1 Corinthians 7:4 and polygamy

[PolyPride]

I found one online objection to polygamy that I hadn't considered before. The objection involves 1 Corinthians 7:4 being in conflict with polygamy or that it makes polygamy impractical. I also posted 2 online responses that I found but I'm not sure if they're valid or if you guys can mention any other responses to the objection below.

Here is 1 Corinthians 7:4-5
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Here is the objection to polygamy using 1 Corinthians 7:4 (I'll highlight the parts that stood out to me):

First, notice the definite articles in front of husband and wife: the wife, the husband. The instruction in this passage is directed towards one husband and one wife.

The command in this passage is clear: the wife has authority over her husband's body and the husband has authority over his wife's body. But when polygamy is practiced, it is impossible for such a command to be followed (in certain circumstances).

If the husband wished to devote himself to prayer for a time and one of his wives agreed, but the other disagreed, then a contradiction would occur. According to this passage, the husband would be required to deprive himself for a short time and also not deprive himself for a short time. Clearly, this command would be impossible to follow under such circumstances. If polygamy was an acceptable practice, Paul would have had to have added an exception to this passage stating: if a man has multiple wives, the wives have shared authority over their husband's body.

To state that the the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does, results in another contradiction. If there are two wives and at some point one wife's authority contradicts the other wife's authority, then it would be false to state that the wife has authority over her husband's body. Rather, each wife shares authority.

Clearly, when a person practices polygamy, he not only immediately enters into disobedience because of the nature of the practice, but he also enters into disobedience because he is not able to properly follow (in every circumstance) what Scripture commands.

Source: http://blog.pricelesseternity.com/2010/ ... rt_06.html


Here's one online response I found to this objection

What is prohibited here is not polygamy, but polygamy without the counsel and consent of the first wife. This principle is reinforced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:4. In marriage, the man surrenders sovereignty over his sexuality and shares it jointly with his wife. Therefore, for him to belligerently engage in polygamy, it is a trespass against his wife's claims upon the marriage and the covenant he made with her before God (see Malachi 2:14-16, although referring to divorce, it does have bearing upon this point).

...
The Scriptures teach that a man cannot take another wife without the approval of his first wife (1 Cor. 7:4). If he has been a poor husband, she will not readily give her consent. So for those who follow Biblical standards, there is a check-and-balance in the relationship which provides safety for all concerned. If we follow Biblical truth, it is not possible for plural marriage to be a cursing, but rather, a blessing.

Source:http://www.african-israel.com/BM/eros-made-sacred.html

 

[FollowingHim]

Let's back up a step further and forget polygamy for a minute, just considering patriarchy. This passage appears on the surface to be in direct contradiction to:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Here we read that the husband is in full authority of his wife in everything (and this is the general message through all scripture, many many verses). But in 1 Cor 7:4 we are told the wife has authority over her husband also. This is a single verse that seems to say the opposite to the rest of the Bible. Which is correct?

Well, both will be correct, this is the Bible and it doesn't contradict itself! So how are these not in contradiction?

They do not contradict because the application of 1 Cor 7:4 is limited by the context:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

This passage means, in my reading of it, that the wife has the right to use her husband's body for her own sexual gratification, as the husband has the right to use her body in the same way, except if they both mutually consent to take a break for a while. She has authority to access her husband's body for this purpose, has the authority to require him to use his body for this purpose - as he has the same. So neither husband or wife can use sex as a bargaining tool or withhold it to punish the other.

But that is the extent of her authority. She has the authority to require sex. She does NOT have the authority to command her husband to do anything else with his body - she cannot command him to cook a meal, extend the house, take a child to a sports game... All these are simply things that involve her husband's body. If she had full authority over his body she could command these, and many other things. But if she could, he would no longer be in authority over her, he would not be her head, she would not be in submission to him "in everything".

If this verse gives the wife authority to require her husband to do anything with his body EXCEPT have sex with her (the topic of the passage), then it contradicts the rest of the scriptures. But if the authority is limited to this, it is consistent with patriarchy.

Now, let's apply this to polygamy.

If the wife had full authority over her husband's body, she could require him to not take an additional wife. She could require him to not have sex with an additional wife. She could require him to obey her, while if he took another wife she would also be able to require him to obey her. He would have two masters. Not only would he not be the head of his home, he'd be the most henpecked man on earth... And the underlying patriarchal order of all scripture would be overthrown by a misapplication of this one verse.

But if each wife only has the authority to require her husband to have sex with her, there is no conflict. Each woman simply has the right to sex. This means that the husband cannot take more women than he is able to gratify sexually, which is fair and logical. It is also consistent with Exodus 21:10.

 

[FollowingHim]

Note that this interpretation does not give the first wife the authority to prevent her husband from taking a second. I don't believe the bible ever gives the first wife this authority, because if it did the husband would not be the head of his wife. However as a general rule the man that takes a second against the wishes of his first is acting very foolishly and will live to deeply regret his actions... The Bible also doesn't forbid him from trying to live on a diet of deep-fried pine needles, but that would be equally idiotic...

Marriage vows do complicate this question though, so some readers may also find the below FAQ article on whether the first wife's consent is required useful.
viewtopic.php?f=70&t=4003

 

[PolyPride]

"...

They do not contradict because the application of 1 Cor 7:4 is limited by the context:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

This passage means, in my reading of it, that the wife has the right to use her husband's body for her own sexual gratification, as the husband has the right to use her body in the same way, except if they both mutually consent to take a break for a while. She has authority to access her husband's body for this purpose, has the authority to require him to use his body for this purpose - as he has the same. So neither husband or wife can use sex as a bargaining tool or withhold it to punish the other.

But that is the extent of her authority. She has the authority to require sex. She does NOT have the authority to command her husband to do anything else with his body - she cannot command him to cook a meal, extend the house, take a child to a sports game... All these are simply things that involve her husband's body. If she had full authority over his body she could command these, and many other things. But if she could, he would no longer be in authority over her, he would not be her head, she would not be in submission to him "in everything".

If this verse gives the wife authority to require her husband to do anything with his body EXCEPT have sex with her (the topic of the passage), then it contradicts the rest of the scriptures. But if the authority is limited to this, it is consistent with patriarchy.

Now, let's apply this to polygamy.

If the wife had full authority over her husband's body, she could require him to not take an additional wife. She could require him to not have sex with an additional wife. She could require him to obey her, while if he took another wife she would also be able to require him to obey her. He would have two masters. Not only would he not be the head of his home, he'd be the most henpecked man on earth... And the underlying patriarchal order of all scripture would be overthrown by a misapplication of this one verse.

But if each wife only has the authority to require her husband to have sex with her, there is no conflict. Each woman simply has the right to sex. This means that the husband cannot take more women than he is able to gratify sexually, which is fair and logical. It is also consistent with Exodus 21:10.

Excellent points! The wife having authority over her husband can not be taken to mean absolute or complete authority because as you bring up it could cause conflict with God, His morals, the context of 1 Corinthians 7:4, and all of the other biblical passages that puts the husband as the head role. Thanks for your input.

 

[PolyPride]

Note that this interpretation does not give the first wife the authority to prevent her husband from taking a second. I don't believe the bible ever gives the first wife this authority, because if it did the husband would not be the head of his wife. However as a general rule the man that takes a second against the wishes of his first is acting very foolishly and will live to deeply regret his actions... The Bible also doesn't forbid him from trying to live on a diet of deep-fried pine needles, but that would be equally idiotic...

Marriage vows do complicate this question though, so some readers may also find the below FAQ article on whether the first wife's consent is required useful.
viewtopic.php?f=70&t=4003

Genesis 16:1-3 seems to give an example of consensual polygamy since both Sarah and Abraham agreed to it. Even more, it mentions Sarah actually being the one to tell Abraham to take another wife and he did as she requested. While I don't agree that this passage constitutes as a prescription or teaching but it is probably the best someone can use to say that the wife can control the husband's actions to get into polygamy. I'd still disagree though because if Abraham would've declined his wife's request then I see nothing to suggest that he would've been in the wrong.

 

[mystic]

You said it right there: "he did as she requested". She had said, "I pray thee, go in unto my maid" [AKJV], and pray in this context means request.

 

[marc4life]

I agree with FollowingHim in that the Bible does not contradict itself from beginning to end.

I think the message in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 is easy enough to understand. It is about rights granted by a law or higher power ( authority ). For example: wife # 1, has the right to have her intimate needs met by the husband. The husband has the right to have his intimate needs met by wife # 1. If husband has a second wife, wife # 2, also has the right to have her intimate needs met by husband. Husband has the right to have his intimate needs met by wife # 2. Neither the husband nor the wife(s) have the authority to withhold intimacy, except by agreement, for one purpose -- prayer, and for a predetermined duration. By authority, deprivation cannot be used as a lever, or as a form of currency used to bargain. Exodus 21:10, sheds light on the scripture above. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 has a similar message. It speaks of rights that must be granted, not to be revoked.

 

[FollowingHim]

Mystic is correct. This is an example of consensual polygamy, in that both Abraham and Sarah were in agreement (not that we're told whether Hagar consented). But it in no way indicates that Sarah's consent was required.