What is the Biblical view of polygamy?

[AgnosticBoy]

My view is that God is okay with both monogamous and polygamous marriages. There are those who believe that God is for monogamy alone. On another thread, one member challenged me to show that God was okay with polygamy. Here is the relevant discussion:

Matthew 19:5 refers to the man's first marriage due to the fact that it says that he's leaving his parents' house. Even if it were not referring to a man's first marriage, my other points apply in that there is an exception to that rule.

Then cite the verse that proclaims a possible exception that would allow polygamy. Otherwise you're just and we can close our discussion here.


.

There are two ways that I can show that God wanted polygamy. One is in terms of His law, and the other is in terms of His actions toward polygamists.

In terms of law, God's law contained several rules that regulated the practice of polygamy. If polygamy were wrong, then God would forbid such practices entirely as opposed to just being concerned with how it is practiced. Ask yourself, if gay marriage was immoral, would God be concerned with how (assuming there was a good or certain way he wanted it) it was practiced, or would he ban the practice entirely?! The strongest case of a law that supports polygamy is the law on 'adultery'. I consider this to be the strongest case because it is part of the 10 commandments, and these laws would carry over even into the NT. Anyways, my point on adultery is how it is defined, which is as follows:
"An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress"
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/adultery/ (also here and here).

What I gather from this definition is that biblical adultery doesn't prohibit the husband from sleeping with all women, but rather it only prohibits him from sleeping with a woman who belongs to (married) to another man. Meanwhile, a married woman is prohibited from sleeping with all men besides her husband because the man who sleeps with her would be sleeping with a woman who belongs to someone. What would be the purpose for such unequal terms if not to be a tailor-made for polygyny? Also, you can further understand what adultery meant to the Jews based on how they and God enforced it. God NEVER condemned the act of a married man taking another woman (a single one) to be his wife, but yet he always condemned the married man who tried to take someone else's wife.

In terms of God's actions, polygamy is moral when the all-good God acts to support such marriages. We find the best case of this in Genesis 29:30-33, where we find that God is concerned with ONE man who does not love TWO wives. The all-good God then acts on his concern by helping one husband to love TWO women, and that is by helping both women to be fruitful. To put this in perspective, let's think about gay marriage since Christians are so against that. Would an all-good God that considers gay marriage to be immoral be concerned that two guys don't love each other? Would he intervene in their relationship in order to get both guys to love each other?!

Debate topic:
1. Given the above points, can we say that God is okay with polygamy? If not, then please offer a logical and evidenced based case that addresses my view and that of others who argue for biblical polygamy.

[Miles]

And after all these words, still not a single verse that proclaims a possible exception that would allow polygamy.

Deuteronomy 21:15:

If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated...

Good find. It certainly does appear that god sanctions marriage to two women at the same time.

But Genesis 29 never says Jacob had two wives. If I missed it please cite the verse.

I assume that you're contesting that Leah was actually Jacob's wife? Considering how obvious Genesis 29:23 is, I can only assume you're playing a game of "it doesn't technically say." Unfortunately for your argument, Leah otherwise refers to Jacob as husband in Genesis 29:32, 29:34, 30:18, and 30:20, Jacob refers to his multiple wives in 30:26, the narrator refers to his plural wives in 31:17, and Laban refers to his daughters collectively as Jacob's wives in 31:50. Interestingly, Jacob sends his "two wives and two slaves" across the Jabbok in 32:22, so there's an interesting discussion about whether slaves used for sex are properly wives, but there's no question that he has at least two wives.

Although Genesis 29:32, 34, 30:18 and 30:20 says Leah had a husband it doesn't identify Jacob as that husband. However, as you point out, Genesis 30:26 does say Jacob had wives, plural. So again, good find.


.

[Difflugia]

Although Genesis 29:32, 34, 30:18 and 30:20 says Leah had a husband it doesn't identify Jacob as that husband. However, as you point out, Genesis 30:26 does say Jacob had wives, plural.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly are you trying to argue? Jacob explicitly lies with Leah and she bares Jacob a son (30:16-17), so if she has a different husband, then she's still having sex with Jacob and having his children. She gave her slave, Zilpah, to Jacob, but also gave a slave to her non-Jacob husband (30:18), and then there's stil the second wife in 32:22 that's otherwise unaccounted for. If Leah isn't Jacob's husband, then they must all be part of a free love commune or something.

[AgnosticBoy]

As I mentioned before, you can't just simply say that God never condemned polygamy...

Oh, but he can. Actions very often speak louder than mere words, AgnosticBoy, especially if the words have already been spoken (and they were).

So far your debate points and tactics are very partisan. Your position is that God wants marriages to be monogamous, but you've expressed your point by dodging reasonable objections to it. It's almost as if you're trying to sell the idea rather than demonstrate it's validity through DEBATE. Now you're here praising a post (bjs post) that has been thoroughly refuted.

[PinSeeker]

So far your debate points and tactics are very partisan.

"Partisan" to what, AB? Partisan to the Bible, to God's Word, I guess. Okay, yeah, readily accepted.

Your position is that God wants marriages to be monogamous...

Well, again (how many times is this now?), God instituted marriage as monogamous and heterosexual. Man, in his sin, twisted it -- or tried to, anyway, and still does -- into something other than that. This is thoroughly demonstrated time and time again in Scripture. There really is no other point to be made.

...but you've expressed your point by dodging reasonable objections to it.

I've "dodged" nothing, AB. Except for your attempts to shape any debate into what you and others want it to be.

It's almost as if you're trying to sell the idea rather than demonstrate it's validity through DEBATE.

God does His own "selling."

Now you're here praising a post (bjs post) that has been thoroughly refuted.

People think they refute stuff all the time, AB. But alas, hat does not make it so.

Grace and peace to you.

[AgnosticBoy]

So far your debate points and tactics are very partisan.

"Partisan" to what, AB? Partisan to the Bible, to God's Word, I guess. Okay, yeah, readily accepted.

Well I'm not against you using the Bible since I asked about the biblical view of polygamy. However, there are logical standards/methods to use to understand the Bible and there are illogical ones. I'd expect you to employ those logical standards/methods if you intend to debate.

So far, you have dodged my points by not addressing them.

Your position is that God wants marriages to be monogamous...

Well, again (how many times is this now?), God instituted marriage as monogamous and heterosexual. Man, in his sin, twisted it -- or tried to, anyway, and still does -- into something other than that. This is thoroughly demonstrated time and time again in Scripture. There really is no other point to be made.

All I see here are a bunch of claims. If you intend to debate this issue, then you're going to have to defend your position by not only making your points but by also addressing counter-arguments. When you duck and dodge counter-arguments, I can only assume that you're only explaining (selling) your view as opposed to DEBATING your view.

...but you've expressed your point by dodging reasonable objections to it.

I've "dodged" nothing, AB. Except for your attempts to shape any debate into what you and others want it to be.

You say that you are not dodging, but when you have zero posts addressing the arguments in post 1, I can only conclude that you are indeed dodging. Again, you can show us that you're doing otherwise by actually addressing our arguments.

[Miles]

Although Genesis 29:32, 34, 30:18 and 30:20 says Leah had a husband it doesn't identify Jacob as that husband. However, as you point out, Genesis 30:26 does say Jacob had wives, plural.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly are you trying to argue? Jacob explicitly lies with Leah and she bares Jacob a son (30:16-17), so if she has a different husband, then she's still having sex with Jacob and having his children. She gave her slave, Zilpah, to Jacob, but also gave a slave to her non-Jacob husband (30:18), and then there's stil the second wife in 32:22 that's otherwise unaccounted for. If Leah isn't Jacob's husband, then they must all be part of a free love commune or something.

My participation here goes back to post 7 where I asked AgnosticBoy "Then cite the verse that proclaims a possible exception that would allow polygamy." So that's all I was looking for. Since then nothing was forthcoming until you provided the answer.

As for the irrelevancies of Genesis 29:32, 34, 30:18 and 30:20 , as I said, they don't identify as Jacob as her husband. And, it's inconsequential that he and Leah had sex because the issue here is not sex, but polygamy: "the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time." What is relevant are Deuteronomy 21:15: and Genesis 30:26.


.

[PinSeeker]

So far, you have dodged my points by not addressing them.

Nope. I've gently (and very patiently) redirected your "points" into points that will actually lead you to valid conclusions.

Grace and peace to you.