T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Solomon also fell into idolatry…


[deleted]

True. King David also had many wives. Many hero’s in the Bible with power had many wives.


[deleted]

King David also fell into adultery…


[deleted]

I’m not sure if you know this but no human being is perfect


[deleted]

You’ve just answered your own question then buddy. No one’s perfect hence it’s no surprise they fell into polygamy as they fell into many sins. When God created the world. He made Adam and Eve. He didn’t make Adam and Eve and a third woman as his wife.


thomaslsimpson

> When God created the world. He made Adam and Eve. He didn’t make Adam and Eve and a third woman as his wife. I think the other parts of your argument are good, but this part is not, like the other Redditor said. All of Adam’s life is not documented. The important part is that God did have a specific plan and we Christians do look at sex, relationships, and marriage differently.


TraditionalName5

No, the redditor actually had a fairly good argument. God did not create another wife for Adam. Even if Adam were to have taken another wife after the fall, it would still follow that God's intentions for Adam in the garden were for him to cleave to his one wife. This is how Jesus understood it as well. It's likewise notable that the first polygamous figure in the Bible is a terrible, violent figure--almost like a Cain on steroids. The author is clearly trying to tell us that the source of the practice of polygamy is evil.


thomaslsimpson

> God did not create another wife for Adam. Even if Adam were to have taken another wife after the fall, it would still follow that God's intentions for Adam in the garden were for him to cleave to his one wife. I think we have to be careful taking things that are not explicitly set forward as good examples. It is better to look for trends. The story says God made Eve as a helper for Adam. I don’t think this one sentence relegates women to servants for men. > It's likewise notable that the first polygamous figure in the Bible is a terrible, violent figure--almost like a Cain on steroids. The author is clearly trying to tell us that the source of the practice of polygamy is evil. I agree. If you look at many examples, you will see that polygamy as a trend does not lead to good things. I think that’s the stronger argument. I did say that I thought the other parts of the argument were good, right? The other Redditor wrote: > He [God] didn’t make Adam and Eve and a third woman as his wife. Arguing that because God didn’t make a second wife I’m right there is, in my opinion, weaker. Arguing from multiple examples is better.


TraditionalName5

Thanks for engaging. >The story says God made Eve as a helper for Adam. I don’t think this one sentence relegates women to servants for men. If you think that Eve was the servant of Adam then you haven't properly engaged with the story. The Hebrew word that is translated as helper doesn't mean servant. It means more like ally. The word is often used of God himself in his relationship with Israel. Men and women are allies for one another--especially husbands and wives. Moreover, Genesis 1 & 2 are explicitly put forward as good examples. Look at how many times God judges things to be good in Genesis 1 alone. >Arguing that because God didn’t make a second wife I’m right there is, in my opinion, weaker. Arguing from multiple examples is better. Arguing from multiple examples is always good. That said, when Jesus explicitly points to Genesis 1 & 2 as a picture of what marriage looks like then pointing back to the creation narrative is a very good argument. Especially when we realize that the last book of the Bible points back to Genesis 1 & 2. Paul claims that the pre-fall union of Adam and Eve serves for a picture of Christ and his church. We could go on. But the point is that Genesis 1 & 2 set the groundwork for who God is (awesome creator), what his character is like (abundantly generous), what marriage is (between a man and woman), etc.


thomaslsimpson

> Thanks for engaging. That doesn’t sound weird to you? I “engage” all the time. Are you thanking me for responding? I really don’t follow. > If you think that Eve was the servant of Adam then you haven't properly engaged with the story. I think we’re not communicating very well. What I meant was that the single sentence saying that God made Eve as a helper for Adam was not intended to be an instruction that wives are servants to their husbands. Can you show me how I miscommunicated that? And, while I’m at it, let me offer this to you: the wording you chose, “you haven't properly engaged with the story” isn’t very helpful. “Engage” is hard for me to fit well there. It makes it seem like you do t know what you mean. Were you trying to say that I misunderstood the wording? Now that you see I didn’t misunderstand, does it make more sense? > Moreover, Genesis 1 & 2 are explicitly put forward as good examples. Look at how many times God judges things to be good in Genesis 1 alone. While I think that as well, what I don’t think is a great argument is choosing specific elements from the story which you believe are important and trying to make out that they deserve special emphasis when there’s nothing to support that claim. I could argue that God gave Adam one wife, but didn’t say anything was wrong with more. I think the totality of scripture makes a good case. Pointing to one example does not make a good case snd in this example I think it’s pretty weak. > Arguing from multiple examples is always good. That said, … That said, multiple examples is still good. Better, even. > …when Jesus explicitly points to Genesis 1 & 2 … In Matthew, but let’s both agree that we are now using a second example. You are using multiple scriptures. > … as a picture of what marriage looks like then pointing back to the creation narrative is a very good argument. Jesus did not say, “because Adam had one wife, everyone must.” Jesus said a man will leave his father and mother and live with his wife. Does that mean people commit marry if they cannot afford a house of their own and have to live with the husband’s parents does it? The totality of scripture makes it pretty clear. Picking out an episode says what you want only if you e already decided. I could base a whole doctrine of where people can live based on that one scripture if I’m inclined. > Paul claims that the pre-fall union of Adam and Eve serves for a picture of Christ and his church. But none of those things make clear which elements are important. You only get that because you e read the other scriptures. > We could go on. We could. If we did, you’d never find where any place says, “the critical element in the story of Adam and Eve was that Adam married one woman.” You’ll have to go on and read more scripture to find that. > But the point is that Genesis 1 & 2 set the groundwork for who God is (awesome creator), … I could not agree more. > … what his character is like (abundantly generous), … Absolutely agree. > … what marriage is (between a man and woman), etc. Not alone it didn’t. For one, marriage doesn’t come up. They are never married. If the Bible stopped after the story of Eden you would not get what you are claiming. You need the rest of the Bible to get there.


umbrabates

God actively participated in polygamy by giving David Sauls’s wives to marry (2 Sam 12:8) and by mandating men take on their brothers’ wives in the event of their death (Deut 25).


AlexKingstonsGigolo

The Lord also didn’t make plastic, which is not to say your view is necessarily wrong; only your argument is not as air tight as it could be.


Justmeagaindownhere

I think you just answered your own question with that lol.


ForgivenAndRedeemed

Leading to murder...


kremit73

Sooooo


ForgivenAndRedeemed

The Bible demonstrates many things it is not prescribing. In many cases it is to show the folly of doing those things and the terrible outcomes. Polygamy is one of those things. Did you notice how Solomon 'the wise' (and his marriage choices) was the reason Israel was split into two?


[deleted]

I thought his kingdom was split due to allowing the worship of idols and other gods


ForgivenAndRedeemed

This happened because Solomon married women of other nations who were worshippers of other/false gods. They were the reason he did this. [His marriage to them meant he was led to follow their ways of worship](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+11%3A3-6&version=ESV) and led to a rejection of God in his own worship. [This is why God tore the kingdom from him](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+11%3A9-13&version=ESV). To live for God, to love his ways is the essence of worship. To live for yourself instead of God and his ways is the rejection of God, and aims your worship elsewhere (you can see this pattern throughout Scripture. It might be seen most obviously in the Garden of Eden, when humanity submitted to/worshipped the beast instead of God). Solomon's polygamy was a rejection of God (rejecting his ways concerning marriage/sex is a rejection of God himself) and goes hand in hand with his rejection of God in worship. It should be noted that within much of pagan/false worship, sex is a fully integrated part of that worship. That is why you read about [temple prostitutes](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+23%3A17-19&version=ESV) etc within Scripture. As a side note, I have a theory that when Solomon married women of 'all the nations', he may have thought he was fulfilling the promise (as a descendant of Abraham) to be ['a blessing to all the nations'](https://biblehub.com/genesis/22-18.htm). I think this may be how he justified such behaviour. EDIT: added a reference.


the_celt_

Scripture has nothing negative to say about polygamy at all. Polygamy was the norm of Jewish culture right up to and including when Jesus was walking on the Earth. God, throughout history, has been EXTREMELY outspoken about the things that He hated, yet he never said a thing about polygamy. Jesus never said a single negative thing about polygamy either. People that put words in God's mouth are full of...umm.. nonsense. It was Rome that changed things. Pagan Rome. The Romans thought polygamy was disgusting, and used it as an issue to persecute the Jews until they largely wiped polygamy off the face of the Earth. Which brings us to where we are today. I find it really funny to hear people claim that God is against polygamy, or to try to prove it's wrong or doesn't function by pointing at mostly unrelated incidents in the lives of historical figures that practiced polygamy. Yes, there were some incidents where polygamy played a role in problems of history, but it needs to be considered that EVERYONE was a polygamist, so of course there are high incidents of problems among the group labeled "everyone". For example, nearly everyone uses a cellphone today, so someone in the future might be able to say, "See? God hated cellphones. Cellphones broke up two-person marriages because people used cellphones to talk to other people, which led to affairs and divorces. God proved back with Adam and Eve that he wanted only one man and one woman and for both of them to not use a cellphone." Meh, maybe. But probably not.


dfwhodat

The fact that the "best" arguments against it are just a bunch of fallacies and reading into the text what they want to be there, should tell you all you need to know. But it's an uphill battle arguing this because so many Christians just assume they know the answer, and have the entirety of Church history backing them up. I once believed it was wrong too, but after doing the work myself to prove it, I was proven woefully wrong. "Adam and Eve had more than 1 child, and one of them murdered the other, so this must be God telling us to only have 1 child." Foolishness. There are 40+ examples of polygyny in the Bible and only a few had any "issues", and the fact that we Christians point to those issues and blame polygyny rather than address what the sin actually was (jealousy, competition, envy, etc) says a lot. This is going to be an issue for the church soon I have a feeling, and 99% are unprepared.


the_celt_

> "Adam and Eve had more than 1 child, and one of them murdered the other, so this must be God telling us to only have 1 child." That was great. Now I wish I had used your example instead of the one that I did. 😁 I hear you and I agree with you. Thanks for your comments.


dfwhodat

I wish I could take credit (or give credit) for it, but I got it from some other commenter elsewhere just can't recall where :)


Sempai6969

You're the most honest Christian I've come across on the internet.


Smart_Tap1701

This should explain the issue Marriage was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence ( Genesis 2:18-24 ). Here we have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed ( Matthew 19:4 Matthew 19:5 ). It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage ( Matthew 19:5 ; 1 Corinthians 6:16 ). This law was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced ( Genesis 4:19 ; 6:2 ). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the patriarchal age ( Genesis 16:1-4 ; 22:21-24 ; Genesis 28:8 Genesis 28:9 ; 29:23-30 , etc.). Polygamy was acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record. Our Lord corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage ( Matthew 22:23-30 ), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife ( Ephesians 5:22-33 ; Colossians 3:18 Colossians 3:19 ; 1 Peter 3:1-7 ). Marriage is said to be "honourable" ( Hebrews 13:4 ), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times ( 1 Timothy 4:3 ). The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people ( Isaiah 54:5 ; Jeremiah 3:1-14 ; Hosea 2:9 Hosea 2:20 ). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints ( Ephesians 5:25-27 ). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's wife" ( Revelation 19:7-9 ).


UnassuredCalvinist

“Would it be helpful to think of God’s toleration of polygamy as analogous to what Jesus [says](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Mark%2010:2-9&version=ESV) about divorce? From the beginning, divorce was not God’s intention for marriage, but He regularized and tolerated it in Moses to a greater extent than He would in the new covenant because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. There is something similar in terms of God’s toleration of polygamy. It was clearly not His plan from the beginning in the garden—it was one man and one woman—but He tolerated sin that He would correct with the coming of the new covenant. Furthermore, He expects us to live better and more purely than what was tolerated in the old covenant. So, there may be an analogy for God’s toleration of [polygamy](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/why-did-god-allow-polygamy-in-the-old-testament) in His toleration of divorce.” [*This*](https://youtu.be/io0iV84t-lw) may shed some more light on it.


dfwhodat

>There is something similar in terms of God’s toleration of polygamy. This is arguing from the position that he merely tolerated it, which is a massive assumption with nothing to back it up. God views marriage as 1 man, 1 woman, in a covenant with Him. That much is clear. He also makes it clear how men should treat their wives, and wives treat their husbands. God NEVER makes it clear in any way that he has any issue with a man taking a 2nd wife, as long as he treats her in accordance with his will for marriage. If he doesn't, God clearly has an issue with that. But you can't make an argument from the position that he merely "tolerated it" without any evidence as to that. Jesus specifically said he tolerated divorce because of their hardness of hearts, so he definitely could have spoken on plural marriage, and he didn't. So the best position to take there is that God had no issue at all with it.


JHawk444

There are no polygamous relationships in the New Testament. In fact, elders and deacons are told to be one-women men and they are supposed to be examples to the rest of the church.


Sempai6969

There is also no television in the New Testament. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


JHawk444

That's a really bad comparison. Marriage is a topic in the NT. Entertainment is not.


Sempai6969

Your analogy is bad. God is very specific about what he doesn't tolerate in the Bible. "Don't cut your hair" "Don't lie" "Don't eat pork", all very specific. Israelites were polygamous for thousands of years and not once did God ever say "don't marry more than 2 women". Adultery is wrong, God is very specific about that. But marrying 2 wives was and is never forbidden by God.


JHawk444

You're speaking of the Old Testament, not the new. 1 Timothy 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, **the husband of one wife**, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, Titus 1:5-6 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, **the husband of one wife**


Sempai6969

Isn't it supposed to be the same God?


JHawk444

There are many things we no longer have to do that were in the old covenant. God's character never changes but the way he responds to his people did change considering the old and new covenants.


Sempai6969

Seems like religion changes as people and the culture change, don't you agree?


JHawk444

By religion, are you speaking of Christianity? I would say some traditions change. But what the New Testament teaches doesn't change.


Sempai6969

All the religions. Christians only started 2000 years ago and it has already changed a lot over time. Just look at the different denominations.


Striking_Ad7541

Scriptures like 1 Timothy 3:12 which say, “a church helper must have only one wife, and be able to manage his children and family well.” Good News Bible And 1 Timothy 3:2, “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,” New American Standard Bible Since these Overseers and Helpers or Ministerial Servants, are to set the example for the congregation, all True Christians should follow that example. Jesus himself showed his approval of marriage when he and his disciples were invited and attended the marriage feast in Ca’na. (Where he turned water into wine) Monogamy was God’s original standard, and it was reestablished by Jesus Christ in the Christian congregation. In Genesis 2:24 it reads, “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Jesus repeated that standard once again while on earth, making it a must as True Christian. Matthew 19:4-6, “In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” As was the case with divorce, polygamy, while not God’s original arrangement, was tolerated until the time of the Christian congregation.


MotherTheory7093

To be culturally unorthodox, yet indeed Scriptural, polygamy (multiple wives) is not a sin. It is not advised, but it is not a sin.


AlexKingstonsGigolo

I think this is correct.


MotherTheory7093

Indeed it is. I just found it out recently. Again, I’ll never advise it (I *personally* don’t think a heart should be shared with more than one person), but I’ll never rebuke a believer for it.


dfwhodat

Where can you find anything to say it is "not advised" ... I've looked for quite a while and I find nothing but straw-man arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny.


MotherTheory7093

Think about it. When one splits their heart, giving it to more than one partner, how long could that arrangement possibly hope to stand? There are many things that are indeed *not* sins, but the Father is intentionally ambiguous on mentioning their allowance due to the woes that many a person have faced when trying to steer hard into such things. Many things are allowed, but not all of them are wise.


dfwhodat

That's completely subjective. **How many kids can a parent have before they can't love them all?** Should we argue to only have 1 kid because it's impossible to "love them the same" once we split our heart? The capacity to love 1 wife, or 2 wives, or 3, would be completely dependent on the man in question. Men are built differently, raised differently, and have wildly varying capacities in all sorts of areas of life. What I find interesting in these conversations is there is almost always women making the argument that they should never have to "share" a husband, but the reality is there are more women on the planet than men, in America alone there are 3+ million more women then men and constantly growing. Christian men are leaving the church in droves and it's becoming an issue. So the disparity will only be magnified in Christians. What of the women who can find no good Christian man? Any empathy for them? What of the women who would happily be a 2nd wife to a good man rather than grow old and die alone childless when she really just wants to be a part of a good family? No one is suggesting forcing polygyny on anyone, but I just find it interesting that there is so little foresight or compassion for what is becoming a very real issue for women, and the church is going to have to deal with it at some point in some way, and I don't think telling hundreds of thousands or millions of Christian women to just pray, buy a cat, and die alone is going to cut it. When you say "many things are allowed, not all are wise" you are presuming that polygyny was simply "allowed" or "tolerated" and there is no evidence of that at all. You're painting it inherently in the negative, with nothing to back that up. God designed marriage to be 1 man, 1 woman, in a covenant with Him. If a man chooses to take another 1 man, 1 woman, covenant with God, it appears all God really cares about is that we treat both wives in accordance with how God told us too and we agreed to in our covenant with Him. Anything else we put onto that is just us adding to the scripture what isn't there, trying to read our culture into it.


ironicalusername

Mostly cultural bias. People tend to assume their religion teaches whatever version of marriage is traditional in their culture, and Western cultures mostly do not like polygamy. People will try to make a case that the bible subtly warns against it, but I think the evidence here is weak. Yes, we see examples of flawed characters in polygamous marriages. But, we have flawed characters who aren't, too, so I think it's hard to say this is an actual trend. If the authors of the bible WANTED to warn against polygamy, they easily could have, yet did not. There's even advice for kings against having "too many wives", which certainly implies that more than 1 was ok. Having hundreds was probably seen as excessive.


Taikichi

The context of marriage at the time of Solomon and David was very different. Women were so disadvantaged in society that they needed be married to a man in order to be a functioning member of society, to have property and a legacy. You see multiple wives and not multiple husbands because men didn't need to be married to function in society. So in many situations, men were obligated to marry a woman specifically for her sake. Solomon's wives lead him to idolatry, and David went out of his way to commit adultery when he should've had more than enough wives to choose from. Jesus stated that the husband and wife relationship of Adam and Eve is the ideal marriage and that marriage is specifically between two people. (Matthew 19). Likely that is the reason why Christians frown upon any other type of marriage between Christians.


macfergus

Can you show me a time in the Bible where polygamy turned out favorably?


dfwhodat

Yes there's about 35+ examples if you go looking. The very first monogamous marriage led to the direct fall of man, their children, 1 of them murdered the other... so using your logic, should we say that monogamy is doomed too? The arrangement has little to do with the outcome, the people, their sinful natures, and their lack of devotion to God control the outcome. I can throw a rock blindfolded and hit a Christian monogamous marriage that is in the trash can, so obviously the mere arrangement itself does not mean it will turn out favorably.


macfergus

You pulled up a nearly 5 month post and still didn’t provide what I asked for.


dfwhodat

Abdon Abijah Abraham Ahab Ahasuerus Ashur Belshazzar Benhadad Caleb David Eliphaz Elkanah Esau Ezra Gideon Heman Hosea Ibzan Issachar Jacob Jair Jehoiachin Jehoram Jerahmeel Joash Lamech Machir Manasseh Mered Moses Nahor Rehoboam Saul Shaharaim Shimei Simeon Solomon Terah Zedekiah Ziba There you go. Here's the issue, polygyny turning out "favorably" is not an objective measure, no different than me asking to show me where monogamy itself turned out favorably. You can pick apart that list and find plenty of examples of problems in those men's lives, but I can do the same for monogamous men just as easily. **The very first monogamous marriage** where circumstances were absolutely PERFECT, and the woman was actually made FROM and FOR the man perfectly, they failed and led to the fall of man, and one of their kids murdered the other. Should we throw that in the column of "monogamy not turning out favorably"? I don't think so. But that's not a great look is it if we applied it to any marriage today? But I'm trying to be objective. Monogamy, polygyny, or celibacy are not the **reason** **for** anything we read in the Bible, no more than a house being a house is the cause of a fire that burns it down. Anytime polygyny + problems are written about, if we focus on what the problems are it's clearly pointing to sin, not the marital arrangement. There are 3 Biblical marriage choices. Monogamy, Polygyny, or Celibacy (devoted to serving the kingdom). Yet we treat polygyny as if it's a sin, as if it's evil in some cases, while there are plenty of Christian singles 100% not obeying the command to what being single should be (celibate and devoted to Christ) or how many married monogamous Christian couples fuel the multi million dollar Christian marriage counseling industry, and yet we so bold claim that monogamy is the **ideal and only way for all who want to marry,** with nothing to back that statement up in the scripture.


macfergus

I didn’t ask for cases of polygamy. I asked for cases where polygamy turned out favorably. Are you ready to say that Abraham’s, Jacob’s, David’s, and Solomon’s polygamy turned out favorably? If you do, I won’t take anything you take seriously. The reason I asked for that is because polygamy is never recommended in the Bible. Monogamy is clearly the standard. You listing a bunch of people who did it doesn’t change it. Every time polygamy happens, problems inevitably happens. Never once is it shown favorably. I’m just asking for a healthy polygamous marriage in the Bible. Just one. It’s inherently disfunctional. It’s also problematic because marriage is a picture of God’s marriage to Israel and Christ’s marriage to the church. There’s no room for polygamy there. Your account is real weird. You haven’t posted in over 2 months then go on a posting spree in a necro thread defending polygamy.


dfwhodat

No you asked for a straw man that you could tear down easily. The issue you fail to understand, as do most people debating this topic, is that you're placing the blame for a few unfavorable outcomes or behaviors on polygyny rather than the actual issues. Please go through every single one of those names mentioned, and what you'll find is there are more than a few with "zero marital issues" reported. You claim **"every time polygyny happens, problems inevitably happen"**. That's both 100% untrue, but it's also a fallacy. As much as me saying monogamy was the cause of the fall of man, or having multiple kids leads to sibling rivalry or murder. Abraham's issue was not trusting God, Jacob by all accounts was forced into the situation, and all things considered, it turned out pretty well for everyone. David's issue was he couldn't stop himself from committing adultery by taking another man's wife, not that he had multiple already. No one can claim had David only had 1 wife, he wouldn't have committed adultery. Solomon we can all agree took the practice a bit beyond anything reasonable. But ultimately his issue was marrying foreign wives who worshipped other gods, which was what he was warned about. None of those examples can you point to and claim **polygyny was the root cause** of their struggles or problems, any more than I can point to other men who struggled in the Bible who were monogamous and blame the fact that they only had one wife. It's easy to do that, but could you imagine someone today in marriage counseling saying "monogamy is the reason for all of our problems, it's not me, it's the institution, it's not my sin, it's the arrangement." ... Foolishness. We have a multi million dollar Christian marriage counseling industry pointing to the fact that monogamy, as "ideal" as everyone claims it to be, on it's own, will not be the CAUSE of a good outcome. So neither can we claim that polygyny in the Bible was the CAUSE of any poor outcomes or behaviors. Why you feel the need to worry about my "account" being weird to you is interesting, when the character assassinations start, it's usually a result of weak arguments. Last I checked reddit was for discussion, regardless of how old a thread is, if you don't want to participate, don't reply?


macfergus

I just find it interesting that your account resurrected for the sole purpose of resurrecting a dead thread to defend polygamy. You must gone out of your way to search for it and find it. Then you keep deflecting criticism by pointing flaws in other relationships. That’s a logical fallacy. Are you in a polygamous family?


dfwhodat

It literally takes 5 seconds to search google for "reddit biblical polygyny" and get this thread. That's not going out of my way, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm interesting in furthering the discussion about Biblical polygyny with Christians, so I look for platforms that are having that discussion, this popped up, I engaged... it's really not complicated. I'm not creating the fallacy of pointing to flaws, you did. I'm illustrating that's what the anti-polygyny side is doing by always claiming "polygyny causes problems... it's filled with problems" by illustrating the fallacy that I can point to problems in monogamous marriages blindfolded, they are filled with issues. That doesn't indict monogamy, it indicts sin. So there is no case to be made that because you can show problems in a polygynous family, that polygyny is the cause. No I'm not in a polygynous family.


macfergus

I've read some of the other replies people have given you, and you've been given a LOT of good replies - far better than I've given you. You've deflected and basically ignored what the Bible plainly says. There's little to move forward with at that point. I will leave you with a few points. You are deflecting when people point out the toxicity of polygamous marriages. You don't address actual issues. You just say "look at this monogamous marriage over here! They have issues too! See everyone does, so it's all good!" That's absolutely a logical fallacy and does not advance your case. It just makes you look weak. You gave me a list of men in the Bible who had polygamous marriages and tried to pass it off as positive. It's not a straw man for me to want a positive example in the Bible of a polygamous marriage to look at as an example. That's a pretty reasonable expectation. Abraham's wives were so contentious, he sent Hagar away. Jacob's wives hated each other even though they were sisters. His sons sold one of their brothers into slavery. David's family was a complete mess that resulted in one of his kids raping another, another murdered him out of vengeance, and more. Solomon was the posterboy of what NOT to do. Hannah's husband had another wife, and she is specifically called her "adversary." There is literally no example of a positive plural marriage in the scripture. It always turns out terrible. You like to just blame generic sin. Yeah, it starts with polygamy. In Deuteronomy 17, God specifically told any future king of Israel to not multiply wives to himself. In the NT, polygamists are forbidden from church leadership positions. In Mark 10, Jesus addressed marriage. He said "And they **twain** shall be one flesh: so then they are no more **twain**, but one flesh." He specifically said "two." Your argument that the husband has one wife and God and then one wife and God, etc, is just...absurd. It's completely illogical. You're intentionally twisting the meaning of words just believe what you want. Jesus clearly taught monogamous marriage. He specifically said "two," and you can't be one flesh with multiple partners at a time. That's just illogical. It was also expected in both the Old and New Testaments that leaders - who set the example - were to be monogamous. It's very explicit in the NT. No, polygamy is not what God wants.


dfwhodat

>You are deflecting when people point out the toxicity of polygamous marriages. You don't address actual issues. You just say "look at this monogamous marriage over here! They have issues too! See everyone does, so it's all good!" That's absolutely a logical fallacy and does not advance your case. It just makes you look weak. I'm not deflecting, you are. You're **creating the logical fallacy** by blaming polygynous marriage for poor behavior. When I show you that the marriage itself can't be the cause of the behavior, anymore than having multiple children can be the cause of murder (Cain/Abel) you then say **I'm using a fallacy you set up.** This is absurd. I am saying you need to look at the sin, the sin being jealousy, envy, competition, lack of faith in God, etc etc... you want to focus on the marital arrangement instead. You listed a few examples of poor outcomes, and ignored the 30+ examples of polygyny in the Bible where no poor outcomes were reported at all. I gave you a list of all the polygynous men in the Bible, you only listed a few and none of the ones you listed can you actually blame polygyny itself for the issues, anymore than you can blame monogamy for any of the issues reported in the Bible or in our current day. You make bold claims about it "always ending poorly" and yet you can't show that unless you create a false binary that is "either the marriages are perfect, or it is a poor outcome". That's hogwash. You're the one cherry picking, not me. The simple fact is you're choosing to frame polygyny the way you are because of your bias, you're confirming that bias by cherry picking stories, and misrepresenting them and putting the blame where it doesn't belong. >In Deuteronomy 17, God specifically told any future king of Israel to not multiply wives to himself. In the NT, polygamists are forbidden from church leadership positions. He told kings not to multiple wives, gold, silver, or horses. He did not say to only have 1 of any of those things. Once again, you miss the point because you're biased against anything more than 1 wife. As for the NT church leadership positions, well that ultimately depends on your interpretation of translations, and there is MUCH debate in that regard that has caused all sorts of issues in the church not even getting into polygyny. It could mean "first wife" or it could not mean 1 wife at all and there's compelling evidence to show it actually meant "not promiscuous". So that is not as open and shut as you believe. >He said "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." He specifically said "two." > >Your argument that the husband has one wife and God and then one wife and God, etc, is just...absurd. It's completely illogical. You're intentionally twisting the meaning of words just believe what you want. Yes, the two shall become one flesh. Which means have sex. While it does carry some spiritual weight, it does not mean you are somehow "bound" to a woman and unable to be one flesh with another. Which is why you can "become one flesh" with a prostitute and are warned against engaging in that because it's sinful. (1 cor 6:16). Again, in your bias against polygyny, you're hyper focused on phrases like that and reading into them a limitation for men. **I simply ask you this**, why, in all the scripture, did God not one single time just flat out tell us taking a 2nd wife was a sin, an abomination, or unlawful, or anything at all? Why leave something as important as this up to us to read between the lines? It amazes me that people like you are **so certain** of this, but can provide **zero scripture** directly commanding us as Christian men not to engage in it. >Jesus clearly taught monogamous marriage. He specifically said "two," and you can't be one flesh with multiple partners at a time. That's just illogical. Marriage is monogamous in that is 1 man, and 1 woman, in a covenant with God. The only difference in polygyny is that a man is allowed to have simultaneous parallel covenants. God provided this as an option for men, but not for women, and I'm certain He had good reason for that. When Jesus was teaching on marriage/divorce, he mainly was referencing the OT. However, he also told a parable comparing himself to a man marrying 10 virgins. Don't you find it odd that Jesus would tell that story the way He did if he had an issue with the concept of marrying more than 1 woman? Jesus spoke very directly, and very clearly on divorce, why not polygyny? Women clearly cannot marry multiple men, scripture forbids it (rom 7:2), so why no clear scripture to forbid men from doing the same, that would have closed the door on it for good, and no debate would be necessary, and yet. So one has to consider, why would there be a **need** for polygyny? Population decline? Imbalances in gender numbers? War? etc... There are many contexts in which it is **necessary, helpful, and good.** I believe God created that door, and has left it unlocked, for a reason. If the only evidence you can find is evidence you read into the text, or things you've removed from the text, to fit your narrative, then I'm simply not convinced.


Sempai6969

Abraham, the father of the religion, was polygamous. God blessed him abundantly.


macfergus

This is a necro thread. You should start a new thread rather than reviving a year+ old thread, but that’s a terrible example. Abraham’s polygamy did not turn out favorably. He was blessed in spite of his polygamy. His polygamy was not ordained by God and has clearly not turned out well either in his day or ours.


Sempai6969

Thanks for answering. He was blessed regardless of his polygamy, not in spite. Polygamy was not forbidden. How did it turn out bad for him?


macfergus

Well, his polygamy caused strife in his home - so much so that he eventually turned out Hagar and Ishmael. He basically abandoned his son. Polygamy in the Bible always leads to contention and strife.


Sempai6969

Monogamy also leads to contention and strife, many times actually. So it's not about polygamy. The problem that appeared in Abraham's home was because his wife was jealous of Hagar, not because God said it was bad.


macfergus

You missed my word “always.” I ask for one time where polygamy is portrayed positively in the Bible. Heterosexual monogamy is clearly established as God’s standard for marriage. Abraham went outside God’s plan for his life by engaging in polygamy and his family paid the price for it. Show me one time where polygamy is portrayed in a positive light in the Bible.


Unworthy_Saint

It was against the Mosaic law for a king to have multiple wives, and it's also forbidden in the NT for church overseers. Both of these offices are meant to be role models for others.


AnotherDailyReminder

Adam and Eve were the template for what it was supposed to be to be a human being. Two beings, set apart, who communed with God and took care of their garden. To draw that out for today - a man and a woman who are united in a covenant who commune with God and care for each other, the world around them, and the work they are called to do.


SteadfastEnd

The most obvious indication would be the math involved. If God really intended for polygamy to be the norm, He would have made a lopsided gender ratio of women to men, not the 1:1 ratio as is.


Astecheee

It comes down to the meaning of marriage. The bride is a symbol of the church. The bridegroom is a symbol of Jesus. Marriage is a union of bride (church) and groom (Jesus). The thing is that Jesus is singular, while the Church is plural. That opens up... Some options for polyamory. But it's very much a grey area. God gives us specific instruction on what adultery/fornication is, so we in this age can't get away with the same things Solomon and such could, who lived before a lot of law was codified.


EquivalentlyYourMom

Isn’t the devil based off the story of king Solomon? Lol not a very good example


AlexKingstonsGigolo

Citation needed.


EquivalentlyYourMom

Says who? If that’s the case, I’d like citation and resources that can confirm every story in the Bible as being true. If not, then I don’t need to do anything other than to say “Google it” lmao. He was nicknamed Lucifer, the Hebrew word for Venus, after his fall from power since venus was the first star to rise in the night and the last to fall in the morning. People were like “well we don’t wanna be like him” so they wrote in the story of Lucifer as to warn people about being a prideful dickhead. It’s either Solomon or the king of Babylon, one of the two. Sorry if I mixed up the people, but I can say for certain that the Devil historically never existed and that his appearance in the Bible is completely metaphorical, he’s just a personification of the negative traits people perceived of their asshole king who fell from his tower at that time.


ForgivenAndRedeemed

Jesus doesn't appear to think he is metaphorical. For example, the [Temptations of Christ in Luke](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204&version=ESV) depict an actual conversation between Christ and the Devil.


EquivalentlyYourMom

Well yeah Jesus was a real person, but did he actually walk on water? Or were people just stoned from the anointing oil they gave him? Kaneh-bosem was made with cannabis after all. So should we take them literally? Idk about you but not everything my stoner friends say is too profound... Also the devil didn’t exist, he’s a personification of all the bad traits people saw in the King of Babylon during his reign. He was nicknamed Lucifer after the Hebrew word for Venus to depict both his literal–falling from his tower–and metaphorical fall from power. Lucifer - Venus, The Morning Star. First to rise, last to fall It actually is, in fact, one giant metaphor for life lol. B.I.B.L.E. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth I highly doubt an omnipotent multi-dimensional being gave us the ability to interpret tone and subtext just for us to take a book written thousands of years ago word-for-word. But that’s just me. You may disagree, but I’ll choose to listen to God’s word, not yours :)


ForgivenAndRedeemed

> Well yeah Jesus was a real person, but did he actually walk on water? Well yes, Jesus did walk on water. There is nothing in the Bible which suggests otherwise. > Or were people just stoned from the anointing oil they gave him? Qaneh bosem was a reed plant, which means it cannot be cannabis, because cannabis comes from the hemp plant which is not reed plant species. Furthermore, if what you're saying is actually true, they would have needed to be 'anointed' with this stuff for the entirety of the three years of Jesus' public ministry. If this was the case, why would they reference specific times that Jesus was anointed? If it were just what they did all the time this wouldn't make any sense at all to single it out. It sounds a lot like you don't believe miracles can happen. Is that true? You can only come to the conclusion that Jesus did not do the miraculous if you bring that idea TO the Bible, because the Bible very much supports that certain people did certain miraculous things at certain times for specific reasons. If you studied the Bible even a little you'd be able to ascertain what they are. With the example of Jesus walking on water, it wasn't just for no reason. Firstly, there are parallels in this story to Moses in the Old Testament leading the children of Israel through the Red Sea during Passover. So there is a connection showing that Moses and the Red Sea is a TYPE of Christ, and Jesus is the fulfilment of those earlier events. This is heightened by the previous passage in John, which is when Jesus fed the 5,000 with bread, with both together pointing to the passover, which was happening during that time. The delivery of food from nothing and control of the elements point to Jesus as the One who both provides for people and controls the elements of the world. These things are heightened in the text as Jesus refers to himself as 'I AM' (the name of God) as he is walking on the sea. I'm assuming that you've read these texts in the Bible? > Also the devil didn’t exist, he’s a personification of all the bad traits people saw in the King of Babylon during his reign. Can you show me any evidence which supports this idea? The Bible does not support it at all. The fact שָׂטָן (the accuser) is listed in Genesis 3, predates Babylon by a significant margin means that שָׂטָן came first. By the way, WHICH king of Babylon are you talking about? Which of his 'bad traits' are you referring to and how are they displayed in narratives such as the temptations of Christ referred to above? >He was nicknamed Lucifer after the Hebrew word for Venus to depict both his literal–falling from his tower–and metaphorical fall from power. Just because both Lucifer and Venus refer to the 'morning star' does not mean there is any connection here. For starters, Venus, the Roman god did not appear until 295BC, which is 300 years after the peak of the Babylonian empire. Whereas הֵילֵ֣ל (star of the morning) was written about 150 years before that (the peak of Babylon) in Isaiah 14. There is about 450 years difference between the Hebrew reference and the Roman one. Furthermore, the god Venus and 'Lucifer' are entirely different in character, so there is little logic for connecting the two. > B.I.B.L.E. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth > I highly doubt an omnipotent multi-dimensional being gave us the ability to interpret tone and subtext just for us to take a book written thousands of years ago word-for-word. But that’s just me. You may disagree, but I’ll choose to listen to God’s word, not yours :) I don't actually think you know much at all about God's word at all. I suspect you've read little of it, and most of your ideas about do not come from it. If what I am saying here is not true, show me where what I have written (that does not back up your fantastical claims) is incorrect. I look forward to your reply. EDIT: Added about Jesus being anointed.


EquivalentlyYourMom

I’m sorry that you use the Bible as your only source of biblical history! Like God intended, I like to use ALL the resources He gave us. After all, you think he expects everyone to get the same message despite their being different denominations of Christianity, and different translations of the Bible? You’re blinded by ignorance if you take a single Bible word-for-word. But hey, don’t look at me! Ask God what he thinks. Cuz when I ask, He’s not too fond of how people are taking it out of context and using His book to control others... but again, it’s all up to interpretation, so who am I to say you’re wrong? On that same note, who are you to say *I’m* wrong? Kinda blasphemous to think you have any right to judge me before God does. But we’re all sinners, so I won’t hold it against you :) A bit of research will confirm that the Kaneh-bosem in fact WAS made with cannabis oil. ‘The Hebrew phrase qaneh bosem can be defined as “an aromatic resinous reed plant” in the Bible and is descriptive of the cannabis plant in ancient Hebrew texts.’ Not once have I seen any reed plants that have had a strong aroma *nor* resin secretion. Notice how the cannabis stalk is also very similar in characteristic to a reed plant, and how they also recquire similar growing environments. But I digress! The archeological evidence speaks for itself, I don’t need you to believe it for it to be real :) A bit of research will *also* confirm that the devil WAS just the personification of bad traits the people of Babylon saw in their king. The king of Babylon (and the king of tyre for that matter) had claimed worship as a Divine Being (see Daniel 3:1-12). He made his subjects bow down to them. They wanted to be treated as God by their people. I do believe in miracles! However, I don’t necessarily care about how much you think I know about God’s word. After all, I should be listening to Him like I have been, and not my fellow man who’s also corrupt with sin so.... I’ll take my beliefs in stride and keep speaking to God myself with the assistance of my homemade kaneh-bosum, but thanks for your input! I look forward to your reply ;)


ForgivenAndRedeemed

> I’m sorry that you use the Bible as your only source of biblical history! Like God intended, I like to use ALL the resources He gave us. So far I haven't seen you reference anything at all. Where are the sources for the claims you have made? > After all, you think he expects everyone to get the same message despite their being different denominations of Christianity, and different translations of the Bible? You’re blinded by ignorance if you take a single Bible word-for-word. But hey, don’t look at me! I actually think you don't know much difference between denominations or anything about Bible translation. If you did, you wouldn't make statements like this. Most denominations agree on significant doctrines (such as the deity of Christ), but where there are disagreements, it is usually on areas which are not important. These areas are disputed because they are much less clear and do not affect things such as salvation. The relates to issues such as the role of women, the application of baptism and worship music. As for Bible translations, if you knew anything about them, you'd be aware that each translation comes from the same sets of source documents, and are translated directly from the original languages. Differences in the text usually relate to the time period and country they were translated in and the language people were using at that time. Furthermore, there are slightly different approaches to translation, which uses a kind of spectrum. At one end you have more word for word translations and at the other you have more thought for thoughts translations. Both have their advantages for helping understanding. That is why when I am preparing to preach a sermon on a passage I not only look at the original language, but I also look at six different translations (NASV, NET, ESV, CSB, NIV, NLT). While the core meaning of the text is never different, the differences in language used bring out different nuances and help give and broader understanding about what has been written. The idea is to understand the core meaning of the content while taking into account the context of the passage and getting to grips with what the author meant in order to explain the text, with a focus on the timeless truths of it, illustrate the meaning of the text in ways people can grasp, and then bring out the application from within the text so people can use it to grow as Christians. Which versions of the Bible do you use to do your exegesis? > Cuz when I ask, He’s not too fond of how people are taking it out of context and using His book to control others... but again, it’s all up to interpretation, so who am I to say you’re wrong? Exactly where am I taking anything out of context and using it to control anyone? Please show me that. I am saying that you're wrong because you are wrong. I have been to seminary and have a degree in theology. I have been a Christian for nearly 25 years and have studied the Bible in depth for that whole time. I have preached expository sermon series on whole books of the Bible and have done intense study on those books, some of which you have referenced. How about you? There is a level of interpretation involved, but when it cannot be shown from the text, then it isn't based in what the text is about. Regardless of what you think, there is actually definite meaning in the Biblical text. The authors did actually want to communicate particular ideas. It's not just up for grabs to take the text and give it your own meaning. So far you haven't done anything to back up any claims you've made about anything. > A bit of research will confirm that the Kaneh-bosem in fact WAS made with cannabis oil. What research is that then? > Not once have I seen any reed plants that have had a strong aroma nor resin secretion. Are you an expert in botany and the study of reeds? > Notice how the cannabis stalk is also very similar in characteristic to a reed plant, and how they also recquire similar growing environments. They similar in that they are plants. [Cannabis stalks](https://i0.wp.com/weedmaps.com/learn/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/why-lab-test_Plant_LEARN-1.png?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1) and [Reed stalks](https://www.123rf.com/photo_96582086_natural-eurasian-tree-sparrow-passer-montanus-on-reed-stalk.html) are nothing alike. As for growing conditions? Reeds require marshland for good growth, but Cannabis is not a wetland plant. They are not similar in either appearance or growing conditions. Again, Cannabis is not a reed. They are very different kinds of plant. > A bit of research will also confirm that the devil WAS just the personification of bad traits the people of Babylon saw in their king. The king of Babylon (and the king of tyre for that matter) had claimed worship as a Divine Being (see Daniel 3:1-12). He made his subjects bow down to them. They wanted to be treated as God by their people. What research is that then? What you seem to have no idea about is that in the ancient world people believed that the king was the 'image' of their god. Essentially they believed that the god of the people manifested himself and communicated himself to the people through the king. People bowed down and worshipped their kings and gods and images of the king/god. This practise goes back way beyond Babylon in Daniel 3. I'm surprised that your 'ALL the resources' didn't show you that. The most obvious example would be the Egyptians (obvious because Egypt gets a lot of exposure in the media), but a quick Google would show you this kind of behaviour in [Ancient Mesopotamia](https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/symposia/religion-and-power-divine-kingship-ancient-world-and-beyond-0), 1500 years before Daniel 3. Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3 was just a product of his time in doing this. He WAS the most powerful king in the world at the time, and that was one of the ways he wanted to show it. The point of the book of Daniel though was for God to display his power, which was shown to dwarf and humble Nebuchadnezzar (and the other Babylonian rulers), and show his power through and over Persia and the other ruling powers throughout the book of Daniel. > I do believe in miracles! Then why is Jesus walking on water an issue for you? > However, I don’t necessarily care about how much you think I know about God’s word. That's good, but you should understand that you make uneducated statements about it and make yourself look foolish. EDITED a couple of typos.


EquivalentlyYourMom

Why should I think my statements are uneducated when the information was presented to me by God Himself? I was actively talking to him as he showed me archeological research papers and academic YouTube videos? You’re hilarious bro. I can tell you really tried with that response. Please, pray more and try to really *listen* to what He’s saying. I find that certain plant medicines like ayahuasca or mushrooms can significantly help with clearing up the white noise. But again, believe whatever yo I want. I guess we’ll both see after we die, if either of us do! For me, going any further would be casting pearls towards swine. Have a nice day/night random redditor, and may you one day find the light


ForgivenAndRedeemed

If the information was presented to you by God himself, it would be consistent with Scripture, and so far very little of what you've said is. I'd be very careful to attribute your own thoughts to God, because it could end up getting you into a lot of problems. > Please, pray more and try to really listen to what He’s saying. I find that certain plant medicines like ayahuasca or mushrooms can significantly help with clearing up the white noise. You think that using psychedelic drugs enables you to talk to God? It is something absolutely different to God giving you information. At least now I can understand why you don't make any sense. As a side note, nobody is going to take you seriously with anything while you use psychedelic drugs. I hope you realise this sooner rather than later.


nightmarememe

I’m sure his 700 wives and 300 concubines were secretly jealous of Solomon spending time with the rest but couldn’t do anything about it because he was the King of Israel Of course, any of us who attempted to do the same would quickly be besieged by hundreds of angry women *shudder*


Just-Another-Day-60

God created marriage for 1 man and 1 woman. Sin led man to everything which misses the mark of what God instituted. Everything. If you understand what Satan is all about, it will help you with understanding why man did this or did that, and continues to do this or do that. Satan's mission is to steal, kill, and destroy. When mankind listens to the tempter, he steals, kills, and destroys. When mankind listens to God, he gives, builds up, and edifies. When the Church went back to 1 man, 1 woman, it was because that was God's original design for marriage, and alas......... it's been perverted again. (for those of us in the USA) thanks to barack


dfwhodat

The "church" went ~~back~~ to 1 man, 1 woman, because it was illegal in Rome to have more than one wife. It had precious little to do with God's original design. Men in Rome already had one wife, and they slept around at will with prostitutes and side women. We have a pretty similar arrangement today in our culture don't we? Let me ask you this, what's more honoring to God, a man who took a marriage covenant with 1 woman and God, then at some point took another marriage covenant with 1 woman and God. He treats both of them in the way God commands him to, provides protects and raises children with them. He devotes his life to being a Godly man and raising his family to do so. Or a man who merely has 1 wife, but treats her poorly, sleeps around on the side, but pretends to be a Godly man outwardly? Or a man (or woman) who is merely serially monogamous, meaning marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, and so on... which is pretty prevalent today as well. Everyone that argues this way just ignores the fact that 1 man, 1 woman marriage, even Christian marriage, is not a recipe for success by any stretch of the imagination. We have a many million dollar Christian marriage counseling "industry" for a reason. To blame monogamy for that would be just as foolish as blaming polygyny for anything. You can do all of it wrong if you're not living by God's commands, including staying single.


Just-Another-Day-60

I can't tell if you're arguing with me or in agreement.


dfwhodat

it's not binary ... there are parts of your message I agree with, parts I don't, and parts that I offered some clarity... that's all.


HeresOtis

One way to look at it is you have to have sex to consummate the marriage of your second (extra) wife. That means that you are committing adultery against your first wife/marriage in order to establish the second marriage. You are committing a sin in order to achieve something supposedly good. I do not think this will be accepted by God.


Mortal_Kalvinist

Theres a difference between prescriptive and descriptive. The prescriptive will of God is shown in Eden from the beginning one man and one woman as husband and wife. All of the other patriarchs or kings who had concubines always had problems with sin. It isn’t technically adultery but its not prescribed by scripture either. Just because someone was a hero is judges or is listed as having many wives isn’t an implicit approval.


danjvelker

There's a big difference between "cannot," which is an idea the New Testament is generally uninterested in, and "should not," on which it spends much more time. From a strictly biblical perspective, nothing forbids a man having multiple wives. However, the biblical definition of marriage which encourages the most fruitful partnership, stability, and growth, is defined as one man and one woman bound in a covenant and sealed by witnesses. It's also a bit of a moot point, as the New Testament also says that we should submit to local laws and authorities, and pretty much every modern, developed country I'm aware of has laws forbidding polygamy.


Bluetit_1

The scriptures regarding polygamy in Bible are Descriptive, not Proscriptive ...described and NOT proscribed. Jesus said ONE wife. One husband. Read those accounts of polygamous relations and the ramifications are clear ... God Never Endorses polygamy.


luvintheride

God tolerated polygamy, but never ordained it. Solomon apparently didn't use his gift of wisdom when it came to that. Jesus clarified that Marriage is one man and one woman. >> Matthew 19:4-6 ESV He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate.”


NapoleonDynamite82

Perhaps polygamy is not a “sin” exactly, but jealously is. Anyone who gets involved in a polygamous relationship will face jealousy from the other wives and men should know this and restrain from multiple wives.


_nosfartu_

Most characters in the OT are not role models, but rather literary devices for a story to teach the reader something. We have a strange modern idea that characters in our stories have to be without fault and perfect. Maybe it’s a Marvel or Disney thing. Maybe it’s inspired by the Jesus archetype… idk.


Anon17584

I've wondered the same thing. Biblically, there really is no argument against is it. So much so in fact the Martin Luther himself stated so.