• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it moral?

D

DiscussingTheTopic

Member
Male
Currently I basically believe polygamy is probably biblical acceptable, but there is one last question I need answered before I can know it is certainly acceptable.

Basically I have seen three types of arguments against polygamy, only the third one is potentially valid in my opinion[/size]

1. Someone did something in history
Examples
A. Adam married only one wife
B. Bad things happened to polygamists

2. Polygamy is forbidden for some people therefor it should be forbidden for all people
Examples
A. Certain specific Church leadership positions

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:2 NIV
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
1 Timothy 3:12 NIV
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient
Titus 1:6 NIV

B. The King
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
Deuteronomy 17:16-17 NIV

3. There is no written rule against polygamy but it is still morally wrong. It is an unwritten moral rule.[/size]


What is wrong with objection 1.
We should not do something just because someone did something what they did may or may not be a sin and may or may not be a sin for us even if it is or is not for them. Bad things happened to Job when he was doing good and all who want to live a godly life will suffer persecution. Solomon got punished for idol worship rather than purely polygamy. (By the way a few wives is not many wives but is still more than one wife.)

What is wrong with objection 2.
A. Commands that apply to deacons do not apply to all men. What if I am a deacon without knowing it? I would know whether or not I am a deacon because you must be tested before becoming a deacon. Therefor this deacon rule does not apply to me.

They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
1 timothy 3:10 NIV

You can not make rules for some people from a single church position apply to all people otherwise the Bible would be full of irreconcilable contradictions. I can give many examples if necessary.

3.
So the only objection left that I know of is there is some sort of secret unwritten law God has against polygamy. He allows it but secretly frowns upon it.

An example would be similar to the following claim for divorce

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Mathew 19:8-9 NIV

The argument would go God allowed divorce but did not approve of it. The certificate of divorce was for God to make divorce harder not easier and to guarantee the wife can get a new husband because she has a certificate to certify she is not married. This argument is that God did not punish divorce in the Old Testament but still hated it, however in the new testament divorce is forbidden because God really hated divorce all along. An additional problem with that argument is that it is made clear that God hates divorce in the old testament (Malachi 2) so that is not really a "hidden" moral teaching after Malachi (although Malachi was written much later than the Torah so it could have been "hidden" until Malachi.)

The problem with this argument is God still allows divorce in the new testament it is specifically NOT adultery to get a divorce if marital unfaithfulness was involved. This would not contradict the OT because a divorce is allowed if something "indecent" (NIV) is found about the wife Deutoronomy 24:1. Also a divorce is allowed if the husband fails to meet three specific criteria (Exodus 24:10.) The indecency in Deutoronomy 24:1 could be the same as in the NT, as "unfaithfulness,"

The reason I mention this divorce example is because........

How would you answer the objection that like divorce, polygamy is also secretly immoral but is yet allowed and permitted by God

In Deutoronomy 21:15 and Exodus 21:10 the word IF is used. It is not said that a man may marry more than one wife. Or that it is okay. But IF.... This could indicate that it is not approved of, but it is simply a policy for what should be done after the fact.

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,
Deut 21:15 NIV

If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
Exodus 21:10 NIV

The argument is that it is kind of like a bottle says IF YOU SWALLOW POISON CONTACT THE POISON CONTROL CENTER IMMEDIATELY AND FOLLOW THESE DIRECTIONS

This would not mean that it is okay to swallow poison just because there are directions for what to do afterward

One could argue it would not necessarily be okay to commit polygamy just because there are directions for how to manage a household afterwords. However this argument could not show that polygamy is wrong!

Without merely using examples of what people did (not error 1 discussed above) and using rules that apply to a large enough group to include most men (not error 2 described above.) Can anyone show that polygamy is morally acceptable in the Bible, rather than just allowed but secretly frowned down upon by God

Let me know if there are any serious typos or grammatical errors or other errors in this post that make my questions and statements unclear.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

If your objection is

I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
2 Samuel 12:8

an anti-polygamist might argue that

Yes God gave David the opportunity to have those woman as wives, but he was testing him to see if he would take them or not and desiring David not to take the extra wives he gave him an opportunity to get.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

If you argue that there are no sins that are not listed in the Bible

It seems that there might be sins that are unlisted in the laws in the Bible on the basis of

for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Romans 5:13-14

Depending on how you interpret it.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Can you give a biblical reason why polygamy is wrong or immoral?
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

First of all, when God isn't happy he doesn't make a secret of it. You know Him, you've seen how he works in the Bible and you know how He's worked in your life. He brings conviction for sin at the first good opportunity, (and judgment at the last possible). Strictly speaking God never said he hates divorce, in Malichi he specifically hated how men dealt treacherously with their wives. In Matt 5:31-32 Jesus affirms part of Deuteronomy 24:1-3, and in Matt 19:8 and Mark 10:5 he affirms and expounds on the other part:

Deu 24:1 When 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.

Matt 5:32 reiterates the italics when he adds 'save for the cause of fornication'

Matt 19:8 and Mark 10:5 reiterates the bolded part. If his heart is hardened against her for that cause, if she has no favour in his eyes for that cause. Then God suffers* the divorce. But such a divorce is not sin or hidden sin, the divorce the Pharisees allowed at the time was open and known sin (it was indeed for any cause if you read Hillel). Is God not sympathetic to our troubles? After an affair a mans heart may well be hardened against her, that does not mean he is callous or in sin, God knows the difficulties we face and allowed men to end this situation if they could not bear it. But I also know men who's wives have cheated and they bared it and (over the course of decades) continued to do well.

Anyway, the point is that there was no 'secret sin' or 'hidden law' here, or anywhere else. There is a lot of Christianity that does not adequately review and parallel Jesus's teaching during the incarnation and his Law given as God on high to Moses. Like I said, you know God, he certainly lets us sin, but he lets us know when he's unhappy.



Second, to get into a discussion of this nature seriously you need a general model of ethics and morality for context, or else you wind up with the or\but\maybe you have here.

Typically I would say action is morally good unless and until it has shown to be sinful or harmful. Not just morally neutral, but good, weather its using a computer or playing tennis or building a swingset or anything really. But if it goes against Scripture it is known to be harmful (even if we don't immediately know why) it is Sin, and if something is proven to be primarily harmful to ones self or others it is against Scripture by virtue of the command "Love thy neighbor as thyself" which is understood to mean everyone around you. It is up to the objector to show why an action is harmful or sinful. Ordinarily good action can be sinful out of measure or to the wrong person, alcohol is the prime example of this. It is good, but not to the point of drunkenness and never good for a drunk. But if I or you where to suspect someone else of being a drunk it would be up to us to observe them and explain to them why we believe it is too much for them. The responsibility to prove that drink is sinful to them would be on our shoulders.

To that end Polygamy is generally morally acceptable.



*I should have noted, suffer here does not mean anything like pain or dislike, it means to allow or turn over liberty too. The Greek root is also translated 'to give leave' or 'permission'. Suffer had a different array of meanings in middle English than it does today, unfortunately the word suffer stands here even in modernized translations despite the vast change in meaning.

Suffer as in pain and agony has a totally different Greek root and is also translated suffer, and it also appears that a third distinct root word is also translated suffer on occasion as well... One of the many times I wish translators used different words for different things. They translated it to give permission many times and really ought to have stuck with it, even video game translators often do us the service of picking a translation and sticking with it... Oh well, than God for their work, translation is hard after all...

** I didn't have an NIV handy, but in re-reading your post I see that they did change suffered to permitted. Very good for them, kudos to the NIV.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

deut30 said:
Can you give a biblical reason why polygamy is wrong or immoral?
Click to expand...

No I can not give a Biblical reason why it is wrong or immoral! I already explained that if you read my rather long post.

I would have to say THAT IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR that once one man has married (past tense) more than one woman the marriage is clearly valid and they should NOT get a divorce and go back to monogamy.

But I have not seen clear proof that it is okay to initiate (in the future) the marriage to a second, third, fourth, etc. wife

The Bible would make a lot more sense if polygamy was morally acceptable.

But unfortunately I have not seen any clear cut statement that polygamy is clearly okay to initiate.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

I want to thank those who have responded to my posts.

I would have to say that something could possibly be sin even if it is not directly stated as sin in scripture. Otherwise we could justify all sorts of actions simply on technicalities. Although you do have a good point about loving God and our neighbor covering a wide variety of things.

This being said, I see no reason to believe that it would be sinful in ALL cases for a man to marry more than one woman.

And I see no logical reason why a man can not or should not marry more than one woman, assuming he can be responsible and loving about it.

But I also see no verse directly stating that a man may, or should marry more than one woman.

Simply that after he has married multiple woman, he should do so and so.

More help would be greatly appreciated! :D
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

I suppose I should clarify with additions,

If something not mentioned in scriputre is proven to be primarily harmful to ones self or others it is still effectively against Scripture by virtue of the command "Love thy neighbor as thyself"


Now, when I said you need to lay out a cohesive system of morality and ethics to even approach this question I meant it.

You will find no clear proof from scripture that using a computer is morally acceptable nor will you find any clear proof on the ethics of driving, nor clean cut proof that it is acceptable to read children bedtime stories or anything permitting riding a roller coaster. All of those things would be certainly damned under a system of morality requiring action to have a clear cut scripture statement to initiate action.

A consistent hermeneutic and a consistent system of morality requires that action is good unless proven to be evil by scripture or experience or reason.

Action is morally good unless and until it has shown to be sinful or harmful. From what I know of her Duet understands that principle so it comes back to the very question she asked and your rather long post kind of sums down too "I understand Polygamy is alright, but is polygamy alright?" Now, do you understand and affirm that philosophy of morality or want to present your own? As it sits your digging for something you'll never get. Scripture does not by any stretch of the imagination even attempt outline every possible good action. It gives us the tools for discernment and lists baseline bad actions. Asking for specific permission to initiate a second marriage is as ridiculous as searching the scripture for specific permission to clearly justify singing a lullaby.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

I do not think we need clear cut permission from scripture before doing something but it is possible to sin unknowingly.

" 'If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, he is guilty. When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering.

Leviticus 4:27-29 NIV

But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Luke 12:48 NIV

It is possible to sin without knowing it and then later become aware, (which further demonstrates the reasonableness of needing forgiveness to receive good eternal life.)

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 NIV

If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.
1 corinthians 11:34 NIV

One might be able to argue that not only what was written was true but Paul may have also passed on other teachings through oral tradition. It appears that Paul planned to place directions for communion/Eucharist/mass/the Lord's supper/eating events that were NOT written in scripture, if these things not written in scripture held no truth why would Paul bother to teach them outside of his epistles. This would create a great dilemma for those who believe in "scripture alone." What he passed on, I am not trying to say, I am not Roman Catholic.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Thank you everyone for the input

If one sees harm to society (of a sinful sort) by not taking an extra wife. Do you think one could argue that it would be a sin not to do polygamy in that case. And there by state that it would be logical for adding an extra wife to be moral in some cases. Therefor in absence of scripture forbidding a man to have more than one wife, a man should have more than one wife in some cases in order to fulfill the command to love his neighbor, in cases where having multiple wives is more loving than not having more than one wife. Thereby in this way one could create an argument for scriptural permission for polygamy being granted.

The dilemma I have with the argument for polygamy I just stated is that people will try to use love for neighbor as an excuse to commit all sorts of evil deeds (especially if you have seen what many ELCA Churches are doing. Many ELCA members have pro-(manonman)homosexual, pro-premarital sex policies/viewpoints in the name of tolerance being love for neighbors) Of course when they use love for neighbor to justify evil deeds they are usually not loving their neighbor (despite their arguments of tolerance,) because violating other scriptures is a clear anti-love of their neighbors.

Furthermore since we should not be arbitrarily forbidding marriages without scriptural reasons nor arbitrarily adding to what scripture teaches. It would be best to side with polygamy because it can benefit society and is clearly not officially stated as forbidden.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 NIV

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
1 Corinthians 4:6 NIV

I am trying to get to the truth in this matter. To get to the truth I like to look at points of view opposite the one i believe. If anyone could refute what I just said, or support what I just said that would be helpful.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Hi there Discussing,

There are lots of twists and turns of the mind taken when I read your posts. Lots of western philosophizing. That's ok because beleive me i do lots of it too even when thinking about this topic (on the one hand...but then on the other hand- and so on!) Anyway I have run across two great websites that may help to explain how I have made peace with the finer points of arguments for polygamy-

http://joshuahshouse.com/polygamy-and-the-bible.html
http://www.righteouswarriors.com/contro ... icle4.html

Both of these websites were created by people who are on this forum. I also think both are messianic believers. Anyway the more eastern perspective and even thought process is what makes it all make sense. If your staring points and methods of questioning are based on western styles of logic things can go a little off the path. I don't know if Torah keeping people can help me out on this... Mark, where are you?
Hope this is good for furthering the discussion...
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

The times sins of in ignorance listed both in the Tanak and Gospels deals with a personal ignorance, it doesn't indicate the existence of 'secret sins'. It should be noted that Leviticus has the clause 'common people' or 'people of the land' indicating some excuse for not having detailed knowledge, and in Act 17:30 it was the gentiles who's sins where similarly overlooked because they did not previously have the commands of God.

The next arguments, presented as it is, is about as pernicious as an argument can get. It can be freely granted Paul taught much and many times that was not recorded in his epistles. But why say this for Paul, and not Jesus, of whom it is said Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The issue here is not weather the things they taught outside of scripture where true or not, its the much simpler fact that any unrecorded thing they taught is unrecorded. Engaging in speculation as to what this 'oral tradition' is would at best create a Christian version of the Talmud, and most often (especially when speculating what else Christ said) is the seed of the most damnable heresies. To that end it is no dilemma. Anyone wishing to present something new from this needs to present the most rigorous proofs with the very best authentications to even be worthy of considering. Now, I have not read all of the works of the ante-Nicene fathers but I've read a good chunk of them in general, no one I know of has made a case for Monogamy from 'Pauline oral tradition', they have made cases from their current culture, from what is now Cannon epistles, from an idealized asceticism and celibacy, and from new personal inspiration by the Holy Spirit. I am confident, but not certain, that there is no early claim that Paul prohibited polygamy (or anything else) specifically outside the epistles. That is the only place you could go for evidence of such a thing.

Anyway, Sola Scriptura theology addresses all this in the concept of 'sufficiency of scripture' and even if you are not sola scripture its good to take a leif out of their book on this matter. Scripture never attempted to document everything, only what is necessary and sufficient. Whatever else Jesus, Paul, or any other said is good, but not something that will change the outcome of moral arguments like this (nor would it change any core Theology, now would it?).



Now, concerning post 2:

The argument I made from 'Love thy neighbor' was that we can use that statement to call anything primarily harmful and destructive as sin, that opens the door to condemning more things, even ordinarily good things, as sin under the wrong circumstances. It is the diametric opposite application to one who uses the statement 'love they neighbor' to mean that one should allow a neighbor to sin and destroy themselves. It is exactly in line with when you said "because violating other scriptures is a clear anti-love of their neighbors." and what I was trying to communicate when I said "But if it goes against Scripture it is known to be harmful ". I did not use their arguments, and I don't see how you did when you said "If one sees harm to society by not taking an extra wife.". One would have to make a case for present, immanent harm which is rather difficult in general.

But if you are quite interested in the scriptural\social aspect of Polygamy in Christian society I would recommend looking into a copy of Thelyphthora http://www.amazon.com/Thelyphthora-...onsequences/dp/0982537506/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3 by Martain Madan. He was a primary funder and chaplain of Locks hospital for women in London in the 1770's and 1780's. He wrote extensively on polygamy and how in his experience and study of scripture monogamy was giving men a way to mistreat and ruin women en-masse because they where not held responsible for their actions. Over the course of the three volume work he addresses scripture, social conditions, and the history of Church and State regulations on marriage. Its well worth the read if you are keen on the subject, and I would be happy if more of these got printed and distributed.

Essentially it is rarely (or should be rarely) true that polygamy should be obligatory for the individual, but generally true that is is harmful to condemn it absolutely as polygamy can provide for a much better system of sexual accountability for men and better provision for widows.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

If God gave David his wives and told him he would have given him more, how is that not a clear example of God saying it was okay to marry more than one woman.

If God said that God was a man after God's own heart and David had 9+ wives, how is that not an example of God allowing marriage to multiple women.

If God told Hagar to go back to Abram, how is that not God saying that marriage to two wives is okay and actually commanded at that point.

SweetLissa
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

sweetlissa said:
If God gave David his wives and told him he would have given him more, how is that not a clear example of God saying it was okay to marry more than one woman.
Click to expand...

Lissa, you bring up a good point. But here is another point. On something so important as marriage, and how having a bad marriage can lead to the destruction of one's faith and soul, then why would He be so ambiguous on such a matter? If this was such an important matter that He had to teach people like David and Moses, as well as having Paul teach us about it, then why would He somehow leave out an important detail?

Scott
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

sweetlissa said:
If God told Hagar to go back to Abram, how is that not God saying that marriage to two wives is okay and actually commanded at that point.
Click to expand...

If polygyny were wrong or sinful, then God would have never told her to go back into it. God hates sin and has no part in it...period.
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

If the issue of "Biblical Marriage" and/or plural marriage were distinctly different, we could expect God to make clear, definitive statements. However, we do not find, but a few texts that regulate the relationship of a man to multiple wives. What is significant for our understanding is; God defined, described and regulated marriage very clearly. What He did not do, is specify how many times a man may duplicate the relationship simulteanously. To use God's command or instructions to Abraham or David as the defining truth about marriage is to leave the millions of other people of the world living in conjugal relations in ignorance. Bottom line is that marriage is marriage whether there is one wife or four, therefore no other delineation is necessary.
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

There are 613 commands in the Torah alone. These are things people were either told to do or not to do in order to please Him. One would think that it would have been just as easy to have 614 than it was to have 613 if polygyny was so abhorrent in His eyes. Instead, we find that one of the 613 is how to deal when a man has two or more wives and does not like one. Another of the 613 deals with a brother, regardless of whether he is married or not, taking the wife of his recently deceased brother to raise up seed for him. If polygyny was so abhorrent, why have those two even in there? Why not say, "A man shalt not have more than one wife for this is an abomination?" He did not say that, and did give us commands in the Torah on how to deal with a polygynous situation, so how can this still be amoral to Him? Btw, polygyny is covered in my book as well. (http://stores.lulu.com/mrscottyl)

Scott
 
Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor

Thanks for clearing it up fairlight. I got the impression from the website that he/they were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top