The traditional view
The traditional view of evangelical Christian churches is that
converted
polygamists must, before acceptance into church membership, release all
but their first wife from the duties and obligations of marriage,
ceasing
cohabitation, yet accepting responsibility for their support and care.
An alternative view is proposed whereby the converted polygamist is
accepted into church membership while remaining in full, cohabiting
relationship
with all his wives. The alternative view would even urge him to
continue
in this state, asserting that the putting away of his wives would
constitute
unfaithfulness. (Certainly no further extension of his polygamy would
be
countenanced, and he would be shut out of office, but he would
nevertheless
be accepted in his polygamous state). Such a view has been articulated
from time to time, but has never been met with any degree of
acceptance.
The traditional view is based on the creation ordinance, that marriage is between one man and one woman for life. It is founded on the seventh commandment, the term adultery being construed as unfaithfulness to a single wife. It is further founded on the Lord's clarification of both the creation ordinance and the seventh commandment in Matthew 19. The Westminster and Baptist Confessions are clear that 'marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.' Heidelberg and all the other reformed confessions say the same. The Westminster Larger Catechism expressly includes polygamy as one of the sins against the seventh commandment (Cat Q 139).
The alternative view
The proposed alternative view asserts that the law of Moses
accommodated
the existence of polygamy, providing for its control, and failing to
explicitly
condemn it as moral sin. It further asserts that among patriarchs and
kings
(especially David) polygamy was tolerated by the Lord, indicating that
it cannot be a breach of moral law, but only of God's 'ideal' for the
human
race. Nor can it be equivalent to adultery, as there is no equivalent
Old
Testament reproof or stoning prescribed. It is also asserted that
converted
polygamist were allowed to keep their additional wives in the churches
of the New Testament. This is assumed from Paul's qualifications for
elders
and deacons in the pastoral epistles, where 'husband of one wife' is
taken
as an exclusion of practising polygamists from office, indicating that
such were present in the ordinary membership.
Rightly handling the Word
Any discussion of this issue is in danger of paralleling the debates
about women in the ministry , or the normative nature of the Sabbath,
if
clear biblical principles of interpretation are not adopted. Without
these,
disputants quickly find themselves floundering in a morass of arguments
derived from passages that attract conflicting explanations from
grammarians
and anthropologists alike.
It is often observed that all major errors in Church history stem from
a fundamental and early mistake in the method of interpretation. In the
case of polygamy, the traditional view arises from a rigorous
application
of primary rules of interpretation. The proposed alternative appears
not
to employ these rules.
If the Word of God is divine and inerrant, no contradiction will be
found in its pages. How, then, are we to understand apparently
contradictory
passages, especially in matters of ethical importance? The Word of God
is perspicuous. Great principles of conduct will never depend upon
intensive
scholarly examination of events and people in Bible history, in order
to
arrive at a conclusion.
The relevant rule of interpretation
The traditional view distinguishes major statements of principle from
historical narrative. In any conflict the former are always
unassailable.
They always prevail over texts that describe historical situations.
Such
major statements of principle are never to be adjusted or reshaped to
solve
the difficulties presented by historical (or situational) texts. The
latter
must be viewed in the light of the former.
In the present matter there is an apparent conflict between the clear
statements of the law, and a number of historical narrative texts. The
traditional view is in no doubt that the latter passages must be
understood
by the former. The former are inviolable. The proposed alternative view
is very ready to and adjust the former in the light of the latter. It
is
at this point that the alternative view diverges radically from true
biblicism,
leading to the weakening of a fundamental moral standard.
Scriptures for the traditional view
The following pages briefly provide the basis of the traditional view,
and show how its interpretative principle should assist in explaining
'the
lesser texts' so heavily relied on in the alternative view proposed.
(To
enter into such texts may well fuel intricate argument over each one.
This,
however, would be an inappropriate activity. The only valid approach to
these texts is to seek to understand them in the light of the ruling
moral
principle.)
Genesis 2.24 commands that a man shall cleave to his singular wife,
and they (or 'they two' as Christ quoted it) shall be one flesh, to the
exclusion of all others. It is not enough to say that monogamy is God's
ideal. No other basis of marriage is lawful before God. Anything else
is
sinful. (In expounding this law Calvin is clear that 'the conjugal bond
subsists between two persons only, whence it easily appears that
nothing
is less accordant with the divine institution than polygamy')
Exodus 20.14 forbids adultery, which is both the sin of lust (Matthew
5.28) and the sin of unfaithfulness. This cannot be unfaithfulness to a
plurality of wives, for then the seventh commandment would involve a
radical
amendment of the creation ordinance. The divine intention is to enjoin
purity and faithfulness to a man's only wife.
Matthew 19.5-6 records the Lord's reiteration of Genesis 2.24, with
amplification. God's holy law speaks of 'twain' who have become one.
They
are not three or four, but two.* . The one-flesh relationship is
violated
by an additional wife. In Matthew 19.9 the condemnation of the man 'who
shall marry another' stands whether or not the first wife is put away.
It could not be otherwise. The Lord affirms that an additional wife is
a breach of divine law.
It is on such clear and primary statements of law that the Westminster
and Baptist Confessions define marriage as between one man and one
woman.
(Accordingly, the churches that adopt the reformed confession bind
themselves
to maintain monogamy as an element of moral law.)
The Puritans also identified Malachi 2.14-15 as being a statement of
primary principle to exclude polygamy (concurrent or consecutive by
unjustified
divorce) and bigamy.
Other New Testament texts repeat that lawful marriage is monogamous
by definition. 1 Corinthians 7.2-3 states: 'To avoid fornication, let
every
man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.'
Ephesians 5.22-3 further defines true marriage as being exclusively
between one man and one woman. The force of this passage lies in the
revelation
that human marriage, and the relationship between Christ and His
Church,
are analogous. Christ has only one bride which He loves and for which
He
gave Himself. 'One flesh' is defined in this context. Spiritual
adultery
throughout the Bible is both the sin of forsaking one God for another
and
the sin of having more than one god at the same time. Syncretism, as
well
as abandonment of the true God, were the two evils for which the Jewish
order was severely punished. Hoeksma declares that marriage is 'a
reflection
of the covenant relation between God and His people, and of the
relationship
between Christ and His church'.
In referring to the Old Testament and polygamy, the continental
dogmaticians
unite, Ewald representing them in Die Altherthum Israel (p 177) -
'wherever
a prophet alludes to matrimonial matters he always assumes faithful and
sacred monogamy contracted for the whole life as the legal one.'
Certainly
no priest or prophet (excepting prophet-kings) practised polygamy.
Other writers have added the tenth to the seventh commandment to
prohibit
polygamy, and some speak of prohibition by both precept and punishment.
(Some have added an element of 'natural' law based on the roughly equal
numbers of men and women in the world.)
The conclusion of those holding the traditional view is that polygamy
is condemned by primary statements of divine law, and other clear
statements
of principle, and also by the character of the holy and eternal God
revealed
in the marriage analogy. It is not therefore to be tolerated in the
time
of the Gospel. Monogamy is not ordained merely as an ideal arrangement,
it is God's will and law. Additional wives are therefore contracted by
unlawful vows. Unlawful vows are not sacrosanct, and the evil must be
repented
of before admission to a Christian church.
This position is not susceptible to change when difficulties are
presented
by the apparent administration of law, or the abuse of it, in the
various
periods of the history of Israel. If a text suggest that God tolerated
an abuse of law, this should not diminish either the force of the law
or
the righteousness of God. All abuse texts are to be explained in ways
that
offer no violence to the unassailable statements of moral principle.
Could God tolerate polygamy if it were sinful?
One of the problems voiced by the proposed alternative view is that
of the unvarying character of God's law. It is felt that as God would
never
vary His standards, any laxity over polygamy must indicate that it is
not
moral misdemeanour, but departure from an ideal aim. However, there is
no doubt that God does tolerate great sin in His servants during the
Old
Testament period. The correct way of reasoning is to say - because it
is
God Who does so, we conclude that toleration does not compromise His
unchanging
holiness.
A prime example of toleration is seen in the matter of divorce.
Divorce,
according to the Lord Jesus Christ, always was adultery. However, it
was
not explicitly condemned by the Law of Moses. Nor was it punished by
stoning.
Indeed it was provided for. Nevertheless, it was not so from the
beginning,
and the Lord restored the act of unjustified divorce to the category of
adultery. Divorce was tolerated because of the hardness of heart of the
people. But Christ abrogated that concession, and imposed a better
(that
is, the original ) expression of the divine law upon His Church.
In Principles of Conduct, John Murray presents the clear biblical
hermeneutic,
insisting that the law of monogamy springs not just from God's
sovereign
will, but from His perfections. In other words, it is abiding moral
law.
He takes a slightly different course in accepting that polygamy was
regulated
in the Old Testament, though never legitimated (being a violation of a
divine commandment). He also provides an explanation of the problem of
holy men being polygamists in terms of progressive revelation.
Nevertheless,
he makes it clear that nay attempted explanation is no more than a
hopeful
way of accounting for he difficulty. The fact of polygamy being wrong
is
established
by the law. 'It is not ours,' he say, 'to understand some of the patent
facts of God's providence.' (See pp 15-19. See also p 27-30 for his
treatment
of the ordinances of procreation and marriage, demonstrating that
monogamy
is divine law.)
Others do not place such emphasis on the progressive nature of
revelation.
John Owen leaves far greater culpability, speaking of 'how men set
themselves
to defy the primeval custom, and the will of God, in marrying several
wives,
and divorcing such as they willed.'
God Himself permitted the latitude of olden times, but not so that
we may assume that the lower standard is acceptable with Him. We may
think
that God's purpose was to purify the church progressively. Certainly
the
'first' church was a 'mixt multitude'. We may be left with no certain
or
satisfactory explanation of God's toleration of sin, but we may not
conclude
that tolerated practises were not sinful.
The proposed alternative view notes an apparent toleration of
polygamy in Exodus 21.7-10 and Deuteronomy 21.15-17. It is said that
polygamy
is here 'managed' rather than condemned, thus identifying it as
something
rather less than a moral evil.
However, the Exodus passage does not necessarily indicate that a man
had commenced true marriage (with cohabitation) with a woman slave
before
he chose to reject her. It may be that she was given a definite
understanding
that she could be his wife, or that she was his concubine. If he marred
another woman, the first was not necessarily still occupying her
station
as his wife. At worst, this may be a practise of consecutive polygamy.
In the event the regulations imposed are punitive to the man, and would
have the effect of severely discouraging wantonness.
However, even if we chose to see a management of polygamy in the
Exodus
passage, the correct biblical hermeneutic will not allow us to dilute
the
law of God. Any toleration by God would flow from his infinite wisdom
and
be designed (no doubt) for the protection and good of those abused. His
righteous law would not be diminished.
Much the same goes for Deuteronomy 21.15-17. The passage is preceded
by the concession of divorce, later removed by the Saviour and
described
as adultery. Then there is a regulation governing those with two
wives. Once again, this is not necessarily a case of concurrent
polygamy.
On wife may have followed the other. Or it may be bigamy. Merrill
typifies
the view of many exegetes when he writes , 'The case in point involves
a bigamous relationship in which the husband rejected his firstborn son
because he was the offspring of a wife he did not love.' The purpose of
the regulation is to preserve the right of children, not to sanction
(in
the smallest degree) the existence of polygamy.
If, however, the passage is regarded as a regulation of multiple
marriages,
showing toleration, polygamy is not thereby shown to be any less
sinful.
It is the prerogative of God to administer His law in different times
according
to His will.
The polygamy of Abraham and Jacob
A further objection to the traditional view is the polygamy of Abraham,
Jacob, David, Solomon and others in the Old Testament period. It is
said
that these were never rebuked in a direct way, and also that God's
blessing
appeared to rest on the fruit of some of these relationships. The
conclusion
is that this would not be so if polygamy were a moral offence like
adultery.
Yet again it must be emphasised that however we explain these problem
cases, the moral law must not be challenged by them. God clearly
tolerated
these deviations, even though He would have hated them. It is a
legitimate
activity to try to understand the reasons behind that toleration. But
it
is not a legitimate activity to explain it in any way that would
diminish
the moral law. With Matthew Henry and so many others we are to say of
these
past worthies, that 'we praise them not in their conduct, for that was
always contrary to God's law.' Ursinus (on Heidelberg) says - 'The
fathers
who lived under the Old Testament had many wives; but we must judge of
the propriety and lawlessness of a thing not by examples, but by the
law.'
Abraham's case should not strictly be reckoned as one of intended
polygamy.
It was childless Sarah who urged her maid upon him as concubine. His
offence
was not a multiplicity of wives, but the taking of a concubine, equally
wrong but in a different way. Jacob also desired only one woman, and
was
tricked into a second, after which both desired the appointment of
proxies
- concubines - an evil situation into wwhich he fell, rather than
intended.
He would have known God's law from the precedent of Eden, and from the
example of his monogamous father. In the event his home circle suffered
the jealousy, conflict, lying and cruelty so characteristic of the
multiple-wife
situations recorded in the Old Testament.
David and Solomon
In the case of David and Solomon there was a most express prohibition
of polygamy in Deuteronomy 17.17. In fact this applied to all, but at
the
very least it applied to kings. (it occurs in a prophetic passage
speaking
of the coming of the monarchy, and consequently addresses the conduct
of
the kings, but it is surely a principle f or observance by everyone).
That David and Solomon were in breach of God's explicit command is
beyond question. The fact that God tolerated their conduct does not
weaken
the moral force of the command. They were also punished for their
polygamy
in terms of family trials and miseries. The mystery of the extent of
God's
tolerance is great, but the disobedience and sinfulness of these acts
is
indelible.
The fact that the law was raised against Solomon (1 Kings 11.1)
strengthens
the fact of blame, and what applied to him must equally have applied to
David* . One king cannot be unrighteous in this act and another not.
Saul's wives given to David
The problem text presented in 2 Samuel 12.8 equally has no power to
overthrow the moral law. Nathan certainly said to David on God's
behalf:
'I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy
bosom'.
Once again, this text must be understood in the light of the prevailing
moral principle. It may be tropological language indicating that Saul's
wives were placed under David's care and protection. It may further
describe
David's total possession of, and mastery over Saul, and all that was
his.
(David is spoken of as possessing Israel and Judah, which in literal
terms
he did not do.) The essential principle of interpretation is that the
moral
law shed light on the historical verse. Is it conceivable that God
would
condone additional polygamous conduct on David's part, by adding to his
wives? The law answer - No. It provides a better understanding of the
verse.
It directs interpretation.
There is little point in ransacking the works of Hebraists to determine
the precise meaning of the term 'bosom' if this is figurative. (As it
happens,
it is an obscure and elastic word also used in Scripture for arms or
lap.)
Word meanings are of great importance. But the higher principles of the
Word must determine their usage.
God's Blessing on David and Bathsheba
Likewise, the fact that God subsequently brought good out of David's
union with Bathsheba cannot be construed as a sanction for polygamy.
The
Bible and the Christian world teem with examples of God bringing good
out
of evil, and blessing endeavours originally conceived in an ungodly
way.
David clearly erred in his domestic life. All too soon he became
enveloped
in family consequences of incest, murder and rebellion, the last almost
taking his crown.
The godly sentiments expressed so often by David were borne into him
by the Spirit of God, as a king-prophet. He no doubt felt these
sentiments
in great measure, but he also uttered words deeper and greater than he
understood. It is no argument to assume that one who expressed such
holy
desires must be free from serious sin and disobedience, and that
polygamy,
therefore cannot be a moral evil. (At a technical level, Psalm 119 has
been quoted as an example of fidelity to God's law, but this is most
likely
to be a post-exilic psalm, and is certainly not to be ascribed to
David.)
In connection with David, a notable student of his life may be quoted.
A W Pink declares: 'Polygamy, though not in accord with the law of
nature
or the law of God, was a custom in those degenerate days, which some
good
men gave into, though they are not to be commended for it David
followed
the corruption of the times, but from the beginning it was not so, nor
is it permissible now since Christ has ushered in "the times of
reformation".'
Polygamy in the New Testament
The alternative view asserts that polygamy was practised in the New
Testament period, and that this would have extended into the churches.
Support is claimed for this view from 1 Timothy 3.2 and 12, and Titus
1.6.
(These three references ought to be regarded as essentially the same
text
repeated.) The overseer, Paul says, must be 'the husband of one wife'.
The alternative view builds on this text the conviction that converted
cohabiting polygamists had been received into the membership of
churches,
and thus they had to be barred from holding office by the articulation
of a special rule.
Yet again, the text must be understood in the light of the moral law
and not the other way round. Yet again, no purpose is served by endless
inspections of the views of grammarians, even less the opinions of
anthropologists
on the prevalence of polygamy at that time. Primary passages of
principle
(already referred to) demonstrate the teaching of the New Testament
church
on this matter (Matthew 19.5 and 9, Mark 10.2-12 and 1 Corinthians
7.2).
Marriage was solely between one man and one woman. Anything other than
this was adulterous.
1 Timothy 3.2 says nothing about the terms under which converted
polygamists
may be admitted to the church. If we accept, for the sake of argument,
that the primary matter in view is the exclusion of polygamists from
office,
we still do not learn whether those polygamists had been allowed to
continue
in full married union with their additional wives. It is conceivable
that
they were ( but unbelievable in the light of Christ's teaching). It is
equally conceivable that they had been compelled to desist from holding
additional wives in the married state, and to care for them on a
different
basis. As ex-polygamists they would still be regarded as those who had
acquired a plurality of wives - all of whom had to be supported. Such
men
would be excluded from office. This view of the practice of the church
is in harmony with the law of God (from the beginning) and the New
Testament
texts mentioned above.
In the event, reformed and Protestant interpretation in this century
is on the whole more favourable to the opinion that 'husband of one
wife'
refers to men who had been lightly divorced, and then remarried.
Whether
this is correct, or whether the primary purpose of the text is to ban
polygamists
from office, neither understanding justifies the notion that men still
living in a polygamous state held membership in the churches. It tells
us only that the overseer must be an example in family matters,
trustworthy,
and unencumbered with situations that would mar vigilance, hospitality
and other functions.
A secondary matter is the prevalence of polygamy among the Jews in
the time of Christ and His apostles. The New Testament mentions no such
prevalence. The very best authority is silent. Indeed, the New
Testament
omits any reference to polygamy. This inspired Book of instruction for
personal conduct extends no help whatsoever to converted or unconverted
polygamists other than the commands of moral law. It would be
reasonable
to conclude that polygamy, though extant in New Testament times, was
perhaps
the practice of the royals or the rich, but not prevalent among the
Jews
generally.
Is it right to require divorce?
A final consideration is the view that it is not lawful to demand that
a polygamist separates from or divorces his additional wives. It is
pleaded
that they have entered in good faith into mutual vows, and these cannot
be broken. But, as we have noted, lawless vows are not sacrosanct, and
deeds contrary to God's law must be repented of and resolved before
admission
to a Christian church.
The command to put away foreign wives in Ezra 9 is normative in the
case of polygamy. Although it is clear that wives were then put away
because
they were foreign women, it is shown that an unlawful act is not
sanctified
by the presence of vows. No consideration was to be given even to
sincerely
contracted marriages. They were unlawful. Polygamy, too, is unlawful,
involving
an unlawful vow. A wrong vow is not above the law of God. Failure to
separate
in Ezra led to exclusion from the congregation. The key point is that
wrong
marital agreements were made void by the law.
It is noteworthy that both David and Solomon married foreign wives,
and yet neither was expressly punished in the same way as the men of
Ezra's
time. The application of God's law varied in ancient times. Clearly
dreadful
circumstances arose from the marriages - the tragedy of Absalom in
David's
case (through marriage to a Geshurite princess), and in Solomon's case
the loss of his faith to paganism.
Human considerations
It may be added that polygamy is by and large the system of societies
in which women are denied God-given liberties, and trodden underfoot.
It
offends the dignity of womanhood advanced so beautifully in the Word
for
the kingdom of Christ - where 'there is neither male nor female: for ye
are all one in Christ Jesus.'
To be sure, men and women have different gifts and roles, and male
headship is ordained in both church and family. But men and women are
equal
in grace and dignity and blessedness before God.
Polygamy screams louder against such truths than any other system of
relationships. It is an offence to the church and a betrayal of the
women
it binds. It is seen today as the fruit of the wicked laws of Islam,
and
a thousand tribal religions. It turns women into chattels, slaves and
prisoners
at worst, and into partial sharers in matrimony at best. It deals a
crippling
blow to the tender sensitivities of women, producing within the home
jealousy,
conflict and misery. It deprives countless women of the blessing of an
exclusive husband.
To allow the continuance of polygamy within a Christian church would
be an offence not only to God but also to polygamous wives. For them,
there
would be no emancipating light or hope to be seen in the Gospel of
grace.
As for the church, it would be compelled to mix the holy and the vile;
the fruit of darkness with the fruits of grace.
The holy law of God must prevail. It must prevail in an hermeneutical
sense in the understanding of all the historical and situational
texts of the Bible. It must prevail in the church of Christ, that this
may be a holy and beautiful community for His glory and service and
pleasure.