Does Old Testament Polygamy Justify Same-Sex Marriage?

I was recently confronted with a challenge about marriage at one of my events. The claim was that God permits same-sex marriage today because marriage is not clearly defined in Scripture. Adam and Eve were a monogamous heterosexual couple, but later in Scripture God allowed men to marry multiple women. This signals a trajectory in the Bible towards more openness of sexual expression and in the definition of marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be allowed by Christians today.

I don’t think the Bible permits same-sex marriage for a whole host of reasons, but I’ll only explain the ones I offered in response to this challenge. First, although God tolerated polygamy during Old Testament times, He never condoned it. In fact, when marriage begins in the Genesis creation account, it’s instituted as a monogamous and heterosexual relationship (Gen. 1:27–28; 2:24). That the patriarchs and other Old Testament figures practiced polygamy is not evidence that God intended them to do so. That’s just what they did. The same could be said of divorce. God never intended married couples to divorce, but He tolerated it. Even Jesus said that divorce was permitted because of the hardness of the hearts of men. Yet, He also clearly reminds the Pharisees that divorce was never intended by God from the beginning (Matt. 9:8). Therefore, when it comes to polygamy (and divorce), Scripture is descriptive but not prescriptive.

Second, even if God made provision for polygamy in the Old Testament, the 613 commands of the Mosaic Law are no longer binding on the New Testament believer. They are part of the Old Covenant (or contract) that has been replaced. Jesus said He “came to fulfill” the Mosaic Law and its requirements because we never could (Matt. 5:17). He didn’t merely abolish that covenant, however. He established a new covenant in His blood. In fact, the entire book of Galatians is an argument against making the Mosaic Law binding on believers living under the New Covenant of Christ.

Third, even if God had ordained polygamous marriage throughout all of Scripture (which I don’t believe He did), it doesn’t follow that He affirms same-sex marriage. Polygamy is fundamentally different from same-sex marriage. When a man marries a woman, he meets the male-female requirement of biblical marriage (Gen. 1:27–28 and 2:24). If he marries another woman, that is also a heterosexual marriage. Every instance of an additional marriage is still an opposite-sex marriage. It’s not same-sex marriage because the women he’s married to are not married to each other. It’s also not group marriage because he and all the women are not married together as a group. Marriage remains an opposite-sex relationship between two people as God defined in His Word.

Fourth, contrary to the claim that the Bible’s trajectory is towards greater openness in sexual expression (and consequently more openness in marriage), it seems the opposite is true. The trajectory in Scripture, especially with Jesus, is towards greater restriction. God may have tolerated polygamy in the Old Testament, but we don’t see it permitted during New Testament times. The pastoral epistles, for example, mandate that a church leader be a man of one wife (e.g. Tit. 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). Jesus also cites several Mosaic laws and, far from loosening their prohibitions, makes them more restrictive. For example, He says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27–28). Jesus takes a Mosaic prohibition and makes it more restrictive.

Fifth, the New Testament specifically rules out same-sex marriage by prohibiting homosexual sex. Although this is explicitly taught in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul’s epistle to the Romans contains the clearest condemnation. Within the context of a creation narrative (beginning at Rom. 1:18), Paul argues that God made men and women to function in a heterosexual way. Women, he says, exchanged the natural sexual function of a man for unnatural sex with women. Men, in the same way, abandoned the natural sexual function a woman provides and had unnatural sex with other men (Rom. 1:26–27). By prohibiting same-sex sexual contact, Scripture rules out same-sex marriage.

Finally, we should give Jesus the last word on this question. Our King specifically ruled out same-sex marriage by upholding the male-female prerequisite of marriage taught in the Genesis account of creation. When asked about divorce, Jesus replies,

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. (Matthew 19:4–6)"

Notice Jesus quotes the two Genesis texts that affirm the binary nature of the sexes and the male-female prerequisite of marriage (Gen. 1:27–28; 2:24). That’s because He believes those texts are still authoritative and that marriage is still what’s described in them. Then Jesus adds his own commentary on the passage (“What therefore God has joined together…”), indicating He believes God instituted monogamous and heterosexual marriage.

God’s allowing David and Solomon, whom He greatly blessed and favored, to have multiple wives and concubines is very confusing to young Christians. The only condemnation comes when David stole another man’s wife - and even then God says (through Nathan) that, had David asked for more of anything (including women, I assume) God would have given it to him.

I don’t approve of polygamy - one is enough! But it’s hard to teach a group of young people that God condemns it given the multiple examples in the OT.

You may not approve of Polygamy but certainly God did, it was a part of Jewish law. If a man died leaving a widow and he had a brother the brother was to take his widow unto him as wife and raise up the dead mans children and even give the widow more children to raise up unto the dead man so that the dead brother would have descendants.

This actually was a wonderful law. The widow did not become destitute as a widow would if her husband had no brothers and children grew up in homes with a man at the head. The young men growing up could see what a man was supposed to be.

Today in our society and in many throughout the world we hand off that responsibility for our brothers family to the state. We pay the state to absolve us of that responsibility but then the children grow up fatherless and then don’t know what it means to be a father, it does great harm to societies. The Jewish law was better.

Monogamy is pretty much a Christian thing. While the New Testament does not say much about it, there is a proscription that a bishop be the husband of one wife. There are even arguments about that. Some say that means that you must be married to be wise enough to be a bishop other say it means you can not have more than one wife. How in the world that Catholicism gets celibacy out of that is beyond me.

I have one wife. One wife is a great thing. My wife is a wonderful woman, a wonderful wife, a wonderful friend and a wonderful person all around but, I don’t think I could do two of her or more. I have heard stories of polygamy being a good thing for all the participants but I just can’t fathom it. I have a special closeness with my wife that I can’t envision working with three or more. I would think that polygamy would be a great burden for a man. I am reminded how difficult life was for Isaac, Leah and Rachel. Issac loved Rachel more than Leah. That had to be a difficult situation for all involved.

How in the world that Catholicism gets celibacy out of that is beyond me.

Marriage
Divorce
Celibacy

And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses one to twelve,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

AM by af_vet_1981

By the way I’m a Navy “SS” vetran from 1968.

I’m sorry but to me your explanation of eunuchs is just wrong. It might be what someone preaches but it way off the mark.

A eunuch is someone who has no sex, as in they are neither man nor woman. Jesus talks about them in a variety of circumstances but none of them apply to celibacy as practiced by the Roman Catholic Priesthood. In order for these words of Christ that you quoted to apply the priest would have to cut off his gonads. In the time of Christ there were people who did that in a variety of religions and in a variety of classes of servitude. Men would become eunuchs at the command of their owners and then be stationed with the women of the house to be protectors or guards of them. There was no concern that they would have sex with them because it was impossible.

So again, unless the priests are making eunuchs of themselves they are not doing anything even remotely associated with what you quoted The Lord as saying.

Just to further drive home the point, celibacy was not practiced as a rule until the middle of the 12th century (1139 to be exact). That rule was not strictly enforced until a few hundred years later in the middle of the 16th century at the council of Trent. The Roman Church by the way is the only Catholic Church to practice celibacy. All of the other 7 Catholic churches allow Priests to marry. None of the other Catholic churches have a problem with homosexuality in the priesthood. Pope Francis had a study to find out how bad homosexuality was in The Church. The report came back and said that at least 18% of priests were “practicing” homosexuals and that that percentage could be as high as 58%. I do not think this is what Christ was talking about when He was talking about eunuchs.

The commandment to Adam and Eve was to have children, that commandment has never been revoked. Perhaps the Apostle Paul had a problem and had a good reason for not marrying but the other Apostles were married and had families. Celibacy promotes evil, in that it makes men unnatural, I have seen it ruin lives. Paul says that men “burn” and that they should marry in that case, it is not good to burn. Men in the Catholic priesthood burn too and since they live with other men they quench the fire in an evil way. I hope celibacy is done away with soon. I think it is the only way the Roman Church can be saved.

A eunuch is someone who has no sex, as in they are neither man nor woman.

No, God created them male and female. One who has made himself a εὐνοῦχος (eunuch) for the kingdom of heaven's sake is one who is celibate (abstains from sex) to be solely devoted to God.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

...

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

Genesis, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verse twenty seven ,
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses twenty five to thirty eight ,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.