Polygamy in Old Testament... why was it permitted then?

[manualman]

1. I don’t think there’s anything arbitrary about the commandments at all. That’s not a fair summary.
2. My question would be how does polygamy at 2000BC rightly damage one’s ability to give and receive love? You say I can’t argue that sin isn’t a sin in another era, but I did. Whether sinful or not, I do not think they were at all culpable. I can take the heat for that. (Although I like the earlier point by another poster about how there were several hurtful outcomes; for example, the fates of Hagar and Ishmael and their banishment to the desert).
3. And concerning Onan, his specific duty at the request of Judah was to continue his brother’s offspring in order to preserve his brother’s line. I agree he tried to have it both ways, but there’s no way he could have fulfilled that duty with his pants on.

1. Look, I’m not trying to single you out or be mean, just pointing out flaws in the logic of the position you outlined.
2. You demonstrate my point here. Polygamy is just adultery with lipstick on. The taking of a second wife fundamentally violates the relationship the man has with his actual (aka “first”) wife. True, the OT patriarchs may not be fully culpable for this due to cultural influences on their consciences. We today enjoy the benefits of Jesus more fully revealing the nature God intended for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but that was ALWAYS God’s plan for marriage and He built it into the makeup of the human soul. But just because one’s culpability for sin is partially or even fully removed, doesn’t make something that is objectively sinful NOT sinful. See the difference?
3. I guarantee you that Onan would NOT have been struck dead by God had he simply taken the widow in, sheltered her, protected her and given her a productive role in the family that did NOT involve him having sex with her. He died because he sought to take advantage of her without even conforming to the cultural norms of the time (which would have reduced his culpability, if not his sinfulness and thus saved his life).

 

[CrimsonThorn]

There were no ten commandments at this time so there was no adultery.

There wasnt event marriage when Adam and Eve were around, yet they were not fornicators.

Now, we have the commandments and we had Jesus come down amd teach us how these were meant to be followed.

The end.

 

[Bookcat]

This can be of some assistance regarding difficult passages in the Old Testament in general:

"… those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs…

…without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things.

This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day…

… we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] "

–Pope Benedict XVI Verbum Domini

 

[chaunceygardner]

Having more than one wife is not adultery, it’s wrong, but not adultery, adultery is sleeping with someone else’s wife or husband. They were married to all of those women so no adultery was committed. No one said that polygamy wasn’t a sin back then, it was always a sin, it was just tolerated the same way God blesses every one of us all the time even though we are not perfect and there are things in our behavior that displeases God…

How do we know that having more than one spouse was a sin? Is it a command in the OT? If polygamy was not adultery and if it was not prohibited in the commandments or other OT laws (perhaps it was, I am not sure) then it shouldn’t have been considered a sin. As others have pointed out, we are judging a culture of 3,000 or so years ago from our current perspective. I don’t recall that having multiple spouses was even mentioned in the Gospels, and it was only with some of the Epistles and writings of the early Church fathers that “certain” people, such as Bishops or Presbyters, were told to have “only one wife”. I don’t recall that rule being applied to non-clergy; and the fact that it is stated the way it is certainly implies that having more than one wife was fairly normal in the culture of that time and place, or at least accepted.

There have been many threads on this forum asking about the great differences between what was permitted or even commanded in OT times versus how we are expected to live today under New Testament teachings and rules. This seems to be a stumbling block for some who expect all the writings in the Bible to be consistent and in agreement with one another in every way, when it is clear they are not. One must keep in mind that God’s commandments and teachings have been filtered through human beings who have applied their own views and and cultural conditionings to them. And here we are, thousands of years later, trying to re-interpret those words today with little understanding of the environment in which they were originally spoken and written.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

There were no ten commandments at this time so there was no adultery.

.

So before the ten commandments came down, God had no problem with murder, lies, etc.? This sounds like moral relativism if I’ve ever heard it. Go figure that when you actually need someone to take a stand against that, they’re all M.I.A… heh.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

So before the ten commandments came down, God had no problem with murder, lies, etc.? This sounds like moral relativism if I’ve ever heard it. Go figure that when you actually need someone to take a stand against that, they’re all M.I.A… heh.

There was a problem with murder, lying, etc.

As far as I understand, Adam and Eve had a very basic guideline given to them from God in which was passed on through tradition. They also were guided by Natural Law.

Obviously this probably wasnt cutting it for God, so then He gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then later His only Son, to teach us how these were meant to be followed.

No moral relativism, it just seems blatantly chronological as far as I can see.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

There was a problem with murder, lying, etc.

As far as I understand, Adam and Eve had a very basic guideline given to them from God in which was passed on through tradition. They also were guided by Natural Law.

Natural law isn’t in opposition to adultery?

Either polygamy is sinful or not, that’s my thing. So I’m not sure what you mean, unless you’re saying that people pre-commandments didn’t know any better? But then, isn’t natural law a good way to know that, anyway? And if they really didn’t know, why would God sit on his hands while they were sinning?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Natural law isn’t in opposition to adultery?

Either polygamy is sinful or not, that’s my thing. So I’m not sure what you mean, unless you’re saying that people pre-commandments didn’t know any better? But then, isn’t natural law a good way to know that, anyway? And if they really didn’t know, why would God sit on his hands while they were sinning?

It wasnt adultery in the sense that it was for fornication and lust, but it was instructed to them by God, pre-commandments, to populate the earth.

Having children, as instructed by God Himself, was not against Natural Law (and is not against Natural Law now, but we have Commandments in place now so we cant do things the way they were done pre-commandments).

I dont know if there was such a thing as polygamy then as there was no marriage. Certainly now there is marriage, and marriage defined clearly by God as one man one woman. So polygamy is clearly a sin.

This is how I am understanding it to be.

 

[manualman]

–Bangs head on desk –

Look, folks. Adultery isn’t sinful just because God arbitrarily put it on some list. It is on the list because it is sinful! Don’t confuse marriage with its civil trappings (white dresses, government license, etc). Adam and Eve were as married as any of us.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

–Bangs head on desk –

Look, folks. Adultery isn’t sinful just because God arbitrarily put it on some list. It is on the list because it is sinful! Don’t confuse marriage with its civil trappings (white dresses, government license, etc). Adam and Eve were as married as any of us.

Perhaps I stand corrected in this part. God married them personally it would seem. However, that doesnt change the bottom line at what I was getting at, which is times were different before Jesus and before Moses. Thigs were not arbitrarily on a list but the list hadnt even been given yet, so they had to go on the basic instructions God gave them orally until the times of Moses. If God said to have kids, He said it personally.

So if there was such a thing as polygamy then and it was always sinful, that is the reason why God sends us Jesus, in atonement and to teach us how to live how He intends for us to live. Jesus also descended into hell after his resurrection, to free the souls in hell before His time when repentance was not possible?

So i guess that goes back to square one a bit. Did the people disobey or did God instruct the people to be fruitful with whom He personally instructed?

As I kept including, thats how I myself have understood it. i thank you for correcting me and please continue to do so if I am still misunderstanding. Thank you manualman. I hope your head is feeling better.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

My thinking is clouded at the moment for some reason apparently, but the more I keep thinking it is just like how Moses allowed divorce because the people pestered and persisted with it, so Moses allowed it. God never did. And when Jesus comes He tells everyone that divorce was never acceptable.

I think its the same situation just in an earlier era and with polygamy.

VeritasLux, manualman is correct and I was dead wrong a few posts back. Polygamy is and always was a sin.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Hi there!

Kind of a random question: Why was polygamy commom and accepted in old biblical times but is now not? I’m not asking this because I want to be in a polygamous relationship or anything, no, NO. I was just watching Sister Wives and I thought about this…Did God change his mind about marriage? I thought God’s Law is constant and never changing?..So why would He allow polygamy then and not now?

God’s intention for marriage:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh Genesis 2:24

It does not say wives, it says wife

Mosaic law says the king

… shall not multiply horses to himself…. neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold Deuteronomy 17:16-17

 

[Skye_Ariel]

How do we know that having more than one spouse was a sin? Is it a command in the OT? If polygamy was not adultery and if it was not prohibited in the commandments or other OT laws (perhaps it was, I am not sure) then it shouldn’t have been considered a sin. As others have pointed out, we are judging a culture of 3,000 or so years ago from our current perspective. I don’t recall that having multiple spouses was even mentioned in the Gospels, and it was only with some of the Epistles and writings of the early Church fathers that “certain” people, such as Bishops or Presbyters, were told to have “only one wife”. I don’t recall that rule being applied to non-clergy; and the fact that it is stated the way it is certainly implies that having more than one wife was fairly normal in the culture of that time and place, or at least accepted.

There have been many threads on this forum asking about the great differences between what was permitted or even commanded in OT times versus how we are expected to live today under New Testament teachings and rules. This seems to be a stumbling block for some who expect all the writings in the Bible to be consistent and in agreement with one another in every way, when it is clear they are not. One must keep in mind that God’s commandments and teachings have been filtered through human beings who have applied their own views and and cultural conditionings to them. And here we are, thousands of years later, trying to re-interpret those words today with little understanding of the environment in which they were originally spoken and written.

Polygamy is adultery I was thinking of fornication. It’s not fornication but it is adultery and adultery is a sin.

Also Adam & Eve were married they were married by God.

 

[manualman]

My apologies for my tantrum. It seems I was in need of a holiday…

Interesting word, holiday. You rarely stop and think about the roots the word has in Holy Day → holyday → holiday. Not that Thanksgiving or Labor Day or many of the other modern “days off work” have any relation to God anymore, but that’s where the concept has its roots.

I do find it increasingly common to revisit the basics about morality, God, revelation and Natural Law. It’s crucial to remember that sins are sins because they are harmful to us (individually and corporately). Modern culture constantly whispers in our ears that God is an arbitrary meanie and we should resent Him for it. No he’s not!

 

[2cats]

To those of you saying that “times were different” in the Old Testament days and that there were practical reasons back then for polygamy: this seems to conflict directly with the Church’s argument (in connection with gay marriage) that the “definition of marriage” can’t ever be allowed to change with the times or the culture or for practical reasons.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Hi there!

Kind of a random question: Why was polygamy commom and accepted in old biblical times but is now not? I’m not asking this because I want to be in a polygamous relationship or anything, no, NO. I was just watching Sister Wives and I thought about this…Did God change his mind about marriage? I thought God’s Law is constant and never changing?..So why would He allow polygamy then and not now?

One thing to consider is that a ban on polygamy started off with the Roman Empire. While the Church was not in power, it would’ve had no other choice but to go along with those laws, although some Jews still practiced polygamy. So perhaps the Church had some cultural influence from the Romans just like the Mormons who were pressured by the US Government into giving up polygamy in the 19th century. The Mormon Church calls polygamy wrong around the same time following government pressure? Weren’t even the Jews influenced by other nations in the OT which led them away to idolatry? Interesting patterns that show NO ONE is immune to cultural influence.

You also bring up theological questions and I’d say that I don’t believe God changed any of his ‘moral’ laws. Adultery, which is part of the OT law - 10 commandments- applied only when a married woman was involved. In other words, a married man could sleep with a woman just as long as that other woman wasn’t married to another guy (Leviticus 20:10). If adultery back then meant what people want it to mean today, that passage would’ve mention that a married man is not suppose to sleep with ANY woman- married or single. This definition which you can also find by looking up the Hebrew word ‘naaph’ - CONSISTENTLY explains why God NEVER called a polygamist an adulterer, never called them to repent, and to the contrary blessed them and put some of them on high pedestals.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

God’s intention for marriage:
Quote:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh Genesis 2:24

It does not say wives, it says wife

Using Genesis 2:24 to argue against polygamy is a common objection but I’ll explain why it’s not a good one. Genesis 2:24 does not mention every single plan/rule that God had for marriage so it would not be reasonable to stop reading at that point. Genesis 2:24 stops with the man’s FIRST marriage and it does not get into if the guy can have a SECOND marriage. When you keep reading on in the Bible you find that a man can marry a SECOND time when his wife dies. You read that he can marry a SECOND time after a justified divorce. And more relevant to this topic, you read later on that the husband can marry a SECOND time to add an additional wife, i.e. polygamy. To follow your logic consistently you would have to call all remarriages wrong since that issue isn’t covered by Genesis 2:24 (also not covered by Gen. 2:24, rules on adultery, rules on divorce, etc, etc).

 

[YosefYosep]

There was polygamy in the Old Testament, yes. This does not mean, however, that it is morally permitted. There are hundreds of grievous acts we find in the Old Testament, because the Old Testament is a story of Man’s fallen nature and his descent into sin. Yes, you will find horrible immoral things in the Bible, but this does not mean it is somehow supported by the Lord. I see people all the time say “well… Christianity is hypocritical, look at the Bible there’s slavery, incest, and genocide in it.” The problem is, they don’t know what they’re talking about! All they know is that there is sin in the Bible. Of course there is! The majority of the Bible is about mankind’s loss of grace!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There was polygamy in the Old Testament, yes. This does not mean, however, that it is morally permitted. There are hundreds of grievous acts we find in the Old Testament, because the Old Testament is a story of Man’s fallen nature and his descent into sin. Yes, you will find horrible immoral things in the Bible, but this does not mean it is somehow supported by the Lord. I see people all the time say “well… Christianity is hypocritical, look at the Bible there’s slavery, incest, and genocide in it.” The problem is, they don’t know what they’re talking about! All they know is that there is sin in the Bible. Of course there is! The majority of the Bible is about mankind’s loss of grace!

I agree that the mere mention of polygamy in the Bible does not mean that it is moral. There are 2 ways to show that polygamy is moral, and anything else, in general. One is going by the source that explains God’s rules, i.e. His Law (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-8), and the other way is to go by God’s actions towards that matter (if God dealt with the issue). In God’s laws (e.g. Leviticus 20:10) we find that there was no system of mutual fidelity. In other words, a married woman was banned from having sex with ALL men who weren’t her husband but the husband was only restricted from having sex with women who were already belonged to another man instead of being restricted from ALL women. Take notice that King David was not called an adulterer until after he took (or lust after) the married woman Bathsheba and before then he already had multiple wives. The law addresses IMMORAL things with repentance/sacrifices/punishments but yet Deut. 21-15-17 addresses polygamy with how to handle business equally between the wives.

As far as God’s actions goes, we find in Genesis 29:30-33 that God’s interest in a polygamous relationship is to be worried about if a man loves TWO wives. Then God enables the women to have kids so that they would be loved more by their husband. If polygamy was wrong in God’s eyes, then he would not be trying to help out the relationship, and he certainly would not be worrying about a SECOND woman not being loved by a man who already has a wife. If a husband has a wife who’s sleeping with another man I’m sure the LAST thing on that other man’s mind is if his wife loves that other man equally.

Also, keep in mind that Genesis 2:24 does not explain what adultery is. What would be the point in defining adultery in such an unmutual way if marriage was supposed to be between two people? So you can only have ONE wife but yet you can sleep with other UNmarried woman? hmm… doesn’t add up!

 

[minkymurph]

I’ll tell you what my take is on it.

When we read Genesis we should remember that while the author was inspired, they were not Christian. As such, it is unlikely the author would have considered polygamy wrong or sinful, and it is unlikely this is what they were attempting to teach. What the author was saying is the man’s wife should take precedence over his family as she is joined to him in a way he is not joined to his family, that a union exists between a man and his wife - one flesh - that does not exist between the man and other family members and it is something special - sacred.

Monogamous marriage was less usual than polygamy until Christianity. What Jesus taught was the ideal of marriage, that ideal being man and wife totally devoted to each other and each other alone. I stand to be corrected on this but I can’t think of anywhere in the bible were it is stated it is. But it is, for want of a better phrase, a ‘lesser love’ in that the love of man is divided, and less intimate. That is why monogamous marriage is, again for want of a better phrase, a ‘higher’ love which we should seek to attain. In Christianity, the family is also seen as reflection of the Holy Trinity. As such, a Christian marriage is monogamous. So, it’s not that God changed his mind but rather shows us how a ‘higher’ love may be attained in marriage.

I can’t remember which book it is, but Paul writes about women remaining obedient to their husband’s as their ‘owner,’ as in that culture a woman was seen as a man’s property, if the husband was not a Christian. As far as I understand it, in the early Christian Church many Gentile women would have been married to a man who had more than one wife, and what Paul is saying is this did not mean the woman could not become Christian because her husband had more than one wife, and it did not mean she had to leave her husband.

Apart from all this, it makes sense as I think many a man would say trying to please more than one wife and keep them all happy is more difficult than keeping one happy.

Perhaps that’s why Paul said, ‘those who marry will have tribulation in the flesh.’