A concerned Christian recently emailed me regarding polygyny. Several concerns were mentioned, largely backed up by an anti polygyny article found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -the-bible
If the following response is of any benefit to you, please let me know. There are actually two responses below, the first of which is in regard to the article and the second to a subsequent email from the same person. Hopefully, the second is self explanatory as the individual has not given permission to post their email even if left anonymous.
IN RESPONSE TO ANTI POLYGYNY ARTICLE:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I'm a Word guy myself, and find that the answer can always be found through it. Having read the entire article, I do not see validity to the authors argument because with each point the author does not support the conclusion with complete and comparative scripture. Instead, extremely brief (not even an entire verse) portions of scripture are quoted for authority but placed into the authors understanding. To respond to his two main arguements:
THE FIRST MARRIAGE
God's statement in Genesis was that it is not good for man to be alone. Please note that this statement does not say it is wrong to be celibate or single, nor does it address polygyny. The author's argument against polygyny by emphasizing one woman for every man does not resound through scripture. What of celibacy? The apostles acknowledged there were those called to it.
The authors next supporting scriptures (Mark 10:1-12 and Mathew 19:1-12) deals with divorce, not polygyny. I agree with those scriptures entirely. Let's read all of Mathew 19. Then let's look at verse 8 " Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” It does not say that it is a sin to be married to multiple women. I will emphasize, I have NO intent of divorcing my wife. Abandoning a wife for lust would be man's sin. As would causing a woman to sin by abandoning her as stated in Mathew 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. "
POLYGAMY IN THE BIBLE
The author states:
"It is interesting to note that there are no passages in Scripture that clearly state, “No man should have more than one wife.” However, polygamous relationships are never mentioned in a positive light, and, indeed, the problems of such relationships are presented. "
Well, the first sentence saves a lot of argument. However, the author again has left something out. Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2 state that elders, overseers and the like must be the husband of but one wife. I won't speculate as to why the author did not include these scriptures. I hope that if the author does come across them he doesn't use the latter portion without the qualification of those being addressed. The Word doesn't need me to validate it, but I can certainly see how multiple wives would be diminutive to the offices of men in the positions listed. Especially when they were evangelizing and church planting in areas rooted in beliefs other than Judaism (which allowed polygyny).
The author goes on to insinuate that sins committed by the progeny of several polygynous families noted in the Old Testament were not actually the sins of the progeny, but the sins of the polygynous father! Ludicrous! To support such a concept would be akin to trying a murderer, finding the murderer disagreed with a familial issue of his past, and then sentencing the murderer's father to death for the crime of the son. I posit that the lust, greed, envy, and murderous actions of all men be their own sin regardless of their upbringing in a family classified as monogomous, polygynous, polyamorous, polygamous, or as an orphan or bastard. Only one scripture listed by the author gave an example where the sin listed was committed by the man committing the sin, and that would be 1 Kings 11:1-8. True to style, the author omits the selection and only quotes "that his many wives"turned away his heart". 1 Kings 11:1-8 states "King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been." The scripture plainly states that Solomon's sin was marrying women that he was not equally yolked to. In fact he was expressly forbidden from marrying those with an opposing faith, they weren't merely unbelievers they worshiped other gods. Furthermore, King David is extolled for being fully devoted to the Lord. By the way, King David had 8 wives and an unknown number of concubines (as the scripture says some were defiled and David took more in Jerusalem). If you are wondering, the difference between a wife and a concubine is the inheritance promised to the children. In all other things I believe them to be equal through study, and in personal application I intend to have only wives, no concubines.
Continuing on, the author states that "It is also interesting to note that polygamous relationships seem to be regulated in the commands Moses gave to the nation of Israel. Leviticus 18:18 instructs that a man should not marry sisters." Again, the full text is not presented. Do reference it, you'll find it says not to marry sisters lest they be a vex to one another. Some sisters just don't get along... huh... who would of thought? Surprise honey, you know that lady we talked about bringing in as a sisterwife? It's your sister! Tada!. Judge a tree by its fruit. If the sisters are in agreement there is no vexing.
Next, the author misrepresents Deuteronomy 17:17 as instruction against polygyny. Let's read Deuteronomy 17 in context and entirety. Did you read it? It is instructions for the king as Israel moves into a new land and includes verse 17(entire verse) "17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Sounds familiar to me, because the same thing was told to Solomon! Do not take many wives from a foreign land. Modern day application... loving and joining with women who bow their knee to another god is not wise!
Nearing an end, the author comments on one verse saying "In this passage Paul used the singular form of wife and husband throughout the passage. In fact, this is true of the New Testament writers in general." I agree. In this one verse, and in general. However, I must point out the extreme flaw in logic to use this as an argument against polygyny. In agreeing with his statement, we agree that the plural form of the word is also used. Pursue the etymology, and a revelation takes place about when singular and plural forms are used. The speaker intends them to be applied in regards to the specific audience and situation being addressed. Therefore, when considering any individual wife (even if I have multiple wives) all guidelines given for a "wife" should be adhered to. When considering polygyny, all guidelines for a man with "wives" are to be adhered to. Furthermore, if "wives" and "husbands" are words being used to address a crowd, it's because there was more than one married female and male present.
Finally, the author tells us to consider Ephesians 5:23 " For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." A fantastic scripture for the support of polygyny. As Christ is the bridegroom and the church (a multitude of souls) is His bride. In support of this, consider Mathew 25. Jesus Himself gives the parable of the ten virgins when speaking of his relationship to the church. As a Christian, those Words in red take special note to me. Christ likened His relationship to the Church to that of a dutiful polygynous man. In fact, Christ's parable reinforces the direction given Solomon and the kings who would enter new lands in that those women whose light no longer shone for their lack of lamp oil banged on the door to the banquet and were not allowed in. A man of God shall protect his house and not fall prey to lust. All the groom had to do to have more women was open a door. Less than that, merely unlatch it. But the Godly man only desires a Proverbs 31 woman, and therefore is only attracted to the single woman that displays a pure life (all were virgins) and adds to the family (the unprepared tried to take oil from the others, not equally yolked).
Yes, we have considered the scripture thoroughly and I am thankful that you challenged me with the anti-polygyny article because of the additional meditation on the Word it resulted in. To close my response I offer the following two considerations. Isaiah 4 states
"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying,
“We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel;
Only let us be called by your name,
To take away our reproach.”
A woman of marriageable age that was in an unmarried state was considered a "reproach" for the culture. Note that the women here are again Proverbs 31 women in that they are adding to the family (eat our own food, where our own apparel). I say the following in supposition: I find this verse notable because many other examples of polygyny involve kings and great leaders who would provide everything. Here, I see proverbs 31 women that desire to add to the family with whatever skill or belongings they have. Perhaps the man they would take hold of does not have the resources and the women supply their own because they so value a rare man whose heart and actions are set upon the Lord.
Some would argue the "signs of the times" regarding Isaiah 4:1. Understand that the books of the Bible were not separated by chapters and verses by the authors. Chapter and verse references were added after 1200AD for ease of reference. That being said, Isaiah 4:1 has been argued to be "the end of chapter 3" and "the start of chapter 4". It's really just the sentence between other sentences in a flowing book (old testament texts did have a style as well though). Those times prior were terrifying, and those after magnificent. Interesting that this verse is the transition.
Finally, while polygyny is acceptable, it is not mandatory or to be classified as more desirable. Our God, the only God, gave us free will. He promises to give us the desires of our hearts IF WE DELIGHT IN HIM (Psalm 37:4). I emphasize the requirement because most emphasize the reward. To delight in Him is to uphold his commandments, which include honoring your word (1 John 2:5 & others). If a couple vows monogamy, the husband may not pursue polygyny unless WILLFULLY released from his monogamous vow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The response I received was still not in agreement and with additional reasoning. I am not posting the response for respect to the person, though I responded in turn below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, there are not "only two places in the Bible that really show God's perspective towards polygamy", as several others were listed in my review of your suggested reading. I accept that the prophets spoke rightly, and I recognize that they offered instruction regarding the way God desired men to choose wives if they were to be polygynous. Were it not right for them to do so, the prophets would have said so instead of providing instruction as to how/whom.
Other scripture listed above shows the correct path for polygyny, such as the parable of the ten virgins. I don't agree that the Genesis creation supports your view, and ask that if you "always find that when God makes it himself the first time, that was the right time", then should we not also disrobe and walk into the wilderness to tend it as a garden? There are MANY things not said in Genesis. Fortunately, most of the important aspects of life are covered elsewhere in scripture.
Mathew 19 is not the only place where "one flesh" is mentioned. Mathew 19 was opposing the divorce of God-joined marriages. For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). "One flesh" was also written in 1Corinthians 6:16-17. Look that one up for a revelation.
As for 1 Corinthians 7, did you know that the two uses of the English words "own" are two different words in the original text? This is one of many examples where meaning is lost in translation. I firmly believe that we should make every effort to read the original text (if that means learning a new language so be it). There is a distinction between these two Greek words, signifying two types of ownership. "Heautou" implies exclusive ownership while "Idios" implies joint ownership. Heautou deals with the exclusive ownership of the possession, whereas Idios deals with belonging to the owner exclusively. Therefore, my wife belongs to me and me alone (Heautou). While my wife would say "I belong to my husband, and only my husband" (Idios).
Thank you again for encouraging me to make decisions with "complete knowledge of God's Word" and exhorting us to be wise and "not make a decision in ignorance". Your zeal for the Word and courage to edify others is greatly appreciated and though it may not have culminated as you had intended has certainly been a blessing. Polygyny is indeed an acceptable family structure before God's eyes. The place where celibates, monogamous, and polygynysts fail is in regards to establishing that celibacy, monogamy, or polygyny with Christ as the foundation of their lives.
I look forward to speaking with you again, whether in this regard or for general fellowship.
If the following response is of any benefit to you, please let me know. There are actually two responses below, the first of which is in regard to the article and the second to a subsequent email from the same person. Hopefully, the second is self explanatory as the individual has not given permission to post their email even if left anonymous.
IN RESPONSE TO ANTI POLYGYNY ARTICLE:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I'm a Word guy myself, and find that the answer can always be found through it. Having read the entire article, I do not see validity to the authors argument because with each point the author does not support the conclusion with complete and comparative scripture. Instead, extremely brief (not even an entire verse) portions of scripture are quoted for authority but placed into the authors understanding. To respond to his two main arguements:
THE FIRST MARRIAGE
God's statement in Genesis was that it is not good for man to be alone. Please note that this statement does not say it is wrong to be celibate or single, nor does it address polygyny. The author's argument against polygyny by emphasizing one woman for every man does not resound through scripture. What of celibacy? The apostles acknowledged there were those called to it.
The authors next supporting scriptures (Mark 10:1-12 and Mathew 19:1-12) deals with divorce, not polygyny. I agree with those scriptures entirely. Let's read all of Mathew 19. Then let's look at verse 8 " Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” It does not say that it is a sin to be married to multiple women. I will emphasize, I have NO intent of divorcing my wife. Abandoning a wife for lust would be man's sin. As would causing a woman to sin by abandoning her as stated in Mathew 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. "
POLYGAMY IN THE BIBLE
The author states:
"It is interesting to note that there are no passages in Scripture that clearly state, “No man should have more than one wife.” However, polygamous relationships are never mentioned in a positive light, and, indeed, the problems of such relationships are presented. "
Well, the first sentence saves a lot of argument. However, the author again has left something out. Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2 state that elders, overseers and the like must be the husband of but one wife. I won't speculate as to why the author did not include these scriptures. I hope that if the author does come across them he doesn't use the latter portion without the qualification of those being addressed. The Word doesn't need me to validate it, but I can certainly see how multiple wives would be diminutive to the offices of men in the positions listed. Especially when they were evangelizing and church planting in areas rooted in beliefs other than Judaism (which allowed polygyny).
The author goes on to insinuate that sins committed by the progeny of several polygynous families noted in the Old Testament were not actually the sins of the progeny, but the sins of the polygynous father! Ludicrous! To support such a concept would be akin to trying a murderer, finding the murderer disagreed with a familial issue of his past, and then sentencing the murderer's father to death for the crime of the son. I posit that the lust, greed, envy, and murderous actions of all men be their own sin regardless of their upbringing in a family classified as monogomous, polygynous, polyamorous, polygamous, or as an orphan or bastard. Only one scripture listed by the author gave an example where the sin listed was committed by the man committing the sin, and that would be 1 Kings 11:1-8. True to style, the author omits the selection and only quotes "that his many wives"turned away his heart". 1 Kings 11:1-8 states "King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been." The scripture plainly states that Solomon's sin was marrying women that he was not equally yolked to. In fact he was expressly forbidden from marrying those with an opposing faith, they weren't merely unbelievers they worshiped other gods. Furthermore, King David is extolled for being fully devoted to the Lord. By the way, King David had 8 wives and an unknown number of concubines (as the scripture says some were defiled and David took more in Jerusalem). If you are wondering, the difference between a wife and a concubine is the inheritance promised to the children. In all other things I believe them to be equal through study, and in personal application I intend to have only wives, no concubines.
Continuing on, the author states that "It is also interesting to note that polygamous relationships seem to be regulated in the commands Moses gave to the nation of Israel. Leviticus 18:18 instructs that a man should not marry sisters." Again, the full text is not presented. Do reference it, you'll find it says not to marry sisters lest they be a vex to one another. Some sisters just don't get along... huh... who would of thought? Surprise honey, you know that lady we talked about bringing in as a sisterwife? It's your sister! Tada!. Judge a tree by its fruit. If the sisters are in agreement there is no vexing.
Next, the author misrepresents Deuteronomy 17:17 as instruction against polygyny. Let's read Deuteronomy 17 in context and entirety. Did you read it? It is instructions for the king as Israel moves into a new land and includes verse 17(entire verse) "17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Sounds familiar to me, because the same thing was told to Solomon! Do not take many wives from a foreign land. Modern day application... loving and joining with women who bow their knee to another god is not wise!
Nearing an end, the author comments on one verse saying "In this passage Paul used the singular form of wife and husband throughout the passage. In fact, this is true of the New Testament writers in general." I agree. In this one verse, and in general. However, I must point out the extreme flaw in logic to use this as an argument against polygyny. In agreeing with his statement, we agree that the plural form of the word is also used. Pursue the etymology, and a revelation takes place about when singular and plural forms are used. The speaker intends them to be applied in regards to the specific audience and situation being addressed. Therefore, when considering any individual wife (even if I have multiple wives) all guidelines given for a "wife" should be adhered to. When considering polygyny, all guidelines for a man with "wives" are to be adhered to. Furthermore, if "wives" and "husbands" are words being used to address a crowd, it's because there was more than one married female and male present.
Finally, the author tells us to consider Ephesians 5:23 " For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." A fantastic scripture for the support of polygyny. As Christ is the bridegroom and the church (a multitude of souls) is His bride. In support of this, consider Mathew 25. Jesus Himself gives the parable of the ten virgins when speaking of his relationship to the church. As a Christian, those Words in red take special note to me. Christ likened His relationship to the Church to that of a dutiful polygynous man. In fact, Christ's parable reinforces the direction given Solomon and the kings who would enter new lands in that those women whose light no longer shone for their lack of lamp oil banged on the door to the banquet and were not allowed in. A man of God shall protect his house and not fall prey to lust. All the groom had to do to have more women was open a door. Less than that, merely unlatch it. But the Godly man only desires a Proverbs 31 woman, and therefore is only attracted to the single woman that displays a pure life (all were virgins) and adds to the family (the unprepared tried to take oil from the others, not equally yolked).
Yes, we have considered the scripture thoroughly and I am thankful that you challenged me with the anti-polygyny article because of the additional meditation on the Word it resulted in. To close my response I offer the following two considerations. Isaiah 4 states
"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying,
“We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel;
Only let us be called by your name,
To take away our reproach.”
A woman of marriageable age that was in an unmarried state was considered a "reproach" for the culture. Note that the women here are again Proverbs 31 women in that they are adding to the family (eat our own food, where our own apparel). I say the following in supposition: I find this verse notable because many other examples of polygyny involve kings and great leaders who would provide everything. Here, I see proverbs 31 women that desire to add to the family with whatever skill or belongings they have. Perhaps the man they would take hold of does not have the resources and the women supply their own because they so value a rare man whose heart and actions are set upon the Lord.
Some would argue the "signs of the times" regarding Isaiah 4:1. Understand that the books of the Bible were not separated by chapters and verses by the authors. Chapter and verse references were added after 1200AD for ease of reference. That being said, Isaiah 4:1 has been argued to be "the end of chapter 3" and "the start of chapter 4". It's really just the sentence between other sentences in a flowing book (old testament texts did have a style as well though). Those times prior were terrifying, and those after magnificent. Interesting that this verse is the transition.
Finally, while polygyny is acceptable, it is not mandatory or to be classified as more desirable. Our God, the only God, gave us free will. He promises to give us the desires of our hearts IF WE DELIGHT IN HIM (Psalm 37:4). I emphasize the requirement because most emphasize the reward. To delight in Him is to uphold his commandments, which include honoring your word (1 John 2:5 & others). If a couple vows monogamy, the husband may not pursue polygyny unless WILLFULLY released from his monogamous vow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The response I received was still not in agreement and with additional reasoning. I am not posting the response for respect to the person, though I responded in turn below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, there are not "only two places in the Bible that really show God's perspective towards polygamy", as several others were listed in my review of your suggested reading. I accept that the prophets spoke rightly, and I recognize that they offered instruction regarding the way God desired men to choose wives if they were to be polygynous. Were it not right for them to do so, the prophets would have said so instead of providing instruction as to how/whom.
Other scripture listed above shows the correct path for polygyny, such as the parable of the ten virgins. I don't agree that the Genesis creation supports your view, and ask that if you "always find that when God makes it himself the first time, that was the right time", then should we not also disrobe and walk into the wilderness to tend it as a garden? There are MANY things not said in Genesis. Fortunately, most of the important aspects of life are covered elsewhere in scripture.
Mathew 19 is not the only place where "one flesh" is mentioned. Mathew 19 was opposing the divorce of God-joined marriages. For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). "One flesh" was also written in 1Corinthians 6:16-17. Look that one up for a revelation.
As for 1 Corinthians 7, did you know that the two uses of the English words "own" are two different words in the original text? This is one of many examples where meaning is lost in translation. I firmly believe that we should make every effort to read the original text (if that means learning a new language so be it). There is a distinction between these two Greek words, signifying two types of ownership. "Heautou" implies exclusive ownership while "Idios" implies joint ownership. Heautou deals with the exclusive ownership of the possession, whereas Idios deals with belonging to the owner exclusively. Therefore, my wife belongs to me and me alone (Heautou). While my wife would say "I belong to my husband, and only my husband" (Idios).
Thank you again for encouraging me to make decisions with "complete knowledge of God's Word" and exhorting us to be wise and "not make a decision in ignorance". Your zeal for the Word and courage to edify others is greatly appreciated and though it may not have culminated as you had intended has certainly been a blessing. Polygyny is indeed an acceptable family structure before God's eyes. The place where celibates, monogamous, and polygynysts fail is in regards to establishing that celibacy, monogamy, or polygyny with Christ as the foundation of their lives.
I look forward to speaking with you again, whether in this regard or for general fellowship.
