Hey Steve,
This is Aaron from YWAM Jacksonville. You spoke in my SOFM a few weeks back. I've got a question for you. What exactly does the Bible say about polygamy? We were having a discussion about cross-cultural issues the church has to deal with and that one came up and caused quite a stir with people on both sides:
1) polygamy is only forbidden for church leaders and
2) it's never allowed and always evil no matter what the cultural context.
I was just interested to hear your view on the subject.
Aaron
Is polygamy forbidden only for church leaders?
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Is polygamy forbidden only for church leaders?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hey Aaron!
So you want to get me into trouble? Whenever I am asked about polygamy, I am torn between giving the acceptable answer and giving the biblical answer. As a Bible teacher, I am required to give the latter, though it will make 90% of the Christian population angry at me.
Biblically, there is no law or command directly forbidding polygamy. In fact, the law made specific provision for a married man taking additional wives, so long as the first wife's "marriage rights" were not reduced by the introduction of the new wife (Ex.21:10). God Himself is even represented as having two wives simultaneously (Ezekiel 23:2ff). In a society where having children meant everything to a man, polygamy was often a solution to a first wife's barrenness (e.g. Abraham; Elkanah). In times where the male population was decimated by heavy war losses, and where widowhood was the worst conceivable state for women, polygamy might also be the lesser of two evils for bereft women (Isa.3:25 and 4:1).
The law indeed forbade the kings of Israel from "multiplying wives" (Deut.17:17), though this hardly means that it was wrong to have more than one, since they were also forbidden to "multiply horses" (Deut.17:16), and few would wish to contend that kings should own only one horse. Though Solomon was in clear violation of this law in having 700 wives, David, in having eight, might not have been. Perhaps he could argue that he had not "multiplied" wives...he had only "added" them. In any case, God's prophet told David that God Himself had given David Saul's widows as additional wives, and would have given David more besides, if David had required them (2 Sam.12:8)! In the New Testament, church elders/overseers were to have only one wife (1 Tim.3:2/Titus 1:6). The very stating of this qualification in the choosing of church leaders suggests that there might have been some men in the church, who would otherwise be considered for the position, but who should be excluded due to their having more than one wife. Those who had more than one wife were not permitted to be leaders (whose lives must model Christian norms), but they were not branded as adulterers either.
The biblical norm for marriage is monogamy. This is particularly clear from God's original creation of one man and one woman (Matt.19:4-5). Since they were given instruction to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth, one might think that this task could have been expedited had God given Adam multiple wives, had there not been overriding considerations requiring monogamy. Apparently such compelling reasons for monogamy exist in the mind of God.
Additionally, the New Testament teaches that the ideal marriage is a reflection of Christ and the Church (Eph.5:30-32). Christ has only one bride, so a polygamous family falls short of reflecting this ideal. Also, there is a suggestion in 1 Corinthians 7:4 that a wife has the same exclusive claim to her husband's body as the husband has to his wife's. In polygamous societies, the husband has exclusive rights to his wife (i.e., no other man can share her with him), but the wife does not have such unchallenged claim to her husband (since she shares him with other wives). Thus Christians should only consider monogamy as a model for their own family lives.
But what should missionaries do when they encounter Muslim converts (or tribal people) who already legitimately have more than one wife? Traditionally, Western missionaries have required that such male converts put away all wives other than their first, and adopt the monogamous ideal. I question the wisdom, morality and scripturality of this practice. These wives have entered into good-faith, legally-binding marriages with their polygamous husbands and may have children by them as well. They might prefer to keep their relationships with their husbands and their children's father. If there were a direct command of Scripture forbidding polygamy, then these considerations would have to be cast aside in favor of their abandoning their sinfully enacted marriages. But since the Bible nowhere says that polygamy is a sin (whereas it DOES forbid groundless divorce), I think we should leave things as they are and simply instruct, as Paul did, when speaking of marital circumstances, that each person should "remain with God in that calling in which he was called" (1 Cor.7:24), but to recognize and instruct the church that this kind of arrangement is not to be normalized in Christianity.
It is clear that, although polygamy is not called sin in the Scripture, it is nonetheless a deviation from the creation pattern, from New Testament ideal, and (it so happens) no polygamous family in Scripture was ever depicted as a happy one!
Well, there you have it! If I can help out further, let me know. I just hope you don't get yourself and me excommunicated!
In Jesus,
Steve Gregg
So you want to get me into trouble? Whenever I am asked about polygamy, I am torn between giving the acceptable answer and giving the biblical answer. As a Bible teacher, I am required to give the latter, though it will make 90% of the Christian population angry at me.
Biblically, there is no law or command directly forbidding polygamy. In fact, the law made specific provision for a married man taking additional wives, so long as the first wife's "marriage rights" were not reduced by the introduction of the new wife (Ex.21:10). God Himself is even represented as having two wives simultaneously (Ezekiel 23:2ff). In a society where having children meant everything to a man, polygamy was often a solution to a first wife's barrenness (e.g. Abraham; Elkanah). In times where the male population was decimated by heavy war losses, and where widowhood was the worst conceivable state for women, polygamy might also be the lesser of two evils for bereft women (Isa.3:25 and 4:1).
The law indeed forbade the kings of Israel from "multiplying wives" (Deut.17:17), though this hardly means that it was wrong to have more than one, since they were also forbidden to "multiply horses" (Deut.17:16), and few would wish to contend that kings should own only one horse. Though Solomon was in clear violation of this law in having 700 wives, David, in having eight, might not have been. Perhaps he could argue that he had not "multiplied" wives...he had only "added" them. In any case, God's prophet told David that God Himself had given David Saul's widows as additional wives, and would have given David more besides, if David had required them (2 Sam.12:8)! In the New Testament, church elders/overseers were to have only one wife (1 Tim.3:2/Titus 1:6). The very stating of this qualification in the choosing of church leaders suggests that there might have been some men in the church, who would otherwise be considered for the position, but who should be excluded due to their having more than one wife. Those who had more than one wife were not permitted to be leaders (whose lives must model Christian norms), but they were not branded as adulterers either.
The biblical norm for marriage is monogamy. This is particularly clear from God's original creation of one man and one woman (Matt.19:4-5). Since they were given instruction to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth, one might think that this task could have been expedited had God given Adam multiple wives, had there not been overriding considerations requiring monogamy. Apparently such compelling reasons for monogamy exist in the mind of God.
Additionally, the New Testament teaches that the ideal marriage is a reflection of Christ and the Church (Eph.5:30-32). Christ has only one bride, so a polygamous family falls short of reflecting this ideal. Also, there is a suggestion in 1 Corinthians 7:4 that a wife has the same exclusive claim to her husband's body as the husband has to his wife's. In polygamous societies, the husband has exclusive rights to his wife (i.e., no other man can share her with him), but the wife does not have such unchallenged claim to her husband (since she shares him with other wives). Thus Christians should only consider monogamy as a model for their own family lives.
But what should missionaries do when they encounter Muslim converts (or tribal people) who already legitimately have more than one wife? Traditionally, Western missionaries have required that such male converts put away all wives other than their first, and adopt the monogamous ideal. I question the wisdom, morality and scripturality of this practice. These wives have entered into good-faith, legally-binding marriages with their polygamous husbands and may have children by them as well. They might prefer to keep their relationships with their husbands and their children's father. If there were a direct command of Scripture forbidding polygamy, then these considerations would have to be cast aside in favor of their abandoning their sinfully enacted marriages. But since the Bible nowhere says that polygamy is a sin (whereas it DOES forbid groundless divorce), I think we should leave things as they are and simply instruct, as Paul did, when speaking of marital circumstances, that each person should "remain with God in that calling in which he was called" (1 Cor.7:24), but to recognize and instruct the church that this kind of arrangement is not to be normalized in Christianity.
It is clear that, although polygamy is not called sin in the Scripture, it is nonetheless a deviation from the creation pattern, from New Testament ideal, and (it so happens) no polygamous family in Scripture was ever depicted as a happy one!
Well, there you have it! If I can help out further, let me know. I just hope you don't get yourself and me excommunicated!
In Jesus,
Steve Gregg
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Exception
The application of what was known as "Levirate Law" would have undoubtably forced many polygynies on Isrealites. Though it would have been the coincidental result of following one of God's laws, it was nonetheless a real one. I can find no indication anywhere that monogamy was God's ideal for mankind, particularly since no restriction existed for his people Isreal to stay with a "One Husband, One Wife Only" model. I find that your willingness to hear what God has to say in his word to be a rare thing.Steve wrote:"It is clear that, although polygamy is not called sin in the Scripture, it is nonetheless a deviation from the creation pattern, from New Testament ideal, and (it so happens) no polygamous family in Scripture was ever depicted as a happy one!"
Hugh McBryde
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for your comment. You may be right, but I think it significant that the only form of marriage that God created, and that existed before the fall was monogamous marriage. I agree that there is no objection to polygamy found in the Old Testament, and no strong words against it in the New Testament.
I think, though, that the fact that elders were to be in monogmous marriages suggests that this was the pattern that Christians should generally seek to follow (since, I think, elders were to be examples of ideal Christian living).
That there were some Christians who had acquired multiple wives (probably before conversion), and who were apparently never required to change their circumstance after conversion seems likely to me. Thus continuing in a polygamous family was apparently not regarded to be sinful, but, I think, it was discouraged and eventually died out as a practice in Christian lands.
It is not men who have the strongest objections to polygamy, of course, since polygamy was always one-sided (that is, only the man could have multiple partners). Therefore any courage required in speaking truthfully about this subject is seen in the risking of the opprobrium of the women-folk. I would rather avoid this, but I also must be biblical.
I assure you, I would never consider having more than one wife. One is trouble enough. :-)
Thanks for your comment. You may be right, but I think it significant that the only form of marriage that God created, and that existed before the fall was monogamous marriage. I agree that there is no objection to polygamy found in the Old Testament, and no strong words against it in the New Testament.
I think, though, that the fact that elders were to be in monogmous marriages suggests that this was the pattern that Christians should generally seek to follow (since, I think, elders were to be examples of ideal Christian living).
That there were some Christians who had acquired multiple wives (probably before conversion), and who were apparently never required to change their circumstance after conversion seems likely to me. Thus continuing in a polygamous family was apparently not regarded to be sinful, but, I think, it was discouraged and eventually died out as a practice in Christian lands.
It is not men who have the strongest objections to polygamy, of course, since polygamy was always one-sided (that is, only the man could have multiple partners). Therefore any courage required in speaking truthfully about this subject is seen in the risking of the opprobrium of the women-folk. I would rather avoid this, but I also must be biblical.
I assure you, I would never consider having more than one wife. One is trouble enough. :-)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
The scriptures indicate that the rules of adultery are exactly the same, according to Jesus, for both the man and woman, Mark 10:11-12. Does your idea of polygamy being not forbidden apply to the woman also? Can you cite any case in the New Testament where polygamy is approved?
In Christ, Homer
The scriptures indicate that the rules of adultery are exactly the same, according to Jesus, for both the man and woman, Mark 10:11-12. Does your idea of polygamy being not forbidden apply to the woman also? Can you cite any case in the New Testament where polygamy is approved?
In Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
They're the same?
Homer,
Mark 10 says the rules are exactly the same? This is news to me. I suggest you look at 2nd Corinthians 11 very closely. Either there are other brides, or Paul is damned.
Hugh McBryde
Mark 10 says the rules are exactly the same? This is news to me. I suggest you look at 2nd Corinthians 11 very closely. Either there are other brides, or Paul is damned.
I would point out that we don't know what God's plan for Adam was, as he and Eve both fell into sin before that plan was completed. I'm inclined to believe that for Adam and Eve it was monogamy, but frankly we don't know.Steve wrote:"You may be right, but I think it significant that the only form of marriage that God created, and that existed before the fall was monogamous marriage."
But it is not possible for women to follow the example of elders, and be men. Upon closer examination, there are three things I count on the list that don't constitute ideals, if not more. How about "above reproach?" Doesn't this deal with reputation and couldn't someone have an undeserved poor reputation? I center on several things. Polygynous men were usually wealthier than monogamous men, there are cautions against honoring the Rich simply because they are Rich. Polygynous men have more concerns at home. Paul does advise that a married man is concerned for the things of the world and how to please his wife, how much more so would a man with several wives be concerned in that way? Lastly, it's extra-Biblical, but it is well know that Roman Citizens had to be monogamous. Perhaps Paul wanted his elders to have standing in the community. The fact is we don't know why it is that Paul made this a condition of office, but he did. He doesn't take the time to extend this mandate to others in the congregation and by making what must be seen as an exception, he is screaming at the top of his lungs that there were polygynous men in the churches.Steve wrote:"I think, though, that the fact that elders were to be in monogmous marriages suggests that this was the pattern that Christians should generally seek to follow (since, I think, elders were to be examples of ideal Christian living)."
Actually, that's polygyny.Steve wrote:"It is not men who have the strongest objections to polygamy, of course, since polygamy was always one-sided (that is, only the man could have multiple partners). "
There are implications for dealing with divorce and the topic of adultery, the only valid cause for believers to divorce.Steve wrote:"Therefore any courage required in speaking truthfully about this subject is seen in the risking of the opprobrium of the women-folk. I would rather avoid this, but I also must be biblical."
One is enough for me as well.Steve wrote:"I assure you, I would never consider having more than one wife. One is trouble enough."
Hugh McBryde
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Homer,
You asked two questions. Though I have little time, I will give brief answers:
1. " Does your idea of polygamy being not forbidden apply to the woman also?"
In the Bible, women could never have more than one husband (see Romans 7:1ff). I think there were two reasons, primarily for this.
The first is that the primary reason for a man to have more than one wife, it seems, was to build a family more quickly. This could happen if a man had several wives, but not if a woman had several husbands.
Another reason for the double standard has a lot to do with inheritance rights, and being able to establish who one's father was. A woman with more than one husband might easily mistake who the father of her child was. No such problem with a man who has multiple wives.
Thirdly, in some cases, polygamy was an alternative to welfare at times when the male population was greatly reduced by war, leaving many widows without support. Men, in ancient times, did not need women to support them financially. Thus, few societies--least of all Israel--saw any justification for women having multiple spouses.
2. " Can you cite any case in the New Testament where polygamy is approved?"
No
You asked two questions. Though I have little time, I will give brief answers:
1. " Does your idea of polygamy being not forbidden apply to the woman also?"
In the Bible, women could never have more than one husband (see Romans 7:1ff). I think there were two reasons, primarily for this.
The first is that the primary reason for a man to have more than one wife, it seems, was to build a family more quickly. This could happen if a man had several wives, but not if a woman had several husbands.
Another reason for the double standard has a lot to do with inheritance rights, and being able to establish who one's father was. A woman with more than one husband might easily mistake who the father of her child was. No such problem with a man who has multiple wives.
Thirdly, in some cases, polygamy was an alternative to welfare at times when the male population was greatly reduced by war, leaving many widows without support. Men, in ancient times, did not need women to support them financially. Thus, few societies--least of all Israel--saw any justification for women having multiple spouses.
2. " Can you cite any case in the New Testament where polygamy is approved?"
No
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hugh,
I'm not following your argument. Are you saying Christ has more than one bride? Please explain what you see in 2 Cor. 11 that supports your position.
In Christ, Homer
I'm not following your argument. Are you saying Christ has more than one bride? Please explain what you see in 2 Cor. 11 that supports your position.
In Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
How can Paul be saved, if he is father of the Bride?
Paul betrothes the bride, which is in this case, not the "single" bride example of Ephesians 5 (namely the whole universal church) but only the Corinthian church. Thus Paul is not in THAT bride, so if Paul is not part of the church wedding themselves to Christ in the 2nd Corinthians example, what bride is he part of? Also, where does that leave the other churches? I think the understandable take on Ephesians 5 is that it is about a monogamous relationship, but it's just an example, as 2nd Corinthians 11 is. 2nd Corinthians 11 is a polygynous model. Both serve to illustrate, neither are meant to promote either form of marriage.
Those that look at Ephesians 5 see it is an exclusive endorsement of monogamy, even though that is not stated. The problem with passages like 2nd Corinthians 11 is that it goes back to Old Testament examples in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in which God is depicted as having more than one wife. Polygyny is thus validated by it's use in the example, as God would not do something sinful.
Please understand that I see the Old Testament examples as sufficient but I realize there are those who ask the New Testament to reassert models of behavior or they seek to "sunset" them. I don't have such a problem, but I realize others want it to be re-instituted in the New.
Hugh McBryde
Those that look at Ephesians 5 see it is an exclusive endorsement of monogamy, even though that is not stated. The problem with passages like 2nd Corinthians 11 is that it goes back to Old Testament examples in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in which God is depicted as having more than one wife. Polygyny is thus validated by it's use in the example, as God would not do something sinful.
Please understand that I see the Old Testament examples as sufficient but I realize there are those who ask the New Testament to reassert models of behavior or they seek to "sunset" them. I don't have such a problem, but I realize others want it to be re-instituted in the New.
Hugh McBryde
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
First of all I must say that what God tolerated in the ages prior to Messiah's reign has, to my mind, no relevance to the issue of polygamy for us today. We could just as well argue that concubines are acceptable and that it is good and proper to father children by a widowed sister-in-law.
Neither do I see any support for the acceptability of polygamy in the instructions to Timothy regarding elders. The language regarding widows in 1 Tim. 5:9, literally "of one man wife", corresponds to that regarding elders in 1 Tim. 3:2, literally "of one wife husband", so also in Titus 1:6. If the passages indicate some men were polygymists they indicate some of the women were too!
The "of one man wife" statement seems most likely to mean a man who has not divorced a wife and remarried, except on the grounds of fornication. Absent the exception allowed by Jesus, wouldn't the man be considered to be an adulterer because he was still married to his first wife in the eyes of God?
I Believe Jesus set the standard (or reiterated God's original standard) in Matt. 19:3-9 and any deviation from this standard is sin. Jesus informs us the husband and wife are joined together, "no longer two but one flesh". If three more wives are added, are the five now one flesh?
If polygamy was acceptable to Jesus, in Matt. 19:9 why didn't Jesus tell them if they wanted a new wife to go ahead and marry her, just don't get rid of the first one one?
Steve, being a hierarchicalist, I can agree in certain cases it might be God's will for a polygamist who becomes a Christian to keep his wives and children. A missionary to Africa we helped support for years came to this conclusion. The Royal Law took precedent over the law on marriage. I have to say you occasionally slip into the hierarchicalist camp, perhaps unaware!
Blessings, both Steve and Hugh, Homer
Neither do I see any support for the acceptability of polygamy in the instructions to Timothy regarding elders. The language regarding widows in 1 Tim. 5:9, literally "of one man wife", corresponds to that regarding elders in 1 Tim. 3:2, literally "of one wife husband", so also in Titus 1:6. If the passages indicate some men were polygymists they indicate some of the women were too!
The "of one man wife" statement seems most likely to mean a man who has not divorced a wife and remarried, except on the grounds of fornication. Absent the exception allowed by Jesus, wouldn't the man be considered to be an adulterer because he was still married to his first wife in the eyes of God?
I Believe Jesus set the standard (or reiterated God's original standard) in Matt. 19:3-9 and any deviation from this standard is sin. Jesus informs us the husband and wife are joined together, "no longer two but one flesh". If three more wives are added, are the five now one flesh?
If polygamy was acceptable to Jesus, in Matt. 19:9 why didn't Jesus tell them if they wanted a new wife to go ahead and marry her, just don't get rid of the first one one?
Steve, being a hierarchicalist, I can agree in certain cases it might be God's will for a polygamist who becomes a Christian to keep his wives and children. A missionary to Africa we helped support for years came to this conclusion. The Royal Law took precedent over the law on marriage. I have to say you occasionally slip into the hierarchicalist camp, perhaps unaware!
Blessings, both Steve and Hugh, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean