General POLYGAMY IN TTHE LAW OF GOD - ANSWERING QUESTIONS

[meryc]

POLYGAMY IN THE LAW OF GOD - ANSWERING QUESTIONS
​

We know that besides what is addressed in God's Law, there are economic, cultural, historical, and even theological arguments to explain why God allowed male polygamy and - supposedly - prohibited it later. In part 1 of this text, we dealt with how the biblical Law actively defends polygamy. However, we defended the subject only within its internal structure, in the Law. We did this because even the New Testament says that sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), and without law, there is no sin (Romans 4:15 [meaning if God did not prohibit, it is not a sin]), so it is natural to address polygamy in God's Law first. However, there are various external questions to the law seeking to explain why God would allow polygamy at that time and then supposedly prohibit it later, considering that it was neither a ritual law nor related to the civil government of ancient Israel - things that are normally agreed to have passed.
In the text below, we will take another step to prove that God never intended to prohibit male polygamy, but rather, we were, because of certain circumstances and misinterpretations, led into this cultural reading of the Bible. However, below, we will not be extremely systematic, as we will only provide brief answers.
CULTURAL
Once again, Jacob, the son of Isaac, is accused of committing a great crime because he had four wives. But there is no basis for a criminal accusation here: for a plurality of wives was not a crime when it was customary; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, sins against customs, and sins against laws. In which of these senses, then, did Jacob sin by having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. By custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And by laws, there was no prohibition. The only reason it is now a crime to do so is because custom and laws prohibit it. Whoever disregards these restrictions, even if they use their wives only for having children, still commits sin and harms human society itself, for the sake of which the procreation of children is necessary. In the current altered state of customs and laws, men cannot take pleasure in a plurality of wives except out of excessive lust; and thus arises the mistake of supposing that no one could ever have had many wives except out of sensuality and vehement sinful desires. Augustine Against Faustus, XXII.47

Our Culture
Under the word "custom," we can understand the concept of "culture," so both are used almost synonymously. And here we have the first argument against polygamy thinking in this cultural context. Augustine, seeking to defend scripture against Roman and Greek sensibilities, creates a schizophrenic law in God, so that something that was not lust becomes so (based on human laws).
As we noted in our previous text, it makes no sense to accuse the Hebrews of merely following the culture of the time in which they lived. Now, who guarantees that the concern against polygamy is not itself influenced by the culture in which I live, and that the believers of the Old Testament were following God's permissions? The cultural argument is a mere assumption because there is no way to prove that something is from their culture or ours.
Whenever these men allege that something is a product of someone's culture and that our culture is distinct, they will always judge as sinful those who have a different culture from ours. This explains a lot.
Furthermore, Augustine subjects God's permissions and what is sin or not to cultural environment - that is why he is so loved by men who accuse customs in others. Look, even in the New Testament, sin is what contradicts the Law of God (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15 etc. - check our text "What is the Law of God?"). If Augustine says that now sin is also because we contradict customs, what would he do when the custom goes against something that God does not prohibit? What about believers who stand up against state orders that are not inherently sinful (such as wearing a mask)? Are all these in sin?
Finally, note that Augustine's concern (and that of many theologians) is that it "harms human society." This is proof of how Roman he was, and influenced by his own culture - just like men are today. Would God allow and even grant wives if this were actively harmful to human society?

Their Culture
Now, notice how flawed this argument is when we consider the cultural context of the Hebrews. You could even say that the cultural environment up to Jacob was polygamous (which would already be a lie), but you couldn't explain how, even after the Egyptians favored monogamy, there was still strong polygamy among the Hebrews to the point that God never contradicted it. Look, the Egyptians were monogamous (reason enough to explain Joseph's monogamy) and it was not allowed to marry more women in any way, except for common concubine relationships without marriage. Now, after years in Egypt, amid a monogamous culture, it would be much less difficult for God to prohibit polygamy among the Hebrews, given that they knew and grew up in this context. God, who requires us to do simple acts like giving thanks for what we eat (1 Timothy 4:1-5) to more difficult acts like putting an end to idols and adultery (Joshua 24:14 [text showing that the Israelites should not worship Egyptian deities]), never demanded an end to polygamy with regard to the culture of others.
We could still argue and say that the Canaanites were polygamous and that, therefore, the Hebrews absorbed this from their culture. But in Leviticus, which warns against practicing the works of the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:3), there is no warning against polygamous practices. Let's look carefully:
After the doings [customs] of the land of Egypt [which were monogamous], wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan [which were probably polygamous], whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. (Leviticus 18:3)

Should I not be monogamous or should I not be polygamous? Well, that's not the subject of the text, because when God enumerates the sexual acts practiced by the Canaanites, among none of them is male polygamy being prohibited. We see prohibition against:
- Relations with any relative (v. 6) or mother (v. 7, 8); with sister (by father or mother - v. 9 [Abraham did this]); with grandsons (v. 10); with nieces (v. 11); sister, daughter of your mother and father (v. 12 - already presuming possible polygamy of the father); with single or married aunt (v. 13, 14); with daughter-in-law or wife of your brother (v. 15, 16); with daughter and mother (v. 17); and with grandsons and granddaughters (v. 17); a woman with her sister (v. 18 [Jacob did this]); and during menstruation (v. 19); with another man's wife (v. 20); and finally, a man with another man or animal (v. 23, 24).
When the text decides to talk about the works of the Canaanites and Egyptians, no verse condemns polygamy; instead, it condemns other practices of these peoples that God calls sin. This would be the perfect time for God to prohibit polygamy, since He Himself is seeking to prohibit what the Canaanites did among themselves. Still, we see that culturally Israel had the baggage to form a monogamous people, and God did not make the slightest effort for this to be terminated among His people.
Note: Some may argue that all cultures were polygamous because they accepted concubinage. But this is false; concubinage was a common practice among Greeks, Romans (the founders of Western monogamy), and even slave owners recently. The point is that concubinage (a stable sexual relationship with a slave) is different from marriage (which implies liberation from slavery). A practical example is Leviticus 19:20, where a slave woman who is engaged does not suffer the death penalty for adultery, but if she is freed and still engaged, she does (as Tamar would have suffered the death penalty in Genesis). From our modern monogamous standpoint, Israel allowing concubinage and contractual polygamy would be an even greater cruelty than that of the surrounding peoples, who only tolerated concubinage. This shows that if God wanted to, He could regulate only concubinage and avoid progress in marriage contracts, but He approved both.

A reminder that God's Law is universal
Notice that God is judging the Canaanites by a law that had not been given to them in writing (Leviticus 18:25). God Himself says that the Canaanites are being condemned for these practices (Leviticus 20:23). Moreover, when God revolts against the "customs of other nations," He clearly delineates throughout the entire chapter what these customs are:
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:23)

Not wanting to lose the debate to Faustus, Augustine contradicted God to establish his own custom and not sound to his enemy like a sexual deviant, as the Romans thought the Jews were. However, note that God's Law is universal, and therefore God condemns the Canaanites even though they had never heard of Hebrew customs. As we can see, if polygamy were condemned by God, it would be universally condemned, not just by custom.
Furthermore, the Babylonians (who later took Israel into captivity), Greeks (who even had a calculation to prove that marriage is between one man and one woman, even if the woman dies), and Romans were all monogamous. Of course, all this was by state imposition; after all, in the short term, monogamy proves to be economically viable and more controllable. Ironically, Rome only had difficulty controlling the Jews and the Persians (who were indeed polygamous). Israel had larger and more developed cultures steeped in monogamy. Do you really think it would have been "the culture of the time" that would have created in the Hebrews the need for polygamy?
Note: Among the followers of Pythagoras, it was conventioned that the number 2 was feminine and the 3 was masculine, with the number 5 being equivalent to marriage, so that going beyond or falling short of this number would be a distortion of marriage (my goodness, where did they get that from?). Cf. this information here (https://www.britannica.com/topic/numbersymbolism/Pythagoreanism). The Egyptians were culturally monogamous; the Babylonians were due to economic necessity; the Greeks for philosophical reasons, and the Romans for legal reasons (imagine the difficulty of dividing inheritance under state control for polygamous families?). We are not saying that things were exactly like this, after all, there were legal, philosophical, economic, etc. reasons in all cases. But some things are more evident in certain environments, besides, historically, there may be a lack of information (it may be that the Egyptians were more so for legal reasons, but due to lack of access to materials proving this, it is presumed to be a mere acceptance by custom).

PASSIONS
And she [Sarah] gave her servant to her husband not to satisfy his passion, but to give him offspring. Augustine, Against Faustus, XXII, 33

Greek Asceticism
Greek asceticism was one of those ideas that man should avoid his "passions." Not without reason, Augustine equates "sin" and "passion" in his book On Free Will. Well, it is said that passion is sin, but in what sense is this? Because, according to current theologians, all disordered passion is sin. When, in fact, God strongly resonates that sin is the transgression of a law, that is, crossing a line. Who can say what the appropriate level of passion is? However, the desire for another man's wife, strong or weak, is sin, regardless of the level of desire. Do you see how clear and direct God's Law is regarding "passions"? Passion is just one of those philosophical categories that entered Christianity and made it domesticated.
Auguste Comte, an 'atheist', who believed that we are living in the rational phase of humanity, was against remarriage, even after the death of any of the partners, something he called successive polygamy (what did he have in common with the church fathers? Greek Philosophy, of course) - all because he believed that reason favors unity and symmetry. Unity and symmetry are good tools for science, but not for theology, which is based on how God orders things and not on how we want to understand them (which is always the supposedly simpler path). For their dialectic, a man cannot love more than one woman - much foolishness and contradiction with the biblical text, especially if we look at the Song of Solomon, written by Solomon after having several wives... the most romantic and loving book in the Bible is the result of polygamous love, unlike this dialectical asceticism. In the end, monogamy is favored by philosophy in Christianity and not by the Scriptures.
How can anyone say there is passion when a man marries two women? God himself married two, when he married with the northern Israel and Judah (Ezekiel 23), would God be condemned as a sinner for "yielding" to passions? Furthermore, this nonsense presumes that a man needs to be restrained, that is, he has to be content with what he has. Nowhere in the Scriptures is this said, except when your desire to possess something is the desire to possess something that belongs to someone else, not what is for sale, for example. If contentment means being satisfied with the minimum, let us leave our homes, jobs, and the money we earn, which is greater than at any time in the history of the world, and turn to "Christian" asceticism, which only serves to condemn the innocent.

Roman Virginity - the goddess
Furthermore, what would you say if you knew that the main Roman deity, for a long time, was worshipped as "always virgin"? Vesta, the most popular Roman deity, was so because she proposed an ideal life for women and in the home: she was a virgin, and the loss of virginity could even cost her life. It is not without reason that in Rome believers were extremely concerned about virginity... If you knew how much we borrowed from the Romans, you would be amazed.
Anyway, if a woman should be a virgin (in the Roman's mind) so should the man be, therefore, if they were priests, it would certainly not be a good thing to marry and also not to have sexual relationships. Roman culture, despite being very sexually open, had among its ideals "sexual purity," something that was only not more popular because it needed a religion that sufficiently influenced people. Now, after this religion arrived, everyone started to hide their sexual life (okay, it's true that the practice of unrestrained sex decreased). Do you really think these sexual passions would be allowed by God and suddenly prohibited in the NT, coincidentally in the Roman milieu? Suspicious, very suspicious...
This goddess was so relevant to the Romans that Livy, Plutarch, Dionysius, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus considered her in high esteem; not to mention the Twelve Tables of Rome (Lex Duodecim Tabularum) - fundamental to Roman Law - which in the fifth table still dedicates itself to taking care of the possessions of the virgins of Vesta, so valuable was this goddess and the virginity associated with her. Something that makes total sense, since Vesta would be the "founder" mother of Rome. Thus, all Roman culture revolved under pressure around this ideal of purity. In the end, we eliminated idolatry, as no one even knows anymore who Vesta would have been, but the custom continued, and we still think that the ideal is what we learned from Roman culture.
Oh, the Romans went through population crises, that is, their people were getting very old and the birth rate began to fall (ironically, at some moments they believed the world was too full of people... it's too many people for the State to manage, that's all). Monogamous peoples that last a long time tend to have this tendency to fall in birth rates. They are excellent for growing economically and culturally fast, but they die slowly.
Anyway, Vesta pointed to an ideal of purity, with "fornication" being a great problem for the Romans, something that included polygamous marriage, by extension. You see, the sense of purity and lack of passion comes from Roman culture and Greek philosophy, with their greatest ideals resulting in a supposed sexual purity that avoids polygamy. We are heirs of Greek and Roman morality - and that's why we are afraid of male polygamy.
Ironically, medieval priests had a little less fear. Based on passages like 1 Timothy 3:1, which prohibited the bishop from having more than one wife, many, along with their wives, included concubines. But of course, neither the reformers nor the Catholics will add this part of history to their books - something we will consider at the end of this chapter.

Disgust and ugliness
Some may still say how disgusting it is to imagine two women in bed with one man, emphasizing that this is purely driven by passion, as even Jacob did not lie with Leah and Rachel at the same time. Of course, he wouldn't lie with both, they were competing with each other! Didn't you read the previous text? This is only disgusting to our modern culture, focused on the concept that desire for many things is passion and, therefore, ugly (applying aesthetics to God's orders) and even disgusting.
This argument is characteristic of women who assimilate things based on what they see and feel, that is, they cannot judge beyond appearances, at least not normally (it is good to place these observations at the end because there is always someone with exceptions, which prove nothing beyond the rule we are showing - if there is an exception, it is because "there is a rule"). Such a thing is as foolish as it is weak, highlighting our sensitivity and not what the biblical text allows. I imagine Solomon having to have relations with one woman at a time out of the thousand... what a complicated life it would be to follow this rule.

 

[meryc]

ECONOMY AND POLITICS
It's obvious that monogamy favors the economy in the short term.
This shouldn't even be up for discussion! We're not talking about political or economic science; we're talking about what God calls sin and what is not sin! It might be that buying a car strains you financially and perhaps even leads to bankruptcy, but that's not because buying a car is inherently sinful; it was just an inefficient way of managing your money. If monogamy favors the economy, it's not because of reasons of holiness or lack thereof, but rather because it promotes a family-oriented outlook.
Consider this example from Paul on how monogamy and even singleness promote an outward focus beyond the family:
But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:33)

The persecuted Church should never be too concerned about large families, as Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 7, because a married man is concerned with pleasing his wife (and the more wives, the more he needs to do for the family). What Paul instructed wasn't something exclusive to his knowledge, as governments before him sought to control marriage and childbirth, as this would lead people to better serve the state and social ends. Therefore, it's natural that monogamy favors any objective outside of the family, whether it be "the kingdom," the economy, the state, GDP, among other things outside the family realm.
Note: We could further change it to: "the married man is concerned with pleasing his wife, not with serving the state (polis)." Ironically, Plato was against the private ownership of women (being the property of one man – polyandry) so that, having no private possessions, men would dedicate themselves fully to the polis. This is clearly stated in his book "The Republic" (423e–424a: "all these women shall be common wives to all the men, and none shall live privately with any man; the children shall also be common, so that no father shall know his own offspring, nor any son his father"). For Plato (and the Greeks), even having a wife or husband would be an impediment if you are a guardian of the city. Quite intriguing, isn't it? Monogamy takes power away from the family, and we will see this as we discuss the prophets.
Calling polygamy a sin because of economics proves that we love money more than truth and the Law of God. These same people are the ones who love it when others are poor for the benefit of the church, but want to destroy the family that God allows us to have.

The State does not permit, and we must obey the authorities.
It is true that we must obey all authorities that God has placed over us, this is undeniable, mainly based on the fact that authorities are instituted by God (Romans 13:1 onwards). The problem begins with the limit of obedience. Now, we saw in the previous text that even though Egypt was monogamous, Israel multiplied polygamously under the power of Pharaoh, although Joseph remained monogamous. Furthermore, in the New Testament, it is quite evident how Paul argues, avoiding unnecessary friction with authorities.
So, where is the line that allows me to marry polygamously in a contrary State? The issue is simple: first and foremost, it is not considering male polygamy a sin. If you do that, no matter what the State says, you will never judge your brother unfairly, bearing false witness against him; instead, you will know that even if you may be disobeying a human authority, you are not breaking any of God's commandments regarding family establishment.
Secondly, the text of Exodus 1 allows us to notice that the common population has the right given by God to have their wives in a polygamous manner, while state authorities (like Joseph) must be exemplary models of the state structure, therefore avoiding polygamy in a government that prohibits it. The more politically prominent a Christian is, the less desire he should have for polygamous marriage, unless he lives in a state that permits it (the opposite of this may even provoke religious persecution).
But notice how these Christians who prohibit polygamous marriage in a monogamous state are hypocrites: what do they do when it is said that they should preach to Muslims (who are polygamous)? That marriage as taught by God is monogamous, even though Muslim states allow a man to have up to four wives. By their hypocritical standard, in such a state it would only be a sin if a man had five wives. What will these men do if the government stops prohibiting polygamy? Clearly, they will not submit to authority, condemning themselves in what they claim to approve.
Note: Remember that, according to Scripture, the marriage contract is made between the husband (or his parents) and the parents of the woman, so the fact that the State does not issue the marriage contract does not mean that there is no marriage. Marriage occurs independently of the State, and its bureaucracy should be obeyed, but we cannot confuse what the State calls marriage with what Scripture calls marriage. We do not want to rebel against human governments, only to properly distinguish between what God permits and what man establishes.

THEOLOGY
The theological arguments are almost as poor as the previous ones. But they usually have one thing that the previous ones don't: that real sense of piety, self-denial, and (unnecessary?) suffering that every believer should have. The appearance of piety should not be a reason for us to cling to things, nor should the appearance of wickedness (which we sometimes think exists in something that God did not prohibit).

The need for Christ's birth
Did Christ have to be born? Of course! It's the promise of Genesis 3:15, that He would come from the woman. However, some theologians say that God allowed polygamy to facilitate the birth of Christ (I don't even know how that would make sense). But the same text that is fundamental is the one that refutes them. Look, Genesis 3:15 is the only text that speaks of the "seed of the woman" instead of the seed of man (to Abraham, for example, the promise of descendants is through his seed). Considering that women do not ejaculate sperm, this must mean something, as it is excluding man from the equation (and logically, the need for polygamy) – and showing that the birth of the Savior would, as already demonstrated here in Genesis 3, be virgin, without the need for male seed.
There is no reason to believe that Jesus would only be born because of polygamy, first because of what we saw above, since there was no need for a man for the birth of Christ, secondly, we only need to read Matthew 1 to notice that the genealogy of Jesus never needs “two women at the same time”, but only one after the other, that is, a descendant of the previous one.

Genesis 2 is God's ideal
We have already explained Genesis 2, but here is a detail: were the prophets stupid? Now, Jesus himself says, in Matthew 19, that what God created is the way things should be, and he charges the Pharisees and his disciples (remember that Jesus was still under the OT), so it makes no sense we say that Genesis 2 was a mystery to OT believers. By the way, the text is so clear that it should make monogamists suspicious of the monogamy present in the text without anyone noticing it in the entire OT.
Everyone points to Genesis 2, a text that says there is one woman for only one man. We have nothing here that resembles a great hidden, mysterious work or one that needed more revelations: the text was there. Thus, those who need to prove how Genesis 2 passed eons without being understood are precisely those who defend monogamy.
Some will still say that as God tolerated divorce, so he tolerated polygamy. This comparison is foolish, because, as we argued in our text on Divorce and Marriage, in the law it was clear that divorce was given out of hardness of heart, but that the strict practice of it is not and will never be a sin in itself (apart from the fact that it not annul the marriage). Now, if this is the conclusion of divorce, it could certainly be polygamy, since they want to make use of the comparisons. Furthermore, God never gave divorce as a gift to anyone, but he gave women to David as a prize: now, what is that? It is clear proof that the comparison of polygamy with divorce makes no sense at all, unless, of course, you believe in advance that both polygamous marriage and divorce are sins.

Believing in polygamy when you get to the biblical text is a recipe for thinking it is right
But the monogamist comes to the text believing that monogamy is God's standard, and accuses us of coming to the text believing in polygamy: hypocrites always accuse themselves when they accuse others. Can't you see that you have come to the biblical text believing that monogamy is God's standard? Now, if it is God's standard, the analysis of the biblical text itself will prove it, but this does not happen, because whether we arrive at the text believing in polygamy or not, it is there. If you think about this, you don't need to read the following texts, as you are already closed in your cultural understanding, and does not agree with the biblical text.

The mercy of God – who only had mercy on this sin: double standards?
Still others will say that it was always a sin, but because of God's mercy the thing was postponed until the New Testament. Such argument, in addition to being foolish, is indecent. When, in the NT, God recognizes that ignorance or lack of knowledge is an argument for mercy, this is said already considering the existence of the law on those sins (Acts 17:30), it would not make sense that God, the perfect God, of suddenly changed his mind, and began to treat and teach things differently.
Even, for example, there is no sin where there is no law, men suffered the consequences of their mistakes. Jacob, who married two sisters, had them in dispute all the time (Lev 18:18), never something passed without some consequence.
However, polygamy is still practiced even today in the world without any consequences. God and his Law are the ones who are despised in their permissions. Furthermore, what would it be if God allowed one sin and not another? One weight and two measures?
Now, the wages of sin is death (Rm 6:23), therefore, we cannot assume that for all other sins God established the death penalty, but left only this one unpunished. This even contradicts those who often tell us that we cannot have pet sins! If God allows this sin out of some necessity, then God has a pet sin. As we have seen, God condemned all types of sexual sin even in Leviticus, and never refrained from condemning anything, no matter how small it seemed. Men's conclusion about God's lack of condemnation for this is just one of those evidences that what speaks loudest in them is a moral sense inherited from pagans and not from God.

Christ only has one wife
Christ has only one wife in the New Testament (just in case, since in the OT God has two...), so this can only point to the need for our marriage to agree with Christ's - say the monogamists.
But nowhere does it say that we are to imitate the marriage of Christ and the Church in all aspects, but rather that wives should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives. The numerical relationship has never been presented as a model of Christ's marriage for man.
These same people who argue like this are against women blindly obeying their husbands, although in the relationship between Christ and the church, the church must follow Christ “blindly”. I could add a million things that these same people do not accept in the relationship between Christ and the church applied between husband and wif(v)e(s): could our union be only spiritual? Could the man leave and “come back after a while”? Certainly not... but for their own reason they want the example of Christ and the church to apply to the numerical aspect.
I could even question it in another way: if Christ wants, couldn't he have another church like God did with Israel and Judah? See that the problem is clear and simple: can the church be jealous of Christ? It wouldn't even make sense to ask this, but there are so many enemies with so many questions that we cannot ignore some nuances.
Furthermore, if Christ were depicted with two wives, that would confuse everything even more! See, the church must have unity. How is unity represented in the marriage between Christ and his people? Only if Christ has “one people”, “one church” and, therefore, “one woman”. God even when it comes to his polygamous marriage with Israel and Judah, does so because there was division among the people, causing the need for it to be explained in this way. We know that division is bad, so in the case of God with his people two wives mean “division”; however, as for men it means “multiplication” (as we noted when commenting on Exodus 1).

Progressive Revelation
It is not uncommon to say that the progress of revelation makes this distinction between the prohibition in the OT and the NT, but as we have already argued in other texts on our website, revelation is not the same as law. God revealed to Paul things that no believer had access to, and Paul continued to keep it to himself (2 Cor 12). Now, if this were a law, Paul would sin in keeping it to himself, since God's counsel cannot be restricted. As these men do not understand that the Law of God ends in Deuteronomy, they can only read the Bible from the perspective of “sin / not sin” and not “sin / wisdom / administration”, for example, making believers sinners of things that, eventually, the bible just says that it would be good not to do (but not because of sin).
Even so, if we still consider the progression of revelation, nothing will change, for as we will prove in the following texts (the next being about polygamy in the prophets), God is consistent in allowing polygamy in both the OT and NT, and the progress of revelation only reinforces this, otherwise it would not be progress, but a return. In our texts on The Divisions of Scripture and on Scripture in the First Chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith we make it clear that it is not without reason that only the “Law” (the pentateuch) is called “law”, therefore, what it does not prohibit cannot be a sin – these texts are in our book on the Westminster Confession of Faith and on False Sins.
Note: there is an argument, usually from liberals, that polygamy existed because of Israel's tribal context. In addition to the fact that “tribal” means nothing as an argument, this would imply that something about “civilization” is right. However, the civilized Greeks and Romans were the ones who had idolatrous festivals and used magic in rituals to false gods. On the other hand, the Greeks, as long as we know, were monogamous even when they were still tribes, so what relationship would be truly tribal?

 

[meryc]

HISTORICAL-THEOLOGICAL
The need to populate the Earth
God would have allowed it to populate the Earth – the polite man’s argument. The problem is that we know what God allowed to populate the Earth. For example, we know that one brother marrying another is a sin (Lev. 18:9, 11), but the children of Adam intermarried (because, as Paul was tired of saying: where there is no law there is no transgression – Rom 4:15 [precisely speaking of this period before Moses]). Thus Abraham married Sarah, being his sister, and Moses' father married his own aunt (Ex 6:20), this being prohibited afterwards (Lev 18:14) - all this so that the Earth could be populated, otherwise, everything would end with the children of Adam and Eve. But where is the prohibition on polygamy? If these things could have been allowed for population growth, where is the ban on all of them? It doesn't make sense for God to use double standards on this... and only on this.
Furthermore, the only text that would actually lead us to directly believe that God's goal with polygamy would be to populate the earth is Genesis 25, in which Abraham marries Keturah. But even this text would not prove that this is the objective of polygamy, since Abraham had already lost Sarah there and, on top of that, we have no way of knowing whether Hagar was alive.
Therefore, the only text favorable to understanding does not favor this understanding.

The Church has always seen it this way, it is our tradition
This argument is full of a series of assumptions, so I will only dwell on one or two points (aside from this being a variation on the first cultural argument):
That the church always saw it this way after the closure of the NT is no surprise.
As we noted, the philosophical and cultural environment favored this thinking in the church (do you think only OT believers made mistakes?). The Church Fathers, in a revolt against Judaism, also wanted to get rid of Jewish interpretations and, in order to avoid a hermeneutical vacuum, it was necessary to adapt Greek and Roman philosophy to the biblical text and vice versa.
What we had was this invasion, without mental freedom from the Greek notion of marriage.
And why should I worry about that? Christ himself showed that if we do not believe in the law it is not possible to believe in him (John 5:46), he never said that we should believe in the history of the church, or in the members in particular, as a definitive form. The history of the church is not a good judge, as we have men who condemned the marriage of a priest as adultery (saying he was married to the church – making it an adulteress [as she is married to Christ]) and men (believers?) like Charles The Great and the city of Münster with polygamous practice. This madness that the history of the church resolves things is only possible for those who make the cuts they want from history to favor their own philosophy and not to agree with Scripture.

Note: we follow a type of “Solo Scriptura”, but not the type that denies that we cannot learn from the history of the church, after all, we only know some things because someone else told us, since we had not noticed them in the biblical text! However – the Romans argue – only the church attests to Scripture. But they themselves say that Catholicism was founded by Christ's words to Peter, making him the founder of Roman Catholicism (RC). If this is true, then the Church itself is founded by Scripture (where such speech is recorded), and these arguments of material sufficiency, etc., will make no difference. The opposite of this is to fall into the circularity argument (which Romans hate [because of philosophy], but which God uses on his Scripture, which attests to his own inspiration). Another detail is that the OT only came to us, in part, because of the care of the Pharisees, who kept it with great 'affection'. You see, the very text they preserved contradicted them in both its letter and spirit, so we cannot assume that because the RC may have been relevant to the preservation of the biblical text will automatically mean that it cannot be contradicted by it. The Scripture is the only book that can “spit on the plate it ate” (isn’t it the Bible that kept condemning the Israelites, the same ones who received the Scripture from God?). Ultimately, we are arguing that there has clearly been no consistent defense of polygamy throughout church history, so how could we cite “respectable men” on the issue? What authority could help us? Furthermore, the authority of the lesser always comes from the greater, and if Scripture favors polygamy, it is the highest authority on our belief, not individual men throughout the history of the church – their authority adds nothing to Scripture. Only someone stupid would expect arguments from other men on a subject that clearly has not been handled well during the history of the church.



God's mercy towards women in a patriarchal society

Oh, enlightened people of the 21st century, what would become of God and his Law if we had not, only after at least 6 thousand years of human history, reached the end of this patriarchal way of life. We are the enlightened, unique ones, to whom God revealed things that had never been said before! – foolishness.

Other peoples were monogamous and yet everything worked out well in patriarchal cultures. It makes no sense that God allowed this to Israel because of something that was not practiced among neighboring peoples under the same circumstances. What a bad situation Israel was in, that while other nations did not need polygamy to take care of women, the Hebrews had to practice it...

God's mercy is demonstrated by the fact that such a polygamous relationship is not a sin and never will be.



Only wicked people have practiced polygamy recently

Okay, I know that Luther approved of polygamy, as he himself says:

I confess that I cannot prohibit a person from marrying several wives, as this does not contradict Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one woman he must be asked if he is satisfied with this decision in his conscience, so that he does so in accordance with the word of God. In such a situation the civil authority has nothing to interfere. Martin Luther, De Wette II



But that doesn't mean anything, because it is easier for men to turn against Luther and say that he is impious than to accept that we are the ones who are wrong.

But let's collaborate with the monogamists:

The woman considered the grandmother of modern Feminism accepted male polygamy, and her name was Mary Wollstonecraft. In 1772, she found himself in a strange circumstance with Henry Fuseli, so she approached Henry's wife asking her so that they could enter into a polygamous relationship (note that I avoid using the term 'polyamory', because the term is more political and allows for a relationship polygamous by both men and women). However, Mary did not force Henry's wife, who just did not accept the relationship. Unfortunately, they could have had a very happy marriage, and perhaps feminism would have taken longer to emerge (we believe that feminism is simply a natural development of how our culture is related to marriage).

Anyone who reads Mary's materials will notice that she would actually be against modern feminism, as she defended sexual purity, marriage and demanded that women work and study well, and not pick fights with men and husbands. However, none of this will make any difference to the monogamous movement, which sees things ideologically, and thinks that every defense of polygamy is a sin or the fruit of a sin.

There is no argument against this, not because we don't have evidence of faithful polygamous men, but because being polygamous automatically throws you onto the spectrum of sexual pervert and immoral.



SOME JOYS OF POLYGAMY

It is clear that we do not want to make this text long, as it is a mere complement to part 1, but we cannot finish it without highlighting some points that experience itself has demonstrated in the lives of polygamous families. Oh, and please don't confuse this with the polygamy of sects like Mormonism, Islam (which is nothing more than a “Christian” sect) and Judaizers, these do not really know the Law of God, as they oscillate on invented revelations and traditions.

And God has not revealed anything new since the end of Israel, in the year 70 AD. And, as the prophecies were intended for the Jews and early Christians (Rom 3:1, 2; 1 Cor 14:21, 22 [Paul quotes the Law showing that these gifts were for a sign of the judgment that would occur upon the Jews], Dn 9:24 ['to seal' the vision and prophecy is to close them after the judgment predicted in Daniel 9 {1 Cor 13:9, 10 also predicts this same closing of prophecies and visions}]), we should not wait for God to give new revelations, rather, let him confront us with his word.



End distrust and stress

In the previous text we saw that Numbers 5 proves that only a man can be jealous in marriage, which, otherwise, shows the lack of need for women to live in jealousy of their husbands, distrust and fear. As the apostle Peter himself clearly puts it, the woman is the weakest vessel (1 Pet 3:7), so it is expected that she will not be able to deal with feelings of jealousy, stress and distrust in the same way that a man eventually deals with it. Now, polygamy would not only produce less stressed and jealous women, but happier and more contented women, knowing that they don't need to keep checking their husband's clothes, cell phones and smells, in the expectation that he is cheating on her. In a world where polygamy is common, unnecessary suffering on the part of women is not a necessity.

The same goes, in a way, for men, who are sad because they desire girls (not married women) who they would like to be their wives. Internal struggles, “identity” conflicts, sadness over a sin that doesn’t exist and tiredness with life are common things for a man who has no right to have another wife, as he only thinks of himself as evil and how incapable he is to follow this commandment of God (which is nothing more than human tradition).



Help at home

Another interesting case is that of help at home. For example, in the USA, although there are laws against polygamy, it is not uncommon to find polygamous Christian families, and in some, the husband even needs to spend long periods away from home (I'm talking about those called up for war, for example). In a case like this, a woman alone (perhaps with a child) is at the mercy of distant relatives or the care of some friends. None of this is a problem in a polygamous relationship, where the two wives (or more) help each other, with one comforting the other and helping around the house.

The truth is that, although monogamy encourages a man to look outside the home, it is in polygamy that he can achieve a better balance of household care. Of course, on the other hand, you will have a greater need to divide your attention, as you cannot wait to get home and always have one or two women to have sex with. Rather, he must be cordial and live the home life (1 Peter 3:7).

Therefore, polygamy ensures that the need for men to produce within the home decreases in the sense that they do not need to take care of household chores as much as in monogamy, on the other hand, there is a greater need to “spend quality time”, as they will now have two or more women with whom to share attention and moments.



Child care

Taking care of children is, without a doubt, one of the most difficult, especially depending on the type of things parents want for them. Polygamy does not cause confusion in children's minds, rather, it points out to them even better the role of male leadership and female submission – everything becomes much clearer. It also becomes easier on an educational level (a great modern concern, but not a sin, of course), since now he can have the capacity and teaching of “two mothers”, instead of one who, perhaps, would not be able to handle or wouldn't know some things. United families tend to be stronger, even more so if that particular family's concern is homeschooling.



Man's contentment

In our culture we learn that contentment is a merely internal thing, something that only exists if we are totally selfless and dedicated to poverty and as little as possible sexually (some Church Fathers would say that sex is only for reproduction and nothing else – it was a necessary evil). We inherited this, in a way, from the Middle Ages, in which the number of festivities frequently prohibited sexual relations, making men more prone to sexual violence, due to the pressure imposed on them, not only from wars, but also because of the most of 100 annual festivals that implied an obligation of 'chastity' (again, presupposing the impurity of sex). Ironically, it was the Puritans who most strongly broke this excessive Roman Catholic preoccupation, although they maintained various levels of 'sexual purity' that were also not necessary.

However, this is not our topic, I mentioned it just to note that we have great difficulty accepting that someone (a man in particular) can have a high sexual desire and, therefore, needs greater satisfaction. This was supposed to be something normal, because while one is not satisfied with a number of things and seeks more without sinning for it, it is natural that someone may desire more in the sexual area. A man with two wives may have double problems (like Jacob), but he would also have double blessings, considering that whoever finds a wife finds a blessing from God (Pr 18:22). We cannot ignore that a man like this lives more satisfied, and may even have more children, creating a happier family.



Focus on the home

One of the modern concerns is that women and men are less and less focused on the home. The novelty of this is that this information is now being disseminated, but, as we noted in Plato's Republic, this objective was present in older societies, in which the maximum commitment of men to war or politics was sought. The opposite, however, which is the case with polygamy, creates an internal focus, that is, in the home, seeking the care of wives and children. Now, this doesn't mean that every polygamous family will be like that any more than it means that a monogamous family is necessarily outward-looking. We're talking about general focus, and unless you're so nominalist that you don't notice general influences, it's obvious that we're not talking about absolute cases: the world is not a square.

Note that even if women work outside the home, there will be no need for both of them to work or for them to have jobs that require long hours (as is commonly the case in Brazil: 8 hours). See that this creates a cycle: women are less dependent on working outside the home, and can be more at ease at home, with their common tasks, in a calmer life. We are not called to a vocational mission in the business world (in the popular sense that became common idea because of the Puritans); we are just people wanting to live a peaceful and ordinary life (1 Tim 2:2). Chesterton himself says something curious, relevant to our context, which is the (popular) idea that women are slaves when they serve their husbands, but free when they obey their masters – as if the latter were focused on their total well-being. We don't need to surrender to this type of life outside the home, on a mission that isn't ours, in a fight that we didn't buy.

The focus on the home will be the result and the cause of our joy in a world in which male polygamy is practiced and not accused, giving women more security that their husband's other relationships will be within the contract and even decreasing the chance of bringing diseases from outside the home.

In our next text we will return to the pure biblical text, exposing polygamy in the Prophets (counting the books called “historical”) and we will see how we can learn from them what God did not prohibit in his Law.



One last observation

However, before we conclude, I need to mention something:

The fact that the matter is so clear, that is, that polygamy is not a sin, may make you afraid, after all, it seems like we are reinventing the wheel. The problem is that we cannot have such fear, precisely because we know that our entire history is and was like this: forgotten things are always brought to light.

On the other hand, we also don't want you to become some kind of polygamy templar, fighting against conspiracies that supposedly seek to hush up this issue. Although there may be systematic suppression, you better live a peaceful life on this subject than suffer pains because of it now.

Therefore, when fighting with these men we do not argue as if they were part of a corrupt religious system, I am much more willing to peace than to conflict, even if I occasionally use stronger language, due to the heat of the argument.

Thus, I step out of the way of God's truth, so that it shines alone. And if, by chance, it does not become a 'success' now, it is because it is not God's will that such a subject should still be known and defended by his church. It may be that God wants to leave this blessing for another time or for another generation. Even if, we believe, no work we do in God is wasted: therefore, at least, we believe that the present work will be useful to someone - to someone who perhaps suffers over such a matter and despairs alone without finding relief for his own soul. in men.

We must be patient, because the world does not depend on this to exist. Injustice, it is true, leaves us amazed, sad and tired, but we must pray to God asking that men have their understanding open to what is in the Word of the Lord and which cannot be ignored. Be a man.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that nothing suggests that male polygamy is against good experience;

Most arguments against polygamy are shortsighted, as they see the world only from our perspective;

Male polygamy favors joy and stability in the home, when practiced according to the structure permitted by God.​