Polygamy and the Bible (Aberrant Theology Alert)

The Holy Bible is polygamous from cover to cover. However, the biased mind, steeped in centuries of cultural and religious tradition, can take a little time to adjust. The bottom line is honesty (a willingness to adjust inherited tradition in the light of God's Word) and logic (a willingness to stick with the mental process and not fall back on feelings and sentiment when the Word upsets cherished beliefs).

Before we begin, it is necessary to examine all assumptions in the polygamy issue as it relates to the Bible:

Q1. Do you accept the Bible as God's Word (in the original Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts) from cover to cover?

If your answer is "no", then there is no point in your continuing with this essay because we will be working on different assumptions. Instead I suggest you read my earlier article, Objections to Polygamy: The Secular Viewpoint. The reason I categorise you as "secular" is because the arguments advanced by secularists are practically the same as those advanced by those who do not wholly accept the Bible's teachings. Somewhere along the line Yahweh's infallible Word is judged by those "Christians" who find it difficult to accept what Yahweh says in the same way as secularists do. Those who only accept the Bible in part only accept Yahweh in part. Though we could debate this matter, it is not what this Home Page is about and you would be advised to examine these issues on other Christians websites.

If your answer is "yes" to Question No.1 then I am going to hold you to your word. In my experience, though, the vast majority of Christians who say they accept God's Word from cover to cover rarely do. When God's Word contradicts what they believe, instead of confessing their error and readjusting their lives accordingly (this is the process the Bible calls "repentance") they wriggle and squirm and try to twist Scripture to conform to them. This is human nature, the fallen side of our spirit, which always resists any change in thinking, feeling or practice that requires any sort of sacrifice. We all "wriggle and squirm" from time to time, sad to say. This site acknowledges that the heart and flesh are a little slow in responding to the truth sometimes and we will show grace in that area, as we hope the same grace will be shown to us as we adjust to the truth in our daily walk with Yahweh. However, we will not permit illogical argumentation on this site and shall expect honesty and integrity of thought.

Not everyone, however, has been taught to think logically. In some countries and cultures we are simply expected to absorb "facts" without being encouraged to think. This is both a tragedy and a traversty. Accordingly New Covenant websites engage in much "mental exercise" in order to promote clear thinking. At this site we shall follow the same principle. Accordingly we shall first and foremost be led by thought before feeling, and we shall expect God's Word, the Bible, to lead both.

Q2. Does the Bible anywhere state that polygamy is wrong, sinful, unlawful or ungodly?

This site maintains that the answer to this question is crystal clear: "no". If you can find any scriptures that give an affirmative answer, I shall be most interested to hear them. However, I shall expect more than isolated scriptures (though these shall not, of course, be set aside) but will expect (1) isolated scriptures to be cited in context, and (2) isolated scriptures to be examined in the light of all scriptures on the subject. If, for example, one or two scriptures seem to maintain an anti-polygamy stance, and yet a dozen seem to maintain a pro-polygamy stance, then I shall expect an in-depth study to determine why there is an apparent discrepancy for both positions cannot possibly be right. It is here that we must make an important decision: Either (1) God's Word is contradictory and not reliable and cannot therefore be 100% true; or (2) The minority passages have been misunderstood or mistranslated by humans, God's Word being internally consistent and harmonious, or 100% correct.

No matter what topic we study, we will find apparent inconsistencies from time to time. What we cannot afford to do is accept one of two positions and ignore or "explain away" the position we don't like. If this is going to be a problem for some of our readers, then I suggest you deal with the issue of whether the Bible is wholly God's Word or not before confronting the sensitive polygamy issue. It is important that we have that matter sorted out before going any further. A person doesn't go and have riding lessons if he is uncertain about the morality of riding motorcycles - first we must be certain we think motorcycles are OK. Only then ought we to take lessons. And so we must do the same with the polygamy issue.

There are many biblical issues I have had problems with in the past but I have always discovered that the problems have stemmed not from a fault in God's Word but from an incomplete understanding of it. We live in pagan cultures (for the most part) where the whole thinking pattern is contrary to Yahweh's and to Yahweh's people's. The assumptions about life in each generation not based in God's Word change and we must become aware of this problem. Becoming a Christian requires nothing less than a total reorientation in the way we think, feel, and behave as is true, indeed, in embracing any new religion or (supposed) non-religion like atheism.

I maintain unhesitatingly that the Bible nowhere condemns polygamy as wrong, sinful, immoral, ungodly, wicked, or unlawful in Yahweh's eyes. In fact, I find exactly the opposite - Yahweh positively sanctions it, protects it, and indeed uses it Himself as an illustration of His own relationship with Israel (Judah and Ephraim) and the Church/Messianic Community (the saints), something He would hardly do if it were sinful as this would merely confuse people.

Polygamy is not, as some people mistakenly believe, a type of marriage that gives men the right to do whatever they want with women even though historically it may have been so abused. There are strict laws and regulations governing its practice. It is essential to understand this. We shall be looking at these restrictions in another article. All freedoms bring responsibilites and polygamy is no less than, for example, the freedom to eat food. Everybody acknowledges that eating is not only good but essential. However, Yahweh has placed certain dietary rules for our benefit when it comes to eating, one of which is that we eat in moderation and not become gluttons. Over-eating is a sin, but not the act of eating itself. By the same token, the multiplication of wives is a sin but not polygamy itself. The Bible strictly warns kings not to go overboard as Solomon, for example, did. Gluttony destroys one's sense of taste in the same way as a man marrying too many women destroys his ability to have a proper relationship with them. Though the Bible places no specific limitations on the number of women who may enter a polygamous relationship, the community I belong to limits it to twelve, with seven being the average - a maximum of four for Deacons, seven for Elders, and twelve for Patriarchs-Apostles. There are other restrictions too such as the ability of the husband to financially take care of so many women. This I will discuss in another article.

Q4. Is there any evidence from the Bible that polygamy was repealed in the New Testament?

None that I have been able to find. There is a school of theological thought that the whole Law of Moses was brought to an end at the time of the crucifixion and a new "Law of Christ" instituted to replace it. Such a teaching is not to be found in the Bible though bad translations have not made the matter straightforward. Besides, polygamy existed before the Law of Moses and Paul declares that His Gospel and Abraham's were essentially one and the same.

The Bible, in fact, nowhere mentions the words "monogamy" or "polygamy" because no such distinction existed. All marriage was polygamous whether there was one, two, three or more wives. Let me use the food analogy again. In some cultures only one course is served per meal. In others, several courses. However, that doesn't mean that there are different kinds of "eating" - we don't speak of "mono-eating" or "poly-eating" because such a distinction is silly. However, picture a culture which says that one course is all that is allowed and condemns all those who eat more than one. To distinguish between the two they must introduce new words into the vocabulary. "Monogamy" and "polygamy" are, in terms of history, relatively new concepts. So really it would be more appropriate to call this the "First European Christian Marriage Page" since that is nearer the biblical truth. One group of people have excluded more than one wife from the marriage covenant and called themselves "monogamists". (Why they did this, and how they justify themselves, we shall examine in other articles).

There are only a couple of places in the New Testament where polygamy is hinted at and the translators, with their monogamous bias, have altered the meaning of ceretain words and created very confusing passages indeed. For as they stand it appears as though Church leaders cannot have more than one wife but ordinary church members can! Which is you think about it, is completely contradictory and nonsensical, for if we follow the monogamy-only paradigm, we are being taught that members can sin but leaders can't. This is rather like saying that ordinary members can be homosexuals or murderers (since both are sins) but deacons and elders can't! A close examination of the original Greek text clears up the (ludicrous) discrepancy - Paul wasn't concerned about whether church leaders had more than one wife or not but whether, as polygamists, they were being faithful to their first wives and not using polygamy as an excuse to get rid of wives they didn't fancy any more. (Another school of thought maintains, and which I have since come to accept as the better of the two interpretations, that these passages are merely stating that Elders and Deacons must be married to qualify for leadership).

So, no, there is no evidence in the New Testament that Christ ever repealed polygamy. Quite the opposite - He repeatedly cites polygamists as men and women of God to emulate, even commanding His followers to "do the works of Abraham". And Abraham was a polygamist.

Q5. Is there anywhere in the Bible where God actually commands or is positive about polygamy?

He is nowhere negative about it. Nowhere. Indeed, He specifically states to one King of Israel (David) that He has given him his wives (2 Samuel 12:8). And this through a prophet of Yahweh (Nathan) who was rebuking him for other sins (adultery and murder). So if the King had been living as an adulterer or in sin because of polygamy, you can be sure that the prophet would have upbraided him about polygamy along with his other sins. But he didn't. Instead, He not only said that Yahweh had given the King his present wives but He would, if necessary, give him more. To me that is polygamy-positive. If polygamy is a gift of Yahweh then it cannot possibly be anything other than a blessing and for all concerned (for husbands as well as wives).

It is usually at this point that those, steeped in the monogamous tradition, go into an inner catharsis. If that is so, then I urge you to PRAISE YAHWEH because He is revealing to you how far you have departed from Him even if you think you are walking with Him. It is at such moments of crisis that we have to make really fundamental decisions and either embrace Yahweh or wage war on Him. The issue is really about the personality of El Elyon (Almighty God). If you are turned off by this revelation (and indeed any other biblical revelation) then there is a pretty good chance that you are not worshipping the God of the Bible but some other god.

I say this not to destroy your faith but to seek further. Yahweh will not force you to follow Him but He will most certainly challenge you to be honest about His claims even if you are not about your own. The God of the Bible is represented allegorically as a polygamist and so are all His followers, whether they are married in one-wife or several-wife families. What we are actually facing here is of such fundamental importance that I believe it will be used as one of the touchstones of true faith in the last days. Again, I repeat, accepting that Yahweh is allegorically polygamous and that all true Christian marriages are polygamous does not necessarily mean that all Christian marriages should have more than one wife. In fact, it is my conviction that the majority of Christian marriages will only consist of one man and one woman. What is important, however, is that you understand and accept that a one-wife marriage is no different from a one-child family and that if a family wants several children, then that's fine too. Families have children, right? There's no such thing as a mono-children or a poly-children family, is there? They're not two different types of family! In the same way, families with one wife or more than wife are not "two different kinds of marriage" either. That is the lie we have been made to believe by an apostate church for centuries. That lie, however, is now being exposed by this and other polygamy websites. And this truth will spread as Christian men and women return to the Word and abandon the traditions of the whore of Babylon who loathes polygamy but adores fornication and adultery.

Now you'll be wanting concrete biblical evidence for all of these statements. This you can read at the Królewiec Wives Site and in other articles on FICP. You'll not only be surprised by just how much there is but how anyone could have been so blind to the truth. Ultimately the issue is not, as I have already said, about how many wives a marriage may incorporate but the personhood of God. Men and women, ever in rebellion against truth, have preferred to invent their own gods rather than go to He who is the source of all life, joy and peace.

To know the truth is to enthrone men and women as true patriarchs and matriarchs and not to emasculate men and defeminise women which is the result of turning to falsehood. The trend of our modern paganism is to turn men and women into a single sex - a unisexual being - which is out of harmony with itself and which is bleeding to be free and come alive. True polygamy is about freedom for men and women - and I underline the word "true" deliberately because there is a false form of polygamy too which is degrading to women and destructive of the true man. We under no circumstances stand for the latter. We at this site do not defend all forms of polygamy (whether secular, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, Christian, or whatever) any more than we defend all forms of monogamy - we are defenders of New Covenant Echad Patriarchal Marriage. And it is important that our readers make this distinction and do not require us to defend other paradigms, for we will not.

May Yahweh-Elohim, the Lord God of Israel, enlighten you - men and women - and free you from any kind of mental or emotional bondage as you read these pages, especially those of you who believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

Wow!

Poly Man Looking for More Love

It looks like it might be more a function of abilities ...

... than anything else.

Could be ...

Interesting reading.

Though, I cannot help but reflect that God's apparent ideal for mankind ... was what He setup in the Garden of Eden (i.e. one man ... one woman).

Polygamy only occurred ... after the fall.

It is clear that God allowed it (as God allows many other such things in our fallen world) ... though, of course, He never held it up as any kind of model to follow.

BTW ... further study in Genesis (4-6) shows that polygamous Lamech ... was not Noah's father.

There are (2) Lamech's whose lives are cited in those passages of Genesis ... one of the line of Cain (polygamous Lamech) ... and the other of the line of Seth (the father of Noah).

Polygamous Lamech's children are listed as sons Jubal, Jabal, Tubal... and a daughter Naamah. His life summary occurs in Genesis 4:16-24.

Noah's father Lamech's life summary occurs in Genesis 5:25-31.

Aha! The old 'Two Lamech's' ruse, huh? :)

I'll double check but, if true, I stand corrected.

I agree that polygamy is only mentioned as an acceptable practice after the fall.

And, after the resurrection, polygamy is further relegated in terms of acceptability. (Non-elders only.)

I also agree that for most people (fall or not) one man;one woman is both the ideal and optimal relationship in terms of efficacy and a whole lot of other considerations.

But, at the end of the day, one just hs to come to grips with the fact that the Scriptures tells us that GOD GAVE PEOPLE WIVES...that's plural... multiple wiveS.

And that, we still are living in a post-fall world. I agree with the minister who said 'What Jesus did FOR us in the Garden of Gethsemane was greater than what Adam did TO us in the Garden of Eden.
Nonetheless, we STILL have Adam's nature. Sadly, that's not been 'undone' by the process of becoming born again.

My conclusion:

I've rarely if ever seen polygamy portrayed in a way that does not creep me out. This includes the 'singles ad' I posted (which by the way, if you dig deep enough into the parent root of that site, you'll find the infamous Tom Green's family pictured as well.)

But it is not scripturally verboten (except as mentioned above.)

Nonetheless this was STILL a moot point in my view, as we are obliged to obey the rules of the land as they are God's agents (according to Romans.)

And a given society has every right in the world to OUTLAW polygamy if it wants.

But, after Lawrence v Texas, any laws prohibiting cohabiting with more than one woman are are unconstitutional.

Therefore it is no longer illegal in the USA. (Although there no doubt will be a whole lot of legal wrangling before Lawrence actually gets applied correctly to a cohabitation test case.)

Therefore, polygamy is a legitimate and legal option in the USA for those men who do not aspire to be elders.

LoveMan

Ps Sorry if I lumped you in with the 'Man-Haters' crowd. I'm willing to withdraw that designation as well. I just find it ironic that people would fight so hard against polygamy which the scripture CLEARLY does not condemn and yet say or do nothing about the myriad of churches that allow women to be elders (or divorced men for that matter.) Not to mention the softness which the church in general approaches matters of divorce these days.

I still suspect MOST of the objection to polygamy as women not wanting men to 'have their cake and eat it' irrespective of what the scripture actually says...

UPDATE: You're PROBABLY wrong with your 'Two Lamech's' ruse.

Both Lamech's (I italicize because I believe there was actually only one Lamech) had as ancestors people named Irad/Jared, Enoch and Methusaleh/Methujael.

Keep in mind, this was at the beginning of mankind. Not a whole lot of branches coming off of family trees at this point.

Plus, using YOUR proof text, it says that after Noah was born to 'Good' Lamech (good of course meaning NON-poly!) "Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters."

Some of those other sons and daughters could include the ones you ascribe to 'bad' Lamech - Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain etc.

Sorry, but given the lineage similarities and the time in the history of mankind that this occurred, my explanation is A LOT MORE PLAUSIBLE than your:

Two Lamech's ruse.

LOL!

LoveMan

UPDATE: You're PROBABLY wrong with your 'Two Lamech's' ruse.

Both Lamech's (I italicize because I believe there was actually only one Lamech) had as ancestors people named Irad/Jared, Enoch and Methusaleh/Methujael.

I agree ... both Lamechs have similarly named persons in the lineage, ... but we wouldn't think that this was strange if we were looking at folk named John, James, Judas, ... etc.

And those similarly named individuals fall in a different order in the lineages.

Also ... there is a (non-canonical) book of Enoch ... which lends credence to the two Lamechs theory.

Keep in mind, this was at the beginning of mankind. Not a whole lot of branches coming off of family trees at this point.

There were ... at least ... two ... Cain's and Seth's.

And one of the Lamechs is cited as belonging in each of these two lines.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.