The word on many lips today is "polygamy." It was one of the hit stories of the month when Texas law enforcement went into what was daily described in the media as "the polygamist compound" and took their children away. Then the California Supreme Court passes their own legislation that rips the word "marriage" from its acknowledged meaning and gives it to homosexuals, and the fear is, again, "polygamy." You know, "If they legalize marriage for gays, what's next? Legal polygamy?" And, in all honesty, I can't figure out a rational defense against legalizing polygamy or any other "gamy" given the redefining of "marriage" because some of our society decided to. On what basis would they give marriage to homosexuals but deny multiple marriages to a religious sect? Isn't that discrimination? Isn't that discrimination against a religion?? Oh, this will never do! But, I digress ... I'm not writing about the next rupture of marriage. What I'm wondering about is the prohibition of polygamy.
We know that polygamy existed in the Bible. Although marriage was originally defined as "one man and one woman" (Gen. 2:24), we know that Lamech (Gen. 4:19) is the first recorded bigamist, which is not an Italian fog, but a simplified version of polygamy. Both Esau and Jacob all more than one wife, and for some time after that polygamy seemed to be an acceptable practice. There is no mention (that I can find) of polyandry (one woman marrying more than one man), but polygyny (you figure it out) seems fairly common in the Old Testament. By the time we get to the New Testament, there is no mention of it. And, oddly, there isn't one word in the Bible explaining that it was wrong. (As a side note, there also isn't a word in the Bible that condemns husbands who had concubines. A concubine was a mistress with a few extra rights.) So ... how do we get to the position that says that polygamy is wrong?
First, to say that the Bible is silent on the subject of whether or not it's a good thing is not an accurate statement. In Deut. 17, God predicts that the people will ask for a king, so He places restrictions on those who would be king. Read it sometime; it's an interesting set of rules (Deut. 17:14-20). One of those restrictions is "he shall not acquire many wives for himself" (Deut. 17:17). He even tells why: "Lest his heart turn away." Paul points out that one wife will distract you (1 Cor. 7:33). God says that multiple wives will magnify that effect.
Second, the assumption that "The Bible tells about godly people doing it" means "God approves it" is not accurate. Many godly men in the Bible did patently ungodly things. Nor is silence on the subject proof of approval. The Bible makes no prohibition against slavery, but we know that it is evil. There is one other point here that I would like to make. In the Bible, sometimes God allows things of which He doesn't approve. One of the most obvious examples would be divorce. When Jesus was asked when divorce was allowed, He answered, "What God has joined together let no man separate." They found the answer intolerable, so they challenged Him, "Then why did Moses allow divorce?" Jesus answered, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:3-8). Did God want divorce? "From the beginning it was not so." No! Did God allow divorce? "Because of your hardness of heart." Yes. And instead of banning it, He regulated it. The same is true of slavery ... and multiple wives.
What the Bible does say is "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). Just as leadership in the Old Testament was forbidden from having multiple wives, leadership in the New Testament is unavoidably limited to "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). Interestingly, marriage in the New Testament is a parallel to Christ's relationship with the Church. We are called His "Bride." Paul says, "The husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior" (Eph. 5:23). Husbands are to love their wives "as Christ loved the church" (Eph. 5:25). Christ only has one Bride. And human marriage is supposed to be an illustration of Christ's relationship with His Bride. Marriage has ramifications for society and ramifications for those who are married. Just as important, marriage serves as an image of our relationship to Christ. We dare not tarnish that image.
Christians wrestle with this problem. There is no clear prohibition. "Thou shalt marry one woman only." There seems to be mostly silence on the topic. But I think it's clear, despite the quiet, that it is not an acceptable practice from a biblical perspective. Why bring it up now? Because I think it will be increasingly difficult in the coming years to remember what "marriage" means. As we allow it to encompass more and more it means less and less. Eventually you're going to have to remember, "Now, why was I against polygamy?" That's my purpose.
24 comments:
Very good work, Stan.
Gay activists say that marriage should be between any two people because they say why not a man and a man? By the same token, the polygamist will ask, why two and not three or four? And as I pointed out once before, if you have "bisexual rights" (GLBT rights), then you will have to accomodate bigamy if someone asks for it.
The disturbing part of all this is that once marriage has been legally redefined as "between any two people", all those Bible verses from which we draw our reasons are rendered useless. If they didn't matter where gay marriage was concerned, they won't matter against polygamy, polyamory et al.
Being not a slippery slope but the same plain means that California and Massachusetts have agreed by default to recognize and honor polygamous marriages and their ilk.
If your God doesn’t approve of an action, but allows it—is the action immoral?
If it is immoral, why wouldn’t God command against it? If it is not immoral—what is the point of God’s disproval?
I love the question -- "... your God ...", like I have ownership or something.
He did command against it. What's the question?
The most I ever learned about God was when I became a father. I got to see things then from a perspective I never saw before. There were things that I did not want my kids to do that I did not command them not to do. I did not approve, but I did not command.
Some seem to think that "If it's in the Bible and there is no 'Thou shalt not' associated, it must be moral." Why? There is, for instance, no command to open the door for little old ladies at the mall, but it is certainly the moral thing to do (as an example). And the Bible gives us "because of the hardness of your heart" kind of statements. God didn't approve, but He didn't forbid. If "forbid" is the requirement to label something as immoral, then there is a whole host of things I can do that aren't mentioned in the Bible, right? ;)
I wasn’t asking about polygamy specifically. (The Tanakh and Mosaic Law allows it. 1 Cor. 7:2 is your best bet for a New Testament prohibition, but 1 Tim. is best read to allow it. For social reasons which, unless you are really interested, I won’t go in to.)
What I found fascinating was this statement:
Stan: In the Bible, sometimes God allows things of which He doesn't approve.
I was more broadly wondering about the “things” of which you speak. Technically there IS a command under the “love your neighbor” about opening doors for little old ladies. You said there were “things” which God doesn’t approve, but allows. I was unclear as to your response to my question.
If the God which you believe exists (is that better than “your God”?) allows something, but does not approve of it—is it immoral?
Oo, oo, I know how to answer this. If God doesn't approve, it is immoral. (That is, God determines what is good and what is bad.)
Actually Stan, if God forbids it is immoral.
Hi, Michael.
I haven't the slightest doubt that that which God forbids is immoral. Are you saying that that which God does not specifically forbid is not immoral? I'm pretty sure you're not saying that. I mean, God doesn't specifically forbid slavery in the Bible, but we're all abundantly clear on that question.
Stan,
Interesting post. A quibble about one particular interpretation, however.
You say, "Just as leadership in the Old Testament was forbidden from having multiple wives..."
This is rather a stretch. First of all, it would not apply to 'leadership' in general, but to the king... unless you know of other verses for other types of leaders (elders, priests, etc.).
Secondly, the kingly passage does not translate as you wish. It reads:
15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
Unless you wish to also say that he may only have *one* horse, or *one* piece of silver or gold.. .then 'multiply' does not imply 'more than one' but 'too much'. IE the average Israeli probably had one wife/concubine. Some, richer or more important, two or three. The temptation for the king would be (as we saw h appening) to have dozens or hundreds.
One irony in the whole 'gay marriage will lead to polygamy' statement, is that sodomy is explicitly forbidden, whereas polygamy isn't. Thus it is like saying, if we allow murder we might get grafitti... a large cart in front of a tiny horse.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see you appear to argue that polygamy is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. I'm hoping it's a misunderstanding on my part.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see you appear to argue that polygamy is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. I'm hoping it's a misunderstanding on my part.
Well, it certainly isn't a quote. I said:
1) That your interpretation of the passage was incorrect; ie that it didn't forbid polygamy so much as it forbade 'excess', be it of horses, gold or wives.
2) That *compared to Sodomy* polygamy is a *barely forbidden if at all* event. Sodomites are to be killed; polygamists cannot be elders: hardly equal in Biblical terms.
I make a similar point here:
http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/2006/08/polygamy-and-scriptural-interpretation.html
Not a similar point ... the same point. ;) Forgive me, but it still appears that you're arguing for polygamy as long as the law of the land allows it. It could also be the conclusion that you would favor slavery if the law of the land would allow it. And I still think I'm misunderstanding your point.
But if a king was not to multiply wives to himself (in the same way that he wasn't to multiply horses and gold), then what did it mean? He could have lots and lots of horses and lots and lots of gold (e.g., Solomon), so why not lots and lots of wives? What is being forbidden here?
But if a king was not to multiply wives to himself (in the same way that he wasn't to multiply horses and gold), then what did it mean? He could have lots and lots of horses and lots and lots of gold (e.g., Solomon), so why not lots and lots of wives? What is being forbidden here?
Your argument here is interesting. You are saying that because Solomon did something it was by definition right? That would argue in favor of polygamy as well, as Solomon, David, Abraham, Jacob... etc. all had multiple wives.
What is being forbidden is precisly what Solomon did:
Multiply gold, mutliply horses, and multiply wives.
I have actually written on slavery, and perhaps confirm your worst fears. Let me know what you think:
Just as political liberals and activist judges seem afraid of actually reading the text of the US Constitution, for fear of finding something there that offends them (as most of it does); so modern Christians seem afraid of reading the Old Testament Law. Which is a shame, as we could find some interesting answers to problems our society currently faces.
Take the slavery statutes, for example. Our society is scared to death of the word ‘slavery’, with all of its terrible pre-civil war implications; but a look at the Biblical concept of slavery might help us to realize what a horrible thing our modern prisons are.
A slave, as the concept is laid out in the Bible, is principally someone who has committed an economic crime (such as theft). This person, unable to pay the fine laid upon them, was required to work for the person to whom they owed the debt (the person, not the state). They were fed, clothed, and housed by that person, and worked for them without wages. While there they were able to have normal relations with their wife, children, family, neighbors etc. And they were integrated into the household of a functional member of society.
Meanwhile, we, in our supposedly ‘enlightened society’, enclose millions of (frequently African American) men in large cages. We remove them from their spouses, friends, family, neighbors, etc.; while forcing them into the society of murderers, drug addicts, rapists, and other blessings of society. While 'paying' an imaginary ‘debt’ to ‘society’, they in fact cost that very society millions a day, all the while leaving the actual victims of their crimes destitute.
Perhaps a look at the Old Testament is in order?
Forgive me, but it still appears that you're arguing for polygamy as long as the law of the land allows it.
There is a considerable difference between saying that Polygamy is not explicitly forbiden in Scripture and 'arguing for' it.
I do not believe that making polygamy is, Scripturally, legitimate.
I believe that there are rare circumstances (levirate law) where polygamy is required.
I believe that polygamy should not be the norm among Christians.
I believe that a polygamist is not allowed to be an elder (pastor). (Nor are singles, childless, or divorced).
I believe that one may not, normally, be a polygamist in US or western society, as it currently against the law.
"What is being forbidden is precisely what Solomon did: Multiply gold, multiply horses, and multiply wives."
I'm still at a loss. What is allowed. Is there a certain number of horses allowed? Is there a certain amount of gold allowed? Are they the same number? Is there a certain number of wives allowed? Is that the same number? I know it sounds like I'm being contentious, but I'm asking this way so you can understand my dilemma.
You do favor slavery. Interesting.
On polygamy itself, if it were legal in this country, on what grounds would you argue against it?
(Side comment: I understand where you get "a polygamist is not allowed to be an elder." You also include "singles, childless, or divorced." I'm wondering why you don't include "widowed", since he would not be the husband of any wife.)
I'm still at a loss. What is allowed. Is there a certain number of horses allowed? Is there a certain amount of gold allowed? Are they the same number? Is there a certain number of wives allowed? Is that the same number? I know it sounds like I'm being contentious, but I'm asking this way so you can understand my dilemma.
Some laws are as you would wish, ie you can do/not do exactly this or that. Others are more vague. This is even true for many of our laws. We have a speed limit... but we also have a law that forbids 'failing to drive at a safe speed'... so if it is raining etc, the limit changes... but not to an exact number.
I would treat it like this, that the king should not treat wives, horses, gold, or any such thing as a means of lording it over others. If he moves toward having *more gold than anyone* or *more wives than anyone* then he should look at his motivations... is he doing this to be bigger and better than everyone else?
Does that help?
Side comment: I understand where you get "a polygamist is not allowed to be an elder." You also include "singles, childless, or divorced." I'm wondering why you don't include "widowed", since he would not be the husband of any wife.)
A widower is an interesting point. I would include then as allowed because of what I see as the purpose of the injunction; namely to show us what kind of person would make a good elder:
IE If someone has married then he has been responsible for washing his own wife in the word. If he has had children, then he has been responsible for leading them in the word. Married with children, he has ruled a household. Children grow up and are serving God, he did it well. Polygamous, too much in the way of home responsibility; divided loyalty, etc.
But widower, was married, had children, ruled well, they serve the Lord... I would allow such a one under these injuctions.
On polygamy itself, if it were legal in this country, on what grounds would you argue against it?
Argue with who? As far as the law is concerned, I wouldn't.
As far as Christians are concerned, I would start with the fact that he who wishes to be an elder desires a good work. Being polygamous eliminates you from being an elder. Thus being polygamous eliminates you from a good work.
Thus the 'normal' Christian should not be polygamous.
However, under the principles of levirate law, polygamy might at times be required. Of course, levirate law itself is predicated on Jewish land inheritance laws... so we would need to implement those as well.
Plenty of work for a theonomist to do :)
You do favor slavery. Interesting.
Not quite what I said. The Biblical style of slavery...
(which is a far cry from what was practiced in the US, which would fall under the Biblical injunction of 'manstealing' and would be subject, if I remember correctly, to the death penalty)
... applied correctly, and replacing the immoral punishments we have now... yes I would support that. Going along with the other Biblically appropriate punishments of course.
So "multiply wives" is a purely relative term. Got it.
On widowers, I can understand the argument "the purpose of the injunction", but it doesn't state the purpose, so I wonder if it's valid. Just as "multiply wives" is "relative" (I hope you understood that as I meant it), I would wonder if "husband of one wife" is, too, since you've already included widowers.
On arguing polygamy, I've wondered what the argument would be against drug use if it was legalized (as it is in some places). The same with polygamy for those who argue about polygamy, "It's illegal, so we can't do it."
I understand that biblical slavery is not what was practiced in the American South ... but you would favor slavery -- the kind of your understanding. ;)
On widowers, I can understand the argument "the purpose of the injunction", but it doesn't state the purpose, so I wonder if it's valid.
Yes, actually it does. It is written:
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Here we see (in bold) the reason I suggest: he has learned to rule his own house (well) thus he is OK for ruling the house of God. A proving ground, as it were.
I understand that biblical slavery is not what was practiced in the American South ... but you would favor slavery -- the kind of your understanding. ;)
or, better, the kind that I understand the Bible regulating
And it is less of a 'pro-slavery' then an 'anti-prisons' and other unBiblical punishments stance. I am not proposing that some people *should be* slaves... it is always a bad thing.
But better they be slaves then that they go to prison.
Well stated and articulated. I think the only point that is missed in this discussion is the difference between grace and good works. God's grace covered David and Abraham in spite of their polygymy. Though he disapproved, he did not forbid-much like in a prior post regarding fatherhood. Sin is so prevalent in life that it is hard to describe the impossibility of living a blameless life and thereby earning a place in Heaven. The argument against plural wives gains some strength when looked at from that viewpoint. God did not expressly forbid many things because it would be through our collective cultural growth and wisdom that we would come to understand the destructiveness of certain behaviors and traditions. Certain sexual practices immediately impacted the health of a community and so were outlawed with severe punishment appropriately.
Believers do not fall under the law from a perspective of salvation and redemption but rather as a set of guidelines for healthy living and successful relationships. It is from this desire to live a good life and do good works that polygymy gained its legal barriers in Christian tradition.
God's grace covered David and Abraham in spite of their polygymy. Though he disapproved,
Can you show me where He is shown as disapproving?
Post a Comment