Chris' Blog

Mr. Milton,

I just read an article that you wrote on July 4th of 2005 (http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/index.php?name=News&file=article&s...) explaining why men should have the right to marry more than one woman. I have studied this issue out due to several conversations with others and have to disagree.

If you trace the antiquity of the idea of having more than one wife, the first man to do so was Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24). He was very proud of how he followed in the steps of Cain, who he probably knew due to the extended life spans of the people back then.

From there, continue to trace the idea of polygyny. There was Abram, whose wife Sarai put him up to it (Genesis 16:2). Lot, whose daughters got him drunk, also appears. After Sarah died, Abraham took another woman named Keturah. She is called his wife in Genesis (25:1) and a concubine in I Chronicles (1:32). Isaac took one wife and she turned out to be quite a handful. Jacob, his son, took two because he had already slept with the older sister before realizing who she was (Genesis 29:25). He took their handmaids at their behest (Genesis 30:3,9). He later treated his daughter-in-law as a prostitute (Genesis 38). I'm seeing quite a pattern here of women who pushed to share a man in order to obtain children.

Now, Jacob did take things farther but you cannot say that his actions were right. God specifically spoke against these things in the Levitical law (Leviticus 18:15,18).

You could turn to the kings as an example, but there is the command against kings having many wives in Deuteronomy 17:17. I've heard someone argue that there is no record of them being reproved for this practice so it must not be wrong. Michal, Saul's daughter, was married to both David and and a man named Phaltiel (II Samuel 3:14). Neither was reproved by a prophet for their actions that we have record of. Is it alright for women to have more than one husband? Or for a stronger man to take a woman away from a weaker? David was confronted about Bathsheba by Nathan, the prophet, later on.

But I digress. In the article you cite Ecclesiastes 2:8 as a reason to have multiple wives. The Septuagint (which is what the NT apostles quoted in their writings) says cupbearers, male and female. Even if the literal interpretation is right, consider the context. This is a king who is growing great and not denying himself anything (Ecclesiastes 2:10) and he is violating the law set out for kings from before God brought Israel into the promised land (Deuteronomy 17:14-20; II Chronicles 9:25; I Kings 11:3-6). Those many wives are forbidden to him as king and they turn his heart away from God. They would definitely be the delights of the children of men.

You rush to determine that the Bible is in favor of having multiple wives because it does not harshly say "thou shalt not" for everyone. That is not an accurate conclusion to draw. You see, even as early as Exodus 12:19 God makes it clear that he intends for non-Israelites to be able to join His people. If you do some research on Caleb, who was one of the 12 sent into Canaan to spy out the land, you will find that he is proof of this as he was not fully an Israelite either (Numbers 14:6, Joshua 14:6; Genesis 36:15). When a man with more than one wife converts to the Judeo (or later, Christian) faith, you cannot tell him to divorce a woman he is already married to. He is already bound to her and to her provision.

In Ezra (chapter 10), the men put away their wives from other nations. I do not see this condoned at the time, and Paul later said that it should not be done (I Corinthians 7:27).

Even if we ignore the passage about deacons/bishops not having more than one wife, you have the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6, which is an affirmation of marriage as it was designed in the beginning. "And they twain shall be one flesh." It does not say "And those three" (or more). If you read verses 8 and 9, it seems very strange that divorcing a woman so that you can remarry is forbidden but remarrying without a divorce first would be allowed.

Then there is the matter of dealing with so many mother-in-laws. I'm afraid that I do not see this as a "right" that I want to have. This is particularly ironic with the date on which your article was published -- Independence Day for the united States.

As your article is public, I am also publishing this on my blog.

Thank you for your time in reading this, and I hope that it has brought up some considerations that you had not thought through before.

Chris