It should
already be apparent that if these objections can
be answered effectively from the Bible then they
aren't really Christian objections at all.
However they are objections that many Christians,
me included, have had in our minds when we
considered these things. The objections emanate
from sources who are Christian, often as they
struggle to fight against a belief in polygamy.
It must be understood that they often arise
because we want to defend the culture we were
born into, and the society in which we live,
rather than base our lives on the very different
rules of the Bible.
Surely this is just
Mormonism and should be objected to on that basis. It's more to
do with the Book of Mormon than the Bible.
Sorry guys, but I can't conform to the
stereotype here. I'm not a Mormon and have never been one.
However, any Mormons or ex-Mormons who are reading this page are
very welcome. Like you, I can read, and it isn't in reading the
Book of Mormon, but in the Bible that I find all this stuff about
polygamy. Trying to pigeon-hole this as a Mormon issue will not
work, because it affects anyone who claims to believe what the
Bible says, and anyone who has bothered to read it. I think it's
interesting that Mormons originally accepted polygamy, and that
the "official" Mormon organisation has since claimed a
new revelation that considerably restricts its practice. This
coincides with the Mormon organisation now being recognised
rather than persecuted in the United States, and it coincides
with Utah actually having statehood. It appears that the
adjustments to the teachings of the organisation, and the fact
that no-one on earth today is authorised by Mormonism to be
polygamous, are part of a deal. The teaching and the freedom to
practice is sacrificed in order to obtain political recognition.
Joseph Smith was right to see the polygamy in the Bible - he
could read too - and well within his rights to show the hypocrisy
of those who claim to follow the Bible but abandon the
inconvenient bits. Because the Mormon organisation took the
freedom of polygamy that is found in the Bible and threw it away,
I think that gives us grounds to question the teachings of that
organisation, and any organisation that claims to be a church but
doesn't follow the Word of God when it becomes too difficult.
In any case, this site is not talking
about Mormon polygamy, but about any polygamy. Mormon polygamy
was a requirement for Mormon salvation, and linked to the
doctrine of celestial marriages that were supposed to last after
death. This site is more concerned with allowing than requiring
polygamy, and only in this life, not the next.
7) The Adultery Confusion
Polygamy is wrong because
it necessarily involves adultery. That is why it is not
specifically banned anywhere - because it is covered by the laws
that deal with adultery. If you have sex with someone other than
your wife then it is adultery, and simply going through a
ceremony, even if it is legally valid, cannot make that second
woman into a wife in the eyes of God.
It is always difficult translating the
words of one writer so that someone else can read them in another
language. A word in one language does not always have an exact
equivalent in another language. Some meaning may be lost and some
may be added in the process of translation. Sometimes people who
speak the same language use words in quite different ways and
experience difficulties in understanding each other. Imagine then
how easy it is for us to make mistakes when we compare twentieth
century English with the first century koine Greek or the ancient
Hebrew in which the Bible was written. Our culture defines
adultery in relation to its own marital norm, namely one man and
one woman. In Bible times however, this was not the norm, and
consequently the words used for adultery do not carry the same
definitions with them.
We need to ask ourselves just what it is
that the Bible was condemning when the words we translate as
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" were first written
down. The Online Bible gives na'aph (Strongs 05003) as the word
used for adultery, in fact the only word used for adultery in the
Old Testament. In Exodus 20 v 14 where the above commandment is
given, this word is used according to the Qal verb pattern (getting
technical, isn't it?). This means, according to the Hebrew
Lexicon, "adultery, usually of man, always with the wife of
another, of women". It is also translated "women who
break wedlock". John Gill, in his exposition of the Bible,
although he does not support polygamy, has to concede of the word
that "strictly speaking [it] is only that sin which is
committed with another man's wife". Hence the idea conveyed
by scripture is that the act which is condemned is sexual
intercourse with another man's wife. The marital status of the
male adulterer is not an issue. It is the marital status of the
woman that is most important. Adultery is theft from the true
husband, and it is committed by his wife as well as by his rival.
If the woman concerned is not married to
anybody, this is treated differently. In the Old Testament if you
committed adultery you got the death penalty. For the lesser
offence of sex with an unmarried woman you got life (!), meaning
of course that you were forced to marry the woman concerned and
could never divorce her (see Deuteronomy 22v28). So if a married
man had an affair with a married woman they would both be put to
death. If he had an affair with an unmarried woman he had to
marry her - God's law required him to become a polygamist. Check
it out for yourself in Deuteronomy. How different our society
would be if we followed these rules. Notice that it protects the
man from his wife being defiled, and it protects the woman from
being left without a husband. If he obtained her agreement by
promising marriage he would be forced to keep his promises.
Simply put, the Bible's rules on
adultery are different from the ideas that many Christians have
about them. They place different restrictions on men than on
women, as the Bible does in other places, and they ensure that if
the rules are broken, then both parties are guilty of the same
offence and receive the same punishment. The rules are what we
would expect to find if God allowed polygamy and if it was
legitimate behaviour. They are not what we would expect if the
strict monogamous viewpoint had any credibility. Adultery happens
when a woman breaks her marriage contract. This does not happen
when a man takes a second wife, for that wife is then honouring
her marriage contract. The second woman is truly a wife in the
eyes of God, because it is God's law that required men to take
second wives in these and other circumstances. Christ fulfilled
the law when he added that a man that put away his wife and took
another was himself guilty of adultery. He had then broken his
wife's marriage contract by depriving her of her rights and her
position, and often, due perhaps to the economics of the time,
the woman was forced to find another man in order to survive,
without even the required certificate of divorce, causing her to
commit adultery. The Bible is therefore very clear about adultery.
The Biblical view of adultery supports polygamy and even requires
it in certain circumstances.
8) The Modernisation Myth
Okay, so polygamy was
acceptable in Bible times, but things have moved on. We know
better now than they did then. Women have been liberated, and in
modern times we can now see that polygamy is just wrong.
The idea of something being wrong is not
something that really fits in the modern mind, for people are
reluctant to judge what is right and what is wrong by reference
to some greater authority, namely God. And if they do accept God,
then we know that the Bible states he is "the same
yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13 v 8). He does not
change as he does not need to. If you accept him and his will,
then you have to accept his law that says certain things are not
to be done, and his liberty which allows us freedom to choose
about anything else. If it was wrong, he would have told us. The
Bible contains many things in it which seemed unusual in the
light of their day, but the usefulness of those rules is becoming
more clear as time goes on and as we find out more about the
world. The Bible talked of the earth being round and suspended in
space long before man found out that this was the case. Women
have not in fact been liberated by "feminism". Women,
like men, were created perfect by God according to his purpose
and are truly free when they are fulfilling that purpose. Christ
said "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you
free." It is the truth of the Bible and God's will for men
and women that hold the promise of freedom, not the lies of
"feminism" which has only succeeded in bringing about
the deaths of millions of unborn children, and in devaluing every
traditional role which gave women satisfaction and fulfillment.
Christ promised the disciples that the Spirit would teach them
all things (John 14 v 26), yet the Bible closes with no mention
of polygamy being wrong. The only explanation is that any views
we hold now that condemn polygamy, are not based on how things
have improved since Bible times, but are based on a move away
from the teachings of the Word.
9) The Dispensational Division
Polygamy may have been
acceptable once, but God shows himself differently at different
times, called dispensations, and just as we now are not under the
Law but under Grace, so patriarchs could be polygamists but we
cannot.
Sometimes it appears that there are
differences in how God deals with people at different times. For
example, Peter had a vision which removed the distinction between
clean and unclean animals that had been observed by the law. But
these differences of application are always announced and made
clear. Paul, in 1 Timothy 3 v 16, says that all scripture is God-breathed.
If we are to say that any part no longer applies in the way that
it once did, we had better be prepared to back it up with a part
of scripture that says so. We cannot throw away all of it just
because one part has been fulfilled, otherwise we would not be
able to learn anything from Moses, David, Solomon or any of the
prophets.
Also, the general trend shown in the
move from Law to Grace was one of restrictions being removed, not
of new restrictions being added. We can still learn from the Law,
and God still requires our obedience to most of the rules given
to ancient Israel, but there is not one word of scripture to
indicate that the rules about polygamy were being reversed. There
is nothing to indicate that the meaning of marriage and the
definition of adultery have changed. If the rules have changed
then the burden of proof is on the monogamist to prove it, and it
cannot be proven for there is no evidence.
This objection rests on the mistaken
belief that polygamy was something done under the law, and that
polygamists rely on this to justify their lifestyle. In fact, it
would not matter if polygamy had never been mentioned in the
Bible. If God had not banned it anywhere (and he hasn't) then it
is not sinful. The fact that polygamy is mentioned throughout the
Bible is a bonus. It shows not only that polygamy is not wrong,
but that it is right - openly approved by God. (for New Testament
references see The Marriage of Christ and The Church and Polygamy in the Bible)
If we say that the rules are different
in a new dispensation we must show where we can find out what the
rules are. Otherwsie it is open to anyone to invent whatever
rules they like, and with no justification. As, even in the New
Testament, there is no law against polygamy, any ban must rest on
personal opinion, and not on the Bible. If we do not find
someone's opinion to be enough for any other doctrine, why would
we suddenly accept it here - would we not lose the right to say
that we followed God, and not man?
10) The Sex-Mad Story
Polygamists should be
happy with just one wife. What's wrong with them? They must be
sex-mad or something?
Sadly, once the polygamist case has been
established, there are always those who will run from reason and
scripture, and rely only on abuse. Polygamists believe in the
freedom to marry more than one woman. They do not preach free
love or easy sexual lifestyles. Polygamy is a lot more
restrictive and difficult than modern life, because it says that
a sexual relationship must be within marriage, and that you can't
have one without the responsibilities and duties that come with
it. It is therefore anything but sex-mad. It is, however,
enthusiastic about marriage. It believes in family values enough
to make a serious attempt at extending families. It is a bit
worrying if people criticise polygamists for being sex-mad, for
it means the critic is equating sex and marriage. Sex is only
allowed within marriage, but marriage is about a lot more than
just sex. There's companionship, children, survival, the teaching
of God's word and the practice of his love. All these should be
in marriages, whether they be with one wife, or two, or three.
Polygamists are responsible and realistic about sex. Some of
their critics are perhaps obsessed with it.
The objection is useful in that often it
reveals more about those who make the objection than it does
about the polygamists. For centuries so-called churches have
banned polygamy, prevented priests from marrying, prevented men
from marrying after their first wife had died, frowned on those
who enjoyed sex within marriage, and ignored social evils just
because of some hang-ups about sex which originate in the works
of certain so-called "Church Fathers" and which run
contrary to what the Bible teaches. Understanding what the Bible
says in allowing polygamy may be their first step towards getting
over it.
