why is polygamy allowed in the Old Testament?

[givennewname]

another reason is for the support and protection of widows. it's not like they could run out and get a job at the nearest burger joint... widows were left with few options other than prostitution or scavenging for food. and if she had no sons, she had nobody to care for her in her old age, or for that matter to carry on her husband's name and inheritance. very few never-married men would have willingly taken a first wife who had been married before. so i believe that polygamy was allowed, and even necessary, to provide for women in these circumstances.

They had a system to provide for widows called the Levirite marriage where the brother of the deceased man married and cared for the widow.

Edited October 11, 2008 by givennewname

[Guest]

Why is polygamy allowed in the Old Testament?

Punishment. God allowed man to punish himself. God knew it was hard enough to keep one woman happy and so you multiple PMS, spending habits, jealousness, etc by a handfull...surely no man would be stupid enough to try in this day and age...rofl....sorry I couldn't resist...

From what I read in Scripture, God may have allowed polygamy but Scripture is nothing if not realistic about our lives. I see in the lives of the patriarchs a very good illustration of why polygamy is not the best idea: the very things you cited in your post.

"One woman at a time is enough trouble for any man!" - Unknown

[firehill]

In Creation it was one man and one woman.

This was the ultimate plan of God, one church one body

And notice that through redemptive history cultures have moved closer and closer to way it was laways intended, even after the flood God choice was marriage between 1 man and 1 woman as another poster commented.

[firehill]

BlindSeeker,

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

When a woman aligns her life with the principles established by God to govern the role of a woman/wife, she becomes the glory of her father/husband. However, when a woman challenges the man

[firehill]

It is also very important to point out here that, while even in the midst of a creation full of living creatures, man was alone. The woman was taken FROM man and is for the man. Therefore, if man is symbolic of God, the woman is symbolic of humanity and should rightly represent humanity.

This is leaning toward ideas invloved in Gnosticism. Humanity was made in God's image, made male and female (Gen 1) and that is what the text says. Before God made humankind he spoke of his intention to make THEM in his image, and so and next he fulfills his spoken intention as Gen 1 says, then when we reach for the details in Gen 2 we know to remember that humankind 'THEM" as seen in Gen 1 was already intended to be made therefore once God acted to make woman it was not solely to alleviate the man in his aloneness. Therefore man is not 'symbolic' of God nor the woman of humanity, those are the gnostic ideas embedded in this comment of your above.

While woman is the glory of man for she was taken from him as said in 1 Co 11, she is also the glory of God.

Paul gave wives the liberty to cover or not because they are the glory of their husbands. If she uncovered she could shame her husband so Paul says she has authority and out of that was to decide whether to do so or not.

Since humanity was made in the image of God, both male and female glorify God.

Here is what Paul said:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God

Here's what we have from you but put in clearer words:

For a woman indeed ought to cover her head, forasmuch as she is not the image and not the glory of God.

Yet Paul gave the woman choice on what to do because she is more in that she is not only the image and glory of God but also the glory man (not the image of man though) and so she was in quite a bind in that culture but had her own authority to decided what to do since every woman's situation was unique as for example not all were married, yet woman is the glory of man, and that does not refer to just wives.

Why didn't God create man and woman at the same time? No doubt God could foresee Adam's need.

Good question. It was for the purpose of foreshadowing the mystery found in Eph 5 at the end of the passage where Paul talks about us being members of Christ's body and for that reason just as in Gen a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. The church is the glory of Christ who is both God and man just as the woman is the glory of both God and man, as both were taken from their source.

Why was woman taken from man and not made from the dust like man?

Good question again.

God chose to do so to picture how he brings us to himself, adn we the church glorify him through Christ, that is through being made from out of Christ kinda how the woman is the glory of man.

[firehill]

God intentionally placed the male in a position parallel to His own

Not exactly. That would be Christ is our source as man is woman's source.

--with an authority over his (man's) kingdom and alone with no suitable mate. God did this so Adam could identify with God, both positionally and emotionally.

Man does not have a kingdom. Rather God gave dominion to humanity when he spoke of this intention BEFORE he created them and then he followed throguh and did what he determined to. Christ has authority because he is God, and he is Lord over HIS kingdom. Man has no kingdom and no authority over woman because he is flesh.

Just as God brought all the animals to Adam so he could search out a suitable helper and found none,

God said that it was not good he be alone, then God brought the animals to him so that he could learn something. Only after God brought the animals to him did he then proceed to make the woman. Now it was good. Remember from Gen 1, God pre-determined to make humankind in his image, then he did so.

likewise God in His realm of the heavens found none amongst the angelic beings suitable to be His helper.

What?

God doesn't need a helper. He is God.

It was only after Adam realized just how alone he was, after his naming all those animals, that God finally created for him the woman. From a place close to his heart woman was taken. For it was man's heart, and not his strength, that was incomplete.

No. Woman was not taken from a place close to the man's heart. I know it sounds great and all but it is not true. Woman was taken from the man's flesh and bone and formed from that just as the Church is formed out of Christ giving up his.

[firehill]

Oops, got of course. On Polygamy there have been lots of good comments said here.

God always works with humankind from where they are at and progressively moves forward with his peole. Polygamy is simply not the arrangement between men and women that God intended from the beginning. Coming from an eschatological poerspective through polygamy God is NOT glorified. Only Christ and the church, 1 bride glorifies God, and one woman and one man as his divine intended arragement do too.

[Xan]

It is also very important to point out here that, while even in the midst of a creation full of living creatures, man was alone. The woman was taken FROM man and is for the man. Therefore, if man is symbolic of God, the woman is symbolic of humanity and should rightly represent humanity.

This is leaning toward ideas invloved in Gnosticism. Humanity was made in God's image, made male and female (Gen 1) and that is what the text says. Before God made humankind he spoke of his intention to make THEM in his image, and so and next he fulfills his spoken intention as Gen 1 says, then when we reach for the details in Gen 2 we know to remember that humankind 'THEM" as seen in Gen 1 was already intended to be made therefore once God acted to make woman it was not solely to alleviate the man in his aloneness. Therefore man is not 'symbolic' of God nor the woman of humanity, those are the gnostic ideas embedded in this comment of your above.

While woman is the glory of man for she was taken from him as said in 1 Co 11, she is also the glory of God.

Paul gave wives the liberty to cover or not because they are the glory of their husbands. If she uncovered she could shame her husband so Paul says she has authority and out of that was to decide whether to do so or not.

Since humanity was made in the image of God, both male and female glorify God.

Here is what Paul said:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God

Here's what we have from you but put in clearer words:

For a woman indeed ought to cover her head, forasmuch as she is not the image and not the glory of God.

Yet Paul gave the woman choice on what to do because she is more in that she is not only the image and glory of God but also the glory man (not the image of man though) and so she was in quite a bind in that culture but had her own authority to decided what to do since every woman's situation was unique as for example not all were married, yet woman is the glory of man, and that does not refer to just wives.

Why didn't God create man and woman at the same time? No doubt God could foresee Adam's need.

Good question. It was for the purpose of foreshadowing the mystery found in Eph 5 at the end of the passage where Paul talks about us being members of Christ's body and for that reason just as in Gen a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. The church is the glory of Christ who is both God and man just as the woman is the glory of both God and man, as both were taken from their source.

Why was woman taken from man and not made from the dust like man?

Good question again.

God chose to do so to picture how he brings us to himself, adn we the church glorify him through Christ, that is through being made from out of Christ kinda how the woman is the glory of man.

First, you disagree with William, then you end up agreeing with him. Yes, mankind was made in the image of God, but marraige is the picture of God's relationship with the church with man being the type of Christ and woman being the type of church.

[Guest LadyC]

another reason is for the support and protection of widows. it's not like they could run out and get a job at the nearest burger joint... widows were left with few options other than prostitution or scavenging for food. and if she had no sons, she had nobody to care for her in her old age, or for that matter to carry on her husband's name and inheritance. very few never-married men would have willingly taken a first wife who had been married before. so i believe that polygamy was allowed, and even necessary, to provide for women in these circumstances.

They had a system to provide for widows called the Levirite marriage where the brother of the deceased man married and cared for the widow.

yes i know. that is exactly what i was talking about... and that system (which was often polygamous) was in place for the purpose i outlined, which answers the question that was asked... why was polygamy allowed in the bible.

[firehill]

It is also very important to point out here that, while even in the midst of a creation full of living creatures, man was alone. The woman was taken FROM man and is for the man. Therefore, if man is symbolic of God, the woman is symbolic of humanity and should rightly represent humanity.

This is leaning toward ideas invloved in Gnosticism. Humanity was made in God's image, made male and female (Gen 1) and that is what the text says. Before God made humankind he spoke of his intention to make THEM in his image, and so and next he fulfills his spoken intention as Gen 1 says, then when we reach for the details in Gen 2 we know to remember that humankind 'THEM" as seen in Gen 1 was already intended to be made therefore once God acted to make woman it was not solely to alleviate the man in his aloneness. Therefore man is not 'symbolic' of God nor the woman of humanity, those are the gnostic ideas embedded in this comment of your above.

While woman is the glory of man for she was taken from him as said in 1 Co 11, she is also the glory of God.

Paul gave wives the liberty to cover or not because they are the glory of their husbands. If she uncovered she could shame her husband so Paul says she has authority and out of that was to decide whether to do so or not.

Since humanity was made in the image of God, both male and female glorify God.

Here is what Paul said:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God

Here's what we have from you but put in clearer words:

For a woman indeed ought to cover her head, forasmuch as she is not the image and not the glory of God.

Yet Paul gave the woman choice on what to do because she is more in that she is not only the image and glory of God but also the glory man (not the image of man though) and so she was in quite a bind in that culture but had her own authority to decided what to do since every woman's situation was unique as for example not all were married, yet woman is the glory of man, and that does not refer to just wives.

Why didn't God create man and woman at the same time? No doubt God could foresee Adam's need.

Good question. It was for the purpose of foreshadowing the mystery found in Eph 5 at the end of the passage where Paul talks about us being members of Christ's body and for that reason just as in Gen a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. The church is the glory of Christ who is both God and man just as the woman is the glory of both God and man, as both were taken from their source.

Why was woman taken from man and not made from the dust like man?

Good question again.

God chose to do so to picture how he brings us to himself, adn we the church glorify him through Christ, that is through being made from out of Christ kinda how the woman is the glory of man.

First, you disagree with William, then you end up agreeing with him. Yes, mankind was made in the image of God, but marraige is the picture of God's relationship with the church with man being the type of Christ and woman being the type of church.

Perhaps you could point out where I disagreed and then agreed, I assume you mean I contradicted myself in some way. So what are you talking about? Now if I agree on something and disagree on another, well what would the problem be?

Man is NOT a type of Christ within a marriage picture, as Christ is God and man which should not be hard to grasp at all. Man is human not divine, simple. It appears that you do NOT understand what I've posted.

The church is made of male and female, and while man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of God and man.

I don't want to repeat myself so re-read perhaps my response which was broken down into more than one post (3?) and then respond so that you understand fully what I've alread said.

If I need to futher claify or explain somwthing so that I can be understood, let me know.