While you are correct that polygamy is never expressly forbidden in the Bible, it is wise to note that all of the Biblical examples of plural marriage were essentially unhappy families. Sarah was jealous of Abraham’s concubine Hagar (even though it was her idea to begin with) and ended up kicking the woman out. Jacob married sisters (later forbidden in the Bible) and Leah and Rachel then competed with each other (and their maids which they gave to Jacob as concubines) for their husband’s affections and to see who could have the most children. David’s children from multiple wives fought with each other and committed incest. Polygamy just seems to breed jealousy and strife.

Polygamy isn’t condemned outright, but monogamy is held as the ideal standard. The elders and deacons of the church are expressly told to be the husband of only one wife.

Thanks for the comment. We have dealt with this rather typical argument several times in the past, with the results being published in numerous places, so I won’t spend too much time on it now. If you are interested in knowing, please read the other materials.

One could equally point out the strife that resulted from having two sons, as in the case of Cain and Abel, or Esau and Jacob, and thereby condemn the practice of producing more than one male heir; it produces strife!…and all this strife was the product of “monogamous” marriage, as far as we know. I could go on, but the point is that this argument breaks down rather quickly with just a little critical examination. If that is what you wish to think, go right ahead, but it’s not very logical.

In terms of polygyny not being expressly condemned in Scripture, of course it’s not, because in the Hebrew mindset there was no distinction between having one wife or having three…it was (and is) simply marriage. The restriction placed on elders and deacons is just that, a restriction, and would indicate that it was the exception, not the rule.

The problem is that we tend to view God’s Word through the lens of our own modern culture and try to make it fit within that framework, rather than attempting to assuming the position of the original audience. The result is confusion, quite obviously. Likewise, we have a tendency to wrap Scripture around our own particular theology and shape it to conform to our understanding, rather than allowing Scripture to shape our theology. The latter is preferred over the former.

Well, I think by time the New Testament was written, the practice of polygamy was becoming rarer, especially as it wasn’t common in the Greek or Roman cultures which dominated Israel during the time. When monogamy was commanded for the elders and deacons of the church, that went along with other moral qualifications, such as not being a drunkard, being a good father, etc. — so it seems as if God wanted people to know that this is how families SHOULD be. I believe there was also something in the Old Testament that the king should be monogamous — one again holding up the ideal example.

Another thought is that one of the reasons for polygamy is for every woman to have a husband in cultures where that is necessary for a woman’s survival, and particularly in cultures where the male population has been decimated by warfare and there is thus an unequal ratio of females to males. In modern society, where the male/female ratio is about equal, and where females can support themselves adequately on their own, polygamy isn’t really necessary, and can, in fact, cause the opposite problem of not enough wives for all the husbands if some take plural wives. In the early days of the LDS church, they solved that problem by taking Indian wives (although I supposed that would cause a dearth of wives for the Indian men), because Joseph Smith reckoned that after 2 or 3 generations they would be “white enough” to pass muster (he was a bit of a racist), but I also understand that Salt Lake City in the 1800’s had a booming prostitution trade to take care of the sexual needs of the guys who couldn’t get a wife.

Abigail,

You say “In modern society, where the male/female ratio is about equal, and where females can support themselves adequately on their own, polygamy isn’t really necessary”. 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. Furthermore, people tend to think tomorrow things will be just like they are today – a dangerous position indeed. For a nice biblical example of a woman who is happy that she does not have to take care of herself after the death of her husband, see 1 Sa 25 – an episode you most probably know since your name, whether real or pseudonym, is Abigail.

You also say that “by time the New Testament was written, the practice of polygamy was becoming rarer” – if that had been the case, Paul would not have had any need to mention to both Timothy and Titus that elders were supposed to have only one wife. If you did the math, you would also understand the reason for such a restriction: A husband of more than one wife will be a fairly old man by the time his youngest child turns 13, which is another one of the qualifications, that he should have raised his children well – something you can only determine if that process is complete. (12-13 was the age of accountability, or adulthood.)

This qualification, incidentally, is not a moral qualification any more than being apt at teaching or given to hospitality are necessarily matters of morality, so to say “it seems as if God wanted people to know that this is how families SHOULD be” means stretching it quite a bit. It is interesting that you imply polygamy is something immoral, or that monogamy is morally superior. Since the bible does not differentiate between monogamy and polygamy, this implication is, again, a modern addition to what Scripture has to say. Like my husband said earlier, we should not try to bend Scripture to conform to what we would like it to say, but should rather conform our thoughts and deeds to the standard presented in Scripture.

Oh, and by the way – Kings were not supposed to be monogamous. It would be rather odd if God on the one hand expected kings to be monogamous, and on the other hand gave David so many wives, and would still have given him more had that not been enough. What it does say is that a king is not supposed to amass horses or wives (Deu 17:15-20), foreign wives who could turn his heart away from God, both things Solomon did not heed to which was his downfall in his old age. I guess reading both books of Samuel would give you a good impression of God’s ideas about marriage and kings.

As far as Greek, Roman or Mormon culture and practices are concerned – we are completely unconcerned by any of them. We do not go by their standard, but by God’s word alone. Greco-Roman cultural standards certainly should not be held higher that God’s standard.

Last but not least, you do not address any of the points my husband made earlier, but come back with the same type of argument that relies on a modern day approach towards Scripture. That, like my husband already pointed out, does not take you very far towards understanding a biblical blueprint of family, which is what we are concerned with here – not an American, Australian or European blueprint, but a biblical blueprint.

Grace and Peace,
Talitha

Well, the only point your husband made that I didn’t address was about not having more than one male heir because it might also engender strife — which is correct. However, it’s necessary in the event that one child should die.

What neither of you have addressed is my point that while God does not condemn polygamy (and thus, no, I don’t think it’s immoral), He did command the elders and deacons of the church to be the husband of one wife (and thus, yes, I believe that monogamy is morally superior). If you think that God doesn’t differentiate between polygamy and monogamy, then why do you suppose He would make this requirement for the leaders of the church?

I addressed the argument against plural marriage based upon the possibility that it may cause strife, and pointed out that any number of things could cause strife, such as having two sons, and thus the argument is logically inconsistent. Now you make exceptions to your own argument. That’s fine, and I think simply furthers my point.

I did address the deacon/elder qualification argument also:

“The restriction placed on elders and deacons is just that, a restriction, and would indicate that it was the exception, not the rule.”

I did not provide further elaboration on it because, as I said all of this has been addressed in detail elsewhere.

The reason we no longer engage in apologetics is quite simply because we grew weary of repeating ourselves endlessly. If you are truly interested in knowing, I suggest you begin with those other materials, and then comment at http://www.christian-polygamy.com …this site (polygamy.joshuahshouse.com) has become something else. However, if you’re interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, well, I think we can all find more productive uses for our time.

“Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense. ” Proverbs 12:11

Abigail,

“If you think that God doesn’t differentiate between polygamy and monogamy, then why do you suppose He would make this requirement for the leaders of the church?” Well, if you did the math, you would easily find the reason, as I said yesterday, so it is not a matter of morality at all And no, the bible does not differentiate but only speaks of marriage, be it monogamous or polygamous – this is not what we think God does, but what Scripture says, which is what we rely on solely – all of Scripture, by the way, not bits and pieces only.

“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones.” (Pro 3:5 -8)

Please feel free to continue on http://christian-polygamy.com, and as far as biblical womanhood is concerned, I wrote a few things about that on http://joshuahshouse.com, if you feel inclined to read some more beforehand.

Grace and Peace,
Talitha

Evolve monkeys, Evolve! Where is sanity? Easter bunnies, Santa Claus, Zeus, Jehovah, can’t you see they are all the same? Stop having so many babies, it is selfish and bad for the world. By the arrogant, stuborn tone of your writing, I doubt you are capable of the true humbleness it takes to admit that you are capable of errors in judgement, as was the writers and characters in your “scriptures.” But hopefully one day you’ll see there is no difference between you and the fundamentalist Islamic sects, etc. and will loosen your mental grip born of fear and recognize you MUST be agnostic and live in the truth of our uncertainty, otherwise it leads to things like, hate, terrorism and child rape.

I can see that you folks are very close minded, and not really interested in what the scripture really has to say about marriage — that is proven by the fact that you have deleted two of my postings where I made salient points from the scripture — I suppose it is easier to delete postings that point out scripture you are uncomfortable with, that to honestly consider what God really has to say.

Talitha, I feel nothing for pity for you — that your husband can’t be satisfied with the wife of his youth, as God tells him in Proverbs 5, and who rationalizes his actions as “Biblical.”

It seems as though you typed before reading, and have since then went to the other site as we suggested, where your two comments were posted, and made two additional comments that are also approved. I think that is farily open minded treatment…but anyway.

I said, above:
“If you are truly interested in knowing, I suggest you begin with those other materials, and then comment at http://www.christian-polygamy.com …this site (polygamy.joshuahshouse.com) has become something else.”

My Wife said, above:
“Please feel free to continue on http://christian-polygamy.com, and as far as biblical womanhood is concerned, I wrote a few things about that on http://joshuahshouse.com, if you feel inclined to read some more beforehand.”

Abigail,

Thank you for your misplaced pity. You jump to conclusions quickly, it seems, since you do not know anything about our family. I could be the wife of my husband’s youth, or I could be the youngest of his 17 wives for all you know, so all you do is trying to discredit my husband, our family. I said it already yesterday though: The ad hominem thing you pull does not take any of us very far. At best, it shows that you are rather emotional about the whole polygamy thing.

Grace and Peace,
Talitha

I have a question about the reference to 1 Sa 25…in reading that, I had some questions about Abigail’s conduct, and was wondering what your interpretation of it would be. At the beginning of the chapter, she is married to Nabal, and Nabal is basically a jerk. David & Co. make friendly overtures to Nabal, who responds in a boorish fashion. Uncool.

But when Abigail hears what happened, she puts together this huge offering – 200 loaves of bread, 2 skins of wine, 5 dressed sheep, 5 seahs of roasted grain, 100 cakes of raisins and 200 cakes of pressed figs, along with enough donkeys to carry it all. She does this dishonestly, keeping her husband in the dark about it. Then she travels to David’s camp, and gives him her offering, calls him ‘Master’, and berates her husband Nabal, calling him a fool, and essentially pledges herself to David’s service.

Later on, when Nabal hears what happened, he goes sort of catatonic, and dies ten days later, whereupon Abigail marries David asap.

Isn’t this essentially the opposite of obedience and submission to her husband’s will?

Monica,

Thanks for the question, I have an article coming on the issue. But let me answer your question already so that you don’t have to wait for the long version:

We find the same type of “disobedience” in Abigail that we also find in Zipporah in Exo 4:25. The outcome of both women’s initiative is what shows the significance of the event: Both women safe the life of their husband, in Abigail’s case she saves the life of her husband and all the males of the household.

The blindly obedient submissive housewife is an image that many people have in mind when they think of biblical womanhood, but that concept is not a biblical one at all. Submission does not turn you into a mindless dolt.

But as I said, more is coming, please be a little patient.

Grace and Peace,
Talitha

Tabitha in one of the comments that you left for abigail you told her to come back with a modern day approach to scripture. What did you mean by that?

Andrea,

I am sorry you were confused by what I said. What I wanted to say was that Abigail came back with a modern view of Scripture in response to my husband’s post. I guess I messed the tense up there so that it was unclear.

Never would we encourage anyone to approach Scripture with a modern day view or perspective as it will inevitably lead to misunderstanding. If you do not let Scripture define its terms, but rely on modern day definitions, you will end up thinking that Scripture contradicts itself. It doesn’t.

Thanks for commenting and giving me the opportunity to clarify.

Grace and Peace,
Talitha