Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading replies from readers.

jjramsey

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Deuteronomy says that kings should not "multiply wives," and 1 Timothy says that bishops and deacons should be the husband of one wife (which the NRSV translates as "married only once.") There is, however, no blanket condemnation of polygamy anywhere.

John Kesler

There is no passage that explicitly denounces either practice, but some passages seem to indicate that one wife is the ideal.

However, the author(s) of 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6-7, in giving the requirements for being a bishop, state that the candidate should be the husband of one wife, which seems to imply that for lay members, having more than one wife was acceptable, even if not desirable.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not really, no, at least not for men. 1 Timothy says that a deacon should be "the husband of only one wife" (1 Tim. 3:12) but there's no explicit proscription anywhere in either the Tanakh or the NT that a man can't have more than one wife. Abraham did. Solomon not only had 700 wives but 300 concubines. That's a thousand women he was banging. Those are Jagger-like numbers and that was before viagra. Clinton was a piker compared to King Solomon.

Anat

OTOH neither Abraham's nor Jacob's wives got along very well. It could be argued that the whole Amnon and Tamar story which led to the Absalom rebellion would have been less likely had David had only one wife and Solomon is condemned for the way he ran his family (though mostly for marrying foreign wives that brought their religious customs with them, rather than for number of wives per se). So I think Tanach does not outright condemn polygamy, but does warn people that there may be problems with this family structure.

Mosaic law specifically deals with inheritence issues when a man has more than one wife (the law is that the son of the preferred wife does not get the rights of the firstborn if the firstborn is the son of the less favored wife - completely in contradiction to the actions of Abraham, and in a way those of Jacob as well). Again - polygamy is allowed, but people should deal with problems resulting from its practice according to the law.

pharoah

Mark 10:29-31 (NIV) "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

First of all, this is another verifiably failed prophecy from Jesus. :devil3:

But leaving that issue aside, the above-bolded list of rewards looks suspicious. I think that someone took an editing pen and changed "wives" to "mothers". The word "mothers" makes no sense in that context. If it was originally there then why was "fathers" omitted? :huh:

pharoah

To add a little support to my thesis, we already know for sure that this passage has been altered. The KJV for Mark 10:29-30, which was based upon another manuscript, reads:

29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Note that the crucial phrase "or wife," is not in the NIV and other similar translations. It's interesting to compare verses 29 and 30.

What you gave up----------What you will get
------house---------------------houses------
------brethren------------------brethren-----
------sisters---------------------sisters------
------father---------------------??????-------
------mother-------------------mothers------
------wife-----------------------???????------
------children-------------------children------
------lands------------------------lands------

The mother, father and wife parallels stick out like a sore thumb. Why is there a promise of future mothers but not fathers? How does it make sense for the writer to promise that you will have future mothers? Why are you promised more land and children but no wife to help take care of them?

I submit that the original version was polygamistic. It promised wives, not mothers. Someone later edited this but was too clumsy to completely hide their handiwork.

Haran

Failed how?

Either way, it seems that you may never heard that Jesus used hyperbole as well as parables....

pharoah

Sure I've heard that Jesus used hyperbole....but mostly from evangelicals uncomfortable with a specific teaching. On it's face, there's nothing hyperbolic about this passage, although I'll concede that the term hundredfold is just a round figure. It seems to be a straghtforward promise of great rewards in this life. It's up to you to provide evidence that Jesus didn't really mean what he said here - that it was all hyperbole. If you can't, then surely you can see that it's a failed promise.

Gamera

Paul's groundbreaking admonition that husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church and as a person loves his own body strongly argues for monogamy, since it seems unlikely one can be totally committed to more than one wife.

Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Ephesians 5:28 - Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3:19 - Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.