• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Luther against polygyny

Sonny Chancelor

Sonny Chancelor

Member
Male
So, I am really struggling in reckonciling historical Reformational truths found in church history over and against accepting polygymy as being acceptable to God. I have a deep instinct that polygyny is righteous and correct, a birthright(as for myself even). But then...I have this cloud of suspicion from an indoctrinational standpoint that contradicts, namely Reformational church history and Presbyterian & Reformed Chrisitanity(Westminster Confession of Faith). Check out this blog post regarding Luther's treatment of polygyny and his counsel to Philip of Hesse - http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html
I have skimmed and browsed the resources section very well. I am eager to read all of the books available.

All this reading & study is forcing me to lean on Christ Jesus like never before. I recognize my lack of headship toward the wife of my youth. I just turned a corner where, especiallay at night, I recognize God's love beating in my chest spilling out of my throat. So, I've repented of not doing the dishes, the lawnwork, the tile floors, the laundry, and parenting WITHOUT grumbling. I am discovering that husbandry is God's crucible for His male Servant-Warriors CONTRA MUNDUM. Dear Heavenly Father, I want MORE of the cross...I want more of you. Dear God, please send me a second wife.
 
James Swan at beggarsallreformation said:
Moreover, although the patriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example, because there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtained thereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify this practise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly, I do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God would have to publish a command that would declare such a liberty."
Click to expand...

Just in these few sentences, I find a few things I think are mistakes in thought process. First, to say that Christians may not follow the examples of the patriarchs in having many wives is missing a big truth. We don't believe in polygyny because the patriarchs did it, we believe in polygyny because our God not only permitted it, but considered it a blessing.

Second, I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that states polygyny was only permitted because there was necessity or improvement to be obtained.

Third, I do not need a word of God to justify something God has already justified. If anyone should be expecting a word from God, it should be those who deny polygyny as good and acceptable to our Father. The burden of proof is on those who demand monogamy, not on those who thing polygyny is acceptable and good. This is simply bad thinking to say that I have to justify what has already be justified and never disputed by God.

Finally, and really an extension of my last point, God has already 'published' His thoughts on the matter. We can see that throughout the entire Old Testament and with the careful wording of certain passages in the New Testament.
 
aineo said:
Just in these few sentences, I find a few things I think are mistakes in thought process. First, to say that Christians may not follow the examples of the patriarchs in having many wives is missing a big truth. We don't believe in polygyny because the patriarchs did it, we believe in polygyny because our God not only permitted it, but considered it a blessing.

Second, I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that states polygyny was only permitted because there was necessity or improvement to be obtained.

Third, I do not need a word of God to justify something God has already justified. If anyone should be expecting a word from God, it should be those who deny polygyny as good and acceptable to our Father. The burden of proof is on those who demand monogamy, not on those who thing polygyny is acceptable and good. This is simply bad thinking to say that I have to justify what has already be justified and never disputed by God.

Finally, and really an extension of my last point, God has already 'published' His thoughts on the matter. We can see that throughout the entire Old Testament and with the careful wording of certain passages in the New Testament.
Click to expand...

Booyah.
 
I've found that many of my heroes of the faith also turn out to be abominable heretics in one respect or another. Speaking of Luther, I've found that his doctrine relating to Jews is abhorrent. But he had, as it were, bigger problems to contend with. The whole nature of the gospel had been corrupted, and he was having to claw his way out of twisted soteriology. Did I spell that wrong? Spellchecker is complaining...

Anyways my thing is that every human in every age has been steeped from birth in blasphemy and heresy of many kinds, and it is the work of a lifetime to discover and untangle oneself from all of them. We are all, every one of us, wrong about something. Probably multiple somethings. If we are so foolish as to get published with our opinions and doctrines, it is altogether possible that the Holy Spirit will illuminate to future generations just how wrongheaded we have been.

So it is no contradiction for me to admire Luther, and admit a great debt to him (after all, I was taught the gospel in a church that was one of the many protestant organizations that were the fruit of the reformation), while simultaneously acknowledging that he was quite wrong about other things, polygyny being one of them.
 
Thank you Slumberfreeze for sharing your background here...and I totally agree with you; the Holy Spirit/comforter leads us unto all truth. But then how do guard against subjectivism???
 
Note that Luther's statements cited in that article do not actually forbid polygyny. Reading further on we find:
To Clemens Ursinus, pastor at Bruck, Luther writes under date of March 21, 1527: "Polygamy, which in former times was permitted to the Jews and Gentiles, cannot be honestly approved of among Christians, and cannot be engaged in with a good conscience, unless in an extreme case of necessity, as, for instance, when one of the spouses is separated from the other by leprosy or for a similar cause.
Click to expand...
So as far as I can see, Luther could find no scriptural reason to object to polygyny. But, as a good ex-Catholic raised in a monogamous culture, he personally found it morally abhorrent, associated it with Islam and the mistreatment of wives by Muslims (as his statement regarding the Turks shows), and therefore personally didn't think anyone should do it. But he couldn't back this view up from scripture, so he was honest enough to admit that he couldn't hold it as wrong in all circumstances. Where he saw something as absolutely forbidden, such as divorce, he completely forbade it. But he could not do this with polygyny. He therefore rationalised that there might be some circumstances where it would be acceptable, particularly as an alternative to divorce, but since he personally found it abhorrent also rationalised that these must be only rare and extreme circumstances.

I can understand his thought process, and think he was far more consistent and bible-based in his thinking than the vast majority of church pastors. His views were distorted by his personal experiences and contrasts of Catholic and Muslim culture in his day, but all of our views are distorted by the environment we grow up in. It is a very difficult struggle to bring our views back in line with scripture alone, and none of us will ever manage to do that perfectly.

The Munster Anabaptist rebellion (which involved polygyny) occurred during Luther's later life, and Lutherans allied with the Catholics to crush the rebellion and put the polygynous rebels to death. I have found no statement from Luther on that incident, but he would clearly have been well aware of it, and there is no record of him ever speaking up in their support. Assuming he was silent, I regard this as his most serious failure regarding polygyny.

So Luther was partially admirable, and partially fallible, like any human.
 
Sonny Chancelor said:
But then how do guard against subjectivism???
Click to expand...
Just do your best to understand YHWH and what He wishes you to do today. You'll always be wrong in some areas, often because of subjectivism, because if you were perfectly right you'd have no further learning to do, and you'll be learning all your life. But He sees the heart. If you believe something to be sin, yet do it, it is sin for you even if you were actually wrong about it - likewise, sins in ignorance are less serious. So simply obey Him as best you understand Him today, and strive to understand Him even better tomorrow.
 
Sonny Chancelor said:
But then how do guard against subjectivism???
Click to expand...

Die!

ok that's probably not the right answer, but effective nonetheless!

My take on that centers around 1 Corinthians 10:25.
Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;
and
Romans 14 ... I don't think I'll post the chapter.

But I understand that to mean that a certain amount of subjectivity is built into our experience. We aren't necessarily called to perfect objectivity, just to peace, charity, and brotherhood with those we disagree with.

We should all diligently study the scriptures, and replace our beliefs and attitudes with those we understand the bible to be portraying, but even that is limited by 'our understanding'. Extremely to the point, we have in this forum a difference of understanding about whether or not the verses I've just mentioned apply to pork or not. It is easy to get caught up in a debate about the point, but the primary point of these passages is not to violate your conscience or the conscience of others by demanding an objective point of view in these matters.

The weak-faithed vegetable-eating brother who attempts to honor God with his vegetarianism is objectively incorrect. But he's allowed to be that way, and the stronger-faithed omnivore is supposed to protect the weaker man by not flaunting his challenging lifestyle in front of his brother. We are actually supposed to, in certain cases, preserve our brother's subjective point of view even if it doesn't accurately match with our understanding of scripture if he is doing it to honor God.

And likewise in 1 corinthians, we aren't even to seek an objective understanding of where our meat is coming from and whether or not it's been offered to idols. Our conscience should be fine knowing that God created everything to be received with thanksgiving, and other people's intents and practices shouldn't have anything to do with it. Unless of course someone volunteers that information and makes it so that the issue has become theological.

I very much do apply that to polygamy. I subjectively believe (hah hah) that a man who thinks he may only have one wife is a man of weak faith, and I might seek to show him in the scriptures how that is not and could not be so. But if he is entirely convinced in his own mind, and limits himself to one wife because it would be sinful to do otherwise in his view, then my orders are pretty clear. I'm not to despise him because of his narrow mindedness, and I'm certainly not to invite him to the wedding if I take another wife. Honestly I think that God would be more blessed and better served if we all diligently attended to protecting each other's (entirely subjective) consciences than He would be if polygamy was universally understood to be right and noble and pure.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
Die!

ok that's probably not the right answer, but effective nonetheless!

My take on that centers around 1 Corinthians 10:25.
Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;
and
Romans 14 ... I don't think I'll post the chapter.

But I understand that to mean that a certain amount of subjectivity is built into our experience. We aren't necessarily called to perfect objectivity, just to peace, charity, and brotherhood with those we disagree with.

We should all diligently study the scriptures, and replace our beliefs and attitudes with those we understand the bible to be portraying, but even that is limited by 'our understanding'. Extremely to the point, we have in this forum a difference of understanding about whether or not the verses I've just mentioned apply to pork or not. It is easy to get caught up in a debate about the point, but the primary point of these passages is not to violate your conscience or the conscience of others by demanding an objective point of view in these matters.

The weak-faithed vegetable-eating brother who attempts to honor God with his vegetarianism is objectively incorrect. But he's allowed to be that way, and the stronger-faithed omnivore is supposed to protect the weaker man by not flaunting his challenging lifestyle in front of his brother. We are actually supposed to, in certain cases, preserve our brother's subjective point of view even if it doesn't accurately match with our understanding of scripture if he is doing it to honor God.

And likewise in 1 corinthians, we aren't even to seek an objective understanding of where our meat is coming from and whether or not it's been offered to idols. Our conscience should be fine knowing that God created everything to be received with thanksgiving, and other people's intents and practices shouldn't have anything to do with it. Unless of course someone volunteers that information and makes it so that the issue has become theological.

I very much do apply that to polygamy. I subjectively believe (hah hah) that a man who thinks he may only have one wife is a man of weak faith, and I might seek to show him in the scriptures how that is not and could not be so. But if he is entirely convinced in his own mind, and limits himself to one wife because it would be sinful to do otherwise in his view, then my orders are pretty clear. I'm not to despise him because of his narrow mindedness, and I'm certainly not to invite him to the wedding if I take another wife. Honestly I think that God would be more blessed and better served if we all diligently attended to protecting each other's (entirely subjective) consciences than He would be if polygamy was universally understood to be right and noble and pure.
Click to expand...
Slumberfreeze, that is the best explanation of the eating passage I've ever heard. Thank you so so much for your sharing your thoughts with me :)
 
FollowingHim said:
Note that Luther's statements cited in that article do not actually forbid polygyny. Reading further on we find:

So as far as I can see, Luther could find no scriptural reason to object to polygyny. But, as a good ex-Catholic raised in a monogamous culture, he personally found it morally abhorrent, associated it with Islam and the mistreatment of wives by Muslims (as his statement regarding the Turks shows), and therefore personally didn't think anyone should do it. But he couldn't back this view up from scripture, so he was honest enough to admit that he couldn't hold it as wrong in all circumstances. Where he saw something as absolutely forbidden, such as divorce, he completely forbade it. But he could not do this with polygyny. He therefore rationalised that there might be some circumstances where it would be acceptable, particularly as an alternative to divorce, but since he personally found it abhorrent also rationalised that these must be only rare and extreme circumstances.

I can understand his thought process, and think he was far more consistent and bible-based in his thinking than the vast majority of church pastors. His views were distorted by his personal experiences and contrasts of Catholic and Muslim culture in his day, but all of our views are distorted by the environment we grow up in. It is a very difficult struggle to bring our views back in line with scripture alone, and none of us will ever manage to do that perfectly.

The Munster Anabaptist rebellion (which involved polygyny) occurred during Luther's later life, and Lutherans allied with the Catholics to crush the rebellion and put the polygynous rebels to death. I have found no statement from Luther on that incident, but he would clearly have been well aware of it, and there is no record of him ever speaking up in their support. Assuming he was silent, I regard this as his most serious failure regarding polygyny.

So Luther was partially admirable, and partially fallible, like any human.
Click to expand...
FollowingHim, excellent job in adding some historical context to Luther. Thank you so very much!
 
FollowingHim said:
Note that Luther's statements cited in that article do not actually forbid polygyny. Reading further on we find:

So as far as I can see, Luther could find no scriptural reason to object to polygyny. But, as a good ex-Catholic raised in a monogamous culture, he personally found it morally abhorrent, associated it with Islam and the mistreatment of wives by Muslims (as his statement regarding the Turks shows), and therefore personally didn't think anyone should do it. But he couldn't back this view up from scripture, so he was honest enough to admit that he couldn't hold it as wrong in all circumstances. Where he saw something as absolutely forbidden, such as divorce, he completely forbade it. But he could not do this with polygyny. He therefore rationalised that there might be some circumstances where it would be acceptable, particularly as an alternative to divorce, but since he personally found it abhorrent also rationalised that these must be only rare and extreme circumstances.

I can understand his thought process, and think he was far more consistent and bible-based in his thinking than the vast majority of church pastors. His views were distorted by his personal experiences and contrasts of Catholic and Muslim culture in his day, but all of our views are distorted by the environment we grow up in. It is a very difficult struggle to bring our views back in line with scripture alone, and none of us will ever manage to do that perfectly.

The Munster Anabaptist rebellion (which involved polygyny) occurred during Luther's later life, and Lutherans allied with the Catholics to crush the rebellion and put the polygynous rebels to death. I have found no statement from Luther on that incident, but he would clearly have been well aware of it, and there is no record of him ever speaking up in their support. Assuming he was silent, I regard this as his most serious failure regarding polygyny.

So Luther was partially admirable, and partially fallible, like any human.
Click to expand...
My second reply: for more on the Munster Rebellion mentioned by FollowingHim, click here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münster_Rebellion absolutely fascinating, worthy of a podcast starring FollowingHim :)
 
Bring a selection to the next BF retreat and everyone who makes it there can have a tasting session. Luther would feel honoured. :-)
 
I can understand his thought process, and think he was far more consistent and bible-based in his thinking than the vast majority of church pastors. His views were distorted by his personal experiences and contrasts of Catholic and Muslim culture in his day, but all of our views are distorted by the environment we grow up in. It is a very difficult struggle to bring our views back in line with scripture alone, and none of us will ever manage to do that perfectly.

The Munster Anabaptist rebellion (which involved polygyny) occurred during Luther's later life, and Lutherans allied with the Catholics to crush the rebellion and put the polygynous rebels to death. I have found no statement from Luther on that incident, but he would clearly have been well aware of it, and there is no record of him ever speaking up in their support. Assuming he was silent, I regard this as his most serious failure regarding polygyny.

So Luther was partially admirable, and partially fallible, like any human.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comment Samuel. I appreciate the ability you and aineo have to stand back and look objectively at these issues. Blessings guys!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top