• 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.

The Argument against polygamy

I recently came out into the open with a lifelong christian friend about my beliefs and feelings supporting the biblical basis for polygamy. She is not a biblical scholar and her response was obviously a cut and paste from some websites. I thought it might prove useful to post them here, so others can see what some use as an arguement against biblical polygyny. Although sad, I did find some of these points amusing as how poorly they use the scripture in the argument.
I thought it would be a good mental excercise on defending ones position on biblical polygamy.

Argument #1

I know you've probably read all of these... But after reading them myself, I don't see how polygamy could be justified for our day in age. It's not what God intended marriage to be. Just some more for you to think about. --my friend

What does Scripture say about Polygamy?
In Matt. 19:4 we are told by Jesus that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' '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 then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one.
Eve was taken from Adams body and given back to him as his wife (singular) showing God’s approval of what the marriage union is to be like. God always spoke of man's “wife,” as singular, not wives. Notice it also states one father one mother.
It wasn’t until sin made man fall (Gen. 4:23) that polygamy occurs. Cain was cursed, Lamech is a descendent of Cain and the first to practice polygamy. The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives” (Gen.4:19, 23).
The same Godly pattern of one man and one wife is lived by Noah. At the time of the Ark (Gen. 7:7), Noah took his one wife into the ark, all his son’s took one wife; God called Noah’s family righteous and pure. If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the cataclysm.
This was to be a permanent union between man and woman that they might be helpful to one another (Genesis 2:18). Marriage represents a relationship of both spiritual and physical unity.
Hebrews 13:3-4: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”
We have examples of saints in the Old Testament going off the commandment i.e Solomon, but this is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained.
In the Bible I count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them. Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Samuel 1:2; David 1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chronicles 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chronicles 21:14; Joash 2 Chronicles 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; Belshazzar Daniel 5:2; 1 Chronicles 2:8; Hosea in Hosea 3:1,2. Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record (Gen.29:15-30, Jacob and his wives.)
Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy? Well they certainly did not get blessed for it! The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will.
God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience. Deut. 17:14-17: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” This is the command of God, and he has never changed it.
1 Kings 11:3 says Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines violating the principle of monogamy that he was given through the law of Moses. Consider that Solomon at one time was the wisest man in the world. In I Kings 11:4: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Notice Solomon became a polytheist because he was influenced in polygamy. In his case many wives, became many gods. Scripture has always commanded monogamy (Ps.128:3; Prov. 5:18; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-29; Eccl. 9:9).
The fact is that God never commanded polygamy or divorce. Scripture says (Bible) He only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:8). Matt. 5:31-32: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” God hates divorce as well as polygamy, since it destroys the family (Mal. 2:16). Whatever the patriarchs or any Christian did wrong does not change the fact the Bible condemns it.
There are some stipulations in the law that are connected to this subject. Matt. 22:24: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.” This is based on the commandment found in Deut. 25:5-6: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. “And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. ”
Multiple wives was tolerated but never with God's approval. Jesus told the Jews, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matthew 19:3-8). The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing, evils that were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed to the discouragement of polygamy; to prevent the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; to bring divorce under some restriction; and to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond.
The Bible says adultery is not a choice, one does not have to acquire another wife to solve his urges. Jesus said if you look upon another woman with desire (married or not) it is adultery, a sin.
Paul insisted that a leader in the church should be “the husband of one wife,” a deacon or elder must have one wife... Titus 1:6.

The New Testament teaches that, “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages.

How many wives did Adam have in Gen.2:24? One, God did not take two wives out from his side. Monogamy has always been God's standard for the human race. From the very beginning God set the pattern by creating a monogamous marriage relationship -one man and one woman, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; 2:21-25). It cannot be interpreted he became one with “each wife”; then this would mean he would be a husband to each, committing adultery. God certainly could have made two or more wives for Adam, this would have endorse the idea of polygamy, but he made only one.

The Bible clearly and decidedly states that God does not condone or allow the practice of polygamy over and over again.







Argument #2

What does the Bible say about Polygamy?
Author: Jim Massey

The Problem Of Polygamy
What is polygamy?
Polygamy is marriage to two or more wives. The first recorded polygamist was Lamech who took unto himself two wives (Genesis 4:19).
Is polygamy the same as adultery?
Adultery is the sinful intercourse of a person with someone who is not his one lawful and Scriptural marriage partner. It was forbidden in the Jewish law (Exedus 20:14) and was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10). Polygamy is merely adultery on a permanent basis. Polygamy is always adultery, but adultery is not always polygamy.
Is adultery the same as fornication?
The origin of these two words was different, fornication being the sin of unlawful intercourse by an unmarried person, and adultery the sin committed by a married person. But in New Testament usage the words several times are used to mean the same thing (see Revelation 2:20-22). Therefore, adultery and fornication are essentially the same sin according to the Bible meaning. It might be said that they are different forms of the same sin.
Does the New Testament forbid polygamy?
The New Testament says that marriage to another partner while the first partner is still living is adultery (Romans 7:1-3). No fornicator or adulterer shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9,10). Since a polygamist is an adulterer, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Is polygamy sinful for a man and for a woman?
1 Corinthians 7:2 says, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Polygamy is sinful for male or female. Women married to the same husband do not each have their own husbands.
Is it possible to escape from polygamy after practicing it for a long time?
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 lists many types of sinners, including fornicators and adulterers. As noticed above, a polygamist is actually an adulterer (Romans 7:1-3). Then 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, concerning the members of the church at Corinth, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." These adulterers and fornicators had repented and been cleansed from their past life by obeying the Gospel. If all types of sinners could be cleansed in Corinth, all types, including polygamists, can be cleansed if they repent and obey as did the people of Corinth.
Is it Necessary for one to repent of the sin of polygamy?
Repentance is a change of mind which results in a change of life (Matthew 21:28,29). Before a person is baptized for the remission of sins, he must believe in Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16), confess his faith in Christ (Acts 8:37), and repent of his sins (Acts 2:38). Without real faith, without a sincere confession of his faith, and without real repentance, baptism does not bring remission of sins. To be baptized without repentance cannot bring forgiveness (Acts 2:38).
How does one repent of polygamy?
The sin of polygamy must be repented of in the same way as any other sin. The polygamist changes his mind, heart, and life. He turns away from all his sins and turns to Christ, the Savior from all sin. He reverses his entire life and determines to change every sinful practice. But his repentance is not real unless he brings forth the fruits of repentance (Luke 3:8). This means putting away all wives except the true one. Just as a thief must give up stealing, so must a polygamist give up polygamy, or else his repentance is not sincere, and his baptism is worthless.
Which wife is the true wife?
A man's first wife is his rightful wife unless she was already the rightful wife of another man when he married her. The first wife a man marries is his only Scriptural wife. All others are merely women living with him in adultery (Romans 7:1-3). In order to genuinely repent, he must therefore put away all other women except his first rightful wife.
Who will provide for the wives and children who are put away?
Sin always bring serious problems. Prevention is always better than cure. The above question states one of the serious difficulties resulting from the sin of polygamy; True repentance is never easy because it requires undoing the sinful conditions of one's sinful life. The prodigal son got up out of the country of riotous living and returned humbly and broken-heartedly to his father's house (Luke 15:17-20). In like manner a polygamist must penitently forsake the conditions of his sin and return to God's love. When he does this, God will surely assist him in putting away his adulterous wives in a fair and honorable way. Furthermore, he will either care for his children himself or will render a father's rightful support of them in their mother's care.
What about the money spent for many wives?
Jesus said, "For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26). He also said to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all physical necessities would be added unto us (Matthew 6:33).
Should a polygamist be baptized before he puts away his sinful wives?
A polygamist or any other sinner should not be baptized before he repents. But any sinner who repents may certainly be baptized (Acts 2:38). A polygamist must be thoroughly taught the meaning of repentance. He must understand that true repentance precedes true baptism for the remission of sins. He must understand that real repentance includes fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). He must know that the remission of his sins depends upon true repentance. He must know that real repentance requires him to stop living as a husband with all wives but the true one. He must be preparing and beginning to put away the other wives honorably. He must be convinced of the great temptation which each former wife will be as long as she remains in his compound. He must understand that baptism is a burial of an old man which has died to the practice of sin (Romans 6:1-18). He must be taught that when he is raised from his watery grave of baptism that he must walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). When these matters are truly understood, accepted, and put into practice, a person thus taught will no longer be a polygamist. He will be a penitent believer in Jesus Christ who has turned away from polygamy and all other sins. He will then, and only then, be a proper subject for baptism. But on the other hand, if a polygamist does not understand the meaning of true repentance and true baptism, his baptism will not bring remission of sins. Or if a polygamist refuses to truly repent of his many wives, he might be dipped in the water, but without repentance there can be no remission of sins (Acts 2:38). A murderer might persuade a preacher to immerse him in the water, but if he had not repented of his murdering, his dipping would not truly be baptism. A thief might deceive a preacher into baptizing him, but unless he had repented of his stealing, his baptism would be worthless. Any polygamist who repents may be baptized, but without repentance, the baptism of a polygamist would be unscriptural and vain.
Should a polygamist be a leader in the church?
1 Timothy 3:2 requires that each of the bishops (or elders) in each congregation must be "the husband of one wife." Elders are examples to all the flock or congregation (1 Peter 5:3). A corrupt member (especially a leader) may corrupt the whole church (1 Corinthians 6:1,6). A polygamist must not be asked to lead prayer, as "holy hands" must be lifted up in prayer (1 Timothy 2:8). They must not be asked to serve as treasurer or to do any other work, as this may make them think that they have approval. A polygamist can no more serve as a leader in the church than can a murderer or a thief.
What can be done when a polygamist in the church refuses to repent?
A member in Corinth had taken his father's wife, thus becoming guilty of fornication (1 Corinthians 5:1). This man was to be disfellowshipped by the church in hopes of bringing him to repentance (1 Corinthians 5:4,5). A polygamist in the church today is actually guilty of the same sin of fornication or adultery as the man in Corinth. He should be withdrawn from in the same manner.
Why did Old Testament men have several wives?
God made one wife, Eve, for Adam (Genesis 2:22). God's plan since creation has been that one male and one female, "the twain" (or two), become "one flesh" (Matthew 19:4-6). From the beginning, God never intended for men to put away their wives or to marry additional wives. Men began these practices because they rejected God's plan out of the hardness of their hearts (Matthew 19:8). During the Old Testament God allowed many practices of the Jews which He never planned nor approved. One such thing was a king, but He allowed a king in order to let them see for themselves the foolishness of departing from His way (1 Samuel 8). In like manner, additional wives were allowed to the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts, but not because such was God's plan or God's will. Since Christians are under a far better covenant containing better commandments through Christ (Hebrews 8:6-8), God's original plan of one wife for one husband is enforced.
If polygamy was good for Abraham, why is it not good for us today?
Polygamy was never good for Abraham or any other Old Testament polygamist. Hagar caused jealousy, strife, and trouble until she was expelled from Abraham's house (Genesis 16:4; 21:9-11). Likewise, the wives of Solomon caused great difficulties and turned his heart away from the Lord (1 Kings 11:3,4). Polygamy in the Old Testament strongly shows us the wisdom of God's plan for one wife and the foolishness of man's way of additional wives. Since God made man, He knows the best plan for man's marriage and home.
This article is from the book:
ANSWERS IN THE BIBLE TO PROBLEMS IN THE CHURCH
by - Jim Massey


Argument #3

Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"

Answer: The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: 1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? 2) How does God view polygamy today? 3) Why did it change?

1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. As we speculate about God’s silence, there are a few key factors to consider. First, there have always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5 percent of the world population are women, with men being 49.5 percent. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. The significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation.

So, it seems that God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation. In addition to the protection/provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only producing one child each year.

2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife [singular] … He who loves his wife [singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two will become one flesh....Each one of you also must love his wife [singular] as he loves himself, and the wife [singular] must respect her husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy were allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.

3) Why did it change? It is not so much God’s disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God’s restoring marriage to His original plan. Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it is not the ideal. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves—removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.

Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps, but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.
 
I actually applaud your friend for taking the time to research the subject. My husband and I have been rejected from people who don't even know the Scriptures only basing their judgment on what they've been taught from their Pastor or Priest. I hope that she didn't reject you. Wouldn't it be interesting if through her research the Holy Spirit open her heart to the Truth that pm in not a sin? I mean I'm sure there are a lot of people here that started out doubting it and was convicted to the Truth later. I know that's what happened to me.
 
I hope and pray that she does come to an understanding of the biblical support of PM. She hasn't rejected me, but she is not open to discussing the proof that the bible does support PM as an option for today.
 
Well, I think that maybe she will have to be convicted on her own and on Gd's timing. I know for some people they don't want to feel "duped" into believing something. Just pray for her and maybe she will come around. At least she didn't reject you and you're able to keep your friendship.
 
The sad thing is that each and every one of those objections has been thoroughly researched by members of this forum and shown to be full of holes. But that is of no benefit to one more interesting in defending the theological homestead than exploring the world beyond their hollow. *sigh*

As a quick example, every time the "two shall be one flesh" passage is cited elsewhere in scripture, the point of the passage is the durability of marriage, never its exclusivity. Never.

Oh well. Some CAN'T see. Others REFUSE to. Some of us can't avoid doing so. :?
 
Perhaps the person will realize the truth but perhaps not. A person can pray for such people and help answer their questions but the study can not be done if they are not open to God and they just quote negative and incorrect sources. An open heart to God's truth is needed and if such a heart is never brought to a quest for truth then truth will not be found.

In these objections, an example of botched logic is that plural is presumed to be adultery and then adultery is used as an argument against plural. It follows conveniently though incorrectly that since adultery is a sin then plural must be a sin. The lack of personal research of what plural and adultery are brings failure to achieve the correct truth. Another example shown is the idea that someone in scripture that was a polygamist receiving punishment from God must be because he is a polygamist. It seems that the polygamists in scripture must have been perfect in all their ways (except for their polygamy!) Being so arbitrary also seems to never find the need to explain why no lady in scripture fell into disfavor from God for being a polygamist. We are then left with the truthless conclusion that polygamy is adultery and even though adultery sin normally involves a man and a woman does not involve a woman sinning in the case of polygamy. Remarkably it becomes the only gender specific sin and punishment known.

Women and men that are involved with plural or just believe in it are discriminated against not just by society but also by general religion and just about every denomination. This is the result not so much of non-christian persecution but mainly because sadly the majority of our christian brothers know their religious bylaws but have never even attempted a lifestyle of searching for truth. In John 14 Christ states that he is truth. If christians do not want to know truth and Christ then truth and Christ have probably departed them.
 
A BIG part of the "argument against polygamy" [sic ;)] is the elephant in the room:

It's right there in Jeremiah 16:19-20 as well!

Once someone is reluctantly forced to see the Truth - that Monogamania is in fact an idol, that it is utterly inconsistent with Scripture as a coherent Whole, and that "we" have been lied to by the paganized, Nicolaitan "church" for literally centuries..then WHAT ELSE HAVE THEY BEEN LYING ABOUT!?

From pastors who "tickle their ears", spread "fables", and preach "another Jesus, which we have not preached", to the fact that "the Bride" was NEVER 'singular' (as in the 'One True and Universal Church' -- whichever one claims a monopoly on Him)...once that Door is opened, there is no going back without "rejecting knowledge".

Once folks decide to take the "red pill", to use the Matrix metaphor, they begin to see just "how deep the rabbit hole goes". Many seem to know in advance they just ain't gonna like it...
 
I just couldn’t resist playing with this… (and for the benefit of newbies that may read this) you already understand the arguments anyway… : )

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh”

A man and woman become “one flesh” during their sexual union; they don’t absorb each other and become one physical body.

The Apostle Paul stated:

1 Corinthians 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."

If you become and remain one flesh with the first person you sleep with, or take for a wife, how is it possible to become one flesh with a prostitute as Paul shows us here?

“The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start.”

I absolutely agree. Marriage is a covenant made between a man and a woman.

“NOT three or four as one.”

See the “one flesh” explanation above. While a man may have a covenant with more than one woman simultaneously, he is not “one flesh” with all of them simultaneously.

“God always spoke of man's “wife,” as singular, not wives.”

The word used for wife is interchangeably used for wife, wives, woman, and women throughout the Old Testament. The New Testament uses one word for wife, wives, woman, and women as well.

“The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives”

Lamech was actually defending himself, a man wounded him. Read the account a little closer. What Lamech did wrong was to avenge himself beyond what was just. An eye for an eye means to limit retribution to the harm that was done. You can paint Lamech as an evil person, but who among us has not wanted revenge to a greater degree than we were harmed?

“If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the cataclysm.”

Not necessarily, but having a number of monogamous couples would provide a greater genetic diversity among the survivor's children, thus it was a good decision. Do the math. If each couple produced only 4 children, and each couple of the second generation produced only 4 children…etc…the earth would very quickly be repopulated (as it was).

“Hebrews 13:3-4: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

I would be interested to see one scripture verse stating that it is either fornication or adultery for a man to have more than one wife. I have read 5 different translations of the Christian Bible and have been unable to find one such passage. Therefore it seems there is no substantial reason to apply this verse to polygyny.

“We have examples of saints in the Old Testament going off the commandment i.e Solomon, but this is not God approved.”

There was a command given specifically to kings of Israel not to multiply (the word used means to have a great abundance) wives, gold, or horses to themselves. This does not mean that a king may have only one horse, one piece of gold, or one wife.

“polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures”

This is the first sensible thing that was said. Polygyny is not sinful, nor was it ever sinful. St. Augustine had this to say:

But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. As regards nature, [Jacob] used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it (Ibid. page 289).

“In the Bible I count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them.”

I guess they were more powerful than God too, He must have been afraid to confront them because we do not find God addressing the situation.

“Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record”

Josephus wrote in the first century AD:
"for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time."

“it is” is present tense, in other words it was commonly practiced throughout history, and still was at the time this was written.

“Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy?”

Actually most of the polygynous individuals were praised by God for their hearts following Him.

“Well they certainly did not get blessed for it!”

I guess they missed the part where God gave David all of Saul’s wives. God was not cursing David; and yes, they were blessed in numerous ways.

“The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will.”

Please show me where it states that anyone was punished by God for having more than one wife. Men are sinners and are punished for their sin. Polygyny is not sinful, and therefore if God punished a man for having more than one wife He would be an unjust God!

“God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience.”

Again, God gave David the wives of Saul if that isn't condoning I don't know what is; and then there is this to consider:

2 Chronicles 24:2-3 And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.

Assuming the scriptures are the inspired Word of God one can easily see that God considers polygyny right in his sight.

“Scripture has always commanded monogamy (Ps.128:3; Prov. 5:18; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-29; Eccl. 9:9).”

Wow…not one of those verses is even close to being a command, much less commanding monogamy.

“The fact is that God never commanded polygamy or divorce.”

Polygyny and divorce are completely unrelated; one does not cause the other. On the contrary, the Bible states that if a man divorces his wife and takes another (serial adultery) he commits adultery against her. What he is to do is simply take a second wife. If anything, polygyny prevents divorce.

“God hates divorce as well as polygamy, since it destroys the family (Mal. 2:16). Whatever the patriarchs or any Christian did wrong does not change the fact the Bible condemns it.”

Wow…what God hates are liars. This statement is a blatant lie. You are assuming to know the mind of God and stating that He hates polygyny when He himself never states that. I would suggest you be very careful with making statements about what God hates when He has not made any such statement himself. Malachi 2:16 is about divorce, it has nothing whatsoever to do with polygyny.

“Matt. 22:24: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies…” This is based on the commandment found in Deut. 25:5-6 … Multiple wives was tolerated but never with God's approval. Jesus told the Jews, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matthew 19:3-8).

This is just nonsense…how do you get from polygyny to divorce like this? Obviously logical analysis of the scriptures doesn’t work to defend monogamy so they must resort to completely illogical arguments.

“The Bible says adultery is not a choice, one does not have to acquire another wife to solve his urges.”

This is just more of the bizarre. The Bible never states that a man with more than one wife is involved in adultery; this is yet another nonsense statement.

“Jesus said if you look upon another woman with desire (married or not) it is adultery, a sin.”

Look at the verse closer. The marital state of the man and the woman is not indicated. Therefore how could it be adultery for an unmarried man to look upon an unmarried woman? What we need to observe is the intent of the man “with lustful intent”. The man was coveting the woman, and covetousness is idolatry, and idolatry is adultery to God. Jesus is stating that when we are covetous we are placing an object above God and committing adultery against Him. This has nothing to do with marital adultery which is when a married woman sleeps with someone other than her husband.

“Paul insisted that a leader in the church should be “the husband of one wife,” a deacon or elder must have one wife... Titus 1:6.”

A much more accurate translation is that Elders, Bishops, and Deacons should be “married”. Church doctrine influenced the translations as they were compiled.

“The New Testament teaches that, “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2).”

Yes, it is like saying you should drive your own car, not steal your neighbors. Does that mean a man can have only one car? The Bible prohibits a woman from being with a man other than her husband, but does not prohibit a man from taking more than one wife.

“Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages.”

Jesus represented himself as the bridegroom in a parable and took five virgins unto himself. If polygyny is such a bad thing why didn’t Jesus tell the parable with two virgins and only take one instead of ten and taking five?

“he became one with “each wife”; then this would mean he would be a husband to each, committing adultery.”

Please provide chapter and verse for the passage(s) that state that it is adultery for a man to have more than one wife. (I’ll save you the trouble, there aren’t any)

“The Bible clearly and decidedly states that God does not condone or allow the practice of polygamy over and over again.”

Interesting, I have not been able to find one such “statement”. Would you care to back up your opinion with “clear and decidedly” obvious scriptures?


Argument #2 simply falls apart at the seams from its inception. The entire argument is based upon a flawed definition of adultery.

“Adultery is the sinful intercourse of a person with someone who is not his one lawful and Scriptural marriage partner.”

While this is a common heathen definition, it is an incorrect biblical definition. Any argument (argument #2) based upon an incorrect definition is itself flawed from the very beginning.

“Polygamy is merely adultery on a permanent basis…”

The entire argument as it unfolds does so based upon the false definition of adultery and therefore falls apart under scrutiny.

I find it interesting that the most flawed of the arguments presented consumes the greatest amount of space to drone on and on to belabor the errant doctrine; as if trying beyond measure to prove to himself that his misconceptions were truthful. Jim Massey should take a closer look at the foundation of his argument and see how the flaws cause his entire argument to crumble.

Argument #3

“The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it.”

If only people would just stop and camp on this fact for a while, then consider the arguments against polygyny. Either it is sinful or it is not. God is not double minded, He doesn’t change His mind about what is sinful and when. Approaching arguments against polygyny with this in mind will show the flaws in the arguments against polygyny.

“1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. As we speculate about God’s silence, there are a few key factors to consider.”

We don’t need to waste much time “speculating” about God’s “silence”. If God didn’t want polygyny practiced He had 66 books (the bible) in which to clearly state that it was against His will for a man to take more than one wife; that it is sinful. As there are no such passages any further speculation is likely to lead to false doctrine.

“So, it seems that God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them.”

And why would this not apply today? How many single mothers are there that cannot find a suitable husband, but would be welcomed into a polygynous household?

“In addition to the protection/provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only producing one child each year.”

Is argument #3 for or against polygyny? It seems to support it more than anything.

“monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman”

Ahh, now we get to the errant doctrine. I hate this argument. First it assumes that God cannot obtain what he “intends”, and second that the individual making that statement knows what God actually intended even though God never made any such statement. What God intends He accomplishes. God intended for Jonah to go to Nineveh…guess who got His way in that deal? God designs things to work a certain way, and when men try to accomplish things outside of God’s design they find themselves in disobedience. Polygyny is never shown to be disobedient to God.

“Should not all Christians be “above reproach...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.”

They are requirements for the position, and we are to emulate our leaders in the church, but not held to the same requirements.

“Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife [singular] … He who loves his wife [singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two will become one flesh....Each one of you also must love his wife [singular] as he loves himself, and the wife [singular] must respect her husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives.”

This is simply a misuse of the language. Keep in mind that the word used for “wife” is the same word that is also used for “wives”, “woman”, and “women”. When the books of the Bible were compiled in the 1500s into what we now call the Bible, the doctrine of monogamy was already ingrained in the church and this is represented in the translations that followed. A man has a singular relationship and covenant with each of his wives, and these things apply to each of his wives in their relationships. For example:

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

If you wish to insist on the singular where plural is implied then you would have to conclude that a man may only own one house, have one wife, one manservant, one maidservant, one ox, one ass, or one of anything a man can own. Perhaps we should look at Exodus in the plural and see how it makes more sense:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's homes, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wives, nor his manservants, nor his maidservants, nor his oxen, nor his asses, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

So now with that in mind I will correct the statement made to reflect the accuracy of the scriptures:

Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it also refers to a wife (or wives). “For the husband is the head of the wife [or wives] … He who loves his wife [or wives] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [or wives], and two will become one flesh during the sexual union....Each one of you also must love his wife [or wives] as he loves himself, and the wife [or wives] must respect their husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband must have multiple wives.”

“In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy were allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.”

Not really. Jesus describes Himself as the Bridegroom and takes five of the ten virgins that were ready. If polygyny is such a terrible or forbidden thing why not use two virgins and only take one?

“3) Why did it change?”

Actually nothing but the doctrine of men changed.

“ It is not so much God’s disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God’s restoring marriage to His original plan. Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent.”

God modeled the marriage covenant to be between a man and a woman, and subsequently limited a woman to only one man. God did not limit a man to only one wife, and neither did He ever call it sinful. What was not sin then is not sin now, what was “allowed” then is “allowed” now. God is not double minded!

“In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves—removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy.”

If that is the only benefit you are aware of, your understanding of polygyny is extremely limited.

“Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy.”

Why is it that only some of them outlaw it? The bigamy laws are nothing more than men forcing their religious doctrine upon society as a whole. Ask yourself what is the purpose of a law? Is it not to protect an individual from some sort of harm? If an adult man wishes to marry two consenting adult women where is the harm? Now can you see that the intent of these laws was to force common Catholic and Christian doctrine on the masses?

“According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.”

Actually there are instances where it is commanded, and according to:

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I therefore have the right to appeal to my government to change what I consider to be unjust laws.

“it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage. polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained”

Again, marriage is a covenant between a man and woman. A man is not limited to only one covenant. This is by God’s design or He would have specifically stated otherwise. Why do the scriptures state that if a married woman sleeps with a man other than her husband she is in adultery, but you do not see the same thing for a man? If a man (married or otherwise) sleeps with another man’s wife he is in adultery. If a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman he has either committed fornication or taken another wife. Why the difference? Because that IS the way God designed marriage to be. By His Holy and Inspired Word we can know this to be truth, unlike the false doctrine we hear from the Catholic and Christian pulpits.

Well that was certainly fun…kind of like being a 5th grade teacher with a new class of ignorant students every year. At least the 5th graders are eager to learn, unlike most who vainly attempt to defend the monogamy doctrine they were taught.
 
guys, your replies were awesome ... just awesome ... would sure be nice if the world i personally lived in thought and believed like it
 
Well that was certainly fun…kind of like being a 5th grade teacher with a new class of ignorant students every year. At least the 5th graders are eager to learn, unlike most who vainly attempt to defend the monogamy doctrine they were taught.
dude, i bow in your general direction, you have the patience of a saint
 
Thank you T-C's Rebeka for the article.
Thank you Scarecrow for your remarks.
These were helpful to read.

The articles of Arguments against Polygyny and
Overcoming Objections to Plural Marriage on Biblical Families were good for me to read through.

They brought the following verses to my mind especially with T-C Rebeka’s article that she posted:

Colossians 2:8 Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Col 2:6 Therefore, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your life in Him, rooted and built up in Him and firm in your faith …

2 Timothy 2:15 Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth “accurately”.

May we continue to be taught by His Spirit and be able to handle accurately the Word of God that He has entrusted to us!
 
Content removed by Scarecrow, did not pertain to the subject.
 
the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it

I realize that much can be said about this topic but for me, this is the bottom line. :)
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
One of the essays that were posted by the anti-polygamists really got my goat. It was by Jim Massey, who I learned passed away in 1995. Nevertheless, I decided to address the points in his essay, and I'm sending it to those sites that have posted his essay online. Here's my response:


Hi ______,

While reading messages on another site, I came across Jim Massey's essay on polygamy, "What does the Bible say about Polygamy?" I was rather shocked when I read it, because the late Mr. Massey did not do his homework on this issue, and came to some very wrong conclusions. While I don't believe that we need to promote polygamy, to call it sin is a false doctrine. I've brought this to your attention, because I'm certain that you have had no idea that there were critical mistakes in the essay.

I should also point out that I am not a Mormon nor have I ever been, nor do I believe in their doctrines. I am a non-denominational Christian.

Responses to some points in his essay are found below…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Problem Of Polygamy

What is polygamy?

Polygamy is marriage to two or more wives. The first recorded polygamist was Lamech who took unto himself two wives (Genesis 4:19).

Is polygamy the same as adultery?

Adultery is the sinful intercourse of a person with someone who is not his one lawful and Scriptural marriage partner. It was forbidden in the Jewish law (Exedus 20:14) and was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10). Polygamy is merely adultery on a permanent basis. Polygamy is always adultery, but adultery is not always polygamy.



This is incorrect. Adultery is the sin of intercourse of a man with a married woman who is not his own wife.

Adultery is a sin that carried the death penalty. It would have been contradictory for Moses, who was himself a polygamist, to have missed the fact that he himself was an adulterer guilty of a death penalty sin, not to mention that the Mosaic Law includes regulations that not only allow polygamy, but require polygamy.

Exodus 2:15-21 indicates that Moses was married to a Midianite by the name of Zipporah. However, in Exodus 12:1 we see that Moses also married a Cushite woman. Midianites were not Cushites (i.e. Ethiopians) and vice versa. Later, in Exodus 18, Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, brings Zipporah back to Moses in the wilderness. Moses was therefore a polygamist with two wives, Zipporah and an unnamed Cushite woman.

Since Moses wrote the Law under the direction of God, we ought to realize that it is unlikely that polygamy was adultery. Not only that, but it is also untrue to suggest that the "one flesh" of Genesis 2:24 supports monogamy. "One flesh" was a description of the sexual union and the responsibility it incurred, as well as the recognition that intercourse results in offspring (i.e. the combination of the man and woman as "one flesh" in their children). A man could be "one flesh" with one wife, then "one flesh" with another wife at the same time. The wives were never "one flesh" with each other, nor could they be.

Exodus 21:7-11 and Deuteronomy 25:5 are laws regarding polygamy. The first deals with justice for a second wife, and the second would require some men to become polygamists if they were married when their brother died. Therefore, as the Law allows for polygamy and even requires it, Moses neither recognized polygamy as adultery nor wrote in preference of monogamy.

But even stronger evidence of the righteousness of polygamy is found in Jeremiah 3:6-10 and 31:31-32, and Ezekiel 23, where God is portrayed metaphorically as a polygamist. Because of His perfect holiness, God could never be portrayed as a polygamist if polygamy were a sin.




Is adultery the same as fornication?

The origin of these two words was different, fornication being the sin of unlawful intercourse by an unmarried person, and adultery the sin committed by a married person. But in New Testament usage the words several times are used to mean the same thing (see Revelation 2:20-22). Therefore, adultery and fornication are essentially the same sin according to the Bible meaning. It might be said that they are different forms of the same sin.



Fornication is whoring, plain and simple. Scripture defines harlotry in Ezekiel 16 as sex for hire (i.e., they give gifts--pay--to ALL harlots). All fornication is sexual intercourse of an unmarried woman for a price.

Adultery, defined above, differs significantly from fornication, in that fornication did not normally carry the death penalty under the Law (there was an exception for priests' daughters). Adultery always carried the death penalty.

Mr. Massey's use of the passage in Revelation 2:20-22 indicates his misunderstanding of how the words were used in Scripture. Verse 20 indicates that Jezebel had led them to eat idol-sacrifices. Both fornication and adultery were used of idolatry in Scripture, but in this case the fornication was likely a physical act of harlotry, while the adultery was equated to the idolatry. Nevertheless, the rest of Scripture clearly delineates between fornication and adultery, even though they are similar sins in some ways.




Does the New Testament forbid polygamy?

The New Testament says that marriage to another partner while the first partner is still living is adultery (Romans 7:1-3). No fornicator or adulterer shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9,10). Since a polygamist is an adulterer, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God.



The passage in Romans 7:1-3 presumes that she is still married, and had not divorced her first husband, when she married the second. That is adultery. Paul was making a certain point, and used a married woman as the example to make that point. When a married woman has intercourse with another man, it is adultery. The same is not true of men. A man, according to all evidence of Scripture, could marry more than one wife.

Mr. Massey's response also relies on his incorrect definitions of adultery and fornication in order to try to prove his point.




Is polygamy sinful for a man and for a woman?

1 Corinthians 7:2 says, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Polygamy is sinful for male or female. Women married to the same husband do not each have their own husbands.



It is instructive to look at the Greek of 1 Corinthians 7:2 when examining this claim. When the passage says "his own wife" and "her own husband", the words used for "own" are quite different.

For the husband, the word "own" is the Greek word "heautou". Heautou is a word that allows ownership of multiple things.

For the wife, the word "own" is the word "idios". Idios is a non-exclusive kind of ownership.

The difference, which can be clearly seen in the Greek, is that a man can "own" more than one wife, while for the wife, the relationship is exclusive. God preserved His allowance for polygamy within the very words of the New Testament.

Women married to the same husband do have their own husband. He is not exclusively theirs, but he is theirs individually.




Is it possible to escape from polygamy after practicing it for a long time?

1 Corinthians 6:9,10 lists many types of sinners, including fornicators and adulterers. As noticed above, a polygamist is actually an adulterer (Romans 7:1-3). Then 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, concerning the members of the church at Corinth, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." These adulterers and fornicators had repented and been cleansed from their past life by obeying the Gospel. If all types of sinners could be cleansed in Corinth, all types, including polygamists, can be cleansed if they repent and obey as did the people of Corinth.



It is sad that Christians equate a righteous form of marriage with adultery. Many African polygamists have their lives torn apart by this false doctrine.



Is it Necessary for one to repent of the sin of polygamy?

Repentance is a change of mind which results in a change of life (Matthew 21:28,29). Before a person is baptized for the remission of sins, he must believe in Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16), confess his faith in Christ (Acts 8:37), and repent of his sins (Acts 2:38). Without real faith, without a sincere confession of his faith, and without real repentance, baptism does not bring remission of sins. To be baptized without repentance cannot bring forgiveness (Acts 2:38).

How does one repent of polygamy?

The sin of polygamy must be repented of in the same way as any other sin. The polygamist changes his mind, heart, and life. He turns away from all his sins and turns to Christ, the Savior from all sin. He reverses his entire life and determines to change every sinful practice. But his repentance is not real unless he brings forth the fruits of repentance (Luke 3:8). This means putting away all wives except the true one. Just as a thief must give up stealing, so must a polygamist give up polygamy, or else his repentance is not sincere, and his baptism is worthless.

Which wife is the true wife?

A man's first wife is his rightful wife unless she was already the rightful wife of another man when he married her. The first wife a man marries is his only Scriptural wife. All others are merely women living with him in adultery (Romans 7:1-3). In order to genuinely repent, he must therefore put away all other women except his first rightful wife.



What then if the man marries both at the same time? Which is then his first wife? This is a distinctly unscriptural doctrine.



Who will provide for the wives and children who are put away?

Sin always bring serious problems. Prevention is always better than cure. The above question states one of the serious difficulties resulting from the sin of polygamy; True repentance is never easy because it requires undoing the sinful conditions of one's sinful life. The prodigal son got up out of the country of riotous living and returned humbly and broken-heartedly to his father's house (Luke 15:17-20). In like manner a polygamist must penitently forsake the conditions of his sin and return to God's love. When he does this, God will surely assist him in putting away his adulterous wives in a fair and honorable way. Furthermore, he will either care for his children himself or will render a father's rightful support of them in their mother's care.



How much hatred of Christianity comes from the families that have been broken by this wicked doctrine? This is terrible, to destroy a loving famiy because of a false doctrine.



What about the money spent for many wives?

Jesus said, "For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26). He also said to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all physical necessities would be added unto us (Matthew 6:33).

Should a polygamist be baptized before he puts away his sinful wives?

A polygamist or any other sinner should not be baptized before he repents. But any sinner who repents may certainly be baptized (Acts 2:38). A polygamist must be thoroughly taught the meaning of repentance. He must understand that true repentance precedes true baptism for the remission of sins. He must understand that real repentance includes fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). He must know that the remission of his sins depends upon true repentance. He must know that real repentance requires him to stop living as a husband with all wives but the true one. He must be preparing and beginning to put away the other wives honorably. He must be convinced of the great temptation which each former wife will be as long as she remains in his compound. He must understand that baptism is a burial of an old man which has died to the practice of sin (Romans 6:1-18). He must be taught that when he is raised from his watery grave of baptism that he must walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). When these matters are truly understood, accepted, and put into practice, a person thus taught will no longer be a polygamist. He will be a penitent believer in Jesus Christ who has turned away from polygamy and all other sins. He will then, and only then, be a proper subject for baptism. But on the other hand, if a polygamist does not understand the meaning of true repentance and true baptism, his baptism will not bring remission of sins. Or if a polygamist refuses to truly repent of his many wives, he might be dipped in the water, but without repentance there can be no remission of sins (Acts 2:38). A murderer might persuade a preacher to immerse him in the water, but if he had not repented of his murdering, his dipping would not truly be baptism. A thief might deceive a preacher into baptizing him, but unless he had repented of his stealing, his baptism would be worthless. Any polygamist who repents may be baptized, but without repentance, the baptism of a polygamist would be unscriptural and vain.

Should a polygamist be a leader in the church?

1 Timothy 3:2 requires that each of the bishops (or elders) in each congregation must be "the husband of one wife." Elders are examples to all the flock or congregation (1 Peter 5:3). A corrupt member (especially a leader) may corrupt the whole church (1 Corinthians 6:1,6). A polygamist must not be asked to lead prayer, as "holy hands" must be lifted up in prayer (1 Timothy 2:8). They must not be asked to serve as treasurer or to do any other work, as this may make them think that they have approval. A polygamist can no more serve as a leader in the church than can a murderer or a thief.



If the interpretation of this passage were referring to monogamy, then it would be the first and only condemnation of polygamy in Scripture in any form. However, it still wouldn't be a rejection of polygamy, as only the leadership would be required to be monogamists.

However, a close examination of the two passages in 1 Timothy and Titus on the "husband of one wife" indicates that there has been a mistranslation. The crux of the matter relies on whether the "husband of one wife" means the "husband of ONLY one wife" or the "husband of AT LEAST one wife", both of which could be true of this particular passage. However, both Timothy and Titus were ministers to Gentile churches in the Roman Empire. Polygamy was not allowed in the Roman Empire, except for a limited exception for Jews (which was later rescinded). Therefore, Paul would not have been referring to a case of polygamy at all, which was non-existent in the areas where Timothy and Titus were teaching.

Clearly, the passages require that an elder or bishop be married. A married man with a good family has a better grasp of the proper family relationships within the Church. So single men would not qualify for those positions. (Paul, who wrote this, was neither a bishop nor an elder within the Church. He was an apostle, which is a different category altogether.)

Another point is that a man should not have been divorced, which is a sign that he does not know how to live well with his wife. So he must be the husband of his first wife, which the Greek word for "one" in this passage, "mia", also implies. (Presumably, if he were a widower, he would still qualify because he had not divorced.)

Putting these things together, we can see that: (1) It has nothing to do with polygamy, which was uncommon in those areas at that time, (2) A man should be married to be an elder or bishop, and (3) A man should still be married to his first wife.

Therefore, the proper interpretation of these passages are that an elder or a bishop should be the faithful husband of at least one wife. This has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.




What can be done when a polygamist in the church refuses to repent?

A member in Corinth had taken his father's wife, thus becoming guilty of fornication (1 Corinthians 5:1). This man was to be disfellowshipped by the church in hopes of bringing him to repentance (1 Corinthians 5:4,5). A polygamist in the church today is actually guilty of the same sin of fornication or adultery as the man in Corinth. He should be withdrawn from in the same manner.

Why did Old Testament men have several wives?

God made one wife, Eve, for Adam (Genesis 2:22). God's plan since creation has been that one male and one female, "the twain" (or two), become "one flesh" (Matthew 19:4-6). From the beginning, God never intended for men to put away their wives or to marry additional wives. Men began these practices because they rejected God's plan out of the hardness of their hearts (Matthew 19:8). During the Old Testament God allowed many practices of the Jews which He never planned nor approved. One such thing was a king, but He allowed a king in order to let them see for themselves the foolishness of departing from His way (1 Samuel 8). In like manner, additional wives were allowed to the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts, but not because such was God's plan or God's will. Since Christians are under a far better covenant containing better commandments through Christ (Hebrews 8:6-8), God's original plan of one wife for one husband is enforced.



Genesis 2:22 indicates that the "two shall become one flesh" but it does not imply an exclusiveness to that relationship. Paul indicates later in 1 Corinthians 6:16 that a man can become "one flesh" with a harlot as well as his wife, indicating that a man can become "one flesh" with more than one woman at the same time. Ephesians 5:30-31 also indicates this same thing, in that "we" as individuals can each become "one flesh" with Christ in a spiritual sense.

Contrary to Mr. Massey's opinion, nothing in Scripture indicates that polygamy occurred out of the hardness of men's hearts. That was divorce. Polygamy was blessed by God. There is no indication in Scripture that God ever planned that men and women should live in monogamy.




If polygamy was good for Abraham, why is it not good for us today?

Polygamy was never good for Abraham or any other Old Testament polygamist. Hagar caused jealousy, strife, and trouble until she was expelled from Abraham's house (Genesis 16:4; 21:9-11). Likewise, the wives of Solomon caused great difficulties and turned his heart away from the Lord (1 Kings 11:3,4). Polygamy in the Old Testament strongly shows us the wisdom of God's plan for one wife and the foolishness of man's way of additional wives. Since God made man, He knows the best plan for man's marriage and home.



Again, this is Mr. Massey's opinion, not backed up by Scripture. Mr. Massey has chosen a couple examples out of the many in Scripture to make his point. Yet there are numerous other polygamists where no problems were mentioned. Another issue is that monogamy has many of the same problems exhibited within those few examples of troubles within polygamy in Scripture. Why is monogamy not bad because Jezebel, King Ahab's wife, caused him to do evil things? Why were individual wives that caused problems, like David's first wife Michel, not a strike against monogamy? Mr. Massey used a logical fallacy to undermine polygamy, while ignoring anything that would be contrary to his doctrine.

The strongest point in favor of the righteousness of polygamy as a form of marriage is that God was portrayed as a polygamist. For that reason alone, polygamy can never be a sin.

Now just because polygamy isn't a sin does not mean that people should practice it. Even in a society that accepts polygamy, less than 5% would ever be polygamists. It may or may not be a useful practice today, perhaps, but polygamy is certainly not a sin.



Pastor John
Oregon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John for Christ
 
Scarecrow, your refutation of the fake arguments against polygyny are great! I enjoyed reading them.

Please allow me to make one minor correction, then add some additional information and comments to a couple of the many excellent refutations you presented.

You said,

The word used for wife is interchangeably used for wife, wives, woman, and women throughout the Old Testament. The New Testament uses one word for wife, wives, woman, and women as well.

In Greek, the root of the words used for "wife," "wives," "woman," and "women" is the same, "gune." That is the word you will find if you use Strong's numbers to look it up in Strong's and other Greek dictionaries that use Strong's numbers. (Most of the Greek and Hebrew dictionary add-on modules for e-Sword use Strong's numbers.)

Dr. Strong made the mistake of reducing every word, both Greek and Hebrew, to its ROOT. If you look at the actual Greek text of the NT, you can see that different forms of the word are used for singular and plural. Here's an example:

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives {γυναικας}: but from the beginning it was not so.

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife {γυναικα}, and let every woman have her own husband.

The Greek words in curly braces { } in the preceding two verses were taken from the 1550 Greek Textus Receptus as used in the e-Sword program. The trailing sigma character ("ς" is similar to our "s") makes the word plural, just as "s" does for many English words. The Strong's number for "gune" is G1135.

In Hebrew, Strong's number H802 is used for two forms of the word: one meaning "wife" or "woman," and the other, an irregular plural meaning "wives" or "women." One must look at the original Hebrew text to see which form the actual word is derived from.

However, that in no way negates any other argument.

So what you said is almost true – the only difference is in singular/plural form, and it IS the same ROOT word in Greek. I have not studied Hebrew to the same degree that I have studied the Greek, but based on what I have studied, the situation is similar.

Other comments and information:

In 1 Corinthians 7:2, different Greek words are used for "own" that would indicate a woman belongs to one and only one man, but a man may have more than one woman, each one exclusively his and no other man's. So that verse is a VERY STRONG endorsement of polygyny by the Apostle Paul!

That's why I love your "car" analogy:

Yes, it is like saying you should drive your own car, not steal your neighbors. Does that mean a man can have only one car? The Bible prohibits a woman from being with a man other than her husband, but does not prohibit a man from taking more than one wife.

It perfectly conveys the intent of what 1 Corinthians 7:2 is actually saying in the original Greek.

“Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy.”

That "argument" is an outright lie. Most modern nations do NOT outlaw polygyny. Your answer is excellent, but you may not be aware of this: Only most WESTERN nations outlaw it. According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, edited in 1998 and available at http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf, 82% of the 1,267 ethnic cultures surveyed around the world have some type of legal polygyny. It is only those nations that were under the oppressive near-absolute rule of the Roman Catholic Church, plus those nations whose cultural roots are in such a nation (like the US; our cultural roots are in Western Europe) that outlaw polygyny.

You are absolutely right about why Western nations outlaw polygyny. And in most Western nations where it is against the law, it is still practiced – but we call it "having a mistress," "having an affair," "no-fault divorce and subsequent remarriage," etc. All are forms of temporary marriage, but without the commitment required by Scripture, which is the basis for Biblical Marriage.

It seems that it is not having more than one woman that the world hates; rather, it is having more than one woman and having a legal lifetime commitment with each that is against the law!
 
It is only those nations that were under the oppressive near-absolute rule of the Roman Catholic Church, plus those nations whose cultural roots are in such a nation (like the US; our cultural roots are in Western Europe) that outlaw polygyny.

Dr. George, that above is why I like to look at our situation more so as one where we are really a pre-Christian nation than a post Christian nation. When preaching the last time in GA I shared with the brethren that while some are arguing that our nation is doomed because we are a post-Christian nation that we never really were a Christian nation at least in regard to our understanding of the family so the move in that direction looks like a step in the right direction. Praise the Lord in his providence. Maybe one day we shall on a wide scale basis overcome this one mistake. Praise God for our founders, they had so many things right and we owe them and our Lord praise and great gratitude for giving to us this great blessed land of opportunity where the gospel can progress. And hopefully we shall see the progress of the gospel bring about a true Judeo-Christian understanding of the family where we discard those ideas that traveled across the sea in the wake of the Reformation. Better days are ahead I do believe!
 
Well, my biggest thing is that people say well women can provide for themselves now so their is no basis for polygamy. I am sure women could have in Biblical times as well is my inital thought though as well. So mainly I am used to people judging solely on the fact that it is outside the normal everyday standard is that they see.

Personally, I cherish the fact that God gave me Polygamy so that I did not have to settle for a loser.
 
John_for_Christ...I agree completely. I didn't spend any time on Jim Massey because his arguments are all based on a heathen definition of adultery. Any biblical argument that has its foundation based on a heathen belief rather than scripture is flawed throughout.

Jim Massey's essay on polygamy...

Adultery is the sinful intercourse of a person with someone who is not his one lawful and Scriptural marriage partner. It was forbidden in the Jewish law (Exedus 20:14) and was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10). Polygamy is merely adultery on a permanent basis. Polygamy is always adultery, but adultery is not always polygamy.
 
Nice job Scarecrow.

"There was a command given specifically to kings of Israel not to multiply (the word used means to have a great abundance) wives, gold, or horses to themselves. This does not mean that a king may have only one horse, one piece of gold, or one wife."

Monogamists always seem to think that this verse supports their case when nothing could be further from the truth. This verse alone proves polygamy is accepted by God in my opinion. First of all, like a number of places in the Bible, if the standard was one wife, God would have been a lot clearer by just saying one wife only. Something like this would have been good for the monogamists:

"Because the people will see you as an example, as the King of Isreal you must have one and only one wife."

That is very clear and God could have said that had he wanted to. Instead we got Deuteronomy 17:17:

"Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away:"

Since God's standard was multiple wives, God did not want the King to over do it, like you said.
 
Back
Top