Polygamy is not sin

[Thorolfr]

Maybe, maybe not. However, it is rather telling all the same. When you know some history, you’ll see that Solomon was no more different than other Asian emperors of his time.

Of course many cite Solomon’s numerous marriages as instrumental to his downfall too but there’s always Jacob.

David also had a number of wives:

2 Samuel 3:2-5: And sons were born to David at Hebron: his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam of Jezreel; and his second, Chileab, of Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; and the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; and the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron

Samuel’s father Elkanah also had two wives:

1 Samuel 1:1-2: There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite. He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Now for a bit of Equality,

What if one women could have 5 or more husbands ?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Now for a bit of Equality,

What if one women could have 5 or more husbands ?

I’m sorry, I don’t remember Old Asian warrior cultures ever were for that kind of equality (fictional or historical). Can anyone care to enlighten us?

 

[Cathoholic]

AgnosticBoy.

You build a false argument upon the false foundation of an imaginary Old Covenant sola Scriptura methodology.

I already told you the people of the Old Testament era never used such a paradigm.

Then you try to build a phony case for polygamy based upon a second false foundation—that of “the law(s) on adultery restricted ONLY women from sleeping with someone other than their spouse”.

And I showed WHY the people of Jesus day knew that was false. Yet you keep building on these foundations of sand.

You said:

QUOTE:
Notice God’s reaction which is not consistent with being against such relationships.

God’s reaction IS consistent with being against such relationships. But you won’t see it if I explain WHY. Right now, you can’t even get past your false premises.

You also said:

QUOTE:
You also bring up Matthew 19 but again it does not address a scenario where a man remarried while remaining with his first wife.

It says: “whoever divorces his wife, . . . and marries another, commits adultery.”

Notice it says “WHOEVER”.

That’s exactly WHY St. Luke can say:

LUKE 16:18 18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery . . .

You are forced to interpret this as: “You can’t divorce your wife and marry another, but it is AOK to just go ahead and ADD a “wife” or three".

If God thought polygamy was AOK, when Herod took his brothers wife, the inspired Prophet of God, St. John the Baptist wouldn’t have publicly castigated Herod.

St. Matthew makes it clear WHY John was arrested and eventually beheaded!

MATTHEW 14:3 3 For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison, for the sake of Herodias, his brother Phillip’s wife; 4 because . . . (WHY) . . .

MATTHEW 14:3-4 3 For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison, for the sake of Herodias, his brother Phillip’s wife; 4 because John said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”

NOT MATTHEW 14:3-4 (But a PHANTOM VERSE consistent with an AgnosticBoy rendering) For Herod had befriended John and lavished all sorts of gifts and praise upon him, for the sake of Herodias, his brother Phillip’s wife; 4 because John said to him, “Look. Polygamy is AOK. I’d like to bring up the story of Jacob in Genesis 29:30-33, so you can all see how God approves of polygamy!”

You don’t believe these verses. I do. I affirm ALL of the passages. You try to divine something that is not stated in the Old Testament and now you are forced to prevaricate on the New Testament readings, inject a sola Scriptura methodology, and ignore 2000 years of Christian Tradition.

And I’m just not buying it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

First, you’re wrong. A definition is, by its very nature, comprehensive. It defines the word - it doesn’t offer one example of what the word means. If it is anything else, it is an illustration or an example.

If I say adultery is the act of a man sleeping with his neighbor’s wife then that’s one aspect or way of identifying what adultery is. There are different definitions of adultery which are dependent on the type of marriage that a society allows, so of course a definition that just restricts wives but not husbands would be the ONLY definition for polygynous culture. It doesn’t take defining every single type/aspect/implication, etc of adultery in order to understand what adultery involves or is. So your conclusion that there MUST be other examples or acts that are considered adultery since only one example is mentioned (married man sleeping with another man’s wife) is an assumption, at best.

Second, the fact that polygyny existed does not mean that it was moral; it means that it existed. Assume people looked back on our society two thousand years from now; would they then be able to conclude the pre-marital sex was moral? Or abortion? Or euthanasia? All exist and in many places are legal - but that does not equate to morality.

The significance of polygamy in the OT was not just that it happened. We also see rules being formed to regulate it, like you can’t marry a mom and a daughter, you can’t marry with intentions of causing a rivalry, the examples/use of adultery which we derive the definition from, etc. We also find God helping and supporting some polygamous relationships. All that God does is moral so if He’s helping a polygamous family love each other and prosper, then that means that its moral for polygamist to love their spouseS and live out their form of marriage.

There is nothing in the Bible or church teaching that supports that the pre-existing notion was that adultery would only occur between a married man and another married woman, particularly given that they were operating in a society that highly valued virginity and scorned prostitutes. It is simply inconsistent with what we know of society during that time to believe that they would be less scornful of having sex with an unmarried woman (who should be chaste) than they would be in having sex with a married woman (who is to be faithful to another).

Polygamy wasn’t just simply about allowing a man to have sex with any single woman, it also meant that he had to take responsibility for the other woman by making her a WiFE, as well. Sleeping with prostitutes and just having sex just for the sake of sex does not go along with why polygamy was allowed.

No, it leaves him with one marriage with three people, for each of his wives is connected to the other through the man. You cannot ignore or deny the relationship formed between the women through the polygynous relationship, and this is where the argument falls apart.

In what way are they all united in the sense of “one flesh”? In 1 Corinthians 6:16 we see that “becoming one flesh” involves sexual union through intercourse. In polygamy or even biologically-speaking, sexual intercourse between 2 women can not occur. While there may be other ways that the two wives can have a union or intimacy, but it still would not be enough to be called “one flesh”.

It is also inconsistent with Biblical teaching. Paul says that “…a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and** the two shall become one**.” The husband is not a separate person who is then free to go enter into another marriage; he is one with his wife.

In 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul also teaches that the becoming one flesh involves a sexual union when he makes reference to a ‘prostitute’. It’s just about sex because the sole purpose of a prostitute is to have sex without marriage being involved. And I don’t mean to talk about sex in an insignificant way, it’s just that sex to the biblical world was seen as sacred and and central along with it’s implications (reproduction). Nowadays we don’t view sex as a big thing, especially since we have various methods of birth control and a culture where casual sex or sex outside of marriage is commonplace.

In polygamy, two wives can not have sexual intercourse with each other so they can not become one flesh. I know you mentioned that it’s through the husband but once the sex is done with one wife then that union of the bodies or flesh is done. He can not have sexual intercourse with both women at the same time therefore it can never be three people becoming one.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You are relying heavily on the Old Testament, but ignoring that between the time of the Old Testament and Jesus’s arrival, the prophets prepared the people for a deeper understanding of the unity and indissolubility of marriage. This is why Jesus acknowledges that Moses had previously said men could divorce their wives, but he was forbidding it; because that law was a concession to the “hardness of their hearts”. The permission of polygyny was likewise the result of the “hardness of hearts” that did not understand the unity of marriage and how it unites two persons into one.

I accept that divorce came from Moses and not God. However, Scriptures do not mention that is the case for polygamy, including adultery since biblical adultery allowed for polyGYNY through implication. The law of adultery came from God directly since it’s in the 10 commandments carved by God’s own hand! You might choose to ignore some of my point and say there’s no real definition of adultery but you still have God’s own actions which are like moral guidelines themselves since God is ALL-good.

You say that I’m also relying too much on the OT, but that is because the moral rules are everlasting which means they even apply in the NT. Once you open the door to changing moral rules that came directly from God, then that takes away the status of these rules from being absolute and aspects like same-sex marriage could theoretically become approved by God at some point, as well.

 

[casslean]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

It isn’t moral. It isn’t condoned by God. If God chose not to punish polygamous spouses in the past, it is because He can forgive sin, not because it was not sin.

Your argument is specious. It only holds if your original proposition about adultery holds, and there is no basis in church teachings to accept that adultery is anything other than what it has always been taught to be. There is no basis in church teachings to accept that men are able to enter into concurrent marriages without it being sinful.

But you’re not interested in informed debate. You actually aren’t considering the information you’re being given - you’re just restating your position over and over. You want to believe this, and like the child who still wants to believe in Santa, you’re going to cling to it regardless of what common sense - or anyone here - tells you.

 

[iepuras]

I cant go too much into this because its off topic to this forum and im no expert.

I agree with casslean in that my question is entirely on topic. If you are not an expert on the dignity of men and women, then why are you opining on the morality of polygyny at all? The inherent and equal dignity of men and women as human persons is very relevant to this discussion.

In order to make the case that polygyny is moral, you also have to show that women have less inherent dignity than men. I was raised Mormon and was taught that polygyny is a doctrine of God and that polygyny would be practiced in heaven even though it is not currently practiced now. I know the implications of believing that polygyny is moral even if it is not currently practiced. Believe me, I attempted all kinds of mental gymnastics in an attempt to reconcile a belief in the inherent and equal dignity of men and women and polygyny. It simply cannot be done.

Can you please name one polygamous family in the OT that had a positive outcome? Every instance of polygyny in the OT was an occasion of sin (even if we ignore the sinfulness of polygyny itself). Jealousy, envy, idolatry, rebellion, etc. The authors of the OT implicitly condemned polygyny.

You are confusing the mercy of God with condoning sin. Just because God doesn’t immediately punish sin and forgives sin, doesn’t mean that He accepts or condones it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy.

You build a false argument upon the false foundation of an imaginary Old Covenant sola Scriptura methodology.

I’m open to perspectives that the Bible does not mention but those perspectives should not conflict with things from the Bible that were supposed to be in place even through the new covenant.

I already told you the people of the Old Testament era never used such a paradigm.

That doesn’t add up since the people of the OT practiced polygamy openly. So you can’t even say that polygamy was a taboo.

Then you try to build a phony case for polygamy based upon a second false foundation—that of “the law(s) on adultery restricted ONLY women from sleeping with someone other than their spouse”.

And I showed WHY the people of Jesus day knew that was false. Yet you keep building on these foundations of sand.

I have presented evidence unlike you. Some people won’t even acknowledge that ‘adultery’ can have different definitions depending on the form(s) of marriage that the culture allows and that is very much a cultural BiAS. You fault me for being a Solo OT Scriptura-ist but perhaps you should try not being a Solo (your denomination) Christianist and research on history/philosophy/cultures beyond what the Bible and Christianity covers.

You said:

QUOTE:
Notice God’s reaction which is not consistent with being against such relationships.

God’s reaction IS consistent with being against such relationships. But you won’t see it if I explain WHY. Right now, you can’t even get past your false premises.

Did you read God’s concern and all-good actions in response to what occurred in Genesis 29:30-33? If polygamy were a sin then it would be adultery (using your logic), and an UNREPENTANT one at that since the man is in a commitment to that second woman. The penalty for adultery was DEATH and you can’t forgive an UNREPENTANT person (polygamists). So your view does not add up.

You also said:

QUOTE:
You also bring up Matthew 19 but again it does not address a scenario where a man remarried while remaining with his first wife.

It says: “whoever divorces his wife, . . . and marries another, commits adultery.”

Notice it says “WHOEVER”.

That’s exactly WHY St. Luke can say:

LUKE 16:18 18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery . . .

You are forced to interpret this as: “You can’t divorce your wife and marry another, but it is AOK to just go ahead and ADD a “wife” or three".

It’s not a matter of being forced but rather it’s a matter of having a consistent theology. The passage you’re referring to does not say that it is adultery for a married man to marry a 2nd wife while NOT divorcing the 1st wife… You are ASSUMING that those are the implications and not only are assumptions not proven but your view also leads to a conflict of what God approved of in the OT. Likewise for me, I can admit that the passage does not say it’s okay for the husband to take a second wife if he doesn’t divorce but we can’t say that it goes against that scenario since it is silent on that issue. So in a sense we both have assumed implications but the difference is my view has precedent in the OT Law and God’s actions (e.g. Genesis 29:30-33) and yours completely ignores that which would lead to an inconsistent theology.

If God thought polygamy was AOK, when Herod took his brothers wife, the inspired Prophet of God, St. John the Baptist wouldn’t have publicly castigated Herod.

Your point about king Herod just shows that God was not okay with polyANDRY (a woman with more than one husband) but that doesn’t mean God is not okay w/ polyGYNY.

NOT MATTHEW 14:3-4 (But a PHANTOM VERSE consistent with an AgnosticBoy rendering) For Herod had befriended John and lavished all sorts of gifts and praise upon him, for the sake of Herodias, his brother Phillip’s wife; 4 because John said to him, “Look. Polygamy is AOK. I’d like to bring up the story of Jacob in Genesis 29:30-33, so you can all see how God approves of polygamy!”

You don’t believe these verses. I do. I affirm ALL of the passages. You try to divine something that is not stated in the Old Testament and now you are forced to prevaricate on the New Testament readings, inject a sola Scriptura methodology, and ignore **2000 years of Christian Tradition. **

And I’m just not buying it.

I’m sure God has more than one way to reveal His message and to more people than just the papacy as He revealed throughout the OT with prophets and apostles besides just the apostle Peter. More importantly there are ways to TEST for truth and I question how much of the 2,000 years of Christian tradition have been tested and if those tests have been logically answered for.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I agree with casslean in that my question is entirely on topic. If you are not an expert on the dignity of men and women, then why are you opining on the morality of polygyny at all? The inherent and equal dignity of men and women as human persons is very relevant to this discussion.

In order to make the case that polygyny is moral, you also have to show that women have less inherent dignity than men. I was raised Mormon and was taught that polygyny is a doctrine of God and that polygyny would be practiced in heaven even though it is not currently practiced now. I know the implications of believing that polygyny is moral even if it is not currently practiced. Believe me, I attempted all kinds of mental gymnastics in an attempt to reconcile a belief in the inherent and equal dignity of men and women and polygyny. It simply cannot be done.

Can you please name one polygamous family in the OT that had a positive outcome? Every instance of polygyny in the OT was an occasion of sin (even if we ignore the sinfulness of polygyny itself). Jealousy, envy, idolatry, rebellion, etc. The authors of the OT implicitly condemned polygyny.

You are confusing the mercy of God with condoning sin. Just because God doesn’t immediately punish sin and forgives sin, doesn’t mean that He accepts or condones it.

I want to approach the polygamy issue in steps as opposed to discussing every aspect of it. I see adultery as a good place to start. If my point on adultery is valid, which I’ll show by tackling some of the objections here, then we can move on to another aspect.

 

[casslean]

I want to approach the polygamy issue in steps as opposed to discussing every aspect of it. I see adultery as a good place to start. If my point on adultery is valid, which I’ll show by tackling some of the objections here, then we can move on to another aspect.

The problem is, your point on adultery is only valid if we accept your argument that polygyny was not morally objectionable, and therefore, society would not have understood adultery to be anything BUT what you’ve defined it as.

IYou’re begging the question - your argument on adultery is based on your position regarding polygamy. Neither has been established, and so the argument keeps running in circles.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The problem is, your point on adultery is only valid if we accept your argument that polygyny was not morally objectionable, and therefore, society would not have understood adultery to be anything BUT what you’ve defined it as.

IYou’re begging the question - your argument on adultery is based on your position regarding polygamy. Neither has been established, and so the argument keeps running in circles.

To me the rules on adultery are important because without it there’s no restriction on what a man can do after they get married. Marriage may as well be an open marriage, where you still have one wife or husband but have other non-marital partners, as well. That’s why just repeating to me what has been in place since Genesis 2:24 (one flesh) falls short w/out acknowledging what adultery meant.

As for iepuras’s (forum member) challenge to me in post #48, I don’t feel that it is necessary. I would have to get into psychology and other non-Christian areas, as well. But one thing I will say is that a woman’s ‘dignity’ is not a basis for biblical morality. Throughout the Bible, both monogamy and polygamy were practiced in bad ways - marriages were arranged, women were purchased, the husband ruled over his wife, so I doubt the writers were much concerned about respecting women compared to today’s standards.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But one thing I will say is that a woman’s ‘dignity’ is not a basis for biblical morality. Throughout the Bible, both monogamy and polygamy were practiced in bad ways - marriages were arranged, women were purchased, the husband ruled over his wife, so I doubt the writers were much concerned about respecting women compared to today’s standards.

Some will argue with you on why this is the reason Sola Scriptura falls flat on its face. (Even so, I’ll still keep on repeating that this really all says a lot in light of the moralist moaning and groaning over our supposedly ‘decadent’ age. Maybe a return to the so-called Golden Age of Old Testament Christianity wasn’t so bad after all, at least from the hormonal millennial male’s perspective. )

 

[KJVBIBLE]

THE BIBLICAL ORDER OF MEN AND WOMEN IN THE FAMILY AND THE CHURCH

Mans First Job: Genesis 2:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Womens Role: Genesis 2:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Help MeetH5828עזר ‛êzer ay’-zer From H5826; aid: - help…)

Women who rules in err.

Isaiah 3:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Womens Role in Church

1 Timothy 2:11-14

King James Version (KJV)

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Corinthians 14:34-37

King James Version (KJV)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

 

[KJVBIBLE]

Womens Role in Church

1 Timothy 2:11-14

King James Version (KJV)

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Corinthians 14:34-37

King James Version (KJV)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

THE ROLE OF THE MAN AND WOMAN IN THE FAMILY.

Ephesians 5:22-33

King James Version (KJV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

 

[KJVBIBLE]

Marriage and Divorcement.

Matthew 19:3-9

King James Version (KJV)

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark 10:1-12

King James Version (KJV)

10 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32

King James Version (KJV)

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Romans 7:2-3

King James Version (KJV)

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Luke 16:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:9-15

King James Version (KJV)

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

 

[KJVBIBLE]

Exodus 21:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

2 Samuel 5:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

1 Kings 11:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

2 Chronicles 11:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)

Deuteronomy 21:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

Here is a small quote from a Christian (R.M.) who agrees with Polygamy:
Hello,
I was just reading your article on polygamy. I am a Christian who
actually believes polygamy is a righteous form of marriage. Despite the
modern secular church you probably usually see, there are Christians who
are serious about God and Truth over men’s traditions.

Matthew 5:17-18
King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

New Testament:

1 Timothy 3:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
King James Version (KJV)
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Keep in mind Paul said:

1 Corinthians 7:1-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

 

[DanAl]

I was reluctant to post about polygamy but seeing there’s so much an issue about gay marriage, then I asked myself why not. In this thread I will try to explain how the biblical definition/description of ‘adultery’ supports or proves that God is okay with polygamy. And if anyone disagrees, feel free to jump in and explain why and I’ll explain why I agree or don’t agree.

In short form, my view is basically that God never intended for marriage to be restricted to just monogamy because the law(s) on adultery restricted ONLY women from sleeping with someone other than their spouse. This leads to the logical implication or point of why would God want marriages to be monogamous but yet He defines adultery on such unequal terms.

In biblical terms, adultery is defined as having sex with a woman who is already married. My source for this are passages like Leviticus 20:10, the Hebrew definition of adultery, and the fact that no where is a MARRIED man called an adulterer for simply sleeping with or marrying multiple woman.

Further elaboration on my points above:

• Leviticus 20:10 prohibits a married man from sleeping with another man’s wife which means that he can sleep with non-married women besides his wife.
• The Hebrew word for adultery is ‘naaph’ (strong’s #5003) and the basis for adultery is based on the marital status of the woman and not the man. So in other words, adultery only comes in play if a married woman is involved but that is not the case with men.
• No polygamist is called an adulterer. In fact, King David had MULTIPLE wives before he lusted for Bathsheeba (she was married to another man). He was not called an adulterer until AFTER he slept with Bathsheeba. Why then and not at the point in which he took his second wife?

The bible also says that God allowed polygamy because ancients were hard of heart, ( don’t think we’ve changed that much from then, though.) and that it was proper for a man to have only one wife, as in the beginning.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The bible also says that God allowed polygamy because ancients were hard of heart, ( don’t think we’ve changed that much from then, though.) and that it was proper for a man to have only one wife, as in the beginning.

The Bible only mentions that divorce was a concession and not polygamy. The reason I refer to the OT Law is because the ‘moral precepts’ of the Law are supposed to be in place forever, that includes the new covenant era which is why Christians are still not to ‘sin’ or commit immoral acts. In addition to that, God’s actions themselves serve as a moral precedent since he is perfect and all-good; and in the OT there is more than enough evidence of Him not only SUPPORTING polygamy but also revealing through His Law and judgements that adultery restricts ONLY women from having more than one spouse.

God is all-good + God supports polygamy (Genesis 29:29-33, etc, etc) = Polygamy is good.

Here’s information from the Catholic Encyclopedia (the 2nd and 3rd to last paragraphs):

When the Gospel had been duly promulgated the civil and ceremonial precepts of the Law of Moses became not only useless, but false and superstitious, and thus forbidden.

It was otherwise with the moral precepts of the Mosaic Law. The Master expressly taught that the observance of these [the moral precepts], inasmuch as they are prescribed by nature herself, is necessary for salvation — “If thou wouldst enter into life keep the commandments”, — those well-known precepts of the Decalogue

Here we see that the moral precepts of the Law are still in place. Although the article limits the moral precepts to just the 10 commandments but I’m sure few would argue against also including bestiality, incest, etc. It is most important to keep in mind that ‘adultery’ was in the 10 commandments so that moral precept still stands today. And if polygyny was moral (which I explained that it is earlier in this post), then the understanding or definition adultery would’ve accommodated that form of marriage just as casslean (forum member) mentioned earlier.

I agree with casslean in that my question is entirely on topic. If you are not an expert on the dignity of men and women, then why are you opining on the morality of polygyny at all? The inherent and equal dignity of men and women as human persons is very relevant to this discussion.

In order to make the case that polygyny is moral, you also have to show that women have less inherent dignity than men. I was raised Mormon and was taught that polygyny is a doctrine of God and that polygyny would be practiced in heaven even though it is not currently practiced now. I know the implications of believing that polygyny is moral even if it is not currently practiced. Believe me, I attempted all kinds of mental gymnastics in an attempt to reconcile a belief in the inherent and equal dignity of men and women and polygyny. It simply cannot be done.

Can you please name one polygamous family in the OT that had a positive outcome? Every instance of polygyny in the OT was an occasion of sin (even if we ignore the sinfulness of polygyny itself). Jealousy, envy, idolatry, rebellion, etc. The authors of the OT implicitly condemned polygyny.

You are confusing the mercy of God with condoning sin. Just because God doesn’t immediately punish sin and forgives sin, doesn’t mean that He accepts or condones it.

Soon, I will probably start another thread that will cover some of your points.

 

[casslean]

And if polygyny was moral (which I explained that it is earlier in this post), then the understanding or definition adultery would’ve accommodated that form of marriage just as casslean (forum member) mentioned earlier.

One, I certainly did not suggest that the definition of adultery would accomodate polygyny.

Two, this is where you are begging the question, or engaging in circular reasoning. You are attempting to support your argument by stating a conclusion rather than proving it.

Your argument basically boils down to: “Because polygyny was moral, the definition of adultery cannot have included those who engaged in multiple marriages. Polygyny was therefore not immoral because it was not adultery.”

There is NO basis to conclude that simply because polygyny existed, it was moral. You cannot build a foundation on something which is not established fact.