Polygamy in the Bible

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 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?

Because so many men would become bitter and desire to be separated from a wife, Moses expanded the stipulations of the writ of divorcement to spare the woman abuse at the hands of hard hearted and potentially abusive men.

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

Jesus meant, "allowed you to divorce your wives".

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

God never intended for the marriage contract to be broken.

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

Yes and no. The Law of God states....

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Both Jesus and the Law of God allows for divorce. Christ stipulates that the only proper grounds of divorce is for sexual infidelity. This was the original intent of the law. The "uncleanness" was meant to indicate her infidelity. However, Moses allowed divorce for less serious infractions in his application of the Law. Christ doesn't give them anything new. Christ clarifies bringing into focus the true meaning behind the original intent of the Law.

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

No. Jesus brought clarification to that which "Moses" confused by his being too lenient.

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

Christ's position is more strict than that of "Moses'" (a fallible man), but not different from the Law of God itself. Again, Christ clarified the Law that Moses was lax upon. Since Christ brings into focus the original intent of the Law of God we should obey Christ over Moses' allowances.

(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?

Again, the issue isn't the Law, it was the allowances made by Moses in regards to this law. God never intended this law to be expanded to include the petty things they used as grounds for divorce.

You will notice that this passage is about divorce not polygamy. This reveals that God never intended a man to divorce his wife (or wives) for any other reason than adultery.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

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.

That is a VERY complex story. A simple description is that God struck Onan dead because he refused to honor Er, his brother, by raising children up in Er's name. This is part of Liverite Marriage,

Deuteronomy 25:5-6
5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

So Onan's sin was in refusing to raise up children in his brother's name...not spilling his seed upon the ground.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That is a VERY complex story. A simple description is that God struck Onan dead because he refused to honor Er, his brother, by raising children up in Er's name. This is part of Liverite Marriage,

Deuteronomy 25:5-6
5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

So Onan's sin was in refusing to raise up children in his brother's name...not spilling his seed upon the ground.

This occurred 430-500 years before the law ever existed. It pre-existed the Levirate Marriage in the Law of Moses.

[Dora]

I still can't believe the ratio of pro-polygamy versus anti-polygamy here. What is it 6 pro vs 2 anti? Crazy!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pastor DTSalaz

This occurred 430-500 years before the law ever existed. It pre-existed the Levirate Marriage in the Law of Moses.

I never really thought that much about it, but very interesting point Pastor Salaz.

Perhaps Moses embodied an ancient principle in the Law of Israel?

For example, we know that Abraham tithed his war spoils from Sodom to the King of Salem. From my understanding, in ancient times, it was customary to give a 10% peace offering to local rulers. This linked the two in covenant like an alliance. The lesser served the greater and the greater provided protection and provision for the lesser. We also see Jacob vowing to give God a tenth of his increase if God would bless him. Abraham and Jacob obviously understood this principle long before the Law required a regular tithe from the increase of the land.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dora

I still can't believe the ratio of pro-polygamy versus anti-polygamy here. What is it 6 pro vs 2 anti? Crazy!

It shocked me too Dora. I didn't always believe this. I used to believe that it was absolute sin and adultery. I viewed Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon and all of them as slimy, smarmy men who were in deep set adultery....until I realized the implications of that line of reasoning. Then I began studying the social fabric of their society. I discovered that "biblical polygamy", while violating modern sensitivities, provided an umbrella of protection for wives in a world that would have brutalized them mercilessly. In God's order, women could find themselves in the home of a righteous man, loved, provided for, protected, entitled to certain rights and privileges, and even permitted to engage in trade and business in the authority of her husband's name. These women, especially the first wife, even had female servants of their own who attended their needs and care. In a world of brutality, abuse, and objectification "biblical polygamy" lifted women from their less than human condition in an evil and worldly society. Women living in the home of a godly man lived like queens compared to women in other cultures. The only issue was...people are human. Jealousies abounded, especially if one wife had more time with the husband or was able to raise up heirs and children to the husband. Remember, marriages were covenantal arrangements, often arranged by parents. The marriage covenant wasn't as romantic as we view it. It was an institution. Becoming a patriarch's wife was like becoming a partner in King David Inc., and your share of stock was determined by the number of children you could provide. Children were viewed as a blessing in so many ways. Not just being emotional joys to raise and care for. Children were heirs that ensured the family dynasty. Children tended to be the most trustworthy of workers caring for the family crops or flocks. Children also were charged to care for their parents as their parents aged, meaning the more children you had the better your retirement and care would be. Children were "social security". A blessing indeed. I'm not saying that there wasn't love and romance, but I want to properly describe that this institution was more than a "marriage" as we understand it today.

Dora, wives belonging to godly men were not abused. A godly man would love his wives and seek to provide for them and treat them equally and fairly.

While I may not entirely agree with some of the points given, I think the following article from GotQuestions.org offers a rather excellent answer to this polygamy question...

Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

Answer: The question of polygamy in the Bible is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy / bigamy in the Bible was Lamech in Genesis 4:19, “Lamech married two women…” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status) according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered. (1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? (2) How does God view polygamy today? (3) Why did it change?

(1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. The best anyone can do is “informed” speculation. There are a few key factors to consider. First, there has always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5% of the world population are women, with men being 49.5%. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatalities. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to the patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. Fourth, the significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable (to say the least) situation.

So, it seems that God allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, starvation, etc. In addition to the protection / provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period…causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only able to produce one child each year.

(2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes)” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring the having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. Please read - http://www.gotquestions.org/husband-one-wife.html. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach ... temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Ephesians 5:22-33, speaking of the relationship between husbands and wives, when referring to a husband (singular) always also refers to a wife (singular). “…for the husband is the head of the wife (singular) … He who loves his wife (singular) loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (singular), and the two will become one flesh … each one of you also must love his wife (singular) as he loves himself, and the wife (singular) must respect her husband (singular).” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy is allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church), and the husband-wife relationship, falls apart.

(3) Why did it change? It is not as much God disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God restoring marriage to His original intent. Even going back to Adam and Eve (not Eves), polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it was God’s desire for the problem never to have occurred. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves – removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws that the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.

Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps…but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.

So, I firmly believe that polygamy isn't a sin. It may not be ideal or necessary in today's world.... but it isn't a sin.

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I never really thought that much about it, but very interesting point Pastor Salaz.

Perhaps Moses embodied an ancient principle in the Law of Israel?

For example, we know that Abraham tithed his war spoils from Sodom to the King of Salem. From my understanding, in ancient times, it was customary to give a 10% peace offering to local rulers. This linked the two in covenant like an alliance. The lesser served the greater and the greater provided protection and provision for the lesser. We also see Jacob vowing to give God a tenth of his increase if God would bless him. Abraham and Jacob obviously understood this principle long before the Law required a regular tithe from the increase of the land.

I believe that God delineated some of the things that he gave as a command to Adam. Others were given as Adam talked directly with God. We never hear explicitly of God requiring an animal sacrifice though we see that God clothed them with animal skins. Why this detail?

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

This showed the death of an animal had to take place as we see this further elucidated in the progressive revelation of God. We next see that this was taught to their children though no written record was ever found. This is what we call the oral tradition. God speaks to Adam and Adam speaks to his descendants. As God spoke to Adam he let his descendants know what God had commanded him. He lived a long time in the most perfect of environments so what God commanded him he was able to speak for a very long time. Thus God did not have to repeat it to each succeeding generation.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Noah built an altar as well and offered sacrifices to God. He also knew how to distinguish between clean and unclean animal. No written law yet. God gives him the law of retribution, restriction of eating blood, value of life, covenant with Noah. The first time we see that man can eat of every living thing that moveth, no longer only the plant life, herb and fruit bearing seed.

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
Gen 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;


After the flood man was only able to live the average God limited man to, 120 years. After this we see God repeating his commandments and covenants to each generation. He makes a covenant with Abraham, repeats it to Issac, then once again repeats it to Jacob. Due to their shorter life spans he does not want to be misinterpreted. Jacob repeats Gods covenants to his children. The next time we see God speaking directly to man is to Moses.

Exo 18:15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Exo 18:16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.

This occasion is before the written law was ever given and Moses is informing them of Gods laws and statutes?

How did man know of Gods laws and statutes before the written law? The oral traditions passed down from generation to generation. Each man is going to be judged according to the light they received and shall be judged by it.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The written law did not save us but condemn us. This finally revealed the will of God and is shown by the written moral and ceremonial laws. It is here that God had to deal with all the deviations that man had committed. Paul shows us that God tolerated sin as there was no written law by which to condemn man. During this time of ignorance God winked at sin. He overlooked many things not because he approved of them but because his progressive revelation had not been given.

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Jesus is Gods ultimate full revelation so no we don't have an excuse

Blessings

Pastor D.T. Salaz

[Dora]

I got a PM from the wife of one of AFF's prominent pro-polygamy posters today. Apparently, she is adamantly OPPOSED to polygamy and would not tolerate the practice in her home. She thinks it is perverted and twisted. I must say I agree wholeheartedly. God bless her! Think there's gonna be a "come to Jesus" meeting right here directly. LOL

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Dora

I got a PM from the wife of one of AFF's prominent pro-polygamy posters today. Apparently, she is adamantly OPPOSED to polygamy and would not tolerate the practice in her home. She thinks it is perverted and twisted. I must say I agree wholeheartedly. God bless her! Think there's gonna be a "come to Jesus" meeting right here directly. LOL

I can't resist posting to your post, Dora. I really feel for the wives of these guys. You can't help but wonder what is going on in their hearts. You can't help but feel the grief and pain their wives must be feeling if they know what they are writing (and if they don't, their attitudes will come out elsewhere). Very sad. You guys need to really think about the damage you are doing to your relationships with the blatant disrespect for women being propogated here. Fine already that it was practiced for economic reasons or whatever. Too many of you make it sound like you wished you lived in a polygamous country.

[Dora]

BTW, thanks to Pastor DtSalaz for all the good anti-polygamy posting. I'm still just on the floor in complete SHOCK that Christian men actually condone polygamy and think it is not against Christian principles. The practice of polygamy does NOT line up with the teachings of Jesus Christ concerning how we are to treat our fellow human beings.

Polygamy was NEVER the ideal situation. Even though the OT LAW provided conduct guidelines for the practice of slavery, it was NEVER God's ideal. Israelites were given guidelines for conducting themselves as slaves while they were in bondage. God's people, of ALL people knew how it felt to be in the position of "SLAVE" and I can't believe they felt on top of the world being in bondage no matter how well they were treated.

Likewise, I can't believe that women throughout history "enjoyed" being part of a harem of wives - custom or no custom. Women have been subjected to any number of debasements throughout history. Stripped of dignity, respect and value throughout history, it's no wonder women have fought to have their basic human rights recognized and given true significance. It's no sin to desire the basic privilege of being respected as a human being as opposed to being viewed as a piece of property, as a lesser being, as a person with impaired intellect due to her sex, etc., etc.