OBJECTIONS TO POLYGAMY By Sam Chapman

[Adrianne Brown]

OBJECTIONS TO POLYGAMY

AND THEIR COMMON-SENSE ANSWERS

Copyright © 1996 Sam Chapman

This article is a three for one deal. Sam Chapman wrote the information on this page as four different web pages. You can view them at his Polygamy Information Page.
Sam Chapman also authored the book "http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=12007">Polygamy,
Bigamy, and Human Rights Law. If you like Sam's writing, you will
want to join his Facebook page, "http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=720959063&k=55M3PWQX4WTAZCDBSEY3">Christians
Open to Polygamy.

OBJECTIONS THAT CHRISTIANS MAY HAVE HEARD

This page contains an introduction to common objections, followed by a brief presentation of each one, and then a Bible-based answer to it. The objections dealt with are listed under each link. The objections are given
names for ease of reference, and these names follow the style of Professor
Anthony Flew's "Thinking about Thinking", where he gives names to
unreasonable arguments.

COMMON CHRISTIAN OBJECTIONS	MORE OBJECTIONS	EVEN MORE OBJECTIONS
1) The Adam and Eve Defence 2) The "One Flesh" Gambit 3) The Bad Effects Fallacy 4) The "Not the Ideal" Diversion 5) The "Against the Law" Misunderstanding	6) The "Mormon Heresy" Distraction 7) The Adultery Confusion 8) The Modernisation Myth 9) The Dispensational Division 10) The Sex-Mad Story	11) The Bad Witness Conundrum 12) The Snowed-Under Dilemma 13) The Cash Consideration 14) The Law's Limitation 15) The Commands Conflict

COMMON CHRISTIAN OBJECTIONS TO POLYGAMY

These pages contain an introduction to common objections some Christians have to polygamy, followed by a brief presentation of each one, and then a Bible-based answer to it. The objections dealt with are listed under each
link. The objections are given (hopefully) humourous names for ease of
reference. Not everyone likes the names or the humour, but it is generally
held to be appropriate to name fallacies, and so that is done here.

Many Christians read about polygamy in the Bible, but have a gut feeling that it is wrong. They often think that it must be banned somewhere in the Bible, and perhaps recall sermons when Christian leaders either directly
condemned it or hinted that it was sinful. But they also know that we
cannot rely on other people to do our Christianity for us, and so we can't
simply take someone else's word about what the Bible says - we have to
check it out for ourselves to see if God really says that.

Perhaps you are reading these words because you have experienced a common problem involving the Bible and polygamy. Perhaps you have read the Bible and discovered examples of polygamy in it. It seems strange that many
men of God were polygamists but that the popular teaching in Christendom
today is that marriage means monogamy. Perhaps you have read through each
book, and not only seen examples of polygamy, but failed to find anywhere
that it was condemned. When you talk to people about why they hold to the
teaching of monogamy, they may not know the reasons but may repeat the ones
they have heard, which can seem to be poor and ill-founded. You may be
aware of the danger that we have been taught monogamy from our culture, or
from other Christians who believe it because of their culture, rather than
because of the Bible. If we really believe that our morality should depend
on what the Bible says, then we cannot ignore what it says about polygamy,
and so we need to consider the issue thoroughly so that we can resolve
it.

To help you do this without wasting much time we have collected together all the objections we have heard, so that you can examine them and our response to them. It is useful to consider whether there would be
sufficient evidence for each of these objections to polygamy to stand as
proven in a court of law. After all, if someone was saying that your
marriage was sinful, you would probably ask them to prove it.

And now...the objections!

The following objections are given names for ease of reference, and these names follow the style of Professor Anthony Flew's "Thinking about Thinking", where he gives names to arguments that he believes are
unreasonable.

Some people have not liked the names, and have criticised us for using them, without ever tackling the answers to the objections themselves. The use of the names shows that debates about polygamy are sometimes like games
of chess. A person may start off using a particular "gambit" or series of
moves, and the other side responds. Sadly this means that instead of
serious consideration of what the Bible teaches, the debate is reduced to
being little more than a game. We believe that none of these arguments
stand up to close examination, but because there are so many of them,
people can often switch from one to the other so that a debate generates
much heat and little light.

If you read the material on this site and still believe that the Bible teaches that polygamy is a sin, consider telling us why you believe that. What objection has not been answered properly, or what new
objection has been missed? We would really like to know.

1) THE ADAM AND EVE DEFENCE

Adam was given Eve as his wife. He was given one wife, not two or three or four. One wife was enough for Adam. One wife was what God intended. Marriage today should be "as it was in the beginning". If God had
wanted Adam to be a polygamist he'd have given him more wives.

Marriage should be "as it was in the beginning", and when Christ used these words he was actually talking about the permanency of marriage, and of how he didn't like men putting away their wives. There is no authority
for applying the words any further than that. If we are obliged to follow
every detail of the first marriage then we must remember that Adam and Eve
walked around naked, their sons married their daughters, and that they were
created perfect and sinless. We, on the other hand, tend to wear clothes a
lot, (well I do, anyway), find that incest is unlawful and immoral, and are
far from perfect and sinless.

One wife was enough for Adam to start with. We don't know if he took any more wives because the Bible doesn't say. Another way of looking at it would be to say that in the beginning Adam married every woman that was
available. The Bible does not draw a one man/one woman rule from Adam and
Eve, so why should we? We could just as easily form a rule to marry all
available women, but we would be very busy, and the rule just as valid. It
is dangerous to take a situation and form a rule when the Bible doesn't
openly do that. It is a way of making the Bible say what we want, rather
than what it means.

The simple answer is that no such rule exists. Adam and Eve is history. It's what happened, and it tells us that God wants marriage to be permanent; it tells us why God made man, and the different reasons he made
woman. It tells us that man sinned by disobedience, although many of the
uninformed think sex was the forbidden fruit. It tells us that sex is made
for marriage, and that marriage and sex are for people of different
genders. These things are all reinforced elsewhere in the Bible in case
there should be any doubt. But there is no prohibition of polygamy, here or
anywhere else.

We know that Genesis does not give us all the possible options for mankind because Adam didn't have the option of celibacy that is found elsewhere in the Bible. He was commanded to "go forth and multiply". One
wife may well have been what God intended for Adam, but he might have
something different in mind for you. If we accept that, unlike Adam and
Eve, this could be celibacy, then that also means that, unlike Adam and
Eve, it could be polygamy.

Those who teach that monogamy is the only way to live need to explain how they can do that without banning celibacy, without allowing incest, without promoting nudism, without saying that a man should marry every
single woman who is available, and even without requiring that men can only
marry someone miraculously formed from the material in one of their ribs.
If they cannot explain why they pick one of these rules without accepting
the others then we may think that there is no good reason to accept what
they say about the text teaching monogamy.

2) THE "ONE FLESH" GAMBIT

Adam and Eve were to be "one flesh". It says "the TWO will be ONE flesh". How could a man be one flesh with two women? One Man - One Woman - One Flesh, it's easy!

Firstly, let us remember that the man who committed Genesis and the words "the two shall be one flesh" to paper (well, parchment) was none other than Moses. Moses himself had Zipporah, a Midianite, as his wife (see
Exodus 2 vv 16-21) and his brother and sister rebelled against him because
of an Ethiopian wife which he had (see Numbers 12 v 1). If you want to get
into the complexities of it you can establish that he had both these wives
at the same time and that they were different people. So Moses had two
wives at the same time, and he recorded these words in Genesis, without
perceiving any contradiction. He then went on to regulate polygamy,
allowing it to exist under the law, with no mention of it breaking anything
mentioned in Genesis. This in itself may cause us to suspect that this
objection is not very well founded.

However, this objection not only looks suspect, but can be easily disproved. The passage that establishes that two become one is quoted in 1 Corinthians 6 vv15-17 to establish that "he that is joined to an harlot is
one body" and to compare with "he that is joined to the Lord is one
Spirit". The same passage talks of how bad it is to take the "members of
Christ" and make them "members of an harlot". So the "one flesh" concept is
not limited to marriage but can also apply to sex with a prostitute. As
prostitutes tend to have sex with more than one man, it follows that they
are "one flesh" with more than one person. Just as this can apply with
these immoral relations outside marriage, so it can also apply within
marriage to instances where there is more than one wife.

So, either those who insist on monogamy must claim that Paul was talking about the world's first monogamous prostitute, or they must accept that you can be "one flesh" with more than one person. But if they accept that, then
it is clear that it cannot be an argument against polygamy.

And, as if that was not enough the passage then says that the "One-ness" of Spirit that a Christian has when joined to the Lord is comparable to the "one-ness" of flesh that a man has with a woman, which is why it is
important that it should be pure. But I am joined to the Lord, and many
other Christians are joined to the Lord. The concept of "One-ness" or unity
does not prevent the Lord from being One Spirit with many millions of
individuals, and therefore does not prevent a man from being one flesh with
more than one wife.

So this one passage shows in two different ways that "one flesh" is not a problem for polygamy.

We make a mistake when we try to say you can't be one with more than one! After all, this is not simple maths, for normally 1+1=2, but God has made marriage such that 1+1=1, and so it follows that marriage could allow
1+1+1=1. As Christians we should rejoice that the Bible teaches these
things, for not only is God allowing the man and women to become
inseparable, but he also shows this in the production of children. When
children are born we see the literal fulfillment of the spiritual rule of
"one flesh", for with the benefit of modern science we know that a child's
DNA is made up half from its mother and half from its father. Therefore the
two really do become one flesh. However the Bible records God telling us
this 6000 years before scientists discovered it - yet another proof of the
authority of the Bible.

A reader of this page has added that perhaps the true maths to use is that of multiplication, i.e. 1x1=1 and 1x1x1=1. Either way, it is clear that the maths that God is using here is in no way in conflict with
polygamy.

Find other views here

3) THE BAD EFFECTS FALLACY

Polygamy in the Bible is associated with bad things happening, jealousy, murder and immorality. Whilst it is not condemned outright, we can tell it's bad because of the things associated with it and
the bad consequences it has.

This argument has about three different forms.

1) Bad thing happen to polygamists, so polygamy must be bad.

This argument has a surface appeal to it because often things go wrong for bible polygamists, but examination shows that it is not because they were polygamists that things went wrong. Things also go wrong for
monogamists and celibates, and it is not due to their respective
lifestyles. For example, Solomon was not criticised for having so many
wives, but he was punished for allowing them to lead him into idolatry. It
is pretty poor to attack polygamy by highlighting the troubles of
polygamists when even a righteous man like Job had troubles.

2) Polygamy creates an opportunity for jealousy. Because it creates an environment in which sin can happen, it is bad.

Marriage creates an opportunity for adultery. Driving a car create an opportunity to break the traffic laws. Waking up in the morning allows you to do all kinds of evil. God created both Adam and Satan. Do any of these
facts mean that the thing which created the opportunity was evil?

No - The Bible teaches us that we are responsible for our own actions, even when others tempt us or when situations mean that sin seems to be the easy way out. The Bible also teaches that these experiences test us and
train us to be better. When we do anything in life which is worthwhile but
difficult, we learn by persevering and we build our character this way.
This site does not teach that polygamy is an easy lifestyle. Simply by
being uncommon and unfamiliar it can have its own set of difficulties. But
this does not mean that it is wrong.

3) Polygamist men did bad things. This shows that polygamy was just another of the bad things they were doing.

It is true that polygamists often did bad things. David, "a man after God's own heart", committed adultery with Uriah's wife; Solomon gave way to idolatry; Lamech killed a man; but Adam brought sin into the world when he
was a monogamist, and many other monogamists and celibates sin, not because
of the number of their wives, but because they are sinners. We all sin,
irrespective of who, or how many we marry, and this says nothing about
marriage, or our other decisions.

4) THE "NOT THE IDEAL" DIVERSION

Polygamy may not be outlawed by God but he does show it's not the ideal by limiting it in the Old Testament and by stopping polygamists from having positions of responsibility in the Christian
Church. He doesn't really like it, even if he didn't say so, and we
shouldn't do it because we should be trying to please him.

The problem here is that God seems to tell us when he doesn't like things. God's people always stood out as different from the nations around them when they did what he asked. God is not "politically correct", and is
not afraid to express his wishes. He created us and made us free, and if he
didn't want us to do something then he told us not to do it. That's why the
Ten Commandments sound negative with their "Thou shalt not"'s, because God
has given freedom outside the law, and then tells people what laws he wants
them to follow. Paul says in Romans 5 v 13 "sin is not imputed when there
is no law" - so, with no law against polygamy, it is not sinful.

Some people claim a precedent in saying that God tolerated unjustified divorce, even though he did not like it, but this is deeply misleading. God showed in the law and the rest of the Bible that he did not like men
putting their wives away treacherously. Christ stated it quite clearly and
explicitly when he fulfilled that law, and his teaching is entirely in line
with what the law taught. Throughout the Bible, and certainly by the time
the Bible closes, God has quite clearly stated his position. But the Bible
has closed without polygamy ever being condemned. And the law that Christ
fulfilled was complete without any condemnation of polygamy. To say that
polygamy is sinful is to accuse Christ of not completing and fulfilling the
law. But it is true to say that realising the truth of what the Bible
teaches about polygamy may cause Christians to reexamine their beliefs
about divorce.

It is simply fanciful to suggest that God is hiding his disapproval from us. It is just as logical to take any other activity allowed by the Bible and to suggest God doesn't actually approve. This is a recipe not just for
legalism but for the rule of man, rather than God, because any man can then
add his prejudices to what God has said. Such an attitude would allow
someone to say that sport is sinful, or reading books, or drinking milk,
and that God just hadn't bothered to tell us - and it would be just as
valid as any prohibition of polygamy. How bizarre!

There are even some who believe that because they can find no explicit reference to music in the New Testament that it is sinful for churches to have music. If you think that is strange, ask yourself how it is different
from someone who says that polygamy is wrong because they can't find it in
the New Testament (by the way, polygamy actually is in the New Testament -
see The Marriage
of Christ and The Church and "http://www.samchapman.talktalk.net/biblpoly.html">Polygamy in the
Bible)

And besides all this, polygamy means that "putting away" of wives need not be an option. Polygamy therefore reduces the thing that God has said he dislikes.

When it is said that polygamy is not the ideal we should ask "ideal for whom"? Christ indicated that some are born to be celibate (Matthew 19 v 12) - it is not ideal for them to marry. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that it
is better to marry than to burn. If you face a life of continual temptation
without marriage, it is not ideal to stay celibate. In this area there are
different ideals for different people.

Also, whilst Hebrew Kings were forbidden from multiplying wives unto themselves (Deuteronomy 17 vv 14-20), the Bible does not define multiplying, and shows God multiplying wives to David when he gives his
dead master's wives "into his bosom" (2 Samuel 12 vv 7&8).

Read that again, and check the passage to see if its true - God gave plural wives to David, yet people say polygamy is sinful. Can God sin or be an accessory to sin?

The limitation on the Kings of Israel is not then so much a statement of an ideal, but more of a constitutional limitation on power - God could give them more wives, but they couldn't multiply them unto themselves. In fact,
the rest of the passage reads like a constitutional document, limiting the
choice of the King to God, the nationality of the King to Israel, and
prescribing some things he could not do and other things that he had to do
as King. So, God seems to have encouraged David's polygamy and any
restrictions on it may be seen as constitutional limitations on power,
especially given the historical role of marriages and polygamy in the
forming of political alliances.

In the New Testament, the King James translation of the Bible does state twice for elders and once for deacons that they should be "husbands of one wife". It does not phrase it in the negative (i.e. that they should not be
the husband of more than one wife), and so it may not even be a prohibition
for this group. It is talking about what they should be, rather than about
what they should not be. If they have married one wife then they are
qualified, but that doesn't mean they cannot marry two.

There are varying interpretations of what the original greek is actually claiming. Some say the idea of faithfulness is being conveyed - "a one woman man", and therefore that this bans adulterers and polygamists, but
would allow for a single man. Others say it is a limit on polygamy,
therefore accepting its lawfulness for the rest of the church.

Analysis of the Greek shows that the word for husband is usually translated man, and therefore the man's married status is being highlighted when mentioned here, and later on when the desirability of him being a
father is established. The fact that he is a married man is important, for
it allows him to understand how Christ loves the Church which he, as an
elder, is seeking to love. The fact that he is a parent is important, for
he must first have successfully exercised a father's loving authority over
his children, before he does the same over the family of God.

The Greek word for "one" is also interesting as it can mean "a" and "first". This allows for the emphasis to be on the fact that he is a married man, or on the fact that he has not repudiated his first wife. Many
men put away their first wife to take on a second and this is especially
common today. It is pretty clear that it is not acceptable, and it could be
that the passages which talk about elders and deacons are talking about
this. It may seem strange that this emphasis is needed, but the other rules
about elders and deacons include statements that they shouldn't be greedy,
drunken or "brawlers". These things may have seemed obvious, but in an
early church emerging from Jewish law and immoral Roman culture, with few
fragments of God's Word in circulation, they needed to be stated.

Hence the idea that an elder is being required to have at least one wife, and not to put her away when he took other wives, does have some credibility. Comments are particularly welcome in this area. Anyway, the
least that can be said is that there is considerable doubt that elders were
required to be monogamous and that, even if they were, there is an implicit
suggestion that polygamy was acceptable for the remainder of the church,
and that what was ideal for elders was not necessarily the ideal for other
christians. Christ is our ideal, yet he was celibate, and Christians are
free to marry. It follows therefore that ideals do not limit Christian men
with regard to the number of wives they may have.

5) THE "AGAINST THE LAW" MISUNDERSTANDING

Polygamy might be lawful as far as God is concerned, but it is illegal as far as the state is concerned, and as Christians we have to respect the government. As we have to obey their laws against polygamy it
would be sinful to be a polygamist, and it is pointless to discuss
something it would be illegal for us to do.

When the Laws of man and God conflict we follow the laws of God. However, when man regulates our behaviour it is right that we should obey him, for Romans 13 tells us to respect the higher authorities. They cannot
require us to break God's law, but they can add their own requirements to
it. Governments have complicated laws on taxation, that give all the detail
behind what the Bible says, namely "render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's...", and so we have to obey the civil authorities.

However, for the Christian, life is more complex than that simple statement. 1 Corinthians 6 indicates that Christians should not go to law against other Christians, but should settle their disputes within the
church. This and 1 Peter indicate that it is better to suffer for the
wrongdoing of another, such as a Christian who breaks this rule, than to
break it yourself. It is possible for a Christian to suffer because a court
overrules or ignores the decision of a church, but it is to his credit if
he accepts that suffering. This all sounds very theoretical, until one
considers the large incidence of divorce and the legal status of marriage.
A Christian can be divorced by his wife under civil law despite his
resistance and for reasons which would mean nothing under the laws of God.
The laws of man are therefore faulty. The idea of marriage a Christian
signs up to under the laws of the state is incomplete and indeed wrong in
several respects. Yet at the same time modern Western States such as the
USA and the UK allow people to live together and even treat them as married
when, according to the law of that state, they are not. For example, in
Britain, for social security reasons, the government treats as married
those people who live together as if they were married. The idea of
marriages not being registered but formed under Common Law ceased to be
legally recognised 200 years ago in Britain, but the term "common law wife"
is still in widespread use, and certain legal scholars believe that such
marriages are still possible. In Scotland it is possible to become married
'by custom and repute'.

We need to understand that the state has tried to regulate marriage and has been successful to varying degrees. But it only usually views as criminal those who try to contract more than one legally recognised
marriage. If Christians do not register their marriages and conduct their
own ceremony or cohabit with the Biblical view of marriage, then the state
does not often view them as criminal. They have broken no laws, just
refused to accept the state's ideas about marriage. Adam and Eve had no
state and no church to recognise their marriage, just the witness of God,
and so it continued for millennia, until comparitively recently when the
government began to expand into this area. If you use Caesar's currency
then you pay it to him in taxes. If you sign up to Caesar's view of
marriage then you will be bound by Caesar's rules. If however, you
recognise that marriage is God's, and your understanding with your wife, or
wives, is that you offer a marriage conducted under God's rules, then you
must "render unto God the things that are God's". This means that the
marriage may not be recognised by the government, but do you want your
marriage to carry the label of the third-rate institution currently
regulated by the state? It means you will lose any legal rights enforced by
the state, and put yourself at risk should your marriage partner forsake
you and their faith, and seek to use the power of the state against you.
But if you have to suffer in this way, doing right and persevering will be
to your credit. However, while you can build your own marriage that is not
recognised by the state, you can do it without breaking any of the laws of
the state. It is therefore something you can do with a clear conscience, as
you are doing it and respecting the authorities at the same time. You are
bound to obey their laws, but you do not have to accept their beliefs,
including their beliefs about marriage. Hence a Christian can practice
polygamy and still be a good citizen.

MORE OBJECTIONS TO POLYGAMY

It should already be apparent that if these objections can be answered effectively from the Bible then they aren't really Christian objections at all. However they are objections that many Christians, me included, have
had in our minds when we considered these things. The objections emanate
from sources who are Christian, often as they struggle to fight against a
belief in polygamy. It must be understood that they often arise because we
want to defend the culture we were born into, and the society in which we
live, rather than base our lives on the very different rules of the
Bible.

6) THE "MORMON HERESY" DISTRACTION

Surely this is just Mormonism and should be objected to on that basis. It's more to do with the Book of Mormon than the Bible.

Sorry guys, but I can't conform to the stereotype here. I'm not a Mormon and have never been one. However, any Mormons or ex-Mormons who are reading this page are very welcome. Like you, I can read, and it isn't in reading
the Book of Mormon, but in the Bible that I find all this stuff about
polygamy. Trying to pigeon-hole this as a Mormon issue will not work,
because it affects anyone who claims to believe what the Bible says, and
anyone who has bothered to read it. I think it's interesting that Mormons
originally accepted polygamy, and that the "official" Mormon organisation
has since claimed a new revelation that considerably restricts its
practice. This coincides with the Mormon organisation now being recognised
rather than persecuted in the United States, and it coincides with Utah
actually having statehood. It appears that the adjustments to the teachings
of the organisation, and the fact that no-one on earth today is authorised
by Mormonism to be polygamous, are part of a deal. The teaching and the
freedom to practice is sacrificed in order to obtain political recognition.
Joseph Smith was right to see the polygamy in the Bible - he could read too
- and well within his rights to show the hypocrisy of those who claim to
follow the Bible but abandon the inconvenient bits. Because the Mormon
organisation took the freedom of polygamy that is found in the Bible and
threw it away, I think that gives us grounds to question the teachings of
that organisation, and any organisation that claims to be a church but
doesn't follow the Word of God when it becomes too difficult.

In any case, this site is not talking about Mormon polygamy, but about any polygamy. Mormon polygamy was a requirement for Mormon salvation, and linked to the doctrine of celestial marriages that were supposed to last
after death. This site is more concerned with allowing than
requiring polygamy, and only in this life, not the next.

7) THE ADULTERY CONFUSION

Polygamy is wrong because it necessarily involves adultery. That is why it is not specifically banned anywhere - because it is covered by the laws that deal with adultery. If you have sex with someone other
than your wife then it is adultery, and simply going through a ceremony,
even if it is legally valid, cannot make that second woman into a wife in
the eyes of God.

It is always difficult translating the words of one writer so that someone else can read them in another language. A word in one language does not always have an exact equivalent in another language. Some meaning may
be lost and some may be added in the process of translation. Sometimes
people who speak the same language use words in quite different ways and
experience difficulties in understanding each other. Imagine then how easy
it is for us to make mistakes when we compare twentieth century English
with the first century koine Greek or the ancient Hebrew in which the Bible
was written. Our culture defines adultery in relation to its own marital
norm, namely one man and one woman. In Bible times however, this was not
the norm, and consequently the words used for adultery do not carry the
same definitions with them.

We need to ask ourselves just what it is that the Bible was condemning when the words we translate as "Thou shalt not commit adultery" were first written down. The Online Bible gives na'aph (Strongs 05003) as the word
used for adultery, in fact the only word used for adultery in the Old
Testament. In Exodus 20 v 14 where the above commandment is given, this
word is used according to the Qal verb pattern (getting technical, isn't
it?). This means, according to the Hebrew Lexicon, "adultery, usually of
man, always with the wife of another, of women". It is also translated
"women who break wedlock". John Gill, in his exposition of the Bible,
although he does not support polygamy, has to concede of the word that
"strictly speaking [it] is only that sin which is committed with another
man's wife". Hence the idea conveyed by scripture is that the act which is
condemned is sexual intercourse with another man's wife. The marital status
of the male adulterer is not an issue. It is the marital status of the
woman that is most important. Adultery is theft from the true husband, and
it is committed by his wife as well as by his rival.

If the woman concerned is not married to anybody, this is treated differently. In the Old Testament if you committed adultery you got the death penalty. For the lesser offence of sex with an unmarried woman you
got life (!), meaning of course that you were forced to marry the woman
concerned and could never divorce her (see Deuteronomy 22v28). So if a
married man had an affair with a married woman they would both be put to
death. If he had an affair with an unmarried woman he had to marry her -
God's law required him to become a polygamist. Check it out for yourself in
Deuteronomy. How different our society would be if we followed these rules.
Notice that it protects the man from his wife being defiled, and it
protects the woman from being left without a husband. If he obtained her
agreement by promising marriage he would be forced to keep his
promises.

Simply put, the Bible's rules on adultery are different from the ideas that many Christians have about them. They place different restrictions on men than on women, as the Bible does in other places, and they ensure that
if the rules are broken, then both parties are guilty of the same offence
and receive the same punishment. The rules are what we would expect to find
if God allowed polygamy and if it was legitimate behaviour. They are not
what we would expect if the strict monogamous viewpoint had any
credibility. Adultery happens when a woman breaks her marriage contract.
This does not happen when a man takes a second wife, for that wife is then
honouring her marriage contract. The second woman is truly a wife in the
eyes of God, because it is God's law that required men to take second wives
in these and other circumstances. Christ fulfilled the law when he added
that a man that put away his wife and took another was himself guilty of
adultery. He had then broken his wife's marriage contract by depriving her
of her rights and her position, and often, due perhaps to the economics of
the time, the woman was forced to find another man in order to survive,
without even the required certificate of divorce, causing her to commit
adultery. The Bible is therefore very clear about adultery. The Biblical
view of adultery supports polygamy and even requires it in certain
circumstances.

8) THE MODERNISATION MYTH

Okay, so polygamy was acceptable in Bible times, but things have moved on. We know better now than they did then. Women have been liberated, and in modern times we can now see that polygamy is just
wrong.

The idea of something being wrong is not something that really fits in the modern mind, for people are reluctant to judge what is right and what is wrong by reference to some greater authority, namely God. And if they do
accept God, then we know that the Bible states he is "the same yesterday,
today and forever" (Hebrews 13 v 8). He does not change as he does not need
to. If you accept him and his will, then you have to accept his law that
says certain things are not to be done, and his liberty which allows us
freedom to choose about anything else. If it was wrong, he would have told
us. The Bible contains many things in it which seemed unusual in the light
of their day, but the usefulness of those rules is becoming more clear as
time goes on and as we find out more about the world. The Bible talked of
the earth being round and suspended in space long before man found out that
this was the case. Women have not in fact been liberated by "feminism".
Women, like men, were created perfect by God according to his purpose and
are truly free when they are fulfilling that purpose. Christ said "Ye shall
know the truth and the truth shall set you free." It is the truth of the
Bible and God's will for men and women that hold the promise of freedom,
not the lies of "feminism" which has only succeeded in bringing about the
deaths of millions of unborn children, and in devaluing every traditional
role which gave women satisfaction and fulfillment. Christ promised the
disciples that the Spirit would teach them all things (John 14 v 26), yet
the Bible closes with no mention of polygamy being wrong. The only
explanation is that any views we hold now that condemn polygamy, are not
based on how things have improved since Bible times, but are based on a
move away from the teachings of the Word.

9) THE DISPENSATIONAL DIVISION

Polygamy may have been acceptable once, but God shows himself differently at different times, called dispensations, and just as we now are not under the Law but under Grace, so patriarchs could be
polygamists but we cannot.

Sometimes it appears that there are differences in how God deals with people at different times. For example, Peter had a vision which removed the distinction between clean and unclean animals that had been observed by
the law. But these differences of application are always announced and made
clear. Paul, in 1 Timothy 3 v 16, says that all scripture is God-breathed.
If we are to say that any part no longer applies in the way that it once
did, we had better be prepared to back it up with a part of scripture that
says so. We cannot throw away all of it just because one part has been
fulfilled, otherwise we would not be able to learn anything from Moses,
David, Solomon or any of the prophets.

Also, the general trend shown in the move from Law to Grace was one of restrictions being removed, not of new restrictions being added. We can still learn from the Law, and God still requires our obedience to most of
the rules given to ancient Israel, but there is not one word of scripture
to indicate that the rules about polygamy were being reversed. There is
nothing to indicate that the meaning of marriage and the definition of
adultery have changed. If the rules have changed then the burden of proof
is on the monogamist to prove it, and it cannot be proven for there is no
evidence.

This objection rests on the mistaken belief that polygamy was something done under the law, and that polygamists rely on this to justify their lifestyle. In fact, it would not matter if polygamy had never been
mentioned in the Bible. If God had not banned it anywhere (and he hasn't)
then it is not sinful. The fact that polygamy is mentioned throughout the
Bible is a bonus. It shows not only that polygamy is not wrong, but that it
is right - openly approved by God. (for New Testament references see
The Marriage of
Christ and The Church and "http://www.samchapman.talktalk.net/biblpoly.html">Polygamy in the
Bible)

If we say that the rules are different in a new dispensation we must show where we can find out what the rules are. Otherwsie it is open to anyone to invent whatever rules they like, and with no justification. As,
even in the New Testament, there is no law against polygamy, any ban must
rest on personal opinion, and not on the Bible. If we do not find someone's
opinion to be enough for any other doctrine, why would we suddenly accept
it here - would we not lose the right to say that we followed God, and not
man?

10) THE SEX-MAD STORY

Polygamists should be happy with just one wife. What's wrong with them? They must be sex-mad or something?

Sadly, once the polygamist case has been established, there are always those who will run from reason and scripture, and rely only on abuse. Polygamists believe in the freedom to marry more than one woman. They do
not preach free love or easy sexual lifestyles. Polygamy is a lot more
restrictive and difficult than modern life, because it says that a sexual
relationship must be within marriage, and that you can't have one without
the responsibilities and duties that come with it. It is therefore anything
but sex-mad. It is, however, enthusiastic about marriage. It believes in
family values enough to make a serious attempt at extending families. It is
a bit worrying if people criticise polygamists for being sex-mad, for it
means the critic is equating sex and marriage. Sex is only allowed within
marriage, but marriage is about a lot more than just sex. There's
companionship, children, survival, the teaching of God's word and the
practice of his love. All these should be in marriages, whether they be
with one wife, or two, or three. Polygamists are responsible and realistic
about sex. Some of their critics are perhaps obsessed with it.

The objection is useful in that often it reveals more about those who make the objection than it does about the polygamists. For centuries so-called churches have banned polygamy, prevented priests from marrying,
prevented men from marrying after their first wife had died, frowned on
those who enjoyed sex within marriage, and ignored social evils just
because of some hang-ups about sex which originate in the works of certain
so-called "Church Fathers" and which run contrary to what the Bible
teaches. Understanding what the Bible says in allowing polygamy may be
their first step towards getting over it.

EVEN MORE OBJECTIONS TO POLYGAMY

There are only a few objections dealt with here - because these are the only one's that have been raised. If you have an objection not yet covered on this site then please let us know

11) THE BAD WITNESS CONUNDRUM

Even if taking on a second wife informally (ie not seeking a second civil marriage) is not itself immoral or illegal, shouldn't a Christian person be concerned with the impact on her or his witness to
persons who will not understand.

The answer is of course, yes. A Christian should be concerned with the impact of all their actions, especially when innocent actions are likely to cause weak Christians to stumble or when those actions would damage their
witness to unbelievers. However these two considerations must be viewed
sensibly and realistically, and the methods of dealing with them should be
explored.

The general teaching of Scripture is that a Christian should not cause another Christian to stumble in their faith. However, it should be noted that this is not to be regarded as authority for any Christian to place
unscriptural requirements on another. The difficulty, as I understand it,
(and I may be wrong) is that a new Christian is in danger if he sees a
Christian doing something which the new Christian considers sinful. The
danger is that the new Christian may conclude then that it is acceptable to
sin, which is a wrong conclusion. Liberty is not licence. We do not sin
more so that grace may abound. The correct approach here is not to give in
to the hang-ups of the weak, but instead to concentrate on making a weak
Christian into a strong Christian. That involves teaching them, from the
Word, the lawful nature of polygamy and the headship that exists in
marriage. Let them appreciate and grow in their knowledge of Christ. Let
them see how the Law of Christ is superior to the laws of man. In this way
polygamy is no stumbling block.

Monogamy, however, and more particularly the unscriptural ban on polygamy pronounced by many Christians, can be a stumbling block. As there is such an imbalance between the numbers of men and women able and willing
to marry, it follows that there is a significant surplus of women who
desire marriage. They may just want a husband, or they may want a good
husband who will lead them on into the things of God (a rare thing indeed
these days). They may want children, and to be honest about it, they may
want to have sex. These desires are not unnatural, they are how God made
us. The important thing is that God established the institution of marriage
where a woman can have all these desires met. Paul in his letter to Timothy
condemns those who "forbid to marry", and in his first letter to the
Corinthians establishes that these desires should be met by Christian
marriages being allowed, so that Christians will not be drawn into sexual
immorality. Combining these points together it can be seen that strict
monogamy forbids the marriage of many Christian women and that the remedy
of marriage that God gave them to stop immorality is often denied them by
fellow Christians. We ought not to be surprised then if Christian women
stumble into fornication, adultery, and marriages with the ungodly. Such
stumbling is their own responsibility, but it is also the direct
consequence of unscripturally forbidding polygyny. Hence, a Christian
practicing the Apostles' teaching must allow polygamy or live in danger of
causing other Christians to stumble.

Many of these arguments still hold true for the unbeliever. The unbeliever should be shown the benefits of Christian polygamy. The availability of this state and the benefits which follow from its practice,
such as a decline in prostitution, divorce, fornication and adultery, are
good testimonies for the Christian faith. We know that Paul was "all things
to all men" in order to win them for Christ, but there is nothing to say
this made him change his marital status. Similarly then, a person is free
to practice polygamy, remaining capable of meeting all men according to
their own culture. Polygamy is good Christian witness. Where the law
recognises polygamy this point could be no objection to it. Where the law
does not recognise it we often find that the societies do. Our modern
Western societies are heavily polygamous, but this is done through
promiscuity, divorce and remarriage. Here Christian polygamy is at its
strongest, showing God's values, and Christian responsibilities and
commitments against the backdrop of ungodly immorality. Polygamy then is
not a problem for witness - it only tends to annoy Christians who read the
Bible selectively and those who object to Christianity for other reasons.
Polygamy, as with other Christian practices, is an instrument of witness,
for it shows the truth of God's order against the background of a world
which has rejected him.

12) THE SNOWED-UNDER DILEMMA

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, says that he prefers a man not to marry so that he is not taken up with the cares of this life and is better able to serve God. Surely if a man marries many times he will be
snowed-under with cares and unable to serve God at all.

Here it is necessary to deal firstly with Paul's recommendation and secondly with the concept of economies of scale. Paul advises celibacy. It allows for a man to make decisions solely on the effects they will have on
him, and therefore to sacrifice himself to God. A married man has to think
of his family, and this may limit his options. However, marriage remains
good, just as celibacy is good, and Paul recognises that not all men are as
he is. However, it is an unfair treatment of what Paul is saying to imagine
that the cares of life multiply as wives are added to the family. A married
man can't think just for himself, he has to consider his family. This
applies whether he is a monogamist or a polygamist. Once a man has given up
the freedom of celibacy he cannot give it up again - it has gone. If he is
not suited to celibacy then the question of whether or not to limit his
freedom is not really his concern, for he should get married to prevent
sexual immorality. So a man who has married, has already decided or
conceded that he is giving up a measure of his freedom. He does not give up
that freedom again on becoming a polygamist, as it has already gone.

Now it may be said that a polygamist will have more cares than a monogamist. This could be true, but it is not axiomatic. A man with many children may have just as many or more problems as a man with many wives.
And it should be noticed that, just as having two or more wives has its own
potential problems, so does the situation where one wife has a monopoly
over her husband. Indeed, the possibility of polygamy goes some way towards
reducing the dangers that exist in an actually monogamous marriage. A good
wife is more to be desired than rubies. How much more two good wives? The
arguments raised in the following section on Cash will also assist in
burying the Snowed-Under Dilemma. For now it will suffice to state that an
extra wife may not be an extra burden, but may assist in bearing the burden
that one already has. Hence a polygamist may share his responsibilities
between his wives, and have more time for God than his monogamist
friend.

13) THE CASH CONSIDERATION

Wives are expensive. With modern standards of living it is inconceivable that any more than a very small minority of men could ever afford more than one wife. Nice idea in theory, but not much chance in
practice.

If certain historical works are to be believed it would appear that this objection has carried some force with it in the past. That it has this force must surely be to the excessive materialism shown by many and in
particular the "love of money". We are told in Scripture that "he who finds
a wife finds a good thing" and, as mentioned above, that a good wife is
worth more than rubies. The wife mentioned in Proverbs 31 was a good
home-maker at least partly because she was economically active. A wife is
an asset to a family. A plurality of wives is a plurality of assets. Any
costs brought by one wife, due to economies of scale, are less with each
successive wife (it may cost a lot for one house for two people, but it
doesn't cost that much again for a house for three). An extra wife can
bring an extra income, and two wives can share domestic and financial
activities. Childcare expenses are not a problem if the wives share the
childcare, and you have the benefit of knowing who your children are with.
Having three or more adults in a family allows for sufficient variety of
income to allow for greater protection against redundancy, illness and
death than provided by a traditional monogamist structure. If anything, the
family is capable of a much improved financial situation. A Christian
polygamous family may choose therefore to forego some income in order to
give more time to God, and to the children. They may use it to reduce the
stress that modern civilisation puts on fathers and on mothers, often
lumbering them with two jobs instead of one. Polygamy might allow some men
and women to get a life when monogamy would deny them this.

But supposing the assumptions of the objectors are correct and making a family polygamous does cost more than it generates, what should we say then? Firstly, perhaps we can learn to abandon our excessive dependence on
luxury. Secondly, perhaps we will believe what Christ told us about the
flowers of the field, the birds in the air and the heavenly Father who is
looking after us. Thirdly, perhaps if we are content with less we will
learn like the Apostle Paul that "godliness with contentment is great
gain". It is often said that a man should marry only when he could afford
it, yet the Bible only requires that a man provide his wife with food,
clothing and conjugal rights (sex and intimacy). Paul says (in 1 Timothy 6)
"having food and clothing, with these we shall be content". It is difficult
to believe that a polygamous family will often be worse off than under
monogamy, but even if they are, they can still trust their heavenly Father
and still be content in their lack of riches. And with social security,
christian charity, and the fact that the poorest Westerner is a rich man on
the world scene, perhaps the power of the cash consideration should be seen
as no more than that of a paper tiger. The argument that polygamy means
unliveable poverty is itself something that looks good in theory, but falls
down in practice.

14) THE LAW'S LIMITATION

Jesus taught that one who divorces his wife for any reason other than adultery and marries another, commits adultery. It seems that this leaves very little room for polygamy.

It is very interesting how Christ phrased this particular rule. Instead of saying that marrying another wife involves adultery, he restricted it to an instance where the first wife had been displaced, and there are reasons
for believing that this was "putting away" without a divorce certificate,
rather than all divorce. As long as the first wife is not displaced, there
is no breach of the rule, and no reason to believe it is adultery.
Therefore it appears that if a wife leaves or divorces a man, he has not
committed adultery and remains free to have a second wife.

15) THE COMMANDS CONFLICT

What about in the several States in the United States where taking a second wife informally (ie fornicating in the eyes of the law) is a crime. Recently, in fact, a State's Attorney General's office has
publically warned that it might soon revive prosecutions for fornication.
Does a Christian then have the duty under Scripture to "submit to the
governing authority."

This one raises a number of issues that are normally considered distinctly. The first point to make is that this is quite far from a principled objection to polygamy. It is instead a matter of practicality,
jurisdiction, and particular circumstances of time and geography.

Secondly, there is the general principal that a Christian ought not to break the law of man (that is, commit a criminal act), but ought to respect authority. The only exception to this is where the commands of God and man
conflict, for man cannot require you to sin against God. The apostles
showed this in their early actions, and it is the clear teaching of the
Bible. So for a man in a place where the law prevents even informal,
biblical, marriage, he encounters a difficulty.

Consequently, one would have to consider the nature of the law of man and the law that God has for a particular man in this situation. We must ask if the stated law, as it appears, is in fact the law. The law changes,
and sometimes decays. Respect for authorities, as mentioned in the Bible,
in Romans 13, is referring to someone with a responsibility for punishing
those who do wrong. People who are dead do not have such responsibilities.
One may wish to locate the authority in an office which passes from person
to person, but it would seem fair to suggest that it is the individual that
God holds responsible. Hence if a law is unclear, or a decision rests on an
old piece of legislation or judicial decision, which has remained unused by
the current authorities, it may not be disrespectful to current authorities
to treat it as if it were not the law. It may not actually be the law, just
the practice of authorities long dead.

The writer understands the role of a state or county attorney not to be that of an authority. He prosecutes, juries and judges decide. So, we would need to be led by the actual decisions of the highest courts in this
matter. In the United States, this would of course include the justices of
the Supreme Court, who would rule on whether such rules were
Constitutional, and a modern ruling to this effect is long overdue. Another
part of this site contains a link to an analysis of the Supreme Court
rulings on polygamy, which may be of particular relevance in this area.

However, while that may be the current context of the problem, and may deny it any practical effect on an intending polygamist, the problem remains in theory at least. What if the law was clear and current? What if
the taking of an informal second wife is illegal?

In that case we return to the requirements of God over-riding the requirements of man. Polygamy is not generally required by God, and so could in theory be limited by an earthly power. But those powers are
limited in duration and jurisdiction. If it is illegal in your state and
you still want to be a polygamist, then you could always move to a more
favourable area. However, this may not always be necessary. Sometimes, it
may be seen that God's law requires that which is illegal. For instance, if
one is already married informally to a second wife, then scripturally one
has marital duties towards her. This may be defined by the law as
"fornication", but that does not matter. God's law requires the performance
of illegal acts in that situation, and God's law beats man's law every
time. Secondly, if one understands the directions of the Apostle Paul to
the Church at Corinth (in chapter 7 of his first letter), as a command that
each man and woman are to be allowed to be married, and there is in fact no
single Christian man for a particular woman to marry, then following that
direction would involve polygamy, and may be justifiable as another
instance of God's rule being superior to man's.

It is therefore submitted that most jurisdictions will not have this problem today, and that those who do may rely on laws which may not have been repealed or over-ruled, but which have fallen into such disuse that
they may be considered dead. In those rare events when the law is
definitely in conflict with polygamy, even in informal marriage, then the
law can legitimately limit or prevent it. But those already married must
continue to fulfil their marital duties to their wives, even if illegal.
Should the situation arise where no single Christian man is available for a
particular woman, then polygamy, though illegal, may be required. This
would appear to be very rare. The importance of the requirements of 1
Corinthians 7 with respect to polygamy is not that it actually happens in
real life, but that were it to happen, polygamy would be required for any
excess women, and therefore is theoretically required by New Testament
teaching.

Of course, in the situation where a Christian woman can only find a married Christian to become her husband, it does not mean that he must marry her. The law of God, if it commands anything in this area, commands a
freedom to marry, not the marriage itself. So, in the unlikely event of
this happening, no man is forced to marry, but no man may prevent such a
marriage.

Put simply, the criminal law can limit polygamy, even in its informal manifestation, but this rarely happens today, and in certain circumstances such a law would still be over-ruled by the law of God.

http://reactor-core.org/polygamy-objections.html