Does the Bible Promote or Condone Polygamy?

In addition to slavery, this is one I hear from skeptics a lot. "God seemed fine with polygamy, so why not gay marriage?" It's used to either discredit Scripture or justify sinful lifestyles. 

It is true that is was a societal norm in OT times. But many things were normal in society that God did not approve of, just like today. Most of the examples of polygamy come from Genesis and Kings. Both books are historical narratives, not how-to guides on living life. The authors of those books wrote as to record history, not give commentary. So none of the actions of the people in the books is a prescription for the readers to go and follow.

In Genesis 1 and 2, you see God create the ideal of one man and one woman. Then Cain kills Abel and Cain's descendent Lamech shows he's no better than Cain. And to add to that, Lamech has two wives which is a clear deviation from what God established just three chapters ago. So the Bible starts out portraying polygamy in a negative light. Abraham's polygamy is explicitly condemned by God as God refused to give the promised blessing to Ishmael because he was born of another woman. God makes it clear he didn't want Abraham to have relations with anyone other than his wife. Later, Jacob's polygamy causes all sorts of problems. And Jacob isn't exactly portrayed as a standup citizen anyway. He's a liar and a conman. Just imagine how much easier it would have been for Israel if they had only a few tribes instead of 12. Thanks a lot Jacob... 

 

We see David have lots of wives in Kings. It's true that God never explicitly condemns that in Kings, he never condones it either. It seems that God did not make all sin illegal. There is a difference, even in God's economy between what is outlawed in legal structures and what is sinful to God. There may be a legal case for polygamy, but not a moral one. I'm sure David did many other things God didn't approve of, but Kings doesn't record everything for us. The consequences for David's polygamy were nothing but negative. With all his kids either trying to kill him or kill each other, I can't think of a single benefit reaped from David's polygamy. And his son Solomon's polygamy led him to worship idols.

After the exile, Israel put away idol worship and many other sinful practices they had picked up from surrounding nations that caused them to get sent into exile in the first place. Among those was polygamy. It largely disappeared in Israel after the exile. The fact that the Bible does not promote polygamy is also evident in that most conservative Jews and Rabbis do not practice it or justify it with Scripture. http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/polygamy-orthodox/
http://www.chabad.org/.../Does-Jewish-Law-Forbid-Polygamy...

And then in the first century we have Paul explicitly telling Christians to be monogamous. 

1 Timothy 3:2
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 

1 Timothy 3:12

Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

1 Timothy 5:9

Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,

Titus 1:6

if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 

When asked about divorce, Jesus went back to Genesis to show what God had created as the ideal for marriage and made that the standard, even though divorce was legal by Jewish law passed by Moses himself. But Jesus showed that what is legal does not equate what is moral. So even though OT law explicitly condoned divorce, Jesus shows that God still considers it sin. So how much more is that true of polygamy, which Jewish law never condoned like divorce?

Progressive Intolerance

You may have heard about the so-called right-wing racism/xenophobia against a Coca-Cola ad during the Super Bowl. I hadn't heard of it until one of my progressive friends posted about it. When she did, I noticed Matt Walsh wrote an interesting blog post about so I posted the link to the blog in her comments... and then proceeded to watch her explode with anger that I would dare post a link from Matt Walsh on her Facebook page. I'm posting some the conversation below just so you can see how incredibly stupid it is.

Darcie: ‪#‎AmericaIsBeautiful‬ because of our diversity. I can't believe the outrage over this, a representation of what makes us great.

Coca-Cola - It's Beautiful - Official :60

m.youtube.com

• ...

• J.B.: I never actually heard anyone talk about this until this morning, when one of my more conservative friends posted a status defending the commercial.

  
  
• Darcie:  Allen West called it "the road to perdition." Apparently we as a country are literally headed to hell because people speak languages other than English!

  
  
• Brian: Allen West does not necessarily represent the views of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. He would make a great live-action Bart Simpson, though.

  
  
• Darcie: This article earlier today had a very thoughtful and logical first comment in defense of the ad; it has since been deleted. http://www.breitbart.com/.../Why-Coca-Cola-America-The...
  

  
  

  Why Coca Cola's Multicultural 'America the Beautiful' Ad Was Offensive

  www.breitbart.com
• Kaitlin: I was following Twitter last night, and there was instantaneous and widespread outrage over this commercial. I wouldn't exactly call that a small group of PR people making this up.
  
  But anyway. I am dumbfounded at how stupid people are to be made over this commercial. HOW DARE AMERICANS BE NON-WHITE AND SPEAK A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

  
  
• Me: Haven't even heard of this until now.
  

  
  

  Breaking: nuns, babies, puppies, dolphins spark fierce liberal backlash

  themattwalshblog.com
  

    I don't know. I just don't know. I think I will recover. I hope I will recover...See More

  
  
• Darcie: I've make a rule of never reading anything Matt Walsh says. I'm done with that guy. And no, it was definitely not just liberals freaking out, there were actual, verifiable racist tweets about the ad.

• Me: That's very open-minded...

• Darcie: No, he's just too closed minded for me. I gave him plenty of chances.

  
  
• Me: I never make rules of not reading anything from people I disagree with. I read people I disagree with all the time. It doesn't matter how many times. How is being closed-minded to him countering his supposed closed-mindedness? Wouldn't that be like double closed-mindedness? (Doing the very thing you accuse him of?)

  
  
• Darcie: He's a self-important guy with a blog, and I'm constantly disappointed whenever I read his words. Therefore, I have chosen to waste no more time on him. It isn't closed mindedness, it's saving myself from wasting the brain cells.

  
  
• Me:  Seems like a genetic fallacy. I'm not saying to make Matt Walsh important. No one is saying "read Matt Walsh because you need to think he's important." Matt Walsh isn't even saying that. It's usually the actual content of what he says. If you're
  "disappointed" then I'd like to know why. I can say randomly I'm disappointed by lots of people but that doesn't mean anything. It just seems like an excuse to not have one's views challenged. You could say the same about anyone who blogs or even posts on facebook. "They're just self-important." Even if that's true, that's irrelevant. If a self-important person says, "Don't commit murder" should he be ignored simply because he's "self-important"? If he says "2+2=4" is he wrong because he's self-important?

• Darcie: David, there's no need to point to a fallacy to pick apart my reason for not liking the guy. I simply don't care what he says and don't find it relevant. I'll refrain from being any harsher, as I don't know him to truly judge the nature of his character. But, just as I refuse to read any more Hemingway since being assigned The Old Man and the Sea, I refuse to read The Matt Walsh Blog. Period.

  
  
• Me:  Like, I said, you can justifying ignoring anyone like that. You express distaste for me pointing out a fallacy, but none for actually committing a fallacy. If you post something controversial, it seems like it's usually taken for granted that you're inviting people who might disagree to share thoughts.

  
  
• Jave: omg David... stop hijacking this thread with a pointless argument.
• Me: I didn't realize contrary views are now considered "hijacking".

  
  
• 
  Kaitlin: >.>

  
  
• Jave: *facepalm*

  
  
• Tim: Just as a hint, David, the topic of this thread is not whether Darcie likes or dislikes the way a particular blogger expresses his views, and whether her decision not to read a certain author is legitimate. To continue on about it is hijacking the thread from its intended topic.
  
  In cases like this, where you have interesting topics you wish to discuss with someone, you might consider posting on their Wall about that specific topic. That way other discussions aren't being unnecessarily derailed.

  
  
• ...

  Me:  Except the link I posted *is* about the commercial. Darcie is the one who didn't wanna read it. I don't have an opinion on the controversy. I didn't see the commercial and I didn't hear anyone complain about it. I understand some people did. I'm not going to discount their experiences. I read Walsh's post after I saw Darcie's and thought he had some interesting things to say about the origin of the controversy, but no one wanted to talk about it. They just dismissed it because of the source. I expected someone to actually read it and respond to it, in hopes of helping to form my opinion on the matter, but instead I was met with hostility for merely posting a link to a certain blog.

  
  
• Darcie: Dude, the only hostility was me saying no thank you and you getting mad that I dislike someone's writing. >_>

  
  
• Darcie: What are YOUR actual feelings on the subject other than whatever some other blogger said? That's what I want to know. Should we be mad people are singing a song about America in a non-English language? Should we be mad people are still weird about there being non-white immigrants making up the citizens of the United States? That's what I want to know. What that other guy said is not relevant. Your thoughts are.

  
  
• Me:  I'm not mad, I fully expected you to dislike his writing, I just wanted to see what you thought of the post, i.e. if he said something wrong I'd like to hear what it is, not "I don't read from that blog." Umm.. okay... Like, I said I posted trying to figure out what's going on, and since I didn't see the commercial originally or hear about the controversy I posted a link to someone else who did some research on it.

  
  
• Me:  I didn't even say I agree with Walsh, I don't know much about it. I wanted to see what *you* thought of Walsh's response. I still haven't formed an opinion since this largely passed me. I'm trying to figure it all out.
  
  I'm a child of two immigrants, and most of my friends and cousins growing up were bi-racial as well. I have a very diverse group of friends and live in one of the most diverse cities in the nation. I thought the commercial was awesome.

  
  
• Darcie: You want me to react to someone else's interpretation of the reactions of others? Is that what this is?

  
  
• Darcie: Since I'm sure he's dismissed the whole ordeal, here's a page of actual tweets and responses that actually are critical of the ad. That's really all I need to know here. The hatred over the ad being not American enough DOES EXIST. http://www.buzzfeed.com/.../coca-colas-multi-lingual...
  

  
  

  Coca-Cola's Multilingual Super Bowl Ad Inspired A Racist Meltdown Online

  www.buzzfeed.com
• Me: He didn't dismiss it. He read all those tweets. He just has an interesting explanation for it. I'm not quite sure if I buy it, but I wanted to hear your thoughts.
  
  What he said is, "Most of the stories about the phantom “firestorm” cite comments from A...See More

  
  
• Jeremy: Matt Walsh makes some good points here, sure, but he also isn't adding anything of any value to the table - he's simply snatching up another opportunity to widen the divide between the 'liberals' and the 'conservatives'. He avoids admitting that xenophobia is a serious problem and jumps straight into defending his political party. His self-righteous, holier than thou attitude is the reason I have joined the ranks in blacklisting this guy. If he doesn't ever have anything constructive or valuable to say, why waste your time?

  
  
• Darcie: Matt Walsh is also "just some person" so I choose to not find his dismissal of actual events in any way contrary to what I still feel about this whole thing. And yes, that was a dismissal. He's a guy that had a little radio show and then started blogging. Who cares? Because the best thing to do when you have no opinion but still want to get a blog post in that will get shared a bajillion times is to write something completely irrelevant to the fact that people in this day and age actually still say those things and it's getting old. Post about how the right wing really isn't that racist and the left is totally overreacting, because that will totally fix the problem of people being jerks to other people. Oh, and how many times did Allen West post about it? And how many times were his words read and repeated and liked and shared? But sure, it wasn't a big deal. There's no such thing as racism anymore, for reals.

  
  
• Me:  So does anyone know exactly how many people posted the racist tweets? Did anyone here experience racist tweets themselves on twitter?
  
  You guys were criticizing me for arguing about Walsh, but I don't care about Walsh. I care about what he said. Stop hijacking this thread with a pointless argument. You say Matt Walsh is just one person. Well Allan West is just one person. So doesn't that cancel out?
  
  If anyone should care about racism, it's me. I'm half Mexican and half Indian. Indians and Hispanics get the most racism in this country right now and few people address it, including progressives. It's not that I don't care, I just didn't see any right-wing racism anymore than I see tweets about people who hate nuns and puppies. If the right is really racist, how come you're upset about a Black man having so much influence on the right-wing?

  
  
• Darcie: Kaitlin already stated she was on Twitter at the time and saw people react to the ad with stupidity.
  
  And David, no. You will not lash out at people here for reacting to your posts and tell them to stop hijacking, whether you mean that comment honestly or with a grain of sarcasm. It just won't fly here.

  
  
• Me:  So why the double standard? You can do it, but I can't?

  
  
• Darcie:Just stop.

  
  
• J.B.: David just managed to brilliantly and systematically prove that you're willing to listen only to people with whom you agree. Well done, David. I tip my hat to you.