Thread: Polygamy, a stumbling-block to the unbeliever

Moderator note (8/28, 2:45pm CDT):

Apparently people aren't reading the warning mid-thread, so I have placed this in the original post. Please deal only with the original post, made here, and not the question of the sinfulness of polygamy, which is well established in Scripture and the Confessional standards of this board. Any further posts that argues that polygamy is not sinful or posts that are simply not answering the original question will be deleted.


How would you respond to a young person (believes in God, but not a reformed Christian) who finds the polygamy of the OT patriarchs and kings an enormous stumbling-block?
I say: "It may be in the Bible, but it doesn't follow that we are supposed to do the same. Also, the NT confims the Creation ordinance of one man, one woman."
She replies: "but Abraham and Jacob and all of them, even David the man after God's own heart, were polygamous and IT'S NEVER REPRESENTED AS SINFUL OF THEM."
What would be your answer?

She has a good question as to why He didn't show it to be the sin that it was. And even when David sinned with Bathsheba God told him that if he felt he was lacking in this area all he would have had to do is ask God for more and it would have been given to him. Someone else here answered my same question by stating that it might be the same deal as Moses giving them a certificate of divorce bc of their hard hearts. At the time I thought it was a good answer, but now I don't since I don't believe all of our OT saints had hard hearts who were practicing sin....falling into sin?...yes but not practicing sin like the unregenerate.

Originally Posted by Madcow

Originally Posted by Scott1

One general observation is that Scripture accounts to us that all the great men of the Bible, save Jesus Christ, were sinners.

Think of that- God has made sure we know of the sin of every "great" person of God- even Job, and the great sins of David who was yet called "a man after God's own heart." Think Moses, a murderer, disobedient at the end of his life and denied entry into the promised land. And Abraham, a "moon worshiper."

While we look to these men for example in some ways, we never do as the perfect sinless standard that Christ alone was, is... and forever shall be.

Right, we agree they weren't sinless. But that doesn't answer why God seems to be silent on this matter.....I don't think I've seen one place in the OT where God stated it as a sin and disciplined one of the OT saints for it.

I understand what you are saying- Scripture doesn't say "thou shalt not commit polygamy." But it does very much condemn adultery broadly, which includes it.

The seventh commandment encompasses polygamy and other sexual sins, applying it to thought, word and deed.

Looking at the Scripture proofs of the Westminster Larger Catechism question number 139 cites many Old Testament Scriptures related to the seventh commandment.

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,[780] are, adultery, fornication,[781] rape, incest,[782] sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;[783] all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;[784] all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;[785] wanton looks,[786] impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel;[787] prohibiting of lawful,[788] and dispensing with unlawful marriages;[789] allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;[790] entangling vows of single life,[791] undue delay of marriage,[792] having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;[793] unjust divorce,[794] or desertion;[795] idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,[796] unchaste company;[797] lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;[798] and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.[799]

One case of an Old Testament saint suffering for it was David. He was punished and suffered for it- his family line suffered greatly for it.

It might also be helpful to look at it this way- when someone re-marries after not having had a biblical grounds for dissolution, it is related to polygamy. This is a hard thing to accept, but it's why there is so much difficulty in many of those cases (not all, of course, but those that were not biblically dissolved).

So, if we view polygamy as related to adultery and the seventh commandment, we see lots of prohibition, lots of suffering of consequences, in both Testaments.

Polygamy, excessive gathering of wealth and military strength, and alliances with Egypt, are condemned in the Bible, especially for kings of Israel.

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deut. 17: 14-17)

I think e.g. Solomon broke all these laws, and look what happened to Israel, since he wasn't like other foreign kings or like kings, presidents, prime ministers or magistrates today, but was the Lord's anointed, the mediatorial king over God's kingdom.

Remember too that between the time of Moses and Christ the church was in a childhood state. That is one reason she had a picture book Gospel (ceremonies) and a childhood discipline (penal laws). Another factor with children is that the parents may give them leeway in certain areas, because they don't feel they are ready for the full rigour of adult morality, or because he/she wants them to learn certain lessons. Polygamy was always sinful, maybe not as sinful as some things, but the Old Testament Church was childish. We in the 21st C are not the church in its childhood; although it sometimes/often looks like it.

This may be the case with the childhood state of the church (a church "under age" as the WCF calls it) but from the time of Christ the church is moving through adolescence and rebellion to full maturity.

This means that polygamy is now, not only sinful to some extent, but totally unacceptable, as it was in Man's innocence.

It would be a mistake to say that because we think God is silent on a matter (or even regulates the matter), that He is being permissive of the behavior. That is the mistake of the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3ff (read the whole passage, not just vv. 4-6 -- consider vv. 7-8: They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 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.") The one man/one woman paradigm is a creation ordinance. Unlawful divorce is a corruption of that (and a byproduct of the Fall); I would argue that the same is true for polygamy (since it violates the one/one rule), along with modern corruptions like so-called homosexual marriage.

BTW, I would employ an argument along similar lines with regard to slavery. Labor is also a creation ordinance (Genesis 2:15). After the Fall, this activity was also infected an polluted as a result of sin. One of the "byproducts" was slavery, which was regulated by God through various laws. But it would be a mistake to claim carte blanche approval of a practice just because God regulates something for a time and a purpose to protect individuals from men with hard hearts.

It is true that God says to David, "I gave you your master's wives", but I take that to mean something along the lines of, "look what you got for being king, all these wives, and yet that wasn't enough for you, you had to go and take someone else's wife." I don't take it as God necessarily saying that it was good for David to have many wives.

More generally, I think that scripture can condemn things by the way they are presented in the narrative. An example would be Lamech. It never says that this was sin, but it's hard to avoid that conclusion by the way it's presented. This is the culmination of Cain's line, and his two wives are mentioned along with his boasting and violence.

Originally Posted by louis_jp

More generally, I think that scripture can condemn things by the way they are presented in the narrative. An example would be Lamech. It never says that this was sin, but it's hard to avoid that conclusion by the way it's presented. This is the culmination of Cain's line, and his two wives are mentioned along with his boasting and violence.

Excellent example, Louis! This is the first example of polygamy we have in Scripture, and it's presented in an extremely negative context. In contrast, consider the positive (and non-polygamous) example in the following verses in Genesis 4:

Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him." To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by louis_jp

More generally, I think that scripture can condemn things by the way they are presented in the narrative. An example would be Lamech. It never says that this was sin, but it's hard to avoid that conclusion by the way it's presented. This is the culmination of Cain's line, and his two wives are mentioned along with his boasting and violence.

Excellent example, Louis! This is the first example of polygamy we have in Scripture, and it's presented in an extremely negative context. In contrast, consider the positive (and non-polygamous) example in the follower verses in Genesis 4:

Another example would be noted from Jeremiah Burrough's.

Question.What was there sin?
Answer. Their sin was offering strange fire, for the text says that they offered strange fire which God had not commanded them. But had God ever forbidden it? Where do we find that God had ever forbidden them to offer strange fire, or appointed that they should offer only one kind of fire? There is no text of Scripture that you can find from the beginning of Genesis to this place where God had said in so many words expressly, "You shall offer no fire but one kind of fire." And yet here they are consumed by fire from God for offering strange fire.

Gospel Worship
Jeremiah Burroughs
pp. 8,9 Introduction

I would just note that Polygamy is sin according to the Confessional standards and that anyone who desires a postion in the New Covenant Church as a leader is required to only have one wife. Adam was given one wife in the beginning.

My general "take" on the subject of OT polygamy:

Perhaps it is a sin for two persons to marry (this would address TimV's issue--how/when it is a sin is up to God).

Once you are married, you are married. This is a case of "can't recross that bridge." Now you have other duties, other problems, etc., because this isn't a sin that (in this life) you can't be fully extricated from consequentially. You can regret it, repent of it, but then the facts of a new situation are fixed and unalterable, barring death.

None of this obtains if two persons MAY NOT (whenever God forbids) marry. Their "situation" isn't a marriage, regardless of their attitude, what they call it, etc.

Richard makes some other good observations based on Israel's minority, and God's dealing with them leniently in some situations--saving his strictness for a later time, and greater grace. It doesn't mean it wasn't sin for Abraham to sleep with Hagar (at Sarah's insistence, no less... ?!)--and the point of that lesson was that it worked out very badly for Abraham to try to be "wiser than God."

The world is a fallen world. People and whole societies make bad decisions, or they make decisions that seem fine in one situation, but in others lead to new problems. Sin makes for a difficult, messy, often intractable situation.

Perhaps polygamy was taken up by some (certainly not by Lamech!) because certain problems seemed insoluble without it, even if it produced other problems in its wake. Perhaps God himself approved of a "levirate marriage" solution to certain social disasters--which provision was abused in sinful ways.

Whatever the issue, we don't find God directly smiling on deliberate, polygamous unions in the OT. All we find is God turning sins into his victories, turning what should have been disasters into tables-turning events against Satan and the other enemies of Christ.

Jesus' commentary on marriage is the last word on the institution of marriage. In his plain speech, we see that we are brought back to the original ideal, and there we must remain, and insist that Christians pursue the same--if not in the first generation (i.e. persons who are saved, but are already married multiple times), certainly in those that follow.

We have reopened this thread, in order that Jenny's original question could be addressed. It has been moved to the Apologetics forum, because this is the place in which it really belongs. Jenny's question concerns the difficulty a young woman with whom she is talking about Christianity has with Scripture and what she cannot reconcile, where polygamy is concerned. This is an Apologetic, and not a Law of God issue, and therefore the thread has been moved to this forum instead.


I also wish to reiterate that the confessional position regarding the sinfulness of polygamy, as established in both the Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 139:

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life,undue delay of marriage, having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

Proof texts for the pertinent reference above are

and Chapter 24, Section I:

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.

The proof texts here are:

The London Baptist Confession states Chapter 24.1 the same way.

Again: Taking up a contrary position to the confessional indictment upon polygamy as sin will not be tolerated in the slightest. There is much good fruit to be had in discussing the original issue JennyG raised. Let's simply keep ourselves on track.

Thank you Todd, and everyone else. This is now a really helpful thread with much food for thought.
I'm going to think it all through carefully, and hopefully will be better prepared next time the subject comes up (as it will...)
Jenny

Here's another thought re polygamy, that occurred to me:

If you are going to be polygamous, do you have to be attracted to a second woman who is not your wife before you marry the said second woman?

Surely this is a breach of the Tenth Commandment and, maybe, the Seventh Commandment?

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Here's another thought re polygamy, that occurred to me:

If you are going to be polygamous, do you have to be attracted to a second woman who is not your wife before you marry the said second woman?

Surely this is a breach of the Tenth Commandment and, maybe, the Seventh Commandment?

Sometimes a marriage is arranged such that a second marriage could occur in the absence of lust, and then - once married - it would not be lust. This is not likely however, and you make a good point. The motivation for polygamous marriages are usually lust...but there is often a lot of lust before one marries for the first time also.

Something to consider is that even if initial sin made a man enter into polygamy, once in it, it is a valid contract and it is a true marriage, and the man is not (or the women) are not in a constant and continual state of adultery afterwards. It is real marriage and the kids are legitimate and are not bastards. It is a foolish contract that complicates things and yet it is better, once saved, to abide by that contract than to break it and sin further.


These polygamy threads always get ended it seems. But, hear what I am saying. Even if we say that polygamy is sin and condemn it as such, this does not end the discussion.

We still need to determine how we deal with polygamous couples as we desire to witness to them and bring them into the church. There is a tendency to think of "foreign sins" as more heinous - but I strongly assert that polygamy is far less sinful than the Culture of Divorce in America. But neither is the ideal, the ideal being monogamy (and this ideal is necessary to exercise church office - even among tribal cultures).

Being understanding of past sin is not the same as turning a blind eye to polygamy. We must show both polygamous couples and also divorced couples grace as we try to help them conform to the image of His Dear Son.

Remember how long God dealt patiently with the OT polygamous patriarchs. Thousands of years. Surely we can deal patiently with polygamous cultures as we evangelize them and hope to erase it within a short generation or two.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Here's another thought re polygamy, that occurred to me:

If you are going to be polygamous, do you have to be attracted to a second woman who is not your wife before you marry the said second woman?

Surely this is a breach of the Tenth Commandment and, maybe, the Seventh Commandment?

Sometimes a marriage is arranged such that a second marriage could occur in the absence of lust, and then - once married - it would not be lust. This is not likely however, and you make a good point. The motivation for polygamous marriages are usually lust...but there is often a lot of lust before one marries for the first time also.

Something to consider is that even if initial sin made a man enter into polygamy, once in it, it is a valid contract and it is a true marriage, and the man is not (or the women) are not in a constant and continual state of adultery afterwards. It is real marriage and the kids are legitimate and are not bastards. It is a foolish contract that complicates things and yet it is better, once saved, to abide by that contract than to break it and sin further.


These polygamy threads always get ended it seems. But, hear what I am saying. Even if we say that polygamy is sin and condemn it as such, this does not end the discussion.

We still need to determine how we deal with polygamous couples as we desire to witness to them and bring them into the church. There is a tendency to think of "foreign sins" as more heinous - but I strongly assert that polygamy is far less sinful than the Culture of Divorce in America. But neither is the ideal, the ideal being monogamy (and this ideal is necessary to exercise church office - even among tribal cultures).

Being understanding of past sin is not the same as turning a blind eye to polygamy. We must show both polygamous couples and also divorced couples grace as we try to help them conform to the image of His Dear Son.

Remember how long God dealt patiently with the OT polygamous patriarchs. Thousands of years. Surely we can deal patiently with polygamous cultures as we evangelize them and hope to erase it within a short generation or two.

But even without lust (the 7th C) there is the wanting/desiring, not of someone else's wife, but of another woman alongside your first wife - which is covetousness, the 10th C, a breach of the moral law. There is also taking your love from your first wife and dividing it in two (stealing, 8th C).

I wasn't thinking about the case of those that are already polygamously married themselves. I'm sure there are difficulties that must be handled carefully. I was just looking at the principle of polygamy itself.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Here's another thought re polygamy, that occurred to me:

If you are going to be polygamous, do you have to be attracted to a second woman who is not your wife before you marry the said second woman?

Surely this is a breach of the Tenth Commandment and, maybe, the Seventh Commandment?

Sometimes a marriage is arranged such that a second marriage could occur in the absence of lust, and then - once married - it would not be lust. This is not likely however, and you make a good point. The motivation for polygamous marriages are usually lust...but there is often a lot of lust before one marries for the first time also.

Something to consider is that even if initial sin made a man enter into polygamy, once in it, it is a valid contract and it is a true marriage, and the man is not (or the women) are not in a constant and continual state of adultery afterwards. It is real marriage and the kids are legitimate and are not bastards. It is a foolish contract that complicates things and yet it is better, once saved, to abide by that contract than to break it and sin further.


These polygamy threads always get ended it seems. But, hear what I am saying. Even if we say that polygamy is sin and condemn it as such, this does not end the discussion.

We still need to determine how we deal with polygamous couples as we desire to witness to them and bring them into the church. There is a tendency to think of "foreign sins" as more heinous - but I strongly assert that polygamy is far less sinful than the Culture of Divorce in America. But neither is the ideal, the ideal being monogamy (and this ideal is necessary to exercise church office - even among tribal cultures).

Being understanding of past sin is not the same as turning a blind eye to polygamy. We must show both polygamous couples and also divorced couples grace as we try to help them conform to the image of His Dear Son.

Remember how long God dealt patiently with the OT polygamous patriarchs. Thousands of years. Surely we can deal patiently with polygamous cultures as we evangelize them and hope to erase it within a short generation or two.

But even without lust (the 7th C) there is the wanting/desiring, not of someone else's wife, but of another woman alongside your first wife - which is covetousness, the 10th C, a breach of the moral law. There is also taking your love from your first wife and dividing it in two (stealing, 8th C).

I wasn't thinking about the case of those that are already polygamously married themselves. I'm sure there are difficulties that must be handled carefully. I was just looking at the principle of polygamy itself.

This issue falls into two parts; (1) the sinfulness of polygamy, and (2) what to do with polygamous peoples as we evangelize the nations.

You won't get an argument about the sinfulness of polygamy or how it is sinful. The mechanics of which commandment it violates exactly mean little to me. My main goal to to address the "how" we handle polygamy as we try to evangelize polygamous peoples.

So, I need not argue against what you have said above.

My question to you is how to apply the Gospel to tribes and peoples who are polygamous?

Also, I would like to propose to you that after marriage is entered into, the lust ends and it is true marriage, even though polygamous. So, even if polygamous marriage was sinful to enter into, the family does not persist in a constant state of adultery which only divorce can "solve" - we are not to encourage divorce, for this would be worse than the entering in of a foolish contract. I would even propose that these be accepted into church members and partake of the Lord's Supper, all the while teaching the ideal of monogamy so that this pattern of less-than-ideal marriage dies out in the next generation.

So, yes, polygamy is a stumbling block. But the OT examples we have show us a good example of how God shows grace to sinful people and how God slowly and patiently works towards the ideal.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

My question to you is how to apply the Gospel to tribes and peoples who are polygamous?

Moderation

Please, everyone, read Todd's post above about reopening the thread and limit discussion to the original question: what advice can be given to JennyG regarding her friend's belief that polygamy is not sinful?

The thread is limited to that.

Oh, I guess I need to read the OP, huh?


I think the comments about progressive revelation apply. Plus, in my post above I do mention the patient dealing of God with the patriarchs, when I urge the same patience with tribals.

The OP is right, the OT never mentions polygamy as sinful, but we know monogamy is the ideal and this issue can be dealt with in a similar manner as slavery, i.e., tolerated for a time but now let us urge people on towards the ideal.

My question would be why would polygamy be such a huge stumbling block and not slavery, God killing the ENTIRE human race except one family or all those tribes (the Stalagtites, Stalagmites, and etc) being annihilated by Divine Warrant?

So really I'm just wondering if there is an answer to the OP and my question.

Originally Posted by Madcow

So really I'm just wondering if there is an answer to the OP and my question.

Sarah, I think your question is similar to the original post, but a little different, because it is asking why God would do something.

To ask that is almost to answer it: We have no place (or ability) to understand why God chose to reveal his will in a certain way.

Still, I think that Scripture does reveal it early:

Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

That's not an ideal, it's a decree of the order of creation. The fact that God did not punish those he loved for violating that is something we can't second guess. We do know that God winked at many things in the old days. Acts. 17:30.

One thing to keep in mind on these types of questions is this: just as a negative commandment implies a positive duty: (Thou shalt not kill implies that you should protect life), a positive command implies a negative duty. From the start, God decreed one man and one woman to become one flesh. That necessarily implies that adding another party is prohibited, ie. sinful.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Here's another thought re polygamy, that occurred to me:

If you are going to be polygamous, do you have to be attracted to a second woman who is not your wife before you marry the said second woman?

Surely this is a breach of the Tenth Commandment and, maybe, the Seventh Commandment?

We're not debating whether polygamy is a sin. It is. We're supposed to be discussing Jenny's question of how to deal with someone for whom the polygamy incidents in the Old Testament are a stumbilng block.

Sarah (and Jenny),

Certain Reformed theologians (Vermigli in particular) wrote extensively on the causes of God not taking punitive measures (at least, none that have been revealed to us in the canonical scriptures) for polygamy among our old Fathers of Israel. I think, however, for the purposes of this discussion we need to look even one step further back, and ask the question, "Do we really need to know why?" Only after we have answered that question will it be beneficial for us to understand any economical or historical reasons for God's patient forbearance in this matter.

At root, it is a similar question to, "Why did God place a mark on Cain so that none would take vengeance upon him?" Why does God ever withhold judgment in special cases? Sometimes we may know, sometimes we may not -- our first response needs to be, "Okay, I accept this, even though I don't know why you do what you do. I will let you be God." We in fact see many such cases of God withholding punishment, judgment and chastisement. As has been noted before, we can also draw here a parallel with divorce -- God, in his economic dealings with mankind, dealt with great patience and forbearance with his people concerning divorce; we see him also doing this at times with the case of polygamy (which Vermigli, by way of example, holds to be a temporary dispensing of that law with respect to the Fathers for his own purposes [i.e., propagation]; whereas others hold that only correction thereof was dispensed with -- see Turretin XI.xviii.viii for a quick classification of the different opinions of the orthodox).

The bottom line is that, even as we should not be troubled when parents show temporary leniency to certain actions of children on account of their infancy (which leniency will not be granted when they come of age), by so much more ought we not to be troubled when God demonstrates leniency toward his own underage children, but we ought rather fall down and under his great wisdom which far surpasses our own comprehension.

I'm not trying to get a definite answer on this question. I know God can do whatever He wants without answering to me. I ask questions bc sometimes there are ppl out there with answers. If there are not answers to be had on this particular question....no worries! It's not like I want to give the Mormon's a shake of my finger. I'm curious and I've asked questions before that Romans922 has answered to my delight!!!

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Here's another thought re polygamy, that occurred to me:

If you are going to be polygamous, do you have to be attracted to a second woman who is not your wife before you marry the said second woman?

Surely this is a breach of the Tenth Commandment and, maybe, the Seventh Commandment?

We're not debating whether polygamy is a sin. It is. We're supposed to be discussing Jenny's question of how to deal with someone for whom the polygamy incidents in the Old Testament are a stumbilng block.

I believe it's sinful. I don't have a problem with God being "more lenient on it"/not emphasising its sinfulness in the OT.

I think that if the OT church had been ready for the full emphasis on monogamy only, God would have emphasised monogamy and polygamy would have been emphasised as against God's law and maybe punished with a particular penalty. God as a wise parent didn't do that.

The fulness of the Spirit was not poured out, the Bible was not complete and Christ had not come. There may have been a number of reasons why they were allowed to be polygamous. God has not changed, but His Church has.

GEN 2:24 is clear enough for me. It says wife, not wives.

I've been missing some of this for a while, too busy to log in.

Please, everyone, read Todd's post above about reopening the thread and limit discussion to the original question: what advice can be given to JennyG regarding her friend's belief that polygamy is not sinful?

-I had no idea what a tricksy qusetion this would prove! Even that is not QUITE it -- she knows it's sinful all right, the stumbling block is the fact that God apears to condone it in his chosen ones.
On "lust before second marriages" -- I imagined maybe a lot of the Kings' extra marriages might be purely political (Solomon's for eg) but of course that wouldn't really make it better.
Now I have to go and meet a train, Thank you everyone for your helpful comments with which I will catch up later

If an unbeliever were to ask me why God didn't openly and severely punish the act of polygamy on the part of the patriarchs, I would respond that if that's puzzling, how 'bout the fact that He doesn't consume me with fire for just breathing in, since everything I do is tainted with sin?

The Patriarchs were not without sin, and are never portrayed as such. They believed God, and it was accounted to them as righteousness - they were looking forward to the grace to be accomplished at the cross. They are examples of faith, not performance.

Originally Posted by JennyG

She replies: "but Abraham and Jacob and all of them, even David the man after God's own heart, were polygamous and IT'S NEVER REPRESENTED AS SINFUL OF THEM."
What would be your answer?

The first thing I would do is point out that while it is never explicitly pointed out as sinful, in the book of Judges, the phrase "every man did what was right in their own eyes" pointed to what was sinful. The OT does not always point out what might be wrong explicitly; there are many cases in which what is done is absolutely wrong, and we know it. But it is reported factually by the scripture.

Another example is Judges 11:29 and following. Jephthah vows what is sinful, and then fulfills what is a sinful vow. It is done without comment in the scripture, and it is not condemned. But God nowhere calls for the sacrifice of our children (and even in the case of Abraham and Isaac, where it appears that God did, it was nothing more than a test of Abraham, not a real call to sacrifice.)

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Here's another thought re polygamy, that occurred to me:

If you are going to be polygamous, do you have to be attracted to a second woman who is not your wife before you marry the said second woman?

Surely this is a breach of the Tenth Commandment and, maybe, the Seventh Commandment?

This is certainly a western point of view. The prohibition on polygamy does not rest on any thought of attraction ... in an arranged marriage, you might not see the person you wed prior to being married. Even though there was no attraction (and it might be that you would not want to be married to another person) it would still be sin.

The basis for monogamy is in the creation of marriage ... God did not remove all of Adams ribs, but just one. God brought one wife to Adam. Regardless of anything else, we follow this principle not to avoid other sins, but because monogamy is what is "commanded" in the creation ordinance. Otherwise, our rationalization of the "reason" it is sin might not fit such a situation.

.
Richard said, and Prufrock and other people posted similarly,

I believe it's sinful. I don't have a problem with God being "more lenient on it"/not emphasising its sinfulness in the OT.

I think that if the OT church had been ready for the full emphasis on monogamy only, God would have emphasised monogamy and polygamy would have been emphasised as against God's law and maybe punished with a particular penalty. God as a wise parent didn't do that.

The fulness of the Spirit was not poured out, the Bible was not complete and Christ had not come. There may have been a number of reasons why they were allowed to be polygamous. God has not changed, but His Church has.

Todd, you pointed out to me that for someone who doesn't accept God's sovereignty as a presupposition, there is always going to be a problem with an issue like this, and I see how right that is.
All the same, if I put the above alongside (for eg) Brad's and Brian's wonderfully practical answers, I think I can see how to frame a response.

Hope you're satisfied too, Sarah!
I suppose you could say that in a way, you're right and there is no answer - but in another way there is, since we can get such good clues as to why it is that we don't have the answer.
Thank you again to everyone, I'm very grateful indeed!