Did God Allow Polygamy?

If God did allow polygamy, why? Can we come up with a reason why that doesn't sound silly, or pandering to cultural concerns at that time? And if there are reasons that aren't silly, do those reasons exist today?

He allowed, but did not design it. Just like Jesus said Moses (under God) permitted divorce, but it was not that way from the beginning.

Why allow polygamy? Because of the hardness of their hearts because there was so much out of God's order that I believe God was taking a progressive restoration of things back into human understanding. This was something He would deal with later, while He dealt with other issues.

Today we want the best of God's plan, not looking for options around it. Jesus said "In the beginning God made man and woman and a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the TWO shall become ONE flesh". He did not say three or four become one flesh. This is the final revelation and how God originally designed it to be.

Even in more New Testament times slavery was accepted and dealt with as something that just existed. That does not mean God condoned it or wanted it and eventually man came to see this was not a Godly way to treat another person.

I certainly agree that polygamy is not for today. But when we say that God allowed something that was sin, it SEEMS like he has some sort of a sliding scale on sin, as in polygamy- not so bad; adultery or idolatry (or God forbid picking up sticks on the Sabbath) absolutely not.

Maybe you need to put that question to the LORD and see what He says to you.

I would be interested in what He says. Honestly!

I certainly agree that polygamy is not for today. But when we say that God allowed something that was sin, it SEEMS like he has some sort of a sliding scale on sin, as in polygamy- not so bad; adultery or idolatry (or God forbid picking up sticks on the Sabbath) absolutely not.

I totally agree with the answer that Dave gave. God did not count polygamy as a sin in Old Covenant. It is a sin only in New Covenant. Even in Old Covenant there was a man called Job who made covenant with his eyes so that it does not lust after a virgin women. Job lived in a period before Moses or Abraham, and there was no law. But he knew that God did not like him to be unfaithful to his wife.

God did not design polygamy but permitted it and did not count it as sin because men were totally powerless against lust of their flesh in sexual matter. Hence God permitted them to marry to satisfy their lusts. Our God never made unrealistic expectations.

But in New Covenant, we have grace through Jesus Christ. We have the spirit of God living inside us. Hence it is possible to exercise self control. Now with this provision, if we still indulge in polygamy then we have only ourselves to blame.

TMK,

When we say "allow" do we mean "permitted and sanctioned" or "gave room for and did not intervene to override human will". Epitrepo (permit, Matthew 19:8) is in the sense of the latter. It has the same sort of permission as 1 Samuel 8 when God tells Samuel to "listen to the voice of the people". The hearts of the people being hard and so desiring their own way that God leaves them to their desires, God hears the demands and permits them.

So, in context, it seem that we slide the covers over our heads, so to speak. 😊

The end of it is death. God gives people over to their desires. I think of this passage from Psalm 107:

10 There were those who dwelt in darkness and in the shadow of death,
Prisoners in misery and chains,
11 Because they had rebelled against the words of God
And spurned the counsel of the Most High.
12 Therefore He humbled their heart with labor;
They stumbled and there was none to help.
13 Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble;
He saved them out of their distresses.
14 He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death
And broke their bands apart.
15 Let them give thanks to the Lord for His lovingkindness,
And for His wonders to the sons of men!
16 For He has shattered gates of bronze
And cut bars of iron asunder.
17 Fools, because of their rebellious way,
And because of their iniquities, were afflicted.
18 Their soul abhorred all kinds of food,
And they drew near to the gates of death.
19 Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble;
He saved them out of their distresses.
20 He sent His word and healed them,
And delivered them from their destructions.
21 Let them give thanks to the Lord for His lovingkindness,
And for His wonders to the sons of men!
22 Let them also offer sacrifices of thanksgiving,
And tell of His works with joyful singing.

Sree wrote:

"God did not design polygamy but permitted it and did not count it as sin because men were totally powerless against lust of their flesh in sexual matter. Hence God permitted them to marry to satisfy their lusts. Our God never made unrealistic expectations. "

This is the answer that makes the most honest sense- that God didn't consider it sin at all. I had never thought about this in that vein because I never considered that something could be a sin now that wasn't in prior times. If that concept is true it does explain some things.

"Jesus hrist is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Heb 13:8

The thought of saying, "that did not used to be a sin, but now it is" does not fit in the context of scripture. Our God is a Holy God, Who has always been Holy and always will be. He does not change His mind. That would imply that He is changing and then we cannot trust what He has to say for today. He is the SAME always.

In matters like this, I like to go back to what Jesus said when they asked Him about divorce. He stated,"Have you not read that He who made them AT THE BEGINNING ‘made them male and female.' Mat 19:4. And then He stated: "but FROM THE BEGINNING it was not so." Mat 19:8

He was explaining that to God, divorce has always been a sin; look back at the beginning and see the plan of God.

This applies here as well. In THE BEGINNING he made only ONE man and ONE woman. That is His plan. Anything outside of God's plan is sin. Just because He did not strike down everyone who was a polygamist or because nothing is outrightly stated on it does not mean that God did not count it as sin.

If we even use logic, let us look at the institution of divorce. If polygamy was ok, what is the need for divorce? The man could just marry another woman and have two (or more) wives.

When we do not understand something, let us first look to the character of God before we start trying to explain it. I do not know why God permitted many things to happen that are written for us in the Bible, and even many of the commands that He gives. But I have to remember that God is God, and He is infinitely wise and I have to trust in that. We should take care not to create strange doctrines.

In Christ,

Natalie

Natalie-

What you are stating is what I have always thought. However it doesn't seem to square with the facts. I mean, God seemed to bless Jacobs marriage to both Leah and Rachel. He formed the nation is Israel out of those unions.

I agree this is difficult. If slavery was sin (and we certainly would think so today) why did God give laws to Moses on how to deal with slaves, instead of just saying "one person may not own another?" After all, His chosen people were brutalized in slavery for 400 years. If anyone should have been against slavery it should have been the Hebrews. And Paul never forbade the practice either, and surely God had his ear.

In the same vein, if divorce is sin (and even in the old testament the Lord makes clear that this is so) why did God give rules on how to divorce your wife?

I am hoping you can tell me!

It seems almost irreconcilable that God made provision for something as serious as the abandonment of an innocent spouse but commanded that picking up sticks on the Sabbath warranted stoning.

TMK, I cannot tell you why God does what He does. But I do not need to because I trust His judgments. And most likely, our finite mind cannot understand all the depths of His wisdom. We cannot try to rationalize things to make sense to us if they come out of His character. To be honest, the gospel does NOT make sense! But it is the wisdom of God for salvation to all who believe.

I feel that when you state that He "commanded that picking up sticks on the Sabbath warranted stoning" you are coming close to judging the Lord your God. I am not saying you are, but it sounds like it. There are questions about God that we have, such as yours, and we have to ask them in humbleness.

I have been troubled by many of the things that God commanded. They seem to be so harsh and unmerciful, so unlike my God. I don't remember exactly where this is, but there is portion in the law where God commands that those who follow the Lord should kill anyone, including family members, who turn away from serving Him. This sounds so much like a Muslim ideology, not like something our merciful God would say. This has troubled me. I have asked Him; I have not received a response. NONETHELESS, I have to rest in knowing Whom I serve.

Hello Natalie:

I agree with your post. That is what my wife says to me when I ask hard questions so I am used to it!

I am not judging God.. Just asking a question about something clearly spelled out in scripture. I think asking the hard questions is not dishonoring to God- at least it doesn't HAVE to be. Atheists ask these questions and I think it is wise to have some sort of a viable answer other than "God works in mysterious ways."

I know a guy from another forum that has such difficulty with some of the commands in the OT law, (including the sticks issue I mentioned and the ordeal of the woman accused of adultery who is forced to drink a concoction of dust from the tabernacle ground) that he has come up with the idea that many of the laws (other than the 10 commandments) were Moses's idea- not God's.

I certainly won't go that far. But I understand his frustration.

Will pray Leslie. I know of someone it Utah on a mission trip this week.

Natalie said:-
Jesus hrist is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Heb 13:8

The thought of saying, "that did not used to be a sin, but now it is" does not fit in the context of scripture. Our God is a Holy God, Who has always been Holy and always will be. He does not change His mind. That would imply that He is changing and then we cannot trust what He has to say for today. He is the SAME always.

Sister, I never said God changed his mind. I never said Polygamy was not a sin in OT but now it is a sin. Please understand what I said which I believe is the answer from God's own heart. I said that God did not count Polygamy as a sin for those under Old Covenant. He never gave a law against Polygamy. Under Old Covenant we do not see God rejecting a person due to polygamy. In fact he has given laws concerning polygamy as well. He has given a law to kings that they should not marry MANY wives. Sin is not counted where there is no law. That does not mean it is not sin. But it is not visible unless a law is present. This is what Apostle Paul says in Romans 7.

Sin is in short anything that displeases God. Laws are nothing but boundaries that God has given to live a life that pleases him.

Let me explain this with a simple example. Suppose you have a 6 months old baby. You certainly do not like this baby to urinate in your bed. But when the baby does that you do not discipline the baby for urinating on the bed. You know that the baby cannot control urine nor does it have knowledge about how this hurts you. So you tolerate this act of the baby. But you also put a diaper so that even if the baby urinates on your bed, it does not affect much. This is exactly what God did with people of Old Testament. God did not like Polygamy but did not count it as Sin because men were powerless in Old Covenant to control their sexual desires. But it certainly did not please God. The very first book of Bible is Job (based on when it was written). God choose to write about a man who lived with single wife.

Now when you have a 10 year old, you certain do not like this kid to urinate in your bed. So when the kid does it you disciple this kid. You tell the kid how much you hate this action of his. Are you a changed parent between this 6 month old and 10 year old? No you are the same, you hate the action of urinating the same, but you behave differently to each of them based on their capacity.

Jesus himself said in Sermon on the mount that he did not come to abolish the law but to strengthen it. He has raised the standard higher than what it was by giving us his spirit. In OT God did not count anger as a sin but now Jesus said Anger can throw us into hell.

I agree this is difficult. If slavery was sin (and we certainly would think so today) why did God give laws to Moses on how to deal with slaves, instead of just saying "one person may not own another?" After all, His chosen people were brutalized in slavery for 400 years. If anyone should have been against slavery it should have been the Hebrews. And Paul never forbade the practice either, and surely God had his ear.

I want to answer this because this is a question that unbelievers commonly ask us. I have a friend with whom whenever I shared Gospel, he will argue about so many things. Finally he will tell me that the Bible is not correct because it supports slavery.

This is the answer that I gave. I am sure there are better answer than this. Slavery was the only form of work in those days. It was common in all culture and in all nations. So God gave them laws about slavery. Even in New Covenant, Paul wants masters to treat their salves well. In short Jesus said treat others the way you want them to treat you. This also includes slaves.

Now slavery itself is not wrong. The way we treated the slaves in past were wrong. We still have some form of slavery. Consider my position in the secular cooperate job. I have to ask permission from my manager for taking leave, for leaving the office, for the time of shift etc. Within the 9 hours of my shift, I am totally under the control of my Boss. This is still some form of slavery. Do I have all the rights to behave as I wanted? NO. Then how is this not a slavery?

So only thing that changed from slavery of old time to the modern day manager employee concept is, hours of work, certain privileges for employee, abolition of the word slave and freedom to leave if I do not like (but will not be provided bread for family if I leave). So in short we are still following the same system unless we design a company or a system where there is no boss and everyone is free to do as he wishes. They cannot bring such a system because they all know it won't work. So we only made slavery better and nicer which is exactly what God did. A person who worked under Canadian law, will find Indian way of work as slavery. I as an Indian see Japanese work culture as slavery. So slavery still lives in one form or another.

leslie

i find myself in that area of the country now a days and agree much prayer is needed

rdg

Ok, I did not read the entire thread so please excuse me if I am repeating what has been said. On the other hand it is nice when someone else will reaffirm your point.

Why did God allow polygamy in the OT? As I understand it it was for the propagation of the human race. Sometimes the casualities in war made for a shortage of males for the remaining females - a lot of women were left with no males to marry, so what males were left they could take multiple females to be their wives and thus sire children to assure the survival of their people.

I was told that after WW1 Russia experienced a severe shortage of men due to the casualites sustained then. I have not read that they resorted to polygamy to replenish their country. But do wonder if this fact factors in their refusal to encourage and allow homosexual relationships? Just guessing. In any case when a country engages in war and a lot of men are killed it will make for a male shortage in society - men are essential for the survival of the human race.

To me this would explain why God allowed polygamy among his people. On the other hand we know kings and others took multiple wives which seemed to me a point of prestige. Initially God had commanded the kings to "not multiply wives to himself"(Deut. 17:17) but they did not obey and got into a lot of trouble because of it.

This is the way I understand it and where I learned this, I do not recall - after 68 years of sojourn on this planet one cannot recall the sources of all the infomation stored in this old brain.

Sandra

Sandra-

You seem to be agreeing with Sree that polygamy was not a sin in Gods eyes in the OT. But presumably it is today.

If God allowed it, it couldn't be sin. At least I do not see how He could.

Double post

Is it sin or is it not? One could ask another question: why is this so important - are there any here that would like to take another wife? God forbid! To hanker after another woman - is it not lust when you already have one?

Back to the OT.

Let us take a look at the OT law, Deut. 25: 5-10: (NASB)

5 When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

6"It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7"But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’

8"Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’

9then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’

10"In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’

I will be the first to declare I am glad we are not living under the OT law. This was their culture - it even predated the law as given by Moses - remember Judah and Tamar?

Why? to keep the family line going. I do not think we moderns understand its importance. Many moderns - including cousins of ours - have no grandchildren and never will. They had a couple children who never married, never had children. When they die that family line will end. Today this happens because people are limiting the size of their families; back then most of the time it was war, not a choice made by the couple.

Doing it this way was also a way to maintain the well-being of a widow. The larger family looked after her...not bad, actually.

God ordered it to be this way and when done this way it was for the welfare of the widow and to maintain the family line. But for too many it went far beyond that. Scripture proves that having multiple wives was never a wise practice. (I do wonder how it was that after Sarah died her widower took Keturah and other concubines - Gen.25:6. When Abraham took Hagar, fireworks flew).

How do you understand the Scriptures?

Sandra

Perhaps an easier question can help us with this one:

Is it a sin to steal if your family is starving to death? Or does God "permit" it?

I agree with what sister romanchog has written. When asked about marriage, Jesus explained it quite clearly:

"And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined 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 no man separate.”

Matthew 19:4-6 (NASB)

Notice the emphasis of this passage. Jesus is citing how it was in the beginning -- God creating male and female, Adam and Eve. God did not make Adam and Eve and Susie. God made a male and a female together -- one female from the male. The Word of God says that the TWO become ONE flesh. This is marriage.

While polygamy was acceptable under the Old Covenant, it certainly wasn't within the context of nature (as God designed it) or even the Law. It may have been one of those issues that was legal because there was no law prohibiting it.

Chris-

Do you believe polygamists were sinning?

Or simpler- does/did God view it as sin?

Hi TMK,

In regard to the Old Testament, no. It was not "unlawful" to marry more than one wife. This doesn't mean that it was ideal. This doesn't mean that it was good. This doesn't mean that it was something that God smiled upon. It simply means that there was no Old Covenant prohibition to marrying more than one wife.

Interestingly, the subsequent verses in the same passage that I quoted earlier (echoing what romanchog cited) also mentions something that might be relevant in this regard:

"They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

- Matthew 19:7-9

In this, I see several things. Moses permitted divorce. This is in reference to Deuteronomy 24 where Moses explained the "law" regarding divorces. Notice that Jesus didn't say that GOD permitted divorce. Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because of YOUR "hardness of heart." Interestingly, it seems that Jesus was pointing out that the allowance for divorce by Moses was because of the hardness of heart -- implicating contemporary Pharisees (in Jesus' time) with the Hebrews living contemporary alongside Moses.

In other words, Jesus is pointing out that what was permissible under the law was not what God had intended. However, it was allowed by Moses (who spoke on behalf of God) because of the hardness of human hearts. I wonder if we could apply the same sense of logic when it came to polygamy under the old covenant. I wonder if it was permitted under the Old Covenant because of issues of the heart? Later in the New Testament, Paul stated that it was "better to marry than to burn" with passion (I Corinthians 7:8-9). Why? Paul emphasized that this was true if "they do not have self-control."

This is speculation on my part, but I wonder whether polygamy was permitted under the Old Covenant because of a heart condition in which men lacked self-control. Lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes are two difficult things for men to overcome and "marriage" requires a two-becomes-one covenant that cannot be violated. Remember when Amnon raped his half-sister? Even by that time, I suspect that brother-sister incest was frowned upon. Yet, this poor girl pleaded with her brother to marry her saying that David "would not withhold her" from Amnon. This, Tamar argued, would prevent "disgrace" and "reproach" and prevent Amnon from being seen as "one of the fools in Israel" (II Samuel 13:1-14).

As such, I wonder if the allowance of polygamy may have been permitted for the same reason that divorce was permitted -- because of the condition of the heart. It was not something that God intended and is contrary to his plan for men and women. Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman -- where the TWO become ONE (Matthew 19).

As for the New Testament: We are given the Spirit of God who leads us into all truth. We have the privilege of the Word of God to see on a regular basis -- something that wasn't readily available during the Old Covenant. We also understand the principles explained by Jesus in passages like Matthew 19. We know how God designed the marriage covenant. We also know that, while divorce/remarriage was permitted under the Old Covenant, it is not permitted in the New except for sexual immorality. Other passages indicate that this notion of what marriage was meant to consist of is clear in subsequent verses (e.g., overseers being married to but one wife, etc...).

The "law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus" -- which set us free from the "law of sin and death" -- still has principles that are eternal. These principles are simpler and cut to the root of issues. I believe that marriage is one of those clear issues from the Gospels and Epistles...hearkening back to God's original intention in Genesis for the marriage covenant.

Of course, this is just my two cents.

Hi Chris-

Thanks for your detailed response. I understand it from a logical standpoint. What I am having trouble getting my pea brain around is how God could consider something sin today that wasn't sin "yesterday". If this is true is suggests at least to me some mutability in Gods character.

I am fond of the saying "you can't judge yesterday's behavior by today's standards." I think that generally works from a human standpoint because standards change over time. When I was a kid during summer we left the house in the morning, played all over creation and came home in time for supper- maybe lunch. Today that is practically unheard of and parents would be castigated if they allowed this.

I asked earlier if it is a "sin" for a man to steal food if his family is starving. A clear problem of situational ethics. I think most Christians are against situational ethics.

But if God "allowed" polygamy then but not now, it seems He is engaging in situational ethics. And I just don't think He does.

Just to be clear- I am NOT trying to make a case for polygamy. No way Jose.

I asked earlier if it is a "sin" for a man to steal food if his family is starving. A clear problem of situational ethics. I think most Christians are against situational ethics.

I wouldn't call it "situational ethics." I think that Jesus made it clear what the Lord's position on marriage was from the very beginning through his words in Matthew 19.

Rather, I think that the thing to consider is the manner in which God allowed men to have a free will and establish their own laws. I recently read some news about how Spain is raising the marrying age from 14 to 16 (which is more in line with most other nations in Europe).

So, what would God's opinion be about such matters?

Obviously, God is opposed to child abuse, rape, sexual immorality, etc... However, the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) doesn't really take a position on the matter. Rather, it seems that this is mankind setting up their own laws based upon whatever norms or moral directives seem to be important at any given time. The same could be said about a whole plethora of laws.

In other words, I think that this is just an example of how God allowed men to rule or govern themselves. As believers, we do this with the fear of the Lord. We are not ruled by the flesh but by the Spirit. In certain issues, I think that the rule of I Corinthians 6 is a good thing to consider -- all things being lawful but not all things being expedient.

For us, of course, we have the explanation of Jesus in Matthew 19 and other words in the epistles. God designed marriage to be for one man and one woman. This was the example that we were supposed to follow. Mankind did not always follow this example and, instead, designed their own rules out of the lack of specific law pertaining to it. Men -- and governments of men -- came up with their laws. It isn't that God embraced those laws, but He permitted men to make their own. Like I said, this may have been because of the condition of hearts.

What I am having trouble getting my pea brain around is how God could consider something sin today that wasn't sin "yesterday". If this is true is suggests at least to me some mutability in Gods character.

....But if God "allowed" polygamy then but not now, it seems He is engaging in situational ethics. And I just don't think He does.

TMK, I answered this in detail in this thread already. Please let me know if it really makes sense. The answer is very simple, men did not have control over their lusts in Old Covenant. But in New Covenant we have his Spirit to empower us.
I have quoted my own example to explain how the idea of God not counting Polygamy as a sin under Old Covenant does not validate the fact that God (Jesus) is same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Sin is in short anything that displeases God. Laws are nothing but boundaries that God has given to live a life that pleases him.

Let me explain this with a simple example. Suppose you have a 6 months old baby. You certainly do not like this baby to urinate in your bed. But when the baby does that you do not discipline the baby for urinating on the bed. You know that the baby cannot control urine nor does it have knowledge about how this hurts you. So you tolerate this act of the baby. But you also put a diaper so that even if the baby urinates on your bed, it does not affect much. This is exactly what God did with people of Old Testament. God did not like Polygamy but did not count it as Sin because men were powerless in Old Covenant to control their sexual desires. But it certainly did not please God. The very first book of Bible is Job (based on when it was written). God choose to write about a man who lived with a single wife.

Now when you have a 10 year old, you certain do not like this kid to urinate in your bed. So when the kid does it you disciple this kid. You tell the kid how much you hate this action of his. Are you a changed parent between this 6 month old and 10 year old? No you are the same, you hate the action of urinating the same, but you behave differently to each of them based on their capacity to obey.

Hi Sree-

By your logic how could anything have been considered sin in the old covenant?

I am not saying men under Old Covenant were incabable of keeping any command. No there was only one command they were incapable of keeping, which was the 10th Command. It was given to Humble them. Apostle Paul fell in this 1 command only. Else Paul would have never chosen Christ. Paul was already perfect with respect to all other commands.

I am only saying under Old Covenant Israel did not have grace to overcome sexual lusts. But that is not the same with all sins. In Old Covenant Anger in the heart was not at all sin. But in New Covenant, Anger in heart is good enough to cast one into eternal hell!

According to old Covenant capabilities, God only gave them what was doable. He commanded them not to commit murder in Anger. He knew that men under Old Covenant cannot overcome their sexual lusts, hence he permitted them to marry women to satisfy their lusts. He tolerated this act of Israel though it did not please him.

Ok I guess I need a little further clarification.

By your argument, under the new covenant, obviously only those with the HS are able to overcome lusts. What about the unsaved? Are they sinning when they give into lust? As a practical matter they are no different than old covenant men.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding you at some point.