Gods commands on polygamy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JesusIsLord

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello brothers my question is why does God give commands in the Old Testament on polygamy. For example exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15? Just to be clear I believe that scripture is clear about polygamy being sinful and I am in no way inviting a discussion on whether or not it is sinful however there is a tension for me on why God would give instructions about polygamous relationships in the OT. Thank you brothers
 
Divine regulation of certain disordered behavior is not evidence that he approves of such behavior. It is more true to say there is no superior way of handling a sinful situation than methods approved by God. Divorce is a similar subject.

Polygamy is not licit in God's sinless economy. However, these marriages have been contracted in this sinful world, and approved by those wielding the authority to sanction them. Perceived legitimacy creates a marriage (and consequently "legitimate" offspring). Oaths create marriage (not sɘx, or the presence of children).

To "unmake" a second-marriage where this would cast a poor woman out upon the world, solves nothing, and tends to create worse and more intractable problems--both for individuals and for society.

The NT church is not a landed, temporal nation anymore, immersed in ANE culture. A polygamous man gets converted, Praise the Lord. He may be otherwise qualified, but his multiple marriage status prevents him from becoming a church officer. The standards have been raised.

The sad immediate effect yields a happy long-term effect by discouraging younger Christian men with ambition to lead God's people from adopting the license their sin-ridden culture permits.
 
To "unmake" a second-marriage where this would cast a poor woman out upon the world, solves nothing, and tends to create worse and more intractable problems--both for individuals and for society.

How does this then relate to Ezra 10 and 11 where the people made a covenant to divorce their pagan wives? I am not disagreeing with your principle, I'm just curious as to your thoughts on how this all fits together.
 
Bill,
Some of what I say might better be classified under "sanctified common sense" coupled with some biblical reasoning, but here it is.

The first question is, whether under the covenant-economy those connections were proper marriages at all. We could say something similar about an incestuous marriage--it may be a man an a woman (!), however, there is no possible way to legitimize what is in such a case an improper attempt at marriage union.

Second, the demands for purity under those redemptive-historical conditions appear to have been the consummate concern, overriding all other considerations.

That said, the point seems to be that these men were living two lives: one as an Israelite, the other as a heathen. And Ezra demands that they choose one.

A list of men are given. These are the men who chose their native God and people over the invitation of the heathen. They broke with the foreign women they had dallied with, even in some cases had children by.

There are at least two other scenarios that this list of names implies. The first is an unnamed list of those who left their ties to Judah, to Ezra and the Temple, and to Jehovah; and chose the women.

The other is an unnamed list of those men who may have sought a second possibility. Might they keep those women who, like Ruth, chose the God of Israel, and left their family and connections behind? The evident problem was that the foreign women, in the main, were drawing these Jews away from God, corrupting the holy nation by inducing heathenism into the tatters of national life. They were not leaving their families or way of life. The men drawn to them were weak of spirit, or failed to have the community in mind, or put God first as his servants.

This final option seems to me like a genuine possibility, but if it took place it must have been exceptional, like Ruth was exceptional.

:2cents:
 
Bill,
Some of what I say might better be classified under "sanctified common sense" coupled with some biblical reasoning, but here it is.

The first question is, whether under the covenant-economy those connections were proper marriages at all. We could say something similar about an incestuous marriage--it may be a man an a woman (!), however, there is no possible way to legitimize what is in such a case an improper attempt at marriage union.

Second, the demands for purity under those redemptive-historical conditions appear to have been the consummate concern, overriding all other considerations.

That said, the point seems to be that these men were living two lives: one as an Israelite, the other as a heathen. And Ezra demands that they choose one.

A list of men are given. These are the men who chose their native God and people over the invitation of the heathen. They broke with the foreign women they had dallied with, even in some cases had children by.

There are at least two other scenarios that this list of names implies. The first is an unnamed list of those who left their ties to Judah, to Ezra and the Temple, and to Jehovah; and chose the women.

The other is an unnamed list of those men who may have sought a second possibility. Might they keep those women who, like Ruth, chose the God of Israel, and left their family and connections behind? The evident problem was that the foreign women, in the main, were drawing these Jews away from God, corrupting the holy nation by inducing heathenism into the tatters of national life. They were not leaving their families or way of life. The men drawn to them were weak of spirit, or failed to have the community in mind, or put God first as his servants.

This final option seems to me like a genuine possibility, but if it took place it must have been exceptional, like Ruth was exceptional.

:2cents:

Thank you Rev. Buchanan. That was an excellent response as always.
 
God also gives restraining commands regarding slavery and restraining commands regarding divorce, to keep a bad situation from being even worse.
God allows divorce but in Malichi says 'I hate divorce'

Marriage is for oneness.... the two shall be one flesh...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top