Converted Polygamists and Church Membership
Polygamy in Muslim lands
Mission work amongst Muslims has begun in God's
providence to bear considerable fruit in the salvation of many of the
lost
in the Middle East. In societies, still in many respects culturally
similar
to that of the patriarchs, this presents unusual and complex problems.
In the West, our society has generally undergone a dramatic and
astonishing
slide in moral standards. The strict reproach and shame attached to a
divorced
husband or wife a few decades ago has all but disappeared, divorce is
more
readily obtainable and extramarital cohabitation is the rule. Our
Middle
Eastern neighbours look upon our societies with pity and disdain. How
best
to avoid the West's corrupting influences is for them a frequent matter
of debate. In particular, they lament the break-up of marital and
family
life, and the easy shamelessness of divorce. Yet it is in the Near
Eastern
societies, while not prevalent, that legal and stable polygamous
relationships
do occur, particularly in rural and agricultural communities. It is
difficult
for the Western mind to appreciate how such attitudes can coexist in
the
same community. Here, even secularists still regard polygamy as a most
dishonourable and demeaning institution. The influence both of the
Gospel
and of Greek and Roman legislation has largely protected us from it.
There
the stricter Muslim authorities express little embarrassment at
embracing
both the shamefulness of divorce and a firm defence of polygyny's
legitimacy.
What is at issue?
The problem the churches face is how should we
scripturally handle those who are saved who are already engaged in a
polygamous
marriage? Here is a situation we can easily envisage from the life of
Jacob
or Elkanah or Abraham, and the analogy is close, because the cultural
background
is still very similar. The problem is particularly acute when the first
marriage has been arranged, and is perhaps a mutually loveless one, in
contrast to the second, which like Jacob's union with Rachel was
willing
and desired, or when each of the wives express a preference to stay
with
their husband. What is the Lord's mind?
Do we have scriptural grounds to require and
if necessary to compel the divorce of these partners against their
will,
and if so which partners and how?
Guiding scriptural principles
It is with Christ's own law that we examine the
scriptures, and it is Christ who Himself starts with Moses.
Categorically
the Lord states, 'It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
tittle
of the law to fail'(1). We dare not
add to or remove from any of God's holy law. 'Wherefore the law is
holy,
and the commandment holy, and just, and good' (2).
There is grave danger as Christian workers even if we slightly
compromise
or defile His holy standards, there is equally serious danger if we
fall
into a state which the Apostle challenges, 'Now therefore why tempt ye
God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our
fathers
nor we were able to bear?' (3).
What a daunting task the cautious interpreter
has to face ! How scrupulous we must be not to inject our
presuppositions
into the texts.
God's explicit declarations are undoubtedly the
clearest and best place to found our approach to this area. Yet we
should
find no real conflict
between God's express statements and His actions
toward His people in scripture narrative - indeed there may be a
tension
temporarily arising between the two as a result of His great patience,
but ultimately His acting and His speaking will both reflect His
perfect,
holy and immutable character. If we do find apparent conflict it should
stimulate a careful re-examination of our approach. Additionally to
argue
as some, that His essential moral requirements have changed
progressively
with the passage of history does great violence to His consistency and
integrity. 'Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy
righteous
judgments endures for ever' (4).
Is polygamy sinful?
Genesis 2:23-25 establishes that God's purpose
at creation was a monogamous relationship between husband and wife, one
wife only was created for Adam as a helpmeet in the recognition that
his
isolation was undesirable. It was Lamech, a singularly violent,
boastful and vengeful
man, who apparently first introduced a deviation from God's order.
Christ's quotation of this Creation ordinance
significantly introduces the word 'twain' from the Greek Septuagint
translation
of the Old Testament. in both Matthew and Mark's accounts. God's plan
and
ordinance for marriage is monogamous.
1 Corinthians 7:2-4 sets out the New Testament
requirements for believers most clearly: 'Nevertheless, to avoid
fornication,
let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own
husband.
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also
the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but
the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own
body,
but the wife.'
How can a woman share joint authority over her
husband with another? How can the reciprocal submission here required
of
each partner ever be engaged in by a man with two wives? There is an
exclusiveness
singularity of relationship intended here, in contrast to the
fornication
and faithlessness of Corinthian society.
So we conclude from these and other texts that
polygamy is a deviation from and breach of God's commandment, it is a
transgression
and it is undoubtedly sinful.
Is polygamy legally equivalent to adultery?
This is the key to the problem in hand. Does
God's law regard polygamy and adultery as legally equivalent?
Undoubtedly,
as with lustful thoughts or a lustful glance, polygamy along with many
other sexual sins falls under the condemnation of the Seventh and Tenth
Commandments. It is a breach of God's original ordinance. Lamech was
wrong
to take more than one wife, as were the patriarchs and the kings. It
falls
into the same family of sins. However although lustful thoughts will
earn
us God's everlasting punishment, if they are unforgiven, they do not
constitute
a sin of sufficient gravity to justify a wife divorcing her husband.
They
may be in the same family as adultery, but clearly, whilst a matter of
great evil they are not as heinous as the action itself. What about
polygamy?
Does God regard it as of equal gravity, requiring equal treatment to
adultery?
Here we must carefully re-examine our primary
texts.
Genesis 2:24 'Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be
one flesh.'
This sacred relationship established and defined
by God is most certainly defiled and injured by the taking of a
plurality
of wives, but the question is does it thereby become completely
invalidated?
Is polygamy tantamount to adultery? Is a planned second or third
marriage in any sense recognised in God's sight, or is it simply
identical
with adultery? The issue is not whether the marriage is corrupted but
whether
or not it is thereby destroyed in God's sight. This would undoubtedly
be
the case if, as has been claimed, God's ordinance of marriage
necessarily
requires 'the exclusion of all others' not only to comply with His
will,
but actually to define it as well. But where does the text explicitly
require
this sense? The union of flesh certainly indicates a profound and
irreversible
bond, but it does not explicitly indicate that its very validity is
actually
terminated by a plurality of partners. Likewise with Christ's clear
commands
about divorce, it is not explicitly clear that the violation of the 7th
commandment involved in taking two or three partners, is of the same
degree
of heinousness as putting away one wife to take another. That requires
the excision of two clauses from His command, ('whosoever shall put
away
his wife, except it be for fornication') and an injection of meaning
into
the verse which may or may not be justified. Polygamy falls short of
the
law but, unlike adultery, it does at least require a faithful
maintenance
of affection and care for each partner, a continuing family intimacy to
a greater degree than previous relationships with parents, a
mutual
bond of loyalty, and considerate provision for their offspring, as with
Abraham's affection for Hagar, or Jacob's to Leah.
'One flesh'
The Biblical use of the term 'they twain shall
become one flesh' may seem impressive evidence to hedge around not just
the exclusive lawfulness, but also the exclusive validity of singular
marital
relationship. However we must realise that the New Testament itself
does
not use the term only to define marriage.
1 Corinthians 6:15-18 'Know ye not that your
bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of
Christ,
and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not
that
he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall
be
one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee
fornication.
Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth
fornication sinneth against his own body.'
In a rather startling way, Paul here uses the
description of the first couple to describe the horrific and damaging
effects
of fornication. The argument is clear: members, that belong to Christ
alone,
are united with the members of a prostitute, two become one, joined as
one body, two become one flesh. This is not a contrast between the
right
and the wrong, but a direct equivalence between the irreversible
emotional
and physical effects entailed in marriage and those in a casual,
thoughtless relationship. Is a casual sexual relationship then actually
equivalent to a marriage? No, the intention is to show only that its
profound
physical consequences are the same. The clear implication of the
passage
is that even the most fleeting sexual relationship carries
life-changing,
permanent effects, effects very similar to those entailed in marriage.
Almost all reformed commentators (5)
, who address the question, agree that the Spirit's use here of 'one
flesh'
is a real ascription of the same consequences as a lawful marriage, it
is not just a figure of speech. Both the sanctified ordinance and its
sinful
perversion are described as being 'one flesh' states. If the
application
of what is 'one flesh' is not only confined to defining an exclusive,
monogamous
partnership, how can it properly be used as the foundation for
determining
that God does not recognise any obligation or validity at all in
polygynous
marriage?
Some argue it is obvious from the 'one flesh'
term itself, that God views polygynous marriage as identical to
adultery.
They reason that if a husband, in ignorance of God's law, contracts a
second
marriage he cannot be 'one flesh' with each of his wives, since being
'one
flesh' necessitates a single marital partner, in taking a second he is,
by their definition, in a state of actual, perpetual, and complete
adultery.
They claim the term itself is universally applied to marriage. They
treat
the term as a purely ethical description, a state it is actually
impossible
to add to, 'one cannot be one flesh with two'. But this complete
equation
of marriage with 'one flesh' does not square with its use in 1 Cor. 6.,
the Spirit does not use the term only to describe God's true ordinance,
but also the consequences of sexual intercourse when abused. If a
married
man falls into the vile snare of adultery, does this term itself
somehow
compel us to believe that he does not actually fall prey to the same
evil
consequences as a bachelor by becoming one flesh with the harlot,
because
he is already one flesh with another? Paul's purpose is to show that
tremendous
violence and shame falls on all parties to such an act. The implication
of the text is inescapable, an adulterer, even in a casual affair, does
actually enter a one flesh state with an adulteress, in a highly
significant,
devastating sense.
Others, arguing to a similar conclusion, treat
'one flesh' as descriptive of a physical state which not only should
be,
but actually can only be exclusive of other parties. They claim, 'he
can
be one flesh with one woman only', as though the term were descriptive
only of the act of intercourse itself. But this subverts the permanence
implicit in the Apostle's description of an act of fornication, that it
inevitably carries long term consequences. In the case of the
adulterer,
are we compelled to consider his pre-existing marriage as necessarily
destroyed,
completely and axiomatically, at the time of his sin, whatever view his
wife takes of her adulterous husband? Has the adulterer somehow
necessarily
ceased to be 'one flesh' with his wife? Even if he subsequently repents
and she chooses to exercise mercy? If he does repent, has he then
ceased
in some permanent sense to remain one flesh with his adulterous
partner,
though physical liaison has stopped? If so, where is the force of this
passage's warning, has the sin against the body so quickly disappeared?
One who absolutely restricts the use 'twain shall be one flesh' in such
a way, faces absurd conclusions.
Of course, neither forcing entire identity
between
all cases of 'twain shall be one flesh' and lawful marriage nor
restricting
the description to the physical act of intercourse itself is wise, nor
is it consistent with the Bible's handling of some instances of
fornication
to believe that such a 'one flesh' state implies that a marriage has
been
entered(6) .
Insisting that because two have become one flesh,
and on that basis entirely, a husband's ignorant and foolish entrance
into
a second marriage must be treated as if it were full blown adultery
itself
is inconsistent with the Holy Spirit's use of His own terms. It
overreaches
the universal use of 'one flesh' from a description of the powerful and
irreversible effects of sexual intercourse, proper only to and bound by
monogamous marriage, to an exclusive identification of the term with
monogamy
alone, or else straitens it to an exact equivalence to the temporary
act
itself. We agree the term is used to help define monogamy as the only
approved
form of marriage, but how can we also insist that the phrase, on its
own
merits alone, obligates us to withdraw any recognition at all from a
polygynous
marriage, when entered in ignorance of His will? We affirm that God
frowns
upon polygamy and that it is indeed a deviation from and transgression
of His will, but the question in hand is still more specific, has He
and
does He acknowledge the marital obligations of polygamy when contracted
in sinful ignorance?
To summarise, polygamy breaches God's law, but
our primary texts themselves do not explicitly clarify whether it is
legally
commensurate with adultery or fornication, in the sense of sexual
intercourse
out of the bonds of wedlock.
The law on adultery
It is to other passages of God's law we must
turn to clarify His mind and will on this question. Firstly we must
examine
what the law required in the case of adultery.
Leviticus 20:10 and 19:20 make it abundantly
clear that there is only one punishment for adultery between free
persons,
immediate execution. No subsequent qualification is made to this law.
This
requirement provided the sharp barb of the trap set for the Lord Jesus
by the Pharisees in John 8. Whilst under Roman occupation, the Jews
were
no longer free to exercise this sanction of the law, despite believing
it still to be necessary. They hoped therefore either to place the Lord
in opposition to Moses, thus discrediting Him, or else to the Romans,
but
He disappoints their expectation. Christ very carefully makes no
qualification
to the law, except by questioning the fitness of the crowd to execute
it,
knowing that the price for setting the adulteress free and removing her
condemnation must be paid subsequently in His own blood.
This same sanction is of course required by God,
and executed by the Israelites for idolatry, blasphemy,
Sabbath-breaking,
witchcraft and other serious offences. These continuing penalties
were cited as the grounds of Christ's own execution, 'we have a law,
and
by our law he ought to die'. Truly Sinai was filled with sufficient
terror
to make even Moses exceedingly fear and shake. No compromise was made
with
Israel over adultery.
The law on polygyny
Two texts clarify that God regards polygyny as
of a quite different gravity to adultery. Firstly, Exodus 21:8-11, in
speaking
of a maidservant,
'If she please not her master, who hath betrothed
her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a
strange
nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with
her.
And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after
the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her
raiment,
and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these
three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.'
It is clear a marriage had begun from the word
'another' before the term wife, and also from the term 'duty of
marriage'
from which she is not to be deprived, which the modern translations
render
more plainly, 'marital rights' (NIV) or 'conjugal rights' (NASB). This
explicitly excludes consecutive polygamy, and provides an
incontrovertible
instance of the toleration of polygyny by Almighty God in His law.
Secondly, Deuteronomy 21:15-17
'If a man have two wives, one beloved, and
another
hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated;
and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when
he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make
the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is
indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for
the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for
he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.'
Some suggest this refers only to two consecutive
marriages, but there is little contextual support for this supposition.
The most natural reading appears to be that it refers to polygamy of a
simultaneous kind, Matthew Henry for example does not even mention the
alternative possibility. At the least the text leaves deliberate room
for
both interpretations. If it is argued that the passage gives no
approval
to polygamy, we fully agree, it does not sanctify polygamy, but by its
very presence it does indicate an altogether different attitude of God
to polygyny from adultery. An adulterer would never be instructed and
provided
for in such a way, there being only one provision for him under the
law,
his death.
If at Sinai, adultery requires instant execution,
is it not completely incongruous to suggest that polygamy is
essentially
equivalent to adultery, because of the defining nature of marriage?
Does
not this suggest a clear distinction between the two, and a marked
difference
in the scale of evil entailed in the actions? Have not our friends, who
take a different view, unwittingly succeeded where the scribes failed
by
exposing an inconsistency between the Messianic lawgiver and Moses, (if
not also between the Holy Spirit in Genesis and the Spirit in Exodus
and
Deuteronomy) by their interpretative approach?
Two other texts contribute less certain weight to the argument, but also indicate that polygyny was explicitly tolerated, Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and Leviticus 18:18. The prohibition to future kings against multiplying wives in Deuteronomy 17:16-17 is in itself no more rigorous proof that they were obliged to remain monogamous, than that they must have only one horse or one piece of silver or gold. The greater evils of the excessive polygamy found in pagan kings, and no doubt the commendation of monogamy as well, was being highlighted to the one person in the kingdom most likely to have more than one spouse.
A temporary toleration
The pure moral law of God is immutable, each
precept is a glorious reflection of His own immutable character. Sin is
the transgression of the law. It is plain from Christ's own words that
at times laxity was tolerated, though not approved of, in the express
requirements
of His law. The grounds for divorce are an excellent example of this.
Although
in Deuteronomy there was sufficient elasticity in the expression
'uncleanness'
for some Jewish teachers to forbid adultery on the grounds of adultery
alone, Christ explains that there was deliberate laxity in the term to
prevent worse offences than divorce. It is of course a laxity He
removes;
by appeal not to a new moral principle, but to the original purpose and
will of God in Genesis 2. Divorce for grounds other than adultery was
never
explicitly approved, and a pious OT reader of the law could see
from
Genesis that it was not God' will, but Christ does not specifically
outlaw
it until His incarnation. God's approach even to times of
hardheartedness
and rebellion is most instructive to us, since the same sin is
prevalent
today. We are bound to resist and decline divorce on lesser grounds
within
the church, but how should we handle the applicant to the church
fellowship
who has divorced for such grounds, and now shows evidence of deep
penitence?
What if he had remarried since the divorce? Though beyond our scope
here,
these questions are raised to show how laws providing for evil times
may
provide insights into God's purposes and priorities, and reflect His
perfect
pastoral response to situations complicated by past disobedience.
Polygamy, by contrast, was not merely provided
for, at Sinai, it is explicitly tolerated. It is not commended, but it
is borne with. The law here recognises as valid that which it also
indicates
is not lawful. It does not annul polygamous marriages. Both Genesis and
the New Testament indicate that this toleration too was for the
'hard-heartedness'
of the people, and that it is a toleration no longer open for Christian
marriages. The question before us is however different, what of those
who
have entered into its obligations, who may have begotten children by
their
wives, and upon whom their wives are dependent, socially, emotionally
and
financially? In the maelstrom of Christian conversion from a Muslim
background,
with intense family and social hostilities, often culminating in
banishment
or murder, it would not be surprising if a Muslim wife chose to part
from
her 'infidel husband'. Here we could scarcely intervene with any
propriety
in the light of Paul's clear command in 1 Corinthians 7.15. In other
cases,
family members may compel a legal divorce from an 'apostate' by a civil
action. The real issue applies in the case where a wife or wives are
unwilling
to part from their husband.
Do we have scriptural authority for compelling
divorce for those who are unwilling to part?
The normative value of narrative passages
of
Scripture
If we interpret God's law so as to put
His declarations at variance with His actions it should caution us
about
our interpretative approach. The narrative passages are certainly to be
approached with greater caution than God's forthright declarations, but
Christ so used the narrative of David's eating the shewbread to reprove
even the Pharisees' direct challenge from the law to highlight
their
error (7) . God's response to
situations
of sin or compromise has a normative value in itself, as Paul plainly
reminds
us in 1 Corinthians 10:6. So when we review the manner of God's dealing
with His servants during times of polygamy, we gain important light and
help on how He wishes us to approach our problem.
Abraham and Jacob
Abraham's taking of Hagar, at Sarah's initiative,
is a clear example of polygamy. Concubines are sometimes scripturally
referred
to as wives to indicate how close the two states are
(8) . Whilst we believe this to have been both
wrong
and misguided, would Abraham countenance the description of his action
as equivalent to adultery? But this is the position of those who
interpret
the 'one flesh' phrase as recognising only a single and exclusive
marital
relationship as binding and valid. The Lord's reproof for the pagan
Abimelech(9)
and for Pharaoh (10) was
immediate
when they thought to take Sarah as a wife. If Abraham's union with
Hagar
was equivalent and yet goes uncorrected, does He care more for
unbelievers
than for His own children? Here there is again indisputable evidence of
the sharp distinction in the Lord's mind between adultery and polygamy.
He deems to recognise at least some marital validity and significance
in
the ties knit in a polygamous relationship.
Jacob's fall into polygamy was instigated by
Laban, but his situation in having a greater love for his second wife
is
not unusual in lands where arranged first marriages for family and
political
reasons are still frequent. It emphasises the considerable anguish
potentially
caused, by those who believe that the chronological sequence of
marriage
itself dictates the choice of the wives to be divorced. Again the Lord
is seen to explicitly favour and hearken to cries from both Leah and
then
at length from Rachel(11)
for children from within their respective polygamous marriages with
Jacob.
God's answer requires a blessing upon the very relationship in which
they
are each engaged. Yet joyfully they praise Him for unequivocally
granting
them their desires. Do we ever read of such an extraordinary response
for
an adulteress? On the contrary, David's first child died as censure for
his adultery with Bathsheba, despite his pleas (12)
. Do we not therefore rightly conclude, that while this polygamous
union
itself was improper and sinful, once undertaken it was nevertheless
graciously
favoured and sustained by God? Has God's eternal nature changed, or do
our friends who insist on compelling the divorce of polygamists perhaps
misread His heart and purpose?
David and Solomon
Both David and Solomon were to be blamed not
only for their polygamy, being dissonant with Genesis 2, but also for
their
breach of Deuteronomy 17.16-17. Both kings, especially Solomon, did
excessively
multiply wives to themselves. There is no particular mystery in God's
toleration
of these events in the context of the rest of God's OT dealings,
although
all His grace is most mysterious. But if polygamy is axiomatically
equivalent
to adultery - then His tolerance is nothing short of being both
astonishing
and inconsistent.
How can the sweet psalmist of Israel who rejoices
that, 'the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the
testimony
of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord
are
right, rejoicing the heart', live the whole of his life from his
marriage
to Abigail onwards in continuous, full-blown adultery, without explicit
reproof, if our friends are to be believed? Is it not more accurate to
liken this to Esau's polygamy, which was a 'grief of mind' to Isaac and
Rebekah, but not one which Isaac explicitly prohibited or contemplated
withdrawing his blessing for (13)
.
Nathan's reproof
The sharp gulf of distinction between the sins
of adultery and polygamy is particularly conspicuous in Nathan's
reproof
of David after the affair with Bathsheba.
Here we must be careful that we do not intend
either to overturn or reinterpret the moral law, but as is fitting,
test
the validity of our interpretation of the law, when we hear a prophet
expounding
it. Firstly, in correspondence with the requirements of Leviticus
20:10,
Nathan so accurately depicts the situation in his parable, that David
pronounces
his own worthiness of death. The only basis of the removal of the
sentence
is Nathan's emphatic assertion that God has mysteriously taken away
David's
sin, (not the law requiring the death penalty), David also acknowledges
this later in Psalm 51. Secondly, there is a severe, swift and
crushing
reproof for his action and the motive that was its spring. How
different
from the restrained silence of the scripture on David's polygamy.
Thirdly, still more strikingly, David's polygamy
is turned against him as an argument to highlight the extremity of his
wantonness and ingratitude.
2 Samuel 12:8 'I anointed thee king over Israel
and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy
master's
house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house
of
Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover
have given unto thee such and such things.'
God gave into his bosom the wives of Saul. If
the term 'into thy bosom' has only the sense of Saul's wives being
under
David's protection, what place does it have here in reproving the
seizing
of what was not his to take? If so, it is irrelevant to Nathan's
argument.
In the context, the phrase is used in the parable, of the poor man, of
an intimate, physical affection, v 3 'it did eat of his own meat, and
drank
of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter'.
Only a strong hermeneutical violence can wrest from this text the sense
of an explicit toleration of polygamy. No, here Nathan challenges
David's
theft of a wife who was not his, by contrast with the many God has
tolerated
him taking. Lest we should go too far, and some advocate of the evil
practise
claim that therefore polygamy is lawful and may be practised freely,
Nathan
continues a few verses later to pronounce the chastisement of the Lord
against David's sin in similar terms, v 11 'I will take thy wives
before
thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour'. This may not be seen as
a commission to Absalom's adultery, nor may the first statement be seen
as a commission to David's polygamy. Nevertheless, the inescapable
conclusion
is that to God, there is a sharp difference between tolerated,
stable
polygamy, in a culture where it prevails, and adultery.
What warrant do we have for our response in
the Old and New Testaments?
Ezra's firm and determined handling of the
foreign
wives in chapter 9 and 10, by compelling the Israelites to divorce, has
been cited as normative for the handling of polygamous converts. This
is
a serious mistake for several reasons.
We remember firstly the sentence that Israel
was commanded to apply to idolaters was crystal clear, being found in
Deuteronomy
17:2-5.
'If there be found among you, within any of thy
gates which the LORD thy God gives thee, man or woman, that hath
wrought
wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his
covenant,
and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the
sun,
or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, then
shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed
that
wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shall
stone
them with stones, till they die.'
Deuteronomy 13: 6-9 makes plain that this law applied strictly even to partners. 'If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', which thou hast not known, thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.'
The issue in Ezra is not of polygamy, it is
not
very certain that it was even present, but the intense and almost
engulfing
danger of the pollution of Israel's worship, by intermarriage with so
many
pagan wives. Heading off the catastrophe, Ezra takes the most radical
action
short of the widespread executions implemented in the wilderness, he
compels
divorce from all the foreign wives and separation from their children.
There are other considerable differences between
the situations, the Jews in Ezra were already under God's covenant, the
action in hand was a specific breach of explicit law, and that breach
is
alleged several times in the parallel passages: the 'holy seed have
mingled
themselves' (9:2), they 'have not separated themselves' (9:1), or again
paraphrased, 'join in affinity with the people of these abominations',
(9:14). Ezra confronts both people and priests with the charge 'Ye have
transgressed and have taken strange wives', Ezra 10:10. Here was a head
on breach of the laws governing Israel's marital ties with the
idolatrous
tribes in Canaan, found in Exodus 34:16. Seven times this allusion is
suggested,
by describing the wives as 'strange' or 'outlandish' in Ezra and
Nehemiah's
twin accounts.
Would Ezra have taken such fierce and radical
action with Abraham or Jacob, or David, or even Solomon, except on the
ground that their wives were foreigners? Nathan's divinely
appointed
example suggests very much the opposite (14)
.
Ezra's position and ours when faced with
polygamous
converts are in stark contrast. They have acted in ignorance. They are
married to their own kind, with no prohibited ethnic divide. They have
not contracted new obligations but carefully seek to be faithful to God
in the old. There is no immediate, or powerfully undermining threat of
slipping into a new idolatry, for they have forsaken their old
religion.
The ground of the marriage vows they uttered, they have kept intact,
nor
have they violated their consciences.
Unlawful promises and their consequences
Should unlawful vows and oaths always be broken?
More precisely, what distinguishes a vow to be kept and a vow to be
broken,
when it becomes apparent that the law is contravened by it? A most
significant
example is Joshua's treaty to the Gibeonites, obtained by deceit by the
Gibeonites and in direct contravention of God's commands to utterly
destroy
the inhabitants of the land. Yet 'the children of Israel smote them
not,
because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the LORD
God of Israel. And all the congregation murmured against the princes.'
Joshua 9:18 This promise was subsequently taken so seriously that it
formed
grounds of defending the Gibeonites against an alliance their fellow
countrymen,
and mandated their subjection to lifelong bonded labour. Yet more
significantly,
when centuries later Saul in misguided zeal for the Lord's name
slaughtered
the Gibeonites, the Lord's fierce anger at the seriousness of the
betrayal,
would not be appeased until seven of his own sons were slain before
Gibeon.
The Lord indicates that vows are not to be lightly broken that they
might
not lightly be made.
Numbers 30:2 'If a man vow a vow unto the LORD,
or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his
word,
he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.'
Is not specific authorisation therefore necessary
to breach one of the most important vows of all?
Polygamy is a tainted form of wedlock,
disapproved
of but recognised and tolerated by the Lord God in the Old Testament in
His law and in His acts. It is quite different from the multiple,
migratory
cohabitations of the contemporary West. It entails lifelong vows and
obligations,
which Eastern society regard a matter of honour and integrity to
uphold. It is a state with profound and lasting consequences for
children
and wives alike. Since Christ declares that He neither abrogates
or violates that which He revealed before through His servant, the
default
position is that of the law of Moses. Without specific warrant we have
no authority to compel divorce, and in doing so are in grave danger of
requiring more than the Lord Himself. Not only do we make a very
difficult
and dangerous situation more explosive, we risk violating the
consciences
of those we have won, and of those who watch. We may provoke fierce and
untempered reactions in young believers and their partners, and
supremely
hazard the wrath of God for offending them and injuring His name among
them.
Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary
in the New Testament, polygyny should therefore be tolerated in those
who
sincerely apply to join the church, but only in those who have incurred
these obligations prior to conversion.
New Testament law
Luke 16:17-18 'And it is easier for heaven and
earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever puts away
his wife, and marries another, commits adultery: and whosoever marries
her that is put away from her husband commits adultery.'
Matthew 5:31-32 'It hath been said, Whosoever
shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But
I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the
cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever
shall
marry her that is divorced commits adultery.'
These texts indicate the high and solemn regard
the Lord has for marital vows, vows undertaken sincerely, but
ignorantly
in polygamous households. They address the question of the lawfulness
of
a divorce when one or both partners are willing to separate, they do
not
licence the imposition of divorce by an external party, given that the
law of God recognises but does not approve polygamy as a marital state.
Again other texts like 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 and Ephesians 5: 33 cast
polygamy
into a shameful light, and render it unacceptable and inadmissible as a
new phenomenon in the Church, but they do not validate the involuntary
severance of those who have previously taken lifetime pledges to each
other,
albeit in the darkness of Islam.
The three texts 1 Tim. 3.2, 1 Tim.3.12, and Titus
1.6, which address the qualifications of an office bearer do firstly
confirm
that polygamy is to be frowned upon and removed from any place of
example
or influence in the church. The text by itself provides no explicit
ground
for the handling of the case of converted polygamists, although it
would
be peculiar to ban polygamists from membership by such an expression.
Calvin's
comments on the texts are of particular interest. On 1 Timothy
3:2,
'Yet the view which I have already given is more simple and more solid,
that Paul forbids all polygamy in all who hold the office of bishop,
because
it is a mark of an unchaste man, and of one who does of observe
conjugal
fidelity. But it is here objected, that what is sinful in all ought not
to have been condemned or forbidden in bishops alone. The answer is
easy.
When it is expressly prohibited to bishops, it does not therefore
follow
that it is freely allowed to all others.' (15)
Or summarising his case on Titus, 'Polygamy was
so common among the Jews, that the wicked custom had nearly passed into
a law. If any man had married two wives before he had made a profession
of Christianity, it would be cruel to compel him to divorce one of
them;
and therefore the apostles endured what was in itself faulty, because
they
could not correct it. Besides, they who had involved themselves by
marrying
more than one wife at a time, even though they had been prepared to
testify
to their repentance by retaining but one wife, had nevertheless given a
good sign of their incontinence, which might have been a brand on their
good name'. He also gives similar, extended treatment to the question
in
a sermon on the pastoral epistles(16)
.
Very many commentators forbear to touch the
question
of polygamy, perhaps in the search for applications more relevant to
their
intended readership. Comparatively few authorities express an opinion
on
handling converted polygamists that dissents from Calvin.
Was polygamy extant in NT?
There can be very little doubt that the best
authorities concur that polygamy did exist among the Jews and perhaps
also
the Gentiles in the times of the New Testament (17)(18)(19)(20)
and on its subsequent existence for many centuries in the Middle
East (21).
Roman Law under Theodosius didn't outlaw polygamy until 393
(22), Theoderet's commentary on 1 Timothy in the mid
5th century indicated that it was then enforced(23),
a specific instance in Tyre of the execution of this statute and then
its
alleviation by Justinian may be found in May 535
(24). At the least polygyny was a very real potential
problem for New Testament pastors.
The 'traditional' view - what was apostolic
practice?
There appears to be no universal traditional
view among evangelical churches upon this particular question. Many
contemporary
authorities, like William Hendriksen and John Murray for example, are
cautiously
silent. Our tradition must be apostolic practice, John Calvin was by no
means alone in believing that the apostles in the face of a polygamous
society admitted them to the Lord's table and fellowship without
requiring
prior divorce.
Matthew Poole (25),
Albert Barnes(26), and Robert
Dabney
(27) are some of the worthies who took the same
position.
John Gill seems cautiously to adopt the same view (28).
The steely backboned and uncompromising Wong Ming Dao who was
actually
faced with the problem of polygyny in pre-Revolutionary China, strongly
advocated the practice laid out in this article as apostolic in the
face
of detractors, and gave gentle counsel to those polygamists admitted to
the church who had to bear the scorn of opponents of his policy
(29). None of the historic confessions give explicit
guidance on this question, although all testify that monogamy must be
regarded
as the only proper and lawful form of matrimony.
Conclusions
Polygamy is an evil, but an evil which the
Western
mind too readily equates entirely with outright infidelity. It is an
evil,
like divorce for which the Lord Himself exercised tolerance in a manner
which he strictly forbade for adultery, or premarital fornication,
sodomy
or idolatry. It is an evil never to be tolerated in new marriages in
the
New Testament Church, once light and instruction upon the matter has
been
given. Yet for those who have already entered into polygamous marriages
before conversion, weighty lifelong commitments and obligations have
been
undertaken, obligations the Lord recognises. The husband has promised
not
only to protect and provide for wives and children, but also to love
and
cherish them. One may not be set apart without great social dishonour,
shame and grief, especially for the wife and children involved. For
those
unconverted partners who decide to leave their spouses, we are required
by the New Testament to release them without hindrance. But for those
who
wish to remain together in marriage, we have no scriptural authority to
compel a divorce. If we do so we shall provoke justified wrath and
possibly
unjustified violence.
How would Jacob react to being required to
divorce
Rachel? Or Rachel, Joseph or Benjamin to an unlawfully imposed
separation?
Salvation from Islam often involves the intense
agony and shame of our brothers and sisters, the loss of very close
family
bonds, employment, and friends. We are under dual obligation to Christ
and to them not to modify the Lord's requirements. They already face a
baptism of fire, do we aim to add fuel to the flames?
Our overriding concern must be to the glory of God in His church, the purity of His worship and the obedience of His saints. If we impose a yoke on these young saints that we ourselves have not and will not have to bear, by adding to His commands, there is grave danger of violating all three.
Footnotes
1 Luke
16:17
2 Romans
7:12
3 Acts
15:10
4 Ps
119:160
5 Melancthon
and Calvin dissent, the latter in an uncharacteristically tentative and
self critical fashion.
6 Judah
and Tamar are notable examples, so in a different manner are Dinah and
Shechem.
7 Matthew
12:1-4
8 Genesis
37:2 & Judges 19:3-5
9 Genesis
20:1-17
10 Genesis
12: 14-20
11 Genesis
29: 31,32. 30:2,6,17,22,24.
12 2
Samuel
12: 16-19
13 Although
in Esau's case the grief was probably more to do with the idolatry of
the
wives than their number. Gen.28.8-9.
14 Unlike
Solomon, David's foreign wife , a Geshurite, is indeed not explicitly
reproved,
but it is notable that the son of David's only foreign marriage,
Absalom,
was also the son ordained to execute his fearsome later chastisement.
15 Commentary,
in loc.
16 John
Calvin, the 21st sermon on 1 Timothy 3.
17 11th
century
Takkanah by Rabbi Gershom ben Judah technically outlawed polygamy for
the
first time.
18 Edersheim,
A. Sketches in Jewish Social Life.
19 Justinian's
Institutes contain outlawing of polygamy in Roman Empire only by 393
AD,
Oxford Dict of Classics.
20 Encyclopaedia
Judaica vol.4, p 985-9, vol 14. p 1356-7
21 Friedman
M., Proc Am Acad Jewish Res 1982, 49, 33-68
22 Linder,A.
Source cited in,The Jews In Roman Imperial Legislation, p 88, Wayne
State
University Press Michigan, 1987.
23 Ibid
p.192
24 Ibid
p.389
25 Commentary
in loc.
26 Commentary
in loc.
27 Systematic
Theology on the 7th commandment.
28 Commentary
in loco
29 The
Christian and Marriage,(Hong Kong) is illustrative of his approach.