1

IN DEFENCE OF POLYGAMY – THE STAND OF THE BIBLE

By:

Dr. Adebayo A. Odunowo (B.Sc.; MBA; D.Sc.) (2011)

2

IN DEFENCE OF POLYGAMY – THE STAND OF THE BIBLE By: Dr. Adebayo A. Odunowo (B.Sc.; MBA; D.Sc.)

E-mail: bayoodunowo@yahoo.com

This discourse is not intended to encourage polygamy but to defend Christians who

have found themselves in this situation and to enlighten Christians who treat

polygamist with disdain and contempt because they considered it a sin before God.

Before I continue, I would like to state that I am not a Muslim neither am I a pagan

but a born again Christian that attend a Bible believing Church in Nigeria, but I

cannot sit down in silence and allow continued misunderstandings, false

accusations, persecutions, propaganda campaigns, misrepresentations, guilt,

condemnation and chastisement of Christian polygamists to continue while those

involved in the act of condemnation continue to wallow in sin of adultery and

fornication without anybody judging them since they perpetuate this sin in secret. If

God has specifically instructed mankind not to judge their fellow man (Matthew 7:1-

2) then what authority does one has to proclaim that polygamous Christians are not

Christians in Spirit and in truth?

In pursuant of this defence, I would like to put it on record that there is no where in

the Holy Bible where Our Lord God condemned the practice of polygamy rather it

tacitly and openly encouraged it; if not, God would have condemned all those who

engaged in it. The first man recorded in the Bible to engage in this act was Lamech

the fifth generation of Cain who took Adah and Zillah as wives (Genesis 4:19). If

polygamy was a despicable and treacherous act, and a sin in the sight of God

Almighty, He would have pronounced instant judgement on Lamech because during

that era God was a God of instant Judgement as he instantly pronounced judgement

on those who do not walk in His way or disobey His commandments. For instance,

Adam, Eve and the Serpent were punished when God’s instruction was disobeyed

(Genesis 3:14-24); God instantly destroyed the earth when it became corrupt and

violent (Genesis 6: 11-13); He instantly scattered earth inhabitants when they were

building a city and tower whose top might reach heaven (Genesis 11:4-8); God

destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah when its inhabitant engaged in act of

homosexualism (note that in today’s world, this act is gaining widespread

acceptance in the U.S. and Europe, the supposedly the cradle of Christianity via the

3

legalisation of gay marriages), sodomy, incest, gang rape and other wicked acts

(Genesis 19). I could go on and on as there are so many examples of where God

pronounced instant judgement on men that engaged in despicable acts that did not

honour and glorify Him, of which polygamy is not among as the course of this article

shall reveal.

While not delving into the benefits or downsides of polygamy, it is common practice

of opponents of polygamy to either cite Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Malachi 2:14 and or use

the example of Hagar as God displeasure against polygamy. Whereas, there is no

biblical ground for disallowing polygamy; the tradition of exclusive monogamy is a

carry-over from pagan Roman law and custom. Polygamy wasn’t an issue in the

church until 500 years after the death of our Lord Jesus when under the legal

reforms of Justinian polygamy was outlawed (Rushdoony, “The Institutes of Biblical

Law,” pg. 786). Talking about the inappropriateness of banning polygamy, St.

Augustine, a Catholic Priest who is well grounded in theology observed that:

“For by a secret law of nature, things that stand chief love to be singular;

but things that are subject are set under, not only one under one, but, if

the system of nature or society allow, even several under one, not without

becoming beauty. For neither hath one slave so several masters, in the

way that several slaves have one master. Thus we read not that any of

the holy women served two or more living husbands; but we read that

many females served one husband, when the social state of the nation

allowed it, and the purpose of the time persuaded it: for neither is it

contrary to the nature of marriage. For several females can conceive from

one man: but one female cannot from several men (such is the power of

things principal) as many souls are rightly made subject to one God.”

(From A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the

Christian Church, Ed. by Philip Schaff, Vol. III, pg. 407-408)

Hence according to St. Augustine, polygamy is not contrary to the nature of marriage

because of the logical relation of “things principal” to those things which are

subordinate; in other words, polygamy is not a sin against nature but could be a sin

against the law if the law forbid it but the laws of God did not forbid it as it will be

4

shown in this discourse. It could also be a sin against custom if the custom forbids it

but according to the custom of my tribe, polygamy is not forbidden neither is it a

taboo.

To cite St. Augustine again:

“Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer

allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living,” (From

A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian

Church, Ed. by Philip Schaff, Vol. III, pg. 428).

Since the focus of this discourse is to determine if polygamy is actually a treacherous

act and sin before God or not, I shall examine this issue under the light of the written

Word of God and not from a historical or philosophical point of view, by looking at

the lives of the polygamists in the Bible and what is God's disposition towards them; I

will also include some monogamists and celibates for the purpose of my discourse

because marital life is the is the foundation of all lives in and upon which all other

spheres of life evolve and revolve. Thus, a correct understanding of it will liberate,

while the wrong understanding will bind and kill. Before doing so I shall first examine

the marital life of Adam which has become the sole basis of monogamy.

Polygamy cannot be logically renounced on account of what happened in the

beginning of creation; if Adam and Eve had been created simultaneously (1 Timothy

2:11-13) and if the Bible did not explicitly inform us that the woman was made for the

man, then the doctrine of exclusive monogamy might have some validity. But Adam

was created first and thereafter Eve who was created for Adam and not the other

way round (1 Corinthians 11:9), hence the woman has to live according to the

desires of her man (Genesis 3:16) as it was through Eve that sin came into the world

(Genesis 3:13, 1 Timothy 2:11:4). Furthermore, God has made man to be the head

of the woman (1 Corinthians 11:3), thus becoming the patriarch that not only holds

authority and control over his family but love and take care of members his family

that includes his wife(ves) and children. The account of the beginning of creation

does not prescribe monogamy as the exclusive extent of the marital norm as there

was no inherent reason why Adam could not be a polygamist; he could, but there

was simply no opportunity as any subsequent women “in the beginning” were his

5

daughters. Reading a law of monogamy into the example of Adam’s monogamy or

the beginning of creation is inductive and not deductive reasoning; consequently

monogamy was no law for Adam, it was a circumstance.

There are about forty polygamists mentioned in the Bible; however my main focus

will be upon those aspects of the biblical text which bear upon the question of the

lawfulness and acceptability of polygamy by God. As will be seen in this discourse,

there is quite a lot in the Bible which supports the proposition that polygamy is lawful

and accepted by God.

ABRAHAM, GOD’S FIRST DETAILED EXAMPLE OF PATRIARCHAL LIFE God specifically called Abraham to come out of his country and kindred to live a new

life that will be pleasing in His sight (Genesis 12:1-3). Abraham was the first to

receive the gospel and be born again (Galatians 3:7-8), thus he was the first

believer, disciple and Christian. He is the father of the children of faith, thus we

become the chips of the old block. The scriptures say, "Look to the rock, from which

you were hewn, the hole of the pit from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your

father, And to Sarah who bore you;" (Isaiah 51:1-3) and the Lord will comfort Zion

and make her wilderness like Eden. So, to what do we look to have true abundant

life? The answer is the principles of obedience, sacrifice, faith, love, relationship,

marriage, parenting, integrity, leadership and all that have been written for us to

follow as chips of the old block - Abraham.

Abraham seemed contented to be monogamous, until for Kingdom’s sake of

obtaining an heir of the promise, took Hagar. It is commonly believed that taking

Hagar was wrong because Abraham ran ahead of God or that polygamy is not of

God, thus great grief was brought upon the Abraham’s family. In truth, the first

conclusion of Abraham running ahead of God is wrong. The second conclusion that

polygamy is sin and thus the cause of Abraham’s grief is even more wrong; this is

because Sarah can build a family through her maid, Hagar (Genesis 16:2), as was

with the case of the maids of Leah and Rachel (Genesis 30:3, 9) where all the 12

sons of Jacob successfully became joint heirs (born by all 4 wives). The same

should have been with Isaac and Ishmael, regardless of who was given the

6

birthright. None of the sons of Jacob were ever discriminated against as illegitimate

or children of a treacherous act. For if it were so, they would have to die if they were

born into God’s ordained families, like in the case of Bathsheba’s first son (2 Samuel

12:18) and Judah’s first 2 sons (Genesis 38:7-10). Ishmael would have become joint

heir with Isaac if not for some reasons, which I shall discuss later. Thus, the earlier 2

conclusions are not consistent with scriptural principles.

The right interpretation is vitally critical for knowing the will and ways of the Almighty

in our decision making, even in this present generation ”for God's ways never

change”. The wrong understanding which has been accepted worldwide has stripped

the church of a dynamic truth and has caused her to stray into weaknesses and the

bondage of the heathen world. I have read many biblical commentaries where many

theologians mistakenly justify Hagar, considering her to be a victim of circumstances,

blaming her circumstance on Abraham and Sarah; this is dangerously wrong. This

springs from the western anti-slavery ideal, but it actually plunged the Church, into

the Egyptian and Roman theology!!! We'll see why this is so.

Why were Hagar and Ishmael cast out? The answer is already provided in the Word

of God as illustrated by Apostle Paul, when he used the analogy to relate to law and

grace. Hagar was an Egyptian bondmaid and not a free woman, one bound by

Egyptian (worldly) law and values. After she was lifted up, she despised her

mistress, giving her no respect. She could have become a woman freed into the

grace (gospel first preached to Abraham - Galatians 3:8) of God’s ordained family.

But having no place for Sarah in her eyes (Genesis 16:4); she was in effect forcing

Abraham into serial monogamy of choosing her and discarding Sarah which could

have been a treacherous act had Abraham discarded Sarah, the wife of his youth

and covenant (Malachi 2:14-15). Hagar could have by then, been with Abraham’s

family for close to 10 years, considering the time Abraham went to Egypt, but in her

heart she had no regard for God’s patriarchal polygamy order. For Kingdom’s sake,

Sarah was right in being willing to share her husband with her maid to produce an

heir (Genesis 16:2) as in the case of Jacob and his wives (Genesis 30:3, 9); which

was why she said to Abraham that, My wrong be upon you when Hagar despised her

(Genesis 16:5). Nevertheless, God still stood by Sarah in this matter (Genesis

21:12).

7

Hagar would have been set free from Egyptian bondage into God's patriarchal liberty

if she had responded well to her mistress's correction or the instructions she

received in the angelic encounter to go back and submit to her mistress (Genesis

16:9). The angel did not in anyway justified her as a victim of circumstances, nor

condemned the act of Abraham and Sarah rather the angel of the Lord proclaimed

blessings on her (Genesis 16-10). Hagar not only did not repent, but also forced on

Abraham’s family the pagan values of Romans exclusiveness and Egyptian self-

centeredness, where there can only be one to stay and the other must go. She

probably thought that the old, barren Sarah would stand no chance against her

youthfulness and usefulness, but God decreed that she had to go instead, for not

only did she not repent but she also raised her son Ishmael to mock at his half-

brother Isaac who is a covenant child (Genesis 17:7). This violated God's will for

Abraham.

For the sake of God’s Kingdom, Abraham, being always obedient to God, submitted

and walk in God’s way. Well, God considering that Ishmael was also Abraham’s son,

blessed him exceedingly in giving him 12 princes even though Isaac inherited the

covenant (Genesis 17:19-20). Through this, Abraham learned the patriarchal

marriage principle that the women for God’s men must be God-fearing, Kingdom-

oriented, Kingdom sharing and respectful of authority. He made his chief servant to

swear that the woman he finds as wife for Isaac must come from where he came

from; the servant must never take a Canaanite who would be paganistic and anti-

patriarchal (Genesis 24-3). How wrong it is for ministers of the gospel to easily

endorse and solemnize marriages with the heathen as long as it is monogamous and

then condemn and ex-communicate polygamists without a second thought? They

are in effect propagating the Roman theology of love, the carnality of Egypt and the

theology of Jezebel.

Jacob knowing the ways of God went back to Abraham’s homeland to be married.

But Esau took Canaanite wives and caused much grief to his parent, which again

was anti-patriarchy where the parent were neither respected nor honoured. Both

were polygamous, but "Was not Esau, Jacob's brother?" says the LORD. "Yet Jacob

I have loved;" (Malachi 1:2). Why? Because Jacob was patriarchal and Esau was not

8

for he did not respect and honour his parent. In God’s eye, polygamy is not just

tolerated, it is completely acceptable like monogamy or celibacy; hence, God did not

considered it a treacherous act. It’s the heart of man that makes all the difference.

Polygamy however does make manifest many aspects of life and intents of the heart

that may remain hidden in the other two forms of marriage – monogamy and

celibacy.

After Sarah, who honoured and respected the headship of her husband, died,

Abraham in his old age continued to be polygamous. He married Keturah (Genesis

25:1) and took concubines (Genesis 25:6). He needed them to help manage his

plenteous blessings. There is no trace of any indication of sinfulness in this matter.

Yet again for Kingdom’s sake, to see that the bloodline is well preserved into the

hands of Isaac, the one whom God had given the full inheritance, Abraham just

before his death, sent the rest of his children away into the east (Genesis 25:6).

Bible said, "Then Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man

full of years, and was gathered to his people" (Genesis 25:8). He still lives today in

eternity as father of many nations, and Sarah, the mother of many nations.

JACOB, PATRIARCHAL POLYGAMOUS FATHER Jacob is a man who loved the things of God, prevailed well with God and was

blessed with the blessing of Abraham. He also went through the patriarchal training

of handling wife rivalry, the wilderness hardship of his fathers, and managing a family

of 4 striving wives and 12 sons, none of whom were discriminated as illegitimate, but

were all groomed to be joint-heirs and the foundation of the then coming Kingdom of

God. His life was difficult, having to pay the price of supplanting his brother’s

birthright (Genesis 27:22), the price of prevailing with God and the price of laying a

foundation for the nation of Israel upon his polygamous family. His patriarchal

polygamous lifestyle was well recorded in the Bible, to be taught and passed on to

the millions that will be flooding into God’s Kingdom, the Jews and the Christians

alike since all “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,

correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly

equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16).

9

It was through Jacob’s polygamous marriage that the first strength of God’s promise

became visible as a nation in Egypt. His name was changed to Israel (Genesis

32:28), the prince with God, and the name by which God’s nation would always be

known thereafter forever. For all who are called to lead a polygamous life, be

encouraged to know that the foundation of God’s Kingdom was fitly piled on and

framed in a then striving polygamous family (Which according to today’s culture and

Christianity is a sin, a shame and a treacherous act), that through obscurity, pain and

difficulties finally emerged into victory and eternal glory.

To those who despise polygamy and who hold in their hearts or theology that those

men who practised it were backward or even barbaric, thus they practiced polygamy;

I think that these set of people are guilty as they are no better than the heathen

mockers of those days. Nothing in today’s world has become more civilized or holier

but instead more immoral and sinful. That’s what the Bible says and we all know it.

The pomp and idols of the Egyptians and the pride and arrogance of the Romans are

ever in existence today as before. Thus, Elijah, the prophetic ministry will come to

turn the hearts of the children to look to the fathers, to respect them in all aspects of

their lives the way God did and still does. Otherwise, the Church will never be free

from the chains and shackles of Egypt and Rome, and the whore of Babylon that sits

upon many waters (nations) in these last days (Revelation17:1-5). Polygamy is never

going to be out of date; it enabled Jacob to fulfil God’s plan and so will enable many

others in these Last Days.

In today’s world there are men that are called to be monogamous, polygamous or

celibate, and it does not really matter whether one’s life is to be celibate,

monogamous or polygamous, his life must be according to the principles and

practice of obedience, sacrifice, faith, love, relationship, marriage, parenting,

integrity, leadership and all that have been written in the Holy Bible. And if it really is,

then you will harbour no discrimination or even preference for each marriage form,

whether be it polygamy, monogamy or celibacy. Instead, you will have to seek God’s

will for your life, and be supportive of the others in their forms. This is the poly-

positive attitude that is according to the scriptures. The way God sees it and the way

we should see it because God has given each man his life and ministry according to

His will and grace.

10

The pagan Roman teaching has it that celibacy is holiest and closest to God. Only

monogamy is acceptable and polygamy is sinful. We see this in the Roman Catholic

Church. What are the implications of such teachings? We should be holy and should

everyone choose to be holy and close to God according to the Romans Catholic

teachings, then the entire world will be exterminated in one generation. This is a lie

that is concocted from the pit of hell to destroy mankind or at least to make the

standard of holiness exclusive to a few and beyond reach for many; for it is through

the blood and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that the world is saved (John 1:29;

Revelation 5:12). It also lies against our forefathers, making them sinful, barbaric and

illegitimate children, which would include Jesus Himself (Matthew 1:1-16), as they

also were His earthly forefathers. And as they were, so then are we. Lies are

shrouded with the cover of holiness, while promoting selfishness, individualism and

exclusiveness, resulting in slavery and bondage of Christians Jesus Christ came to

set free (Luke 4:18; John 8:32).

ESAU, NON-PATRIARCHAL POLYGAMY Unlike faithful covenant keepers like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Esau was called a

profane person by the Scriptures; hence I, therefore, cannot reach the same

conclusions about polygamy based upon Esau’s actions as we can from Abraham’s

and Jacob’s. What is instructive in regard to Esau, however, is the contrast which is

evident on the part of Isaac and Rebekah in their attitude toward polygamy, on the

one hand, and intermarriage with the wicked Canaanites on the other (Genesis

26:34). Esau certainly knew that his parents would not approve of his marriage to

Canaanite women and this made Rebekah to be weary of her life (Genesis 27:46).

Note that it is not Esau’s polygamy that was grievous to Isaac and Rebekah but his

marriage to the Canaanite women (Genesis 26:34-35); this is quite a contrast to

many modern Christian parents who would agonize unto death if their son married

two godly Christian women, but who would not bat an eyelid if the same son married

one unbeliever that will take their son to hell. How far astray we have come from

Biblical morality?

Esau’s polygamy was not approved by God because his marriage to the Canaanite

women not only did not fulfil the purpose of God and did not bring glory and honour

11

to God, but it failed to fulfil the command of God to reverence God (Exodus 20:4)

and honour his parents (Exodus 20:12). Nevertheless, God was not against him for

being polygamous, but against him for bringing dishonour unto Him unlike his

fathers. God said that Esau He hated, but Jacob He loved (Malachi 1:2, Romans

9:13). Though, Esau tried to please his parent by marrying the grand daughter of

Abraham and daughter of Ishmael (Genesis 28:8-9), the damage has already be

done. It is instructive to note that the abuse of polygamy however does not make

polygamy any more sinful than monogamy that has and is also being abused by

many monogamists.

I would like to digress a bit. The book of Genesis which marks the beginning of

God’s creation ordinance gave us ample evidences that polygamy was totally normal

as seen in the lives of Abraham, Sara, Hagar, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, Leah,

Bilhah, Zilpah and Esau. If polygamy were as it is believed today is a violation of

God’s creation ordinance, then I will have to wonder strongly why God had no

problem with it in the beginning and why at least eleven members of Abraham’s

righteous and obedient household had no problem with it at all. We should bear in

mind that all this occurred 400 or more years prior to Moses’ giving of the Law that

allowed for divorce and polygamy. This is against the typical claim of the anti-

polygamy adherents is that concession to sin originated with Moses in the allowance

of divorce and polygamy in the Law. If this is true, then why do we see both

polygamy and divorce (Abraham and Hagar) four hundred and some odd years

before these concessions to sin supposedly originated with the Law of Moses? I

think that it’s either the early Christian missionaries who originated from Rome have

not told us the real truth or something is definitely wrong with this picture. Let’s move

on.

REUBEN, ONE WHO HAD TO PAY FOR HIS INCEST Reuben is assumed to be a monogamist as the names of his wives were not

recorded in the Bible. Contrary to common belief that God was just being tolerant of

marital sins, Reuben had to pay for his incest with one of his father’s concubines. He

lost his birthright (1 Chronicle. 5:1) despite his sacrificial attempt to use his sons as

surety for the safe return of Benjamin from the dangerous trip to Egypt to buy wheat

12

(Genesis 42:37). Where there was a wrongdoing, God made it clear and had it

recorded for us to know. Thus there is no record of God correcting or punishing any

man for being polygamous, but it is on record of Reuben’s punishment for his incest

(Genesis 49:4). One may argue that polygamy was permissible in the Old Testament

but not in the New Testament. But we see in the New Testament, a greater severity

of Apostle Paul threatening to deliver a person who had committed incest to Satan to

be destroyed (1 Corinthians 5:5), and yet nothing at all was mentioned about

polygamy which was also practiced during the first century; in fact, in his letter on

marriage to the Church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 7), Apostle Paul never made

mention of polygamy neither did he condemn it. It should be noted that our God is

very vocal about His ways, to the very details of our lives when morality is involved.

JUDAH, THE POLYGAMOUS MAN THAT PREVAILED

Judah, the third son of Jacob had a hard life and it all began when he went to marry

a Canaanite (Genesis 38:2). This part of his life is not preached for it would be too

stumbling and too hard for Christians to comprehend. We only know him as praise

(Genesis 49:8), but his life was one that prevailed even against the flawless suffering

Joseph who delivered Egypt and Israel. Judah prevailed over his brothers and from

him came a ruler even though the birthright was Joseph’s (1 Chronicle. 5:1-2). Thus

he was chosen to bear the royal bloodline of King David and Jesus Christ, our

Saviour, the Lion of Judah (Genesis 49:10). In addition to that, the double portion of

Joseph, the tribe of Ephraim (40,500) and Manasseh (32,000) put together (72,700)

was even lesser than the 1 tribe of Judah (74,600) (Numbers 2:3-4, 18-21). He

prevailed in quality and quantity yet his life was one that can never be accepted by

modern, stereotype, holy Christianity that would condemn him to hell and have his

name blemished and mocked from generation to generation. This just shows that we

are in danger of thinking and judging very differently from the ways of God; for God’s

ways are not our ways neither are His thoughts our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Judah visited a prostitute, not knowing that it was his daughter-in-law who had

disguised as one (Genesis 38:12-18), but from there came the bloodline (Matthew

1:3). I am in no way justifying the act of visiting a prostitute, but I want to point out

that the righteousness and magnanimous love of God is far more dynamic and

13

radical for modern day Pharisees and Sadducees to phantom or even understand.

That God can use a man with such a background to carry the holy bloodline is still a

mystery to mankind yet modern-day righteous, born-again Christians will still go

ahead to condemn a fellow born-again Christian believer who happens to find

himself in polygamy. Legalism would consider Judah’s generation thereafter to be all

children of abomination, including David and Jesus. Despite the fact that Judah had

no more intimacy with Tamar after that incestuous act, he still had to father the

children that were born which in this sense made him a polygamous man; this is akin

to the Yoruba culture that regards a concubine who has given birth to child/children

as wife and not as concubine.

The question I would like to ask is that can a born-again Christian be chosen to be

polygamous man. I would say yes if he is chosen and the purpose is to advance

God’s kingdom. Tamar was a chosen woman to prevent the tribe of Judah from

being exterminated and to advance God’s Kingdom; so was Rahab the prostitute of

Jericho (Matthew 1:5), history has it that she married Salmon, one of the 2 spies and

was counted worthy also to be an ancestor of our Lord Jesus.

Still on advancing God’s kingdom - Er, the first son of Judah was wicked and had to

suffer the death penalty (Genesis 38:7), so that he will not carry on and defile the

bloodline. The second son then had to take Tamar, the wife of the first to produce

offspring to bear the name of the first. He refused, and was again struck dead by

God (Genesis 38: 9-10), but such would have been honoured as a hero in our

present generation. What really bothers me is that we are dangerously

misinterpreting the Word, the righteousness and the law of God. We must see where

God is particular and where He is not or we’ll miss Him altogether. This probably

accounts for the main reason why born-again Christians and men of God divorce

their wives at will and remarry; this is what God hates and not polygamy as revealed

by Malachi 2:16 because a man is breaking faith with the wife of his youth which

happens top be the first wife. So, is this not a treacherous act against one’s first wife

as revealed by Malachi 2:15? Is this not modern day polygamy otherwise known as

serial monogamy?

14

I could go on and on to theologise on our Lord Jesus bloodline but when God

choose, only Him knows his reason for choosing or for allowing a person to be

chosen for tasks that will advance His kingdom. For God does not strain at a gnat

and swallow a camel; thus He was delighted to find a donkey who was willing to

suffer shame to carry the Truth into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-10). God never

changes as He is the same yesterday, and today and forever (Hebrew 13:8) and His

laws are timeless.

JOSEPH, "FLAWLESS" MONOGAMOUS MAN

Joseph flawlessly represented Christ in many ways, prophetic of the things that

Jesus will go through, like being the beloved of his father (Genesis 37:2), betrayed

by his own brothers (Genesis 37:18), and exalted to be their protector and provider

(Genesis 41:41-42). He was monogamous. But this does not in anyway represent

the perfect will of God for all men. Just as his marrying a heathen wife does not

mean that it is fine for a child of God to marry an unbeliever. Just as Jesus being a

celibate does not mean that celibacy is the way to perfection for all men. Joseph's

marrying a Gentile wife (An Egyptian - Genesis 41:45) was a fore-shadow of Christ

taking on a Gentile church. This was an exception for the purpose of God's plan. And

such exceptions do really show that God is above and not under the law. But

exceptions must not become precedence. Where God's will is, there His grace will

be when one is willing to submit to it. Joseph, having gone through those trials and

tribulations was not overpowered by the temptations and was prepared to handle a

daughter of a heathen priest (Genesis 41:45). His children were raised in the

knowledge of God. He was in control, and his heart did not turn to idolatry. That’s the

main issue.

MANASSEH, A SON OF JOSEPH A son of monogamous father, Joseph; he was polygamous as he took an Aramite

concubine (1 Chronicles 7:14). He did not prevail as well as his father, but also

became a forefather of a tribe of Israel.

15

MOSES, THE MIGHTY DELIVERER Moses, the meekest man on earth, went through 40 years of wilderness (Acts 7:30)

to be trained in obedience and leadership, and to be raised as a deliverer and an

exemplary example of godly men. He was also polygamous for he had 2 wives, one

a Midianite, Zipporah (Exodus 2:21), and the other, an Ethiopian woman whom he

married later (Numbers 12:1). Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses because of

this second wife – an Ethiopian woman. That looks like a by-product of sinful

polygamy again - family squabbles. But when the Lord suddenly appeared, it was

Miriam who was turned leprous, not Moses nor the second wife (Numbers 12:10).

Did God make a wrong judgement? Certainly not!!! The Bible said, "because of the

Ethiopian woman." If polygamy is sinful or even just permissible, wouldn’t God be

punishing the wrong person? God almost killed him for not circumcising his son

(Exodus 4:24-26), but nowhere was it shown that God was against Moses for taking

another wife rather the Lord said that Moses was faithful in all His house (Numbers

12:7). Furthermore, the book of Hebrews 3:2 says that Moses was faithful in his

entire house. This wouldn’t be said of him if polygamy is sinful

BOAZ, THE PATRIARCHAL POLYGAMIST It was not written whether Boaz was polygamous or not. But looking at the culture at

that time and also the background of the wealthy Boaz, it was most probable that he

was already married when he met Ruth, being one that had to keep a big estate and

also being much older than Ruth (Ruth 3:10,11). It was Kingdom principle and

godliness to help continue the family line of each family in Israel, and in this case,

that of Elimelech who had no male descendant.

The closest next-of-kin refused this responsibility out of selfishness, for fear of

opening up his family and sharing his inheritance with another (Ruth 4:6). By God's

law, in the presence of all the elders of Israel, he had to take off his sandal and give

it to Boaz who would take up this kingdom responsibility, and he had to be spat on

the face by Ruth (Deuteronomy 25:7-9) before the elders of Israel for denying this

kingdom responsibility. The name of this selfish relative was never remembered by

God in the scriptures. Boaz and Ruth were both blessed by God to be the forefathers

of King David and the Lord Jesus. This act of Boaz and Ruth set the foundation that

16

resulted in King David’s kingdom-mindedness. Such an act would never be

understood or be appreciated by today’s society where free love and romantic values

are exalted in place of God’s kingdom principle. The self-centred relative would be

applauded by today’s society as righteous, godly, Christ-like and exemplary. Alas,

God has a totally different perception. Thus, we see that the whole today’s society

especially the western world that enforces monogamy is totally deceived and will be

persecutors of God's righteous saints like Boaz and Ruth.

What Boaz did ran in the principles of the levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) where

a male will have to marry the wife of the deceased brother to continue his family line.

This, itself is polygamy that is not just sanctioned but required by God. One can

contend that all this apply only to Old Testament time and culture and is no longer

valid. No doubt there are some changes in cultures and societal development since

Old Testament times, but the Almighty God never changes for He is the same

yesterday, today and forever (Hebrew 13:8). As long as we remain human, basic

human needs do not change. They only take on different forms today, and thus may

require some individuals to be polygamous, like meeting the needs of people totally

committed to a vision or a cause, or for good and mutually beneficial reasons,

opening up a family unit to look after another.

Through the generations, all such human needs (food, clothing, shelter,

transportation means, love, companionship and child/children) actually never change

and neither will; they only take on different forms. Our modern society, in the name

of holiness and human rights, exploits such emotional commitment and support by

repaying only with monetary compensations and not reciprocating with love, care

and emotional responsibility where appropriate. When the levirate law was presented

to Jesus (Matthew 22:24), He did not say that it was sinful, backward, inferior, nor no

longer valid in the grace; He explained that there would be no problem as to whose

wife she will be, as there will be no sexual relationship in heaven. However, while we

are on earth, even in this modern generation, the exact same act of polygamy may

be needed to preserve or enhance a vision, a ministry, a family or even a business.

Of course, scriptural principles will have to be complied with and mutual consent

respected.

17

GIDEON, COMMANDER OF THE COMMANDOS We are going to see that not only were many founding fathers were polygamous; the

judges who were used mightily by God were too. Gideon had many sons. You can’t

have one wife to produce 70 sons; yet the Bible said Gideon had many wives

(Judges 8:30). Is God overlooking here again? Was there no man in Israel who had

one wife or lesser wives and thus be more "righteous" that could have been

selected? My deduction is that he must have had handled his wives and household

so well that he was selected for a task that required highly disciplined soldiers. 300

high calibre soldiers selected from 32000 soldiers - only 3% qualified and Gideon

was to be their commander (Judges 2:3-21). Hardly a job for a drunken sex-mad

person that some people think polygamous people are. Neither was he someone

that was too busy or over-burdened with his many wives. He must have managed his

wives well as not to be turned aside by them to worship idols unlike Solomon.

Instead, he had the time to wake up in the middle of the night to smash up the altar

of Baal.

JAIR, WELL-ORGANIZED JUDGE

Another judge that did well, keeping Israel for 22 years - well organized, with 30 sons

trained and equipped with 30 donkeys, to extensively help him judged Israel for 22

years (Judges 10:3-5). Power and numbers of wives and children well managed and

used for the Kingdom.

IBZAN, SUCCESSFUL FATHER AND JUDGE Ibzan, another judge of Israel and man of God must have had many wives to have

fathered 30 sons and 30 daughters. He is an example of a successful husband and

capable father who managed his family well that he could also manage the house of

God for 7 years (Judges 12:8-9). He got 30 wives for his 30 sons and married off 30

daughters.

In conclusion, Ibzan is yet another example of polygamy among men of God in the

Bible, whose polygamy is cast in a positive light.

18

ABDON, TRANS-GENERATIONAL PLANNER Abdon is another success story of a polygamous father who planned well into

another generation (Judges 12:13-15). Contrary to general belief that polygamy will

result in his failing to give enough attention to raise good and responsible children,

he had 40 sons, 30 grandsons on 70 donkeys to judge Israel for 8 years.

SAMSON, SERIAL MONOGAMIST There are those who can handle many wives for the glory of God, while there are

many like Samson that cannot handle even one - a romantic hero who practiced

serial monogamy. His first wife, an unbeliever, disclosed the answer of his riddle

under the threats of the enemy (Judges 14:15-17). In fury, he gave away his wife to

his friend (Judges 14:20) and married another unbeliever who also betrayed him the

same way (Judges 16:4-5). The Bible said it was God’s plan that he should marry

unbelievers (Judges 14:4). This shows that God is above and not beneath His

commandments. He did not break His commandments. He is above them. Here was

an exception where Samson was expected to prevail, like in the case of Hosea

(Hosea 1:3) and Joseph (Genesis 41:45) who had to manage unbeliever wives and

bring them into the ways of God. These they did well while Samson failed badly. It

was God's strategy to move against the Philistines, but it was Samson's part to love

God more than his wife. He could still fulfil God's plan without letting his wife betray

him. It should be noted that Samson the monogamist fell not because he was

polygamous, nor because of marrying heathen women (as directed by God), but

because of his weakness for woman. Is this not typical of many monogamists in this

present generation?

ELKANAH, LOVING HUSBAND & RIGHTEOUS MAN OF GOD

Here we see another example of wife rivalry (1 Samuel 1:1-28; 2:20-21). It was God

who made Hannah barren (1 Samuel 1:6). God now seems not just an active

participant, but author of such wife rivalry. Of course, God’s involvement was not of

evil but of goodness, that a child might be born and fully consecrated to be one of

the greatest prophets of Israel. He blessed Peninnah with many children (1 Samuel

1:4), and through it sanctified Hannah to give Him a more perfect sacrifice – Samuel

19

(1 Samuel 1:28). At the human level, it was hurtful but such evil was the result of

human selfishness, made manifest by God through a polygamous situation rather

than the act of polygamy itself. In monogamy, much selfishness is condoned and

justified, but will inadvertently manifest itself in other forms in life. Consideration,

sharing, selflessness and godliness are prerequisites of polygamy; and if polygamy

is in anyway a sin before God, Samuel a child of polygamy, would never have been

chosen and consecrated to serve God in His Holy Temple and anointed to play such

an important role in the history of Israel.

Looking at the life of Elkanah, a righteous man of God; he and his wives were

obviously genuine worshippers of the Lord as Elkanah’s diligently travel to Shiloh to

worship and make sacrifice to the Lord yearly (1 Samuel 1:3), and Hannah’s

devotion to her vow to the Lord (1 Samuel 1:28), as well as the Lord’s answer to her

prayer (1 Samuel 1:19), all testify to this fact. Despite being a godly man, Elkanah

showed so much partiality toward his wife Hannah over his other wife Penninah as

shown in the manner he divide the sacrificial portions (1 Samuel 1:5), which made

Penninah to constantly unjustifiably provoke Hannah (1 Samuel 1:6). There is no

reason to believe that Penninah did not also know the Lord; but Eli the priest, who

was disturbed at Hannah’s supposed drunkenness and moved to rebuke her (1

Samuel 1:14) was not moved to say any negative word at all about the obviously

polygamous household before him. Are we to believe that Eli, priest of the Lord,

thought that both drunkenness at the Tabernacle and polygamy were wrong, but that

only Hannah’s supposed drunkenness was worth rebuking? Eli was certainly aware

that the two women with Elkanah were his wives. If he thought Hannah was

desecrating the Tabernacle by drunkenness, would he not have had even greater

objection to an obvious “polygamous adulterer” being there?

The fact is, Elkanah’s polygamy was no object of concern to Eli or to God. Elkanah

was just another man with his family. No big deal. And if someone would want to

object that Hannah’s barrenness was “God’s punishment” upon her and Elkanah’s

household because of their polygamy, the sufficient answer is that Scripture did not

inform us whom Elkanah married first - Hannah or Penninah? Moreover, if Hannah

barrenness was in the nature of Divine chastisement, then it was probably for the

same reason that God opened Leah’s womb to bear children but left Rachel barren

20

because of the favouritism and partiality of their husband Jacob toward Rachel over

Leah (Genesis 29:31). Deuteronomy 21:15-17 plainly establishes the principle of

impartiality on the part of polygamists towards their wives and children. Elkanah was

clearly in violation of this particular command. Since God saw fit to deal with Jacob

for this offense by shutting Rachel’s womb, then there is no reason to suppose that

He did not see fit to deal with Elkanah in the same manner for the exact same

offense.

Despite Elkanah’s failure in this regard, he was, nevertheless, a godly man. He was

also a man blessed with two wives. In due time, he was also blessed by God with

children by them both, including Hannah’s firstborn, Samuel, judge and prophet of

God. This does imply God’s favour and blessing upon Elkanah’s polygamous

household.

SAUL, THE FIRST KING OF ISRAEL Saul, the first king of Israel had a concubine (2 Samuel 21:11). Looking at this verse,

he could have more. The kings of Israel were to be good examples of godliness for

the people to follow and God if necessary, would disapprove of their acts openly and

deal with them severely. This He did and wrote about King Saul in the scriptures,

detailing his rise and fall, including some disobedience that were not obvious to man.

But there is nowhere in the Bible that God indicated His displeasure about Saul, the

first king for having more than one wife. In fact, nothing was mentioned about it until

after his death, when a faithful concubine mourned for the 7 family members of Saul

and stayed in the open for the entire harvest season on sackcloth to keep the

vultures from tearing up the carcasses. And godliness is something that God was

very vocal about, and still is.

DAVID, MAN AFTER GOD'S HEART

David was called by God to be "a man after His own heart" in life, character, and

leadership (1 Samuel 13:13-14). He was exemplary for God's kingly leaders, and he

received a promise of an everlasting kingdom. He was one of the very few who knew

how to use relationships to expand and establish the kingdom. All in all, despite his

21

involvement in building the Kingdom, he had at least 18 wives (1 Samuel 18:27, 2

Samuel 3:2-5, 11:27, 15:16). And David went on, and grew great, and the LORD

God of hosts was with him. So David knew that God established him as king over

Israel, and David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, also more sons

were born to David (2 Samuel 5:10-13). The episode of David's adultery with

Bathsheba is often misquoted to purport that God is against polygamy while in fact,

the very same passage actually supports it. For God said, "I gave you your master's

house and your master's wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel

and Judah. And if that had been too little, I would have given you much more! Why

have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight" (2

Samuel 12:8, 9). What were the commandment and the evil? God further explained

that it was the murder of his faithful soldier and the taking of his wife. It's a great

deception to interpret this as God was against polygamy. No, He was against taking

another man's wife. Taking on more unattached women as wives was not scripturally

considered as adultery, taking another man's wife is; David or any other men at that

time understood this very well. As soon as God issued the Ten Commandments

which included “thou shall not commit adultery”, taking another man's wife (Exodus

20:14) where the death sentence was mandatory (Deuteronomy 22:22), He gave

another law regarding taking another unattached woman as wife (Exodus 21:10),

that he should not diminish the rights of the first wife. God cannot be condemning

and condoning the same act at the same time hence Malachi 2:15 couldn’t have

been referring to polygamy. The only answer is that polygamy of marrying

unattached women is not adultery.

SOLOMON, WISE KING WITH THE MOST WIVES

Here again, another wrongly quoted example to purport against polygamy.

Solomon's failure was due to his love for heathen women that made him to serve

other gods, not polygamy; which was why God commanded Israeli kings not to

multiply wives to himself so that his heart turn not away from Him (Deuteronomy

17:17) not because it is a sin. It has been established in the Scriptures that many

men and most men fell, not because of many women but because of a woman, the

woman whom he seeks to please and idolizes, whose voice becomes louder than

God’s, good sense and life. Adam was monogamous and he fell (Genesis 3:12).

22

Samson was monogamous and he fell (Judges 14:15-17; 16:4-5). God told the kings

that they should not multiply wives (Deuteronomy 17:17), such that it becomes

beyond their capacity to handle. The fact that God did not specify that it is godliness

or ideal to have only one wife shows that God is not against polygamy. Instead, His

kingly leaders should consider consecrating their marital life to God to benefit the

Kingdom in a greater way, whichever is the way.

While there is a warning that the excessiveness and abuse of it can cause failure,

which is the case in all things in a man's life, the primary failure of Solomon was not

polygamy or too many wives, but rather his love for many foreign wives who turned

his heart away from God as shown in the Bible passage below:-.

But king Solomon loved many strange (foreign), women together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites,

Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto

the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in

unto you: for surely, they will turn away your heart after their gods:

Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives,

princesses (i.e., of foreign countries), and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was

old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and

after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the

sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his

father. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination

of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the

abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1 Kings

11:1-8)

God’s judgement of Solomon’s failure was that he disobeyed God's instruction by

loving many foreign women whom God said will turn his hearts after their gods" (1

Kings 11:1-4), which is clearly an allusion to Deuteronomy 17:17 – “Neither shall he

23

multiply wives to himself that his heart turns not away: neither shall he greatly

multiply to himself silver and gold”. There is sufficient fact in the Bible that this

passage refers to treaty - marriages kings or rulers often enter to and not to

polygamy. And to make the point absolutely conclusive, 1 Kings 11:4 informs us that

David, who was also a polygamist but only married Israelite women did not have his

heart turned away, though Solomon did. If Deuteronomy 17:17 actually prohibits the

king’s heart from turning away unto polygamy, then there is a clear contradiction in

the Biblical text as God would be holding David to one standard and Solomon to

another. But the Bible is God’s word and God does not contradict Himself.

Therefore, it is reasonably erroneous to interpret Deuteronomy 17:17 as a ban on

polygamy; it is irrelevant to the issue of biblical polygamy because the emphasis was

first on the wrong kind of marriage rather than the number, even though

excessiveness can be damaging. For it would be wrong for one to undermine his

God-given extraordinary wisdom to manage up to a thousand wives and concubines;

Samson, on the other hand was a serial monogamist who could not handle even one

heathen wife at a time. Adam was a monogamist who listened to the voice of his one

wife and fell. Sin came into the world through Adam a monogamist but hope began

with Abraham, a polygamist. I therefore conclude that it's not in monogamy or

polygamy, but the heart of man in which sin is found.

The lesson is clear, God's men must not allow his wives or just one to destroy his

ministry, and unbelieving women are in-routes of Satan to turn the heart of men

away from God. To interpret otherwise would be deception!!! One who is kingly must

know his own heart, limitations, strengths and weaknesses. God expects him to

manage them well. There is no absolute numbers, but to each according to his ability

and grace, but more importantly, the right kind. God was angry with David not

because he took on one too many, but because he broke the commandment of

taking another man's wife (2 Samuel 12:8).

REHOBOAM, SON OF SOLOMON A descendant of Solomon was greatly polygamous with only 78 known wives (2

Chronicles 11:18-21). He did not have the wisdom and capacity of his fathers. Just

24

as any other kings that went before him, his successes and failures were due to his

heart and not his marital status. Specifically, Rehoboam fall was attributed to the

excessive taxation which incensed the people of Israel and not his seventy-eight

wives that triggered off the revolt that send Rehoboam to Jerusalem (2 Chronicles

10:16-19).

So, in summary, I have here in the record of Rehoboam yet one more example of

polygamy in the Bible in which not so much as one negative word is said concerning

Rehoboam polygamous status.

AHAB, THE MOST EVIL KING OF ISRAEL Ahab was an ungodly and evil king of Israel who married Jezebel the heathen

priestess (1 Kings 16:31), whose ways were remembered even into Revelation. He

was totally living under a feminine power. He must have abused his other wives and

children; he must have had many wives to have produced 70 sons (2 Kings 10:1).

He was the worst of all the kings of Israel (1 Kings 16:33), with the full-blown

manifestation of the fallen man, totally under the control of Jezebel his heathen wife

who kept a large company of pagan false prophets. None of his other wives were

allowed into his palace, and his sons were taken care of elsewhere by his governors.

JOASH, KING WITH A GOOD MENTOR The story of the young king Joash is in many ways the story of Jehoiada the priest. If

it had not been for Jehoiada, and his wife Jehoshabeath, all of the royal seed of

David would have been slain by the wicked queen, Athaliah (2 Kings 1-3; 2

Chronicles 22:10-12). Scripture makes it plain that Jehoiada was zealous for the Law

of the Lord and for the Davidic monarchy. King Joash did what was right in the sight

of God in all the days of his guardian, the priest, Jehoiada who chose for him 2

wives; he had sons and daughters, and he set his heart on repairing the house of the

Lord (2 Chronicles 24:1-3). But after the death of Jehoiada, he listened to the leaders

of Judah and practised idolatry (2 Chronicles 24:17-18).

25

The question is how do we evaluate Jehoiada’s act of getting multiple wives for

Joash? Was Jehoiada saying in effect, “Let us do evil so that good may come?” It is

pointless to plead necessity as Jehoiada certainly knew of God promise to David to

preserve the royal seed; hence with or without multiple wives, Jehoiada knew that

God would preserve the David line. And we must not fail to consider Scripture’s

portrayal of Jehoiada’s zealousness for the Law of Moses (2 Chronicles 24:6); this is

very prominent in the text. We must certainly presume that Jehoiada believed

himself to be acting within the boundaries of the Law; if Jehoiada believed that the

Law of Moses defined polygamy as adultery, or was otherwise unlawful, he certainly

would have feared further God’s punishment for such a course of action. The truth is

that Jehoiada anticipated God’s blessing and the prospering of his actions which

ensured that King Joash begat sons and daughters by his two wives (2 Chronicles

24:2). Clearly God was with Jehoiada in his plan to replenish the royal seed.

The example of Joash, therefore, provides us with strong exegetical evidence of the

lawfulness of polygamy. We are plainly told that King Joash did right in the sight of

the Lord. If it had been wrong for him to take two wives, this certainly would have

been indicated in Chronicles which is specifically focused on characterizing the

actions of the kings of Israel as either good or evil.

ABIJAH, THE CONDEMNED KING

King Abijah, a mighty king of Israel was condemned for not being perfect with the

Lord and walking in the sins of Rehoboam (1 Kings 15:3). However, it is clear from 2

Chronicles 13:10 that Abijah was not totally unmindful of the Lord; though he married

fourteen wives who gave him sons and 16 daughters (2 Chronicles 13:21), his

condemnation had nothing to do with this rather he was condemned for tolerating

idolatry in Israel.

TRIBE OF ISSACHAR, PEOPLE OF DISCERNMENT AND FORESIGHT Issachar, a tribe known to be capable of discerning the times and ways of God (1

Chronicles 12:32). Perhaps, because of this foresight, they were able to contribute

26

many mighty men of war to the Kingdom because the men had many wives who

bore many sons (1 Chronicles 7:4-5). This is what God said of them.

ESTHER, THE WOMAN WHO RISKED HER LIFE TO SAVED GOD’S CHILDREN There is really nothing in the story of Esther which validates or invalidates polygamy

on its own merits. All that can be said is that God in His providence (Esther 4:13-14)

brought Esther into Ahasuerus’ harem, and caused the king to favour her above the

other wives. The ultimate purpose for this was the deliverance of the Jews from their

enemies. This consideration outweighed the fact even of intermarriage and, as has

been demonstrated previously in this discourse, the polygamy involved here was

simply a non-issue.

ELIJAH & JOHN THE BAPTIST Nothing was recorded of these 2 great prophets of Israel in this aspect of their lives.

Most probably, they were celibates, with a special consecration as required by their

specific ministries. Samuel and Hosea were at least 2 prophets that were not

celibates.

ELISHA AND PAUL

Elisha - the disciple of Elijah and Paul – the Apostle of our Lord Jesus left everything,

whether married or not, to do the work of God (1 Kings 19:19-21). Even though there

remains a special reward for those who become eunuchs for God's Kingdom

(Matthew 19:12), they are not in any way holier by virtue of being celibates as “God

hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one” (1 Corinthians 7:7,

17) and according to grace given. Thus that which is right for one may be wrong for

the other. For all cases, there will be a specific choice that will be glorifying to God,

whether be it celibate, monogamy or polygamy.

HOSEA The marital life of Hosea the prophet was an exceptional one; the other two were

that of Joseph and Samson who for God's purposes, married heathen wives. Hosea

27

was told to go and marry a woman who would bear children for him and one day

walked out of him for another man or men. This was God's prophecy in drama

depicting the unfaithfulness of Israel (Hosea 1:2, 3). He later did according to God's

command, "Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing

adultery…" which means taking another adulterous woman that represented the

Gentile church (Hosea 3:1-5, 14:9) taken from the world, thus rendering him

polygamous or it could mean buying back his wife as interpreted by some others.

Whichever is the case, God shows that He is above and not beneath His law, and

that law is for man and not man for the law. But it does not mean that man should

break the law even though there may be such exceptions, in which case, grace will

be given to bear with the consequences of it.

CALEB, MAN OF GREAT FAITH & THE UNKNOWN POLYGAMIST

Remembered as a man of great faith - one of the only 2 men among the millions that

came out of Egypt that entered the Promised Land, while the rest who came out died

in the wilderness (Numbers 14:38), and the rest who went in were those born in the

wilderness. Caleb, along with Joshua, spied out the promised land and encouraged

Israel to obey the Lord’s command to take the land; however the mention of Caleb

as a polygamist may come as a surprise to many readers of the Bible because most

of the prominent Bible passage (Numbers 13 & 14, Joshua 15:13-19, and Judges

1:12-20) that dealt with him did not reveal the polygamous status of Caleb. However,

a careful look at the “difficult to understand” genealogies of First Chronicles did

revealed the record of Caleb’s polygamy. Since two Calebs were mentioned in 1

Chronicles 2, the question is how do we identify the Caleb that was written about in

Numbers 13? There is however, one particular detail that will enable us to positively

identify the Caleb of 1 Chronicles 2:42-49 as the same Caleb written about so

prominently in Numbers 13.

Now the sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel were, Mesha his firstborn,

which was the father of Ziph; and the sons of Mareshah the father of

Hebron.

And the sons of Hebron; Korah, and Tappuah, and Rekem begat Shema.

28

And Shema begat Raham, the father of Jorkoam: and Rekem begat

Shamai.

And the son of Shammai was Maon; and Maon was the father of Bethor.

And Ephah, Caleb’s concubine, bare Haran, and Moza, and Gazez: and

Haran begat Gazes.

And the sons of Jahdai: Regem, and Jotham, and Geshan, and Pelet, and

Ephah, and Shaaph.

And Maacah Caleb’s concubine, bare Sheber, and Tirhanah.

She bare also Shaaph the father of Madmanah, Sheva the father of

Machbenah, and the father of Gibeah: And the daughter of Caleb was Achsah. (1 Chronicles 2:42-49)

The difficulty with identifying this Caleb with the spy Caleb of Numbers 13 is the lack

of any mention or indication at all in the most prominent texts about him that Caleb

was a polygamist. Yet in the genealogies of first Chronicles we learn something that

we might not otherwise have known. There are two Calebs mentioned in 1

Chronicles 2, and there are some obstacles in identifying the second Jerahmeel, his

brother. Verse 9 mentions a Jerahmeel who was the son of Hezron and who had a

brother whose name was Chelubai, - which appears to be a variant of Caleb. On this

reading, this would make the Caleb of verses 42-49 identical with Caleb the son of

Hezron mentioned in verse 18. The problem with this is the complete differences in

the names of the sons listed for the two Calebs and the obvious connection of the

entire genealogy of chapter 2 as a unit. The Caleb of verse 18 is most likely the

grandfather of the Caleb of verse 42. Therefore, the Jerahmeel mentioned as

Caleb’s brother in verse 42 is not the same Jerahmeel mentioned in verse 9. To

make matters worse, the genealogy in chapter 4 explicitly mentions Caleb the son of

Jephunneh, positively identifying him as the Caleb of Numbers, Joshua and Judges,

but the names of his sons do not correspond to the list of the sons of Caleb in 2:42-

49. How do we explain this? I believe that this can be accounted for by reading the

word sons in chapter 4 as descendants. Chapter 4 certainly appears to be more of

an overview whereas chapter 2 would seem rather clearly to be concerning itself with

immediate descendants. This explanation, if indeed it is the correct one, satisfactorily

removes any difficulty or hindrances to identifying the Caleb of 1 Chronicles 2:42-49

29

as the famous Caleb who spied out the promised land. It remains to more particularly

connect them. This is where the mention of Achsah, Caleb’s daughter, is decisive.

In Joshua 15:13-19, we find this record:

And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he (Joshua) gave a part among the

children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua,

even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron. And Caleb

drove thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the

children of Anak. And he went up thence to the inhabitants of Debir: and the

name of Debir before was Kirjathsepher. And Caleb said, He that smiteth

Kirjathsepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.

And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. And it came to pass, as she came to

him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted off her

ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wouldest thou? Who answered, give me a blessing; for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of

water. And he gave her the upper springs and the nether springs.

This same incident is recorded in Judges 1:12-15.

The mention of Achsah in I Chronicles 2:49 is decisive in identifying the Caleb there

with the Caleb in Numbers, Joshua and Judges.

Having established the identity of Caleb, I now know that Caleb had one wife and

two concubines - Ephah (1 Chronicles 2:46) and Maacah (1 Chronicles 2:48) which

made him a polygamous man. But what did the Bible said about the moral character

of Caleb? Was Caleb sinful to have 2 other concubines as mentioned in 1 Chronicle

2:46-48? Did God overlook it, considering polygamy to be a lesser sin? A lesser sin

is still a sin. And if so, Caleb would not have been chosen, or at least God will clearly

state that his polygamy was sin, which He did not. There can only be one answer,

polygamy in itself is not a sin. As it seems, polygamy was not a problem or a

hindrance to a man of faith, but a blessing. He was not disqualified as were millions

of others who failed to enter the Promised Land, neither was he stumbled or plagued

with the evil of polygamy to fail in entering the Promised Land. Despite his

30

polygamous status, he followed the Lord in every respect (Deuteronomy 1:36) which

made him one of the two people who entered the promised land:

And the LORD said...Because all those men which have seen my glory, and

my

miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me

now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall

not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them

that provoked me see it. But my servant Caleb, because he had another

spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land

whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it (Numbers 14:20-24)

The above promise was fulfilled in part, by Achsah, daughter of Caleb’s concubine

and third wife. This is contrary to opinion of anti-polygamist that polygamists will pay

bitterly for their sin; but in case of Caleb, this is no punishment but blessing, neither

is any other incident recorded about Caleb indicative of punishment.

I have once again, in the case of Caleb with more exegetical evidence that shows

the lawfulness of polygamy and indeed that it is, in fact, a blessing which comes from

God.

THE REST OF THE KNOWN POLYGAMISTS Ashur had 2 wives - Helah and Naarah (1 Chronicle 2:48); Mered had 2 wives

Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh and Hodiah (1 Chronicles 4:17-19); Ezra had two

wives – an unnamed wife and Jehudijah (1 Chronicles 4:17-19); the sons of Uzzi had

many wives (1 Chronicles 7:3-5); Machir had two wives – Maacah and Zelophehad

(1 Chronicle 7:15-16); Shaharaim had two wives - Hushim and Baara (1 Chronicles

8:8); Belshazzar, the son of Nebuchadnezzar had many wives and concubines

(Daniel 5:1-2); Jerahmeel, who was of the tribe of Judah had 2 wives (1 Chronicle

2:26); Shaharaim had 2 wives - Hushim and Baara (1 Chronicle 8:8). I shall stop

here as I have listed more than enough examples; let me now move into the New

Testament.

31

THE NEW CONVENANT AND POLYGAMY While the Old Testament focused on the private lives and works of the personalities

written about, the focus of the New Testament is on the life of our Lord Jesus, His

church and church doctrines hence not too much was written about the marital and

personal lives of the principal characters that propagated the Gospel of our Lord

Jesus. But what is the view of our Lord Jesus on polygamy? All through the sermon

our Lord Jesus preached on the mount (Matthew 5, 6 & 7), nothing positive or

negative was said about polygamy but it has become the norm for today’s Christians

to cite Matthew 19:3-12 as Jesus displeasure to polygamy and His endorsement for

monogamy.

It should be noted that the subject matter of Matthew 19:3-12 is divorce and by

extension adultery and not polygamy. If there is anything in Matthew 19:3-12 that is

relevant to polygamy, it is only suggestive and not categorical, and must be by way

of inference, implication and deduction. While I agree that there is nothing wrong

with drawing valid logical inferences, many Christians opposed to polygamy treat

Matthew 19:3-12 as if it is an explicit teaching on polygamy, which is not; moreover,

Christ was not asserting a fundamental change in the Law regarding marriage law. If

this is the case, what then does Jesus mean by “from the beginning it was not so?”

Quite simply, at the beginning of creation and when Adam and Eve were created

there was no sin, hence there was no provision for divorce. Moreover, God did not

designed marriage to be broken as He hate divorce (Malachi 2:16), but when man

fell into sin, hard-hearted men commit adultery with other men’s wives and hard-

hearted women commit adultery and other acts of fornication against their husbands.

Consequently, divorce came in on the heels of sin because it is necessary to punish

marital sin, which is what divorce is all about - a punishment and disinheritance.

Our Lord Jesus Christ did not change the law on divorce as it was given by Moses

(Matthew 19:9), so why would there be a change of law with respect to polygamy?

But some Christian may asked “Does not Christ’s pronouncement that putting away

a wife and marrying a second constitutes adultery invalidate polygamy?” Certainly

not, because it is like comparing apples and oranges. Polygamy was not the

circumstance being addressed, but the substitution of one wife with another and the

dissolution of the one-flesh marital bond with the first wife before taking a second;

32

serial monogamy and divorce is the scenario. Where is the offense against the first

marriage and the first wife when a man takes a second wife but does not put away

the first wife but maintains the one-flesh relation with her? The putting away of the

first wife which Malachi 2:15 described as breaking faith in New International Version

or treacherous act in King James Version, is very likely to push the woman into

adultery which is not likely the case in polygamy. A virtually indistinguishable realistic

circumstance is described in Exodus 21:10-11a which states that:

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage,

shall he not diminish.11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she

go out free without money”

In context in the above passage dealt with a man who takes a second wife and a

defacto putting away of the first wife in the desertion of the marriage bed; this is the

same factual situation described by Christ in Matthew 19:3-19. What is the

consequence of these actions of the man? “If he do not (this) unto her (i.e., maintain

sexual relations) she shall go out free without money.” It should be noted that it is not

the addition of a second wife which denied the first wife of her rights but the failure of

the husband to maintain “his duty of marriage” with the first wife. In other words,

according to Exodus 21:10-11, the man must be guilty of adultery by his refusal; this

is not stated explicitly, but note that the redress for the woman is divorce (breaking of

faith/treacherous act), so are we not, therefore, redressing adultery, an offense

against the marital bond?

In summary, is Jesus pronouncement, “From the beginning it was not so” not an

endorsement of a basic principle, and since what we see in the beginning is God’s

act of giving one wife to Adam, is not Christ thereby endorsing monogamy as the

standard for marriage? This question has already been sufficiently answered in the

course of this discourse.

IS JESUS ALSO POLYGAMOUS? Our Lord Jesus was clearly a celibate while on earth as He was never maritally

associated to any woman. But spiritually, He is depicted as being polygamous. The

33

brides of Jesus is collectively one (Revelation 22:17) but made up of many virgin

brides put together. The five wise virgins in Matthew 25:2 are not referring to

bridesmaids but the brides that were ready, waiting for Him, and it is definitely a

polygamous marriage. There is no doubt that the marriage of Christ is a spiritual one.

But the question is why would our Lord Jesus Christ use a marital relationship that

today’s Christians describe as sinful to be analogous of His relationship with the

church? Why did Jesus depict Himself to be polygamous? There is only one answer.

Polygamy is not a sin, it's analogous of the spiritual marriage of Jesus Christ and the

Church and it is a marital relationship that we can learn much from!!! Jesus is well

identified with celibacy, monogamy and polygamy.

IS GOD HIMSELF POLYGAMOUS? In Ezekiel 23:4, God is depicted to be loving and marrying 2 harlot sisters, Aholah

and Aholibah representing the unfaithful Samaria and Jerusalem. One may contend

that God is Spirit and this is only an analogy used to illustrate the love of God for

Samaria (Israel) and Jerusalem (Judah). It is true that this is an analogy, but if

polygamy is a sin then God in this analogy becomes sinful as well. We know that

God is not only against sin, He will not identify Himself with sinful deeds. Why then is

He depicted to be polygamous? Why does God use a polygamous analogy to

describe Himself? The only conclusion is that polygamy is not a sin any more than

monogamy or celibacy in God's eye.

EPILOGUE

A glance at the above draws some quick and interesting conclusions. A lot of the

biblical personalities were polygamous and of all these personalities whose lives

were recorded with the most details and are the most preached today to be

exemplary throughout the generations were Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and

David; and 4 out of all these 5 were polygamous. A quick conclusion is that God may

not be against polygamy any more than He is against monogamy and celibacy. For if

polygamy had been an issue with God, as it is with today's Christianity, these men

would not have been vindicated with such high standing and considered worthy for

His children to look up to. He would have clearly ruled against them being

34

polygamous like He would have against all other sins. Instead in many instances, He

seemed to have shown acceptance and given recognition of the other women as

"wives" in His Word and had blessed and vindicated their offspring. This seems to

be the case if one studies the Word without prejudice and presumptions; there is

definitely much more than meets the eye. A sweeping conclusion alone will not do

justice to this issue. Though by today's standard, polygamy is viewed as nothing less

than an outrageous form of adultery, condemnable to hell fire; the scriptures quoted

below have proved otherwise:

Exodus 21:8 - Establishes rules for slaves who became wives. Note there is no

mention of the man having to be single to marry a slave.

Exodus 21:10 - A man is not allowed to diminish food, clothing and marital

rights, if he marries an additional wife. Apart from ensuring fairness, this

admonition will be unnecessary if polygamy is outlawed by God.

Leviticus 20:14 - Prevents a man from marrying a woman and her mother at

the same time. This rule would be irrelevant if polygamy was a sin.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - A man is to marry a virgin he had sex with, as long as

the father did not refuse him. However, note that there is no mention on

whether than man is single or not. If it was a sin to be a polygamist, there

would have been a rule here saying if the man was already married, he would

be punished or stoned.

Matthew 25:1-13 - Parable of the 10 virgins, where Jesus has himself as the

groom marrying 5 of the 10 virgins; thus making himself a polygamist in the

parable.

Romans 5:13 - If there is no law for something, it is not a sin. There is no law

against polygamy; therefore, it is not a sin.

35

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Mentions that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of

God, yet in Hebrews 11, we see many polygamists listed who inherited the

Kingdom of God. Therefore polygamy is not adultery.

1 Timothy 3:2 - Bishops / Deacons must be husband of one wife. At best or

worst, this is saying certain leaders cannot be polygamists. Perhaps doing the

work of the church in some leadership roles require an amount of devotion to

where polygamy is not compatible. And a polygamist with the responsibility of

providing for the well-being of many wives probably would not have enough

time and energy left over to provide for the well-being of the parishioners of a

congregation. Being a bishop, deacon or elder requires a huge investment of

time and energy, as does being a polygamist. Therefore, it would probably be

counter-productive for a polygamist to have a high position of leadership in the

church.

James 2:23 - Abraham was called a friend of God, but he was a polygamist.

1 Corinthians 7:2 - If you look at the Greek behind this scripture, you will notice

that the words used for "his own" and "her own" are not the same; the terms

seem to allow for polygamy under close scrutiny as will be seen from the

explanation below.

Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 and I write as follows:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not

to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own (Greek 'heautou') wife (Greek 'gune'), and let every woman have her own (Greek 'idios') husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due

benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 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. Defraud ye not one the other, except it

be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer;

and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all

men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one

36

after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and

widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain,

let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

While understanding Greek is not a requirement to understand God's word,

seeing what was said in the original language does often add richness to one's

understanding; hence to have a better understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:2

which is highlighted in the above passage there is a need to understand the

meaning of the Greek word heautou, idios and gune used and the context

within which it is used.

Heautou is a personal pronoun (third person reflexive to get technical)

meaning himself, herself, themselves, or itself, depending on the case ending.

It is used most often in situations where something is acted upon one's self or

pertaining to one’s self or one’s own or belonging to one’s self. On the other

hand, idios is a possessive pronoun but has a more or less emphatic stress

meaning that it belongs to the person, especially as oppose to a group. There

is no action or idea being applied to the person or his very personal

possession; it simply indicates possession.

I have some questions based on the meaning of the Greek words Apostle Paul

used in 1 Corinthians 7:2:-

What does it mean to 'own' something?

What is the difference, if any, between the Greek words 'heautou' and 'idios'?

In Matthew 19:8, the Greek 'gune' is translated as wives and in 1 Corinthians

7:2 it is translated as wife, does that mean gune can mean either wife or

wives?

What is the meaning of this passage? Is polygamy the topic?

Two people can own the same thing just like a man and a woman owning a

house; similarly two wives can own the same husband and not vice versa. In a

polygamous marriage each person has their own spouse. For example: Tunde,

Bimpe, and Toyin are in a polygamous marriage; each person has their own

37

spouse(s). Tunde has Bimpe; Tunde has Toyin; Bimpe has Tunde; Toyin has

Tunde. There could apparently be the reason why Apostle Paul used two

separate words for "own". Heautou stresses the exclusivity of the possession,

and idios the exclusivity of the relationship. In other words, the husband may

say, "That is my wife, she belongs to me and me alone." The wife would say,

"That is my husband, and I belong to him and him alone and not that my

husband belongs to me and me alone." The word structure, then, would very

well leave extra room for polygamy. The passage is not about the number of

wives a man can have, but about having of a spouse in the first place. Apostle

Paul is showing us that we can avoid fornication by marrying, "for it is better to

marry than to burn" (1 Corinthians 7:9) with marital desires.

Whatever one’s personal conviction and ideal, it is to be respected, but there

remains the important task of reconciling the sentiments of modern Christianity

marriage theology with the way God actually sees it. Can the inconsistency, if any,

be the reason for the Church to be so at loss in dealing with various marital problems

besetting families today or the reason for the very high divorce rate, even among

men of God? Most probably, YES. I think that the Church is indeed at loss

concerning this. If the Church is to be the answer for the world as intended, she must

come to terms with the way God sees marriage. Otherwise, not only does she not

have the truth, she herself remains in deception and bondage, as untruth is a

blindness that results in bondage. And if one approaches the matter with a heart of

openness and love, without any cultural prejudice and personal standards of

righteousness, he will see the inconsistency. Has the Church compromised or is she

too rigid? Only an in-depth study of the Bible can reveal the answer.

A polygamous form of relationship might be or might not be the best form of marital

relationship as it has it benefits and downside just like other form of marital

relationship; the down side is that in a polygamous marriage, there is this constant

competition among the wives and even children of opposing camps. They compete

for everything from the husbands' time, attention, wealth, etc. Sometimes, this

competition becomes deadly as there is always constant bickering, fights, enmity

and back-biting. These are not unexpected in a place where you have lots of

interests but if all the parties involved honestly love the Lord and obediently walks in

38

his ways, all the down sides will be non-existent. I think that this matter should not be

taken lightly no matter one’s personal ideal and conviction as it will determine

whether a good portion of mankind will be in heaven or in hell. For if polygamy is a

sin, then a good portion will inevitably end up in hell, but if it is not, then the church at

large would be guilty of much blood by depriving many polygamists of their God-

given acceptance, position and salvation.

Polygamy was not a sin before God, it is not a sin before God and it will never

become a sin before God for He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrew

13:8). I think that it is high time for born-again Christians to start behaving like the

Christians in Berea who after receiving the message with great eagerness were

examining the scripture every day to see if what Apostle Paul preach to them was

true (Acts 17:11). At this juncture, I temporary rest my case.

A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE READING THIS DISCOURSE I challenge anyone to search the scriptures in good depth, and in the light of what I

have written, to see how and why this generation is decaying in marriages and

immorality. Judge for yourself whether the interpretations are scriptural. Be not

sweeping in judgement, neither be tainted with religiosity, cultural traditions nor your

own emotional experiences, but rather, search the scriptures for the heart and ways

of God. Whatever one's own disposition may be, the Holy Spirit will restore this vital

truth before the soon coming of Christ. Thus, there remains an urgent need to live

out this truth in words and in actions. Amen