What Message Does The Bible Send Re. Polygamy?

[Zakuska]

You and I read the Bible quite differently, it seems. I don't think Sarah was happy to be barren and have to give her slave to Abraham. I also don't think Hagar was too happy with being sent away when Sarah got jealous. How do you think the boy Ishmael felt about this? Good spirits?

Paul presents a very important detail to that story that you seemed to have missed.

Galatians 4:29

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

It seems to me that Ismael got sent away because of bad behavior on his and his mothers part. Not because Sarah "got Jealous". But because Ismael and his mother got Jealous and were treating Sarah and Isaac badly.

See above. Good heavens, have you ever heard of the Jewish-Arab conflict? Talk about polygamy fall-out (ok, that's a stretch, but not by much).

Ismael and Hagar seem to have forgotten the promise of the Lord to them.

Genesis 17:20

20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

Hmmm a blessing and a promise given because of Polygamy and through Polygamy fulffilled.

Genesis 25:16

16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.

That doesn't sound like this BAD dismal picture you are painting of it.

EDIT: I see Mola beat me too the punch.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Sevenbak,

You wrote:

I sometimes get a chuckle when protestant critics of the practice of biblical polygamy try to reconcile Martin Luther's take on it.

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

I have addressed this claim in an earlier thread; I will repeat what I said there:

Luther did not teach that polygamy was morally acceptable. He gave what he later admitted was bad counsel on one occasion to a prince that in effect condoned an act of bigamy, and Luther himself came to view his involvement with regret. Furthermore, Luther explicitly denounced polygamy as of the devil. Here's a source on this subject: Martin Brecht and James L. Schaaf, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol. 3, 1532-1546 (Fortress, 1993), 205-15.

[Zakuska]

Sevenbak,

You wrote:

I have addressed this claim in an earlier thread; I will repeat what I said there:

Luther did not teach that polygamy was morally acceptable. He gave what he later admitted was bad counsel on one occasion to a prince that in effect condoned an act of bigamy, and Luther himself came to view his involvement with regret. Furthermore, Luther explicitly denounced polygamy as of the devil. Here's a source on this subject: Martin Brecht and James L. Schaaf, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol. 3, 1532-1546 (Fortress, 1993), 205-15.

For those who would like to read that online:

Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol 3. 1532-1546

Click Contents at the top, and then choose "Chapter XVII - The Calamitous Bigmay of Landgrave Philip "

However, I can't see where Rob thinks that "Luther denounced polygamy as of the devil." Escpecially when on page 206 we read... that the only council he did give was that Landgrave must keep it secret. And then this GEM on page 207... Luther pulls a Joseph Smith!

After Landgrave Married the Second wife on council from Luther and rumor got out that He had "paye.." er thanked Luther with a cask of Rhine Wine:

begining of June, Anthony Lauterbach in Prima wanted to know from luther whether there was any truth to it. Luther did not say there was nothing to the rumor, but he did state that he had not seen any public evidence.

pg 208

Quote mined:

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."

-JS

Hmmm.... theres also a tale of letter burning...

Luther was unable to give Landgrave's letter to the elector; for safety's sake he had burned it immediatley, "for such a secret, God willing will not be revealed by me." pg 207

Hmm... so Martin Luthert can keep secrets about polygamy, burn letters to conceal the truth and he's a true God fearing defender of the truth.

Yet some early LDS may have did the same thing and that proves Mormonism wrong and Joseph Smith a liar and NOT a prophet how exactly?!

The guacamole known as LDS criticism is getting VERY deep boys!

Edited August 2, 2011 by Zakuska

[Sevenbak]

Sevenbak,

You wrote:

I have addressed this claim in an earlier thread; I will repeat what I said there:

Luther did not teach that polygamy was morally acceptable. He gave what he later admitted was bad counsel on one occasion to a prince that in effect condoned an act of bigamy, and Luther himself came to view his involvement with regret. Furthermore, Luther explicitly denounced polygamy as of the devil. Here's a source on this subject: Martin Brecht and James L. Schaaf, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol. 3, 1532-1546 (Fortress, 1993), 205-15.

He said it was biblically acceptable, which is in harmony with the OP, which was the whole point.

The fact that Luther waffled with biblical teachings is representative of the apostasy in general, but it would seem he was at least honest enough to proclaim that truth.

[Sevenbak]

For those who would like to read that online:

Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol 3. 1532-1546

Click Contents at the top, and then choose "Chapter XVII - The Calamitous Bigmay of Landgrave Philip "

Thanks for the link, from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

[Rivers]

When i first read the Bible, I simply figured that polygamy was a normal part of the normal culture in that particular time and place. I've never seen alluding to biblical figures as a good defense of polygamy being practiced in Victorian America.

[Rob Bowman]

Ariarates,

Let me share a few thoughts that may help.

1. Genesis 1-2, the narrative of God's creation of the human race, provides the model for marriage (as we can see in Jesus' use of the passage in that way, Matt. 19:3-6). There in Genesis we see that God created a man and then created one woman to be his lifelong companion. The two of them were to function as complementary halves united as "one flesh" (Gen. 2:23-25). This passage therefore reveals that God's intention for marriage was that it was to be an exclusive, life-long relationship between one man and one woman.

2. No biblical text presents God as ever commanding polygamy. One might argue that God permitted it during the OT era, but there is simply no basis in the Bible for the claim that men were usually expected to have one wife but at times were commanded to take a plurality of wives, as Mormons commonly claim.

3. The first polygamist in the Bible is Lamech (Gen. 4:19, 23), a thoroughly disreputable man whom Genesis reports bragged that he would outdo Cain in evil (4:24). Not exactly a model citizen!

4. The Mosaic Law assumes that some men will have more than one wife but never actually endorses, approves, condones, or validates such a situation. While it does not explicitly censure or criticize a man for having, say, two or three wives, it does warn any man that might become king of Israel not to acquire many wives for himself (Deut. 17:17). Surely this text raises a serious question about men who take thirty or forty wives. Furthermore, the Law imposed various requirements in connection with polygamy that seem calculated at the very least to discourage the practice (Ex. 21:10-11; Lev. 18:17; 20:14; Deut. 21:15-17).

5. The NT states explicitly that being "the husband of one wife" is one of the characteristics to be sought in an elder (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). The lists of characteristics in which this description appears are generally descriptive of men of good character and reputation, which therefore presupposes that being monogamous was itself evidence of good character.

More could be said, but there are good reasons from the Bible for the traditional Christian belief that monogamy is God's ideal for marriage.

[Zakuska]

Thanks for the link, from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

I like all the letter burning to "conceal" the truth. That should disarm even the most ardent Evangelical critic of Joseph Smith.

[Sevenbak]

When i first read the Bible, I simply figured that polygamy was a normal part of the normal culture in that particular time and place. I've never seen alluding to biblical figures as a good defense of polygamy being practiced in Victorian America.

I'm not an advocate of polygamy, but I do support that it was an accepted biblical practice and wasn't considered a sin like so many today say it was. I've even heard some evangelical types say Abraham was an adulterer. Frankly, that's worth arguing against.

It's more than alluding to biblical figures.

Not only did Nathan the prophet expressly say the Lord gave David his wives, but there are also provisions in the Law of Moses in dealing with day to day issues that arise from the practice. Here's one.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

15¶If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another ahated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not amake the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

17But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a adouble portion of all that he hath: for he is bthe cbeginning of his strength; the right of the dfirstborn is his.

Josephus also mentioned the practice as being commonplace in the first century AD, as well as in ancient times.

“It is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time.” (Jewish Antiquities 17.1, 2, 15)

[Zakuska]

Ariarates,

Let me share a few thoughts that may help.

1. Genesis 1-2, the narrative of God's creation of the human race, provides the model for marriage (as we can see in Jesus' use of the passage in that way, Matt. 19:3-6). There in Genesis we see that God created a man and then created one woman to be his lifelong companion. The two of them were to function as complementary halves united as "one flesh" (Gen. 2:23-25). This passage therefore reveals that God's intention for marriage was that it was to be an exclusive, life-long relationship between one man and one woman.

Aren't we forgetting about Lillith?

[Sevenbak]

I like all the letter burning to "conceal" the truth. That should disarm even the most ardent Evangelical critic of Joseph Smith.

They just ignore it.

[Zakuska]

They just ignore it.

But of course... Luther never claimed to be a "Profi..." er... Prophet.

Here he is giving even more bad advice to landgrave....

Therefore the landgrave had to "tell a good strong lie" and deny the second marriage; otherwise, Luther forsaw grave consiquences for him and the church, and in this he was to be proved correct.

pg 212

Thats like his poor council to "sin big" so grace can be manifest. Here he is telling someone else to lie to save his own skin.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Aren't we forgetting about Lillith?

Um, no. The Bible does not say anything about her. Unless you think the lilit of Isaiah 34:14 was that primeval woman (which is not a viable interpretation!).

[LeSellers]

The Mosaic Law assumes that some men will have more than one wife but never actually endorses, approves, condones, or validates such a situation. While it does not explicitly censure or criticize a man for having, say, two or three wives, it does warn any man that might become king of Israel not to acquire many wives for himself (Deut. 17:17). Surely this text raises a serious question about men who take thirty or forty wives. Furthermore, the Law imposed various requirements in connection with polygamy that seem calculated at the very least to discourage the practice.

Yet the Law of Moses demanded that some men take second and other wives. There are two cases:

First, the Law of the Levirate (which long pre-dates the Law of Moses). There is no relief clause for a married man. Irrespective of his marital state, God commanded that the surviving brother marry his widowed sister-in-law, and not merely to protect her, he was to impregnate her so his dead brother's name would not be lost. Further children would belong to him.

Second, if a man raped an unmarried woman (or had sex with her in any way) he had to marry her (or pay her father).

And, while you have a case that there is no explicit commendation of Plural marriage, neither is there any condemnation of it. And, given your #5, if there were ever to have been such a refutation, it ought to have been just there, in Titus. But we do not find any such thing.

Moreover, it is possible (and likely in my view) that Paul did not write what you are reading there. While neither Hebrew nor Greek has an official indefinite article, we have many cases where Paul himself, as well as many other biblical writers, in both Old and New Testaments, where the cardinal number "one" is used as if it was the indefinite article.

Therefore, it is quite possible that Paul was not saying that a bishop (or deacon) must be a monogynist. He was saying only that such a church officer must be married.

I have posted (here and elsewhere) the references to Conybeare and Stock, among others, to support this hypothesis.

The commandment concerning the kings was not that he should not take several wives (David was married plurally before being made king, BTW, and was given more of them on being crowned), but that he should not "greatly multiply wives to himself". Sounds as if he could (even should) have multiple wives, just not "great" numbers of them, like, for instance, Solomon. You do recall, do you not that Nathan, when he condemned David for taking Bathsheba, told the king that God would have given him even more wives than he already had, had he, David, only asked for them.

Lehi

Edited August 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

Yet the Law of Moses demanded that some men take second and other wives. There are two cases:

First, the Law of the Levirate (which long pre-dates the Law of Moses). There is no relief clause for a married man. Irrespective of his marital state, God commanded that the surviving brother marry his widowed sister-in-law, and not merely to protect her, he was to impregnate her so his dead brother's name would not be lost. Further children would belong to him.

Second, if a man raped an unmarried woman (or had sex with her in any way) he had to marry her (or pay her father).

On the first case, the text says nothing either way, so to use this passage to infer a command to a married man to marry his deceased brother's widow is a stretch. The case involves a woman whose husband died before she had a chance to conceive any children, which meant, generally, that her husband died very young. Since older children tended to marry first, any surviving brother was likely to be single. But I'm not arguing the contrary that the text precludes bigamy; I don't think it says one way or another.

On the second case, the option to pay the father would normally be taken if the man was already married. Recall that the Law forbade a man to marry more than one woman if that meant depriving the first wife anything to which she was entitled. In any case, the statute in this situation would be an accommodation to human sin: the woman, no longer being a virgin, would have had difficulty securing a husband, so requiring the rapist/fornicator to make good by her was a culturally appropriate means of protecting her.

Neither of these cases establishes that polygamy is ever itself a good thing, even if either case ever involved polygamy. In both cases a woman whom men in that society would usually not wish to marry (whether a widow or rape victim or the like) had legal recourse to make sure she was not left to fend for herself (in a culture in which an unmarried woman's options were essentially nil).

You wrote:

And, while you have a case that there is no explicit commendation of Plural marriage, neither is there any condemnation of it. And, given your #5, if there were ever to have been such a refutation, it ought to have been just there, in Titus. But we do not find any such thing.

Now that's an argument from silence.

You wrote:

Moreover, it is possible (and likely in my view) that Paul did not write what you are reading there. While neither Hebrew nor Greek has an official indefinite article, we have many cases where Paul himself, as well as many other biblical writers, in both Old and New Testaments, where the cardinal number "one" is used as if it was the indefinite article.

Therefore, it is quite possible that Paul was not saying that a bishop (or deacon) must be a monogynist. He was saying only that such a church officer must be married.

In context, such an interpretation makes no sense. Paul is giving a list of ideal characteristics of a man of impeccable character and reputation. One need not be married to be a person of good character. And if Paul was requiring church officers to be married, he would be imposing a requirement on them that he himself did not meet!

You wrote:

The commandment concerning the kings was not that he should not take several wives (David was married plurally before being made king, BTW, and was given more of them on being crowned), but that he should not "greatly multiply wives to himself". Sounds as if he could (even should) have multiple wives, just not "great" numbers of them, like, for instance, Solomon. You do recall, do you not that Nathan, when he condemned David for taking Bathsheba, told the king that God would have given him even more wives than he already had, had he, David, only asked for them.

How many wives, in your opinion, would be too many?

[RhipSaw2]

Another interesting question would be, what does the BOM have to say about polygamy...

Jacob2:

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

[bluebell]

Another interesting question would be, what does the BOM have to say about polygamy...

Jacob2:

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

You've left out a key verse in this chapter. Without the verse, it is impossible to have an accurate understanding of what the BOM actually teaches concerning plural marriage.

30For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Monogamy is the rule, but plural marriage is an exception that the Lord, according to this verse, will use to raise up seed unto Him if He desires. If He has not commanded it though, then it is a grave sin.

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

You wrote:

You've left out a key verse in this chapter. Without the verse, it is impossible to have an accurate understanding of what the BOM actually teaches concerning plural marriage.

30For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Monogamy is the rule, but plural marriage is an exception that the Lord, according to this verse, will use to raise up seed unto Him if He desires. If He has not commanded it though, then it is a grave sin.

How is this explanation consistent with the claim that Mormons often make that Joseph Smith fathered few or even no children by his multiple wives?

[One Clear Voice]

I'm seconding what Mola said.

Showing that someone can be a prophet of God, in favor with Him, AND practice polygamy is different then showing that polygamy can be a positive experience for everyone involved.

I think the bible supports the first assertion, while ignoring the second.

Bluebell, I agree very much as well!

[bluebell]

bluebell,

You wrote:

How is this explanation consistent with the claim that Mormons often make that Joseph Smith fathered few or even no children by his multiple wives?

Whenever i've heard that claim made, it's as part of an answer to the idea that JS only followed plural marriage because he wanted a way to have lots of sex with multiple women without being condemned by his followers or wife. The scarcity of children would be evidence that polygamy as it was practiced by JS couldn't have been only about sex, since it's clear that he was very capable of fathering children.

Anyone who tries to make the claim that JS didn't have an intimate relationship with any of his wives because sex under such circumstances would be a sin, is confused.

[Sevenbak]

bluebell,

You wrote:

How is this explanation consistent with the claim that Mormons often make that Joseph Smith fathered few or even no children by his multiple wives?

What difference does this make at all? Joseph Smith implemented the principle, and though it took a while to gain traction, the practice certainly raised up a people into the church. I wonder if it's even possible to calculate how many people were "raised up" as a result.

[RhipSaw2]

You've left out a key verse in this chapter. Without the verse, it is impossible to have an accurate understanding of what the BOM actually teaches concerning plural marriage.

30For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Monogamy is the rule, but plural marriage is an exception that the Lord, according to this verse, will use to raise up seed unto Him if He desires. If He has not commanded it though, then it is a grave sin.

That may be so.

[volgadon]

Zakuska,

Um, no. The Bible does not say anything about her. Unless you think the lilit of Isaiah 34:14 was that primeval woman (which is not a viable interpretation!).

Not only that, but Lilith as Adam's wife is a later developement of the later traditions of Adam's first wife.

[volgadon]

1. Genesis 1-2, the narrative of God's creation of the human race, provides the model for marriage (as we can see in Jesus' use of the passage in that way, Matt. 19:3-6). There in Genesis we see that God created a man and then created one woman to be his lifelong companion. The two of them were to function as complementary halves united as "one flesh" (Gen. 2:23-25). This passage therefore reveals that God's intention for marriage was that it was to be an exclusive, life-long relationship between one man and one woman.

The word for flesh, "basar," meant family or kinship.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ariarates,

Let me share a few thoughts that may help.

2. No biblical text presents God as ever commanding polygamy. One might argue that God permitted it during the OT era, but there is simply no basis in the Bible for the claim that men were usually expected to have one wife but at times were commanded to take a plurality of wives, as Mormons commonly claim.

This sorta reminds me of the conversation in another thread about praying to Jesus. We were never commanded to pray to Jesus, but there is no condemnation of it. Rob says, "It is OK to pray to Jesus". Paraphrasing of course. Now when we get to polygamy we find the same argument but for some reason you are against it. People practiced it in the OT, there is no commandment but there is also no condemnation. But Rob says, "It is not OK to be polygamist". Can you help me out here? Thanks

I will add that this same argument works against those that are LDS and claim that praying to Jesus is bad. Using of course just the bible.

3. The first polygamist in the Bible is Lamech (Gen. 4:19, 23), a thoroughly disreputable man whom Genesis reports bragged that he would outdo Cain in evil (4:24). Not exactly a model citizen!

Which is an interesting factoid but has nothing what so ever to do with "Does God approve of polygamy". Abraham practiced polygamy and he was a prophet of God. Indeed, he was one of the greatest prophets of God.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram