Polygyny and the Bible

[adelphos]

Re: Alzheimer's & Divorce Condoned by Pat Robertson

It is implicitly condemned. It was never a part of God's intention for marriage.

By the mouth of two or three witnesses, let everything be established, right?

Please show me where it is implicitly condemned?

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[theLords]

Polygyny results in women being treated like chattel. Oh, wife #1 is barren? Get a new one, or two new ones! Hitting a mid-life crisis? Add in a couple 19 year old wives! It'll be awesome! The Christian marriage model does much to protect women and to give me much-needed exclusive love and companionship.

Wise words from a wise fellow: "Oh, wife #1 is barren? Get a new one, or two new ones!" Abraham and Sarah pursued this line of thinking. Thousands of centuries later the Israel-Palestine issue threatens to take us into possible nuclear war.

 

[Free]

Men are to respect their wives. Much like how men respect their cars. I must know its limits and repspect them less I wreck and die, but I do not let the car drive me. I must be in control.

So you see your wife, or potential future wife, as a piece of property, something to control? If the marriage relationship is the metaphor Christ uses for the Church, for the true believers, then how is it that we are not seen as mere pieces of property for him to control? More than that, why do you think Scripture uses the marriage analogy in the first place?

God Three males combined into one. Created Adam in His image. The female is but a subjugate part of the flesh male.

I have already shown you are quite mistaken about what Scriptures says regarding who was made in God's image--clearly both male and female are made in God's image (Gen 1:27). To be human is to be made in God's image.

However, another very important point you are wrong about is the nature of God himself. Yes, God reveals himself as male, as our Father and Son, but he is neither male nor female. So most certainly he is not "three males combined into one." This is supported by the fact that both male and female are made in God's image. There are also female metaphors used of God in Scripture.

Women are to facilitate reproduction. They are prone to emotional manipulation by satan thus to remain silent.

I hope that you are not married and that you won't be as long as you hold to such un-Scriptural views of women, and if you are, I really do feel sorry for your wife. You see women as mere property and sex objects, instead of the complimentary equals to men that God created them to be.

 

[eddy]

Exodus 21:10-11

New International Version (NIV)

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

So God gives a rule about taking a multiple wife. If taking a multiple wife were a sin God would have said don't do it, not give directions on how.

 

[reba]

Just about the time i think the church is making progress unto His kingdom. Then i find a bunch of lustful men wanting to have their selfish sin justified.

Say what every ya want i read the reaches of islam and satan here.

Out of here bye

 

[Free]

Exodus 21:10-11

New International Version (NIV)

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

So God gives a rule about taking a multiple wife. If taking a multiple wife were a sin God would have said don't do it, not give directions on how.

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,'
Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH' ?
Mat 19:6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
Mat 19:7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (NKJV)

A couple of points to be made here. First, it is very important to note what I highlighted in verse 8. In Scripture God permitted things due to mens evil hearts even though it was not his plan or intention. This is the case with polygyny and precisely why God could call David a man after his own heart despite his many wives and concubines. Not mention that argument fails since David also had a man murdered, unless one wants to argue that God permits murder. Hey, Moses did it too, after all. :yes

Second, it cannot be any more clear than this: if divorcing and remarrying can result in adultery, then marrying more than one woman or being married and having sex with another woman is also adultery. The only ways out of this are to argue that adultery is not sin or that Jesus was wrong.

This really should be the end of this discussion, but I somehow know that it won't be.

 

[westtexas]

Just about the time i think the church is making progress unto His kingdom. Then i find a bunch of lustful men wanting to have their selfish sin justified.

I gotta agree with you Reba. I hadn't read this thread until now but I can't believe that there are THREE that are attempting to make polygyny scriptural. There's always one, but three???

Westtexas

 

[Free]

I hadn't read this thread until now but I can't believe that there are THREE that are attempting to make polygyny scriptural. There's always one, but three???

Westtexas

This has surprised me as well.

 

[adelphos]

Adelphos, in the busyness of the thread and it's getting splintered the way it did, I can understand why you may have overlooked this:

I apologize. I thought I had answered it.

When I wrote this post, I was assuming that the wives of Saul lived as slaves in David's household. However, I've done a little more research. This is what I've found:

2 Samuel 9:6-9
Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, came to David and fell on his face and prostrated himself. And David said, “Mephibosheth.†And he said, “Here is your servant!†David said to him, “Do not fear, for I will surely show kindness to you for the sake of your father Jonathan, and will restore to you all the land of your grandfather Saul; and you shall eat at my table regularly.†Again he prostrated himself and said, “What is your servant, that you should regard a dead dog like me?†Then the king called Saul’s servant Ziba and said to him, “All that belonged to Saul and to all his house I have given to your master’s grandson.

I don't think it can be said that 2 Samuel 12:8 teaches us that God gave Saul's wives, one of whom was David's mother-in-law, as wives for David. Nathan doesn't say that they were, no where is it chronicled that David took any of Saul's wives or concubines to wife, and it is recorded that David turned all that belonged to Saul over to his beloved friend, Jonathan's son.

Thanks for more insights. Although you are correct that Scripture does not say that David was intimate with any of the wives given to him, none the less, Scripture affirms that God gave them to David. This means they were his! What he did with them seems to be as the Scripture suggests above. So, it is still an affirmative that God gave Saul's wives to David, and it is still an affirmative that David could have asked for more wives, and God would have given him more. Remember the context of Nathan's word to David. God was rebuking David for taking another man's wife. God was telling David, in essence, all you should have done was ask me for more and I would have given them to you. Conclusion: If God is against polygyny, why is God being so affirming to David?

Any other texts out there that shows that God gave any man multiple wives?

I still don't understand your point here. Even if there are no examples of this, it is moot. God's idea of marriage includes plural wives - period!

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[adelphos]

Just because the law regulated polygamy does not mean that it was God's desire that polygamy be His "Plan A."

Scripturally, the issue is not whether polygyny was God's plan A, B, or C. Biblical marriage includes a man having more than one wife.

Christ clearly told us that God allowed divorce in the OT "because of the hardness of their hearts." (Matthew 19:8) I think it is logically sound to follow this reasoning to proclaim that polygamy, like divorce, was not God's original plan from the get go.

Doing a strong study on "hardness of hearts" and other cognate phrases, i would suggest that what Christ is saying is that ALL the Law is written because of the hardness of man's heart. The point being, God introduced the Law because of sin and the hardness of man's heart (Gal 3:19). The Bible says that the Law is holy, just, good and perfect. In fact, we are encouraged to love, delight and meditate on the Law. So, in essence, the Law represents the heart of God for man because of the fall of man. His original plan included nudity, working in the garden, etc... but this does not mean we are to walk around nude and only work in gardens.

Summary: The fall created the hardness of heart, which in essence is a product of the sinful nature. God regulated what He deemed represented His perfect will for sinful man. To imply that God regulated polygyny merely to appear man's rebellion is really an attack on God's holiness. God could have forbidden it just as easy as he forbid homosexuality, bestuality, etc... God placed in the Law exactly what He desired to regulated all aspects of man's relationships with Himself and others because of man's sinful nature represented by man's perpetual hardness of heart!

He could have easily given Adam many Eves. He did not. Wouldn't the perfect time to give a man a plurality of wives be during the beginning of civilization? I'm sure that Adam and Eve could have multiplied much quicker had there been a Betty, Alice, Gretchen, and the like. However, before sin came into the world, amongst paradise in perfect sinless creation, God saw it fitting that Adam only be given one wife. It wasn't until the fall of man came that polygamy was introduced.

The truth of the matter is this, the full revelation concerning the Biblical doctrine of marriage was not contained in the creation story. There is no compelling need for God to have had Adam created with more than one wife any more than him being created with clothes. This is a logical fallacy. If this argument were true, it would be able to be consistent with that too. For example, one could say, "God could have easily given man clothes when he created him. It wasn't until the fall of man came that clothes was introduced." Does this mean that having clothes is wrong - absurd!

I'm going to be very honest and say that this statement: "Much like how men respect their cars" is incredibly crass and disheartening. Is this really the attitude you think God wants you to have towards your future wife or current wife? The loving, gentle God who so delicately, tenderly, and mercifully forgave a naked adulteress who stood before Him, would never have this kind of attitude toward women.

This is mere unscriptural speculation, and an attack on the character of God. Scripture shows that He regulated polygyny in his just, holy, pure, and perfect Law. We know that God is love. Therefore, an attack on His Law is an attack on His character. Moreover, the fact is, God used Himself, by analogy, in two separate cases as an example of a polygynous practioner (Ezekiel 23; Jeremiah 3). In my opinion, this sounds more like humanism.

While men should respect their wives (as respect is a form of love), the Biblical mandate is that "husbands love their wives the way Christ loves the Church." (Ephesians 5:25) That means if that "car" leads you into a wreck--unto death (like the Bride lead Christ unto death)--that you are to die rather than keep your control. How about that?

Interesting! I would say that a loving man would always lead His bride toward the purposes of God, which may mean being a missionary to a tribe that brings great hardship to his family; or it may mean adopting many mentally ill children that brings great hardship to his family; or similar things. Does this mean that the husband doesn't love his wife and is still not willing to die for his family. Moreover, the husband is the head, that is, the controller of his household. Controlling his household IS part of loving his family!!

The "female" is only a "subjugate part of the flesh male" due to the curse from the fall. (Genesis 3:15-16) So really this line of thinking upholds Satan's desires--that mankind not find redemption and freedom from the curse of sin in Christ. Galatians 3:28 tells us God's heart in the matter. I won't address the "remain silent" bit except with a . It truly pains me to see these kinds of beliefs still found within the Church.

If this were understood like you are trying to present it, it would mean that a Bible believing woman would not have very much pain, if any, in child bearing. It pains me that there are teachings that are more centered in secular humanism than the purity of God's Holy Word. It really does greive my heart! Man was born to glorify God by serving Him, extending His kingdom, using His Word as our final authority for all we say and do. It matters not if we personally agree with it!

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[adelphos]

The bible is clear man was created in Gods image. Adam alone. Eve came later from Adams rib.

Sexism is just a liberal slander that femists use to distract and change Gods law.

Eddy, it is sad that secular humanism has surplanted His Word in so many categories. With that said, I do not suggest that I have many things in my heart and life that has given way to it as well. However, it is my heart to continue to grow in the things of God and laying those things down that I have bought into that stand against the simplicity of God's Word.

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[adelphos]

Re: Alzheimer's & Divorce Condoned by Pat Robertson

How about an extremely obvious one: Abraham and Sarah.

EDIT:

Can I second that motion with an Isaac and Rebekah?

Had Jacob not been tricked into marrying Leah (a polygamous marriage) I think it would be fair to say Jacob and Rachel would have made it onto this list.

1. You may want to read the story about Abraham and Sarah. Hagar was called his wife too (Gen 16:3).

2. Isaac and Rebekah are the only legitimate couple you can list out these three.

3. Even though Jacob was tricked, one should notice that there wasn't a divorce. He understood his responsiblity before God to take care of two wives. He would have sinned by divorcing one.

 

[adelphos]

Re: Alzheimer's & Divorce Condoned by Pat Robertson

Because it has no place in Christianity whatsoever.

What Scripture supports this contention?

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[adelphos]

I think your evidence is not truly evidence at all. For starters, Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, who would go on to be connected to a false religion and be a bitter enemy of Abraham's (God) promised son, Isaac. Hagar and Ishmael were both sent away so that Isaac would inherit the promise. The marriage of Hagar was about trying to accomplish God's promise not about polygamy.

The fact that Abraham made Hagar his wife out of his lack of trust for God does not mean that polygyny is wrong. It simply means that one should have the right motives for practicing polygyny. In fact, here is what Scripture tells us about Abraham (which includes his marriage to Hagar):

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Gen 26:5)

Secondly, Abraham took Keturah as his wife only after Sarah died:

Genesis 24:67
Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.

I agree that Keturah was not a wife until after Sarah died.

 

[handy]

Eddy, it is sad that secular humanism has surplanted His Word in so many categories. With that said, I do not suggest that I have many things in my heart and life that has given way to it as well. However, it is my heart to continue to grow in the things of God and laying those things down that I have bought into that stand against the simplicity of God's Word.

Respectfully

Adelphos

One thing I'd like to say is that I hope we don't see a whole lot of this idea that somehow liberalism, sexism or feminism is at the heart of the debate here.

It isn't.

What is being debated is what God's word actually teaches about polygyny, whether it was something that men just did, or whether God Himself instituted it, blessed it and promoted it.

Clearly men took on more than one wife in the OT. To my knowledge, there is no mention of any of God's people having more than one wife in the New Testament. If anyone can point to an example of any believer in Christ having more than one wife, by all means do so.

What the real question is then, isn't whether or not OT men took on more wives...but whether or not this was something that God Himself instituted and blessed.

Liberalism, sexism and/or feminisim has no place in this discussion.

 

[adelphos]

Re: Alzheimer's & Divorce Condoned by Pat Robertson

This thread is so busy, and I'm busy with household things, so I can't properly respond to everything.

I totally understand. I have been off for a few days and I am having a hard time responding, but because I think this issue needs to be addressed in the body of Christ, I am trying to respond to as many posts as possible.

Just a quick response to this though:

We both assumed various things about Saul's wives when they came under David's care...however, 2 Samuel 9 clears it up...David gave them over to Jonathan's son, along with everything else that was Saul's.

Certainly, but God still gave them to David to do what he wanted with them, and God told David he could have asked for more wives. These things one cannot get around!!

Even you admit that they were never David's wives...so this clearly isn't the "go to" Scripture to somehow "prove" that polygyny is approved by God.

1. They were wives of Saul that were given to David, and because the context of the passage was about David's desire for another woman, it is quite obvious that God wasn't mentioning other wives as a casual statement. It had direct application to the issue of David's sin. If not, this Scripture is totally out of place!

2. Therefore, it is still a "go to" Scripture to demonstrate the heart of God in the matter - in regards to marriage, one may have more than one wife.

In regards to Solomon...one need look no further than two texts:

The one Mike already shared:

Deuteronomy 17:17 says of a king who seizes land, "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray."

and1 Kings 11:3 He (Solomon) had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.

Certainly not a strong Scriptural support for polygyny.

Actually, it is a support for polygyny. God did not forbid it. He regulated it. Deut 17:17 is not a prohibition of having more than one wife, it is prohibition against having many wives. If you go back and read the context of Deut. 17:17, it will be discovered that the issue is coveteousness. The King is also prohibited from multiplying horses, silver, and gold. It doesn't mean that he cannot have more than one horse, nor more than one coin of silver and gold. It simply means that he is to not get greedy.

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[adelphos]

Perhaps, the gentle conviction of the Holy Spirit?

I think you misunderstood, and it is ok. I believe what Eddy was saying was a little harsh. Perhaps I should have been clearer.

Blessings

 

[adelphos]

God gifts men wives and concubines. That in and of its self shows it isn't a sin. The fact that concubines were ok shows that if not just wives that men may have relations with multiple women. Women are to submit.

Concubine definition.

1. a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.

2. (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.

3. (especially formerly in Muslim societies) a woman residing in a harem and kept, as by a sultan, for sexual purposes.

Eddy, I prefer Scripture over modern dictionaries for Biblical definitions. Why? Because there is a tendency for people to commit the anachronistic fallacy by doing so.

Here is how one person put it (which basically expresses what I teach as well):

The Hebrew word for concubine is pilegesh, and it is used for an illicit sexual relationship, but only once.

For she lusted for her paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. (Ezekiel 23:20)
​

Here in Ezekiel 23:20, the Hebrew word for concubine is translated "paramours." A paramour is an illicit sexual lover indeed, and the context of this passage supports this translation. It is speaking of a woman with her male immoral partners (paramours). The "concubines," so to speak, are male here, not female, and this is the only time this word is used for males.

Every time pilegesh is used for a female, it is used for a woman who is married to a man. Keturah is called Abraham's concubine in 1 Chronicles 1:32 (piylegesh), but in Genesis 25:1 she is called Abraham's wife ('ishâh). David's ten concubines are indeed called concubines, but they are also called his wives by the Lord Himself (2 Samuel 12:11; 16:21-22). In Judges 19 & 20 the Levite's concubine "played the harlot" (Judges 19:2) and left "her husband" (Judges 19:3). She is called a concubine in Judges 19:1, 2, 9, 24, 25, 29; 20:4 and 5, yet at the same time, her male partner, the Levite, is called "her husband" in Judges 19:3 and 20:4. Moreover, the concubine's father is called the "father-in-law" (Judges 19:4, 7, 9), and the Levite is called the "son-in-law" (Judges 19:5). Clearly, concubinage is displayed as a marital commitment.

So, what is the difference between a "wife" and a "concubine"? Wives are free, concubines are not. Scripture portrays concubinage as the marriage of a slave girl. Note Leviticus 19:20.

Whoever lies carnally with a woman who is betrothed to a man as a concubine, and who has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom, for this there shall be scourging; but they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
​

Betrothal depicts marriage (Deuteronomy 28:30), and here in Leviticus 19:20 we have the marriage (betrothal) of a slave girl to a man. Being a slave, she is called a concubine, and for this immoral act she is not killed as a free woman would be (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), "because she was not free."

In Judges the concubine's husband is twice called "her master" (Judges 19:26, 27). Other concubines are identified likewise. Bilhah, Jacob's concubine (Genesis 35:22), whom Rachel gave to him for a wife (Genesis 30:3-4), was a slave (Genesis 35:25 "maidservant"). Likewise, Zilpah was a slave-wife (Genesis 35:26; 30:9). Marrying a slave girl was not only practiced; it was legislated in the law of God as well.

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money. (Exodus 21:7-11; see also Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
​

Notice it does not say, "He cannot take another wife." It says, "If he takes another wife." Here we have another law concerning polygyny and it is not forbidden.

Although some today may view concubinage as an evil deed, Leah, in the Scriptures, viewed it as part of that which pleased the Lord.

And God listened to Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son. Leah said, "God has given me my wages, because I have given my maid to my husband." So she called his name Issachar. (Genesis 30:17-18)
​

Leah had given Zilpah, her maidservant, to Jacob as a wife because she perceived that she had stopped bearing children (Genesis 30:9). Yet, she continued to pray for more sons. God heard her plea ("God listened to Leah"), and Leah understood this to be a reward from the Lord for giving Jacob a concubine.

("Polygamy" By Darwin Fish [yes, his real name])

In essence, concubines are wives, but have a different status.

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[adelphos]

Re: Alzheimer's & Divorce Condoned by Pat Robertson

David can marry all of Saul's wives after Saul's death except the mother of Michal - just like Abishag was asked by Adonijah in 1Kgs 2:22. But scripture does not mention this happening because of the age difference.

I agree except for your last comment, for from what I can tell, Scripture does not suggest that as a reason whatsoever.

I did a bible genealogy sometime ago and found Saul's son Jonathan, who was David's friend was 20 years older than David. Now imagine the age of Saul, which would be minimum 40-50 years older than David and Saul's wives would be atleast 20-30 years older than David. Why would David marry someone who is much older than him?

Why not?

There is also another reason why David didn't take Saul's wives, because, any child born between David and the one who were Saul's wives will have Saul's name not David's (as we can see in Ruth's case).

Although Scripture does not say this, this may be more of a valid reason.

The verse 2 Samuel 12:8 is not just about God giving Saul's wives to David, but God is willing to give David 'more' wives if the existing 6 is not enough.

I agree that that is certainly the main point!

Further,
(1Kgs 15:5) because David did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

So, polygamy is considered 'right in the eyes of the LORD'. The taboo about polygamy is something to do with culture and tradition and nothing to do with Christianity.

Today, what is right in the sight of the Lord is banned and branded as crime but what is shameful and sinful like adultery, having mistress and homosexuality is allowed by the law of the land -Satan is very clever.

I totally agree!

Note: As I previously stated, I am not advocating polygamy but I am saying what the scripture teaches. In some cases where wife is really suffering and/or not able to perform duties of a wife because of her illness, I would certainly advocate polygamy but NOT divorce at any cost.

I am advocating that believers be encouraged to follow the whole counsel of God's Word in accordance with their personal gifts and callings. For example, if God calls one to being single all their lives, praise God. If God calls one to be married to one wife, well praise God. If God calls one to have more than one wife, then praise God! The point to me is that it is one of many options for Biblical Christians!

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[eddy]

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,'
Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH' ?
Mat 19:6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
Mat 19:7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (NKJV)

A couple of points to be made here. First, it is very important to note what I highlighted in verse 8. In Scripture God permitted things due to mens evil hearts even though it was not his plan or intention. This is the case with polygyny and precisely why God could call David a man after his own heart despite his many wives and concubines. Not mention that argument fails since David also had a man murdered, unless one wants to argue that God permits murder. Hey, Moses did it too, after all. :yes

Second, it cannot be any more clear than this: if divorcing and remarrying can result in adultery, then marrying more than one woman or being married and having sex with another woman is also adultery. The only ways out of this are to argue that adultery is not sin or that Jesus was wrong.

This really should be the end of this discussion, but I somehow know that it won't be.

Of course it is not the end.

The verses you qote don't deal at all with the question of plygamy being allowed. They deal with divorce being wrong. One cannot divorce except for sexual immorality. You stretch the verses to say something they do not say. If a man marries multiple wives, but treats them well and does not divorce them he has committed no sin.

I do believe those who fail to see that plygamy is ok do so from a modern view of morality. A morality that has been shaped by feminism, and liberalism.