[throwitback]

Perhaps a problem is that this passage tends to be the most taught marriage-related passage in the evangelical churches and para-church organizations I've attended?

One can make many cases for models of Biblical marriage (David, a "man after God's own heart" was polygamous. This is not spoken against in the Bible, but his adultery with another man's wife was condemned. To me, this is implicit support.)

One can also talk about whether Jesus himself would have supported Paul's interpretation and writings about marriage. I tend to find their respective teachings disharmonious.

Paul very much believed in the order of things, and in authority. And in this case (as in the case of master/slave relationships!), the man has authority. Both masters and husbands have obligations to use their authority kindly, but Paul did not decry the authority of one individual over another.

So yes, in the most common interpretation of evangelical Pauline Christianity (i.e. that practiced in Heartland America), the men are not bullies, but they do possess power and authority over women, and I think this power is the thing liberals and humanists take issue with.

[_urga]

Firstly, you've misunderstood Ephesians 5 (and probably the rest of the letter).

Secondly, you're using an argument from silence based on one particular passage to misrepresent the Bible's view of polygamy. The Bible only has one perspicuous model of marriage.

Thirdly, you can't really slip a piece of paper between Paul (or Peter or James or John or any other apostle for that matter) and Jesus. They either stand or fall together. You can't pick or choose.

Actually, the more I study the various Epistles and Jesus' teaching, the more encouraged I am to see how remarkably harmonious it is. Not that this should surprise anyone, Jesus himself said of Paul: "This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." (Acts 9:15).

You can't have the Father but reject his Son. You can't have the Son but reject his servants.

[rat87]

The Torah allows polygamy.

Ashkenazi Jews(descendant of those living in Germany around 900 or so AD many of whom later move east to Poland, Ukraine, and Russia) banned polygamy around ~1000 AD.

I think it mostly died down in Sephardic and Yemeni after most of them moved to the Israel but I'm not sure if it was that common before that time.

[ars]

Even when permitted it was very rare.

For one thing only the very wealthy could afford it - each wife was required to have her own house (separate rooms in one house was not enough).

For the most part it was practiced mainly by traveling businessmen/salesmen who would have a wife in each city where they worked. (Don't forget how slow and long travel used to be.)

The main reason for permitting it is that historically males died more often than females, so there is a small surplus of females, and permitting a small amount of polygamy helps with that.

It's no longer relevant these days.

[xerophyte12932]

As an insurance student, let me just point out male mortality is still considered higher than female mortality (hence higher premium rates for men). Though i have no numbers if the world has more females than males right now

[eru]

There's female infanticide and gender-biased abortions to more than balance higher male mortality in lots of the world.

[PhantomGremlin]

The Torah allows polygamy.

It may have been a practical necessity after husbands died or were killed. No welfare or social security survivor benefits or similar programs existed.

But IMO it's something that only single men would truly find appealing. Married men quickly realize that additional wives and accompanying additional children are the last thing they want or need. :)

[ars]

> This is not spoken against in the Bible

Deuteronomy 17:17 begs to differ: "And he [the king] shall not take many wives for himself"

[throwitback]

That's more of a "so the king won't get too distracted" commandment (as the second half of the verse indicates!) Also, the verse before is about having too many horses. When Nathan judges David, the polygamy is de minimis.