Board index ‹ Marriage

[I Don't Need God]

If God's position is monogamy, or nothing, why do his favorite people pre-Jesus have so many wives? Abraham, Jacob (Israel), David are just a few men after God's own heart who would have sex with any women they wanted to, they'd just be one of his dozens of wives. Never does God has an issue, Jesus doesn't have an issue with polygamy, why push for monogamy?

[jimwalton]

Just for the sake of clarity, none of the people of the Bible are just allowed to have sex with whomever they want to.

On to your subject. God never commands monogamy. He never condemns polygamy in the Old Testament. We can say several things, though. First the pros:

1. Polygamy was one of the ways the ancient royalty made treaties with other nations.

2. And many children were needed to work herds and fields for the sake of survival. Multiple wives contributed to that survival.

3. Many males died in childbirth, from sickness, and wars. There was an imbalance in the number of males to females.

Polygamy is not outlawed in any known ancient Near Eastern context.

Then the cons:

1. Victor Hamilton writes, "Nearly every polygamous household in the Old Testament suffers unpleasant and shattering experiences precisely because of the polygamy. The domestic struggles that ensue are devastating."

2. For many households polygamy was not economically feasible. Despite that it could provide more children, there were also dowries to pay and mouths to feed. It was a balancing act: more workers, more food required. Often only the more well-to-do could afford more than one wife.

By the time we get to the NT, however, the rules tighten up. By then polygamy among the Jews was rare, though it might still be found. Neither the Greeks nor Romans practiced polygamy. But among Christians, monotony, er, uh, monogamy became the requirement (Titus 1.6).

[Righteous One]

> But among Christians, monogamy became the requirement (Titus 1.6).

Titus 1:6 is part of a list of qualifications for an elder. Similarly in 1 Timothy 3 verse 2 for overseers and verse 12 for deacons. This is not a requirement that each Christian man must have only one wife (or must marry at all). Not every man desires to be appointed as an elder, overseer or deacon.

[jimwalton]

The elders were supposed to exemplify the ideals of the community, not to live a lifestyle in contrast to it. The elders were to set the moral tone for the church as examples to be followed. It's the same thought we hear from Paul in places like Phil. 4.9 & 1 Cor. 11.1.

[I Don't Need God]

You make it sound like it was just another duty. An economical tool. It's marriage and sex.

[jimwalton]

Then I have miscommunicated by not mentioning the visceral in preference to explaining the technical. Marriage and sex are wonderful, fantastic things. Lifelong commitment and sharing bodies intertwine with each other to make life, mah-vellous. I was just trying to explain that in the OT monogamy is never commanded, as the OP was wondering, and polygamy is never condemned. I was interpreting that as the direction of his question. Then I also added, though, that in NT times things changes, and the one man-one woman concept was brought home as an ideal.

To respond to your comment, however, in ancient times marriage often was an economical tool. Marriages were arranged and didn't have a whole lot to do with love, though marriage for love did certainly happen (like Jacob to Rachel and David to Bathsheba). But often marriage was part of an economic system involving the exchange of dowries, part of a political system involving treaties, and part of their survival involving children (and therefore workers to sustain life). Our modern notions of marriage for love are quite foreign to the ancient mindset, even though I'm pretty happy about it.

[True Atheist]

In other words, religion evolves to survive. A good contemporary example is the growing popularity of Universalism (or Universalism light by Rob Bell). Much to the dismay of Evangelicals of course.

[jimwalton]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. While religion does evolve, it evolves mostly by distortion, not by intent. And Rob Bell is an illustration of that distortion. Universalism is a contradictory and untenable panacea to the salvation question, and Bell has fallen for an age-old weakness.

Instead, what I was saying is that revelation is progressive, and necessarily so. Every time God reveals himself, we know more than we used to, just like every time you watch a movie again, you see something that you didn't see the time before. Except in the case of God, it's not the same video playing repeatedly, but sequels. When God revealed himself to Abraham, now he knew more than his dad did. When God gave the law to Moses, now we all knew more than Abraham did. When God spoke through David, now we all knew more than Moses did. When God revealed himself in Jesus, we really got the farm. It a far cry from "religion evolves to survive." Instead, it's that every sequel surpasses the awesomeness of the original movie. The franchise gets better all the time.

[True Atheist]

> what I was saying is that revelation is progressive

I am not disputing what you said but rather offering a much more likely explanation of what is actually occurring.

It's the same with slavery (aka the "Institution of God") and today's gay rights/equality/marriage issue.

[jimwalton]

Now you're changing the subject. Progressive revelation has nothing to do with the slavery issue or today's gay right/equality/marriage issue. And your more likely explanation (religion evolves to survive) is not more likely at all, but a mistaken sociological take on a theological question.