand...

I dont think the morality of the Bible is related to patriarchy. There are gender differences in what is allowed, like men having long hair is not really godly, and women have more rules about modesty at beaches. That is just plain common sense. Rules about female polygamy is more forbidden than male polygamy is related to Gods order of creation and or Genesis submission, not the patriarchy. Not that male polygamy or polygyny is ideal either. Its not forbidden like polyandry.

The culture during the time of Jesus had goddesses, so Jesus being male and women teaching men formally being forbidden isnt about a patriarchy.

Usually Wrong said:

I understand the biblical model for marriage is one man and one women for life. I recently had a curious nonbeliever ask me why God tolerated men having multiple wives in the Bible. What would your response be?

Click to expand...

It seemed to have been a temporary concession to Jews. It's good to remember that:

Abraham did have a concubine, but his agreement to take her was a lapse in his faith.
Jacob did have two wives, but the story of him and his wives is often used to teach that if you want to have a happy home, polygamy is a bad idea.
Samuel's mother, Hannah, was one of two wives. Her story among other things, also teaches that if you want to have a happy home, polygamy is a bad idea.
David did have multiple wives, and that is the most difficult. I'm not really sure why God seemed so tolerant of that. Though it also teaches that if a man can take any female he wants, doing so is also a bad idea.
Solomon's story of hundreds of wives teaches that even more so. Solomon certainly exceeded the excesses of Deuteronomy 17:17, which was his downfall.

What is clear from Jesus' teachings is that in New Testament times, we are to have only one spouse, as long as both shall live. One man, one woman, for life. Jews had concessions to do things that Christians do not (i.e. exterminating practitioners of witchcraft by violence in their own land), and Christians have concessions that Jews did not (i.e. eating non-kosher foods). Therefore, I see no reason why seeming permissiveness to polygamy in the Old Testament should hinder our understanding of strict monogamy in the New Testament.

ViaCrucis said:

So there are the cultural artifacts of the Bible, but then the ideals we should strive for, which the Scriptures themselves show us by pointing us to Christ.

Click to expand...

This is fine. But it leads to the question I've been concerned about: how about attitudes toward homosexual monogamy? Was this also cultural?

Few months ago, I wouldn't have written this.

Sabertooth said:

For the Jews, there were times when a man was obligated to marry his sister-in-law (if his brother died before giving her children). It didn't matter if he already had a wife of his own.

Click to expand...

This is a good example where polygamy is not only tolerated but even commanded. It is clear that polygyny may be beneficial in a society where young men are being killed in wars. If Solomon had almost 1000 wives, it was probably related to the wars between David and Saul and the wars with Israel's neighbors.

Today, marriage rates are on the decline in the United States and have been for the last few decades.

"Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men -- men with a stable job and a good income -- make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs."

"As inequality increases and technology increasingly takes advantage of cheap labor, love becomes part of a calculation. Long-term plans can't be made. Marriage is but a concept from another time and place."

"According to the study, the kind of men that single women likely would marry, if they married—i.e., the "synthetic spouses"—were not only 26 percent more likely to hold a job, and more highly educated, but they also had nearly a 55 percent higher income than what the available men in the U.S. actually make. In other words, from an economic standpoint, the dating pool lacks the kind of men that women might be particularly interested in attaching to, for the long-haul."

• Older women have an even smaller dating pool of economically desirable men than younger women, who would have a slightly easier time finding a suitable partner

• Well-educated women face more of a shortage of economically desirable men than lesser educated women

• Minority women, particularly Black women, have a heightened unlikelihood of finding a partner who is economically desirable.

• In general, it's harder to find an economically desirable man in one's own close geographic area than in the broader, nationwide comparison.

"The decline in marriage rates in the working class has been going on for long enough now that, in 2012, The New York Times printed a column titled, “Marriage is for rich people.” It concludes, “Rich men are marrying rich women, creating doubly rich households for them and their children. And the poor are staying poor and alone.” 40 percent of all babies now are born to single moms or to unmarried partners."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/...01909/are-there-not-enough-men-worth-marrying

Is there a shortage of marriageable men?



The long-term effects of this discrepancy are difficult to predict.

Michael Collum said:

In the law it also told the kings (in advance) exactly how to not act, but they did it anyway.

Click to expand...

Scholars generally agree that the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch was written during the exile. This is after the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were destroyed. So, the kings did not read Leviticus. In the books of Samuel and Kings and the pre-exile Prophets you don't see evidence that people knew about its rules, except for the rules that were already part of their tradition.

jayem said:

And though the 10 Commandments forbids adultery and coveting another’s wife, it doesn’t forbid a man from marrying multiple wives.

Click to expand...

The biblical definition of adultery is a wife having sexual relations outside marriage. A husband having sexual relations outside marriage is fornication / sexual immorality but it is not adultery.

People did a lot of bad things in the OT. Lot slept with his daughters and borne children. Abraham was married to his half sister. There's lots of sin in the OT that God would not tolerate today--because we know better by the laws of God and the teachings in the NT.

Chrystal-J said:

People did a lot of bad things in the OT. Lot slept with his daughters and borne children. Abraham was married to his half sister. There's lots of sin in the OT that God would not tolerate today--because we know better by the laws of God and the teachings in the NT.

Click to expand...

Abraham was like game of thrones.

Sammy-San said:

Abraham was like game of thrones.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen that show, but it was crazy in the OT. Pretty much anything goes. God said there was no law to guide the people, so he didn't hold their sins against them.

Chrystal-J said:

I haven't seen that show, but it was crazy in the OT. Pretty much anything goes. God said there was no law to guide the people, so he didn't hold their sins against them.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. If that were the case, God wouldn't have destroyed the world by flooding or Sodom and Gomorrah by fire.

Sketcher said:

I wouldn't say that. If that were the case, God wouldn't have destroyed the world by flooding or Sodom and Gomorrah by fire.

Click to expand...

I was referring to Romans 5:13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.