The Biblical position on Polygamy

[McCulloch]

Polygamy is prohibited in the Bible and the examples of it occurring prove to end in family dysfunction.

Aside from instructions specifically for elders (bishops) and deacons, is polygamy expressly prohibited in the Bible?

[McCulloch]

Could Jacob believe in a second "God" as long as he remained "faithful" to God?

The Bible explicitly states that the believer is to have no other gods. Not so with wives.

[myth-one.com]

You are familiar with God's faithful servant, Jacob and his two wives aren't you?

Could Jacob believe in a second "God" as long as he remained "faithful" to God?

The Bible explicitly states that the believer is to have no other gods.

I agree, that is consistent with Jacob being God's "faithful" servant. He can have one, and only one, God.

Not so with wives.

If being faithful to God implies having no other gods, how can a man be faithful to one wife by having others?

[Polygamist]

The Bible explicitly states that the believer is to have no other gods. Not so with wives.

If being faithful to God implies having no other gods, how can a man be faithful to one wife by having others?

Myth-one.com, you raise a good point but it doesn't answer for the original question. At best it would show that there's a moral conflict in polygamy while the Bible still approves of it. In a sense, the reasoning in your point commits the fallacy of composition when you say that all "faithful" relationships must consist of a person being with or trusting in only one person just because a "faithful" relationship with God requires that. I'd argue that that's not true in every case.

My view of course is that there is no conflict here. The terms of faithfulness in a monogamous marriage (two person) are different than that of polygamy (more than 2 people). In other words, being faithful in polygamy would mean for a man to be with only his wives, and not just one wife at a time as monogamy would require. I know this means that what constitutes as faithfulness varies depending on what form of marriage you're in, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with this, just as long as the proper meaning is applied in its proper context or form of marriage. This is especially not immoral or wrong to do on biblical grounds especially when the God approves of the practice, which means that it is not wrong (or adultery), but we can infer that it is polyfidelity.

[myth-one.com]

Welcome Polygamist! (I hope your name doesn't limit you to only this thread.)

If being faithful to God implies having no other gods, how can a man be faithful to one wife by having others?

The terms of faithfulness in a monogamous marriage (two person) are different than that of polygamy (more than 2 people). In other words, being faithful in polygamy would mean for a man to be with only his wives, and not just one wife at a time as monogamy would require.

Yes, it absolutely depends on ones definition of "faithfulness."

I know this means that what constitutes as faithfulness varies depending on what form of marriage you're in, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with this, just as long as the proper meaning is applied in its proper context or form of marriage.

Why limit "faithfulness" to marriage? Let's create a third definition of faithful for heterosexual men as sex with one woman at a time. That is, while they're having sex with that woman, they're being faithful and giving full attention to her at that moment -- whether married or not. Under that definition, heterosexual men are always "faithful" (OK - as long as they restrict themselves to one woman at a time). What a wonderful world it would be! It's so simple!

This is especially not immoral or wrong to do on biblical grounds especially when the God approves of the practice, which means that it is not wrong (or adultery),

Which biblical God approved of that practice?

[Polygamist]

Welcome Polygamist! (I hope your name doesn't limit you to only this thread.)

Thanks for the welcome! Unfortunately due to a busy schedule, I may only have time to post on select topics. I'm very passionate about polygamy and I want to fight to make it legal in the US. I'm sure others do as well. So I apologize if I come off as being over-zealous on the issue.

I know this means that what constitutes as faithfulness varies depending on what form of marriage you're in, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with this, just as long as the proper meaning is applied in its proper context or form of marriage.

Why limit "faithfulness" to marriage? Let's create a third definition of faithful for heterosexual men as sex with one woman at a time. That is, while they're having sex with that woman, they're being faithful and giving full attention to her at that moment -- whether married or not. Under that definition, heterosexual men are always "faithful" (OK - as long as they restrict themselves to one woman at a time). What a wonderful world it would be! It's so simple!

I don't intend to relativize the definition of "faithfulness", but in the context of a biblically based marriage, the two definitions that I gave are all that apply. The only sexually permissible relationship the bible recognizes is marriage, and more specifically two forms of marriage, a polygamous one and a monogamous one. Anything more or less is contrary to what the Bible says.

This is especially not immoral or wrong to do on biblical grounds especially when the God approves of the practice, which means that it is not wrong (or adultery),

Which biblical God approved of that practice?

The God described throughout the OT and NT approves of polygamy. In fact, God describes Himself as a polygamist in a symbolic way when he talks about two nations being His two wives.

God speaking to the prophet, Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 23: 1, 4, 36, 37
(vs. 1) The word of the LORD came to me...(vs. 4)The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem.

And so that you know that when God said "they were mine" to mean that they were His wives , vss. 36 and 37 in the same chapter clarifies this point:

(vs. 36) The LORD said to me: "Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then confront them with their detestable practices, 37 for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me

Saying that two sisters (symbolized as Jerusalem and Samaria) "are mine" signifies polygamy. Saying that they also bore you children and committed adultery, again has to do with polygamy or marriage in general. So why would a Holy God use a "sin" to describe Himself as?



Here's Moses giving instruction on what a man should do in a polygamous marriage:
Deutoronomy 21:15-17
15 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, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

If polygamy was adultery, why didn't God command for polygamists to be stoned as He commanded in other places for someone caught in adultery to be stoned?

If polygamy is a sin (adultery) why did GOD reveal a law to Moses that instructs how or what a husband should do "while" in a polygamous relationship? God nor Moses never tells a man to leave a polygamous relationship but rather they're giving instructions on how a man should manage some of the issues involved in the relationship.

[myth-one.com]

I'm very passionate about polygamy and I want to fight to make it legal in the US. I'm sure others do as well.

God created man and woman and for that reason a man should cleave unto his wife. This has been beaten to death in posts above, and evolved into whether wife meant singular or one of many.

Also, sin is the transgression of God's laws. But sin is not imputed when there is no law. Polygamy was not a sin, until God made and acknowledged a law prohibiting polygamy. I claim that was the commandment against adultery. Once again, that was discussed above and left at the definition of adultery. Whether it is adultery to make love to more than one woman if they are all one's wife.

Many of the scriptures you quoted were before the ten commandments were given to Moses, so committing the act did not constiture a sin as there was no law prohibiting the act.

To began a new thought: In a much broader sense, are we not all children of one being -- God:

And call no one your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9)

And if we are all the children of God, does that imply polygamy to be a good thing?

Are polygamists somhow trying to emulate or become "Gods" on a smaller scale?

I apologize if I come off as being over-zealous on the issue.

You will need to be over-zealous to succeed in making polygamy legal! I would be disappointed if you were any other way.

[Polygamist]

God created man and woman and for that reason a man should cleave unto his wife. This has been beaten to death in posts above, and evolved into whether wife meant singular or one of many.

The word "wife" being singular in that passage doesn't necessarily mean that polygamy is banned. What the author of that passage didn't do was mention the exception or alternative, that is, a man should cleave unto his wife [or wives]. We know that polygamy is an exception/alternative because later on after that passage we not only see people engaging in polygamy by having "wives" but we also see God approving of it and even setting conditions for it (Exodus 21:10 and Deutoronomy 21:15-17).

Another forum member also remarked on this and I believe his point was very valid. McColluch mentions on pg. 2, post 14 of this topic,

Mom says to eat your potato. Does that mean that you will not be allowed to have more? Yes, the author of Genesis says that a man should cleave to his wife. He makes no prohibition for having a second one.

Also, sin is the transgression of God's laws. But sin is not imputed when there is no law. Polygamy was not a sin, until God made and acknowledged a law prohibiting polygamy. I claim that was the commandment against adultery. Once again, that was discussed above and left at the definition of adultery. Whether it is adultery to make love to more than one woman if they are all one's wife.

Many of the scriptures you quoted were before the ten commandments were given to Moses, so committing the act did not constiture a sin as there was no law prohibiting the act.

One of the Biblical passages that I quoted to you is in the Law and the other came after the Law. The 10 commandments are mentioned in Exodus chapter 20 but one of the verses that I provided is mentioned in Deutoronomy 21:15 and interestingly, another reference to polygamy is in the next chapter right after the 10 commandments, i.e. Exodus 21:10.

To began a new thought: In a much broader sense, are we not all children of one being -- God:

And call no one your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9)

And if we are all the children of God, does that imply polygamy to be a good thing?

I'm not sure if I understand this point, but it's okay for a man to have more than one wife but it's not okay to have more than one God.

Are polygamists somhow trying to emulate or become "Gods" on a smaller scale?

Not me but I've heard of some doctrines in Mormonism that mentions something like that. I believe they're called the doctrine of plural marriage or "celestial marriage". I'm a Protestant Christian, and I advocate for polygamy because it's a God-given right per the Bible.

I apologize if I come off as being over-zealous on the issue.

You will need to be over-zealous to succeed in making polygamy legal! I would be disappointed if you were any other way.

Thanks. I am also praying!

[OpenYourEyes]

McCulloch wrote:
The Bible explicitly states that the believer is to have no other gods. Not so with wives."

My response:
So far you have given an argument from silence which does not prove your case. That fallacy alone does not disprove your case neither.

My view is that polygamy was allowed but not condoned, kinda like arranged marriages in the Bible.. All of the instructions for marriage involve tasks that can only be done towards one spouse and not multiple spouses. Also, Matthew 19 explanation on adultery would include polygamy otherwise why would it be adultery to marry a second woman?