An Excellent Four Part Blog Post from Christian Worldview Press Against Christian Polygamy

Awhile ago I came across some blog posts with biblically thorough and well-thought out responses to the Christian polygamy question, including the interaction in the comments between the poster and several vocal pro-polygamists.  The posts date from 2015 and I am quite saddened I didn't see them sooner since the same search terms I had been using then yielded their links now.  Had I seen them earlier it may have been enough to put a stop to the deceptive heresy seeking for a foothold in my marriage.  It appears they are no longer monitored yet still require comment moderation for obvious reasons, so I decided to provide links to the posts and then share my own relevant commentary below.  Who knows, perhaps this will increase traffic to these articles for the author.*

Please click the highlighted links to read the original post and comments: 

Christian Polygamy? (Part 1) posted March 31, 2015 this part was originally to be the fourth of the series as it deals with the New Testament teachings related to this and other pertinent moral issues relevant to a proper biblical exegesis.

My Comments for Part 1 (all comments submitted for moderation during March, 2017):

Hi,

I just discovered your posts and although it's two years later I wanted to say thank you. You are literally the first online voice I have been able to find that sees the same logical course of Jesus' words about divorce and adultery and has been able to follow them to their conclusion which is that Jesus' teaching simultaneously condemns three kinds of sexual sin:

1. "traditional" forms of adultery (i.e. cheating, engaging in or taking the services of a prostitute, having an affair, which in Matthew 5:32 He ups to include not just physically going through with it but also thought-life fantasies), 

2. remarriage adultery, sometimes referred to as "serial monogamy" but since God does not acknowledge divorce is actually serial polygamy, and by the same logic also now includes,

3. concurrent polygyny or polyandry (whether within cultures that allow concurrent civil licenses or those where bigamy is illegal but still practiced quietly among people that believe God creates a "spiritual marriage" to another "spouse").

Jesus, as the Creator in the flesh, ups the moral bar for disciples by revealing how God actually views the behaviour of His people in several key areas including but not limited to hatred/murder, revenge taking, and adultery/polygamy. According to the Messiah, in the same way that it used to be "okay" but it is now sin to hate another person, or to take "an eye for an eye", it is likewise sin to take another spouse while a first spouse still lives.

Also, in your exchange in the comments above you are again the only voice I've come across that has likewise seen that one can hold up the issue of slavery in order to show the ludicrousness of implying that polygamy is not a sin but is actually a Divinely condoned practice for New Covenant believers. Both of these big-ticket society-impacting issues can rightly be described as being:

1. specifically regulated by God in the laws of the Old Testament, 

2. rarely if ever specifically condemned or "punished" during that time, and

3. choices which still allowed some of those who participated in such activities to be blessed or used by God.

It is a serious and alarming problem that that there are an increasing number of professing Christian voices out there actively promoting or acknowledging not in so many words their belief that use those three points to suggest that one can be involved in polygamy today and also be a disciple of Christ. The example of slavery that you share is such an important key to helping dismantle such false teaching! No one can dispute that God allowed His people to own slaves or to become slaves in the Old Testament, nor did Jesus or the writers of the New Testament verbatim condemn slavery. Yet no one would take seriously a "believer" trying to teach that the abolitionists missed God's will because those points prove that an acceptable practice for Christians today under God's "permissive, acceptable, or good will" (though graciously admitting, not His "perfect will"!) might include, in some circumstances, a return to buying and owning human slaves or following the OT instructions about the selling of themselves or their children in order to pay off a debt!  

Thank you. I hope these points receive wider readership and the opportunity to be shared by those mainstream voices posting answers to the polygamy problem so that they will spark serious and prayerful reflections within the Body of Christ.

Christian Polygamy? (Part 2) posted February 23, 2015 this post, originally the first in the series, deals with part of the Old Testament Law and the impact this has had on the beliefs of some in the Church that the Bible condones polygamy.

My Comments for Part 2:

Hello,

Thank you for the excellent treatment of Leviticus 18:18! I had wondered about whether "sister" might also be interpreted as "sister in the faith/culture" but had not yet searched it out so I was pleasantly surprised to find that you had. Thank you for bringing that out so clearly. (As an aside, I hope our pro-polygamist men are being sure to only marry Israelite women because that would be a big faux pas against the Law if they weren't, wouldn't it?? Wouldn't want an Ezra 10 situation cropping up, yikes!) For the rest of us, I think today this word in Leviticus 18:18 would include "sister" in terms of "any other woman" since nationalism no longer restricts marital unions. Do you think the language supports this expansion? You provided balanced and calm responses to the challengers among your commenters as well.

I found William Lock's statement that he has been unable to find a "smoking gun" against polygamy (even though he wants to) interesting. This seems to be echoed in most of the online answers to this question. The logic sounds like this: Since polygamy was "okay" in the Old Testament eras before Christ then it must still be "okay" in the New Testament era after Christ or it would have been explicitly mentioned and condemned, so the Mosaic moral and social Laws must still stand.  Strangely, this fails to notice any of the several circumstances where the coming and teaching of Jesus fulfills, makes void, or supercedes previous Hebrew protocols. But let's pretend that as far as this practice was concerned that Israel (for once in their existence?) was actually successful in properly following the letter (and spirit?) of the Law as it relates to polygamy in their days -- be that as it may, Jesus Christ in His days (which includes ours) has changed the laws (see Mark 10).

Sometimes the pro-polygamy activists try to deny the fact that Jesus, as Elohim, the Word Made Flesh and thus also Law-Giver, clearly changed Old Testament laws by claiming because God's nature is "unchangeable" then His laws must also be "unchangeable". They might then point to Leviticus 18:18, as several of your commenters did, wondering why God didn't hammer Jacob (the Upright in Moral Character) for marrying two biological sisters, or even Abram who committed incest in marrying Sarai his half-sister. (These same people probably can't figure out who Cain's wife was but that's another conversation...).  

In answer, regardless of the meaning of "sister", let us ask, who wrote the law in Leviticus 18:18? Moses! 

So why did God not hammer Abram and Jacob for incest? Because Moses lived well after Abram, Isaac, and Jacob and Romans 4:15 clearly explains common sense that "where laws don't exist, they can't be broken"! (Keeping in mind that this cannot be interpreted as Divine moral acceptance of sin as per Romans 5:32 "Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break.").  

This also answers another commenters question about why Moses needed to be so repetitive about the many kinds of women men were not allowed to have sex with. [Note: I believe the commenter tried to say this law mentioned not "marrying" them but that's not what it says, all the incest laws beforehand don't refer to these violated women as "wives" and I hope no commenter is so morally repugnant as to suggest that when a man molests his daughter or any other member of his family he enters into a marital union with her in the eyes of God. In fact, Leviticus 18:15 clearly differentiates the status of these other women as "not his wife" when Moses prohibits a man who wants to have sex with his daughter-in-law the reason against being that she is "his SON'S wife" and would obviously not then become HIS wife/second wife/concubine. Neither molesting her nor engaging in an affair nor consenting to some Jerry Springer-esque triad would change the fact that God says she's his son's wife, not his].  

So why did Moses bother to repeat things about these different women in so many different ways (beyond the fact that repetition of an important point is a legitimate Hebrew literary structure both in Old and New Testament communication)? Obviously because these were all potential (or actual) practices in the other nations (or among Israel) that the men of Israel might be tempted towards following/continuing since THERE WAS NO GOD-GIVEN WRITTEN LAW about sex (or anything) up until this exact point in Israel's history! Who knows what kind of ridiculous practices Israel was exposed and subjected to while living as slaves in Egypt? Kind of hard to impose a moral law on people who are not morally free agents but are forced to live as literal objects instead of people, isn't it? But they're free now and about to be exposed to countless number of ridiculous practices in Canaan, so now is an excellent time for God to clarify and make them aware of how those who would seek to stay in any level of relationship with Him at all need to conduct themselves.  

But what about Moses and his wives? What was Miriam's problem with his Cushite wife (in addition to the fact that she wasn't an Israelite, you mean?). We're not told clearly but there are at least a couple of possibilities. Perhaps Moses used Deuteronomy 17 on privilege as being as close to a king as Israel had at that time and Miriam took issue with this level of privilege. Or maybe Moses took a another wife after the death of his first wife and this death just wasn't mentioned but logically inferred in the same way that the death of Joseph, Jesus' stepfather just isn't mentioned but is logically inferred.

An important fact that is almost never pointed out in these discussions is that these Israelites were also completely unregenerate human beings, the blood of bulls and goats being completely unable to change their sin natures on the inside and only able to cover them from being annihilated for a year (if they don't blow it even worse before that). So "why is the law so specific and repetitive?" Really? Oh, I don't know, maybe because humans love sex and have a tendency to get more than a bit depraved about it? And maybe because men in a patriarchal society and in particular within a vast cultural era that views women and children as property will be quick to find whatever religious technical loophole they can to have sex with whoever they want? {Imagine: "Oh well Moses only wrote that I couldn't have sex with my sister but you're only my sister-in-law and we're not really related anyway and my brother is such a jerk and you're so beautiful and so we're free and clear, sweetie, don't you see? It's not in the Book"}.  

Thus, whether either of these human arguments are ever solved nor any of the questions raised by commenters ever point to an Old Testament-applicable "smoking gun" (which they won't because as Lock and AuthorAppleton have rightly discerned, OT laws do not classify polygamy as Sin even though it creates difficult and painful and less than ideal outcomes), an important point can still be drawn...

God's lack of condemnation towards Jacob based on Leviticus 18:18 actually provides an excellent precedent that Jehovah Elohim can and did add to laws governing His people's behaviour and that where these laws touched moral law topics (the Big 10), the additions RAISE the standard of righteous living rather than lowering it, further pointing to our need to exchange our lives for Jesus' life (Gal.2:20). Since God can be clearly shown to have progressively expounded His views about acceptable sexual relationships and what that meant for His people's behaviour through His servant Moses does anyone have the hubris to actually say with a straight face that He cannot also do this through His Son Jesus? No one should be holding up Old Testament examples as moral absolution for those who hope to name themselves disciples yet engage in practices that violate the spirit and teachings of the Master.

The people of Israel are part of fallen humanity first and God's chosen family to preserve and carry His plan for the birth of a Saviour second; not only did they NEED the law to keep them in some sort of vaguely moral line separated from the rest of the cultures God was about to destroy while history played itself out but they CONTINUALLY FAILED to keep the law, just as we all do, falling short of the glory of God. These people are NOT good examples for redeemed new creations in Christ to follow in marital and family life or otherwise! On the contrary their examples serve to "teach, reprove, correct, and train" (2Tim.3:6) in other words WARN us and guide us away from making the same mistakes with our lives that they made with theirs and towards the righteous way of life that is found only in complete surrender to and reliance on Christ. Their lives are examples of glaring failures to avoid, a testimony to the futility of trying to live for God from a sacred Book alone without a regenerated human spirit and the continual leading of His Holy Spirit. 

These people don't show us a way to pattern our lives, they show us how even being the best fallen humanity has to offer isn't enough to keep from messing it up in big and small ways. Their selective histories in the Word serve to highlight our need for the new birth and a proper interpretation of the law that is fuelled by the Spirit thereof and not just the letter, ultimately moving us away entirely from the Law of sin and death and into the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom.8:2).

Christian Polygamy? (Part 3) posted April 6, 2015 this post continues the examination of polygamy and the Old Testament Law, specifically in Exodus and Deuteronomy, and delving again into how Christians ought to live in relation to the Old Testament, including discussion in the comments again about whether New Testament condemnation of polygamy can be found.

My Comments for Part 3:

Matt, 

You are a breath of fresh air in a largely stagnant debate. Thank you. A few things I would add to this portion of the debate regarding whether the NT really doesn't "condemn" polygamy concern the greater argument from the NT principle for putting others BEFORE yourself.  

First, marriage today to one person for life is nearly impossible if the testimony of married couples who made it and current statistics of believing and unbelieving marriages ending in divorce are any indication. A quick search will pull up the Scriptures where the Bible promises us TROUBLE when we marry and both Paul and Jesus acknowledge that it is actually better to not marry at all although because of the moral danger sexual activity outside the created guidelines poses this reality is only available for those He has gifted with singleness or who are committed to being eunuchs. 

If having one spouse is hard enough even when both mates are disciples of Christ, what can be logically inferred if a man elects to have more than one? I think the witness of what actually happened between the wives and concubines of the polygamists from the OT make an excellent case for the utter foolishness (and I'm using the biblical understanding of the word, not the modern) of such a relationship structure. Current events further support that polygamy is more often than not an emotionally cruel if not downright abusive situation to endure as a wife. Again a simple internet search will allow us to consider the plight of modern polygamist wives under Islam, Judaism, or Mormonism by means of news reports, television shows, testimonies showing the realities of such a life, not to mention the existence of literal organizations dedicated to helping women escape polygamy. I wonder if those of us who know Him can imagine how Jesus feels about one of his disciples deliberately and knowingly continuing to engage in a voluntary course of behaviour that causes his wife to feel miserable, uncherished, unchosen, trapped and emotionally abused? Is this what the NT mandate of a husband's love for his wife looks and feels like for the wife? I would be very interested in reading the NT Scriptures those who say "yes" to this question are standing upon...

Second, let's consider the realities of what pro-polygamy "Christianity" is suggesting. If Robert and the other commenters above who claim that polygamy is not adultery are still around, the following comments are directed towards them, and I'd welcome their New Testament citations for the following situations:

(A) If a husband secretly lived a double life with a second wife that the first didn't know about until later, or ever, has she moral grounds to accuse him of cheating in our society?  

The answer is obviously yes. But the pro-polygamy camp would have to say what? That despite her feelings of betrayal and the breaking of covenant (which even the world seconds), according to pro-polygamy's version of the God of the Bible, Scripturally this man is not guilty of committing adultery because the affair was longterm and he treated and viewed the other woman as his wife? (aka polyfidelity)

(B) What if the second "wife" lived in another state and the husband actually obtained a civil license and the ceremony was performed in a church by a credentialed minister? Do those pieces of paper clear him of heaven's guilt?  

If you say yes then it sounds like you're suggesting that adultery is actually about lying or failing to fill out government paperwork or perform religious rituals and not about morally illegal sexual contact, whether physical or imaginary at all, contrary to the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5...

Or another scenario:  

(C) Joy of joys for the bored, unappreciated, lonely, or randy husband, the first wife is pro-polygamy too! Maybe she has her own agenda for pushing this idea or maybe it was the husband's request but she didn't even need convincing or only a little beyond some guidelines for boundaries and assurance of her religious safety. Does granting consent as a New Testament "first wife" negate the charge of adultery? Why?   

If you're trying to say that again, since the sexual behaviour is not hidden it cannot be considered "cheating" refer again to Matthew 5. Jesus doesn't appear to add that in order to avoid adultery in our thought-life we need simply be honest about our lustful fantasies for someone who is not our spouse or who is someone else's spouse but...? Or alternatively, refer to Matthew 19, Mark 10, or Luke 18 referencing divorce, remarriage and adultery (let's pretend that in this teaching Jesus actually agrees with the synagogue and the government that a divorce annuls a first marriage and allows a spouse to be morally free to marry someone new), every thinking adult knows what happens in the bedroom when a person marries someone so how can Jesus call this second marriage adultery since the sexual aspect obviously isn't hidden from the first wife?  

(D) What if later the first wife withdraws her consent? In societies where women are dependent on their men and were largely considered property this is little cause for concern but what is the New Covenant model written to redeemed people and applicable as the Living Word in today's modern society?  

Upon whom (the husband or the first wife?) does Jesus place the responsibility to inconvenience, rearrange or give up their life and "rights" even to the point of physical death for the other? Check your Bible if you're not certain.  

Third, there are a number of explicit New Testament admonitions and commands to disciples of Christ that obviously would include acts of polygamy and other sexual misconduct, especially if we just stop and think a little by placing such behaviour in a real world context such as those scenarios suggested above.  For example (asks the pro-polygamy advocates from the comments)?  I'm glad you asked!  Please consider the following and then try your hand at explaining, using the Word of God, how these admonitions should not, in your opinion, actually apply to a "Christian" living in polygamy...

If you find the gender card the Bible plays in the above husband/wife principle offensive because you're such a supportive feminist for the rights of your wives, then what about the genderless command to limit our own "spiritual freedom" for those whose consciences convict them that what you're doing is wrong because they may be "weaker in the faith" even though you don't feel convicted?  

Or the one about the responsibility to not be a stumbling block for any in the faith? 

On that note, what kind of witness for Jesus are these Christian polygamists offering? Does the world want the wonderful life that you've got? For those men who fantasize about having sex with more than woman absolutely! -- but is that the kind of self-indulgent, my-needs-and-feelings-above-all-others life Jesus calls His disciples to? Maybe you've got a Scripture for that?

But maybe you don't concern yourself with evangelism nor have any non-Christian friends, family, colleagues, or acquaintances that might become aware of your lifestyle choice. What about your part in the Body of Christ? Unless you start your own church or live in a big city with many like-deceived individuals how are you going to be an authentic, contributing member of a local church without also telling them who this other woman sitting beside you in the pews is? Or why your kids call that other woman Mama and your wife Mommy?  

Are you going to be open about your marital status to the lay people and leaders in the church? Maybe petition the pastor to start a "divorce prevention class" in lieu of or alongside the "divorce recovery class" where you can advocate just marrying the other woman you want to or are already having an affair with so that everybody can just let go of their hardness of heart and live the happy Christian life again and avoid the terrible sin of divorce?  

Or are you going to teach your wives and your children not to talk about what happens at home and if necessary to lie and become deliberately deceptive and skilled in half-truths or changing the subject when they are asked by people at church about this? What about when the children are asked to draw and describe their families at school (assuming you haven't started a polygamist home-school too to put off those inconvenient questions, at least until they're older)?  

Jesus is pretty clear about what part of eternity liars get to enjoy as well as preferable aquatic alternatives for those who become stumbling blocks for other believers so maybe just not going to church at all might be the answer... because the Word teaches us how Jesus is all about forsaking the gathering together of believers and mercifully embracing the lukewarm, right?  

So even if you just can't seem to find that outright condemnation of polygamy for Christians that you need to stop hurting your wife as you continue to gratify yourself and not have to face any of the heartbreak and humiliation you're daily putting her through, what are you going to do with these abundantly clear explanations of the eternal destination of "Christians" who practice lying, being stumbling blocks, forsaking the fellowship of believers, or living as any other temperature than red hot for Jesus? Matthew 7 seems to suggest making Him "Lord" is about more than naming the Name or even doing the works...

And while we're on that topic, what of your work as parents? Remember the admonition to raise up our children in the way they ought to go so when they are old they won't depart from it? You might be willing to risk your own soul in the next life for the companionship, added financial income, ease of childcare and housework, and sexual variety in this life but are you willing to risk your children's souls when they're all grown up and doing what Daddy does and not what Daddy says (assuming Daddy actually acknowledges he's not following God's perfect will in his marriage and warns verbally them against it)?  

Who among us can honestly say they don't want their daughter, or sister, or cousin, or close female friend to have a husband who looks at and adores her like no other woman, a man who is a provider and a protector of her emotions and her well-being and not just her finances and physical safety, a man of her very own committed to no other person more than her except His Lord, one who cherishes her and forsakes all others when he asks her to grow in closeness, intimacy, ministry and service to the Kingdom as she shares his life as his soul-mate, rather than asking her to "share him" including even the most intimate thing in life that one human can offer another?  

For those who value the purity of marriage, did you really teach your daughter to "flee from sexual immorality" and save herself for marriage and to be prepared to offer that gift to only one man, who has hopefully also saved himself, for the rest of her days while simultaneously counselling her to endure like a good little Jewish/Christian woman this gift of gifts being spread around by her husband to another woman? Is this God's best for your daughter? Is this an accurate representation of the love, passion, jealousy and trustworthy character of God the Father for His daughter? Are you prepared to preach to your son's father-in-law about how this is the best thing for his little girl? Furthermore, is that the kind of man you hope your own son grows into being?  

Perhaps you honestly say yes to the above. Finally then let's consider another sexual circumstance that stands upon the same grounds as polygamy for Christians. Rape -- the New Testament, including Jesus, never explicitly condemns, nor even mentions, rape and there are several Old Testament laws regulating what to do if a man rapes a woman. Are we to then infer that the Father not only condones rape in certain circumstances because of the Old Testament record but that Jesus also, as the express image of the Father, condones rape as an acceptable practice by His followers?  

Perhaps your grown son, who is married and ready to follow his daddy's example and find a second wife is cursed with a first wife who is weak in the faith and will not consent to it. Would you then strategize with your son how to find a virgin unpledged to be married in a country area and rape her so that she can then become your son's second wife, thus overriding the concern of his first-wife and providing an upright witness for Jesus as a trustworthy man of strong moral fibre?  

No? But why not? It's in the Old Testament and it's not forbidden in exact language with those specific words in the New Testament! Jesus will surely be happy with you for teaching your son to be a rapist so he can fulfill what you claim is at least God's permissive will and become a polygamist, won't He?  

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the nature and character of God will know that the answer is "No!". But on what basis might we stand firm from the Scriptures that a rapist cannot simultaneously be a disciple of Jesus Christ since Jesus has mysteriously failed to explicitly mention and condemn a rapist, we don't have a record of a rapist publicly repenting like Zaccheus the tax collector did, and it's even reasonable to imagine someone among the "tax collectors and sinners" Jesus spent time with may have committed such an act? A few moments prayerful consideration will point to the variety of New Testament teachings, including those mentioned above, that will STILL vehemently condemn a rapist.  

Thus, when it comes to New Testament Christianity, in the same way that there is absolutely no New Testament allowance for "Christian rapists" there is no New Testament allowance for "Christian polygamists".  

Please note that the above scenarios and suggestions are worded in such a way as to be realistic yet facetious or downright sarcastic and repugnant in hopes of highlighting the very serious moral flaws in the reasoning of pro-polygamists who would call themselves Christians, including the eternally precarious position practicing such an unrepentant lifestyle places them in. I am in no way condoning rape (or polygamy) and I apologize to any who may have experienced such a heinous sin against them or someone close to them and been triggered by this post. Please join me in praying that God would grant the readers, or those they know in these categories, the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, flooding their hearts with light, and causing them to flee from these forms of sexual immorality and embrace the Lordship of Jesus Christ in every area of their lives, even the hidden secrets of their hearts.

Christian Polygamy? (Part 4) posted April 19, 2015 is the final post in christianworlviewpress's excellent series debunking Christian polygamy examines aspects of the lives of some of the infamous biblical polygamists.

I found this post illuminating, particularly the brief rebuttal to the twisted argument that the virgins described in Jesus' parable in Matthew 25 are supposed to represent literally brides and not the bridesmaids they're described as in more modern translations.  I, like manner with the other commenters from earlier editions in this series, had no specific comments to add to this final post.

*Disclaimer: I have not read other posts on this blog so I cannot necessarily endorse the doctrine or beliefs discussed around other topics from christianworldviewpress.com

Citations

start2finish.org,. (2014). sermon-on-the-mount.jpg. Retrieved from https://start2finish.org/sermon-mount-not-practice-faith/