One Man, Multiple Women - What the Bible Has to Say About Polygamy

Polygamy was never outlawed in the OT. I challenge anyone to show me in the Mosaic Law where God outlawed it! You won’t find it! In fact, God made laws around it instead of directly against it! Not only were God’s people allowed to be polygamous, but did you know that at one point in time, Catholic priests were once polygamous, too?! It’s true – let’s look at an article written by Dr John Oakes,

“Why did celibacy become mandatory for priests?

Posted on July 11, 2005 by John Oakes wrote in Church History, General.

Why did celibacy become mandatory for priests?

Let me start by copying and pasting an answer to a similar

question received previously. You will find the rest of my answer to your

specific question after the following:

Can you tell me when the Catholic church started insisting its priests

were celibate?

How celibacy became common and why it became required are two very

different things. In the third and fourth centuries it became common in

primitive Christianity for men to choose asceticism as a way of expressing

their devotion to God. Asceticism is a general term to describe the

philosophy that one becomes close to God through radically denying oneself

the pleasures of life. Asceticism throughout history has included

celibacy, ritualistic fasting, cloistering (removal from all outside human

contact in monasteries), willful injury of oneself (walking on knees many

miles, cutting oneself in places where Jesus was wounded, etc.), becoming

a hermit, purposefully wearing only rags, The list could go on.

Celibacy has certainly not been limited to Christianity. The Essenes were

an ascetic Jewish sect active at the time of Jesus Christ. Hinduism,

Buddhism and especially Jaina are world religions which have inspired many

to turn to asceticism.

Getting back to Christianity, there was a strong movement in

Christianity toward asceticism by the third century AD. This was

especially dominant in the North African churches. Many, in their

misguided, but perhaps sincere desire to become godly chose to become

hermits, to practice celibacy and so forth. By the fourth and fifth

centuries, orders of monks became common, including vows of celibacy and

poverty.

During this time, one might be surprised that celibacy amongst

priests was not overwhelmingly common. In fact, in the eighth, ninth and

tenth centuries AD, polygamy and concubinage was very common amongst Roman

Catholic priests. Eventually, Rome even sanctioned catholic priests

taking a second wife if their first became sick. However, this clear

violation of biblical teaching led to a problem. With so many children of

priests running around, inheritance became a huge problem. In an effort

to protect church property, Pelagius I required all priests to sign an

agreement not to allow any of their children to inherit church property.

In AD 1022 Pope Benedict VIII officially declared that priests were banned

from taking on wives or mistresses in order to protect church property

rights, although those who were married before entering the priesthood

were allowed to keep their wives. Finally, in AD 1139, Pope Innocent II

declared all priest marriages annulled, declaring celibacy the rule for

all Catholic priests from that day forward. To be fair to Innocent II,

his reforms were at least as much directed toward eliminating the blatant

sin in the priesthood as toward protecting church property. There were a

number of attempts from within the catholic priesthood to reinstate

marriage as a possibility right up until the sixteenth century.

To summarize, asceticism in general and asceticism in particular

were begun as a very misguided but probably mostly sincere attempt by some

early Christians to express their spirituality. When celibacy was finally

enforced for the priesthood it was principally as a rather cynical means

of protecting church property from inheritance by the children of priests.

As a final note, consider two passages from the New Testament

which have bearing on the foolishness of asceticism as a means of

spirituality. Colossians 2:20-23 teaches that asceticism – the enforced

denial of normal (but not sinful) human pleasure has absolutely no value

in protecting us from real temptation. Also 1 Timothy 4:1-5 teaches that

those who seek to enforce asceticism (specifically celibacy, fasting from

certain foods and so forth) are from deceitful spirits and doctrines of

demons. Let us not fall into this temptation.

John Oakes, PhD

Let me add to this slightly in response to your question.

First of all, the whole idea of a separate priesthood in Christianity

whose function is to somehow act as a representative and go-between for

normal Christians to come to God is completely foreign to the

Christianity of the Bible. 1 Peter 2:4-10 describes all Christians as a

royal priesthood. The idea of a disciple of Jesus coming to God through

the mediation of a human being is anathema to biblical teaching, as seen

from 1 Timothy 2:5, For there is one God and one mediator between God and

men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all men.

and other passages.

The idea of celibacy of the priesthood implies the existence of a

separate priesthood within the ranks of Christians. This concept is not

found in the New Testament. It is diametrically opposed to New Testament

teaching. For this reason, it may be an interesting historical question

where the teaching of celibacy for the priesthood of the Roman Catholic

church came from. However, for the purpose of pursuing a relationship

with God through Jesus Christ, it is not a relevant question. A better

question is whether it is a good thing for a priest of God (ie any

Christian) to be celibate. But that is another question.

John Oakes

(Source: https://evidenceforchristianity.org/why-did-celibacy-become-mandatory-for-priestsr/, bold and underline mine)

So, it would seem that, instead of it being about morality, celibacy was pushed on the priests for reasons of money!

“But, doesn’t it say that a man will leave father and mother and cleave to his wife?”

And who said this? None other than Moses, himself a polygamist! He had two wives!

Another thing is that polygamy was never outlawed in the OT. In fact, God made laws around it instead of directly against it! One such example is found in Lev 18:17,

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness. 18 You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness” (NASB)

Why didn’t God just say don’t marry two or more women at the same time?? Sounds a lot more simple, wouldn’t it? People like to say that polygamy was only “tolerated” by God in the OT, but He was secretly against it the whole time (uh huh, can I get a Scripture that says that anywhere?). However, when David sinned against the Lord by taking Bathsheba, God (speaking through the Prophet Nathan) told him,

“I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!” (2Sam 12:8, NASB, explanation and italics mine).

“…if that had been too little,” was kind of like saying, “If you wanted more wives, all you had to do was ask Me!” Speaking of David, he was punished for adultery (he did take the wife of Uriah the Hittite, after all), not polygamy, as it was never declared to be a sin. And, he pronounced judgment on himself, with the same measure, just as Jesus said. So, no one is exempt from the consequences that follow with this sin. And what of his son, Solomon? He had many more wives (700 of them, not including concubines) than did David!

Let’s take a read from a book entitled, “Divine Sex,” which expounds on this very topic,

“Lamech takes two wives and God neither corrects nor condemns Lamech, (Gen.4:19)… Many scholars refer to the "principle of first mention" as one tool by which to assess God's attitudes on different issues…

Since God utters not a single negative word about it, we can legitimately argue that "God's prima facie acceptance of polygamy from its first mention, is evidence that God was not disturbed by multiple relationships." Arguments are also made to the effect that God simply tolerated polygamy, though He never accepted it. For now, we simply reply that if God was as distressed about polygamy as modern Western Scholars say He was, how did God let Lamech's breach of "Divine marital law" pass without nipping this "sin" in the bud? Doesn't make sense does it? Esau marries two wives and again there is no word of correction, (Gen. 26:34, 35). Later Esau marries a third wife, still with no correction and no indication that God is getting edgy about this multiple marriage, (Gen. 28:8,9)…

Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel, (Gen. 29:31ff). Jacob became the father of Israel. He obtained God's blessing after wrestling all night with an angel. He is one of the great heroes of faith, to be admired by all God's people, for all time. But there is no hint of God's disapproval of his polygamous marriage…

Jacob now has 4 sex partners because he has children by the "handmaids" of his two wives. In none of this do we find even a hint of God's disapproval…

God says nothing at all about polygamy, except to reference its existence among His people. Yet He is violently opposed to a man marrying mother and daughter at the same time…

God warns a king to not multiply wives unto himself, "lest his heart turn away..." (Deut. 17:17). This prohibition is not against polygamy as such, or the sexual connection, but against the danger of apostasy in Israel's leaders. Note the same prohibition against amassing silver and gold. We will see later that Israel's greatest kings married many wives and amassed great hordes of silver and gold. Both the wives and the riches were said to be God's blessings. Thus this text is a warning of the dangers inherent in having many wives and much riches. It is not a prohibition of either, but a warning to realize the dangers in each case. When Israel warred against hostile neighbors, they received God's specific permission to keep as plunder, all women and children, just as they kept the animals, etc., (Deut. 20:14). These captive women became wives, concubines and slaves. The law of "Levirate marriage" requires that if one's brother dies with no son, his widow is to marry the living brother, to give an heir to his brother, (Deut. 25:5-6). This is true even if the living brother is already married. This is God's law! If he refuses to marry her, he is cursed publicly by her, (vs. 7-10). Thus we have God's mandate for polygamy in this situation. It is useless to argue "special circumstances" here. If polygamy is truly a moral offense, no special circumstance can make it morally right. If God is offended by a person having sex with more than one other person how can we make any sense out of this law? Sin is sin! Immoral acts cannot be permissible simply because of circumstances. On the one hand, God decrees the death penalty for "adultery." On the other hand, God decrees multiple marriage in this text. So - aren't we missing something? Gideon had "many wives" who bore him 70 sons, (Jdg. 8:30; 12:9, 14). He was a valiant warrior and faithful servant, and he died without God ever rebuking him or correcting his polygamy…

Boaz is also blessed as Judah was blessed by Tamar, who bore Perez, Boaz's forefather. This is stranger still, given our modern mindset, because Tamar was Judah's daughter-in-law, with whom he had sex thinking she was a prostitute! So now prostitution and sexing a daughter in law are both used as a basis of blessing! Really, now, do we believe that sinful relationships can be legitimately used as grounds for blessing? Perhaps our concept of things needs to be adjusted. Oh yes, and Perez, the offspring of that act produced Boaz, Obed, Jesse and David. In all this not a word from God of displeasure or correction. Not even a mild one! Strange behavior indeed from a God whom we think must have been inwardly seething at these “sins!”

Adultery is not having more than one wife, but it is stealing another man's wife.

Now for a real "kicker!" God says He gave David's many wives to him, and if those were not enough, he would have given him “many more!” (2 Sam 12:7,8).

God Himself was the author of David's plural marriages and multiple sex partners! Look! David has so many wives and concubines because God gave them to him!

In other words God said “David, why did you have to steal another man’s wife? If you wanted more wives why didn’t you just ask Me? I would have given you more.”

If God will “take your wives from before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and he shall lie with them in broad daylight” then it is useless to argue that God is utterly opposed to a man having sex with more than one woman; or that it is sin for a man to have sex with another man’s wife under any circumstance.

…in all David’s marrying and concubinage, he never breached God’s commandment. If David was right in God’s sight in everything God commanded, then obviously marrying many women and having sex with many concubines does not violate God’s commandment against adultery or fornication! Think about it!

David walks in “integrity…truth…hates wickedness,” (Ps 26:1-12).

It is man who demonizes polygamy, not God. David had countless sex partners. Yet he was a righteous man, greatly anointed and highly favored by God.

David had sons by seven wives, “besides the sons of the concubines,” (1Chron 3:1-9). David took “more wives,” (1Chron 14:3). Wives were not the same as concubines. Some women David married. Others he just brought into his house basically for sexual purposes. God had no problem with either.

Solomon marries Pharoah’s daughter, (1Kg 9:24). He loved many foreign women, (11:1). He had over 700 wives, 300 concubines, (11:3; enough women to sex 3 different women every night for one year!). God had promised to bless Solomon if he walks in all God’s laws, (9:4ff,) threatening to curse him and his sons if they turn from God’s laws. But not a syllable of censure about this extreme polygamy and extreme concubinage.”

(Source: Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition by Philo Thelos)

These are not the only examples. Many other men, including kings, took multiple wives. The point is, especially in the OT, you cannot escape the fact that there was rampant polygamy and concubinage – and God never condemned any of it! Before we go any further, we need to define what a concubine actually was. A website says this,

“Female slave who functioned as a secondary wife and surrogate mother. The Hebrew word for concubine (פִילֶגֶשׁ or pilegesh, Strong’s #6370) is a non-Semitic loanword borrowed to refer to a phenomenon not indigenous to Israel. Babylonian and Assyrian law codes regulate primary and secondary marriages more specifically than do the Old Testament laws. Exodus 21:7-10 has been appealed to as regulative of some aspects of concubinage, but that only implicitly.

Concubines are mentioned primarily in early Israelite history — during patriarchal times, the period of the judges, and the early monarchy although some later kings also had concubines. While concubines did not have the same status as wives, they were not to be mistreated ( Exod 21:7-10 ) nor could they be violated by other males ( Gen 35:22 ) with impunity ( Gen 49:3-4 ). They seem to have received higher status if they bore sons, or at least they are remembered by name ( Gen 21:10 ; 22:24 ; 30:3 ; 36:12 ).

The sons of some concubines were treated as co-heirs with the sons of wives. Was this facilitated by the wife accepting and naming the child as her own, or was the father's act of "adopting" the son required? Paucity of information prevents us from answering this definitively. In at least one case the inheritance potential of the concubine's son seems to present a threat to the primary wife and her son ( Gen 21:10 ). Abraham eventually gives the full inheritance to Isaac, and only gives gifts to his concubines' sons ( Gen 25:6 ).

The story of Judges 19-20 suggests that the terminology used of relationships in a regular marriage are also used in a concubinage relationship. The man is called the concubine's "husband" ( 19:3 ; 20:4 ) and the woman's father is referred to as the man's "father-in-law" ( 19:9 ). Some evidence suggests that royal wives (concubines?) were inherited by succeeding kings ( 1 Sam 12:8 ). Thus approaching the royal concubines ( 1 Sam 16:21-22 ) or even requesting the king's female attendant for a wife ( 1 Kings 2:13-22 ) can be understood as the act of one attempting to take the throne away from its designated occupant ( 1 Kings 2:22 ).

The practice of taking concubines as "wife" was used to provide a male heir for a barren wife (cf. Gen. 16, 35, 36). In addition, the practice provided a social safety net for poor families who could sell their daughters in dire times ( Exod 21:7-10 ; Judges 19:1 ). It seems plausible to suggest that the practice of taking concubines was perpetuated to meet the sexual desires of the males and/or to cement political alliances between nations. Nevertheless, the paucity of sufficient internal data requires dependence on comparative ancient Near Eastern evidence for these conclusions. Multiplying children through concubines would not normally complicate the inheritance lines, but would increase the available family workforce and the family wealth.”

David H. Engelhart

(Source: https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/concubine/)

So, to conclude, is the act of polygamy sinful? From the evidence gathered we can safely say, “No.” The act of a man taking on multiple wives was never, nor is it now, sinful – at all! And, anyone that tells you that it is simply has not read the Bible, because even a cursory, surface reading of the OT would reveal that many righteous men had multiple wives – as well as concubines – all without even a hint of slight disapproval from God for doing it. We need to do away with these false doctrines of men’s religious (and prudish) traditions. Man believes that it is God who instituted a “one man, one woman” marriage when, in fact, He throughout different spans of time have blessed men that had multiple women!