God gave David his wives, Solomon had 700, and the patriarchs never got rebuked for it — so was biblical marriage EVER one man, one woman?

• DK

  Diego K.1mo ago

  The fact that 2 Samuel 12:8 says God GAVE David his wives — plural, given by God — has never been adequately explained by the 'one man one woman from the beginning' crowd. You can't just skip that verse. Either God endorsed something He designed as sinful, or our neat little marriage theology has a serious crack in it.

  187Reply
• H

  Hana4w ago

  The real answer nobody wants to say out loud: Western Christianity spent 500 years using 'biblical marriage' to mean something that excluded interracial couples, endorsed arranged marriages, transferred women as property, and made divorce impossible even for abuse victims. Every generation has been absolutely certain they had the correct biblical definition of marriage, and every generation has had to revise it. A little humility about our certainty now is not liberalism — it's just honest church history.

  162Reply
• TB

  Taylor B.1mo ago

  ok real question for the 'one man one woman always was the design' people — Jacob. God renames him Israel. Blesses him. Carries his name for the entire covenant people. He has FOUR women producing the 12 sons who become the 12 tribes. The 12 tribes of Israel literally come from a polygamous household that God blessed and named a nation after. How do you account for that without doing serious exegetical gymnastics?

  156Reply
• M

  Maya1mo ago

  I just want to say — I was in a marriage that fell apart and I've heard 'biblical marriage' weaponized more times than I can count, usually by people who had no idea what was happening inside my home. Whatever the correct answer to this theological debate is, I hope we can at least agree that people's lives are complicated and the church needs to lead with grace first.

  144Reply
• A

  Avery1mo ago

  Genesis 2:24. One man. One woman. One flesh. Jesus quoted it. Done. The polygamy in the OT is descriptive not prescriptive and every single polygamous household in Scripture is a disaster — Sarah vs. Hagar, Rachel vs. Leah, Hannah wept because of Peninnah. The Bible never says 'go and do likewise.'

  143Reply
• RL

  Ravi L.1mo ago

  If it was just 'tolerated,' why does the text in 2 Samuel literally say 'I gave you your master's wives into your arms'? That's God speaking through Nathan the prophet. God is not described as grudgingly permitting David's wives — He's described as the one who handed them over. The 'tolerance' framing requires you to insert something the text does not say.

  134Reply
• JM

  Jordan M.1mo ago

  My grandmother was a second wife. Traditional African Christian marriage. Nobody in our community saw any contradiction with Scripture. It's genuinely an Anglo-European reading that made strict monogamy the only 'biblical' option, and then missionaries exported that as THE Christian standard to cultures with entirely different histories. I'm not saying polygamy is ideal. I'm saying the certainty some people have about this is a cultural artifact, not a pure Bible argument.

  121Reply
• R

  Ravi1mo ago

  also matters for missions contexts. churches in sub-saharan africa, in parts of asia and the middle east, are regularly confronted with polygamous converts. what do you tell a man who becomes a Christian and has three wives and eight children? 'sorry, divorce two of them'? that causes massive harm. the western church has no clean answer because it hasn't thought rigorously about whether its monogamy mandate is actually biblical or cultural.

  117Reply
• DS

  Diego S.1mo ago

  okay but 'every polygamous household is a disaster' is also true of basically every monogamous household in the Bible lol. David and Bathsheba. Hosea and Gomer. Isaac and Rebekah playing favorites with their kids. The disaster argument doesn't actually prove what you think it proves.

  112Reply
• T

  Theo1mo ago

  Jesus said that about DIVORCE, not polygamy. Different conversation. I love when people quote a verse that's about a completely different topic and act like they've ended the discussion.

  109Reply
• O

  Omar1mo ago

  It matters because the same 'this is what biblical marriage has ALWAYS meant' argument gets deployed in contemporary debates about marriage definition, divorce, remarriage, and more. If the foundation is shakier than claimed, the whole edifice needs to be looked at more carefully. That's why it matters.

  103Reply
• D

  Diego1mo ago

  I grew up in a very conservative church and was taught that God's IDEAL was always one man one woman, and polygamy was simply tolerated the way divorce was — Jesus even says in Matthew 19 that Moses allowed divorce 'because of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so.' That same logic applies here. Accommodation ≠ endorsement. That's my position and I've never found a compelling argument against it.

  98Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  There's a difference between 'God worked through Rahab' and 'God literally named His chosen people after a man's polygamous family and structured the entire covenant around it.' The scale of involvement is categorically different. You can't compare those.

  91Reply
• M

  Marco1mo ago

  I've actually studied this in seminary and the strongest argument for the 'ideal vs. accommodation' reading is the Deuteronomy 17:17 passage — the law explicitly tells the king he must NOT multiply wives. If God was genuinely fine with polygamy, why is there a legal restriction against it for the very people most likely to practice it? That seems like the text itself moving toward a standard even within the OT.

  89Reply
• QS

  Quinn S.1mo ago

  What gets me is that the church spent centuries — I mean literally until recent centuries — performing marriages where one man could have a wife AND a concubine AND slaves with whom he had sexual relations and the institution was still called 'biblical marriage.' So the idea that there's some pristine, stable definition we're protecting is historically illiterate. Marriage has always been messier than the Sunday school version.

  88Reply
• M

  Marco4w ago

  That missions point is one I've never thought about and it's genuinely difficult. If the answer to a polygamous convert is 'abandon your wives and children,' that seems like it's causing real damage in the name of a standard that — as this whole thread shows — is not even as clearly biblical as we thought. I don't know the answer but I'm less confident than I was an hour ago.

  82Reply
• R

  Ravi1mo ago

  That last comment is exactly the kind of squishy non-answer that gets people nowhere. If the Bible is just a collection of cultural opinions with 'tension,' then it has zero authority on anything, including the parts you DO want to cite when it's convenient for you. Pick a lane.

  77Reply
• RM

  Ravi M.1mo ago

  I respect that testimony but I'd push back a little — the New Testament elder requirements (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6) specify 'husband of one wife' / 'a one-woman man.' That's a meaningful standard being set explicitly in the early church context. The fact that it needed to be said implies it was a real distinction they were drawing.

  74Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  God used Rahab the prostitute too. Using someone or working through a situation doesn't mean He's endorsing the setup. Providence isn't approval.

  67Reply
• A

  Avery1mo ago

  Deuteronomy 17:17 says the king must not MULTIPLY wives so his heart doesn't turn away — that's an anti-idolatry provision, not a prohibition on multiple wives per se. Solomon violated it for the idolatry reason, not the quantity reason. You're reading later ethics back into the text.

  63Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  The 'husband of one wife' passage is almost certainly about faithfulness, not a count. Greek scholars have argued this for decades. 'One-woman man' (mias gynaikos andra) is an idiom for marital fidelity — it could even be ruling out serial divorce and remarriage. It's not a census.

  58Reply
• Z9

  Zara 921mo ago

  The early church fathers were also wrong about a LOT of things and we know it. Tertullian became a Montanist. Augustine's views on original sin and sex were shaped by his personal history in ways most theologians now acknowledge were excessive. 'The fathers agreed' is not a trump card.

  55Reply
• MS

  Morgan S.1mo ago

  Messier in PRACTICE does not mean God's design was unclear. Humans sinned from the first generation. The descriptive history of what fallen humans did with marriage doesn't revise what God intended at creation. This argument could justify anything if taken seriously.

  52Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  That's genuinely moving and I hear you. But grace and truth aren't opposites. Jesus brought both. The answer to the church being graceless isn't to give up on the truth question — it's to hold both at the same time. People deserve real answers, not just warmth.

  47Reply
• AK

  Alex K.1mo ago

  the whole debate assumes the bible is a unified legal document with a single consistent position on everything and it just. isnt. different texts from different cultures across 1500 years. you're going to find tension. that's not a bug it's the nature of the thing.

  41Reply
• H

  Hana1mo ago

  the early church fathers are pretty unanimous that monogamy is the standard and polygamy was an OT concession. Tertullian, Augustine, Chrysostom — they all say this. if you want to argue the church got it wrong from the very beginning and is still wrong today, that's a really heavy claim to make on the basis of some unanswered questions about 2 Samuel 12.

  39Reply
• L

  Liam1mo ago

  Nope. Hard disagree. Jesus said 'from the beginning it was not so' and pointed back to Genesis. That's your answer. Everything else is commentary.

  34Reply
• Q

  Quinn1mo ago

  Can someone explain to me why this question even matters for Christians TODAY? Like, nobody in this thread is arguing we should practice polygamy now. Is this purely academic or is there a practical stake I'm missing?

  28Reply
• T

  Theo4w ago

  If you're 'less confident than you were an hour ago' based on an internet comment thread, maybe spend some time actually reading the scholarship before adjusting your theology. Craig Keener has written extensively on this. So has William Webb. Do the work.

  19Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about