Polygamy

[minnow]

Firstly, two specific examples that indicate a pattern.

Jesus points to Creation when speaking of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6)

And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." NASB

Paul speaks of each man/woman having their own wife/husband (1 Corinthians 7:2)

But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. NASB

What are the potential problems that could arise from plurality?

Excessive indulgence, and the risk of being led astray

Increased covetousness amongst those left without wives

Greater risk of perversion and sexual immorality if a shortage of women exists

Multiple spouses not receiving sufficient emotional support and affection

Jealousy and rivalry amongst multiple partners - vying for attention

Is there any basis to support plurality in the New Testament?

What are your thoughts on polygamous relationships endorsed by certain sects in today's society?

[Leonard]

Although the Bible never forbids polygamy (except for Christian Bishops), the examples of polygamous lives throughout Scripture demonstrates it is not a healthy business.

[terter]

As stated above, God established one man and one woman in a marriage; therefore, polygamous relationships aren't His design. Even though there were polygamous relationships in the Bible, they didn't have God's stamp of approval.

[Joshua-777]

As stated above, God established one man and one woman in a marriage; therefore, polygamous relationships aren't His design. Even though there were polygamous relationships in the Bible, they didn't have God's stamp of approval.

I agree

[None]

I believe that one example of proof of God wanting man to have only one wife is His calling Isaac Abraham's "only son". We all know Abraham had more than one son, but the other child was conceived against God's wishes, in other words, in sin.

It is a sin to go against God.

God does forgive sin, but He will not bless sin. Sin, as you've listed, often punishes itself.

David's punishment, I believe, was a life of solitude, even though he was surrounded by people, including his extra wives.

He also passed on his sin to his son and his son greatly multiplied this sin to the point he died having been persuaded to the worship of the false gods of his many wives.

The jealousy you mentioned can be seen in Jacob's many sons by Leah, in what they did to the favored wife's child, which lead to years of Jacob's suffering without his son, who he believed was dead.

Just because God can turn our evils into His good, doesn't make them any less the evils of our past. God can make anything good.

Jesus is the way God made us good. Wicked as we are.

All in all, it's better to do as God says and have only one wife/husband.

Sin is forgiven but rarely goes unpunished.

[Sherman]

One could speculate or reason long and hard concerning the "benefits" or "problems" of polygamy, however, most Christians appeal to the Word as their primary sourse of theology. Some rely heavily on tradition, and we all rely to some degree or another upon our experiences. The primary question concerning this topic, as I see it, is whether or not scripture dictates family structure, as in monogomy, polygamy, or polyandry.

Polygamy was practiced by the Jews until the 11th Century (if memory serves me correctly). It was practiced in both Old and New Testament times. And it is still practiced around the world in various cultures, especially in the Middle East. Polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) is much rarer but is still practiced in a culture in Nepal/Bhutan, and was practiced in Southern India, Mongolia, the Artic Circle, etc.

Cocerning NT times, there was a rabbinical debate concerning polygamy. Supporters of polygamy pointed out that the patriarchs were polygamous, that the Law does not forbid polygamy, and in fact the Law actually regulates specific polygamous relationships thus indirectly allowing polygamy.

Rabbinical opponents of polygamy pointed to the flood and especially to creation. When speaking of creation they would quote Gen.2 from the Septuagint, "and the TWO shall become one flesh." They quoted the Septuagint because the Hebrew scripture actually says, "and THEY shall become one flesh".

It is significant to note that Jesus when speaking with the Pharisees concerning the "Any Matter" divorce debate actually quotes from the LXX saying "and the TWO shall become one flesh." Thus it can be said that Jesus endorsed monogamy as part of the divine ideal of marriage, the best, what God originally intended. However, one can not say that Jesus legislated monogamy, or implied that monogamy was the only viable family structure.

(As a side note, I find it facinating that Jesus though He obviously was well versed in the Hebrew scriptures, quoted from a Greek translation. Myself and other preachers do the same thing when we chose a translationg that most clearly brings out the point we want to make from scripture.)

Anyhow, since the fall of mankind, various cultures have found polygamy to be helpful, even necessary, particularly when war killed off many of the men. Not only that, but men naturally do not loose the biological drive/desire to procreate until very late in life, if ever. Whereas women loose the biological drive/desire to procreate mid-life. (Of course I'm speaking in broad generalities.)

So if Jesus endorsed monogamy, but did not legislate monogamy, much less forbid polygamy, where did the church pick up the doctrine of monogamy? It came predominantly from the churches Greco-Roman "heritage."

The first great division in the church was between Jews and Gentiles. Jewish Christians were persecuted by the Romans for being Jewish, and by the Jews for being Christians. And thus by 200 A.D. the Jewish branch of the church had been persecuted almost from existence, whereas the Gentile branch flourished. Largely due to this persecution, the Gentile branch increasingly and quickly disassociated itself from Judaism, including changing the day of worship and forsaking completely the Law. By 400 A.D. the church had fully disassociated itself from anything Jewish.

Anyhow, this great divide left the Gentile church relying very heavily upon it's own culture, the Greco-Roman culture to draw from for it's values and philosophies. One area that it drew from most was the family. Platonic thought permeated and still permeates much of the Western church. Concerning family, marriage, and sex, Plato, Greco-Roman thought was pretty messed up. In the early Gentile church, sex actually came to be looked on as evil even within marriage. And monastic life became the preferred way of life. The seeds of this can be seen as early as in 1 Cor. when Paul addresses the problem of Christians inordinantly exhalting singleness to the point of even divorceing their spouses so that they could be single.

Anyhow, the traditional doctrine of MDR (including the legislation concerning monogamy) arose out of a combination of these errant attitudes and beliefs concerning family, marriage, and sex of the early Gentile church; and a misunderstanding of what Jesus said concerning MDR.

Jesus endorsed monogamy, but He didn't forbid polygamy. And the Law regulated polygamy, forbid specific polygamous relationships (a man married to a woman and her daugher), but it certainly did not forbid polygamy in general.

Please don't misunderstand me, I too endorse monogamy as the best and healthiest family structure. But I would not expect, or even condone, an Arab with 4 wives divorcing 3 of his wives in order to become a Christian. And if I lived in a country/culture that allowed polygamy, I might consider polygamy (if my wife would let me!)

[EricH]

Please don't misunderstand me, I too endorse monogamy as the best and healthiest family structure. But I would not expect, or even condone, an Arab with 4 wives divorcing 3 of his wives in order to become a Christian. And if I lived in a country/culture that allowed polygamy, I might consider polygamy (if my wife would let me!)

You are a braver man than me. I would not even dare to ask

[Guest Biblicist]

My husband is fond of saying, "One wife, few problems. . . many wives, many problems!"

[FighterforJC]

Polygamy is wrong, it is adultery. Everyone with a conscience knows this. You might be able to dance around with "intelligent" arguments stating that polygamy is not explicitly prohibited in the NT, but the Spirit of God will convict you. Doesn't the Bible say that a divorced woman commits adultery if she marries another if her ex husband is still alive? But you'll argue that it only applies to the woman. You wanna know if it's wrong? Ask your wife it it would be okay for you to start dating another woman with the "pure" intention of marrying that other woman. Better yet, if you're not married yet and you have a girlfriend, try being open about your desire to have more than one wife. Good luck getting your first wife, let alone multiple wives, if you can be honest enough to propose to your first one stating that you intend to marry another woman besides her.

Edited June 25, 2007 by FighterforJC

[None]

One could speculate or reason long and hard concerning the "benefits" or "problems" of polygamy, however, most Christians appeal to the Word as their primary sourse of theology. Some rely heavily on tradition, and we all rely to some degree or another upon our experiences. The primary question concerning this topic, as I see it, is whether or not scripture dictates family structure, as in monogomy, polygamy, or polyandry.

Jesus was against tradition of men, if "memory serves". And isn't Jesus God? Doesn't that bypass "tradition"?

Thoelowhat? God made simple rules. Man, to compensate for their sins of lust and greed and pride, made the rules complex.

Polygamy was practiced by the Jews until the 11th Century (if memory serves me correctly). It was practiced in both Old and New Testament times. And it is still practiced around the world in various cultures, especially in the Middle East. Polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) is much rarer but is still practiced in a culture in Nepal/Bhutan, and was practiced in Southern India, Mongolia, the Artic Circle, etc.

The Jews also practiced many sins influenced by surrounding cultures. "If everyone jumped off a bridge..."

If every family in the whole world had two wives and one husband but God said He wanted a man to only have one wife, not two...what would you do? So, who cares what was practiced? Jesus made it clear on several occations that marriage was for one man and one woman to be joined together as one.

Cocerning NT times, there was a rabbinical debate concerning polygamy. Supporters of polygamy pointed out that the patriarchs were polygamous, that the Law does not forbid polygamy, and in fact the Law actually regulates specific polygamous relationships thus indirectly allowing polygamy.

Rabbinical opponents of polygamy pointed to the flood and especially to creation. When speaking of creation they would quote Gen.2 from the Septuagint, "and the TWO shall become one flesh." They quoted the Septuagint because the Hebrew scripture actually says, "and THEY shall become one flesh".

If that meant all of them became one flesh, wouldn't that go against, or pervert, the laws of the OT concerning two of the same gender, joining as one?

I believe where it says "they will become one flesh" meant the man and woman will become one flesh,

not the man and all of his wives will become one flesh... Didn't Paul say somewhere that orgies were wrong?

Just because you try to sly it up with technical terms, doesn't make what you're saying any less ugly.

I'm aware of the arguements of the divisions of body and spirit and the many ways to twist those meanings...

It is significant to note that Jesus when speaking with the Pharisees concerning the "Any Matter" divorce debate actually quotes from the LXX saying "and the TWO shall become one flesh."Thus it can be said that Jesus endorsed monogamy as part of the divine ideal of marriage, the best, what God originally intended. However, one can not say that Jesus legislated monogamy, or implied that monogamy was the only viable family structure.

And the serpent said to Eve in the garden, "hath God said..."

Anyhow, since the fall of mankind, various cultures have found polygamy to be helpful, even necessary, particularly when war killed off many of the men.

So, in other words, God turned evil into good and fit it into His plans. Does He not always do this? No matter what the sin?

Does it subtract from the sin? No. He just makes it, as everything, work out for His plans in the end.

Not only that, but men naturally do not loose the biological drive/desire to procreate until very late in life, if ever. Whereas women loose the biological drive/desire to procreate mid-life. (Of course I'm speaking in broad generalities.)

Really? I heard the opposite is true but that's a whole different topic.

So if Jesus endorsed monogamy, but did not legislate monogamy, much less forbid polygamy, where did the church pick up the doctrine of monogamy? It came predominantly from the churches Greco-Roman "heritage."

Isn't that around the time when Jesus' Gospel began to persuade the churches? "Picked up doctrine of monogamy"?

Surely you meant "Got right what God originally intended..."

The first great division in the church was between Jews and Gentiles. Jewish Christians were persecuted by the Romans for being Jewish, and by the Jews for being Christians. And thus by 200 A.D. the Jewish branch of the church had been persecuted almost from existence, whereas the Gentile branch flourished. Largely due to this persecution, the Gentile branch increasingly and quickly disassociated itself from Judaism, including changing the day of worship and forsaking completely the Law. By 400 A.D. the church had fully disassociated itself from anything Jewish.

Anyhow, this great divide left the Gentile church relying very heavily upon it's own culture, the Greco-Roman culture to draw from for it's values and philosophies. One area that it drew from most was the family. Platonic thought permeated and still permeates much of the Western church. Concerning family, marriage, and sex, Plato, Greco-Roman thought was pretty messed up. In the early Gentile church, sex actually came to be looked on as evil even within marriage. And monastic life became the preferred way of life. The seeds of this can be seen as early as in 1 Cor. when Paul addresses the problem of Christians inordinantly exhalting singleness to the point of even divorceing their spouses so that they could be single.

I must have missed that verse. I think you made that part up about the divorcing just to be single...

Anyhow, the traditional doctrine of MDR (including the legislation concerning monogamy) arose out of a combination of these errant attitudes and beliefs concerning family, marriage, and sex of the early Gentile church; and a misunderstanding of what Jesus said concerning MDR.

Jesus endorsed monogamy, but He didn't forbid polygamy. And the Law regulated polygamy, forbid specific polygamous relationships (a man married to a woman and her daugher), but it certainly did not forbid polygamy in general.

You got the "errant" part right.

Please don't misunderstand me, I too endorse monogamy as the best and healthiest family structure. But I would not expect, or even condone, an Arab with 4 wives divorcing 3 of his wives in order to become a Christian. And if I lived in a country/culture that allowed polygamy, I might consider polygamy (if my wife would let me!)

And then there's the truth...