Hit Me With Your Best Shot
People who first find the Biblical Families website often ask a number of similar, and of course imminently reasonable, questions:
"Does Scripture REALLY say it's OK for a man to have more than one wife? How can this be true?"
"Why would anyone - man or woman - want to do so?"
And even, "Why does it matter?"
There are explicitly Scriptural answers (as ultimately, this is what really matters anyway) to each of those, of course. You will find them here. But there are also practical answers, which similarly seem to boil down to just what He said: if you are obedient, you will be blessed, but those who sow rebellion will reap curses. For example, even those who think, "well, polygyny will NEVER be for me", might at least recognize that a society where Biblical patriarchs take additional wives can't help but be superior to one marked by record numbers of single mothers and fatherless children, just as the Bible teaches!
Over the years, it has become clear to me just how ENTIRELY consistent Scripture is on the issue of marriage. That consistency, of course, includes the fact that a man may make more than one marriage Covenant. To confirm all of the many references and teachings ultimately requires a book; there are some good ones linked from this site as well, along with (eventually!) a full exegesis of the topic from Scripture.
But it is also to be expected that Believers will have their own "favorite" arguments. My own concept of that hit-me-with-your-best-shot, favorite has matured over time.
For example, I was once impressed by a simple, logical response to the Biblical question, when I heard it put this way:
"You can't show me ANYWHERE in Scripture where polygyny is prohibited, but I CAN show you where it can be required!" *
Even though I later realized that there was more than ONE such potential "requirement" in Scripture, I have now come to conclude that there are even more compelling proofs.
For example, isn't God CONSISTENT? Doesn't He call "sin", sin, and ultimately even say, "have no fellowship" with such? After all, He doesn't ever command "thou shalt NOT" do something like murder, theft, or adultery, and then give rules or procedures for how to do it anyway, does He? **
But I think that the most important reason for each of us to understand the whole Truth of what God REALLY Wrote about marriage, ALL of it, is because to do otherwise about something SO important in His Word is an attempt to utterly ignore and even deny the character of God Himself!
Not once, but at least TWICE, God specifically refers to Himself as the Husband of two wives: both the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah (in chapters 3, and 23, respectively) tell a strikingly-similar story, whether the polygyny reference is to the nations of Israel and Judea, or to Jerusalem and Samaria.
Can God sin? And does He not say He is the same yesterday, and tomorrow?
How can we claim to want to "know Him", when we deny obvious Truths He teaches us about Himself?
Speaking of which, our Redeemer Himself clearly confirms that Truth again, when -- far from condemning polygyny -- He tells the "Parable of the Ten Virgins"! When the Bridegroom comes, He takes those five who are prepared with the "oil" of the Holy Spirit in to the wedding with Him.
I can't help but think that it is important for those who claim to believe in Him, and who claim to eventually want to be "Brides of Christ" (and, yes, that plural is deliberate, and important) that they must then also want to truly "know Him". What could be more important?
Every significant relationship that God describes in His Word is ultimately what mathematicians would call of a "one-to-many" type:
One King has multiple subjects;
One Master has multiple servants;
and one Husband will have multiple brides.
Isn't it a bit presumptuous for a subject of the King to deny that truth? Or for one who claims to be His "bondservant" to tell the Master how many others he may have? Or for us to say to Him, "there can be only one", and "you will have no other beside me?"
Why else does He so often teach in prophecy of TWO houses, TWO sticks, multiple "branches" (including those "grafted in"), FIVE prepared brides, seven letters to SEVEN churches, and TWELVE tribes? Like the "marriage supper of the Lamb", they ALL speak of an ending where we are many, but He is our One King, Master, and Bridegroom. Shouldn't it be obvious that He uses the many examples of polygyny in the Bible to teach lessons about love, provision, covering, and family that a "Monogamy Only" tradition not only ignores, but denies?
[ And, yes - throughout history almost every denomination, from the smallest assemblies to a Church which ruled empires and armies, has wanted to claim the title "Universal", or "One True Church", and declare Itself the Sole Rightful Bride of Christ. Others need not apply. Wars have been fought over less.]
That should be enough. Those who want to truly "know Him", much less potentially be invited to enter the wedding feast as one of His brides, should be willing to do so on His terms, and not ours. Anything less is a denial of His Truth, and His character, as Written.
But, I have observed something else over several years of teaching about this topic as well. "Monogamy Only" has become such an "idol" -- a doctrine based solely on the traditions of men -- that, like all sacred cows, it is put away only reluctantly. At least one more question always seems to follow. "Well, OK, polygyny may be PERMITTED - maybe He reluctantly allows it. -- but, but -- it's NOT God's Best, or 'not His original plan!' "
"And....what about Adam*** and Eve?"
The answer remains the same, though - doesn't it?
Did God not "know the end from the beginning"? Did He not recognize -- indeed, isn't that the whole message in His story, the "Rock" upon which all else is built -- that "God would send Himself a Lamb for the sacrifice"?
There are many other such responses as well. But they all have a similar theme, whether it is pointing out the hubris of those who would put themselves in His place, and "judge" His Word, or simply deny the Truth of what He has Written, and that it is a unified whole:
"The Law of the Lord is perfect..." (Psalm 19:7 )
We are not to "add to" it, nor "subtract from" His teaching (Deut. 4:2, 12:32, etc.). And that includes "adding to" His teaching about marriage things that He did not put in there! (One could even observe that some might call such "forbidding to marry" a very bad thing. See I Timothy 4:1-3!)
Finally, read Isaiah 4:1-3. Can it really be that this time when "seven women will take hold of one man" for marriage, and in repentance, would hold such a promise, without that, too, being a part of His plan, and a blessing?
The trouble with "adding to" His Word a "doctrine of men" based ultimately on a pagan tradition, is that it denies the essential consistent message of His Word. "Let God be true, and every man a liar." Our advice to those who honestly seek to "know Him" is to remain teachable, and be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11. Search out the Scriptures for yourself, and see if these things be True.
And may God bless you in your study.
Mark
----------------
* The "Law of the Levirate"; Deut. 25:5-10, is commonly cited.
But there is also I Cor. 7:10-11! Think about the fact that the departed wife may not remarry, but her abandoned husband can. When she repents and returns...
Dubious translations, such as the “husband of a wife” of I Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6, have been addressed in many places.
** Deut. 21:15 and Exodus 21:10, obviously. "If a man has two wives," or "If he takes another wife," can hardly be denied.
But the real irony is that the 'church' which gets so worked up about calling something which God permits "wrong" will then turn around and eventually accept something (like State-licensed "marriage", and eventually homosexual 'civil unions') which He flat-out prohibits.
Perhaps that shows the power of mammon, or why He so consistently advises us to be careful to "choose this day Whom you will serve". Maybe it's even why He uses the images of "harlotry" and "whoredom" to describe what "serving mammon" has ultimately always done when (another Jesus, which we have not preached, "least in the kingdom")
*** Do you mean the presumed "Original Monogamist" - the Man By Whom Sin Entered the World? I find it more than a bit humorous that people who talk in other contexts about "first use" and "original plan", while claiming that polygyny is often portrayed "negatively" in the Bible, will then ignore the implications of the most famously failed marriage in all history being Monogamous!
)