Why was polyamorous marriages never expressly forbidden in the Bible?

[Emmylouwho]

Well if you do not follow secular law you will be breaking the law thus end up in jail.

Polygamy doesn’t get you jail time in the USA.

 

[bèlla]

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. —1 Kings 11:1-2

He disobeyed the Lord’s command.

 

[Invalidusername]

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. —1 Kings 11:1-2

He disobeyed the Lord’s command.

That is correct.

However this isn't really a command against polygamy. This is a command for him to not wed foreign women.

God didn't say, "Don't wed more than one wife."

He said, "Don't wed those foreign women! They'll lead you astray!"

 

[bèlla]

God didn't say, "Don't wed more than one wife."

If having another is permissible, Christ would not have rendered looking at another as adulterous. He would have said its adulterous if your intention wasn’t to make her your wife.

 

[Invalidusername]

If having another is permissible, Christ would not have rendered looking at another as adulterous. He would have said its adulterous if your intention wasn’t to make her your wife.

Well I'm single so how could looking at another women make me adulterous by that definition?

That's more talking about lust than polygamy. It's saying, "Don't lust after something that isn't yours."

If you have two women who are your wife then how is that adulterous? They both belong to you.

Btw I clearly know that polygamy is wrong. I don't condone of that practice.

I am simply asking why doesn't the Bible condemn it more clearly.

 

[bèlla]

Well I'm single so how could looking at another women make me adulterous by that definition?

It would only apply if the object of your lust was married.

That's more talking about lust than polygamy. It's saying, "Don't lust after something that isn't yours."

She can’t be yours if you’re married. He’s letting you know there’s no option for others.

I am simply asking why doesn't the Bible condemn it more clearly.

Have you done a study on biblical marriages? You should make note of the happy ones and those that were problematic. Most of the latter had multiple companions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And is it a sin even though the Bible never expressly says it is a sin?

It sounds to me like someone is contemplating packing up...and moving to Utah! Ye-hah!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Polygamy just got sorta swept under the rug, much like the ban on divorce in most of modern Christianity.

 

[Sketcher]

The problem is King David had multiple wives. This was never condemned.

King Solomon had a THOUSAND women. This was never condemned(except that they led him astray).

Almost all of the original Jews(Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) had multiple wives. This was never condemned.

Some of them had concubines. This was never condemned.

WHY IS THIS NOT CONDEMNED if it is CLEARLY wrong?

If you're asking about what Christians are allowed to do, note that none of these were Christians. Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had different marching orders than we have. They were told to do and avoid certain things that we weren't. Likewise, we have a different mission and are not allowed to do some of the things they had to do.

 

[holo]

You'll have to be a bit creative if you want to use the bible to condemn polygamy or forced/arranged marriage.

 

[Dave-W]

If having another is permissible, Christ would not have rendered looking at another as adulterous. He would have said its adulterous if your intention wasn’t to make her your wife.

Adulterous as in she would have had to be already married to someone else.

The word translated “lust” in Matt 5 is the same word the LXX used to translate “covet,” and in the 10th commandment, it says: “Thou shalt not covet ... thy neighbor’s wife ...”

 

[Dave-W]

Do you believe that we must abide by all secular law, or just this one?

We must obey ALL secular law; unless obeying it causes us to disobey a command of God.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

If having another is permissible, Christ would not have rendered looking at another as adulterous. He would have said its adulterous if your intention wasn’t to make her your wife.

A VERY important word was omitted from your quote of Christ's words... Jesus never said that "looking at another" woman was lust... he said "looking with lust" was wrong and tantamount to adultery.

Biblically speaking, "lust" is not just viewing, nor is it appreciating. Lust is the NT equivalent of the OT's word "covet," and it includes the intent to possess something for oneself.

That is why "lust" is tantamount to adultery, because in the heart, one has already decided to possess the woman he sees. If there is no intent to possess, there is no "lust" or "mental adultery."

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Polyamory is not directly addressed in the Scriptures, but fidelity to one's own spouse is. Fornication is addressed. Adultery is addressed. And Orgiastic worship is fully rejected.

The clear teaching of the Scriptures (such as Proverbs 5) speaks to sexual expression in the context of one other person. Polyamory is a distortion of the entire picture that God intended to be expressed through marital union... two people physically becoming "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

"Polygamy" is a different word, of course, and while the Bible does not directly condemn it (I think it was something of a practical necessity during the days of the patriarchs), it was never God's ideal.

Just as God made Adam and Eve (not Adam and Eves) and at that moment established marriage ("leave and cleave..."), so it was always His design for marriage to be one man + one woman.

This is further emphasized by the fact that both Jesus and Paul quoted Genesis 1:24 (Matthew 19:5 , Mark 10:8, Ephesian 5:31). And both added a word to the quotation (as if to clarify the original meaning and make sure that there was no doubt...). They both added the word "two" to the command regarding marriage... "the TWO shall become one flesh"... even though the word "two" was not in the original Hebrew.

It is clear from these words of Paul and Jesus that in God's design, "Two" was the magic marriage number.

David

 

[Rubiks]

Do you mean against the law? A king is not to multiply horses and wives. "He must not take many wives for himself, lest his heart go astray." (Deut 17:16)

God made them male and female so they could be joined together and become one. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:4)

If you actually read Deuteronomy, you will find that verse was a requirement for kings only. Exodus 21:10 explicitly permits polygamy.

Any appeal to the Genesis creation story commits the is-ought fallacy. I have yet to see people appeal to genesis to mandate arranged marriages.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Any appeal to the Genesis creation story commits the is-ought fallacy. I have yet to see people appeal to genesis to mandate arranged marriages.

It is also a fallacy to presume that if you call something a fallacy, that it is invalid...

Context matters.

The context of the Genesis account of the creation of man and the establishment of marriage between the first man and the first woman is that God Himself was establishing the very foundation of human society. God's intent is implicit in the act and the inspired record of that act, for not only was the narrative related, so also was a command to all mankind based on the events.

Therefore, to treat the establishment of marriage as anything other than how things "ought" to be is not actually logical or tenable. The context and the text itself demands it.

Narrative is not imperative. And narrative without imperative is not normative. For this reason, your concern about the misuse of Genesis using the "is-ought" fallacy is often valid when used to point to narratives without imperatives.

But the Genesis 2:21-24 has both narrative and imperative. Therefore the context precludes the error of the is-ought fallacy.

 

[Robban]

And is it a sin even though the Bible never expressly says it is a sin?

Jacob was the father of twelve sons, twelve tribes,
He was not getting any younger, and time waits for no one.
For example.

 

[Robban]

Jacob was the father of twelve sons, twelve tribes,
He was not getting any younger, and time waits for no one.
For example.

It can have very unpleasant consequences though

With David there was the conviction tha the was a bastard and was treated as such, an outcast,
he was not allowed to eat with his family even,
(Owing to a swap thar did not take place)

for the first 28 years of his life,
he was alloted the job of tending sheep in hope that some wild beast would kill him.

But when Samuel the Prophet came and anointed him as King did his mother speak with the words,
"The stone that was reviled by the builders has now become the cornerstone."

(The word "builders" is the same root as "sons".)

Until then his mother was painfully silent

 

[Dave-W]

"Polygamy" is a different word, of course, and while the Bible does not directly condemn it (I think it was something of a practical necessity during the days of the patriarchs), it was never God's ideal.

I think the word you want is polygny; and it was actually COMMANDED in scripture under certain RARE conditions. It was part of leverite marriage, where the brother in law of a husband who dies childless has to marry the widow. It does not matter if he is already married or not.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I think the word you want is polygny; and it was actually COMMANDED in scripture under certain RARE conditions. It was part of leverite marriage, where the brother in law of a husband who dies childless has to marry the widow. It does not matter if he is already married or not.

Yep. That's one of those rarely-acknowledged and usually-ignored legal requirements in Hebrew law that are difficult to process and understand from our 21st Century perspective.

My take is that it underscores the importance to God of "family-line" and also "Family land" that is quite different than how we think today.

David