Is polygamy truly unBiblical?

[Swordman]

Greetings everyone.

Before I say anything else, please allow me to point out that I was raised Southern Baptist and have not changed since. I am not a Mormon. Besides, Mormons did not invent polygamy.

Now, I was wondering if anyone has ever found a Biblical teaching that truly limits a man to only one wife? The reason I am asking this is because I have heard some Biblical arguments against a man having more than one wife, but closer examination of the Biblical passages involved were proven to be without merit where polygyny is concerned. Too many people are prone to pulling verses out of context in order to mesh them into the theological tapestry of their own making. I would welcome your input if you have one. I only ask that your response be thoughtful, intellectual and Biblically based.

I will make mention of those three verses in Titus and 1 Timothy, "husband of one wife." Different versions of the Bible have translated those verses differently. Also, if one studies the Greek word "mia" translated as "one" in those verses can be shown to be gramatically inconsistent in relation to other verses. The best rendering in those verses for "mia" is actually "first wife," not "one wife." Such rendering demonstrates God's dislike of church leadership being divorced. I can demonstrate this to those of you who would like to see it. There are some translations of the Bible that render "mia" as "first", which is consistent with other passages.

Another observation I have made in this quest is that there are MANY socially engineered theologies within our Western Christian mindset. We are more Greco-Roman in our thinking than most people are willing to admit.

Another popular argument some have put forth concerning a man having more than one wife is that we are instructed by Paul of Tarsus to obey the laws of the land. However, it is only illegal to acquire more than one marriage license at a time. That piece of paper from City Hall is not God's definition of marriage. It is strictly a legal maneuver with its own benefits and problems. God defined marriage once and for all in Genesis. He never relinquished His authority over marriage to mankind. The absence of that piece of paper from City Hall does not constitut sin. If anyone thinks it does, then I would have to see it from the word of God. There is no law in my state that requires a couple to have a license in order for them to be married in accordance with God's definition of marriage. This love affair our churches have historically demonstrated for that license is out of keeping with the word of God. No nation has the right to redefine marriage through its laws or otherwise. Do not get me wrong. I am not opposed to a couple acquiring a license, but I do take great exception to anyone who declares that another couple is "living in sin" simply because they do not have that piece of paper from City Hall. One will search in vain to find that in the word of God. Talking about some nonexistent law concerning that license is nothing but outright dishonesty, or downright ignorance.

I mentioned these things in this posting that will hopefull put to rest some of the support for monogamy-only idealism that really have no substance when one considers what is written, or not written in some cases, in the word of God.

I will give due consideration to all the input I receive as long as it is offered in love rather than anger. Hopefully I will be able to keep up with it all. This issue is not worth becoming angry over. This issue is important to me because it has shown me just how little I knew about the word of God.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in answering this question.

Don

[Bill the Cat]

1Co 7:2 But because of the desires of the flesh, let every man have his wife, and every woman her husband.


Some commentaries on the verse state:

Albert Barnes:
Have his own wife - And one wife to whom he shall be faithful. Polygamy is unlawful under the gospel; and divorce is unlawful. Let every man and woman, therefore, honor the institution of God, and avoid the evils of illicit indulgence.

Adam Clarke:
Let every man have his own wife - Let every man have one woman, his own; and every woman one man, her own. Here, plurality of wives and husbands is most strictly forbidden; and they are commanded to marry for the purpose of procreating children.

John Gill:
let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; that is, let every man that has a wife enjoy her, and make use of her, and let every woman that has an husband, receive him into her embraces; for these words are not to be understood of unmarried persons entering into a marriage state, for the words suppose them in such a state, but of the proper use of the marriage bed; and teach us that marriage, and the use of it, are proper remedies against fornication; and that carnal copulation of a man with a woman ought only to be of husband and wife, or of persons in a married state; and that all other copulations are sinful; and that polygamy is unlawful; and that one man is to have but one wife, and to keep to her; and that one woman is to have but one husband, and to keep to him.

John Wesley:
1Co 7:2 - Yet, when it is needful, in order to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. His own - For Christianity allows no polygamy.

Note the Bible also distinguishes between people with a wife and wives.

[Swordman]

Thanks for your input.

I would like to point out that I have a problem with your application of 1 Cor. 7:2 to and the interpretations of those commentaries. The context of those verses had nothing whatsoever to do with what a man is limited to by way of the number of wives. The context has to do with avoiding fornication and the desires of the flesh, not the number of wives to which a man is limited. Commentaries are very prone indeed to interjecting popular bias and social dogma into their interpretations of various key passages. If this were not true, then commentaries would not portray the vast differences in interpretation of various verses throughout the Bible. They disagree in numerous places. If they did not, then there would be no need for so many on the market.

If I were to carry the commentaries and your reasoning to its logical conclusion, then all believers are limited to having only one son in our families. After all, when Proverbs encourages a man to raise up his "son" (singular) in the admonition of the Lord, then we are therefore limited to having only one son, and no more. This is consistent with the misapplication of 1 Cor. 7:2.

I too was caught up in this line of thinking until I was shown that singularity and plurality in language cannot be applied with such broad brush strokes, especially when the context clearly is being violated as has happened with 1 Cor. 7:2. If I have not understood the context, and it really does address a limitation in the number of wives to which a man is limited, then please quote it to me from your version of the Bible. I do not wish to miss anything that may be of value in answering this question.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Don

[Bill the Cat]

Wow, I never knew that it was a misapplication. Anyway, I rely on commentaries because the people who give them are a bit more educated in Greek and Hebrew than I am. All of the ones I listed agree that this verse in context forbids polygamy. We have to draw logical conclusions from the whole of the text. God only made Adam one wife, and they are the model family, so we should do the same. Jesus has only one Bride as well.

The whole context of 1 Cor 7:1-9 describes a relationship between a man and his wife that is true. But in terms of application, it seems natural to the flow of the argument to apply it to one wife.

In terms of polygamy, in EVERY instance of polygamy listed in the Bible, something negative occurs.

Also note that the first to practice polygamy was of the lineage of Cain.
Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Lastly, Jesus' admonition in Matthew
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

To marry someone else while legally married is adultery. Jesus spells it out quite plainly.

[Woman]

I don't know the answer to your question, but it does raise another. Is there any Biblical teaching which disallows a woman having more than one husband?

It seems to me that in a modern society, this might be much more logical. Given the physical difference in men and women, this would be much more equitable. Having two or more incomes would insure that mother and children could live well. And given the population problems world-wide, this would provide a natural slowing of growth without violating any prohibitions against birth control.

[Jaltus]

Genesis 2

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, 'for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

This allows only one partner for each.

Matthew 6:24

24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

This limits each man to one wife.



Seriously, though, the Genesis command has been seen as the definition of marriage throughout the last 2000 years for the church. It was by mingling with pagan cultures that the Isralite culture allowed polygamy. It was the downfall of the greatest king of Israel, making David greater than Solomon when it should have been the other way around.

Now, Solomon is a byword for someone who had it all and lost it. Why did he lose it? He married 700 wives and had 300 concubines. Nearly all of them were foreign, and each had her own gods. solomon chased pretty skirts and instead found pagan gods. Instead of being faithful to the one who had given him everything, he turned his back on the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to fulfill his own stupid carnal needs. Seriously, who could deal with 1000 mates? He probably did not even know all their names. One can only hope that folly like that is not repeated, but of course other kings did the same thing.

[Sozo]

When did he have time to write?

[Swordman]

Thanks for your response, Bill.

> God only made Adam one wife, and they are the model family, so we should do the same. Jesus has only one Bride as well.

Where it is true that God gave Adam one wife in paradise, it is also true that Adam ran around naked in paradise. I think we can both agree that such a reality certainly is not a model for the rest of us. We cannot legitimately pick and choose from the paradise story what fits our personal fancy. What one man was given is not a measure of what all others should have. God gave Adam one wife, but He gave king David at least two of his plural wives. What we CAN deduce from Adam's having been given one wife is the fact that we are all of one blood since we all came from the same pair of parents, not two. That he was given one wife in paradise is of no great signifigance considering that God gave another man more than one wife AFTER paradise.

> The whole context of 1 Cor 7:1-9 describes a relationship between a man and his wife that is true. But in terms of application, it seems natural to the flow of the argument to apply it to one wife.

However, the author did not establish that application. Forcing meaning into the text what clearly is not there is a common practice, even among commentators.

> In terms of polygamy, in EVERY instance of polygamy listed in the Bible, something negative occurs.

The same thing could be said of the monogamous marriages in the Bible. No marriage is perfect. David's sin was not the result of his having more than one wife. His sin was adultery and murder. The problems that existed with Jacob's wives was the result of his breaking God's Law by marrying two women who were sisters. Ahab had only one wife, and we can see the problems in his marriage and in his leadership. Therefore, your observation is an argument from silence.

> Also note that the first to practice polygamy was of the lineage of Cain.

What if your lineage is of Cain? If this is true, does that make you a bad person? No. Again, to say that it is sin for a man to have more than one wife is to accuse God Himself of sin when He gave King David a plurality of wives. Where it is true that David was a king, that status in life does not mean that he is allowed the "pleasure" of ANY sin that is sin for the rest of us.

> Jesus' admonition in Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I am not sure how you are trying to apply this verse. If I understand your application correctly, then you are now accusing Abraham, Solomon, Jacob, David, Moses and many others of having died without repenting for the sin of fornication.

> To marry someone else while legally married is adultery. Jesus spells it out quite plainly.

Again, you have condemned most of the patriarchs of the Old Testament to Hell for having died in the sin of adultery. The word of God says that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

The Biblical definition of adultery is a man desiring and having sexual relations with another man's wife.

I hope this helps to answer your questions and observations.

Don

[Swordman]

Woman....of the world said:

> I don't know the answer to your question, but it does raise another. Is there any Biblical teaching which disallows a woman having more than one husband?

Yes. A woman having more than one husband violates two main establishments the Lord has put forth for all mankind:

1) Such a marriage is adultery since adultery is defined within the Bible as a man desiring and having sexual relations with another man's wife. In other words, the second man would be having sexual relations with another man's wife, and vice versa.

2) Such a marriage would violate the headship within the family. A woman can have only ONE head, not two or three or four..... No nation can survive with two kings.

There are other reasons as well, but I think this will suffice.

> It seems to me that in a modern society, this might be much more logical. Given the physical difference in men and women, this would be much more equitable. Having two or more incomes would insure that mother and children could live well. And given the population problems world-wide, this would provide a natural slowing of growth without violating any prohibitions against birth control.

Actually, your observation is backwards from the demonstratable model that does exist within this country. I have a dear friend who has three wives. They live in a huge new home, and they are debt free. One of the wives home schools the children while the other two and the husband work outside the home. They are indeed a remarkable family to observe.

Thanks for your input.

Don

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Swordman:

I will reiterate this point because you did not adequately address it...

Jesus' admonition in Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

To which you said,

I am not sure how you are trying to apply this verse. If I understand your application correctly, then you are now accusing Abraham, Solomon, Jacob, David, Moses and many others of having died without repenting for the sin of fornication...
Again, you have condemned most of the patriarchs of the Old Testament to Hell for having died in the sin of adultery. The word of God says that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Actually the New Testament says that God in times past have overlooked the sins previously committed but now is calling men everywhere to repent.

But despite that, you have failed to adequately explain what Jesus' words DO mean, you just countered with an emotive argument.

Jesus said that if you divorce a woman unbiblically and remarry, you are committing adultery. This would make no sense if a man was permitted to have multiple wives. You also have made nonsense of Jesus' teaching about becoming one flesh. The TWO become one flesh, not the three, or the four or the so on and so forth. You also have simply brushed away Paul's words about the requirements for leadership of a man being the husband of ONE wife. You cannot also get around that.

[Woman]

Swordsman: I have a dear friend who has three wives. They live in a huge new home, and they are debt free. One of the wives home schools the children while the other two and the husband work outside the home. They are indeed a remarkable family to observe.

Thanks for your input.

Hmmm, well - at least we know where you're coming from. Out of curiousity, where does this fellow with three wives live? Or are they not really wives, and he's just living in sin with 2 or more of them?

I think many men fantasize about such a set-up. But I seriously doubt many men could handle it or many women would tolerate it. Since it's forbidden in virtually all of the new world, I'd say that society has decided it's just kinky!

:dufus:

[Swordman]

> Genesis 2

> 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, 'for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

> This allows only one partner for each.

However, God never declared Adam's having been given one wife in paradise to be the model for all the rest of mankind. Adam also ran around naked, but we believers do not apply that to all mankind down through all the ages. What is your basis of authority as to which parts of the paradise story can be applied to all mankind and which cannot? What defines the placement of that line? Do you have one, or are you going along with what others have taught you? I am asking because I am genuinely interested in how one can know for sure what applies to all of us and what does not. What we call "common sense" does not always suffice when you consider our many liberal denominations and what they believe to be relevant today. Therefore, we must have an external authority to ourselves that can authoritatively determine what is relevant and what is not.

> Matthew 6:24

> 24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

> This limits each man to one wife.

A wife is not a master in the home, so this really makes no sense to me. The context of this has nothing to do with the number of wives a man may have. This is completely out of context, and is therefore a gross misapplication. However, it is humorous when considering the undertone involved. (wink)

> Seriously, though, the Genesis command has been seen as the definition of marriage throughout the last 2000 years for the church.

If this is true, then why is it that most of the patriarchs completely missed it? You would think that the Lord would have said SOMETHING to at least ONE of those men at SOME point for having missed his "command" in Genesis.

> It was by mingling with pagan cultures that the Isralite culture allowed polygamy.

We are not told that Abraham took another wife because of the pagans all around him. To tell the truth, God made governing provision in His written Law for a man to have more than one wife. There is even one place where He commanded it in the case of the brother who dies without an heir. To say that the Israelites did this because of the pagan nations is really more conjecture than real fact. I do not know of any such revelation within the word of God, unless you can give me a reference. If you know of one, please give it to me. This would be a fascinating topic indeed.

> It was the downfall of the greatest king of Israel, making David greater than Solomon when it should have been the other way around.

Polygamy was not the downfall of solomon. We are told that he turned away from the Lord in his old age because of his following after the strange gods of his wives. Ahab had only one wife (Jezebel), and he followed after her strange gods. David's fall was also not the result of having more than one wife. David's sin was adultery and murder, not polygamy. After all, it is God who gave David at least two of his 12+ wives.

> Seriously, who could deal with 1000 mates?

It is true that multiplying wives to himself was a clear violation of God's Law. However, be careful with that word "multiply," because it does not mean what many think it to mean.

Thanks

Don

[Swordman]

> I will reiterate this point because you did not adequately address it...

> “ Jesus' admonition in Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ”

I was never talking about a man putting away his wife. My question dealt strictly with a man having more than one wife. The verse above has to do with divorce, not having more than one wife. Polygamy and divorce are not at all the same thing. Does that answer your question?

> Actually the New Testament says that God in times past have overlooked the sins previously committed but now is calling men everywhere to repent.

What sins was He talking about? Can any of us know for sure what sins He was referring to? It would be mere assumption to lump polygamy into any list one would think God to be referring to in the verse to which you are referring. Again, if it were a sin for a man to have more than one wife, then God Himself was involved in sin when He gave David several of his wives.

> But despite that, you have failed to adequately explain what Jesus' words DO mean, you just countered with an emotive argument.

Jesus' words were directed at divorce. That is what His words mean. Any divorce outside of Biblical allowance is wrong. I agree with you, but your bringing this up in the midst of a discussion on polygamy is nebulous at best. I was simply dumbfounded as to what divorce had to do with polygamy.

> Jesus said that if you divorce a woman unbiblically and remarry, you are committing adultery.

I agree with you.

> This would make no sense if a man was permitted to have multiple wives.

Not at all. It makes great sense. What makes no sense is trying to lump the issue of divorce into the issue of polygamy. A man does not have to divorce his first wife in order to marry another.....unless you are talking our LEGAL system of marriage. When I speak of marriage, the perspective I am coming from is from God's definition of marriage, not man's definition of marriage. God never gave man the authority to redefine marriage, even though mankind has thought himself to be authorized by God to define marriage through his petty licenses, ceremonies. and various other traditions we practice today.

Now, if I have still missed your point, then please elaborate further. I will be more than happy to answer you.

> You also have made nonsense of Jesus' teaching about becoming one flesh. The TWO become one flesh, not the three, or the four or the so on and so forth.

Not at all. The "one flesh" aspect of marriage is a spiritual visualization, not a physical one. We are all joined together into one body through Christ Jesus. We are one in Him, and yet we are still MANY individuals. When you consider that each wife is joined together into ONE family through the husband, the imagry is cinsistent between Christ and his Church and the husband with more than one wife. To say that the spiritual imagry it is not consistent is to assume a level of knowledge about spiritual things that you have never seen with your own eyes. When I say that they are consistent, I speak from a viewpoint of what ALL scripture has to say on this subject. If a man could not be one with more than one wife, then God certainly would not have given king David several.

> You also have simply brushed away Paul's words about the requirements for leadership of a man being the husband of ONE wife. You cannot also get around that.

I would never try to get around it. I have a good answer to it. However, since your words to me appear to be more accusatory than discussion, I think it best to stop here and move on.

In Christ Jesus

Don

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Swordman:

I was never talking about a man putting away his wife. My question dealt strictly with a man having more than one wife. The verse above has to do with divorce, not having more than one wife. Polygamy and divorce are not at all the same thing. Does that answer your question?

No it does not. And you still have not explained the quandry this puts you in. If a man were allowed more than one wife, Jesus' statement would make no sense. Why would he be committing adultery if he married again? Wasn't he permitted to marry as many times as he wanted to?

What sins was He talking about? Can any of us know for sure what sins He was referring to? It would be mere assumption to lump polygamy into any list one would think God to be referring to in the verse to which you are referring.

It is mere assumption to say that it is not. You raised an emotive argument and I countered it. You still have not explained how what Jesus said made any sense in the paradigm you are advocating.

Not at all. It makes great sense. What makes no sense is trying to lump the issue of divorce into the issue of polygamy. A man does not have to divorce his first wife in order to marry another.....unless you are talking our LEGAL system of marriage.

And no one said that. You have yet to explain how a man would be committing adultery if he married again after divoricing his wife. The whole principle of that statement is that Jesus is stating that the man is STILL married to that woman he allegedly divorced and because he is STILL married, he cannot marry another. It is crystal clear and unavoidable.

Not at all. The "one flesh" aspect of marriage is a spiritual visualization, not a physical one.

And I repeat it is the TWO that are to become ONE, not the the more than TWO. You have not dealt with that. And you make an assumption that the one flesh is a spiritual visualization only, you have not proven that, and certainly I would say that Jewish tradition disagrees with you. BOTH aspects are in view. Your analogy of the Church is in error. There is just ONE Church. One BRIDE, one Husband.

I would never try to get around it. I have a good answer to it. However, since your words to me appear to be more accusatory than discussion, I think it best to stop here and move on.

If you mean that I am "accusing" you of mishandling that passage, yes I am. It is not met as a personal slur but rather a firm statement of conviction.

[Socrates]

Yeah, monogamy is definitely the Biblical ideal, while polygamy was at best tolerated, never encouraged, and was always negative. This has been covered well here, esp. by the points about the original institution of marriage in Genesis which Christ endorsed in Mt. 19 and Mark 10.

AiG has an article Does the Bible clearly teach monogamy? and Tekton has Polygamy in the Bible refuting a village atheist and A Look at a "Christian Polygamy" Site.