E-mail:			These pages contain an introduction to common objections some Christians have to polygamy, followed by a brief presentation of each one, and then a Bible-based answer to it. The objections dealt with are listed under each link. The objections are given (hopefully) humourous names for ease of reference. Not everyone likes the names or the humour, but it is generally held to be appropriate to name fallacies, and so that is done here. The other objections are covered at these links - More Common Objections and Even More objections

Many Christians read about polygamy in the Bible, but have a gut feeling that it is wrong. They often think that it must be banned somewhere in the Bible, and perhaps recall sermons when Christian leaders either directly condemned it or hinted that it was sinful. But they also know that we cannot rely on other people to do our Christianity for us, and so we can't simply take someone else's word about what the Bible says - we have to check it out for ourselves to see if God really says that.

Perhaps you are reading these words because you have experienced a common problem involving the Bible and polygamy. Perhaps you have read the Bible and discovered examples of polygamy in it. It seems strange that many men of God were polygamists but that the popular teaching in Christendom today is that marriage means monogamy. Perhaps you have read through each book, and not only seen examples of polygamy, but failed to find anywhere that it was condemned. When you talk to people about why they hold to the teaching of monogamy, they may not know the reasons but may repeat the ones they have heard, which can seem to be poor and ill-founded. You may be aware of the danger that we have been taught monogamy from our culture, or from other Christians who believe it because of their culture, rather than because of the Bible. If we really believe that our morality should depend on what the Bible says, then we cannot ignore what it says about polygamy, and so we need to consider the issue thoroughly so that we can resolve it.

To help you do this without wasting much time we have collected together all the objections we have heard, so that you can examine them and our response to them. It is useful to consider whether there would be sufficient evidence for each of these objections to polygamy to stand as proven in a court of law. After all, if someone was saying that your marriage was sinful, you would probably ask them to prove it.

And now...the objections!

The following objections are given names for ease of reference, and these names follow the style of Professor Anthony Flew's "Thinking about Thinking", where he gives names to arguments that he believes are unreasonable.

Some people have not liked the names, and have criticised us for using them, without ever tackling the answers to the objections themselves. The use of the names shows that debates about polygamy are sometimes like games of chess. A person may start off using a particular "gambit" or series of moves, and the other side responds. Sadly this means that instead of serious consideration of what the Bible teaches, the debate is reduced to being little more than a game. We believe that none of these arguments stand up to close examination, but because there are so many of them, people can often switch from one to the other so that a debate generates much heat and little light.

If you read the material on this site and still believe that the Bible teaches that polygamy is a sin, consider telling us why you believe that. What objection has not been answered properly, or what new objection has been missed? We would really like to know.

1) The Adam and Eve defence

Adam was given Eve as his wife. He was given one wife, not two or three or four. One wife was enough for Adam. One wife was what God intended. Marriage today should be "as it was in the beginning". If God had wanted Adam to be a polygamist he'd have given him more wives.

Marriage should be "as it was in the beginning", and when Christ used these words he was actually talking about the permanency of marriage, and of how he didn't like men putting away their wives. There is no authority for applying the words any further than that. If we are obliged to follow every detail of the first marriage then we must remember that Adam and Eve walked around naked, their sons married their daughters, and that they were created perfect and sinless. We, on the other hand, tend to wear clothes a lot, (well I do, anyway), find that incest is unlawful and immoral, and are far from perfect and sinless.

One wife was enough for Adam to start with. We don't know if he took any more wives because the Bible doesn't say. Another way of looking at it would be to say that in the beginning Adam married every woman that was available. The Bible does not draw a one man/one woman rule from Adam and Eve, so why should we? We could just as easily form a rule to marry all available women, but we would be very busy, and the rule just as valid. It is dangerous to take a situation and form a rule when the Bible doesn't openly do that. It is a way of making the Bible say what we want, rather than what it means.

The simple answer is that no such rule exists. Adam and Eve is history. It's what happened, and it tells us that God wants marriage to be permanent; it tells us why God made man, and the different reasons he made woman. It tells us that man sinned by disobedience, although many of the uninformed think sex was the forbidden fruit. It tells us that sex is made for marriage, and that marriage and sex are for people of different genders. These things are all reinforced elsewhere in the Bible in case there should be any doubt. But there is no prohibition of polygamy, here or anywhere else.

We know that Genesis does not give us all the possible options for mankind because Adam didn't have the option of celibacy that is found elsewhere in the Bible. He was commanded to "go forth and multiply". One wife may well have been what God intended for Adam, but he might have something different in mind for you. If we accept that, unlike Adam and Eve, this could be celibacy, then that also means that, unlike Adam and Eve, it could be polygamy.

Those who teach that monogamy is the only way to live need to explain how they can do that without banning celibacy, without allowing incest, without promoting nudism, without saying that a man should marry every single woman who is available, and even without requiring that men can only marry someone miraculously formed from the material in one of their ribs. If they cannot explain why they pick one of these rules without accepting the others then we may think that there is no good reason to accept what they say about the text teaching monogamy.

2) The "One Flesh" gambit

Adam and Eve were to be "one flesh". It says "the TWO will be ONE flesh". How could a man be one flesh with two women? One Man - One Woman - One Flesh, it's easy!

Firstly, let us remember that the man who committed Genesis and the words "the two shall be one flesh" to paper (well, parchment) was none other than Moses. Moses himself had Zipporah, a Midianite, as his wife (see Exodus 2 vv 16-21) and his brother and sister rebelled against him because of an Ethiopian wife which he had (see Numbers 12 v 1). If you want to get into the complexities of it you can establish that he had both these wives at the same time and that they were different people. So Moses had two wives at the same time, and he recorded these words in Genesis, without perceiving any contradiction. He then went on to regulate polygamy, allowing it to exist under the law, with no mention of it breaking anything mentioned in Genesis. This in itself may cause us to suspect that this objection is not very well founded.

However, this objection not only looks suspect, but can be easily disproved. The passage that establishes that two become one is quoted in 1 Corinthians 6 vv15-17 to establish that "he that is joined to an harlot is one body" and to compare with "he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit". The same passage talks of how bad it is to take the "members of Christ" and make them "members of an harlot". So the "one flesh" concept is not limited to marriage but can also apply to sex with a prostitute. As prostitutes tend to have sex with more than one man, it follows that they are "one flesh" with more than one person. Just as this can apply with these immoral relations outside marriage, so it can also apply within marriage to instances where there is more than one wife.

So, either those who insist on monogamy must claim that Paul was talking about the world's first monogamous prostitute, or they must accept that you can be "one flesh" with more than one person. But if they accept that, then it is clear that it cannot be an argument against polygamy.

And, as if that was not enough the passage then says that the "One-ness" of Spirit that a Christian has when joined to the Lord is comparable to the "one-ness" of flesh that a man has with a woman, which is why it is important that it should be pure. But I am joined to the Lord, and many other Christians are joined to the Lord. The concept of "One-ness" or unity does not prevent the Lord from being One Spirit with many millions of individuals, and therefore does not prevent a man from being one flesh with more than one wife.

So this one passage shows in two different ways that "one flesh" is not a problem for polygamy.

We make a mistake when we try to say you can't be one with more than one! After all, this is not simple maths, for normally 1+1=2, but God has made marriage such that 1+1=1, and so it follows that marriage could allow 1+1+1=1. As Christians we should rejoice that the Bible teaches these things, for not only is God allowing the man and women to become inseparable, but he also shows this in the production of children. When children are born we see the literal fulfillment of the spiritual rule of "one flesh", for with the benefit of modern science we know that a child's DNA is made up half from its mother and half from its father. Therefore the two really do become one flesh. However the Bible records God telling us this 6000 years before scientists discovered it - yet another proof of the authority of the Bible.

A reader of this page has added that perhaps the true maths to use is that of multiplication, i.e. 1x1=1 and 1x1x1=1. Either way, it is clear that the maths that God is using here is in no way in conflict with polygamy.

Find other views here

3) The Bad Effects fallacy

Polygamy in the Bible is associated with bad things happening, jealousy, murder and immorality. Whilst it is not condemned outright, we can tell it's bad because of the things associated with it and the bad consequences it has.

This argument has about three different forms.

1) Bad thing happen to polygamists, so polygamy must be bad.

This argument has a surface appeal to it because often things go wrong for bible polygamists, but examination shows that it is not because they were polygamists that things went wrong. Things also go wrong for monogamists and celibates, and it is not due to their respective lifestyles. For example, Solomon was not criticised for having so many wives, but he was punished for allowing them to lead him into idolatry. It is pretty poor to attack polygamy by highlighting the troubles of polygamists when even a righteous man like Job had troubles.

2) Polygamy creates an opportunity for jealousy. Because it creates an environment in which sin can happen, it is bad.

Marriage creates an opportunity for adultery. Driving a car create an opportunity to break the traffic laws. Waking up in the morning allows you to do all kinds of evil. God created both Adam and Satan. Do any of these facts mean that the thing which created the opportunity was evil?

No - The Bible teaches us that we are responsible for our own actions, even when others tempt us or when situations mean that sin seems to be the easy way out. The Bible also teaches that these experiences test us and train us to be better. When we do anything in life which is worthwhile but difficult, we learn by persevering and we build our character this way. This site does not teach that polygamy is an easy lifestyle. Simply by being uncommon and unfamiliar it can have its own set of difficulties. But this does not mean that it is wrong.

3) Polygamist men did bad things. This shows that polygamy was just another of the bad things they were doing.

It is true that polygamists often did bad things. David, "a man after God's own heart", committed adultery with Uriah's wife; Solomon gave way to idolatry; Lamech killed a man; but Adam brought sin into the world when he was a monogamist, and many other monogamists and celibates sin, not because of the number of their wives, but because they are sinners. We all sin, irrespective of who, or how many we marry, and this says nothing about marriage, or our other decisions.

4) The "Not the Ideal" diversion

Polygamy may not be outlawed by God but he does show it's not the ideal by limiting it in the Old Testament and by stopping polygamists from having positions of responsibility in the Christian Church. He doesn't really like it, even if he didn't say so, and we shouldn't do it because we should be trying to please him.

The problem here is that God seems to tell us when he doesn't like things. God's people always stood out as different from the nations around them when they did what he asked. God is not "politically correct", and is not afraid to express his wishes. He created us and made us free, and if he didn't want us to do something then he told us not to do it. That's why the Ten Commandments sound negative with their "Thou shalt not"'s, because God has given freedom outside the law, and then tells people what laws he wants them to follow. Paul says in Romans 5 v 13 "sin is not imputed when there is no law" - so, with no law against polygamy, it is not sinful.

Some people claim a precedent in saying that God tolerated unjustified divorce, even though he did not like it, but this is deeply misleading. God showed in the law and the rest of the Bible that he did not like men putting their wives away treacherously. Christ stated it quite clearly and explicitly when he fulfilled that law, and his teaching is entirely in line with what the law taught. Throughout the Bible, and certainly by the time the Bible closes, God has quite clearly stated his position. But the Bible has closed without polygamy ever being condemned. And the law that Christ fulfilled was complete without any condemnation of polygamy. To say that polygamy is sinful is to accuse Christ of not completing and fulfilling the law. But it is true to say that realising the truth of what the Bible teaches about polygamy may cause Christians to reexamine their beliefs about divorce.

It is simply fanciful to suggest that God is hiding his disapproval from us. It is just as logical to take any other activity allowed by the Bible and to suggest God doesn't actually approve. This is a recipe not just for legalism but for the rule of man, rather than God, because any man can then add his prejudices to what God has said. Such an attitude would allow someone to say that sport is sinful, or reading books, or drinking milk, and that God just hadn't bothered to tell us - and it would be just as valid as any prohibition of polygamy. How bizarre!

There are even some who believe that because they can find no explicit reference to music in the New Testament that it is sinful for churches to have music. If you think that is strange, ask yourself how it is different from someone who says that polygamy is wrong because they can't find it in the New Testament (by the way, polygamy actually is in the New Testament - see The Marriage of Christ and The Church and Polygamy in the Bible)

And besides all this, polygamy means that "putting away" of wives need not be an option. Polygamy therefore reduces the thing that God has said he dislikes.

When it is said that polygamy is not the ideal we should ask "ideal for whom"? Christ indicated that some are born to be celibate (Matthew 19 v 12) - it is not ideal for them to marry. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better to marry than to burn. If you face a life of continual temptation without marriage, it is not ideal to stay celibate. In this area there are different ideals for different people.

Also, whilst Hebrew Kings were forbidden from multiplying wives unto themselves (Deuteronomy 17 vv 14-20), the Bible does not define multiplying, and shows God multiplying wives to David when he gives his dead master's wives "into his bosom" (2 Samuel 12 vv 7&8).

Read that again, and check the passage to see if its true - God gave plural wives to David, yet people say polygamy is sinful. Can God sin or be an accessory to sin?

The limitation on the Kings of Israel is not then so much a statement of an ideal, but more of a constitutional limitation on power - God could give them more wives, but they couldn't multiply them unto themselves. In fact, the rest of the passage reads like a constitutional document, limiting the choice of the King to God, the nationality of the King to Israel, and prescribing some things he could not do and other things that he had to do as King. So, God seems to have encouraged David's polygamy and any restrictions on it may be seen as constitutional limitations on power, especially given the historical role of marriages and polygamy in the forming of political alliances.

In the New Testament, the King James translation of the Bible does state twice for elders and once for deacons that they should be "husbands of one wife". It does not phrase it in the negative (i.e. that they should not be the husband of more than one wife), and so it may not even be a prohibition for this group. It is talking about what they should be, rather than about what they should not be. If they have married one wife then they are qualified, but that doesn't mean they cannot marry two.

There are varying interpretations of what the original greek is actually claiming. Some say the idea of faithfulness is being conveyed - "a one woman man", and therefore that this bans adulterers and polygamists, but would allow for a single man. Others say it is a limit on polygamy, therefore accepting its lawfulness for the rest of the church.

Analysis of the Greek shows that the word for husband is usually translated man, and therefore the man's married status is being highlighted when mentioned here, and later on when the desirability of him being a father is established. The fact that he is a married man is important, for it allows him to understand how Christ loves the Church which he, as an elder, is seeking to love. The fact that he is a parent is important, for he must first have successfully exercised a father's loving authority over his children, before he does the same over the family of God.

The Greek word for "one" is also interesting as it can mean "a" and "first". This allows for the emphasis to be on the fact that he is a married man, or on the fact that he has not repudiated his first wife. Many men put away their first wife to take on a second and this is especially common today. It is pretty clear that it is not acceptable, and it could be that the passages which talk about elders and deacons are talking about this. It may seem strange that this emphasis is needed, but the other rules about elders and deacons include statements that they shouldn't be greedy, drunken or "brawlers". These things may have seemed obvious, but in an early church emerging from Jewish law and immoral Roman culture, with few fragments of God's Word in circulation, they needed to be stated.

Hence the idea that an elder is being required to have at least one wife, and not to put her away when he took other wives, does have some credibility. Comments are particularly welcome in this area. Anyway, the least that can be said is that there is considerable doubt that elders were required to be monogamous and that, even if they were, there is an implicit suggestion that polygamy was acceptable for the remainder of the church, and that what was ideal for elders was not necessarily the ideal for other christians. Christ is our ideal, yet he was celibate, and Christians are free to marry. It follows therefore that ideals do not limit Christian men with regard to the number of wives they may have.

5) The "Against the Law" Misunderstanding

Polygamy might be lawful as far as God is concerned, but it is illegal as far as the state is concerned, and as Christians we have to respect the government. As we have to obey their laws against polygamy it would be sinful to be a polygamist, and it is pointless to discuss something it would be illegal for us to do.

When the Laws of man and God conflict we follow the laws of God. However, when man regulates our behaviour it is right that we should obey him, for Romans 13 tells us to respect the higher authorities. They cannot require us to break God's law, but they can add their own requirements to it. Governments have complicated laws on taxation, that give all the detail behind what the Bible says, namely "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...", and so we have to obey the civil authorities.

However, for the Christian, life is more complex than that simple statement. 1 Corinthians 6 indicates that Christians should not go to law against other Christians, but should settle their disputes within the church. This and 1 Peter indicate that it is better to suffer for the wrongdoing of another, such as a Christian who breaks this rule, than to break it yourself. It is possible for a Christian to suffer because a court overrules or ignores the decision of a church, but it is to his credit if he accepts that suffering. This all sounds very theoretical, until one considers the large incidence of divorce and the legal status of marriage. A Christian can be divorced by his wife under civil law despite his resistance and for reasons which would mean nothing under the laws of God. The laws of man are therefore faulty. The idea of marriage a Christian signs up to under the laws of the state is incomplete and indeed wrong in several respects. Yet at the same time modern Western States such as the USA and the UK allow people to live together and even treat them as married when, according to the law of that state, they are not. For example, in Britain, for social security reasons, the government treats as married those people who live together as if they were married. The idea of marriages not being registered but formed under Common Law ceased to be legally recognised 200 years ago in Britain, but the term "common law wife" is still in widespread use, and certain legal scholars believe that such marriages are still possible. In Scotland it is possible to become married 'by custom and repute'.

We need to understand that the state has tried to regulate marriage and has been successful to varying degrees. But it only usually views as criminal those who try to contract more than one legally recognised marriage. If Christians do not register their marriages and conduct their own ceremony or cohabit with the Biblical view of marriage, then the state does not often view them as criminal. They have broken no laws, just refused to accept the state's ideas about marriage. Adam and Eve had no state and no church to recognise their marriage, just the witness of God, and so it continued for millennia, until comparitively recently when the government began to expand into this area. If you use Caesar's currency then you pay it to him in taxes. If you sign up to Caesar's view of marriage then you will be bound by Caesar's rules. If however, you recognise that marriage is God's, and your understanding with your wife, or wives, is that you offer a marriage conducted under God's rules, then you must "render unto God the things that are God's". This means that the marriage may not be recognised by the government, but do you want your marriage to carry the label of the third-rate institution currently regulated by the state? It means you will lose any legal rights enforced by the state, and put yourself at risk should your marriage partner forsake you and their faith, and seek to use the power of the state against you. But if you have to suffer in this way, doing right and persevering will be to your credit. However, while you can build your own marriage that is not recognised by the state, you can do it without breaking any of the laws of the state. It is therefore something you can do with a clear conscience, as you are doing it and respecting the authorities at the same time. You are bound to obey their laws, but you do not have to accept their beliefs, including their beliefs about marriage. Hence a Christian can practice polygamy and still be a good citizen.

More Common Objections