BIBLE AND CULTURE: REVISITING THE QUESTION OF POLYGAMY

Daniel K. Bediako, PhD

Valley View University

Introduction

Marriage, to a large extent, is defined by culture. For example, one culture prohibits
simultaneous polygamy but allows serial monogamy that involves divorce and
remarriage; another culture allows simultaneous polygamy but discourages divorce.1
Polygamy has been an acceptable form of marriage in some parts of Africa including
Ghana.2 When Christianity came into contact with the region, however, this practice was
deemed obnoxious and contrary to both Christian teaching and the practice of enlightened
nations.3 Does this missionary teaching have a solid scriptural basis or is it to be
understood as part of the early missionaries’ attempts at westernizing the African
culture?4 Such questions have resulted in acrimonious, age-long debate which has
produced in its wake a legion of literature. Until now, the issue of polygamy and the
Christian has not fully been settled in some churches without questions. That the
Seventh-day Adventist Church—to cite but one example—has historically switched its
policies regarding polygamy only attests to the difficult and sensitive nature of the issue.5
This brief article does not attempt an exhaustive treatment of the question of polygamy.
Rather, it seeks to reexamine exegetically the biblical texts that have generally been
understood as prohibiting polygamy (i.e., Gen 2:24; Lev 18:18; Deut 17:17; Matt 19:9; 1
Tim 3:2,12; Tit 1:6) and then to offer a few suggestions for churches based of the biblical
evidence. A full-fledged exegesis of these various texts is not attempted. The article
1
In this article, the term polygamy is used to refer to a plural marriage where one man has more than one
wife.
2
See e.g., Cynthia T. Cook, “Polygamy: Did the Africans Get It Right?” Journal of Black Studies 38
(2007): 232-50; A. O. Nkwoka, “The Church and Polygamy in Africa: The 1988 Lambeth Conference
Resolution,” Africa Theological Journal 19 (1990): 139-54; J. K. Muthengi, “Polygamy and the Church in
Africa: Biblical, Historical, and Practical Perspectives,” Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology 14 (1995):
55-79.
3
See Ebenezer A. Nwankwo, “Dissolution of Plural Marriage: A Case Study on Divorce As a Means of
Regularizing Plural Marriage before Baptism” (D.P.Th. diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced
Studies, Silang, Cavite, Philippines, 1992), 6-7.
4
Eugene Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1975), 179, observes: “It now appears that many of the earlier exegetes, perhaps
overly influenced by their own Western cultural tradition of mandatory monogamy, may have deduced
more that [sic] was warranted by their biblical premises.”
5
For full citations of these church policies, see Staples, “Evangelism among Resistant Peoples with Deeply
Entrenched Polygamy,” 23-27; idem, The Church and Polygamy in Sub-Saharan Africa (n.p.: 1981), 43-
46; idem, “Must Polygamists Divorce?” Spectrum 13 (1982): 44-53; Jean-Jacques Bouit, A Christian
Consideration of Polygamy (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), 118-149.
divides into the following sections: (a) the practice of polygamy in the Bible, (b) analysis
of the selected texts, and (c) suggestions for the church.

The Practice of Polygamy in the Bible

In ancient Israelite culture, polygamy was not only an acceptable form of marriage
but was also, under certain circumstances, implicitly recommended. Several instances of
polygamous marriages are recorded in the OT: Lamech (Gen 4:19), Abraham (Gen 16:1-
3; 25:1),6 Jacob (Gen 29:16-30:24), Elkanah (1 Sam 1:1-2), Saul (1 Sam 14:50; 2 Sam
3:7), David (1 Sam 18:27; 25:39-43; 27:3; 2 Sam 3:3-5; 5:13; 11:26-27; 12:8-11; 16:21-
22), Solomon (1 Kgs 3:1; 11:1-8; 2 Chr 8:11), Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:21), and Joash (2 Chr
24:3).7 In 2 Sam 12:8-11, God is said to have given to David his master’s (Saul’s) wives,
but excoriates David for killing Uriah for the sake of his wife.8 In the case of Joash, it
was Jehoiada the priest who chose the wives. It is also interesting to note that God
figuratively portrays himself as husband of two women, Israel and Judah (Jer 3:6-10;
Ezek 23:1-49).
An instance in which polygamy was implicitly recommended in the OT was the
levirate system. A man (married or single?) could have children with his deceased
brother’s wife to preserve a progeny for the deceased if he left none or, in other words,
“to maintain the name of the dead on his inheritance” (Ruth 4:5). The Er-Onan-
Shelah/Judah experience is a classic example (Gen 38:1-30). Deut 25:5-11 spells out the
levirate custom and clearly echoes in the Boaz-Ruth/Naomi experience (Ruth 2:1-4:13).
While a man could marry his dead brother’s wife, he could not marry or have an affair
with the wife while the brother was still alive (Lev 18:16; 20:21).
Besides the specific cases of polygamous marriages and the levirate system, several
texts in the OT served to regulate this polygamy. For example, a man could not marry
two sisters (Lev 18:18) or mother and daughter (20:14). If a man married a woman in
addition to a maidservant, the maidservant was not to be deprived of her marital rights
(Exod 21:10).9 The (future) king of Israel was warned against taking many wives (Deut
6
A legitimate question can be raised whether Abraham married Keturah before or after Sarah’s death,
especially considering the fact the events in Gen 24-27 are not strictly chronological. For the possibility
that Abraham married or concubinized Keturah before Sarah’s death, see e.g., G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16-
50, WBC 2 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1994), 160.
7
Some would include Moses (Exod 2:21; 18:1-6; Num 12:1), but this is not necessary. LXX reads
“Ethiopian.” The word Cush can describe the Kassites, east of Babylon (Gen 10:18), or Ethiopia/Nubia (Isa
20:3; Ezek 29:10; Nah 3:5; etc; cf. 2 Sam 18). Some would refer to Cushan of Hab 3:7, a place close to
Midian, hence the possibility that Num 12:1 could refer to Zipporah. It seems, however, that in the OT,
Cush and Midian are not used synonymously. In Num 10:29, Ruel, Zipporah’s father, is referred to as
Midianite. “Midian” occurs about ten times in Numbers. A Midianite woman is also referred to in Num
25:6,14-15. Except this were merely derogatory (perhaps the woman was of a darker skin), it is difficult to
show how Zipporah could be referred to as Cushite. Flavius Josephus says that Moses led an army of
Egyptians and Israelites against the Ethiopians/Cushites, and ended up marrying an Ethiopian princess
called Tharbis (Ant. 2.10-11). Several later Jewish legends also mention Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian.
8
The prophecy in 2 Sam 12:8-11 is fulfilled in 16:21-22.
9
It seems that such a slave girl was sold purposely for marriage. See also John Durham, Exodus, WBC 3
(Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 232. The meanings of the terms in Exod 21:10, namely, Hr"aev., Ht'WsK., and

2
17:17). The right of primogeniture belonged to the firstborn son, even if the mother was
not as much loved as her rival wives (Deut 21:15-17). Finally, a man (married or single?)
who raped an unengaged girl had to marry her (Deut 22:28-29; cf. Exod 22:16-17). It will
be noted that these regulations are case laws. Case laws in the Pentateuch served to
regulate practices that were either existing or anticipated. In any case, the regulations on
polygamy would not be given if the practice were deemed evil (cf. the many laws in Lev
18-20; Deut 22).
In the NT, there seems to be no explicit reference to polygamy. In Matt 22:23-28,
however, a reference is made to the levirate system. The lack of examples in NT with
reference to polygamy has led some to argue that by NT times the practice had probably
been prohibited. Nonetheless, lack of evidence must not necessarily be interpreted as
evidence of lack. The reference to polygamy at Qumran (e.g., 11QT 57:15-19, CD 4:21),
Josephus (e.g., Ant. 12.186-188; 13.380; 17.19-20; idem, War. 1.97; 1.562), and several
other Jewish writings indicates that some Jews practiced polygamy during the
intertestamental and NT periods.10 Saint Augustin of Hippo (4th century A.D) seems to
intimate that Christians could not practice polygamy because it was against Roman law.11

Analysis of the Texts against Polygamy

In order to promote monogamy as the ideal form of marriage, attempts have long been
made to minimize the biblical evidence showing that polygamy was an accepted practice
in ancient Israel. Several side-effects are often cited: rivalry between wives (Gen 29-30; 1
Sam 1:1-8) and contention between children of different mothers (Judg 8:30-31; 9:1-57;
11:1-3; 2 Sam 13; 1 Kgs 1-2).12 While this is true, monogamous families equally have
their share of problems. Leaving such general arguments aside, some scholars maintain
that the Bible contains outright prohibition of polygamy. Some of the texts most often
cited include Gen 2:24, Lev 18:18, Deut 17:17, Matt 19:9, 1 Tim 3:2,12, and Tit 1:6.

Genesis 2:24

especially Ht'n"[o are debatable. For example, Ht'n"[o may mean “sexual relations,” “shelter,” “cosmetics,
scented oils,” or “responsibility.” See the debate in William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2A (Doubleday, NY: 2006), 201-203. Durham, Exodus, 307, 232,
seems right that Ht'n"[o includes sex and the right to bear children. See also R. North “Flesh, Covering, and
Response, Ex. Xxi 10,” VT 5 (1955): 204-206.
10
For exhaustive treatment of the subject, see J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation
into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Perion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 90-
94, 368-72. See also W. Günther, “gamew,” NIDNTT, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971),
2:578-79.
11
Philip Schaff, ed., Select Library of the Nicene and Poste-Nicene Fathers of the Church (Grand Rapids:
reprint; Eerdmans, 1983), 4:289-290.
12
Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12, WBC 6B (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2002), 480.

3
 Genesis 2:24 reads, “Therefore, a man forsakes/leaves his father and his mother and
clings/sticks to his wife and they become one flesh.” From the viewpoint of
textlinguistics, v. 24 may be considered as background information, particularly an
authorial comment that links the prevailing custom in the author’s time with the historical
event of v. 23. Several points may briefly be noted. First, Gen 2 is a historical narrative
where wayyiqtol forms present foreground or mainline happenings. The !Ke-l[;+yiqtol
structure of v. 24 does not only demote the verse to the subsidiary line but also signals its
retrojective or habitual function (cf., 10:9; 32:33).13 Further, because it introduces
unexpected, secondary topics (“father and mother”)―terms that Adam would possibly
not use―v. 24 seems to lie slightly outside the narrative scope of the story, hence
authorial.14 While, in the light of this understanding, v. 24 may not be taken necessarily
as a divine injunction,15 it nevertheless points to monogamy as the divinely intended or
the necessary form of marriage, even if the author does not intend to defend monogamy.
The clause dx'a, rf"b'l. Wyh'w> (lit. “and they shall become as one flesh”) may be understood as
a consequence of the actions conveyed by the words bz"[]y: (lit. “he shall leave/forsake”)
and qb;d"w> (lit. “and he shall cling/stick”). The verb qbd in the clause ATv.aiB. qb;d"w> may denote
affection or intimacy (cf. Gen 34:3; Jos 23:12; 1 Kgs 11:2). Moreover, the clause
dx'a, rf"b'l. Wyh'w> seems to explicate ATv.aiB. qb;d"w>. This would suggest that dx'a, rf"b'l. may be
understood in the sense of intimacy. Perhaps this is why rf"b' rather than ~c,[, (both terms
which occur in v. 23) is used.16 In any case, Gen 2:24 is not directed against polygamy.

Leviticus 18:18

Few scholars argue that Lev 18:18 (“You shall not marry a woman in addition to her
sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness”) outlaws polygamy.17 Such
13
On the habitual non-perfective (or imperfect of repeated customary action), B. K. Waltke and M.
O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 506; G. J.
Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 71.
14
Cf. A. Tosato, “On Genesis 2:24,” CBQ 52 (1990): 389-409.
15
Contra Ron du Preez, “The God-Given Marital Mandate: Monogamous, Heterosexual, Intrafaith,” JATS
10 (1999): 32.

16
That “one flesh” here may denote intimacy is also supported by Paul’s statement in 1
Cor 6:16 that when a man unites with a prostitute the two become “one body” (= “one
flesh”). Nonetheless, the mention of father and mother in Gen 2:24, coupled with the
reference to bone and flesh in v. 23, may also suggest the nuance of kinship: the man
leaves one family (father and mother) and forms another family with his wife. Cf. Gen
29:14; 37:27; Lev 18:6; Judg 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 17:2; 19:12,13; 1 Chr 2:16-17; Isa 58:7. See also G. J.
Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 71; A. F. L. Beeston, “One Flesh,” VT 36
(1986): 115-17. Contra V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995), 181: “The man does not leave one family to star another family. What is being
pinpointed is solidarity. A man by himself is not one flesh. A woman by herself is not one flesh.”
17
E.g., A. Tosato, “The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination,” CBQ 46 (1984): 199-214, who is
followed by Ronald A. G. du Preez, “Does Leviticus Deal with Incest or Polygamy?” Journal of Adventist

4
scholars interpret txoa] here to mean “woman” rather than literal “sister.”18 The phrase
Ht'xoa]-la, hV'ai occurs several times in the OT. In Exod 26:3,5,6,17, it is used in reference to
curtains, loops, and handles used for the tabernacle. God instructs Moses to make the
material of the same colors, size, and length and then to join “each with her sister.” In this
context, to join one of these specified curtains with any other curtain not sharing the same
color and design cannot be described as “a woman to her sister.” The same argument can
be made in Ezek 1:9, 23; 3:13, where wings of same creature are described as joining
Ht'Axa]-la, hV'ai. In both Exodus and Ezekiel, the phrase may be translated “each other.”
Moreover, the phrase Ht'W[r> hV'ai seems to be used more generically (Isa 34:15, 16; Jer
9:20; Zech 11:9) than Ht'xoa]-la, hV'ai.19 Basing one’s argument solely on the use elsewhere
of the phrase Ht'xoa]-la, hV'ai can be misleading, since none of the other contexts is similar to
Lev 18:18.
The Hebrew text of Lev 18:18 reads: h'yY<x;B. h'yl,[' Ht'w"r>[, tALg:l. rroc.li xQ"ti al{ Ht'xoa]-la, hV'aiw>.
First, note that here the word used for “rival (wife)” is rrc rather than the usual hrc. 20
Could this suggest that an unusual rivalry is meant? Second, the infinitival clause
h'yY<x;B. h'yl,[' Ht'w"r>[, tALg:l (“to reveal her nakedness upon her in her life time”) occurs only
here. Elsewhere, the usual Hebrew expression for “uncover her nakedness” is Ht'w"r>[, tALg:l
(e.g., vv. 17,19). Who uncovers whose nakedness upon whom? The phrase “uncover
nakedness” may mean “have sexual intercourse” (Lev 18:12-16). However, to uncover
one’s father’s nakedness (e.g., Lev 18:7; 20:11; cf. vv. 6,10) does not mean to have sex
with one’s father, but rather to have sex with one’s father’s wife. It is possible,
considering the somewhat awkward nature of the expression in v. 18, to suggest that by
marrying a wife’s sister, the man reveals the nakedness of his first wife to her sister
(second wife). In other words, “to uncover her nakedness upon her” means more than
sexual intercourse; it may be understood as the uncovering of the nakedness of one’s
relative (vv. 6-7). By adding h'yY<x;B. the text may possibly imply that the man could marry
his wife’s sister after her death, perhaps an extended form of the levirate marriage.
Thought in Africa 3 (1997): 7-19; idem, Polygamy in the Bible (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological
Society Publications, 1993), 292.
18
Most scholars note that the reference is to a literal sister. See e.g., John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4
(Dallas, TX: Word, 1992), 296-97; Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT 3 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1976), 258; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, AB 3A (Doubleday, NY: 2000), 1548; Philo, Laws 3.27; m. Qid. 2:7; cf. 11QT 57:17-18; CD
4:21. Some ANE cultures practiced marriage of a sister-in-law after wife’s death. See Hartley, Leviticus,
296-97.
19
It should be noted, however, that the similar phrase wyxia'-la, vyai is mostly generic, albeit within a specified
group, ranging from blood brothers to fellow countrymen. See Gen 37:19; 42:21,28; Exod 16:15; 25:20;
37:9; Num 14:4; 2 Kgs 7:6; Jer 13:14; 25:26; Ezek 24:23. Some of these texts occur in quotative frames.
Variants of the phrase are also attested (e.g., Gen 13:11; 26:31; Exod 10:23; Lev 7:10; 25:14,46; 26:37;
Deut 25:11; Neh 4:19; Job 41:17; Jer 34:14; Ezek 4:17; 47:14; Joel 2:8). In all these texts, the phrase and
its variants can be translated “each to/like the other,” “one to another,” or “one another.” None of these
texts implies ‘adding’ or ‘joining’ one man to the other as in the case of Lev 18:18.
20
The word used for “rival wife” here is III rrc “be a second wife” instead of the usual hrc, though
according to HALOT, 1059, the former is a denominative verb from II hrc.

5
 Finally, it should be noted that Lev 18:9-17 deals with sexual relations with close
relatives (v. 6) and v. 18 should be read in this light. Verse 17 says that a man should not
uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her
son’s/daughter’s daughter. By mentioning ‘a woman and her sister’, v. 18 follows
directly from and belongs together with v. 17.21 Although v. 18 is best read together with
vv. 9-17, it has to be noted that unlike the previous prohibitions, that of v. 18 is not
necessarily permanent, thereby sharing this temporary feature with prohibitions that
follow.22 In sum, hV'ai in Lev 18:18 is to be understood literally as its other occurrences in
Leviticus (e.g., 18:9,11-13,18; 20:17,19; 21:3).

Deuteronomy 17:17

Deuteronomy 17:17 advises the future king of Israel against enlarging his harem: “He
shall not multiply wives for himself . . .” Since the text does not indicate how many
women the king may marry, some scholars suggest that v. 17 not only prescribes
monogamy but also bans polygamy. The word translated “multiply” is hB,r>y: (hifil impf.
3ms). In the hifil binyan, the root hbr (lit. “he shall cause to become many”), when used
with countable nouns, appears in contexts where the objects are not definite or not easily
numbered (e.g., Gen 17:20; 22:17; Deut 7:22; 8:13; 11:21; 30:5; 1 Chron 7:4; 8:40; Hos
8:11,14; Nah 3:16). While the text does not tell us ‘how many is many’, the informed
reader may note that “to cause (wives) to become many” would have more than just ‘one
wife’ in view, and that if the author had intended to prohibit polygamy, he would
probably have constructed the clause differently. Moreover, similar injunctions using the
same verb form occur in Deut 17:16-17: the king must not multiply (hB,r>y:) horses (v. 16),
nor must he multiply (hB,r>y:) silver and gold (v. 17). If in these instances the author does
not mean that the future king must have only one horse or only one piece each of silver
and gold, then ~yvin" AL-hB,r>y: al{w> (“he must not multiply for himself women”) does not
require the king to take only one wife. It is possible that the injunctions in vv. 16-17 have
the common ANE practice of foreign or political marriages in view (cf. the reference to
Egypt in v. 16; 1 Kgs 11:1-8).23 Finally, an informed reading of Exod 21:7-11, 22:16-17,
and Deut 21:15-17 would guard against the conclusion that Lev 18:18 and Deut 17:17
outlaw polygamy.

Matthew 19:9

21
The siach after v. 18 seems to suggest that the Masorets took v. 18 together with v. 17 rather than with v.
19ff.
22
For this reason, Roy Gane, “Some Biblical Principles Relevant to Evangelism among Polygamous
People,” JAMS 2 (2006): 37, thinks that Lev 18:18 may broadly apply to any other woman.
23
See also Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, NAC 4 (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 264;
Earl S. Kalland, “Deuteronomy,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, e.d., Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992), 3:117; P. Dutcher-Walls, “The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in
Its Ancient Social Context,” JBL 121 (2002): 601-16.

6
 Matthew 19:9 and its parallels basically countermand divorce (cf. Matt 19:3-6) rather
than polygamy, albeit logical arguments seem to bring in the issue of polygamy in such
texts. The discussion that follows will be based on the table below.

Matt 5:32 Matt 19:9 Mark 10:11 Luke 16:18

evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti o]j kai. le,gei auvtoi/j\ o]j Pa/j o` avpolu,wn th.n
o[ti pa/j o` avpolu,wn a'n avpolu,sh| th.n a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ kai.
th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ gunai/ka auvtou/ mh. gunai/ka auvtou/ kai. gamw/n e`te,ran
parekto.j lo,gou evpi. pornei,a| kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moiceu,ei( kai. o`
pornei,aj poiei/ gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai evpV auvth,n\ avpolelume,nhn avpo.
auvth.n moiceuqh/nai( moica/taiÅ avndro.j gamw/n
kai. o]j eva.n moiceu,eiÅ
avpolelume,nhn
gamh,sh|( moica/taiÅ

“but I say to you “And I say to you, “And He said to "Everyone who
that everyone who whoever divorces them, "Whoever divorces his wife
divorces his wife, his wife, except for divorces his wife and marries another
except for the immorality, and and marries another commits adultery,
reason of unchastity, marries another woman commits and he who marries
makes her commit woman commits adultery against one who is divorced
adultery; and adultery” (NASB) her” (NASB) from a husband
whoever marries a commits adultery”
divorced woman (NASB)
commits adultery”
(NASB)

In Matt 5:32, a woman who is divorced without the appropriate reason is made to commit
adultery. The man who marries such a woman also commits adultery. It is possible that
moiceuqh/nai (used for the divorced wife) anticipates moica/tai (used for the new husband).
Note, however, that the man who divorces in this case is not said to commit adultery
himself. In Matt 19:9, a man commits adultery when he divorces his wife without the
appropriate reason and marries another woman. Here, it is not stated that the divorced
woman commits adultery. Mark 10:11 says that a man who divorces and remarries
commits adultery against his (divorced) wife.24 Finally, in Luke 16:18, a man commits
adultery if he either divorces and remarries or marries a divorced woman. Several
observations are in order. First, the concept of adultery in these NT texts differs from that
of the OT, where a husband could not commit adultery against his own wife by being
unfaithful to her (i.e., taking an unmarried woman), nor could a woman initiate divorce
(cf. Mark 10:12).25 Second, there is significant difference between the Matthean texts and
24
Equally, v. 12 says that a woman commits adultery when she divorces her husband and marries another
man. Such a practice was common in the Roman society rather than the Jewish society. With these
references, Mark contextualizes the teaching of Jesus Christ.
25
See also Josephus, Ant. 15.7.10; 18.9.6 and m. Yebam. 14:1; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20
(Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2001), 85; James A. Brooks, Mark (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1991), 158; R. T.
France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002), 393.

7
those of Mark and Luke: while Matthew includes exceptive clauses, Mark and Luke do
not. The question of the Pharisees in Matt 19:3 is also different from that in Mark 10:2.
Scholars are divided as to which text preserves the original saying.26 If Matthew contains
the exceptive clause two times, and Luke agrees with Matthew in the reference to the new
husband’s adultery, then Markan priority27 should not be overemphasized.28 Third, Matt
5:32 says that a woman is made to commit adultery when the husband divorces her
without the appropriate reason, but this is lacking in Luke. Fourth, the differences
between these parallel texts may possibly result from the differences in audience:
Matthew probably addresses Jews while Mark and Luke address Greco-Romans.
Even a cursory reading of the above texts shows that Jesus addresses the issue of
divorce,29 not polygamy per se. If, however, a man commits adultery by divorcing his
wife and remarrying another woman, does the same man commit adultery when he
marries a wife in addition to his first wife (i.e., polygamy)? This question is only logical
and somewhat foreign to a text which addresses divorce and remarriage. Nonetheless, the
question needs attention. As noted already, in the OT polygamy is not considered
adultery, so that to equate adultery with polygamy (at least implicitly) in these NT texts
would sound exceptionally strange to Jesus’ immediate audience. According to Matt
19:9, Mark 10:11, and Luke 16:18, divorce-remarriage is tantamount to adultery, but in
Matt 5:32 only the woman is “made” to commit adultery along with her new husband
(also Luke 16:18). This implies that when divorce takes place, neither party commits
adultery unless they remarry. It is possible to see a figurative language in these NT texts.
According to Craig C. Blomberg, “Jesus maintains that the divorce itself creates
adultery―metaphorically, not literally―through infidelity to the lifelong, covenantal
nature of marriage (cf. the characteristic Old Testament use of ‘adultery’ to refer to
breaking one’s commitments to God―e.g., Hos 2:4; Jer 5:7; Ezek 16:32).”30 Such a view
receives some support in Matt 5:28 where Jesus says that “everyone who looks at a

26
See e.g., D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984), 8: 414-418.
27
Advocates include Robert H. Stein, Luke, NAC vol. 24 (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992), 420; R. T.
France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 210; cf. John Nolland,
The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, vol. 15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005), 246; C. S. Mann, Mark, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday, 1986), 387-93, 420.
28
See Carson, “Matthew,” 414-418; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, ed.
Helmut Koester, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001), 250; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1358.
29
Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia (Mineapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2007), 465, notes that in both Israelite and Greco-Roman cultures, divorce was a fact of life.
30
Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nasville, TN: Braodman, 1992), 111, 293. See also C. S. Mann,
Mark, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday, 1986), 387-93, 420. In fact, the nature of this particular saying of
Christ is debated: “Many say that Jesus’ prohibition of marriage is not a sentence of law but a principle, a
provocation, parenesis in the form of a sentence of law, ‘alientated’ legal language analogous to 5:22 and
28 designed to convey a fundamental, irrevocable ethical demand” (Luz, Matthew 1-7, 252-53). See also
Ed Christian, “The ‘Hard Sayings’ of Jesus and Divorce: Not Commandments but Goals,” JATS 12 (2001):
62-75.

8
woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (cf. Matt
5:22, 39; 12:39; 16:4).
Both Jesus’ refinement of Deut 24:1-431 and reference to Gen 1:27 and 2:24 show that
his primary concern is to emphasize the unity of husband and wife (cf. “what therefore
God has joined together,” Matt 19:6) and thus to teach that divorce is a sin, though
allowable on grounds of pornei,a (however this may be understood).32 Thus, D. A.
Hagner argues that “the point of speaking of remarriage as involving ‘adultery’ is simply
to emphasize the wrongness of divorce.”33 Jesus seems to use “one flesh” (Matt 19:5; cf.
Gen 2:24) to refer to the inseparability of husband and wife. However, if, according to
Jesus, pornei,a can break the “one flesh” of marriage (Matt 5:32; 19:9) and if, according
to the Pentateuch, polygamy does not disintegrate this “one flesh” nor is it to be equated
with adultery (Gen 2:24; Exod 20:14; 21:10; Deut 17:17; 21:15-17; 22:28-29), then it is
gratuitous to argue on the basis of “one flesh” and the divorce-remarriage collocation in
Jesus’ sayings that polygamy is a form of adultery.
In sum, the sayings of Christ regarding divorce and remarriage (esp. Matt 5:32; 19:9;
Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18) can be twisted to imply that, logically speaking, polygamy
is tantamount to adultery. Nonetheless, even if we do not understand adultery in such
texts in a metaphorical sense, these texts must not be stretched beyond what they were
intended to communicate, namely that divorce is sin.

1 Tim 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6

Among other scholars, Roy Gane thinks that 1 Tim 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 bar the
polygamist from church leadership.34 This argument, however, fails to consider the
context closely as well as the parallel text of 1 Tim 5:9. These texts are presented in the
table below.

1 Tim 3:2 1 Tim 3:12 Tit 1:6 1 Tim 5:9

mia/j gunaiko.j mia/j gunaiko.j mia/j gunaiko.j avnh,r e`no.j avndro.j gunh,
a;ndra a;ndrej
“man of one “men of one “man of one “woman of one
woman” woman” woman” man”

The meaning of the phrase “man of one woman” has been debated. Philip H. Towner’s
question seems to summarize the basic views: “Was it meant to rule out polygamists or to
31
See the excellent treatment of Deut 24:1-4 in Richard M. Davidson, “Divorce and Remarriage in the Old
Testament: A Fresh Look at Deuteronomy 24:1-4,” JATS 10 (1999): 2-22; Roy Gane, “Old Testament
Principles Relating to Divorce and Remarriage,” JATS 12 (2001): 35-61.
32
Debate on pornei,a, see Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, ed. Helmut
Koester, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001), 492-96.
33
D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC 33A (Dallas, TX: Waco, 1993), 125.
34
Gane, “Some Biblical Principles Relevant to Evangelism among Polygamous People,” 30.

9
exclude unmarried men from holding the office? Did it intend to prohibit remarriage,
either after the death of a spouse or after a divorce?”35 The contexts of these texts suggest
that Paul is listing qualities, as opposed to statuses, that elders and deacons must have (1
Tim 3:2,12; Tit 1:6). Otherwise one would argue that singles or even childless, married
men are banned from church leadership, and Paul himself would thus not be qualified as
a church leader. It seems more appropriate to understand the phrase “man of one woman”
as a quality. The use of such terms as avnepi,lhmpton “above reproach” (1 Tim 3:2) or
avne,gklhtoj “blameless” (Tit 1:6) strengthen this argument, implying possibly that “man
of one woman” and other qualities serve to define “above reproach” or “blameless.”36
Thus understood, the phrase “man of one woman” does not necessarily have polygamy in
view.37 Further, Paul uses the phrase “woman of one man” (1 Tim 5:9) in connection
with the qualifications of needy widows.38 The phrases mia/j gunaiko.j a;ndra and e`no.j
avndro.j gunh are exact parallels with only gender difference. If mia/j gunaiko.j a;ndra is
considered as a reference to polygamy, then e`no.j avndro.j gunh must equally be
understood to refer to polyandry, a form of marriage which was not found in either
Jewish or Roman culture.39 It should be noted that monogamy predominated in Greco-
Roman culture;40 hence it would be unthinkable for Paul (who wrote to Christians in a
Greco-Roman society) to have addressed a situation that was almost non-existent. In light
of these arguments, mia/j gunaiko.j a;ndra//e`no.j avndro.j gunh seems to make an idiomatic
expression, denoting fidelity to one’s spouse.41
To the above texts may be added 1 Cor 7:2, which reads, “But because of
immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own
husband.” Does this text address polygamy? Or is it a general rule? Even if we do not
agree with Gordon D. Fee that v. 2 addresses already married couples rather than
35
Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT, vol. 14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006),
250.
36
Some scholars would agree with Thomas D. Lea and Hyne P. Griffin, Jr., 2 Timothy, Titus, NAC
(Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992), 109, that “above reproach” (1 Tim 3:2; 5:7) is “a general, covering term
for the following list of virtues that should distinguish a church leader.” See also Towner, The Letters to
Timothy and Titus, 241.
37
Contra Ralph Earle, “1 Timothy,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978), 11:364; D. Edmond Hiebert, “Titus,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. E.
Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 11:430.
38
Even if Paul was referring to polygamy, does it mean that other church members (apart from elders and
deacons) could engage in plural marriages?
39
See also Benjamin Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Sacra Pagina, vol.
12 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2007), 76.
40
Günther, “gamew,” NIDNTT, 2:575; Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians, NIBC 7 (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1999), 141.
41
See also Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 250; Lea and Griffin, Jr., 2 Timothy, Titus, 150;
Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC, vol. 13 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 80-81; Martin
Dibelius and Has Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. P. Buttolph and Adela Yarbo, ed. Helmut
Koester, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 52.

10
singles,42 Paul’s audience are primarily Christians in a Greco-Roman society where
monogamy predominated and (Paul) would thus not need to defend this form of marriage.
If, however, Paul confronts asceticism43 as seems suggested in vv. 1-7, then v. 2 is not
necessarily a command to marry (let alone a sanction against polygamy) but an injunction
to resume sexual relations with one’s spouse (cf. vv. 8-9).

Some Suggestions

Agreeing with many scholars this article maintains that monogamy is the ideal form of
marriage and should be preached.44 However, the strain between the ‘ideal’ and the
‘real/actual’ must not be overlooked, since the world has already been marred by sin.45
Like many idealists, C. B. Rock says that “polygamy was not the divine intention and that
those who practiced it suffered from its effects.”46 He further states that Christians in
most Western countries regard polygamy as “both sinful and illegal,” a cultural heritage
which influences his conclusion that “the principles of Christianity and the practice of
polygamy are mutually exclusive.”47 Of course monogamy was the Edenic ideal (i.e.,
God created one Adam and one Eve). Yet, we must be reminded that when human culture
later ‘sprouted’ polygamy, God did not ‘uproot’ it; he ‘pruned’ it. Similarly,
vegetarianism was an ideal, but God later allowed, regulated, and, in some instance,
required meat eating. Nakedness was another Edenic ideal, but no idealist will advocate it
today.

Consequently, it is here suggested that if the Bible does not categorically prohibit
polygamy, churches must exercise great caution in doing otherwise. The Pentateuch
contains numerous lists of prohibitions, some of which may appear insignificant to the
postmodern (cf. Lev 18-20; Deut 22). In relation to sexual immorality, God categorically
prohibited adultery (Exod 20:14; Lev 18:20; 20:10; Deut 5:18; 22:22-27), which occurred
42
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987),
278, 279. Note also that in such contexts the verb ecw basically means “have sexual relations with” (LXX
= Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; Isa 13:16; 54:1 and Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke
20:28; John 4:18; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29).
43
Soards, 1 Corinthians, 141.
44
Propp, Exodus 19-40, 200, notes: “The implication of the prototypical marriage of Adam and Eve
(Genesis 3-4) and also the Covenant-as-marriage metaphor (Isa 50:1; 54:6-7; 62:4-5; Jer 2:2; Hosea 1-2) is
that monogamy is the ideal (but contrast Jer 3:6-11; Ezekiel 23, for Yahweh’s two wives, Israel and
Judah).”
45
Cf. the following statement of William G. Johnsson: “Adventists are idealists; may we ever remain so!
But the world isn’t ideal: men and women have been broken by sin.” William G. Johnsson, “Between the
Ideal and the Actual,” JAMS 2 (2006): 59, 60.
46
Calvin B. Rock, “Marriage and Family,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. G. W.
Reid (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 736.
47
Ibid.

11
when a man had an affair with a married woman. In such instances, both the man and the
woman incurred the penalty of death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:20-30).48 Even a girl who
broke her virginity before marriage faced death penalty (Deut 22:20-21). As already
noted however, God did not proscribe polygamy; he only regulated it as was the case
with other practices common in the Ancient Near East (e.g., Num 5:11-31). In light of the
numerous, multifarious proscriptions recorded in the Pentateuch, it seems that God could
easily have prohibited polygamy had he intended to. This fact should advise us against
demanding the dissolution of plural marriages before acceptance into church fellowship.
There seems to be no explicit biblical basis for such a dogma and, if I may quote Paul out
of context, “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom 5:13).49

It is further suggested that churches should not recommend divorce with the aim of
promoting monogamy. The church is not commissioned to break families. Divorce is sin
and must not be encouraged (Mal 2:10-16; Matt 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18;
1 Cor 7:12-13), not even in polygamous circumstances (cf. Exod 21:9-10; Deut 22:28-
29?). As in the OT, certain cultures seem to prefer polygamy to divorce. Hillman
comments on the aftermath of church policies against polygamy:
Indeed, the plight of these wives has often been notorious. Their previously
contracted conjugal rights, their social status, economic security, and even their
relationships with their own children, have been radically compromised; and this, in
the name of the Christian ideal of marriage and family life. In African traditional
societies it is frequently difficult, and sometimes impossible, for such women to marry
again. Many of them must choose to live like nuns or like prostitutes. Their fate is
determined by the structures of the particular in which they live; it is sometimes a
cruel fate, especially in societies with strong inhibitions against divorce and
remarriage.50

Finally, I suggest that the church should preach monogamy but should not categorically
deny membership (or baptism) to people already in polygamous relationships. I believe
that any church which cautiously extends membership to such people also fulfils the
Great Commission.
48
Note that while a man incurred death penalty by sleeping with a married or bethroded girl, this penalty
was not incurred when a man raped a virgin or a even a slave woman who is bethroded: “If a man seduces a
virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father
absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins” (Exod 22:16-17)
and “Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no
way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to
death, because she was not free” (Lev 19:20).
49
Gane, “Some Biblical Principles Relevant to Evangelism among Polygamous People,” 36, is right: “If the
Bible categorically forbade polygamy, as it does adultery and other sexual sins . . . modern churches and
their representatives would have every reason to deny the Christian membership to people who did not give
up this lifestyle.” See also Borge Schantz, “One Message—Many Cultures: How Do We Cope?” Ministry,
June, 1992, 8; and Hillmann, Polygamy Reconsidered, 139, who also notes that the Christian “canonical
norms [regarding polygamy] are more directly traceable to Greco-Roman culture than to the New
Testament” (ibid., 30).
50
Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered, 30.

12
 Conclusion

As indicated in the introductory section this article does not attempt an exhaustive
treatment of the issue of polygamy, so that no definitive assertions may be expected. This
notwithstanding, the brief analyses of the selected texts would seem to suggest that if
there is anything ‘evil’ about polygamy it certainly is not against an explicit biblical
injunction. Polygamy was part of Israel’s cultural heritage, just as it has been with some
cultures in Ghana, for instance. Thus, while some churches currently maintain monogamy
as a sine qua non for baptism, the biblical basis for denying church membership to
polygamous people is not unquestionable. It is important, therefore, for these churches to
reexamine the issue and contextualize their missions in such cultures where polygamy
deters people from accepting the gospel. In other words, if polygamy was legally
practiced by such mighty men like Abraham, Jacob, and David, men ‘after God’s own
heart’, I do not think polygamy, still a legal form of marriage in some cultures, should
hinder a sinner from accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ and thus entering the church.

13