I remember asking this question when I was barely a teenager; I read the Bible, and saw that David, for one, had eight wives. I knew David was a hero and a much to be admired. But I also knew that having eight wives was wrong.

Like everyone I knew, I figured that it must not have been wrong then, and became wrong somewhere along the way. But when, exactly? And where is the chapter and verse?

Kids ask the darndest questions, right?

The fact is, most of the greatest men in the Bible had multiple wives: David, Jacob, Moses, Abraham; most of the heroes in Hebrews 11, actually. The holier-than-thou churchgoers who sneer at the concept would not amount to a pimple on the behind of any of these men.

So what gives them the courage to mouth off about something that most of the greatest men and women in the Bible considered normal? I say “men and women” considered it normal, because Abraham taking Hagar as concubine was his first wife, Sarah’s, idea (Genesis 16:1-3).

Christians today would almost universally say it’s “obvious” that it’s wrong and it doesn’t need to be written down in order for it to be considered a sin; it’s just common sense. But appeals to “common sense” about morality are usually just appeals to “the taboos and customs of my tribe.”

We can’t really trust that morality, since everyone believes the traditions they were raised in are self-evidently righteous. But if they’re really that self-evident, why do they differ so much between tribes?

Customs about male-female relations have varied widely in every culture in history – from female veiling to bikinis, from chaperones to free love, from church weddings and “and she went into his tent, and became his wife” (Genesis 24:67).

And while Christians sometimes conform to worldly laws rather than give offense (Matthew 17:24-27), that is a concession Christians sometimes choose to make, and not a moral obligation.

What matters is not the beliefs of your church, not what your grandmother would say, but what the Bible said – what God said. If that isn’t paramount to you, then you’re not even a Christian, are you? (Luke 6:46).

So let’s ask the Bible… Is polygamy wrong?

HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE

The first place to turn is obviously the words of Paul, speaking to Titus and Timothy on how to choose elders to lead churches. Among those criteria, Paul cited the following:

1 Timothy 3:2 The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;

This looks like it clearly forbids polygamy; but looking closer, you’ll realize that it only forbids regional elders from being polygamists! Paul pointedly did not say that no one would be allowed in church if they had multiple wives… only that the elders anointed by these men must be monogamous.

But let’s think about this for a moment. The very fact that this was a rule for elders meant there must have been many people in the church who were excluded by this rule. Right? Otherwise why make the rule that elders must not have multiple wives if not because many of the people they might have chosen did?

This proves that there were men in the true church of God who had multiple wives at this time, and Paul was directing Titus and Timothy to pass over them for leadership roles! Yet their presence in the church was not questioned, no one was directed to kick them out of the group until they learned from their sins.

It should be noted that Paul had no problem ousting people who practiced actual perversion – 1 Corinthians 5:1-6, for example; a man who took his father’s wife was a grave sin under the laws of Moses, and Paul had no problem kicking him out.

But a man with multiple wives was simply passed over for a leadership position. Paul did not question his salvation, faith, or relationship with God. So ironically, rather than proving polygamy is wrong, this verse proves the opposite; that polygamy was practiced in the NT church.

CAN IT REALLY MEAN…

Having explained what the scripture actually said, we can approach from a different angle: if Paul’s words are taken to mean that multiple wives is a sin, as Christians today universally do, it would mean that David sinned by marrying all those other women

The problem is, God specifically endorsed David as a role model for us – calling out one sin of his, and one alone, and explicitly endorsing all of his other acts:

1 Kings 15:5 because David did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, EXCEPT ONLY in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

It’s difficult to argue with a straight face that his polygamous relationships were scandalous and shameful, yet God didn’t see fit to mention them among the “exceptions” to David’s righteousness.

God even praised David calling him “a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will” (Acts 13:22). Yet that same heart – one like God’s, mind you – led him to marry eight women, contrary to today’s common sense and almost unanimous church dogma.

The thing is, when church dogma or cultural taboos disagree with God, it’s your church that’s wrong, not God.

If that’s now how you feel, you’re not a Christian at all.

The way your church interprets Paul’s command to Timothy, David would be disqualified from being an elder; yet God intends to appoint him as king over Israel for all eternity (Ezekiel 37:25).

Meaning Paul’s own future boss broke one of Paul’s rules by not being “the husband of one wife.” Clearly, my worst critics will have to concede we have a problem here; is it David we should question, or Paul? Or at least, our interpretation of Paul?

Nor do we have only one problem! Abraham was the most important figure in the Bible, second only to Jesus Himself; and Paul praises him as the “Father of the faithful” (Galatians 3:7-8), founder of Paul’s own faith…

And yet even though three great world religions call him a prophet of God, founder of their faith… Abraham fails Paul’s test of an elder, being the husband of more than one wife. Do you see the problem?

This means that Timothy, following Paul’s rules, would not have appointed Abraham as an elder over the Corinthians. Yet Abraham was the first and most respected elder of the Christian religion!

And just in case someone wants to quibble about the fact that Hagar was a concubine, I doubt any Christian wants to argue that Paul meant “elders must be the husband of one wife, but can have as many concubines as they want.”

THE LORD’S BIGAMY

But the problem gets bigger, for this alleged perversion goes all the way to the top – and I mean all the way. For Paul spoke of Abraham’s bigamous relationship as analogous to those of God and the Old and New Covenant churches yet never with a hint of condemnation for the relationship itself! (Galatians 4:21-31)

Now if, by analogy, Abraham was like God; then God, likewise, is a bigamist; since Jerusalem above and Jerusalem below were both wives of God at the same time just as Abraham was husband to Hagar and Sarah. Nor is it the only time the Lord practiced bigamy…

Jeremiah 3:14 “Return, backsliding children,” says Yahweh; “for I am a husband to you. I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.”

The context (verses 6-8) makes it clear that Israel and Judah were the wives to whom He was married. In fact, He wound up divorcing them for their adultery:

Jeremiah 3:8 I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorce, yet treacherous Judah, her sister, didn’t fear; but she also went and played the prostitute.

So… if you want to call the Lord a pervert for marrying two women at the same time, be my guest. I will watch from afar when you take Him to task for His sins. Then prepare the marshmallows to roast on the fire that follows.

Yet the Lord is utterly unrepentant, even when as a man. For despite divorcing these two wives, He is going to marry again; throughout the NT, the bride is referred to as singular, as every Christian knows; but in His own parable, He intends to marry five more women! (And was willing to marry as many as ten, if they had gotten their act in a pile in time).

Matthew 25:1-13 Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went out to meet the bridegroom… But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Behold! The bridegroom is coming! Come out to meet him!’ …While they [five] went away to buy, the bridegroom came, and those [five] who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut… Watch therefore, for you don’t know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

Granting that this is a parable, parables must be built on truth; here, the Son of Man, Jesus, is clearly the bridegroom; I doubt any Christian would argue with that interpretation. Why, then, do they ignore the fact that He very clearly intends to engage in polygamy at His return, orgying with no less than five women?

The primary point of the parable (“watch and be ready”) could have been made with fewer women, even one; there was no reason to particularly mention ten potential wives all looking to marry Jesus unless there was some sense in which that would be true. Meaning there is yet polygamy in the Lord’s future.

This is violently unacceptable to pretty much every Christian today, so they must dismiss this, along with the Lord’s OT wives, as mere symbolism; and of course it is symbolism. But the Lord must be sinless, even in symbol; even in parable, His words must be true, and endorse good actions.

Spiritualize that away.

THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE

So clearly, Paul’s words cannot mean what the entire Christian world believes they mean. Paul could not have meant for them to mean that. When he told his followers not to ordain elders who were polygamists, he could not have been implying that those men were sinners. Otherwise he would have been calling every Old Testament hero and the Lord Himself a sinner.

So what, exactly, was he trying to say? Usually when you look closely, you’ll see that the very scriptures people wrongly use to condemn something, wind up being the strongest proof of that thing. This is no exception.

Titus 1:5-6 and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you; if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behaviour.

So why did Paul make such a rule for his elders? Why must they, alone, be monogamous, and not the common people? Why did he lay on them a restriction that the heroes of his own faith, as he was well aware, did not live by? He told us, if people had bothered to listen…

Titus 1:7-11 For the overseer must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-pleasing, not easily angered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for dishonest gain; but given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober minded, fair, holy, self-controlled; holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict those who contradict him. For there are also many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped;

Paul wanted the elders to be unimpeachable examples of righteousness, with no hint of impropriety as understood by the Jews or the Greco-Roman world. In other words, Paul chose not to do certain permitted things that were frowned on by contemporary culture, to focus on the core of his message.

It would be as if you were to go to a Muslim country; they consider alcohol a sin, so if you wanted to teach them about Jesus it will be a lot easier if you are not, by their definition, a sinner at the same time – even though it is not a sin to drink alcohol.

In that case, I might tell my followers “don’t drink while you’re in Iran, so as to be blameless by their rules”; yet this would not in any way imply that drinking was in fact a sin. As he, himself, said…

1 Corinthians 10:23 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are profitable. “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things build up.

So likewise, Paul told his followers to choose elders who did not to have multiple wives which likewise did not imply the act was sinful, only that it was frowned upon by the people he was trying to reach.

The Romans and Greeks, who totally dominated the cultural life at the time, frowned on multiple wives (mistresses of either gender were widely accepted though). Thus, the cultural environment of the time made multiple wives a fight Paul simply didn’t want to have; it wasn’t the conversation he wanted to have, not the hill he wanted to die on.

But that did not make it a sin.

HE MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE

The only other scripture that allegedly proves God hates polygamy is Matthew 19; but not only does this not prove that God is against polygamy, it doesn’t even mention polygamy! The context is divorce and divorce alone!

Matthew 19:3-6 Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” He answered, “Haven’t you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall join to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’ So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don’t let man tear apart.”

The context was a question about the morality of divorce; Moses permitted divorce, and they wanted Him to come out against it so they could convict Him of anti-Mosaic heresy, so they could stone Him.

Jesus appealed to Adam and Eve to show that God had made a male and female; not to cite that as the ideal, but to make the point that these two parts became one flesh. He clearly said that! His point was explicitly about the union, not the parts of which that union was made!

The idea being that, as it would be wrong to cut yourself in half, so likewise it would be wrong to become divorced. That’s literally all Jesus said; no more, no less. He did not say “any union that is not one man, one woman, is an abomination unto God,” which is literally what Christians see when they read this verse.

He said that once a man and woman become one flesh, divorce is tantamount to cutting your own flesh in half; and if you truly believed that you were one flesh with your spouse, you would never do it to yourself:

Ephesians 5:28-29 Even so husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly;

But Jesus’ words have no direct bearing on multiple wives, since that was not the question He was answering. The Pharisees continued the interrogation on the same subject of divorce, trying to force Him to admit He thought Moses was wrong to allow divorce:

Matthew 19:7-9 (GWV) The Pharisees asked him, “Why, then, did Moses order a man to give his wife a written notice to divorce her?” Jesus answered them, “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because you’re heartless. It was never this way in the beginning. I can guarantee that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than her unfaithfulness is committing adultery if he marries another woman.”

Again, the appeal to Eden “It was never this way in the beginning,” this time to show that Adam didn’t divorce Eve after the apple incident (and if ever there was just cause, that would be it). Divorce was permitted by Moses, but God had always hated it (Malachi 2:16).

The only reason Jesus allowed for divorce was if she slept with another man; as that would be a death penalty offense under the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:10). If the current civil situation didn’t permit her to be stoned – like it wouldn’t today – then she became “dead” to him anyway, and divorce would not be a sin.

But through all of this, there is no hint of a word about multiple wives; the only topic was divorcing one wive to marry a second wife, which is not the same thing.

It occurs to me that some might think they see a flaw in my logic; for how, they might say, can you be one flesh with more than one woman? Doesn’t that prove God hates polygamy? That sounds compelling… until you read this scripture…

1 Corinthians 6:15 Don’t you know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!

How many members are in Christ’s body? How many are baptized into His flesh? At least 144,000, according to Revelation 7:4. So if Jesus can have hundreds of thousands of people all, collectively, as part of His bride… all of them buried with Hm in his body… (Romans 6:3-11, etc).

…then why can’t Jacob be one flesh with four women? Did not all five became one flesh, all of them the flesh of Jacob? For was not the entire household of Jacob one flesh? How else could Joseph’s brothers say… “he is our brother and our flesh?” (Genesis 37:27).

If Joseph’s brothers could be one flesh… how much more could Jacob’s wives be one flesh with him?

And finally… if relationships are divinely ordained to be one man, one woman, with any additions or alterations to this formula being a perversion…

Then how can you hope to be one with God and Christ at the same time? To say nothing of becoming one with hundreds of thousands of other true Christians? John 17:21.

Weird, right?

THE IDEAL

After all of this, the strongest argument left is one of pure logic, based on Jesus’ argument about divorce; that God made one man and one woman, which was therefore God’s ideal; to do anything else is, logically, less than ideal and therefore a sin.

This argument might be absolutely airtight… if that was God’s New Covenant ideal. Thing is… it’s not. Because both Jesus and Paul contradict it!

After the discussion about divorce, Jesus making it clear that you were stuck with the wench unless she cheated on you, the disciples drew the conclusion that it might be better to stay single…

Matthew 19:10 (GWV) The disciples said to him, “If that is the only reason a man can use to divorce his wife, it’s better not to get married.” He answered them, “Not everyone can do what you suggest. Only those who have that gift can. For example, some men are celibate because they were born that way. Others are celibate because they were castrated. Still others have decided to be celibate because of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone can do what you’ve suggested, then he should do it.”

One man, one woman, is not Jesus’ ideal! The ideal is celibacy, an even BETTER ideal! Yet I don’t see many Christians preaching that ideal… do you? Paul likewise weighed in; remember, this is the same person who said “a bishop shall be the husband of one wife,” thereby endorsing that as the “ideal”…

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (GWV) Now, concerning the things that you wrote about: It’s good for men NOT to get married. But in order to avoid sexual sins, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

So… can you tell me now, with a straight face, that one man and one woman is the ideal? Because the two greatest figures in the NT, Jesus and Paul, both said that the true ideal is for a man not to have a wife at all. Having a wife, even one,is already a compromise!

…yet the fact it is “better” does not make it a command; and failing to achieve that “ideal” does not mean you have sinned. Explicitly, in the text, it says this. Why don’t people listen?

Verses 6-9 What I have just said is not meant as a command but as a suggestion. I would like everyone to be like me [Paul never married]. However, each person has a special gift from God, and these gifts vary from person to person. I say to those who are not married, especially to widows: It is good for you to stay single like me. However, if you cannot control your desires, you should get married. It is better for you to marry than to burn with sexual desire.

Paul then discusses divorce for quite a while – strongly opposed to it, except in cases of unbelieving spouses – then resumes this conversation, again making it excruciatingly clear that this is his opinion, not a command from the Lord:

Verses 25-29 Concerning virgins: Even though I don’t have any command from the Lord, I’ll give you my OPINION. I’m a person to whom the Lord has shown mercy, so I can be trusted. Because of the present crisis I believe it is good for people to remain as they are. Do you have a wife? Don’t seek a divorce. Are you divorced from your wife? Don’t look for another one. But if you do get married, you have not sinned. If a virgin gets married, she has not sinned. However, these people will have trouble, and I would like to spare them from that. This is what I mean, brothers and sisters: The time has been shortened. While it lasts, those who are married should live as though they were not.

Thus, as I said at the beginning, these were rules Paul made for his churches, on his own authority, and very specifically because of the “present crisis” – i.e., the difficulties of being a member of a religion hated by the Jews and by the Greeks.

Having a wife to worry about makes life harder. Having several of them is just begging for headaches and stress on a good day. And these, Paul said, were not good days. These were days of persecution, famine, and while THESE DAYS LASTED this advice would remain wise!

But that is not a command from God. That is Paul desiring that his converts, in his geopolitical situation, “be spared from trouble.” If they ignore him, even he said they would not be sinning – but they would have a harder life than those who stayed single.

Verses 31-34 Those who use the things in this world should do so but not depend on them. It is clear that this world in its present form is passing away. So I don’t want you to have any concerns. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, that is, about how he can please the Lord. But the married man is concerned about earthly things, that is, about how he can please his wife. His attention is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the Lord’s things so that she may be holy in body and in spirit. But the married woman is concerned about earthly things, that is, about how she can please her husband.

Doing laundry gets in the way of reading the Bible. Building a house for your wife gets in the way of fasting. Suckling children, teaching them, feeding them, gets in the way of feeding the house of God spiritual things. But these things are not sins.

If being married prevented you from achieving salvation, then how did David, Abraham, Job, Moses… well, you get the idea. Clearly Paul was recommending what he believed to be the easiest life in those trying times for his disciples. But he was not saying this is the only way to live righteously!

Verses 35-40 I’m saying this for your benefit, not to restrict you. I’m showing you how to live a noble life of devotion to the Lord without being distracted by other things… it’s fine for a father to give his daughter in marriage, but the father who doesn’t give his daughter in marriage does even better… That is my OPINION, and I think that I, too, have God’s Spirit.

Paul’s conclusion was simple; in his contemporary culture, which frowned on polygamy and was persecuting true Christians, it was better to have only one wife. In fact, given how hard life was at the time, it was better not to have any wives.

These were his opinions. His wise opinions. But as he very clearly said multiple times, they were not commands from God; and ignoring his advice was not a sin.

Especially when his advice was clearly time-limited to “this time of present distress,” during the political turmoil and anti-Jewish and anti-Christian sentiment of the early Roman Empire.

Which is why his advice does not condemn David and Abraham and the rest because it was never meant to imply that this was a sin, or even slightly unrighteous; it was simply “not expedient” “in these days.”

This advice has expired, and has absolutely no bearing on our life today – unless and until we face the sort of persecution that Paul did.

THE OTHER SIDE

But all of history has not been like that; for much of history multiple wives were not only acceptable, but wise. Remember, war has been a constant companion in most of human history; and war kills mostly men.

This means that for most of human history there has been a strong gender imbalance, with far more women than men alive at any one point. This is good for the species, as women take a long time to finish their part in creating the next generation, while men can do their part very quickly.

Hence, as any cattle breeder knows, if you want to build a herd quickly, get one bull and a few dozen cows. Likewise, if the population of mankind has been decimated by a brutal war, one man having a dozen wives can easily have seventy children and replenish the population:

Judges 8:28 So Midian was subdued before the children of Israel, and they lifted up their heads no more. The land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon. Jerubbaal the son of Joash went and lived in his own house. Gideon had seventy sons conceived from his body; for he had many wives.

After years of Midianite oppression, famine, and living in caves the population had certainly taken a beating – especially the male population. There simply weren’t enough males to make traditional marriages with all the females; what were they to do?

How were they to protect and provide for themselves? Should they become nuns, lesbians, or prostitutes? Doesn’t marrying a man who already has several wives seem like a good alternative in those circumstances? And a safer, and far more righteous option than the alternatives?

Thus, we find examples of multiple wives most frequently in underpopulated areas with recent wars. Because that’s the fastest way to rebuild society; natural resources like wild fruits, game, and wood are generally abundant since few are harvesting them, so the land can support explosive growth.

In times of relative peace – like the Roman Empire, or today – it’s less common since the gender ratio is far more balanced. But at no time in history has it become a sin; it is a simple choice – does your spiritual and financial situation allow you to consider the possibility?

Can you give two wives a better life than they can find with other men? Have you created peace and righteousness in your home with your first wife? If not, adding a second will make it much worse.

All things are lawful… but all things are not wise. Let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. We will all stand at the judgment seat of God, and we will all pay for our own choices – good or bad, we have to live with them.

So make sure your choices are based on what you believe in, not what someone else believes in.

MULTIPLYING WIVES

The only other argument that I can find against the idea is not about having multiple wives as such, but multiple foreign wives:

Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart not turn away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

In speaking specifically to kings, Moses forbids the king to return them to Egypt, and forbids them to multiply horses, wives, and silver and gold (verse 16). See, kings tended to take foreign wives to seal treaties; typically princesses and priestesses (there being a significant overlap between the roles).

The reason kings should not take too many wives is clearly stated, “that his heart turn not away.” Which means they must be foreign wives, since domestic wives shouldn’t be serving other gods anyway. Solomon ignored this law, and look what happened:

1 Kings 11:4 For it happened, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his God, as was the heart of David his father.

If Solomon had followed Paul’s advice about not being unequally yoked with unbelievers, this would not have happened even if he did multiply his wives. Yet Solomon’s example doesn’t condemn multiple wives, just more wives than you can handle financially, morally, or physically. Which just makes sense (that is actually common sense).

So each of the three strongest arguments against polygamy I can find have been handled; and upon examination, not only do they not prove polygamy is a sin, these very scriptures prove the exact opposite.

They prove that, just like owning a gun, being a merchant, or being a king, it’s neither good nor evil; if done righteously for the right reasons, it is holy, just, and good. If you buy a gun to kill people, it’s bad. If you’re a merchant to get rich by not giving a fair deal, it’s evil. If you are a king to be serve yourself and not your people, it’s wicked.

1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully,

Likewise, if you want many wives so you prove your high school bullies wrong about you, or so you can live in a perpetual bacchanal, that’s probably going to end badly. Why wouldn’t it? You’re doing it for the most selfish of reasons.

If you want them because God has blessed you so that you can provide a righteous and loving home to many children and their mothers for as long as they live, then it is probably going to end well. Why wouldn’t it?

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

These are the strongest arguments in the Bible against polygamy. There really aren’t that many. And as you see, each of them actually proves that it is not a sin; it’s simply unnecessary, and unwise, when you are poor, hated, persecuted and trying to solve bigger problems. But the same is also true of marriage in general.

If this is not the time for a wife, then it’s better to control your lust and be single. If you’re prepared for the fight, able to manage the multiplication of problems, then go for it.

If this is not the time for multiple wives, then it’s better to control your lust and be monogamous. But if you’re prepared for the fight, able to manage the multiplication of problems, then go for it.

There is really no difference in these arguments.

Which is why, even though a large number of the men in the Old Testament had multiple wives, and you will look in vain for a single word of condemnation on the subject from the law or the prophets.

Indeed, it would be hard for Moses to condemn the practice when he almost certainly had two wives at the same time – a Midianite and an Ethiopian, no less. Thus, we find encoded in the law rules about how to manage the relationships between wives and rules to guarantee the inheritances went to the legal firstborn:

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated;… he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Now this would have been a stellar opportunity for Moses to say “if a man has two wives, he has committed an abomination against the Lord and shall be stoned.” That is how Christianity today would have written it. But… he didn’t.

Because it is not, and never has been, a sin. If it were, then Moses has become the minister of sin by telling us how to handle inheritances in cases of multiple wives; for sin is based on the law (Romans 7:7), and if the law shows us how to have multiple wives, the law therefore permits multiple wives. End of story.

But while not a sin, it has, at times in history, been inadvisable; lawful, as Paul would say, but not necessarily expedient (1 Corinthians 10:23). It was expedient for the Lord, Abraham, Jacob, and so on, to have several wives.

On the other hand, it was expedient for Jesus or Paul not to have any wife at all; it would get in the way of their life’s work. But they both said that was asking a lot – so told us not to stress too much about missing that ideal.

Then again, there are times in history where it is not only good, but necessary to have multiple wives. What, I wonder, will today’s Christians do in that time? What would you do?

Isaiah 4:1 Seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, “We will eat our own bread, and wear our own clothing: only let us be called by your name. Take away our reproach.”

Put that end-time prophecy in your pipe and smoke it.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Those who would say that “one man, one woman” is the ideal are flatly wrong. It is already a compromise, a distraction from the clearly stated ideal of “one person and the Lord.” Every married person has already missed the ideal, so they really have no room to talk about others who missed that ideal slightly more.

I think the best summary of this concept is a paraphrase of Paul’s own words about eating food offered to idols in the very next chapter after recommending abstinence; I’ll just replace “meats” with “polygamy” and “eat” with “marry:”

1 Corinthians 8:8-9 But polygamy will not commend us to God. For neither, if we don’t marry, are we the worse; nor, if we marry, are we the better. But be careful that by no means does this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak.

Despite all of this, the best argument against taking a second wife today is that it would interfere with our goal of spreading the gospel. First, this only applies if you are actually spreading the gospel – after all, even Paul only applied it to elders.

But let’s say you are an elder, or hope to become one; would it be better to stay single, so as to not offend those who might otherwise learn from you? For a long time, I believed the answer was yes. But I no longer think so.

To fully explore why I say that, read my article lovingly titled “Gehanna with ‘em.”