When I preached through the book of Genesis at my church a few years ago, one nagging issue I wrestled with was the Old Testament’s seeming tolerance of polygamy.
The Bible may not explicitly condemn polygamy, but it does show the problems it causes. In almost every example in the Bible, there is fighting between wives and/or children. In the case of Jacob, some of his sons were so jealous they wanted to kill their half brother, but then through God's providence sold their brother into slavery. I think these examples were God's warning against polygamy.
Correct. However, notice how humane the story is. This isn't a story of Boaz being a dirty creep over Ruth. It's redemption. Ruth chose to die with her mother in law, never to marry again, but God has better plans for her.
Also by the same logic, those who divorce their spouse without an act of adultery made would also be considered polyamory. I'm not siding on this logic, but to those who make the point may need to wrestle with that.
I think people forget that just because they are iconic names in the Bible, doesn't mean they were perfect. (David, Solomon, Abraham, etc.) Remember that their sins were greatly punished, for Jesus has not saved us from the law yet.
Rape was looked in a much different light back then. In fact, what is in the image is not a bad way to keep single motherhood from skyrocketing out of control like it is today. It puts accountability on the man to be there for the woman and child instead of the liberty to walk away. It may also prevent men from doing such an act if they think of the consequences of responsibility.
I think your post covers the issue well. To those who disagree on the matter, do you have a better idea on how to deal with widowed women, the lack of men for women to marry, (for war was a significant cause to limited men), slaves to be made husbands and wives, and partiality played a big role as well.
Also, I'm quite shocked that the book of Ruth is not covered in the chart/image. If you do your research, do it well.
I appreciate the feedback, Maxine. By the way, Ruth's marriage to Boaz would be considered a levirate marriage, since he was the next kinsman redeemer. Levirate marriage is included in the chart.
One observation is that the polygamous marriages found in Scripture are practically all filled with contention and conflict. The Lord Himself reiterated that polygamy was not the original design.
I echo Jim's comment, the best explanation I have read.
Also, I read years ago of men in a polygamous culture. When they converted to Christianity and the missionaries required them to put away their other wives, they did so, and the women had nowhere to go. Their own families would not take them back and they were destitute. Their options were paupery or prostitution. So in the end the missionaries allowed converts to keep their other wives.
According to 1 Timothy 3:2 such converts would have been disqualified from later becoming bishops. This passage MIGHT also mean there were some polygamous marriages in the New Testament church, though of course there is no evidence for this. And the requirement of having one wife could be directed against bachelor bishops.
When we find ourselves offended by something in Scripture, the problem is always us.
Polygamy cleaned up the edge cases. The fact that God allows it (never outlawed in Scripture) indicates that to the Heavenly Father ensuring that every woman was married and every child had a father was more important than the romantic idea of one man with one woman for life. But in no society has polygamy been the majority case because there are not enough women for that to be possible. It has probably never exceeded 10% of any culture.
God describes himself as marrying two women, Oholibah and Oholibamah. God's prophet said God would have given King David more wives if he had asked.
It could mean that your opening assumption is mistaken. The Bible defines adultery as sleeping with another man's wife. Not an unmarried woman sleeping with another woman's husband. Thus a married man taking a second wife was not adultery so long as he continued his duties to the first wife.
Our modern view of Christian marriage was the result of Greeks and Romans becoming the majority of the early church. Their cultures were egalitarian and did not allow polygamy, because they didn't want rich men creating a shortage of women.
Christians have such a distorted notion of “God.” They think God chooses like a human chooses, so God allowed this and did not allow this. What God “allows” from a human perspective simply is what happens. So there is no reason God “allowed” fill in the blank. God doesn’t sit around wondering which is the best action. God is pure action without reflection. So whatever rationalization that a human being comes up with for why God “allowed” something, should not be attributed to God. It’s just something to make us feel better about God and our faith. But it is neither God nor faith.
I think my wife is my property. I believe this because she is identified as my property in the Ten Commandments and numerous places in Scripture. It seems to me that the "enlightened" view of what property is, and how it should be treated is the problem, and not the question of wether or not one person can own another. The modern view of property is that it is a material thing that should be used, abused, and discarded when it's usefulness has been exhausted. The Christian view should be that all the things we have are gifts from God and that they should be cared for to the best of our abilities.
Things that come easily are easily let go of. I suspect if a bride price was reinstituted it would result in less divorce. Im a bit biased as I have three daughters and would prefer as many barriers as possible to any young men pursuing them in the future.
As far as polygamy goes each marriage within the household is still a union between one man and one woman. If a high status male is capable of taking care of multiple wives I don't see the issue with it. For some households it might be preferable to the man seeking relations outside of the home.
All members of a family have property rights in each other. Children have a right to economic support from their father. A wife has a property right in economic support from her husband. The modern West has struck down any property rights the husband or father has in his wife and children. But the Bible clearly teaches that he does have such rights. It doesn't mean a husband owns his wife and children like he owns his car. Those are relationships with two-way obligations and duties.
If I had to choose between one exceptional Christian man and three sub par man-children for my daughters I would choose the one man. He would have to be an exceptional man in order to provide for them and keep the peace in that household. Part of that provision would be to take care of their emotional needs as well, which would be close to impossible with three sisters.
I'm sure they will all find three different upstanding Christian men who are gainfully employed.
I certainly don't have any plans on tricking a guy into marrying all three in exchange for 21 years of indentured servitude. Although, the labor market is pretty rough these days, so if a nice young Christian man with a good work ethic comes along I might have to think about it. That third seven year term would be the most challenging to get locked down, though, and if the guy is dumb enough to get tricked that much he might not be worth the trouble.
If you had three daughters would you want them to be married to three different, perpetually unemployed atheists or one wealthy, solidly Christian man?
Thanks, Jim!
The best explanation of this that I've read...
The Bible may not explicitly condemn polygamy, but it does show the problems it causes. In almost every example in the Bible, there is fighting between wives and/or children. In the case of Jacob, some of his sons were so jealous they wanted to kill their half brother, but then through God's providence sold their brother into slavery. I think these examples were God's warning against polygamy.
Mostly because the men died in battle and there was no government system to support the widows and orphans.
Correct. However, notice how humane the story is. This isn't a story of Boaz being a dirty creep over Ruth. It's redemption. Ruth chose to die with her mother in law, never to marry again, but God has better plans for her.
Also by the same logic, those who divorce their spouse without an act of adultery made would also be considered polyamory. I'm not siding on this logic, but to those who make the point may need to wrestle with that.
I think people forget that just because they are iconic names in the Bible, doesn't mean they were perfect. (David, Solomon, Abraham, etc.) Remember that their sins were greatly punished, for Jesus has not saved us from the law yet.
Rape was looked in a much different light back then. In fact, what is in the image is not a bad way to keep single motherhood from skyrocketing out of control like it is today. It puts accountability on the man to be there for the woman and child instead of the liberty to walk away. It may also prevent men from doing such an act if they think of the consequences of responsibility.
I think your post covers the issue well. To those who disagree on the matter, do you have a better idea on how to deal with widowed women, the lack of men for women to marry, (for war was a significant cause to limited men), slaves to be made husbands and wives, and partiality played a big role as well.
Also, I'm quite shocked that the book of Ruth is not covered in the chart/image. If you do your research, do it well.
I appreciate the feedback, Maxine. By the way, Ruth's marriage to Boaz would be considered a levirate marriage, since he was the next kinsman redeemer. Levirate marriage is included in the chart.
One observation is that the polygamous marriages found in Scripture are practically all filled with contention and conflict. The Lord Himself reiterated that polygamy was not the original design.
For sure
I echo Jim's comment, the best explanation I have read.
Also, I read years ago of men in a polygamous culture. When they converted to Christianity and the missionaries required them to put away their other wives, they did so, and the women had nowhere to go. Their own families would not take them back and they were destitute. Their options were paupery or prostitution. So in the end the missionaries allowed converts to keep their other wives.
According to 1 Timothy 3:2 such converts would have been disqualified from later becoming bishops. This passage MIGHT also mean there were some polygamous marriages in the New Testament church, though of course there is no evidence for this. And the requirement of having one wife could be directed against bachelor bishops.
I appreciate the kind words, Joe
Well done!
Thank you!
Absolutely, that's what family does...
We should acknowledge the time, research, efforts and rightly dividing the Word of Truth, a rare jewel, in these days of deception.
At the very least, we ought to be encouraging and building up each other.
When we find ourselves offended by something in Scripture, the problem is always us.
Polygamy cleaned up the edge cases. The fact that God allows it (never outlawed in Scripture) indicates that to the Heavenly Father ensuring that every woman was married and every child had a father was more important than the romantic idea of one man with one woman for life. But in no society has polygamy been the majority case because there are not enough women for that to be possible. It has probably never exceeded 10% of any culture.
God describes himself as marrying two women, Oholibah and Oholibamah. God's prophet said God would have given King David more wives if he had asked.
It could mean that your opening assumption is mistaken. The Bible defines adultery as sleeping with another man's wife. Not an unmarried woman sleeping with another woman's husband. Thus a married man taking a second wife was not adultery so long as he continued his duties to the first wife.
Our modern view of Christian marriage was the result of Greeks and Romans becoming the majority of the early church. Their cultures were egalitarian and did not allow polygamy, because they didn't want rich men creating a shortage of women.
It wasn’t an endorsement… you can see this by the problems the came from it.
Christians have such a distorted notion of “God.” They think God chooses like a human chooses, so God allowed this and did not allow this. What God “allows” from a human perspective simply is what happens. So there is no reason God “allowed” fill in the blank. God doesn’t sit around wondering which is the best action. God is pure action without reflection. So whatever rationalization that a human being comes up with for why God “allowed” something, should not be attributed to God. It’s just something to make us feel better about God and our faith. But it is neither God nor faith.
And WHO is “god”!?
I think my wife is my property. I believe this because she is identified as my property in the Ten Commandments and numerous places in Scripture. It seems to me that the "enlightened" view of what property is, and how it should be treated is the problem, and not the question of wether or not one person can own another. The modern view of property is that it is a material thing that should be used, abused, and discarded when it's usefulness has been exhausted. The Christian view should be that all the things we have are gifts from God and that they should be cared for to the best of our abilities.
Things that come easily are easily let go of. I suspect if a bride price was reinstituted it would result in less divorce. Im a bit biased as I have three daughters and would prefer as many barriers as possible to any young men pursuing them in the future.
As far as polygamy goes each marriage within the household is still a union between one man and one woman. If a high status male is capable of taking care of multiple wives I don't see the issue with it. For some households it might be preferable to the man seeking relations outside of the home.
All members of a family have property rights in each other. Children have a right to economic support from their father. A wife has a property right in economic support from her husband. The modern West has struck down any property rights the husband or father has in his wife and children. But the Bible clearly teaches that he does have such rights. It doesn't mean a husband owns his wife and children like he owns his car. Those are relationships with two-way obligations and duties.
Would you be OK with all three of your daughters being married to the same man, assuming he had the ability to provide for them?
I don’t support polygamy but this isn’t really a representative example, because marrying multiple sisters would be incest.
It would only be incest if the sisters were having sex with each other.
Leviticus 18:18 prohibits marrying sisters at the same time.
"Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive."
If I had to choose between one exceptional Christian man and three sub par man-children for my daughters I would choose the one man. He would have to be an exceptional man in order to provide for them and keep the peace in that household. Part of that provision would be to take care of their emotional needs as well, which would be close to impossible with three sisters.
That’s definitely a take. Let’s hope for everyone’s sake none of them will ever be in that position
I'm sure they will all find three different upstanding Christian men who are gainfully employed.
I certainly don't have any plans on tricking a guy into marrying all three in exchange for 21 years of indentured servitude. Although, the labor market is pretty rough these days, so if a nice young Christian man with a good work ethic comes along I might have to think about it. That third seven year term would be the most challenging to get locked down, though, and if the guy is dumb enough to get tricked that much he might not be worth the trouble.
If you had three daughters would you want them to be married to three different, perpetually unemployed atheists or one wealthy, solidly Christian man?