Christian Polygamy

No, we do not fight to decriminalize polygamy…  One reason for this position you can find here:

Ex Polygamy Cult Member Shares Tale of Sex Control

There are so many weirdos out there who think polygamy is a great idea, and who are completely ungodly people, wicked and evil…  Would you choose to fight a fight that such people profit from ?  They are God’s enemies.

Just incidentally:

We are not fighting to decriminalize polygamy.  God will see to that.  We are contending for the faith, showing Christians that the book they claim to rely on does not condemn polygamy, but portrays it instead as a valid and useful tool of dominion.

Not everything that man’s law calls criminal is sin…  and many things that are perfectly fine with courts today are abominable in the eyes of God.

The bible is very clear about right and wrong. God is explicit about what He likes and what He hates (see for example Exo 20:5-6, Deu 12:28-31, or Pro 6:16-19), about what we are supposed to do (Exo 20 and following chapters, for example), and about the rewards or punishments for our actions (for a general overview, see the blessings and curses of Deu 28).

If a person in the bible is punished or destroyed, there is no doubt about the why - Scripture tells us the reason. Pharaoh and his whole army are destroyed because God wants to make it absolutely clear that it is He, not Pharaoh, who frees the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (Exo 14:18). Moses does not enter the promised land because he did not follow God’s instructions exactly as he was told (Num 20:7-12). Onan is killed by God because he does not fulfill the duty laid upon him by the regulations for Levirate marriage and refuses to father an heir for his late brother (Gen 38:8-10). David is punished for adultery and murder by proxy after he impregnated the wife of Uriah, the Hittite (2 Sam 12:7-14). These are just a few examples: We are never left in the dark about the reasons for punishment, and since God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts not our thoughts (Isa 55:8), we do well to rely on what the bible reveals about God’s reasons instead of speculating about possible reasons for this, that or the other.

Given this fact, what really amazes me is that while many people would agree to what I just stated, when it comes to God’s ideas about marriage, they would rely precisely on said speculation. People would claim that, while Scripture does not condemn polygamy, it still favors monogamy, not outspokenly so, but one could clearly tell by looking at the marriages we find portrayed in the bible. They would point out that polygamy causes strive, that the husbands are “harangued” and the wives rivals, and that exemplary marriages are always monogamous. So from all this one could infer, they argue, that polygamy is sinful whereas monogamy is what God wants. Hmmmm…

Like I just said, God tells us, in Scripture, what He wants and what He does not want. In terms of polygamy, He never punishes anyone for polygamy, and if there is strive, it is because husbands fail to do what God told them to do. In Rachel’s and Hannah’s case, for example, their husbands favor them over the other wive(s), which is why they are barren (Gen 29:30-31 and 1 Sam 1:1-6) - God explicitly tells husbands not to diminish the rights of one wife if another wife is taken (Exo 21:10), so having a barren wife is the punishment for failing to follow God’s rules in this regard.

If you pick up your bible and read it, cover to cover, you will not come away with the idea that there are different forms of marriages, one good, one bad, but you will find that as far as Scripture is concerned, marriage can be a man and one wife just as well as a man and more than one wife. Everything the bible says about marriage (and divorce) is said about both monogamous and polygamous commitments, Scripture does not make a difference between the two. Bible scholars do, Christianity does, but Scripture doesn’t.

We should let Scripture shape our world view instead of allowing our modern world view to cloud our view of Scripture.

Here is Abigail’s second comment:

Abigail | hainanmom@yahoo.com

Whoa, that’s really taking Isaiah 4 out of context. Did you ever bother to read Isaiah 3 and discover WHY all those women were willing to be the husband of one man (even when the husband didn’t feed and clothe them) ??? This is a prophecy about a time of punishment and tribulation for Jerusalem and Judea.

Let’s see…basically, God is taking away bread and water from Jerusalem, the wise men, the strong men are no more, children are running the show, the men are all dying in battle…and yeah, because there isn’t many men left, women are grabbing up any man that’s still standing…this is a prophecy about a chaotic time with dreadful results.

That is hardly a legitimate argument for polygamy, anymore than it is a legitimate argument for children to rule the city (which also happens in the prophecy). You’re gonna have to do better than that.

Well, it would behoove us to also read a little further in Isa 4 then in order to find out what the whole polygamy thing leads to:

“And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, “We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach.” In that day the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and honor of the survivors of Israel. And he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem, when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.” (Isa 4:1-4)

So those polygamous families are the beautiful and glorious branch, and not the dreadful result of a chaotic time, as you put it… Like you said, this is prophecy, and what is prophesied is that those left over, those that stand until the end (Mat 24:13, but compare Matthew 24 and 25), will be who God will start over with, and those men will be rather desirable, it seems.

As for what the women say, please consider Exo 21:10:

“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.” (Exo 21:10)

“Only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach” quite obviously refers to marital rights, in other word, having offspring, children. That is what these women want from their husband. They say they will take care of the other two things a husband owes his wives, so to speak, but the third one is what they are after, quite well in accordance with the dominion mandate of Gen 1:28. You find Rachel saying the same thing when she finally gives birth to Joseph:

“Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son and said, “God has taken away my reproach.” And she called his name Joseph, saying, “May the LORD add to me another son!” “(Gen 30:22-24)

See, from a casual reading only you do not come to an understanding of Scripture as you will miss all the references, all the meat of the matter and come away, like many people do, dissatisfied, thinking that the surface layer is all there is, and probably run off to find something more “spiritual” in its stead. Scripture indeed says what it means and means what is says, and it does so in its entirety, which is why the entirety of Scripture has to “back up” your understanding of each and every verse.

One last thing: It does not do anyone any good to pull the ad hominem thing. Classifying our arguments as weak or saying we would have to do better than that does not make your arguments stronger, I suppose you know that, but makes you appear as being rather emotional about the whole issue.

Here is the first of two comments Abigail sent to our other site (polygamy.joshuahshouse.com)- I will paste them in full length, and comment on them right here in the post.

Abigail | hainanmom@yahoo.com

Your argument that the reason for Paul requiring bishops/elders/deacons to be the husband of one wife is weak — because you are wrong in your past tense wording “he should have raised his children well” — the scripture in I Timothy is present tense — “having his children in subjection” “ruling his children” — it doesn’t say that the children have to be teenagers or adults to prove that he’s a good father — just that he should be ruling them well and they should be obedient to him.

Furthermore, in all the instructions given to families in the New Testament, it ALWAYS speaks of the husband and ONE wife - I Cor 7:2 - “Let each man have his own wife” “the husband is the head of the wife (not wives) — etc. Notice it doesn’t say, let each man have his wives. That doesn’t even seem to be a consideration. Proverbs 5 even says “Have joy in the wife of your early years…why take another woman in your arms?”

Furthermore, the whole idea of marriage in God’s eyes is for the husband and wife to be joined together as ONE flesh — how can that happen when there’s multiple wives?

Moreover, you are the one who is twisting scripture when you give your personal opinion (not God’s) that “There is nothing good about the fact that women can take care of themselves nowadays - it is a fruitless, unfruitful existence for a woman to be unmarried, and not at all desirable” — the scripture explicitely says that it is GOOD for them to remain unmarried (as Paul was) if they are able to be chaste, for a woman that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and mind. The Bible says that marriage is good and honorable, but there is also special blessing for those who are single (as long as they can deal with no sex) because they aren’t so cumbered with the things of the world.

You say

“it doesn’t say that the children have to be teenagers or adults to prove that he’s a good father — just that he should be ruling them well and they should be obedient to him.”

Please tell me then, at what age do you think it can be determined that “his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” (Titus 1:6) ?

If you want to rely on the New Testament alone to speak about marriage, please go ahead and do so, but Proverbs 5 would not have to mention the bit about the wife of one’s youth if she was the only one. If you take Exo 21:10 into consideration, you see the context. Interestingly enough, Exo 21:10 is also the context in which to view Isa 4:1, but more about that later.

About the “one flesh” thing: Please consider 1Co 6:16. If you can be one flesh with a whore, quite obviously it is a rather fleshly thing that we are dealing with here - big surprise there: Scripture says what it means and means what it says.

You say

“you are the one who is twisting scripture when you give your personal opinion”

Well, since my opinion is not Scripture, it is difficult to twist Scripture when I state my opinion. But be that as it may, of course the bible also mentions celibacy as one calling, just as monogamy and polygamy are different callings. But if is was so good for women to remain unmarried, like Paul was, please tell me how you reconcile that with the dominion mandate of Gen 1:28. Yes, Paul said he wished everyone was like him, but if that indeed was a statement that you can apply generally speaking, God’s dominion mandate would be neglected. Scripture doesn’t contradict itself though, so you need to come to an understanding in which both statements are valid. Hence my opinion that, given the dominion mandate, it is indeed undesirable and fruitless, unfruitful, for a woman to be unmarried, even if society nowadays thinks otherwise. There might be some called to celibacy, of course, but given Gen 1:28, that’s not the norm, but rather the exception.