Polygyny and the Bible

[Free]

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

I have already posted Gen 1:27, which clearly shows both male and female are made in the image of God.

 

[adelphos]

Today, slavery became illegal not because it was bad but because it was made worse by a few people.

Slaves in 1800s were treated like animals and lower than animals. I don't want to turn this into slavery thread but, just a hint on how slaves were treated in Jesus time - a centurion came to Jesus when his slave was suffering. Specific laws in OT were given. According to OT, if there is a slave who is a Jew, he must be released into freedom on jubilee year, so he is not always a slave.

The slavery what Biblical approves is very different from what is experienced in the past centuries.

Very good points!

 

[Free]

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.

By extension, they in fact do deal with polygyny. I have made the argument clear and my conclusion most certainly follows from what Scripture states. And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with feminism, although liberalism is precisely your problem.

 

[eddy]

By extension, they in fact do deal with polygyny. I have made the argument clear and my conclusion most certainly follows from what Scripture states. And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with feminism, although liberalism is precisely your problem.

You conclusion does not certainly follow. You say that divorce is immoral. That is obvious. You then relate it to people who are married. There can be no adultery between people who are married.

The bible is clear that multiple wifes and concubines are permitted. God himself gave men multiple wives and concubines. Since that is the case you can't turn around and say God would place people in adulterous relationships.

You say this isn't about feminism and claim I am seeing it though liberal eyes. I am afraid not. Liberalism and feminism abhore polygamy. You have fallen for their arguements.

 

[adelphos]

The Bible never makes polygamy okay, never.

This is simply not true! All you would need to prove me wrong is to give me three very clear passages that teach that polygyny is sin. It shouldn't be that hard if your statement represents the Word of God.

What people seem to forget is that the OT most often records what happened; things that are descriptive not prescriptive. There is no way that one can say that "polygamy is considered 'right in the eyes of the LORD'". The Scriptures do not teach this.

75% of the Bible is descriptive, yet, every major doctrine in theological textbooks use descriptive passages. From my perspective, when Scripture tells us that ALL Scripture can be used for doctrine, teaching, correction and instruction in righteousness, I take that to heart. The Bible also says that the things written under the Old Covenant were written as examples. If that is true, then we can use all the examples to teach us what is good, bad or ugly. So, the stories are moral teachings. They are not to be taken alone, of course, but they are to be verified. If Scripture shows that murmuring was practiced, we know from God's response and confirming directives, that it was wrong. If Scripture shows that polygny is practiced, we know from God's response and confirming directives that it is not wrong. This is what hermeneutics is all about - helping us to give up our personal views, life, thoughts, etc...

From beginning to end God's plan is for marriage is one man, one woman. That he let some in their sinfulness have more was just something he let happen. Not once does the Bible explicitly or implicitly approve of polygamy.

This is terrible theology on many levels. Are you sure you want to teach this as Scripture truth!?

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[handy]

Now then, to what the Bible actually teaches about this subject...

I'd like to approach this in two ways:

One, to discuss those texts that seem to support God's sanctioning of polygyny to see if they truly do.

Two, to examine what the texts that are clearly from God say specifically about marriage...is it between one man and one woman, or does God Himself ever state that marriage to more than one woman is fine with him.

Both are important. It's not enough to just say, "Well, the Bible doesn't say that" without including what the Bible does say about this subject.


Regarding those texts that seem to say polygyny is approved by God:

Adelphos, you said in regards to 2 Samuel 12:8:

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.

I've gone over this, but am willing to continue to unpack this text since I know it is one of the most compelling texts that pro-polygyny people use.

The context of the text is when Nathan confronts David with his sin with Bathsheba.

Here's the text:
2 Samuel 12
7 Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul.
8 I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!
9 Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.
10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’
11 Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
12 Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’â€
13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.†And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.â€

It's verse 8, and not even the whole verse, just a phrase within a sentence, that is being put forth as being the "proof" that God Himself gives men more than one wife.

I don't think it says that at all.

What does Nathan actually say from the Lord here? Let's read it again:

‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

For me to believe that God is sanctioning polygyny in this, it would have to say something along the line of "It is I who gave you many wives"...

But it doesn't say that...not at all.

God is pointing out to David just how much that He had blessed him. He appointed David to King over Israel, He delivered David when Saul was out to kill him, turning it instead to be that David would receive all that was Saul's...Saul's household, including Saul's wives, were put into David's care. Not only that, God made David king, not just over Israel, but over Judah as well. Saul's son was king over Judah after the fallout, but God took that kingdom and delivered it to David. God then points out to David, after proclaiming how He placed David as king over not one but two kingdoms and had delivered all that was Saul's to him, that if that hadn't been enough, God would have given him even more.

Somehow, all of this seems to get ignored or glossed over, or just not considered and the pro-polygyny types just zero in on two things out of the passage, making it read something like this:

It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. I also gave you your master’s house andyour master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

I wanted that visual in there because hopefully this can give clarity to just how weak an argument is for using 2 Samuel 12:8 as some kind of proof text that God promotes or even condones polygyny.

The argument that this text teaches God's condoning of polygyny should be completely destroyed by considering this:

There is no way, no how that God gave David Saul's wives as wives! The reason being that David was married to one of Saul's daughters. This would cause David to be married to both a mother and daughter, something that was expressly forbidden by God. One cannot make the case that God gave David all of Saul's wives except the mother of his wife, because the text says no such thing.

The only thing this text states is that Saul's wives were turned over to David. Their fate was in his hands. He could have locked them away for the rest of their lives, he could have made slaves out of them...what he actually did was turn their care over to Jonathan's son, turning them back over to the last of Saul's line.

Surely Adelphos, you can see that this text in no way supports the idea that God sanctions polygyny...there is just no support for that point of view within the text.

Going back to this:

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!

Not at all!!!

First, I would disagree that the context is specifically about David's desire for another woman as much as it is that David took what was not his to take, after God had so richly blessed him. Think about Nathan's parable about the rich man who had much who stole the poor man's ewe. The direct application to David's sin was that God had blessed David immeasurably and David killed another man to cover his adulterous affair with his wife. If the verse was written the way I wrote it in my graphic, perhaps your interpretation of it would be correct. But, if all God wanted to point out to David was, "Hey, I gave you plenty of wives and would have given you more"...then He would have said that. Hopefully, you can see that isn't what God was saying.

I'm sorry Adelphos, this text does not teach us that God gave David Saul's wives as wives...God gave them to David as part of a complete transfer of power from Saul to David. David in no way took these women as wives and would have certainly condemned himself, Michel and Ahinoam to death had he done so.

Now lets look at Deuteronomy 17:17 and Deuteronomy 21:15

17:17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

21:15"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,

Here is the problem with looking at regulatory laws such as this and saying that they prove God sanctions or condones something.

Consider this one:
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

Does this passage teach that God sanctions or condones divorce?

Of course not, we know from our Lord Himself that the only reason why Moses put this in the Law was due to the hardness of men's hearts. These same men that would also take on multiple wives as well.

The only way to state that the Bible teaches that God Himself sanctions or condones polygyny is to point out texts where it states that God gave someone more than one wife.

We have already put to rest, or at least I hope we have, that God did not give the wives of Saul to David, nor did David take the wives of Saul as wives. They were his prisoners...nothing more. He showed them much mercy.

In the other texts that I can find that speaks of taking on more than one wife, there is generally the language that a human was doing this. In the case of Lamech, he took for himself more than one wife. In the case of Abraham and Hagar, Sarah gave Abraham Hagar (and boy did she regret it, nor did God bless Abraham and Hagar's union. God did make a nation out of Ishmael, but it was not the nation of promise.

Now, about those texts that state that David was a man after God's own heart, or that Abraham followed the Lord in all of his ways...yes, these were men of faith, but they also were sinners just like you and I. Abraham passed Sarah off as his sister, David lied to Ahimelech...they sinned. Not everything they did was of faith or sanctioned by God, but their faith was accounted to them as righteousness.

There are no scriptures that shows that God gave anyone more than one wife to take as a wife. It just isn't in there.

 

[Free]

You conclusion does not certainly follow. You say that divorce is immoral. That is obvious. You then relate it to people who are married. There can be no adultery between people who are married.

You clearly are unable or unwilling to follow the argument. If it is adultery to merely divorce and remarry, then it logically follows that marrying without divorcing is also adultery.

Jesus' point is that since the two become one flesh and man cannot undo that union, it would be adultery to divorce and remarry, since that union is still in place. In other words, one cannot be in union with more than one other. There is no other logical conclusion.

The bible is clear that multiple wifes and concubines are permitted. God himself gave men multiple wives and concubines. Since that is the case you can't turn around and say God would place people in adulterous relationships.

Please go back and read carefully what I have written. Multiple wives and concubines are not permitted. Quit prooftexting and read Scripture as a whole, the way it is meant to be read and understood.

You say this isn't about feminism and claim I am seeing it though liberal eyes. I am afraid not. Liberalism and feminism abhore polygamy. You have fallen for their arguements.

Biblical liberalism seeks to undermine Scripture by making it say what it wants it to say, particularly, to change what it doesn't like and make it say what appeals to the flesh and it's desires.

 

[eddy]

You clearly are unable or unwilling to follow the argument. If it is adultery to merely divorce and remarry, then it logically follows that marrying without divorcing is also adultery. .

Merely divorce? Divorce is the sin as well as adultery. If there is no sin of divorce there is no sin of adultery. Your logic is flawed. You want to make things equal that are not.

Jesus' point is that since the two become one flesh and man cannot undo that union, it would be adultery to divorce and remarry, since that union is still in place. In other words, one cannot be in union with more than one other. There is no other logical conclusion..

One can be in a union with more than one. You state your Modern Opinion as biblical fact. It is not

Biblical liberalism seeks to undermine Scripture by making it say what it wants it to say, particularly, to change what it doesn't like and make it say what appeals to the flesh and it's desires.

Exactly, and that is exactly what you are doing in my opinion. The modern culture in the U.S. wants men and women to be seen as the same. Rather than take the bible at face value you try and make it say what you want it to say. Many have done that such as if women can't marry multiple men then men shouldn't be able to marry multiple women. You say merely divorce. These are modern liberal thoughts.

 

[handy]

Now on to what the Scriptures do teach us clearly as to what God expects from marriage.

I know that it has come up several times that Scriptures be shown that God intends for marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Most likely some have been included, but here is a list of such, which to me, makes it crystal clear that God intends for a man to have one wife.

Genesis 2:18, 22-24: Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.†....
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.â€
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.



Singular all the way. God did not make Adam two wives, even though if we consider that He wanted Adam to multiply and fill the earth, two wives or even more would have been very logical.



All Christians agree that this is where marriage is established, in the Garden, before the Fall and before sin clouds man's thinking...and it is between one man and one woman.


To make it clear that God intended to two to become one flesh (as opposed to three or more) Jesus clarifies this:


Matthew 19:4-6: And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,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’?So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.â€


A man (singular) shall leave his parents and be joined to his wife (again singular) and the two shall become one. There is no language of plurality here.


Even if one wants to make the case that God sanctioned or condoned polygyny in the Old Testament, if one is a Christian, it doesn't matter. The New Testament is very clear that God expects His children to refrain from polygamy.


1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.


His own wife, her own husband...no plurality here either. No where is anyone going to find anywhere in the scriptures anything along the line of "a woman is to have her own husband, the husband can have his many wives"...it just isn't in there.

Again this language of singularity is repeated in Ephesians 5:28-31:

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

He who loves his own wife...not wives. Again, two shall become one.

If anyone can show me an example of any Christian having more than one wife, I'd like to see it.

 

[Free]

This is simply not true! All you would need to prove me wrong is to give me three very clear passages that teach that polygyny is sin. It shouldn't be that hard if your statement represents the Word of God.

I see you have given into improper methods of doing theology and biblical interpretation--"give me three very clear passages that teach...". Not correct, not by a long shot. It's unfortunate that many think this is the way to come to biblical truth.

75% of the Bible is descriptive, yet, every major doctrine in theological textbooks use descriptive passages. From my perspective, when Scripture tells us that ALL Scripture can be used for doctrine, teaching, correction and instruction in righteousness, I take that to heart. The Bible also says that the things written under the Old Covenant were written as examples. If that is true, then we can use all the examples to teach us what is good, bad or ugly. So, the stories are moral teachings. They are not to be taken alone, of course, but they are to be verified. If Scripture shows that murmuring was practiced, we know from God's response and confirming directives, that it was wrong. If Scripture shows that polygny is practiced, we know from God's response and confirming directives that it is not wrong. This is what hermeneutics is all about - helping us to give up our personal views, life, thoughts, etc...

The Scriptures on polygyny are descriptive, not prescriptive. There are things that can be learned from them, for sure, but one of them is not that polygyny is okay.

From beginning to end God's plan is for marriage is one man, one woman. That he let some in their sinfulness have more was just something he let happen. Not once does the Bible explicitly or implicitly approve of polygamy.

This is terrible theology on many levels. Are you sure you want to teach this as Scripture truth!?

Yes, I do.

 

[reba]

Why are these folks given a place to spout their trash?

 

[handy]

Eddy,

I notice that you have repeated this:

God himself gave men multiple wives and concubines.

Other than the incident with David and Saul's wives, which I hope we've settled that God did not give David these as wives, simply as what made up of Saul's possessions, where does the Scriptures teach that God gave anyone more than one wife....you keep saying "men"...

Leaving out 2 Samuel 12:8...which has been disputed...show us all these other men that God gave more than one wife to.

 

[eddy]

again I point to

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.


God does not give directions on how to SIN properly. Sin is wrong. PERIOD.

God does not say if you are going to Lie do it this way, or If you are going to steal do it this way. No where in the bible does God do this. So since God explicitly lays out a rule for something doing that thing is not a sin.

It doesn't get more Logical than that.
​

 

[handy]

If Scripture shows that polygny is practiced, we know from God's response and confirming directives that it is not wrong. This is what hermeneutics is all about - helping us to give up our personal views, life, thoughts, etc...

Show where God ever gave "confirming directives" on polygyny? By pointing to regulartory laws? Doesn't the fact that Jesus pointed out a regulatory law about divorce show that the regulatory laws does not equal God's confirmation?

From beginning to end God's plan is for marriage is one man, one woman. That he let some in their sinfulness have more was just something he let happen. Not once does the Bible explicitly or implicitly approve of polygamy.

This is terrible theology on many levels. Are you sure you want to teach this as Scripture truth!?

And how is this "terrible theology"? The Old Testament is filled with examples of people doing things that are sinful. This doesn't mean that God sanctions or condones them. To see what God sanctions or condones, we must look at what God actually says. And, God has said, in both the Old and New, that His plan for marriage is one man, one woman.

It might be sounding as if I'm coming from left field here, but would one say that God is OK with women sleeping having sex with their father-in-laws?

I think that would be a "no".

Yet, God didn't condemn Tamar for having sex with Judah. However, just because God didn't condemn Tamar it would be bad theology to teach that God then condones or sanctions sex between a man and his son's wife.

 

[handy]

again I point to

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.


God does not give directions on how to SIN properly. Sin is wrong. PERIOD.

God does not say if you are going to Lie do it this way, or If you are going to steal do it this way. No where in the bible does God do this. So since God explicitly lays out a rule for something doing that thing is not a sin.

It doesn't get more Logical than that.
​

So again I'll point to:
Deuteronomy 24
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

So I guess, despite what Jesus said, divorce isn't a sin.

 

[Bonairos]

Is this thread crazy or what?!

By that I mean some are promoting (through their dialog) that a New Testament Christian “man†(living under a new, better covenant) is permitted to have multiple wives. Not only is it okay, but that God indeed is the Author of such and sanctions it with His seal of approval!

Again, is this thread crazy or what?!

Nonetheless, it appears both sides refuse to budge on their position (not saying it’s a bad thing).

Yet in following the thread, especially the arguments FOR a Christian man having multiple wives in 2011, I’m still left with a couple of questions for those adamantly defending such relationships in today’s society.

“What is the end result, what is it you attempt to accomplish by staunchly promoting (through Old Testament examples) ONE husband, MULTIPLE wives?â€

Is it to “free†Christian men today to consider (pursue) having more than one woman (wife) in which he can have his affections divided? Or could it be to silence women into submission when her husband brings home another “wife†to share her obligations with?


And perhaps more importantly, “What would be the purpose of a Christian man (you or those who read your interpretations) having multiple wives today?â€


We can go back and forth quoting Scripture to defend(?) our stance, but let’s bring it home and keep it real where it applies, “To what purpose?â€


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Free]

Merely divorce? Divorce is the sin as well as adultery. If there is no sin of divorce there is no sin of adultery. Your logic is flawed. You want to make things equal that are not.

I used "merely" because I see that as a lesser sin than polygyny or polygamy. And my logic is sound until you can prove otherwise.

One can be in a union with more than one. You state your Modern Opinion as biblical fact. It is not

It is a biblical fact based directly on what Jesus said. And if you cannot prove otherwise, it will remain that way, and is not just a "Modern Opinion."

Exactly, and that is exactly what you are doing in my opinion. The modern culture in the U.S. wants men and women to be seen as the same. Rather than take the bible at face value you try and make it say what you want it to say. Many have done that such as if women can't marry multiple men then men shouldn't be able to marry multiple women. You say merely divorce. These are modern liberal thoughts.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that women and men are equal, and this is directly based on the fact that men and women are both made in the image of God.

 

[eddy]

So again I'll point to:
Deuteronomy 24
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her,

So I guess, despite what Jesus said, divorce isn't a sin.

It isn't a sin if there is sexual immorality. See the word indecency. So no contradiction.

God doesn't make rules saying how to sin. So since a rule is in place on how to properly have multiple wives then multiple wives must be ok.

 

[Free]

Show where God ever gave "confirming directives" on polygyny?

^ This. And this is what I mean by descriptive versus prescriptive. That the Bible states the way things were, and what God permitted for a time, is not at all the same as God prescribing something. I wish people would understand this.

 

[eddy]

I used "merely" because I see that as a lesser sin than polygyny or polygamy. And my logic is sound until you can prove otherwise.

I see that you set yourself up as a judge that some sins are greater or less than others. That is not what God say. All sins are equal in the eyes of God. Obiously your view of the bible convieniently suits you and your modern morality.