An Exchange on Polygamy

     If you have not done so, please first read, "Polygamy and the Bible").  The following exchange on polygamy took place on an Internet list that consists of many preachers and religious people.  The participants (my disputants) are all members (most preachers) in "Churches of Christ."  I place Churches of Christ in quotation marks because they represent Churches of Christ in various stages of doctrinal progression.  The exchange was started due to me posting a question/answer to the list regarding polygamy (my first post below indicates this circumstance).  This exchange serves as both a more detailed study of polygamy and an example of the new hermeneutic among some churches of Christ and where it is taking its advocates.  All of the so called proof texts and arguments in favor of saying polygamy is not ever wrong except in cases of civil legislation against it are observed in the following exchange. 

Don Martin to Edward and the list:

I bid all a good day.

I answered a question yesterday in our Bible Questions work regarding Isaiah 4: 1. This verse is often used by the proponents of modern day polygamy to sanction multiple wives (Isaiah mentioned seven wives to one man). I pointed out that the reference to polygamy or polygyny in Isaiah 4: 1 is not approving of the practice, but only indicating a time when many males among the then people of God would die, this especially due to their rebellion against God and the consequent punishment would involve death (Isa. 3).

Edward wrote:

"You are wrong about whether the Bible forbids polygamy. Below my name is a posting of your two central points from your website: Deuteronomy 17 forbids polygamy of kings and First Timothy 3 forbids polygamy of Bishops. From that, you extrapolate that all polygamy is forbidden.

Well, I think you are adding to the scriptures."

Don replies:

Edward does as a number are doing as they march off into apostasy, they deny the scriptures, having accepting some "new hermeneutic" that provides them liberty to understand a verse or passage as they desire. This same thinking is seen in Peter's post about women elders (watch where Peter will clearly go with this "new hermeneutic").

Edward does not advocate polygamy, he says, but then wrote:

"But it is quite another thing-and an incorrect thing-to say it is against the Will of God."

Don observes:

So, as far as God and the Bible are concerned, if a male Christian wanted to have several wives, such is "not against the will of God." My, my, I suppose there is no end to where error is taking many. I suppose that women elders could serve to help the male "Christian" who has multiple wives, I say this in view of what Peter is already advocating. Well, why not?

The "will of God" regarding man and woman is observed in the original creation. God made Eve for Adam and instituted marriage (Gen. 2). God never taught polygamy, he only "tolerated" certain matters for a certain time. If we can insert multiple women in violation to the "will of God," why cannot we also a man or two to offer a little diversity for the husband? I recall one on the list who did not think such was a violation of "the will of God."

Let me be to the point and very simple: It is against the will of God for man to have more than one wife at a time, this I affirm (Matt. 19: 4-9).

Edward, what say you?

Edward to Don Martin and the list:

You are wrong about whether the Bible forbids polygamy. I have read your article on your website. Your posting on this Internet list is a summary of it.

Below my name is a posting of your two central points from your website: Deuteronomy 17 forbids polygamy of kings and First Timothy 3 forbids polygamy of Bishops. From that, you extrapolate that all polygamy is forbidden.

Well, I think you are adding to the scriptures. In the first place, Deuteronomy doesn't say what you contend unless God is also limiting the king to one horse, one wife, and one gold coin. The NIV renders the passage as "He must not take many wives...." which is the sense of the version you used. The passage doesn't forbid more than one wife. It forbids too many. To call Deuteronomy 17 an "expressed prohibition" against polygamy, as you did, is to misread the Bible.

I agree that I Tim. 3 limits a bishop to one wife. Paul is setting out the special qualifications for a bishop and that is one of the requirements. Why? Probably because with more than one wife, a man generally would be more diverted away and distracted from doing the work of a bishop.

But I Tim. 3 actually undercuts your position that polygamy is forbidden for all. If God forbids polygamy for all, why did He feel it necessary to specifically forbid it for bishops in Timothy?

Finally, you say in your article that the "polygamy push" is really coming from those who are pushing gay marriage. With all respect, Don, that is rubbish. Why not claim polygamy is designed to further the causes of PETA, the ACLU, the Labor Unions, and the Wobblies. If you cannot strike them down from the Bible, cover them with ad hominems.

Lastly, I don't advocate polygamy. I think it is a thoroughly bad idea and one that should be legislated against. But it is quite another thing-and an incorrect thing-to say it is against the Will of God.

Cordially,
Edward.

Peter to Don Martin:

I haven't been engaged in the polygamy discussion, though I have read Edward's comments and consider his criticism of your so-called Bible Truths teaching on this subject valid. Nonetheless, you've brought me into this dialogue by charging ....

"Edward does as a number are doing as they march off into apostasy, they deny the scriptures, having accepting some "new hermeneutic" that provides them liberty to understand a verse or passage as they desire. This same thinking is seen in Peter's post about women elders (watch where Peter will clearly go with this "new hermeneutic")."

Peter comments:

Don, I have read many of your articles on your web site and, as I'm sure you're well aware, find very little actual "bible truths" therein. Your annoying accusation that Edward and myself are apostates, deniers of Scripture, and selfish desirers of our own will is characteristic of your unchristian attitudes and behavior. The hermeneutical paradigm you practice is itself quit new, having only been around popularly in the Church of Christ since D.R. Dungan's book.

In the world of Christian scholarship (outside the little domain of the Church of Christ) there is such a thing as the "new hermeneutic." But I'm quit sure you're totally ignorant of what it is, and since I'm not a proponent of it anyway I'll not even waist my time discussing it.

The hermeneutical approach I utilize has been around at least as long as the time of Moses. So, any charge of "new hermeneutic" is simply one made out of ignorance.

One final observation: You wrote, "God never taught polygamy, he only "tolerated certain matters for a certain time." I'm sure one of the matters God is tolerating right now is our collective ignorance and perpetual disagreements over what we deem important.

Cordially,
Peter

Don Martin to the list:

Edward had problems with me saying polygamy is "against the will of God." Edward also said that I was abusing the scriptures when I used Deuteronomy 17: 16, 17 to say that in the case of kings, God expressed a direct disapprobation regarding multiple wives.

Here is the direct, word for word quote from Bible Truths:

"...An expressed prohibition against polygamy. Those who contend that the Bible never negatively treats polygamy are wrong. Consider the warning given to prospective and actual kings of Israel:

'16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold’" (Deut. 17).

Notice the three "shall nots," multiply horses, multiply wives, multiply silver and gold. Solomon is often sited as proof for the practice of polygamy being right, but Solomon was wrong in all three areas. Solomon had a vast number of horses; he had riches unparallel; and seven hundred wives (I Kgs. 4: 26; Eccl. 1-10; I Kgs. 11: 3). Hence, to use the example of Solomon and his seven hundred wives to argue for polygamy is an example of how simplistically a subject can be approached and dialectically presented...."

God at the very beginning expressed his will regarding marriage, one man (Adam) and one wife (Eve, Gen. 2). Jesus makes this very plain as he alluded to original creation (Matt. 19: 4f.). The stated reason that the king was not to "multiply wives to himself" was, "...that his heart turn not away." To have wives is to invite all manner of problems and conflicts that can spiritually discourage. I grant that there is more involved in the prohibition, but this concession does not exclude or negate the point just made.

Regarding proper hermeneutics, I believe in approved example. God has provided us the approved example: one man/one woman. Many today are attempting to deny God's will. They have man and man and man (husband) and women (wives). As I said in my article on polygamy in Bible Truths, the same mind-set that is pushing homosexuality and defending it is also at work defending polygamy. Both polygamy and homosexuality are perversions of the "will of God." I say this without giving an inch! I suppose my firm conviction will be waved aside as more legalism. How regrettable!

Thank all of you for your interest and for considering these posts.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Peter to Don Martin and the list:

Don wrote ...

"To have wives is to invite all manner of problems and conflicts that can spiritually discourage."

ISTM that you think God made a mistake in creating Eva for Adam. Instead of viewing women as "suitable helpers" you see them as "problems"? Very interesting revelation of your own personal view of women.

You remind me of Chavez in Clint Eastwood's movie Joe Kid, where Chavez says to his wive, "I don't want to know your opinion. I bring you along to cook meals and keep me warm on cold nights."

For me, my wife plays a very big role in keeping me spiritually ENCOURAGED! Perhaps you're not as blessed as me, Don.

Cordially,
Peter

Gene to Don Martin and the list:

Don,

As did Edward, I must also do: disagree with you on polygamy. When you read the Bible, brother, you read for the rules as though there is a way to be found to be a law-keeper and be pleasing to God. Now, please, do not confuse this with a charge of being a legalist, for this is not exactly the same as legalism, though it does present the picture of one hanging ten toes over the line to get as close to legalism as possible without appearing to fall in. Actually, Don, this is a charge of making cases against things out of inferences influenced by cultural and personal bias - particularly so when God does NOT prohibit such things for all people.

In all that you presented, there is nowhere to be found a general prohibition against polygamy. Stop right there. Think for a moment. Not one general prohibition of polygamy. That is staggering, and especially so given our culture and our claims of having founded all of our foundational cultural values on the Bible. Where there is even a specific and narrow prohibition, it is not unreasonable to think that God was fully capable of setting this as the rule for marriage in general; BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. Yet the only prohibition to be found among the thousands of verses in the Bible is that Kings (we have only one, now - Jesus) and elders-shepherds (I believe you are one of these, yes?) and deacons (and I am one of these) must not multiply wives. So for you and I and others who, like us, serve in similar roles in the body of Christ - or aspire to do so, then, polygamy is not an option, whether or not it is otherwise allowed by virtue of the teachings about following God.

Now, as far as I am concerned, I teach that our hearts are to be devoted to pleasing the Lord and bending and amending our ways to follow and seek after His ways and His will. As part of that teaching, I encourage every man and woman to live the best lives they possibly can and serve wholeheartedly, so as to keep as many roles as possible open for service. Since a man or woman cannot serve as an appointed servant of the Body (deacon or deaconness), nor can a man serve as an elder-shepherd, who is a polygamist, I encourage men and women to have but one spouse and to be faithful and submit to the one spouse and his/her needs. This is, in all good conscience, all that I can ask of those whom I teach. I can also counsel against and refuse to participate in the marriages of those who wish to promote or participate in polygamous relationships on personal grounds. And I do refuse - or would, if the opportunity arose.

It is NOT within the bounds of sound and healthy teaching to condemn or issue an edict against polygamy that God has NOT given us. To do this is to institute a law of men as though it were God's law. In spite of my own distaste and personal feelings of disgust over this practice (somewhat, but not entirely based on cultural heritage), I cannot legislate among God's people using my own feelings and concerns as a guide. My convictions, based on God's word, is that it is better to have only one wife or husband, if a person chooses to marry at all. But to say that "this is better" is NOT to prohibit polygamy without any possibility of acceptance of it on God's part. God did accept Abraham, who had multiple wives, and Isaac, who had but one wife, and Jacob, who also had multiple wives. And even though they had more than one wife (many more) David and Solomon were also accepted by God, who were Kings of Israel and who served as kings after the direct prohibition against multiplying wives for themselves as kings. This was but one of their sins - the ways they missed the mark of following God perfectly.

So, Don, while I would agree with you that polygamy is NOT the ideal marriage relationship God designed for us to have, neither can I teach a general prohibition against it that does not exist in God's word. I can only encourage men and women to serve the Lord in ways that will not prevent them from pursuing any possible avenue of service to the Lord as they mature.

Please consider these things, Don. For I believe I have said no less than Edward said, though using different words. And I believe neither he nor I would, as you have so openly implied, promote the marriage of two persons of the same gender. Furthermore, I find it disrespectful and dismissive of an elder brother to accuse him so, even by implication. Your obligation is to love your brother and respect your elder brother, as is mine.

Blessings,
Gene

Don Martin to Gene and the list (post one of three):

First, you wrote regarding my post to Edward (Edward never replied):

"And I believe neither he nor I would, as you have so openly implied, promote the marriage of two persons of the same gender. Furthermore, I find it disrespectful and dismissive of an elder brother to accuse him so, even by implication. Your obligation is to love your brother and respect your elder brother, as is mine."

Don's reply:

I am a stickler for staying with the facts.  Here is what I said:

"God never taught polygamy, he only 'tolerated' certain matters for a certain time.  If we can insert multiple women in violation to the 'will of God,' why cannot we also a man or two to offer a little diversity for the husband? I recall one on the list who did not think such was a violation of 'the will of God.'"

My point, Gene, was if we can violate in one area, why not others? Of course, you and I seem to have a totally different view about such matters. However, Edward:

"10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jas. 2).

I never said nor implied that Edward or you presently advocate another, in addition to polygamy, life style with which God is displeased, homosexuality.  My point was, if we can defend polygamy, why not same gender marriage?  I have in the past maintained that God is opposed to and has taught against same sex marriage or homosexuality; thus it is a sin, and I have debated this matter on this list with one who said about the same thing that Jim said about polygamy; namely, while he would not practice or advocate homosexuality activity, he accused me of perverting the scriptures because I said homosexuality was and is a sin. I think you and the readers see the parallel.

Gene wrote:

When you read the Bible, brother, you read for the rules as though there is a way to be found to be a law-keeper and be pleasing to God.

Don answers:

I suppose I am "guilty" as charged, at least with modification.  In the case of polygamy, I read how God established marriage and this marriage institution consists of one man and one woman (Gen. 2).  Yes, I do observe this and the total absence of any provision for man and women (wives) or man and man (homosexuality).  Yes, I suppose that I am guilty. What puzzles me, Gene, is what in the world do you see?  Before I am charged, again, as being a legalist or without love, yes, I see the love of God in the marriage provision.  However, I also see the particularity of the provision itself, monogamy.  I know my observation is correct because this is precisely what Jesus saw in the provision and thus contended against perversions of this order, just as I am doing (Matt. 19: 4f.).

Gene wrote:

"Actually, Don, this is a charge of making cases against things out of inferences influenced by cultural and personal bias - particularly so when God does NOT prohibit such things for all people."

Don replies:

Let us keep the record straight.  First, I answered a question about Isaiah 4: 1, the matter of polygamy, one man and seven women.  In my answer, I pointed out that the verse does not sanction polygamy and, hence, it simply states what the future held for these disobedient to God people. They had rejected and rebelled against God and they would suffer in that many of their men would be killed (Isa. 3).  I then mentioned that it had always been God's will that there be one man and one woman as opposed to one man and more than one wife.  To this Edward replied and charged:

"You are wrong about whether the Bible forbids polygamy.... Well, I think you are adding to the scriptures."

I answered Edward's post but after making this serious charge, Edward disappeared.  I do, just as Jesus, believe that God's will is articulated to man involving necessary inference (cp. Matt. 22: 32).  God's law, yes, "law," has always been as Jesus reiterated, "...man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife...and they twain shall be one flesh" (Matt. 19: 5).  Gene, please observe:  "his wife," "twain," and "one flesh;" not, "his wives," instead of "twain," whatever number, and "many..." (plural for flesh).  I repeat, one man, one woman as opposed to one man and multiple wives has always been God's will.  Hence, polygamy is opposed to God's will.

Gene, a basic difference between you and me is that I believe in the inherent and residual authority of God's word.  When God told Adam and Eve to "replenish," this is what he meant and to have failed to have thus done would have been in violation to God's will (Gen. 1: 28). When God said to Adam and representatively to all men, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh," this is what He meant and to not do so is a violation of God's will (Gen. 2: 24).  I am sorry if this is viewed as legalism or "close to it."

Please see my post two.

Don Martin to Gene and the list (post two of three):

I want to thank you, Gene and list members, for having interest in these posts and for considering them.  If you have not already read post one, please do so before reading this post.

Gene wrote:

"Don, this is a charge of making cases against things out of inferences influenced by cultural and personal bias - particularly so when God does NOT prohibit such things for all people."

Don responds:

I suppose I am "culturally and personally bias" because I teach God's will has been and is monogamy as opposed to polygamy.  Gene and the list, may I respectfully say that for God to teach and bind a matter on man, God does not have to prohibit every particularity that is averse or opposed to what He has required.  I believe unleavened bread and fruit of the vine are to be used for the Lord's Supper.  I believe this in view of such teaching as Matthew 26: 19-29.  I do not ever read, though, where Jesus said, "You cannot use Coke and regular crackers." However, what Jesus taught excludes all "unlike" matters.  I know what I just said is going to by some be viewed as "law" and "legalism." Yes, we read in the Bible many times of one man and many women. However, such is not sanctioned and constitutes an aberration from God's original law of monogamy.  As I have said, there was a time when God "overlooked" certain matters, but not now (cp. Acts 17: 30, 31, Matt. 19: 4f.).  This discussion is not simply about culture and personal preferences, it is about God's will and the violation of it being sin.

Gene reasoned:

"In all that you presented, there is nowhere to be found a general prohibition against polygamy."

Don observes:

Such an approach, I say this kindly and concernedly, is untenable.  There is no prohibition against gambling, smoking pot, coke and crackers for the Lord's Supper, and women elders, as some on this list are considering. However, only males, to use the last reference for purposes of elucidation, are seen functioning as elders; the elder is to be one who rules his own house; and the elder is to be the husband of one wife (I Pet. 5: 2f.; I Tim. 3: 4; 3: 2).  Can I find a verse that says, "No woman may serve as an elder in the church"?  No.  Do we, therefore, conclude, "Since there is no "general prohibition against...women serving as elders, we must allow such and cannot say women elders is a violation of the will God"? God has spoken and he has presented males as the leaders in the church, not women (I am sure Peter will disagree with this). Therefore, women serving in such capacities is prohibited.  This principle, the principle, if you will, of when God has specified, all "unlike" matters are excluded, is clearly observed in Hebrews 7: 14.

Gene stated:

It is NOT within the bounds of sound and healthy teaching to condemn or issue an edict against polygamy that God has NOT given us. To do this is to institute a law of men as though it were God's law.

Don in contrast:

I maintain that for a man or woman to have more than one mate constitutes a violation of God's will (Gen. 2, Matt. 19: 4f.) and is sin (cp. I John 3: 4).

In my third and final post, post number three, I shall address Geneses two and Matthew 19.

Please read post three, my final post.

Don Martin to Gene and the list (post three of three):

I want to thank the list owners for allowing me to make these posts. While I have been plain and challenging, I have not meant to be mean and hard-hearted.  My heart goes out to people in all sort of adulterous and unscriptural marriage arrangements, whether it be unscriptural divorce and marriage to another or one having, as in the case of this study, more than one living wife at a time, polygamy.

I believe that God has been very plain as to what He desires and, yes, requires of man relative to man fulfilling his social and conjugal needs. We know that the "marriage bed is undefiled," but all departures from this God provided arrangement are condemned (Heb. 13: 4).  Let us briefly look at what God has said regarding marriage:

"18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Gen. 2).

Note God's love and concern for man being alone and how God resolves to remedy man's aloneness (vs. 18f.).  Please observe how God provided a specially designed counter-part for man (vs. 20-25).  God attached teaching to insure the success of the marriage provision (vs. 24). Consider that the arrangement that God provided, marriage, is clearly observed as monogamous, one man, one woman for life! (vs. 21-25). One woman and more than one husband; a man and a man; a woman and a woman; and a man or woman with more than one mate, all of these circumstances are excluded in God's provision.

"3: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7: They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8: He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11: But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matt. 19).

I grant that the circumstances that precipitated Jesus' teaching on this occasion involved the doctrine of divorce for various causes (vs. 3). However, the point is Jesus is addressing circumstances involving God's marriage provision that were aberrant or against God's original law of one man and one woman for life.

In this milieu, it is observed that there was a somewhat "exception" period (vs. 7, Deut. 24)The "temporary tolerance" period did not remove or negate God's original law.  I believe the main reason for this "tolerance" was for the protection of women, due to the then decadent state of things. Polygamy was also for a period apparently "tolerated," but such does not mean God was pleased with it or that we can accept polygamous marriages today (see Gene's statement at the end of this post).

Marriage between one man and one woman is to be for life, Jesus re-emphasizes, the only exception being fornication (vs. 9).  Consider this:  Jesus re-enforced one man, one woman, the man leaving all others and cleaving to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh, how, then, can we even for a moment think that one man and more than one wife is a situation not against the will of God and one that we must in general tolerate?

In closing, I am truly sorry that there are those on this list who believe that I have added to God's word and that I am binding where I have no right because I teach that one man having more than one wife is against the will of God.  Notwithstanding, I stand fast in my resolve.  I must also reiterate that this discussion has not been, in my case, about personal taste.  Gene has stated that personally he would not participate in polygamy, either in practice himself or what he would encourage.  Yet, Gene stated in opposition to my teaching against polygamy the following:

Gene stated:

"It is NOT within the bounds of sound and healthy teaching to condemn or issue an edict against polygamy that God has NOT given us. To do this is to institute a law of men as though it were God's law."

Don Martin to Edward (Edward replies):

Edward wrote:

First of all, Don, let me apologize for not answering you earlier. I missed your first reply. I thought I was watching for it but I missed it entirely.

Don comments:

Edward, no problem. I really thought you had just decided not to reply for whatever reason.

Edward stated:

"The Bible, I am convinced, does not forbid polygamy."

Don responds:

Herein lies the essential difference between you and me, Edward. I believe the Bible only presents monogamy as God's will and that this teaching is seen beginning in Genesis 2: 24. Polygamy was a matter apparently tolerated in the Hebrew scriptures, just as divorcement (cp. Deut. 24). However, divorce for various causes and more than one wife at a time were never the norm or God's will (Matt. 19: 4f.).

Edward stated:

I assure you I have a cultural bias against polygamy every bit as strong as yours, but it is a mistake to assume my cultural biases are also God's and try to twist the Bible into agreement.

Don comments:

Edward, I do not believe that I am "twisting the Bible" when I teach one man, one woman for life. Also, I do not believe that my teaching against a man having more than one wife is "cultural bias." Please to not come back later and say that I have misrepresented what you have said.

Edward, most of the remainder of your post went on to make comments based on the practice of polygamy in the Hebrew scriptures. I do not deny polygamy was practiced at various times. To site the practice does not prove the practice was ever accepted by God as being his will in the matter. Herein, you err.

Edward, I am going to start trying to pen down you, Gene, and Peter. Here is the question:

May John who presently has five "wives" (all living together and experiencing a conjugal relationship) be a member of the same church where you are a member, in fellowship and recognized as a faithful Christian?

I hope you have time to provide a simple and succinct answer to this question before you leave. I should think that your answer would have to be, "Yes," but who knows. My answer is an emphatic, "No!"

In my next post, I shall address some arguments that you make, based on 2 Samuel 12 and Deuteronomy 17.

While I am in sharp disagreement with you regarding many wives, I do appreciate your time and manner. My post two will have to be this afternoon, as I have some office commitments this morning.

I also continue to watch for Peter's post in which he comments on his rejection of Genesis 2: 24, a verse Jesus quoted and recognized.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list:

Gene answers the following question (see below):

May John who presently has five "wives" (all living together and experiencing a conjugal relationship) be a member of the same church where you are a member, in fellowship and recognized as a faithful Christian?

Gene to Don,

My answer would be "No." Such a brother would be disrespecting the laws of the governing authorities of our state. Of course, the same can be said for the brother who speeds habitually above the limits posted by the local and state government authorities.

Come to think of it, there are very few such perfectly faithful men or women to be found. We are all so imperfect and human, you know. (c.f. Romans 3: 23) So, while the polygamy is an issue because of the issue of respecting man's lawful governments and authorities, there would be no scriptural reason to prevent it if it were NOT against the laws of the state.

Don Martin to Edward and the list:

Edward wrote in defense of polygamy:

The next point to consider is II Samuel 12: 7-8, also set out below my name, (a reference I got from your website.) There, after David has had Uriah killed to free Uriah's wife, Bathsheba, for marriage to David, David is being upbraided by Nathan for his actions. In reminding David all the Lord had done for him, the Lord recites that He defeated Saul for David and delivered Saul's wives "into your arms." Try to reconcile a gift from the Lord of all of Saul's wives to David's arms with a view that the Lord forbids polygamy. It cannot be done.

Don answers:

I do not want to come across as a know-it-all, but before I prepare material on a given subject, I try to cover all arguments and proof verses used to the converse. Consider my answer to this passage found in, "Polygamy and the Bible" in Bible Truths.

"...It is understood by some that the expression, 'And I gave thee thy master's...wives into thy bosom.' means that God was pleased with one man and multiple women. I agree that if there were not any other statement or teaching in the Bible, one might conclude the acceptance of the practice of multiple wives. However, could not the student also simply understand the statement to mean in general that God had given to David all that appertained to Saul and that the reference to Saul's women was the ultimate proof, especially if we find sound evidence that God was not pleased with polygamy? (Saul appears to have had only one wife and one concubine, I Sam. 14: 15; I Sam. 3: 7.)"

Edward reasoned:

Next, consider Deut. 17:16-17, which is also below my name. You cite this as a ban on polygamy. It forbids a King from too many wives-not more than one....

Don comments:

I have addressed Deuteronomy 17: 16, 17 several times.

Regarding the prohibition of multiplying wives one wrote: "He was to avoid enervating luxury. His court was to be chaste and pure" (The Pulpit Commentary, homilies, Vol. 3, p. 295). I really think we are playing word games.

Edward, may I kindly say that your logic amazes me. You wrote:

"Note the language used in both Timothy and Titus. The language requires 'but one wife.' That is the same as saying 'not more than one wife.' The obvious sense is, if one is not a bishop, more than one wife is not forbidden. If more than one wife is forbidden to everyone, why would Paul waste language in reiterating the general rule for elders and bishops."

Edward continued:

In addition, we may have misinterpreted the bishop and elder requirement regarding marriage. Those passages don't require that an elder be married as we have often interpreted them. They require that the elder have not more than one wife.

Don observes:

Paul wrote: "Must be the husband of one wife" (I Tim. 3: 2, Tit. 1: 6). The expression 'husband of one wife'(andra mias gunaikos) has prompted no small amount of different views. The language of the New Testament is very precise (cp. I Cor. 2: 13). The Holy Spirit could have worded this requirement a number of ways. For instance, He could have said 'the bishop must be married.' This would mean that he is required to be married, but would not have precluded polygamy (more than one wife). He could have said, 'the bishop must not be a polygamist.' This would have forbidden polygamy, but would not have required a marriage state. 'The bishop must have been married only once,' was another choice. This would prohibit polygamy, but would not have necessarily required a present marriage state. Instead of all these possible constructions, the Spirit wrote, 'the bishop must be the husband of one wife.' This construction requires marriage (present marriage) but forbids polygamy. Edward, we need to be more respectful of the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Again, Edward, I sincerely thank you for your time and efforts. While you and I may never come to sameness of mind regarding whether or not a male Christian may have more than one wife, we are presenting a forum for others to consider and draw their own decisions and conclusions.

Again, I call upon the reader to observe where this "new hermeneutic" is taking many. It is not necessarily a sin for a male Chritian to have more than one wife at a time; an elder does not have to have a wife; and an elder may be a woman (Peter's view).

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to Gene and the list:

Gene wrote:

When God gave the Law to Moses, He provided for the possibility of a man having more than one wife and made a law concerning how the children would receive their inheritance, so that no preference would be shown. (c.f.Deuteronomy 21:15-17) Is this NOT a provision for the children of two (or more) wives? Of course it is. Does God make provision for all the children according to birth order? Yes, He does. Does God even hint that the man has done something wrong by having two wives? No. Simple as that. Does God "overlook" this "certain matter"? No. He provides for it. He gave a law to govern it.

Don comments on Deuteronomy 21: 15-17:

This passage along with 2 Samuel 12: 7, 8 and the various bland references in the Hebrew scriptures to ones who had more than one wife are the standard arguments offered by polygamists today to justify their practice of conjugally living with more than one "wife."

I believe that rather than setting in place a sanctioned system of polygamy, God is simply attempting to regulate a matter that at that time was common in the history of God's people. As a basic parallel, I present the case of divorcement for various causes. God hates such divorce (Mal. 2: 16). Notwithstanding God's teaching regarding one man, one woman for life (Gen. 2: 24), such divorcement appears to have become common. God intervenes and attempts to regulate such, while not approving of it; hence, the teaching of Deuteronomy 24: 1-4.

While not approving of polygamy and all of its spiritual and social negative consequences, God sought to make the best of it and protect the victims all he could (Deut. 21: 15-17). After all, it was not the children's fault that their father rejected God's order of monogamy and practiced polygamy.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list:

I thought I would share the following quote with you found in the Pulpit Commentary. I understand that this work is not inspired and I have in my library most of the classics when it comes to commentaries. However, I do view the Pulpit Commentary as possessing both critical and sound exegesis of scripture, in the main. In regards to God's original and presently binding marriage law articulated in Genesis 2: 24, the Pulpit Commentary makes the following observation:

I starts with referring to the circumstance of authorship relative who spoke Genesis 2: 24.

"...whether uttered by the first husband...or by the historian..., they must be viewed as an inspired declaration of the law of marriage. Is basis...they affirm to be (1) the original relationship of man and woman, on the platform of creation; and (2) marriage union effected between the first pair. Its nature they explain to be (1) a forsaking...of father and mother - not filially, in respect of duty, but locally, in respect of habitation, and comparatively, in respect of affection; and (2) a cleaving unto his wife, in a conjugium corporis atque animae. Its result is stated in the words which follow: and they shall be one flesh....The language points to a unity of persons, and not simply to a conjunction of bodies, or a community of interests, or even a reciprocity of affections. Malachi (ch. 2: 15) and Christ (Matt. 19: 5) explain this verse as teaching the indissoluble character of marriage and condemning the practice of polygamy" (Vol. 1, p. 52).

I have asked Edward, Gene, and Peter the following question:

May John who presently has five "wives" (all living together and experiencing a conjugal relationship) be a member of the same church where you are a member, in fellowship and recognized as a faithful Christian?

Gene has provided an answer.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to Peter, Gene, and the list:

I bid all a good afternoon.

I thought I would combine both Gene and Peter in this post because the substance of it pertains to both their recent posting.

First, Peter quotes me:

Don, you wrote ... "I, frankly, am shocked that Peter would deny the authenticity of Genesis 2: 24! ... I have remarked at the very beginning of this friendly exchange that there is a marked difference between the accepted hermeneutic. I think Peter is clearly exemplifying this difference. If a verse creates problems for Peter, he simply discards it."

Peter continued:

I cited John T. Willis and the Interpreter's Bible Commentaries in support of my contention. I wrote ... "Gen 2:24 is an explanatory comment by the author of Genesis to its original readers. It is NOT "God's law" as Don erroneously claims."

Don comments:

I suppose we are playing with words again. I have affirmed that "law" involves "commandments," a common definitional nuance of law. I have said that Genesis 2: 24 contains God's marriage law. Here is what the verse says:

"24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2).

Peter has disagreed, stating that the reason it is not God's marriage law is:

"Gen 2:24 is an explanatory comment by the author of Genesis to its original readers. It is NOT 'God's law' as Don erroneously claims." I do not care if the statement was made by Adam or Moses, they spoke by the impetus provided by God (cp. 2 Pet. 1: 21). Jesus quoted Genesis 2: 24; hence, removed any argument at discounting it (Matt. 19: 4f.).

The law is: A man is to cleave unto his wife (not wives), and they (he and she) are to be one flesh. Polygamy was never part of God's marriage plan for man. Polygamy was introduced by man (Gen. 4: 19).

I think Peter is backpedaling and now attempting to distance himself from claiming that Genesis 2: 24 is spurious and not from God. How else can I understand the above? Now, if Peter would just admit that God's law as seen in Genesis 2: 24 is one man and one woman for life, we would be on the same page.

Peter mentioned that I quoted the Pulpit Commentary regarding Genesis 2: 24. Again, it matters not to me who spoke Genesis 2: 24, this is not the issue, I maintain it is God's marriage law.

The Pulpit Commentary expresses my sentiments exactly:

"...but whether uttered by the first husband or by the historian, they must be viewed as an inspired declaration of the law of marriage" (Vol. 1, pg. 52).

Peter wrote:

But either way, whether spoken by Adam or written by the author of Genesis, it is still not LAW in its literary genre, nor its authorial intent.

Peter continued:

You understand all of it to be law, when the vast majority of Scripture is narrative. And treating narrative as law-code is simply irresponsible
hermeneutics.

Don considers:

We are back to the adopted hermeneutic system. My hermeneutic (science of interpretation) says Genesis 2: 24 is a law. Interested reader, please again consider the statement:

"24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2).

Peter has disagreed, stating that the reason it is not God's marriage law is:

"Gen 2:24 is an explanatory comment by the author of Genesis to its original readers. It is NOT 'God's law' as Don erroneously claims."

Peter closed by saying:

Thanks again for being personal in your discussion with me. As you can see in this case, you've simply misunderstood my comments (for the Pulpit Commentary says exactly what I said). It's good to communicate together.

Don closes with Peter:

Thank you, Peter, for having the interest and courage of your conviction to contend for what you believe. I say this again stressing that I believe while God "tolerated" polygamy during Hebrew history, God instituted monogamy and was never pleased with polygamy and He absolutely views it as sin today. Peter, please allow me to ask you the same question that I have posed to Edward and Gene and thanks in advance for your answer:

May John who presently has five "wives" (all living together and experiencing a conjugal relationship) be a member of the same church where you are a member, in fellowship and recognized as a faithful Christian?

Regarding Genesis 2: 24, Gene wrote:

As regards Genesis 2:24, which was the only question I found addressed to me, I do believe it is a scripture and part of the book of Genesis. I also believe that it was the writer's own words, and not a part of Adam's quote in verse 23. It was part of the narrative account being given.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don comments on Gene's answer to his question:

Here again is the question:

May John who presently has five "wives" (all living together and experiencing a conjugal relationship) be a member of the same church where you are a member, in fellowship and recognized as a faithful Christian?

"Gene to Don,

My answer would be "No...."

Don reflects:

In view of Gene's defense of polygamy today or in our present time, the answer, "no" may not have been expected.  However, I did anticipate a "no" answer, based on civil law.

Gene provides an explanation:

"Such a brother would be disrespecting the laws of the governing authorities of our state. Of course, the same can be said for the brother who speeds habitually above the limits posted by the local and state government authorities.

Come to think of it, there are very few such perfectly faithful men or women to be found. We are all so imperfect and human, you know. (c.f. Romans 3:23) So, while the polygamy is an issue because of the issue of respecting man's lawful governments and authorities, there would be no scriptural reason to prevent it if it were NOT against the laws of the state."

Don comments:

So, if Gene and John with his five wives lived in a circumstance that civilly allowed polygamy, there are many such places, Gene could be a member of the same local church with John and John's five wives.  At least, Gene is consistent.

We now await to see what Peter's answer regarding John will be. Again, my answer is John is living in fornication and the church could not simply look the other way, even if pertinent state or country laws permit polygamy.  This is a moral issue, not just a civil law matter.  Again, though, the hermeneutic that Edward, Peter, and Gene have adopted has led them to contend that polygamy is not necessarily a sin and, in Gene's case, John and his five wives should be accepted in the local church, providing there is no civil law against polygamy.

Don Martin to the list:

I have yet to read Peter's answer regarding being a member of the same local church as John and his five wives.  Gene only objected based on civil law where he resides being against polygamy, otherwise, Gene could be a member with John and his five wives.

I find the situation with John and his five wives spiritually and morally repulsive.  Yes, indeed, we are saying that Gene, Peter, and I have a very different hermeneutic and way of studying the Bible.  I am going to check again at this time and see if Peter has provided an answer regarding John. I have warned brethren for years about this "new hermeneutic."  Peter now, with his hermeneutic, sees women elders taught in the New Testament.

Don Martin regarding Gene, Peter, and Edward:

Here, again, is the question posed to these men:

May John who presently has five "wives" (all living together and experiencing a conjugal relationship) be a member of the same church where you are a member, in fellowship and recognized as a faithful Christian?

Gene has said that John having more than one wife is not a moral issue or one involving the Bible, but only a matter of civil concern if there is a civil law where John and his wives reside against polygamy.  Edward has now said:  "I am as much opposed to John and his wives and you, Don.  In fact, I could not be a member of the same local church with John.  However, I cannot say John is immoral or acting against any teaching of the Bible.  My strong objection would only be cultural."

Peter has now gone on record as echoing Gene's view.  Hence, Gene, Edward, and Peter all three believe John and his wives are not acting against the Bible, but could only be wrong if they lived where the state legislated against polygamy.  However, a large part of the world does not legislate against multiple wives.  Gene and Peter could be a member of the same local church, working in fellowship with John and his wives where the law does not disallow such.  Edward says the Bible does not condemn John, but he (Edward) could not be a member of the same church as John, even in a country where polygamy is allowed.  Notice that the new hermeneutic of Edward, Gene, and Peter has placed them in very indefensible situations.  Edward refuses to fellowship John, yet claims John is not necessarily in sin (cp. 3 John 9). Gene and Peter if in a large part of the world that civilly allows polygamy would accept John and his wives, being members of the same local church as John.  "The Bible does not condemn John," say they.  However, if they all, Gene, Peter, and John and his wives, moved to Colorado, they would have to withdraw from John and not be a member of the same local church because Colorado does not allow multiple wives.  They would require John leave his wives, simply based on civil law, regardless of the fact that they believe the Bible teaches John to love, cherish, and remain with his wives. Moreover, Edward could not be a member of the same local church as Gene and Peter in a country allowing multiple wives.  Hence, Edward would fall out with his friends Gene and Peter over an issue Edward believes to be non-biblical.

Don Martin to Gene and the list:

In this post, I shall continue to try to address each question and argument that has been posed to me in defense of polygamy and against monogamy being God's only authorized practice.  Remember that Gene, Peter, and Edward have all three denied that monogamy has been and is God's only authorized marriage arrangement and that polygamy was and is against the will of God.

Gene asked:

IF polygamy is like divorce, then please answer the following questions:

1 - why did Jesus never address the question of polygamy directly? Note: there is plenty of evidence that polygamy was practiced even into the 2nd century AD. Therefore, one cannot argue that it was not something Jesus would have encountered anywhere in the Israel of His time. So why did He not address polygamy as He addressed divorce if they are so similar?

Don's answer:

Jesus never addressed in specificity a lot of subjects.  For example, Genesis 2: 24 in the one man, one woman circumstance, excludes man and man, but Jesus never directly addressed homosexuality. Notwithstanding, Jesus' use of Genesis 2: 24 not only condemned homosexuality, but also polygamy.  Hence, Jesus did condemn both polygamy and homosexuality.

Gene's second part:

2 - why is there NOT EVEN ONE verse in either the old or the new testaments saying that God tolerated polygamy (as Don claims) because of the hardness of the people's hearts?

Don's answer:

There are evidently many specific matters that God "tolerated" in the maturation of his plan relative to the putting into place the gospel, matters concerning which you do not have the specific language as you demand  (cp. Acts 17: 30, 31).  A hermeneutic that demands that we discard a plain statement such as Genesis 2: 24 based on the lack of subsequent specificity, as you are demanding, is manifestly flawed.

Gene's part three:

3 - why is there no defining moment (as in Malachi 2) where God says, "I hate polygamy"?

Don's answer:

Again, "I hate..." is not found regarding just about all specifics, specifics which God certainly hates.  Again, we see a faulty hermeneutic a work.

Gene attempts to force an answer and assign motive:

Don, there's only one way to answer these questions, if you want to start being honest about the record: Polygamy is NOT like divorce. Don just made that up. God hates divorce and does not comment about polygamy for anyone but the kings and elders and deacons and deaconnesses.

Don reflects:

Gene has adopted logic and an interpretive system that allows him to accept polygamy as being God's will or, at least, not condemned by God. Gene can even accept one into a local church fellowship who has multiple wives, providing there is not a pertinent civil law against polygamy.

Gene becomes bolder:

Since I do NOT teach doctrines made up by men... I do NOT teach that God hates polygamy.

Don replies:

Gene, God taught one man and one woman (Gen. 2: 24).  Jesus quotes this same original law and settles any question as to its applicability and universality (Matt. 19: 4f.).  Again, may I kindly say that your approach to the scriptures is seriously defected.

Don Martin to Peter and the list:

I have enjoyed this exchange and I trust that I have treated my disputants as well as they have treated me.  We all have at times pushed to make our point.  However, I think that I can say that none of us, Edward, Peter, and Gene, have any personal animosity.

Peter wrote:

YOUR hermeneutic says Gen 2:24 is a law! And what is your hermeneutic, Don? (I know, read Bible Truths).

Don replies:

I appreciate and commend interest regarding how to study the Bible and arrive at truth.  On a simple and practical level, this is precisely what we have done in this polygamy exchange.  Gene, Edward, and Peter (these three) and I have arrived at totally opposite views and positions relative to polygamy.  I have maintained that monogamy (one man and one woman for life) is and has been from the beginning, God's only approved arrangement and practice (Gen. 2: 24).  Gene, Peter, and Edward have denied this and have charged me with adding to the scriptures and abusing God's word. We have arrived at these antithetical postures because we have employed different interpretive systems.

I look at Genesis 2: 24 and I see one man and one woman for live.  Since this is what I see taught, polygamy is excluded because it is a different sort of practice than monogamy.  A command excludes all incongruous or "unlike" practices.  Concerned reader, polygamy is not congruous or like monogamy, they are two different practices.  When I consider the remote context (all that is taught on the subject), I observe Jesus' quoting Genesis 2: 24 and universally applying it.  Homosexuality and polygamy stand condemned based on God's original enunciation of one man and one woman for life.  Edward, Gene, and Peter cannot and do not see this (I say this regarding polygamy).  Hence, command and necessary inference are involved in my conclusion and stand that polygamy is wrong and monogamy is right.

Elders are the ultimate human examples to emulate.  Prospective elders are required to be married and have only one wife (I Tim. 3: 2).  Peter cannot even see how this requirement excludes she-elders, but it does. Edward has advocated the possibility of unmarried elders, but such is excluded in the requirement. Christians are to follow the example of godly elders (cp. Heb. 13: 7).  Hence, not only have we seen command and necessary inference use to arrive at the teaching of only monogamy, but also approved example (I am not saying that all Christians must be married, but if they are married, they must be married to only one wife. There is no requirement that Christians in general be married).

When we reject these tried, simple, and common-sense methods, command, necessary inference, and approved example, we are in trouble.  I think this exchange has clearly exemplified what I just said. Who would have thought that we would now be dealing with the teaching that polygamy is not against the will of God and is only wrong if pertinent civil law legislates against more than one wife (Gene's statement).  Would we have dreamed that there would be teaching that advocates she-elders in the church?  Yet, we have witnessed all of this in this exchange.

To read in detail about what I sincerely believe to be a proper way to approach the scriptures to arrive at truth, please visit the material in Bible Truths on hermeneutics (click on the Archives button on the home page and then on the letter "H" on the Archives page).

Don Martin to the list:

Please allow me to be succinct.  God's universal law for marriage is first enunciated in Genesis 2: 24:

"24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Notice how the language is perfectly harmonious with monogamy. In fact, polygamy just does not fit in the statement.  God made Adam and then Eve for Adam (Gen. 2).  Genesis 2: 24 contains a "commandment."  God's universal marriage law excludes, a man and more than one wife (polygamy, as we refer to it, a woman and more than one husband (polyandry), a man and a man (homosexuality), and a woman and a woman (homosexuality).  I say this because it is a basic "law" in any sound interpretive system that when God specifies, all "unlike" and "incongruous" matters are automatically excluded (see Heb. 7: 14). Hence, Jesus, in his use of Genesis 2: 24, taught monogamy and, thus, taught against polygamy and homosexuality (Matt. 19: 4f.).  One early post in contending that polygamy "is not against the will of God," even today, stated that based on my interpretive system, PowerPoint cannot be used in sermon presentation.  PowerPoint is not an "unlike" or "incongruous" matter.  PowerPoint would come under an expedient or means for carrying out a command, the command being preaching the gospel.  A different gospel would be excluded (Gal. 1: 6-9).  I suppose there was an effort to equate a man having more than one wife and PowerPoint.  Again, more than one wife is against the monogamous state taught in Genesis 2: 24.

Genesis 2: 24 is, admittedly, a very important verse.  Hence, Peter has obviously attempted many times to explain away the obvious teaching regarding monogamy.  First, Peter told us that the statement in Genesis 2: 24 "was not even made by God."  What was his point? Peter seemed to have backed off when he was accused of denying the authenticity of the verse. Next, Peter contended that Genesis 2: 24 does not contain a commandment, it is only narrative.  The truth is, Genesis 2: 24 is God's word, binding, and authoritative and it requires one man, one woman and excludes any "unlike" or "incongruous" practice.

We have been repeatedly told that polygamy is a choice for man, since it is not against the will of God.  Yet, when we consider the totality of the teaching of the scriptures (the inductive and deductive method), we see absolutely no teaching that is applicable for polygamy and, moreover, all the teaching we observe is in keeping with one man, one woman and is opposed to polygamy.

Paul taught, "wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands..." not wives submit yourselves to your own husband! (Eph. 5: 22).  The "husband is the head of the wife," not the husband is the head of his wives! (v. 23.) "Christ is the head of the church," not Christ is the head of the churches! (v. 23).  "So ought men to love their wives," Paul "commanded," not, so ought a man to love his wives! (v. 28.)   In this context, Paul quotes and applies Genesis 2: 24:  "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh" (v. 31).  Beloved, polygamy will not fit into the teaching of Ephesians 5. Paul concluded, "...let every one of you in particular so love his wife...and the wife see that she reverence her husband," not, let every one of you...love his wives and see that she reverence her husbands! (v. 33). Such is not only incongruous, but repulsive.

Don Martin to the list:

Consider the resident teaching of I Corinthians chapter seven pertaining to marriage.  "...let every man have his own wife," wrote Paul, not let every man have his own wives! (v. 2.)  "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence...," not, let the husband render unto his wives! (v. 3.)  The "due benevolence" is referring to the conjugal or sex act.  How can a man fulfill this "commandment" having eight, for instance, wives?  Notice, "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" (v. 4).  Paul did not say, "wives" and/or "husbands," polygamy just does not fit!

The apostles had the right to "...lead about a...wife," not wives! (I Cor. 9: 5.)  Elders and deacons must meet the qualification of, "...being the husband of one wife," such excludes wives! (I Tim. 3: 2, 12).  Regarding widows indeed, Paul wrote: "...having been the wife of one man" (I Tim. 5: 9).

On a simple level, consider God's arrangement for divorcement. Biblical divorcement is only on the grounds of fornication (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9).  A man has the option and right to "...put away his wife" and "marry another" (Matt. 19: 9, the woman has the same right, Mark 10: 12).  However, look at the confusion that polygamy would bring, multiple wives or husbands, polyandry, will not fit into the teaching.

The bottom line is, God's marriage law is one man, one woman, "from the very beginning" (Matt. 19: 4f., Gen. 2: 24).  All marriage provision is in keeping with monogamy and there is none pertaining to polygamy. Yes, some are observed in the Hebrew scriptures as practicing polygamy, beginning with Lamech (Gen. 4: 19).  However, polygamy is only mentioned as a fact, not an approved happening.  Yes, God did make provision to protect the innocent children of polygamous marriages, but such does not approve polygamy (Deut. 21, cf. Deut. 24).  For a man or woman to have more than one mate with whom they conjugally live is fornication, it is just that simple.  Any interpretive system that leads one to the conclusion that polygamy is not against the will of God is patently false.

I personally think (this is only my opinion) that Gene, Peter, and Edward in their haste to make me look bad, a fellow whom they view as a legalist, bit off more than they could chew.  I really do not think these men have been comfortable "defending" polygamy.

I have shown in the foregoing, using "command," "approved example," and "necessary inference" that God has always only approved of monogamy, one man and one woman for life.

Again, thank all of you for your time and interest, including Gene, Peter, and Edward.  I close with once again saying that while I do not know their family circumstances first hand, I think all three of my disputants are fine family men, dedicated to their wives (one each).  Alas, their hermeneutic has let them down, though, and gotten them into serious trouble and error.

Don Martin to Raymond and the list:

Raymond asked:

I should have asked, Don, is Deu.2: 23 thru 25 all LAW code ?

Don answers:

First, Raymond appears to have Genesis 2: 23-25 in mind instead of Deuteronomy 2: 23-25.  No problem, Raymond, we all make such mistakes from time to time. Let's look at the passage:

"23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Gen. 2).

I have said many times that Genesis is a combination of narrative and law. I have said this because undeniable law utterances are observed in Genesis (cp. 9: 6).  Yes, it is up to man to decide in the matter.  How does man decide?

Look at:  23. "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."  This to me is obviously what we would call narrative or simply informational.

24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  It should be clear that verse twenty-four transitions from just informational and becomes didactic or requiring.  Jesus so understood it (Matt. 19: 4f.).

25: "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." To me it is evident that verse twenty-five is more what we would call both narrative and informational.

Notice the difference in the wording in verse twenty-four compared to verses twenty-three and twenty-five.  I am sure some will "poke fun" at the above in an attempt to deflect.  This all seems mighty simple to me. Furthermore, I just do not understand why some are so determined to allow polygamy.

Don Martin to the list:

Jason wrote:

Passages speak of the fair treatment (of the wives. In the Law, God required a man who took another wife not to deprive the first of her marital rights (Ex. 21:10). This has often been translated conjugal rights.

When we identify polygamy as sin, are we saying that God was telling people how to do their sinning? If it was an evil permitted during the time of law, is it also an evil permitted under grace?

Don comments:

In view of references to polygamy in the Bible, some have concluded that polygamy has been and is acceptable to God.  However, as we have noticed, the references that we have considered to not present polygamy as God approved or taught.  Deuteronomy 21 has been mentioned, but we noticed that in this case, God attempted to protect the children born in polygamous relationships.  We have seen that God never approved of multiple causes for divorce, yet He sought to regulate the practice (Deut. 24: 1f.).

Notice the verse to which Jason calls our attention:

"10: If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish" (Ex. 21).

An important part of Bacon's inductive/deductive mythology was what is called, "The law of analogy or harmony."  One major premise is, "It is impossible for contradiction to be found where there is truth in all concerned."  Hence, to use Exodus 21: 10 to state or prove a second approved marriage arrangement, polygamy, is in conflict with the monogamous arrangement of Genesis 2: 24.

Let us consider the context of Exodus 21: 10.  First, the teaching and milieu in which the provision found in verse ten is not concerning marriage in general, but is focusing on a marriage between the master or his son and a slave or concubine.  The Bible never blanketly condemns slavery, but when it existed, it sought to regulate and mitigate it.  Rather than view Exodus 21: 10 in the same light as Genesis 2: 24 (the setting is different, the language is different, and the point is different), I think we should view the teaching as regulatory.  In Deuteronomy 24, divorce for various reasons is not being encouraged, but regulation is put in place in an apparent attempt to dissuade such divorces (see verse 4).  Before thus divorcing and not being able to take back the divorced wife, the Jew needed to stop and really consider the matter and, hopefully, he would not pursue divorce.  I view Exodus 21: 10 in precisely the same way.

One commentary wrote regarding Exodus 21: 10:

"These rules are to be regarded as mitigations of the then existing usages of concubinage.  The form in which they are expressed confirms this view" (The Bible Commentary, F. C. Cook, p. 345).

The master father or the son, there is some antecedent ambiguity, needed to stop and think before they entered into marriage with a servant.  She was not just property to be conjugally used and then tossed aside.  She had important rights and would even have to be considered as a wife. When such a marriage was contracted, certain dismissal or selling options were negated.  Was divorce for various causes against the will of God? Yes (Mal. 2: 14, 16).  Yet, in the divorce regulation, such could happen. Was polygamy or more than one wife against the will of God?  Yes (Gen. 2: 14, Mal. 2: 14).  Yet, in the master/servant marriage regulation, such could happen.

Do we run to Deuteronomy 24 and argue for divorce for a cause other than fornication?  No (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9).  Should we run to Exodus 21:10 and contend for more than one wife?  No (Gen. 2: 24).  To do this is to create disharmony and contradiction.  The big picture must be considered (induction) and any deduction must harmonize.

Thank you again, Jason.  I hope I provided an answer worthy of your good question.

Don Martin to Frank and the list:  (I had referenced the teaching of the scriptures regarding "baptism" to show it is immersion; therefore, sprinkling and/or pouring are automatically excluded.  Frank made the following post, sympathetic to the teaching of Peter, Edward, and Gene.)

Frank wrote:

My problem is not that "baptizo's" specificity rules out sprinkling or pouring. It is the definition of the word that leads one to say that the only method of conversion in the first century was immersion.

Don comments:

Excellent comment, Frank.

After a similar fashion, let me suggest this:  Genesis 2: 24 describes monogamy, one man, one woman for life.  I wonder why some cannot see that monogamy excludes polygamy.  If if there were a time when God "tolerated" polygamy, I believe there was, this time is over and Jesus restored the original one man, one woman (Matt. 19: 4f.).  When, then, do some argue that polygamy has been part of God's will, sort of another option form marriage and even maintain that polygamy is not against the will of God today?

I noticed in one post presented by one thus contending that he even set forth rules whereby one with multiple wives is to render to them. Did God regulate divorce and polygamy?  Yes, he did.  In the case of Deuteronomy 21, God put in place regulation to protect the innocent children of this aberrant marriage practice.  In the case of a master marrying a slave, God also provided regulation to protect the more helpless in these conditions (Ex. 21: 10).  None of this means that God was ever pleased with such.  To be plain, John conjugally living with his five wives today is fornication.

All has been gathered relative to the matter of monogamy and polygamy. These teachings have first been observed in their own contexts.  Regulation to protect the innocent and relative helpless (children and slaves) does not equate to God's approval, endorsement, and even His o.k. today.  What kind of an interpretive system allows polygamy today?

Yes, the innate, if you will, meaning of "baptism" excludes sprinkling and/or pouring.  The action of immersion is seen many times in the scriptures.  The idea of monogamy excludes polygamy.  Just as sprinkling and/or pouring are "unlike" and "incongruous" relative to baptism, one man or one woman having many wives or husbands, respectively, is "unlike" and "incongruous" regarding monogamy.

These men defending polygamy have run all over the scriptures in an effort to find support. They have exhausted the references and now have no where else to run.  What will they do, give up their flawed hermeneutic and accept one that works or persist in their error?  Again, I invite all to look and see where a defeated interpretive system leads, defending one man having many wives, even today.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list:

Things have really been hopping on the list.  I for one appreciate the interest in what we are discussing. In the polygamy exchange, I attempted to use and exemplify what I believe to be a sound interpretive method.  Gene and Peter used a different processed and arrived at an antithetical position:  The position that polygamy is not against the will of God, even today.  Thus far, their strongest arguments, in my opinion, have been Deuteronomy 21 and Exodus 21: 10. We have explained that while God did not approve of polygamy, only monogamy, Genesis 2: 24, Matthew 19: 4f., He did attempt to regulate it by protecting the vulnerable; namely, the children born into this practice and slaves being married by their masters (Deut. 21; Exodus 21: 10).  The same, we have pointed out, is seen regarding God and divorcement for various causes (Deut. 24).

When one is attempting to yank a matter out of its setting and force it to say something that it was really not designed to say, they will sometimes go to great extremes.

Gene wrote:

2) Perhaps you could comment on the post Jason sent to Don and Steve about God telling folks how to fornicate with multiple wives lawfully. If I am not mistaken, you believe that polygamy is fornication - which makes the law contradict itself, since the law condemns fornication and yet allows the polygamous man to remain lawful if he keeps faith with his wives.

Don observes:

The very idea, "God telling folks how to fornicate with multiple wives lawfully."  God is simply instructing Hebrew slave owners that if they are going to take "another wife" (contrary to God's monogamous law, Gen. 2: 24), they cannot abuse and take advantage of their slave wife.  She is to be protected and the Hebrew slave owner better had known to think twice before doing this.  The same thrust, I believe, is seen in the "allowance" of multiple causes for divorce:  the dissuasion being he could not take back the wife whom he divorced (Deut. 24: 4).

Besides, what does the specific and time limited teaching to the Hebrews regarding owning and marrying a slave have directly to do with the position that, "polygamy is not against the will of God today"?

Gene now not only has John and his five wives accepted by a local church but also, John who is a slave owner and his slave wives.  Gene, how far are you going to let your faulty interpretive method drive you?

You are too good a guy to be in this fix.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list:

I have a few minutes this Sunday morning (it is five o'clock) and I thought  I would make a post or two.

Gene wrote:

The truth is that if everything had not yet been fulfilled by Matthew 19, then polygamy was still part and parcel of the Law that had not diminished one jot or tittle's worth. That being the case, then polygamy was NOT under consideration in Matthew 19. This is a fatal flaw in your position and Don's and George's. Since polygamy was regulated under the Law it could NOT pass away at all NOR BE CONTRADICTED BY JESUS, who came to fulfill it, not abolish it. And there is NOT one shred of evidence that polygamy fits the 'pattern' if you will of divorce, as Jesus was addressing it. It was NOT a matter of 'hardness of heart' that was 'overlooked in times past.'

Don answers:

Gene has said that I "overlooked" his above.  Well, I certainly do not want to overlook anything as we explore and exemplify a proper investigative interpretive system.

In fact, I have addressed the above from many directions and slants. Genesis 2: 24 was and is God's original marriage law, all of the efforts to do away with it to the contrary notwithstanding.  Here it is again (it remains there):

"24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Men put aside much of God's laws from time to time.  It appears at one point, many elected not to continue with their wife for life; hence, divorce seems to have become common.  Therefore, we read what is called the marriage concession in Deuteronomy 24: 1-4.  Rather than being just a "concession," I view the teaching as protection for the vulnerable wives who were being put away for various reasons.  The statement that the Jew could not take back the wife whom it divorced would have had the effect of causing the man to seriously think before he thus acted.  This "concession" was not God's will, Genesis 2: 24 was the will of God, one man, one woman for life.  As Malachi put it toward the end of the Jewish economy:  "And did not he make one?...Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast deal treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant" (Mal. 2: 15, 14).  And, "For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away..." (Mal. 2: 15).

Just as God "allowed" putting away for various causes, though not his will, he also "tolerated" polygamy.  As noticed regarding divorcement, God also sought to regulate polygamy and limit its evil effects by putting in place regulation to mitigate the damage to children of polygamous relationships. God is also seen mitigating the potential abuse to the female slaves of masters who married them (Ex. 21: 10).  They were not to simply be treated as property for conjugal use and tossed aside.  However, polygamy was never God's law, one man, one woman for life was God's law.

In Matthew 19: 4f., Jesus is observed restoring the original law of Genesis 2: 24.  Notice Jesus' teaching, I acknowledge that Jesus is addressing a particular nuance, but such does not negate his use and application of Genesis 2: 24:

"4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7: They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8: He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry" (Matt. 19).

Gene is so obsessed with his position of polygamy being God's will, even today that Gene thinks Jesus is contradicting the law.

Gene stated:

"...polygamy was still part and parcel of the Law that had not diminished one jot or tittle's worth. That being the case, then polygamy was NOT under consideration in Matthew 19...."

Gene's hermeneutic has gone amuck.  Once again, polygamy was never God's law, just as divorcement for various causes was never a part of God's original law.  Genesis 2: 24 allows for one man, one woman for life. Not: one man and one man or one man and many wives!

In closing, this exchange on polygamy is illustrative of how important the method of interpretation one accepts is.  It also shows where the method will take the one using it.  In the case of the so called "new hermeneutic," it has taken Edward, Gene, and Peter into a position not only advocating sin, but a position where these three cannot even spiritually accept as other.  Edward cannot accept Gene and Peter as they receive John and his wives into the same local church.  If Edward cannot accept John, they consistency would say that Gene and Peter cannot accept Edward, even if Edward did accept them, etc.  The sound hermeneutic involves express command, approved example, and necessary inference.  By employing these three, we have seen that polygamy was never what God taught; albeit He did tolerate it and seek to limit its harm for a while, and that God has consistently presented monogamy, one man one woman for live.