God never condemned Abraham, David, or Solomon for having multiple wives — so did God actually endorse polygamy, or has the church just been too embarrassed to deal with it?

• Z

  Zara1mo ago

  The answer is literally in Genesis 2. One man. One woman. One flesh. Everything that came after was deviation from the original design, not endorsement of it. Jesus himself pointed people back to 'the beginning' when asked about marriage. This isn't complicated.

  187Reply
• R

  Ravi1mo ago

  The thing that never gets said in these conversations: polygamy in the ancient world was almost always about male power and female subordination. Multiple wives was a status symbol. Women had zero say. So when people romanticize 'biblical polygamy' they are romanticizing a system of profound female powerlessness. Even if the text doesn't call it sin, Christian ethics has to grapple with that dimension. The image of God in those women matters.

  177Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  I taught Old Testament at a seminary for eleven years. The honest answer is that the biblical text is genuinely ambiguous on this in ways that make careful scholars uncomfortable. Genesis 2 implies an ideal. The patriarchal narratives show polygamy producing conflict and chaos almost every time (Hagar and Sarah, Leah and Rachel, Hannah and Peninnah). That narrative pattern functions as implicit moral commentary even when the text doesn't editorialize explicitly. It's not a clear prohibition — but it's not a ringing endorsement either.

  172Reply
• A

  Avery1mo ago

  Being in Hebrews 11 means your FAITH was commended. Not every decision you ever made. Noah was also in Hebrews 11 and got blackout drunk after the flood. David is in there and he had a man murdered. The Hall of Faith is not a comprehensive moral endorsement of everything these people did.

  161Reply
• M

  Marco1mo ago

  My grandfather had two wives in rural Nigeria and he was a deacon in the church for forty years. When he came to faith the local missionaries told him to pick one and abandon the other women and their children. The 'biblical' solution created destitute families and fatherless kids. I'm not saying polygamy is ideal. I'm saying the Western church applied a cultural standard and called it Scripture and caused real damage. That's worth sitting with.

  156Reply
• L2

  Leo 211mo ago

  I grew up in a fundamentalist home where 'biblical marriage' was preached every other Sunday. My parents had the most miserable marriage imaginable. Said all the right things. Hit all the right checkboxes. The fetishization of the institution at the expense of the actual human beings inside it is its own kind of sin and I am exhausted by people treating monogamy like its holiness is self-evident when the evidence walking through church doors every week says otherwise.

  148Reply
• Z

  Zara1mo ago

  the real answer is that most of us in this thread are doing what humans always do: starting with what we already believe and working backward to the text. the honest christian move is to admit the bible is more complicated on this than our sunday school version and then sit with that discomfort instead of immediately resolving it in whatever direction feels safe. scripture is allowed to be hard.

  145Reply
• F

  Feli1mo ago

  So God endorses slavery as a 'waypoint' too? I mean Exodus has regulations for that as well. At what point does 'narrative arc' just become a fancy way of cutting the parts of the Bible you don't like?

  143Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  If you believe the NT requirement that an elder/overseer must be 'husband of one wife' means anything, it means the early church recognized polygamy existed among converts and needed to be addressed specifically for leadership. That's significant. It doesn't say polygamy is damning — but it implies it disqualifies you from certain roles. That tells you something about how the apostles felt about it.

  139Reply
• QL

  Quinn L.1mo ago

  okay but if it was deviation why did God keep BLESSING these men anyway. God shut down a lot of things he disapproved of pretty fast in the OT. he turned people into pillars of salt. he sent plagues. for polygamy? nothing. silence. that silence has to mean something

  134Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  Yes. Thank you. The text doesn't have to say 'this is sin' for us to recognize systemic harm. The entire framework of Proverbs 31 and the Song of Solomon and Ephesians 5:25 — husbands GIVING themselves for their wives — moves in a completely different direction from a structure where a man acquires wives like property. The inner logic of Scripture moves toward mutuality and dignity even where explicit commands are absent.

  122Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  I don't care what ancient culture did. I care what God designed. And Ephesians 5 describes marriage as a picture of Christ and the church. One groom. One bride. The typology only works with one of each. If you want to dismantle that you have to dismantle the entire metaphor the New Testament builds salvation around.

  119Reply
• NR

  Nina R.1mo ago

  Here is my genuine question for the 'narrative arc' people: if you're okay saying God tolerated polygamy for 2,000 years of Old Testament history because cultures change and God meets people where they are — then you have to explain why that same logic can't be applied to other things the church currently treats as settled. You've handed the other side a very powerful hermeneutical tool. Are you comfortable with where it leads?

  116Reply
• NK

  Noah K.1mo ago

  Hermeneutics 101 is exactly the kind of phrase people use when they want to sound smart instead of answering the question. God gave explicit laws ABOUT polygamy in Deuteronomy 21. He didn't prohibit it — he regulated it. You don't write legal protections for wives in polygamous households if you think polygamy is inherently sinful. Full stop.

  112Reply
• KR

  Kofi R.1mo ago

  Solomon. Had. Seven. Hundred. Wives. And God appeared to him TWICE. Gave him the gift of wisdom. Built the temple. And then God's complaint about Solomon in 1 Kings 11 was specifically that his foreign wives turned his heart toward their gods — NOT that he had too many wives. The sin was idolatry. Not the number of spouses. Read the text people.

  107Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  If you disagree that monogamy is the clear biblical standard, I want you to explain why Paul — writing to a Greco-Roman world that practiced polygamy, concubinage, AND serial remarriage — would write the most elevated vision of marriage in human history in Ephesians 5 without once saying 'and by the way, pick one.' Unless you think Paul just assumed everyone already knew. Which means the assumption existed. Which means the standard was already understood. You can't have it both ways.

  103Reply
• FR

  Feli R.1mo ago

  ^ that's the most honest answer in this whole thread and I bet it gets the least engagement because people came here to be validated not informed

  101Reply
• S

  Sam1mo ago

  Theologians have a technical term for this: the distinction between God's permissive will and his prescriptive will. God permits things he does not endorse all the time — divorce, monarchy, slavery regulations. Permitting something within a fallen world's legal framework is not the same as commanding or celebrating it. This is Hermeneutics 101 and I'm genuinely baffled it keeps tripping people up.

  97Reply
• CR

  Casey R.1mo ago

  okay I came in here ready to be provocative and I'll be honest — this thread actually made me rethink some things. the Christ/church typology argument and the point about implicit narrative condemnation hit different than I expected. I still think the church has been sloppy and culturally conditioned in how it teaches this. but I'm less confident than I was two hours ago that the Bible's position is obviously what I thought it was. that doesn't happen often on the internet

  94Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  That is actually a really strong argument and I say that as someone who came into this thread pretty skeptical of the monogamy-as-clear-scripture position. The Christ/church typology is genuinely hard to reconcile with divinely approved polygamy. I need to think about that.

  93Reply
• J

  Jamie1mo ago

  The narrative arc matters. Scripture moves toward something. Old covenant, new covenant. Law, then grace. Cultural accommodation, then kingdom ethic. The trajectory of the whole Bible lands on one-flesh, self-giving, covenant partnership between two people. Reading Deuteronomy's polygamy laws as a final answer rather than a waypoint is like reading the permission for divorce certificates and deciding Jesus has nothing to say about it.

  89Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  Where does Jesus say ANYWHERE that you need two incomes and a picket fence and a Wednesday night couples devotional to honor God in marriage. The entire American 'biblical marriage' concept is 1950s suburban culture with a Bible verse stapled to it. The actual ancient Hebrew understanding of marriage would scandalize most people in this forum.

  88Reply
• C9

  Casey 921mo ago

  No it isn't a fallacy — it's a legitimate hermeneutical question about methodology. If your interpretive framework produces conclusions you'd reject in other cases, you need to examine the framework. That's not a fallacy, that's basic intellectual consistency.

  88Reply
• OT

  Omar T.1mo ago

  You're technically correct that the stated reason was idolatry. But does that mean God approved of the 700 wives, or just that the idolatry was the more immediate crisis? Silence on one sin in the context of addressing a worse one isn't the same as endorsement.

  82Reply
• DM

  Drew M.1mo ago

  honestly nobody wants to say the quiet part loud so I will: the reason the church is so allergic to this topic is because if you admit the Bible doesn't clearly condemn polygamy, certain people immediately want to use that to justify things modern Christians find uncomfortable. it's a slippery slope fear dressed up as exegesis

  78Reply
• Q2

  Quinn 211mo ago

  This. Marriage in the ancient Near East was fundamentally about covenant and kinship and economics. Love was often not the primary driver. We have imported a Romantic-era emotional framework onto a text written in a completely different world and then insist our version is 'what the Bible teaches.' The intellectual honesty required to admit that is apparently beyond most Sunday school curricula.

  76Reply
• M

  Maya1mo ago

  i just want someone to explain to me WHY we think 21st century american monogamy is obviously holier than what Abraham practiced. Abraham is literally called the father of faith. he's in hebrews 11. the hall of faith. with hagar's child in his household. where is the humility to admit we might not have this all figured out

  74Reply
• Z

  Zara1mo ago

  The 'natural law' argument is interesting until you remember that polygamy WAS widespread across almost every ancient culture, which somewhat complicates the 'natural' part. You're smuggling in Enlightenment-era assumptions and calling them universal.

  67Reply
• H

  Hana1mo ago

  OR — and hear me out — 'husband of one wife' was specifically excluding men who had remarried after divorce. That's been the interpretation of literally multiple church fathers. Don't just assume it's the polygamy verse when scholars have been debating what it even means for two millennia.

  64Reply
• L

  Leo1mo ago

  That's a real pain and I'm sorry. But the failure of individual marriages doesn't settle a textual question. We don't reject surgery because some surgeries go wrong.

  57Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  ^ this reply deserves way more likes than it has. people need to understand what the genre of that passage is actually doing

  53Reply
• Z

  Zara1mo ago

  Nope. Hard disagree. Monogamy is natural law, not just biblical law. Every culture that has practiced widespread polygamy has produced social stratification, excess unmarried men, and female subjugation. The data is not subtle.

  44Reply
• T

  Theo1mo ago

  That's the slippery slope fallacy dressed in theological clothing. The fact that an argument could theoretically be misused doesn't make it wrong. Gravity can be misused to drop things on people. We don't abandon physics.

  41Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about