Bigamy

Status
Not open for further replies.

rrfranks

Puritan Board Freshman
Someone asked me what was the Biblical view of Bigamy. I know what I would say, but I was curious as to how you would respond?
 
I think that the principle reigns that a man and woman leave their parents and cleave to each other as one. This would naturally preclude the practice of bigamy.
 
Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married when you are. Polygamy isn't always a sin, and has been dealt with here many times.
 
The Bible seems to suggest that bigamy (in the form of polygomy) is not as black and white an issue as we tend to think these days, even in the New Testament.

Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well (1 Ti 3:12)

Of course the patriarchs also practised polygomy.

It is therefore biblical to say that having more than one wife (with the wife having full knowledge of the arrangements and the Husband being fully responsible for the welfare of all his wives) is not to be encouraged but rather frighteningly it may be a matter of Christian liberty.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 04:33:59 EST-----

Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married when you are. Polygamy isn't always a sin, and has been dealt with here many times.

I think that this is a culteral distinction in view of the act being illegal, which usually necessitates one party being unaware of the previous marriage. I do of course agree with you that such deception would in itself be sinful but I am not sure that it would in itself invalidate the union.
 
Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married when you are. Polygamy isn't always a sin, and has been dealt with here many times.

Explain, Tim?

"Bigamy is a sin, bot Polygamy is not necessarily."

What's your principle? Can you show me some Scripture?
 
Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married when you are. Polygamy isn't always a sin, and has been dealt with here many times.

Explain, Tim?

"Bigamy is a sin, bot Polygamy is not necessarily."

What's your principle? Can you show me some Scripture?
He may mean that it's not perpetually a sin. For example, an unbeliever in a tribal culture has multiple wives. He's converted, but it wouldn't be right to then divorce said wives. But he may not mean that, so I dunno.

But why the distinction he makes between bigamy and polygamy.
 
Explain, Tim?

"Bigamy is a sin, bot Polygamy is not necessarily."

What's your principle? Can you show me some Scripture?
He may mean that it's not perpetually a sin. For example, an unbeliever in a tribal culture has multiple wives. He's converted, but it wouldn't be right to then divorce said wives. But he may not mean that, so I dunno.

But why the distinction he makes between bigamy and polygamy.

Tim explains this when he states that:

Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married
 
Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married when you are. Polygamy isn't always a sin, and has been dealt with here many times.

Explain, Tim?

"Bigamy is a sin, bot Polygamy is not necessarily."

What's your principle? Can you show me some Scripture?
He may mean that it's not perpetually a sin. For example, an unbeliever in a tribal culture has multiple wives. He's converted, but it wouldn't be right to then divorce said wives. But he may not mean that, so I dunno.

And actually that's EXACTLY what I think is going on in 1 Timothy. Everyone the early church was dealing with was new converts - so there would naturally be converted polygamists among them. Those who would be elders, though, had to be monogamists, for the simple reason that polygamy in any form is a sin. The statement about being one-woman men in 1 Timothy is NOT an approbation of the practice of polygamy, but exactly the opposite (because an elder must be above reproach, and a polygamist elder could not be so).

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 05:08:41 EST-----

He may mean that it's not perpetually a sin. For example, an unbeliever in a tribal culture has multiple wives. He's converted, but it wouldn't be right to then divorce said wives. But he may not mean that, so I dunno.

But why the distinction he makes between bigamy and polygamy.

Tim explains this when he states that:

Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married

And how does that differ when you are lying to more people?
 
Explain, Tim?

"Bigamy is a sin, bot Polygamy is not necessarily."

What's your principle? Can you show me some Scripture?
He may mean that it's not perpetually a sin. For example, an unbeliever in a tribal culture has multiple wives. He's converted, but it wouldn't be right to then divorce said wives. But he may not mean that, so I dunno.

And actually that's EXACTLY what I think is going on in 1 Timothy. Everyone the early church was dealing with was new converts - so there would naturally be converted polygamists among them. Those who would be elders, though, had to be monogamists, for the simple reason that polygamy in any form is a sin. The statement about being one-woman men in 1 Timothy is NOT an approbation of the practice of polygamy, but exactly the opposite (because an elder must be above reproach, and a polygamist elder could not be so).

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 05:08:41 EST-----

Tim explains this when he states that:

Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married

And how does that differ when you are lying to more people?

What about the Old testament practice of Polygomy?

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 05:10:31 EST-----

Explain, Tim?

"Bigamy is a sin, bot Polygamy is not necessarily."

What's your principle? Can you show me some Scripture?
He may mean that it's not perpetually a sin. For example, an unbeliever in a tribal culture has multiple wives. He's converted, but it wouldn't be right to then divorce said wives. But he may not mean that, so I dunno.

And actually that's EXACTLY what I think is going on in 1 Timothy. Everyone the early church was dealing with was new converts - so there would naturally be converted polygamists among them. Those who would be elders, though, had to be monogamists, for the simple reason that polygamy in any form is a sin. The statement about being one-woman men in 1 Timothy is NOT an approbation of the practice of polygamy, but exactly the opposite (because an elder must be above reproach, and a polygamist elder could not be so).

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 05:08:41 EST-----

Tim explains this when he states that:

Bigamy is always a sin because it involves lying to one spouse saying you're not married

And how does that differ when you are lying to more people?

Because if Polygomy is legal you do not have to lie to anyone.
 
Those who would be elders, though, had to be monogamists, for the simple reason that polygamy in any form is a sin.
Perpetually, even if all the wives were "accrued" before his salvation? (a sincere question, not a loaded one, cuz I'm just not sure)

If so, should he divorce all but one? Which ones?

No, he should be content not to be an elder. Not every otherwise qualified man deserves the office, as it were.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 05:13:03 EST-----

He may mean that it's not perpetually a sin. For example, an unbeliever in a tribal culture has multiple wives. He's converted, but it wouldn't be right to then divorce said wives. But he may not mean that, so I dunno.

And actually that's EXACTLY what I think is going on in 1 Timothy. Everyone the early church was dealing with was new converts - so there would naturally be converted polygamists among them. Those who would be elders, though, had to be monogamists, for the simple reason that polygamy in any form is a sin. The statement about being one-woman men in 1 Timothy is NOT an approbation of the practice of polygamy, but exactly the opposite (because an elder must be above reproach, and a polygamist elder could not be so).

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 05:08:41 EST-----



And how does that differ when you are lying to more people?

What about the Old testament practice of Polygomy?

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 05:10:31 EST-----

And actually that's EXACTLY what I think is going on in 1 Timothy. Everyone the early church was dealing with was new converts - so there would naturally be converted polygamists among them. Those who would be elders, though, had to be monogamists, for the simple reason that polygamy in any form is a sin. The statement about being one-woman men in 1 Timothy is NOT an approbation of the practice of polygamy, but exactly the opposite (because an elder must be above reproach, and a polygamist elder could not be so).

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 05:08:41 EST-----

Tim explains this when he states that:

And how does that differ when you are lying to more people?

Because if Polygomy is legal you do not have to lie to anyone.

The same is true of bigamy.

I still don't get it.
 
And how does that differ when you are lying to more people?

Because if Polygomy is legal you do not have to lie to anyone.

The same is true of bigamy.

I still don't get it.

I think that the assumption was made that Bigamy was polygomy without the knowledge of one party as this is the modern western usage which i would guess is a legal term. I think that you are quite correct that in fact all bigamy is polygomy and vice versa but my interpretation is that Tim did not intend such equivilence and he presupposed that bigamy involved deception (as it usually does in this day or age).

For the record I think that Polygomy is an awful idea for all sorts of reasons, but when the confession states that:

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.

Is it using the term "lawful" in a legal sense or in the sense of the law of God, if it does I am still confused about the Patriarchs, If it was lawful in the old testament why not now?
 
Todd the nuance between the two words is that Bigamy usually involves trickery. So when certain Mormon sects are spoken about the word polygamy is used rather than bigamy because in the Mormon family the co-wives are aware of each other. People usually punished by the courts in the US and western Europe for bigamy have wives that don't know about each other.

In PNG often people were converted with more than one wife, and since no where in the Bible is having more than one wife is called sin, and forcing the man to divorce all his wife except the first (like until recently Lutherans forced tribal converts to do) would have been in our Missions group (Reformed Baptist, mostly) clearly a sin, we just said that such men could be members in good standing, but were ineligible to become officers. Also (and I'm of mixed opinions on this) if they took another wife after joining a church they would be disciplined.

In the case of bigamy, the contract with the second wife wouldn't have been valid because of the trickery involved, so the marriage wouldn't have happened anyway, like in the case of someone who mistakenly married his half sister. It wasn't a marriage in the first place, so a woman would under no circumstances be disciplined by a Reformed church by not remain in the marriage. What the man did technically was rape the woman, or at least I would so argue.
 
Perpetually, even if all the wives were "accrued" before his salvation? (a sincere question, not a loaded one, cuz I'm just not sure)

If so, should he divorce all but one? Which ones?

No, he should be content not to be an elder.
Agreed. So it's not perpetually sinful, per se, but a perpetual disqualifier? I agree with that (not that I have any clout or anything).

Well, that is a good question. I can sympathize with those who argue that any Christian convert is required to put away all but the first wife, just like any Christian convert should be required to put away sin of all kinds.

Polygamy (2, 3 or many) is sinful, though, according to God's design. I just believe the discussion of the elder-qualifications passages don't help the case of those who argue that polygamy is not sin.
 
Providentially, I was reading Genesis 4-13 today and the first recorded mention of Bigamy is Lamech. Moses regulated polygamy due to the hardness of men's hearts but the time of immaturity is over. Those redeemed by the Gospel should see God's intent for marriage to be one man and one woman.
 
Todd the nuance between the two words is that Bigamy usually involves trickery. So when certain Mormon sects are spoken about the word polygamy is used rather than bigamy because in the Mormon family the co-wives are aware of each other. People usually punished by the courts in the US and western Europe for bigamy have wives that don't know about each other.

In PNG often people were converted with more than one wife, and since no where in the Bible is having more than one wife is called sin, and forcing the man to divorce all his wife except the first (like until recently Lutherans forced tribal converts to do) would have been in our Missions group (Reformed Baptist, mostly) clearly a sin, we just said that such men could be members in good standing, but were ineligible to become officers. Also (and I'm of mixed opinions on this) if they took another wife after joining a church they would be disciplined.

In the case of bigamy, the contract with the second wife wouldn't have been valid because of the trickery involved, so the marriage wouldn't have happened anyway, like in the case of someone who mistakenly married his half sister. It wasn't a marriage in the first place, so a woman would under no circumstances be disciplined by a Reformed church by not remain in the marriage. What the man did technically was rape the woman, or at least I would so argue.

Every polygamist begins as a bigamist, unless he marries multiple women at once, and surely trickery isn't the only problem...

I disagree with you that nowhere is it called sin - it is called sin by the impossibility of being a polygamist and obeying the created institution of marriage.

If it is NOT deemed sinful in the Scriptures then it should be allowed.
 
Every polygamist begins as a bigamist, unless he marries multiple women at once, and surely trickery isn't the only problem...
I don't think you understand the definition of the words. A bigamist can have more than two wives, as can a polygamist.

I disagree with you that nowhere is it called sin - it is called sin by the impossibility of being a polygamist and obeying the created institution of marriage.

If it is NOT deemed sinful in the Scriptures then it should be allowed.
By making things so black and white you get into all sorts of problems, like accusing God of sin

2Sa 12:8 And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.

In addition, how would you feel if some missionary reading this took your strong belief as valid and forced a man to divorce all his wives except the first? Are you good with that responsibility?
 
Well, that is a good question. I can sympathize with those who argue that any Christian convert is required to put away all but the first wife, just like any Christian convert should be required to put away sin of all kinds.

To be honest, I respectfully think that position is a horribly unmerciful and unbiblical one to take, especially in light of the patriarach's polygamy, David not putting away Bathsheba etc etc.
 
Big Amy was one of the Nephilim I think.

I love this board.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 07:36:34 EST-----

I am slightly confused however: how many people are using bigamy to mean "2 wives as opposed to either one or many" and who is using it to mean "any number of wives more than 1 when they are wedded deceitfully"? I've never heard the second meaning before (where it is the deceit that sets it apart, not the number).
 
I typed in legal difference between bigamy and polygamy at Google and got 4000 hits, which mostly went like this
Bigamy is the unlawful act of having two or more wives or husbands at the same time, usually with the second not knowing about the first. Polygamy is the practice of having multiple wives based on religious beliefs, with all wives aware of, and agreeable to, the husband having several wives. The wives of polygamists refer to each other as "sister wives".
Not sure where the confusion comes in.

Perg, is your experience dealing with the severity of co-wife fights the same as mine was in the Highlands? That they're about the worst sort of fights?
 
So, what is to be done with the convert who has more than one wife? Do we require him to put away all put one wife? The question has already been asked in this thread but not adequately answered.

Waiting...
 
So, what is to be done with the convert who has more than one wife? Do we require him to put away all put one wife? The question has already been asked in this thread but not adequately answered.
If God said He gave David wives, you would be calling God the author of sin if under all situations polygamy was a sin.

So the answer is that to force someone to divorce a wife who would be forced into starving or demeaning herself just to make someone in the West happy would be wrong. Of course we don't require to force someone to do something God specifically says He hates for no other reason than to make a complex situation simple.

Really, folks, think about the origin of the 12 tribes of Israel for a second!
 
So, what is to be done with the convert who has more than one wife? Do we require him to put away all put one wife? The question has already been asked in this thread but not adequately answered.

Waiting...
Well, if I were a member of the session involved, I wouldn't "vote" for that. Insofar as I can understand it to this point, two wrongs don't make a right. As for now, I suppose, the man must be to his wives and their children, what any Christian man should be to his wife and children.

My initial thought is that the man must fulfill his obligation to his wives and children whether he remains with only one wife or not. It really is a sticky wicket with no clear answer.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 08:04:48 EST-----

So, what is to be done with the convert who has more than one wife? Do we require him to put away all put one wife? The question has already been asked in this thread but not adequately answered.
If God said He gave David wives, you would be calling God the author of sin if under all situations polygamy was a sin.

So the answer is that to force someone to divorce a wife who would be forced into starving or demeaning herself just to make someone in the West happy would be wrong. Of course we don't require to force someone to do something God specifically says He hates for no other reason than to make a complex situation simple.

Really, folks, think about the origin of the 12 tribes of Israel for a second!

Tim, I think I'm with you on this one.
 
Can a distinction be made with the confessions on this point (polygomy) between lawful and sinful?
 
Well, that is a good question. I can sympathize with those who argue that any Christian convert is required to put away all but the first wife, just like any Christian convert should be required to put away sin of all kinds.

To be honest, I respectfully think that position is a horribly unmerciful and unbiblical one to take, especially in light of the patriarach's polygamy, David not putting away Bathsheba etc etc.

Note I said I can sympathize. I didn't say I advocate the practice.

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 10:45:52 EST-----

So, what is to be done with the convert who has more than one wife? Do we require him to put away all put one wife? The question has already been asked in this thread but not adequately answered.
If God said He gave David wives, you would be calling God the author of sin if under all situations polygamy was a sin.

So the answer is that to force someone to divorce a wife who would be forced into starving or demeaning herself just to make someone in the West happy would be wrong. Of course we don't require to force someone to do something God specifically says He hates for no other reason than to make a complex situation simple.

Really, folks, think about the origin of the 12 tribes of Israel for a second!

Tim, with all due respect you know that the fact that the 12 tribes of Israel came from multiple wives of Joseph does NOT mean that God countenances polygamy.
 
I typed in legal difference between bigamy and polygamy at Google and got 4000 hits, which mostly went like this
Bigamy is the unlawful act of having two or more wives or husbands at the same time, usually with the second not knowing about the first. Polygamy is the practice of having multiple wives based on religious beliefs, with all wives aware of, and agreeable to, the husband having several wives. The wives of polygamists refer to each other as "sister wives".
Not sure where the confusion comes in.

Perg, is your experience dealing with the severity of co-wife fights the same as mine was in the Highlands? That they're about the worst sort of fights?

The 2nd wife gets beat all the time where I am at.

Our policy, too, is that we should never encourage divorce, something which God hates. We teach the ideal and do not continue to punish due to past polygyny (multiple wives).

Church leaders need to be monogamous and within a generation where the Gospel foundations have been laid, polygyny disapears for the most poart though, ironically, rising church leaders are especially prone to it (rising status means you add pigs and wives to show your status....."bling" I guess in that context).

Some of the highland evangelist co-workers that are working with me trying to reach this lowland tribe themselves have a very low view of polygyny and, therefore, do not do enough to protect these second wives, instead sort of just saying, "Well, that's how it does..." as if the 2nd wife deserved all she got. These women often get very neglected and I am trying to stress that they need the Gospel and we ought not ignore or disparage them above the rest of the people.

And yes, women and second wives is one of the major causes of fights here.

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 02:22:36 EST-----

So, what is to be done with the convert who has more than one wife? Do we require him to put away all put one wife? The question has already been asked in this thread but not adequately answered.

Waiting...

In countries where this is legal, we teach him to care for his whole family. He is not an adulterer and has duties to each of his wives.

Some advocate only living in the house or having sex with one woman; but the woman who is NOT picked invariably becomes lesser and like a concubine or divorcee (lower status) and the children becomes like a bastard.

He is married to both and should be a husband and a father, as much as possible, to both wives.

If they believe, we accept them into the church without penalties, and their condition should not bar them from the Table. We advise them of the ideal of marriage.

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 02:28:56 EST-----

P.s. no one is dealing with the actual Biblical texts. For instance, in Ezekial 23 Jehovah uses the imagery of polygyny for Himself. TimV mentioned God gifting David with wives, and also Solomon mentions his wives along with all of his other blessings.

I bring this up to point out that as Westerners who only practice serial polygamy (multiple divorce for wong reasons) we think of polygamy as more sinful than it actually is - our cultural outlook taints our view of sin at this point and the West if probably sinning more than many polygynist families. Not once is polygyny called sin.

This practice was less than ideal, but was a practice that God winked at and even utilized and even used in His own teaching to make points.



I think this whole subject is a great one to showus just how much our culture affects our view of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top