Polygamy in the Bible

[LUKE2447]

Rico, how long does it take people to realize that God never says it is and also involves himself in giving more than one wife. Why? Because it is not a sin. All the opportunity he had he never gives a iota or jot against it. Yet, let's ignore all that, say God is a liar and changes his opinion all the time and really meant "this" which he never said. Talking about adding to God's Word and putting words in God's mouth. The argument against polygamy is about as liberal of a interpretation as one can get.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Rico, how long does it take people to realize that God never says it is and also involves himself in giving more than one wife. Why? Because it is not a sin. All the opportunity he had he never gives a iota or jot against it. Yet, let's ignore all that, say God is a liar and changes his opinion all the time and really meant "this" which he never said. Talking about adding to God's Word and putting words in God's mouth. The argument against polygamy is about as liberal of a interpretation as one can get.

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.

Yep, I would agree!

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I’d like to address some of the points made in the posts above by Bro. Salaz to add some insight from this side of the discussion….



God expressly stated through the prophet Nathan that He gave David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addition God also stated that he would have been more than willing to give David even more of these same things if David so desired. Yet David still chose to commit Adultery with Bathsheba. What is interesting here, is that God not only expresses that he gave David multiple wives and that he would have even given David more…but God only rebukes David for his sin with Bathsheba. Lastly even the Law of God allows for more than one wife and illustrates inheritance rights for the wives and children.

Here’s the deal….if polygamy is sin God sinned in giving David the wives he received from the house of Saul. In addiction if God was only “tolerating sin” it was on his own account…because God himself never rebuked man for polygamy.

Also, you mention the Mishnah and the Talmud. I find that VERY interesting. Because my wife is from a Jewish family and I’ve sat and talked with two rabbis (Rabbi Press and Rabbi Kopmar) on more than one occasion. I firmly believe that this will make your argument far MORE complex. First, because these are not the, “Word of God”; second, because both the Mishnah and the Talmud both express strong rabbinical opinions in favor of polygamy explaining it’s ethics, especially in regards to in heritance rights. So you’re citing sources that agree with us! LOL

Where you are quoting from does not explicitly state that God gave David Sauls wives to be his own. No where do we find that David married them or took them into his palace. There are a small minority of scholars that believe that Davids sixth wife Eglah might have been a wife or concubine of Saul, however we find no proof of this. You are carrying this to an extreme to say that God would have Given him even more wives. Where is the proof in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. Are there any scholars that have held this view. If So Who.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary
2Sa 12:8 I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives--The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

I also have a brother in law who is Jewish and have conversed with him and have gone to their synagogue for their children's celebrations. I have talked with their rabbis in the San Fernando valley near Reseda on several occasions. The Mishnah and Talmud are discussions like we are having here expressing various points of view. In many synagogues this is how they kept track of genealogies of the families through the centuries. My sister didn't convert to Judaism as he wanted her to, as she was raised Apostolic, but backslid and she would have had to deny Jesus was God.

I don't know who pointed out that the Pharisees were the more liberal and the Sadducee's more conservative. Being that the Sadducee didn't believe in the resurrection they were more liberal and lived for the here and now. They were the priestly line and more aristocratic. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. The Sadducee believed in a more literal view of the Torah and the Pharisee's belief in the oral Torah by which they interpreted the Torah hermeneutically. For this reason the Sadducee held to a more strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the Torah The Pharisee was to find the intent of what the passage meant.

Thanks for the insight from your side

Pastor Salaz

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

Where you are quoting from does not explicitly state that God gave David Sauls wives to be his own. No where do we find that David married them or took them into his palace. There are a small minority of scholars that believe that Davids sixth wife Eglah might have been a wife or concubine of Saul, however we find no proof of this. You are carrying this to an extreme to say that God would have Given him even more wives. Where is the proof in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. Are there any scholars that have held this view. If So Who.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary
2Sa 12:8 I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives--The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

I also have a brother in law who is Jewish and have conversed with him and have gone to their synagogue for their children's celebrations. I have talked with their rabbis in the San Fernando valley near Reseda on several occasions. The Mishnah and Talmud are discussions like we are having here expressing various points of view. In many synagogues this is how they kept track of genealogies of the families through the centuries. My sister didn't convert to Judaism as he wanted her to, as she was raised Apostolic, but backslid and she would have had to deny Jesus was God.

I don't know who pointed out that the Pharisees were the more liberal and the Sadducee's more conservative. Being that the Sadducee didn't believe in the resurrection they were more liberal and lived for the here and now. They were the priestly line and more aristocratic. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. The Sadducee believed in a more literal view of the Torah and the Pharisee's belief in the oral Torah by which they interpreted the Torah hermeneutically. For this reason the Sadducee held to a more strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the Torah The Pharisee was to find the intent of what the passage meant.

Thanks for the insight from your side

Pastor Salaz

Pastor Salaz,

That’s a valid interpretation of 2 Samuel 12:8, but the commentator admits that oriental custom was for a king’s wives to be passed on to his successor. No “marriage” was required and the successor would be perfectly within his rights to have relations with them if he so desired. This is part of the offense Absalom inflicted upon David when he took and had relations with David’s concubines publicly. By doing this he was essentially declaring himself successor and victor over his father. And God would have granted David more riches and wives (perhaps through conquest). But David did evil in the sight of the Lord, again, not by having multiple wives and concubines…but because he took a woman who was married to Uriah and had then had Uriah killed.

Why is it at every instance where God could make his will perfectly known by rebuking men like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and various kings of Israel….God is silent? God quickly rebukes other sin. Read through the Psalms, look at how many times David is portrayed as walking in his integrity and being righteous. If polygamy is a “sin” the Psalms may be one of the largest chronicles of religious hypocrisy in Holy Scripture. Also, if it is a “sin”, David died in his sins and is currently in Hell. Why does Paul never speak against those in the OT who had multiple wives?

I believe that monogamy is a superior arrangement compared to polygamy. I believe it better provides for the needs of the family physically, emotionally, and spiritually. But I still just don’t believe that polygamy was or is a “sin”. Again, this is because marriage in the OT wasn’t so much a romantic affair like we see it today. It was like a business contract binding upon its participants. The participants set the boundaries of that contract and multiple contracts were legal. So legal, in fact, that God codified rights of inheritance in the Law in a polygamous framework. God recognized it.

So if one were to argue that monogamy is superior to polygamy by presenting examples of how it better meets physical, emotional, and spiritual needs, I’d probably agree. But what’s happening here is that men are not going that deep. They just want to say that it is a “sin” to perform a “quick sweep” on the issue. I don’t believe the men of the OT were in adulterous marriages. Abraham wasn’t an adulterer, nor was Jacob, or Moses. David’s only adultery was in relation to Bathsheba, God is silent about his multiple wives. Certainly if David were in sin prior to Bathsheba God would have confronted him as quickly as he did after Bathsheba.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Rico, how long does it take people to realize that God never says it is and also involves himself in giving more than one wife. Why? Because it is not a sin. All the opportunity he had he never gives a iota or jot against it. Yet, let's ignore all that, say God is a liar and changes his opinion all the time and really meant "this" which he never said. Talking about adding to God's Word and putting words in God's mouth. The argument against polygamy is about as liberal of a interpretation as one can get.

I have but one word for you..................... AMERICA. Us Americans like to think everyone and everything should be the way we think they should be. Anything that doesn't fit into our American way of thinking needs to be reshaped and remolded into our image.

[Dora]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think there’s a philosophical disconnect among those who want to list polygamy as a sin. I think they just don’t understand how someone can believe that polygamy is not a sin and yet also advocate in favor of monogamy in our modern culture.

People pigeonhole the Bible. They see it strictly within the current “established” perceptions. Most today apply some very “Puritanical” interpretations of the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and marital relations. But the more I study the more I realize that the Bible is anything but Puritanical. There are marriages, customs, relationships, actions, and entertainments mentioned in the Bible that would shock most people if they really understood them. These things leave scholars scrambling for cover and passionately debating the meaning of various texts.

I can't for the life of me believe that so many of you guys buy into the idea that polygamy is NOT sin.

I also believe that owning slaves is sinful. Degrading human beings to the point of equating them to the value of so much livestock is dispicable.

Polygamy does the same thing to women - it devalues them. It places them in a vulnerable position and subsequently the negative results trickle down to their children.

Countries and cultures that still condone the practice are NOT, I repeat NOT Christian countries. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. still engage in this practice. Mormons have created their own religion to enable this practice.

In cultures that practice polygamy, abuse of women is rampant. What religion is it where they practice female castration? Why would men want to strip women of their ability to enjoy sex? Could it be that they want to suppress their desire to have sex with partners other than their husbands? Just more examples of men coming up with great ideas like chastity belts, etc. Crazy stuff!!!

How can you say that polygamy is "ok" with God? I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that God is pleased with placing women in a situation where they are subjected to abuse, neglect, and where they are objectified like cattle. If slavery is wrong, it stands to reason that polygamy is also wrong.

When Jesus set forth His principles for living and how to treat your neighbor, OUT went the idea that a human being can be bought and sold or that one person's worth is greater or lesser than another's.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dora

I can't for the life of me believe that so many of you guys buy into the idea that polygamy is NOT sin.

I also believe that owning slaves is sinful. Degrading human beings to the point of equating them to the value of so much livestock is dispicable.

Polygamy does the same thing to women - it devalues them. It places them in a vulnerable position and subsequently the negative results trickle down to their children.

Countries and cultures that still condone the practice are NOT, I repeat NOT Christian countries. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. still engage in this practice. Mormons have created their own religion to enable this practice.

In cultures that practice polygamy, abuse of women is rampant. What religion is it where they practice female castration? Why would men want to strip women of their ability to enjoy sex? Could it be that they want to suppress their desire to have sex with partners other than their husbands? Just more examples of men coming up with great ideas like chastity belts, etc. Crazy stuff!!!

How can you say that polygamy is "ok" with God? I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that God is pleased with placing women in a situation where they are subjected to abuse, neglect, and where they are objectified like cattle. If slavery is wrong, it stands to reason that polygamy is also wrong.

When Jesus set forth His principles for living and how to treat your neighbor, OUT went the idea that a human being can be bought and sold or that one person's worth is greater or lesser than another's.

Dora, when you say the word "polygamy" you picture in your head the abuse that women are enduring in Asia and Africa. When you say the word "slavery" you picture the horrendous abuse inflicted on slaves by America and many other nations in the slave trade.

"Biblical polygamy" and "biblical slavery" wasn't like these more recent institutions. In the Bible wives had far more rights and entitlements than the women in modern polygamous nations. In fact, if "biblical polygamy" were practiced in those nations they'd come light years forward in regards to respecting women and even a woman's right to conjugal enjoyment, ownership of property, etc. Remember, women in polygamous marriages in biblical times had their own servants and even had a right to own and operate their own trade, bringing a living into the family.

In addition, if principles of "biblical slavery" were observed the slave trade in early America wouldn't have been as terrible as it was and most slaves would have only experienced slavery as a gateway to citizenship and freedom. In a way, "biblical slavery", is more akin to what we might call "indentured servitude" today. Remember when poor English and the Irish imagrants would sell themselves into servitude for a period of time to gain passage to the new world and their eventual freedom? That is more in keeping with the institution of slavery.

You're comparing apples to oranges. If I believed for a minute that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others treated their wives like so many men treat their multiple wives in Asia and Africa today, I'd agree with you whole heartedly sis. But the Biblical institutions are far different from what we've seen practiced in our non-Hebraic cultures.

[TK Burk]

Would one of you brethren that believe polygamy is NOT a sin please explain this:

Matthew 19:8-9
(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.

(1) What did the “hardness” of their “hearts” have to do with that Law being added?

(2) What did Jesus mean by “SUFFERED you”?

(3) How was Moses’ Law different than what was first taught?

(4) Was what Jesus said to them different than what was written by Moses?

(5) Does different mean God does change His will in certain circumstances?

(6) If Jesus’ position is different than Moses’, would it be sin to NOT do as Jesus commanded and instead do as Moses allowed?

(7) Since the New Covenant removes a “stony heart” and gives a Born Again believer a “fleshly heart,” if a man uses this Law to divorce his wife, would it be a sin?

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe we should do our best to speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where they are silent. In the above text you reference Jesus is specifically condemning the Pharisees for what is known as, “serial monogamy”. You see, the Pharisees (and men in general) were marrying only one woman…but then divorcing her and marrying another as though women were disposable objects. Jesus wasn’t addressing polygamy but rather divorce. Jesus NEVER directly addresses polygamy. However, Jesus was questioned by the Sadducees about Liverite Marriage, a marriage in which a man’s widow was married off to his brother (even if that brother were already married). The Sadducees asked about what would happen in the resurrection (which they didn’t believe in) if a man died and his wife were married off to his six brothers, each of them dying in turn until she finally died. They wanted to know who’s wife she would be in the resurrection. Here was ample opportunity for Jesus to say, “Men often received his brothers wife in addition to his own, but I say unto you that from the beginning it was not so. For a man should have one wife.”, but Jesus didn’t. Jesus nowhere rebukes the implicated idea of polygamy in this text. However, Jesus does answer their question by stating that those who take part in the resurrection will not marry or be given in marriage because they will be like the angels in heaven.

You sidestepped the question of original intent. Jesus did the same. lol He ignored the divorce trap they were trying to set and went back to what he set up in the beginning in Mt. 19. In Mt 22 he once again ignores the question and now speaks about the ends. Talk about cosmology and Teleology In heaven we neither marry or are given in marriage but are like the angels. The issue was sanctioned by God in the Law for the preservation of women and continual family care, but the real issue our relationship to God and eternity. Here is another portion of scripture that happened before the law.

Gen 38:1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.
Gen 38:2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
Gen 38:3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.

First off Judah marries? a Canaanite woman and has children. While he is with the Canaanites he takes a wife for his firstborn. The Lord slays him. His father tells his second son to go in to her and marry her and bear children to his Brother.

Gen 38:6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
Gen 38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

God did not sanction this did he? Yet what he did displeased the Lord. Took his brothers wife or spilled semen onto the ground?

Was this a God ordained union or a common practice during patriarchal times.

Why would God put this into the annals of human history in the middle of Josephs account of being sold into slavery and of his keeping himself pure from Potiphars wife. There was no law prohibiting Adultery at the time was there? Joseph eventually married the daughter of an Egyptian priest (royalty). Judah married a Canaanite woman and caused his sons to do the same. Judah lost his wife and went into a supposed harlot. His daughter in law No law prohibiting this was there? Sin or Ok? Kind of a strange passage that God instructed Moses to record.