If A Polygamist Gets Saved Should They Get Divorced? 

This brings up the question in my mind of the same sex couple that is married with kids, what do they do when they get saved?

Thank you for addressing this...I am Zimbabwean and my parents are in a polygamous relationship and I grew up in it and as children we are all Christians and we have always found it difficult to deal with it...thank you thank you it's been weighing on me and my siblings

I like that Mike knows how to say, "I don't know" and that he takes so much responsibility for his answers. Thanks Mike, no wonder you have 151k followers - and risng - was just 148k a few weeks ago! What a powerful ministry. Thanks God.

I like this version of 'The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.' (Proverbs 18:17). Love your honesty, Mike!

I'm from Kenya, the law is if you get married in a church you cannot be polygamous, but if you do the customary marriage you can Coming from a polygamous family myself the real collateral damage happens to the kids. Especially if the wives dont see eye to eye means competing for attention which plagued my childhood. Sometimes people get into polygamy because they gained more income and want more kids, and in our culture, kids are a sign of wealth. Some Christians here are struggling with the balance of their cultural practices and their faith. They feel it's fair if they treat their wives fairly as per society standards We come from a place of missionaries during colonial times completely disregarding all African culture and condemning it as evil, so with current rise of pan Africanism there is more and more people feeling Christianity is very Western and leaning towards exploring traditional beliefs I'm grateful for channels like yours that teach scripture in original context. It's more important now than ever before

My father-in-law was a missionary in Africa for 20+years and we support missionaries still there. This is exactly how they handle this situation. Good stuff, Mike.

"Devolve into moral make-believe," like that phrase

"...as our culture devolves into moral make-believe on the topic of sexuality and marriage." So well said.

Polyphobia is the next label the culture will throw at us.

Thank you for covering this! Lots of good thoughts on complex sides of the issue. We appreciate it.

Anytime to answer a question we look at peoples circumstances, culture, feelings and consequences instead of the bible we going down a wrong path. We end up pleasing man and not God.

Anglicans have had to deal with this in various countries in Africa for centuries. What has generally been done is a requirement to care for each wife and kids, but only sexual relations with one wife (the first).

I am glad you tagged the end on to this video. Years ago an African leader told me the story of his coming to Christ and wrestling with the fact he had a number of wives. He prayed that God would fix the mess he had made. One by one the wives left and returned to the homes of their fathers, starting with the most beautiful, then the most intelligent, then the one who was best at business, until the first alone was left and they had been faithfully and happily married for decades ever since. The way he presented the story was funny and engaging, but its messages to the hearer were unmistakable: God cares about marriage, leaders should be the husband of one wife, let God pick the wife and he will sort things out in time for the best. It was a perfect teaching for that cultural context, and I have never forgotten it.

Very thought-provoking video thanks for sharing and God bless you!

Hi Mike. (Egyptian Mocha). I was getting a little nervous about that first part (that you held back until now). It didn't sit right with me. Not that that means anything. I am glad you added that second part. I have often said that the state of marriage is sometimes used to cover sin. If you don't want to commit adultery...marry the person, if you don't want to lust...marry the person. If you want to go to a prostitute...marry the person (even if for an hour). This is an excuse but God knows the heart. I saw a part in the Bible where people were forced to divorce foreign wives (OT) because they did not worship Yeshua maybe you can give clarity on that one day. I know that God does not like divorce; at the same time he allowed it as a concession. Man makes so much of a mess of things that its hard to clean up without it backfiring and hurting others.

Truly, there is no simple way to broach this controversial & complex topic. Thank you for making your best effort to teach it in a biblically balanced & thoughtful way Pastor @Mike Winger .

This is why I love your channel and teachings. You tackle hard issues where other people don’t. Whether it be that they don’t think of them or do think of them and just don’t want to make a teaching on it. 👍👍

"Jacob was living in adultery" I really respect you Mike and like your content a lot. But I believe in this instance you are reading the Bible through modern eyes. Consider the following: First, many of the great men of God in the OT were polygamists and we don't see them condemned for this (Abraham; Jacob; *Moses?; Gideon; Samuel’s father; David; Solomon; Joash). See, for example: 2Ch 24:2-3. Yes, an argument from silence, but a strong one I think. Some of these men even gave us a good portion of the Bible (Pentateuch*, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecc?, Song). Jacob was the father of the nation of Israel. Abraham is the father of all believers. David the king was the prototype of the Messiah (Jesus, the Son of David), etc. All polygamists. The most detailed expression of love between a man and a woman in the Bible was written by a polygamist (Song 6:8, although some question this). The law gave many regulations on sexual behavior (eg Lev 18-20), yet it strangely did not forbid polygamy. It did, however, say that the children of the wives must be treated fairly (Dt 21:15-17; Ex 21:10) and you were not allowed to marry two sisters (Lv 18:18). Thus it tacitly “approved” of this practice. Polygamy was actually required by law under certain circumstances. For example, the levirate law does not stipulate whether or not the man in question is already married (Dt 25:5-10, possibly also Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29). Rachel & Leah both seem to believe that God approved of them giving their servants to Jacob as wives (Gn 30:4-6, 18). God gave David wives (plural) and would have given him more if he had asked (2 Sam 12:8). God is himself pictured as a polygamist in Eze 23:1-4. Also: In addition to Hagar, many scholars believe Abraham married Keturah in Sarah’s lifetime (Bruce Waltke, Genesis; John Walton, NIVAC; Gordon Wenham, WBC, Ken Matthews, NAC; etc). Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not condemn Solomon for his polygamy, but because he married many foreign (aka pagan) wives who turned his heart after other gods (1Ki 11:1-13; Neh 13:26). Arguably he also violated Dt 17:16-17. Some feel that Dt 17:16-17 prohibits polygamy because it says that a king must not acquire “many wives” yet the same Hebrew word prohibits him from having “many horses” or “much gold and silver” and no one seems to argue that a king therefore could only have one horse or one piece of gold or silver. Furthermore, polygamy is explicitly allowed just a few chapters later in this same book (Dt 21:15-17) and at times even required in Dt 25:5-10. * Most scholars seem to believe that Moses’ “Ethiopian wife” was not Zipporah (G.Wenham, TOTC; R.Allen, EBCR; J.Goldingay, FEC; B.Levine, AYBC; G.Gray, ICC; Keil&Delitzsch; B.Levine, UBC; M.Noth, OTL), see Num 12:1. It is of course possible that he divorced Zipporah or that she had died, but that is speculation. On the issue of adultery in the OT, see some of the better Hebrew Lexicons (HALOT; NIDOTTE; TDOT; TWOT). You may be surprised.

Of course he has to stay as he is with both wives. The Bible does not even prohibits polygamy.

Why does God never condemn polygamy in the Bible? He only condemns David for adultery when it dealt with him stealing Bathsheba from her husband. Prior to that he had 7 wives and God never said anything about it. In fact when David was confronted by Nathan prophet God said “And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.” 2 Samuel 12:8 How do you explain this if God had a problem with polygamy? But not just that Jesus uses a polygamist parable to describe his second coming with parable of the 10 virgins in Mathew. Some say these were brides maids but this theory falls apart because the virgins represent Christians and the groom represents Jesus second coming, he is coming for the bride not the maids, the maids get left behind only wives get taken home. Also every time virgin is used in scripture it is in reference to a young wife to be, and there is no reason to make the bridemaids be virgins, the jews did not even have bridesmaids anyways. Some say roman law demanded 10 witness and these are 10 witnesses but this falls apart to because only 5 were allowed in to the wedding and once again there is no reason or require for witness to be virgins. Also if they are just witnesses that means they get left behind because they are not the bride/brides and the virgins represent Christians during his return remember. So they must be wives, all other explanation end up with them left behind or don't make any sense. But the big elephant in the room then is Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Jesus reiterated this as well, so doesnt this prove monogamy? NO. Because the phrase the two shall become one flesh is referring to the act of sex and because a man only has one penis he can only join to one at a time, this is not saying they are literally one flesh or that they are fused in spirit. A man can not join to multiple women at once sexually, because of biology. But God was laying out the order operations for marriage relationships step 1 man moves out from his parents, step 2 he takes hold of a woman he finds suitable to marry, step 3 they get married by becoming one flesh. God made one wife for Adam but this was prior to the fall, meaning one woman per man would likely be capable of producing enough people to be fruitful and multiple upon the earth with no difficulty in childbirth and no death. However after the fall man still had an obligation to be fruitful and multiply but now it was much harder for a woman to give birth, no more infinite life span and crops to tend to. Polygamy became necessary to produce enough kids to not only fill the earth but tend the crops and cattle to help feed the family as kids are like free labor and multiple wives can tend to more tasks. You might say but isnt the man committing adultery against his wives each time he sleeps with a different wife? Adultery is defined as having sex with someone outside your marriage, but if they are married then it is not adultery. This is why polygamy is never called adultery and there are old testament laws that deal with the legalities of polygamy rather than condemning it. If polygamy is adultery then why are the children of Jacob, which are the tribes of Israel not illegitimate? Would God call his chosen people a people born out of sin? Which sin does God ever overlook because it was culturally popular? Before you call something, consult with scripture to see God calls it sin. Because he does definitively call it sin and you do you sin by placing your righteousness above the righteousness of God.

It ripped our family apart and led to much abuse from the older ones. My dad had many wives and at some point he joined a Pentecostal church that preached an aggressive form of familial dissolution upon "being saved". One of the wives was already living apart because the house could not accommodate everyone but she periodically visited. My dad was encouraged to move the our family out which he initially agreed to but the cost of it I guess made him change his mind and decided to let my mom stay and raise the children in his home but they had nothing going on physically. The other wive and children took advantage of this and the physical and emotional abuse was hell. My father had no handle on this, he was out ministering all the time and just wished his problems would go away. That didn't happen. Rifts, fights, animosity on a scale never seen. My worst association is having being part of my family and made it clear to my dad I regretted being born of him. On one occasion he could be heard telling the older children that the children of the other marriage are "not of this house". To him it was the Isaac and Ishmael. There was never peace and the family fell apart as we grew older. My father was almost twenty one years older than my mom who was handed to marriage by her family (like being sold) at the age of sixteen(16). My father wished we could just leave but bear in mind that for economic reasons in a developing country a woman can't make it with six kids. Combined my father had thirteen. He was hardly home to put the family together. He let older men beat and bully girls and with the thinking that my mom had no rights. Even when taken to the courts, he did not honor the decision to split his income to support us outside of that crime scene. I consider to this day I never had a dad. he was there at times but he was completely absent. I just can't say the rest, it got really bad. I wonder if God would want a child at sixteen "sold" to marriage to be responsible for this. There was no structure and no sympathy from church members. I saw extremists who somehow believed the devil had just brought the other wives into his life. I did not attend his church and I detest any church set up that way. I later on baptized Catholic and served as altar boy or mass servant. Even though I do not observe every Catholic rites and rituals today, I still attend the church as it brought some direction in my life. I still pray at least three times a day but I always wonder God's purpose. For me, life has been loaded with heaps and mountains of pain, stress, distress and disappointments. I found my way through school and made it through University but my scars and the cloud over me never left. People just say things because they've never lived it. No book can contain my experience, nothing I fear anymore because I have not even overcome the animosity and inequities I faced from other siblings over the years. No one should EVER submit to abuse in any form and please do not make the mistake of polygamy. With or without spiritual grace, it DOES NOT WORK. Exceptions do not negate a role, they confirm it. People say, let the wive remarry? Who marries a woman with six kids?? Really folks?? In this situation, the fault is the husband's who was not satisfied with one but needed three wives. Upon sending the others away, he gets to live his life with one. In Western societies, the law may help but not in a developing country. It would not have been permitted in the first place. Even in this situation, the best option was for my mom to leave. Send the wives away and bear the financial burden but my dad would not. He wanted heaven but not at the cost of his income. Somehow he didn't believe he was wrong, neither did his church members. They hardly greeted us. We were the younger ones. I was almost fifteen years younger than my oldest brother. This lasted for years until my mom fell sick and we moved out with her on our own. It's a long long journey from here....!! Is this truly God's best?? Is this the price of Heaven?? What a world!!!

God never commanded the breakup of polygamist marriages in the OT. If you say that a modern polygamist who gets saved must divorce one or more of his wives, then why did the apostles never address this issue and why did the OT writers never address it?

Hey man, really good stuff and I love the presentation!

Great addition. You've been very wise to wait a little because this was very important. Im talking for 3 years about posting Bible study of the endtimes on YT but I just cannot post anything because I still feel I lack some more insigth. I just need to wait and pray some more until God gives me the answers I need.

Thank you Mr. Winger for your time and patience with so many questions being asked of you. I truly enjoy your videos and always learn new things along the way. So I listened to your two part video on polygamy, and what if a person or persons get saved and are now faced with that question of what do we do now. And your first video seemed an easier to understand take although still a very complicated subject without a doubt. However your second part of the video you mentioned that you’ve been kinds wrestling with the first video you put out on the subject and that the polygamist even after salvation could possibly be commuting adultery and least the msn is and the women could get out if they wanted to because the man would be commuting adultery on his wives. Ok hope I got all that down almost accurate. Lol so my question would be then where in the Old Testament where polygamy was more showcased does it state that men like Abraham Isaac or Jacob/ Israel were indeed committing adultry on one or more of there Wife’s and why were there polygamist relationships never stated by the Lord as unrighteousness . For example when Jacob was tricked into taking Lea for a wife he then had to wait 14 years longer to wed Sara his true love so to speak and the women he initially wanted to be his wife. Now in 14 years The Lord never told Jacob that he would be committing adultly with at least one of his spouses and that this would be forbidden for him to marry Sara as well as Lea . Then there’s King David that besides the obvious Basheeba account he was never rebuked for having more than one wife, he was even referred to as being a man after God own Heart. So as I understand your concern for the prevalence and up and coming morale depravity in our world and the likely hood of immoral everything! I’m just not sure if I see your view on the subject, doesn’t mean I’m right either I could be in error so maybe this is something we could work on together 😊

Thank you for waiting to post Mike. I believe there’s great wisdom in the entirety of what you said.

Thanks Mike, this is very well thought through. Gonna listen to it again.

So well thought out! Thank you!

Same position I hold and my quick summary: sometimes you can't unscramble an egg

Absolutely spot on biblically and pastorally, Mike has covered all reasonable angles not least the disgrace of trying to force people OUT of less than ideal marriages as some so-called pastors do

Great video, Pastor Mike! Any news on the new logo design?

Excellent thoughts and great point at the end!

Interesting Mike that you changed your mind. I tuned into it in my car and didn't hear your beginning. I was thinking you'd got it right, so I don't think your revision is correct. I'm an Anthropologist and some times a missionary,I do have theological training (from PhDs lecturers from Fuller) but I've never sought to be a Pastor but have an advisor role to Church leaders in Asia. I say this to tell you the issue on polygny (Not polyandry) is real. One example, a missionary had a young man write him in Philipines over his issue with his uncle who was a church leader of a few churches, but his uncle had 2 wives. He was living with his uncle but having issues submitting to his leadership. The American missionary viewed this as appalling moral failure. I corrected the missionary over his attitude as from the description it seemed quite different. In an area where Muslims lived a man of high social standing had more than one wife because his status and income meant he could support them and the children. A church leader from a high social status with integrity is what 1 Timothy is getting at. Christian anthropologists (see "Christianity Confronts Culture" Marvin K..Mayers) usually see Genesis 2 as God's ideal not the moral standard. When it says "For this reason a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife" that rules out polygny, but it also rules out remarriage since a man can only leave his parent ONCE. The fall, with death, breaks into that IDEAL as does polygny and remarriage after death or divorce. In addition the cultural interpretation of "adultery" varies. In ancient Hebrew understanding "adultery" was having sexual relations with another man's wife period. An unbetrothed girl having sex with a married man wasn't "adultery" ..he was just expected to marry her. In Western culture we consider "adultery" to be unfaithness in marriage period. Traditionally in Thailand a marriage involves giving gold as a form of "betrothal" then a ceremony.. .sex during that pre-ceremony period isn't a moral issue. A few missionaries were confronted with problem of girls being pregnant prior to marriage when the Thais saw it as a blessing. Thailand has been so corrupted by western values now. Thailand also have a major wife and a minor wife..where only the major wife is the legal one and often from the same class as the man, but lower class girls may have security and good parentage to children through being a minor wife. I knew a woman who was an children on one such union... she had family photos with her mother and father. Her mother attempted to convince her to do the same with a married man but I compelled her to find a good single guy which she did and married. I say this to illustrate the issue isn't just academic or in the past. In polygnous societies "adultery" is similar to ancient Hebrew....Having sex with a married woman not yours...or a married woman having sex with a man not here. Thats how their culture views it, cultures get influenced by western values in our modern world..but culture cannot be abstracted from your thinking..I think you Mike have changed because the pressure of your first understanding feels unnatural because everything in your Western enculturalisation screams against it so you switched back. That's a cross-cultural challenge.. it's like learning another language it doesn't feel natural and you switch back easily. From a biblical view, there is little against polygny..many have search for verses in vain. Saying it's not God's ideal is clearly biblical but to judge Abraham Jacob,, Moses especially who gave the 7th commandment,, David, Solomon as adulterers is absurd. Our Western value upon the individual and companionship marriage means polygamy is just morally wrong because it doesn't honor the other as one's self... As far as those men in polynmous societies that are converted and believe they are called to Church leadership they ought to remain faithful to their wives and be examples Yahweh who had two sisters because the gospel doesn't destroy culture but transforms it. The question on whether the women need remain in this situation 1 Corinthians 7 speaks to somewhat. The primary reason the Church became monogamous was cultural ...Greek and Romans dominated....the bible was sought to affirm what they already believed was moral. As missionaries you don't need to tell other what to do..let the Spirit of God guided them thru general biblical teaching. I'd recommend you change your revision. .you were on the right track

Breaking up a polygamous marriage didn’t seem unjustified to God when He told Abraham to send his second wife away. I personally believe that when people become Christians it will affect every area of their life including their marriage and so the husband should remain with the first wife and give the second an opportunity to remarry and enjoy a Godly marriage, but still take care of her and the kids in the process and have a loving relationship with them as an ex-wife situation.

Glad you added that amendment at the end. That's what I thought about the question from the start.

This is an issue that caused a division in a denomination in South Africa in the 1800’s. The main personality was a man called Colenso who amount other issues supported polygamy in the Zulu nation, but was opposed by other senior members in his denomination. The bottom line was a split in Southern Africa, but both reported back to the same hierarchy in the England! Having struggled with the issue I feel your treatment of this is the right way of understanding it!

Exodus 21:10; if a man has more than one wife, he's got to provide each with marital (or conjugal) rights, unless the translation of marital can somehow mean anything else within the context of the verse which already covers food and shelter. 1st Corinthians 7 looks to be dealing with individual instances and doesn't address polygamy one way or another. Additionally, if the Law is to be applied equally, how then could David have been justified in marrying Abigail? I'm just a guy with a bible; I don't claim to be an expositor, teacher, or scholar.

Ever since I learned about Jacob marrying Leah, I had a big spiral of questions. If someone was forced into a marriage (like Jacob being tricked or young girls being forced against their will to marry an older man) is the marriage legitimate? If someone in a marriage they never agreed to wanted out of it but desired to honor Christ, would they be right in leaving? I've been learning a lot about organizations that rescue young girls from forced marriages and help them get divorces. At first I was really happy that someone was freeing these victims from a situation they never consented too, but then I started feeling guilty for wanting to support a movement responsible for thousands of divorces. Is being forced into a marriage a legitimate reason for divorce? Should Jacob have just divorced Leah to marry Rachel instead of taking her as an additional wife?

It is only a challenge, if you conclude that polygamy is wrong.

I do really appreciate your honesty, and I've come to many of the same conclusions through prayer and deep study. Sometimes we simply don't know, and in those cases I think we need to heir on the side of mercy when people make decisions.

What would happen if a gay "married" couple were to be saved or one of them getting saved - and they have adopted children? This is a hypothetical that may not be common.. curious on what the theological conclusion would be.

Read a book about David Du Plessis, known as Mr Pentecost in Africa. He said that he rethought the strict requirements for a man to only keep one wife. He said the biggest issue in divorcing the other wives and children was those women and children had no protection or financial support. His comments later in life, that in that area of the world perhaps they should have been more aware of what would happen to those rejected women and children.

Hi Mike, thank you for always delivering the truth and helping us think biblically. Please could you advise concerning curses is it biblical that people can just curse you? In Africa this is a big problem and people believe in it alot. Please advise. Thanks Mary.

Tough subject! You did a good job.👍🏻

I appreciate you taking the time to think this through. I understand your thinking and can see your care to do what is good and prudent. I especially appreciate your application to church leadership, that’s super key. I’m sure we would agree and disagree on multiple points but to keep it simple I’d simplify it all with “polygamy isn’t marriage and therefore it’s dismantling isn’t divorce”. Someone might lob the charge that I’m playing with semantics, but I don’t think I am. Homosexual unions aren’t marriage, even though our culture recognizes them as such. Clearly I would apply the same logic of dealing with homosexual “marriage” as I would a polygamous one. I feel like Paul’s statement “such were some of you” implies a radical departing from former lifestyles, and that this is not a good place to apply the “stay where you were when saved” thinking.

Comment threads in religious sectors often leave me feeling as if I was forced through a slime pit and can’t get the ick off. It’s disgusting

THIS IS VERY INTERESTING AND TIMELY

Christianity is very practical without compromising. That's one thing of which I'm always reminded when such topics are thoughtfully addressed.

Thank you Mike for covering this topic. This has not directly affected me but just find it super interesting. You briefly mentioned the verse, 1 Corinthians 7:27. Does this mean as a single women who desires marriage, I shouldnt seek a spouse? I know you have questions left right and center but would love to know. As I feel there is not enough support for our singles in the church who want to be married and have a family. Thank you for all you do!

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. You hit some most of the conclusions I also came up with but was too afraid to voice as many around me believe differently. I also like at the end where you added where the wives may have legitimate cause to divorce. It shows that many answers are not black and white and that two different answers may not necessarily be "wrong."

Really good thoughts Mike.

Mike, you often use the word "grid" (theological grid). What does it mean?

Adultery is when a man has sex with another man's wife. The end. That's why polygyny is not called adultery anywhere in scripture, and why the Law outlined how to do polygyny correctly rather than simply calling it sin. The law also outlines how to do concubinage correctly (and, again, never calls it sin). Neither of those practices is ever called sin in the New Testament, either. We have a tendency to project our own ideas back onto scripture, and marriage is definitely one of those areas.

One thing to keep in mind, Mike, respectfully so: David did not commit adultery until Bathsheba, yet we know he was married to Mical and Abigail before this. The Law treats adultery for a man differently than a woman. Why? Dunno. But it does. I'd encourage you to do a study on this difference. David's marriages before his affair were not adultery because he was married to both and both fulfilled the required status for marriage (Saul's daughter was a virgin, and Abigail was a widow). But Bathsheba was forbidden because she was married. Conversely, a woman could only commit adultery by sleeping with a man other than her husband. Virgin women could not commit adultery. Desiring to marry a virgin man was good. And desiring to marry a married man was not sinful (but not stealing him from his other wife, that would be adulterous). This split is clear in a plain reading of the Law of Moses. And since these laws are derived from moral principles, rather than rituals, we can conclude they are God's heart on the matter even now. This, combined with no moral decree against it (which God could have easily done, he has the power), has altered my entire perception on polygyny. Polyandry, however, is and has always been immoral because the woman would be engaged in chronic adultery (again, the reverse is not true according to scripture; see David again). Yes, no church leadership for polygynists. One wife for that, as decreed by Paul. This becomes another case of tradition being passed down as moral law. The Text is nowhere strong on this topic, and I highly doubt something so prevalent slipped under God's radar. We need to remove our Western lenses when reading into this topic, as it's something that was foreign to our culture for nearly a thousand years (that is, until Mormonism, ech...). But Mormonism's embrace of the practice should not cloud our judgment as to whether or not God forbade it or whether it's a sin. Scripture never declares it to be a sin. I don't want to either. And I especially don't want to put a yoke on a new believer that not even God expects him to carry.

I agree with your point that it is untenable to say that they were never married in the first place.

Thanks for the video Mike, Utah quite recently made polygamy no worse than a speeding ticket.

The first part had me like, uh, yikes, the second I was like, whew, okay. Any wives that want should be free to leave with granted divorce/full freedom. In any case, the man should provide for all of them until they are able to support themselves.

Im going to be honest here, if you were going to take an honest look at this subject your have to separate your European way of thinking from it because scripture and culture came from the middle east, not america....things were way different back then, take for example mary's age when she was engaged to joseph, in america that wouldn't be allowed and would be frowned upon but that same mary gave birth to jesus Christ......when I read the Bible I see if talks about a bishop having to be of only one wife which would mean that others wouldn't be qualified for that position if they were in a polygamist relationship.... 1. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

I hear some say that if you get a marriage license you are in a polygamist relationship with your spouse and the state. Do you have any insight on this ?

Just generally wondering and off-topic: what is with the prevalence of apostrophes in wrong places lately nearly everywhere? (In this case, in the written title on the thumbnail.) I know the English language changes over time, so is this why many people do this? On topic: this is an interesting question and one I hadn't even thought about!

actually when i was a missionary to the united states, wife no 13 of a polygamist (she became a christian) and they were not married legally. yes in the united states of america.the word say let no man separate that God bought together. Not all relationships God bought together it was sin

Over ten years ago, I received a late night phone call, from the Mother of an American soldier serving overseas. This soldier was happily married with 2 or 3 very young children. The wife and children lived near the Fort Bragg Army base. Previously, either the wife or husband had a very brief marriage, without kids, which ended in divorce. Then while her Army husband was overseas, the wife starts attending a new church, and when the Pastor of the new church heard about the previous marriage, that Pastor tells the wife she must leave her husband and divorce him. That Pastor told the wife if she didn't do this, she was living in a perpetual state of adultery. So the wife, packs up her small children and moves from Fort Bragg to the State of Arizona, to be near the wife's parents. Both the husband and wife are under 30 years of age. I refer this wife to a Biblical Marriage Counselor, the wife refuses to meet with this Biblical Marriage Counselor because, the church the Counselor works out of has, brace yourself, a *KITCHEN*. How horrible!?!?! My sarcasm is intentional. I share this to point out how horrible the beliefs and practices are in certain American church denominations. This is the same denomination which believes it is sinful to use musical instruments in worship. I post this to point out how horrible certain denominations are, some are so bad we really should label them as false cults.

I have a question I'd love to hear your wisdom on: does, "turn the other cheek" really mean turn the other cheek when hit. I've always taken it as yes. But recently heard arguments otherwise

I've dealt with this a lot working in the jungles of Ecuador.... It's tough! It causes LOTS of issues in the villages and communities very similar to those of Abraham's and Jacob's families and others in the old Testament... I think that you handled it well brother!

Hi Mike. Thanks for doing all of this study. The implications of polygamy is something I became aware of when I first heard about the "marriage permanence" teaching (no remarriage allowed). There were a few things that immediately occurred to me regarding God's views on polygamy. 1) In Leviticus, there are specific commands given regarding taking additional wives (do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife to vex her; do not lay with your brother's mother for she is your father's wife, etc.) 2) King David "fell" after he took Bathsheba, but prior to that, he was known as a man after God's own heart, and had six wives. 3) If polygamy is tantamount to unfaithfulness, for what reason does Christ use a parable about ten virgins? Does it make sense that He would use a sinful act as a metaphor for how to live as a saved person? I've tried to discuss this with others because I have a standard for conduct that requires me not to condemn what God does not condemn, however, most folks seem "afraid" to dissect this issue.

What crazy stuff we get into. All because we follow the flesh

Respectfully Mike, nothing about 1 Cor 7 says you shouldn't have 2 or more wives. In fact if you go to the greek you'll see that there are 2 different words used for "his own" vs "her own" ... one implies exclusive ownership, one does not. The wife can have shared ownership of her husband based on the greek word used, the same as she could claim "her own home" or "her own children" they aren't "only hers" it just means she should have A husband. I think you need to go deeper on this topic, a lot deeper. A biblically polygynist marriage is not "A MARRIAGE involving a man and many women" it is a concurrent set of 1 man, 1 woman, marriages at the same time. They are separate covenants. "What God has joined together, let no man separate" seems to answer this question pretty clearly.

So i have had a day to think about and pray on this. Turns out, i should have never been so fired up about this and basically argued back and forth. That was a sin itself. I deleted my posts and i just want to apologize for being argumentative and rude. Sorry guys.

This is a beautiful answer and it seriously empowers women. Thank you!

The authoritative answer: Polygyny (the correct term) is NOT sin, never been sin, never will be sin. Where there is no law, there is no sin. But, even moreso, God regulates, or puts protective boundaries on plural marriages in the Torah, something never done with anything He declared a sin. And, further, God describes Himself as a polygynist in Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23, Jeremiah 31, etc... I stand with God, Abraham, Jacob, Caleb, Moses, Gideon, David, Joash, etc.

A pastor of mine visited a home with 5 wives. One for cooking, another for grazing, another for children nursing, and another for fetching water. Which would he send away.

Once again this young wipper/snapper Pastor from California proves he is wiser than many of his peers. This is a subject I never thought about or considered.

What would happen in the case of a married gay couple? Thanks for this Mike!

There are at least three possible interpretations of the phrase husband of one wife in 1 Timothy 3:2 (ESV). 1) It could simply be saying that a polygamist is not qualified to be an elder, a deacon or a pastor. This is the most literal interpretation of the English rendering of the phrase, but seems somewhat unlikely considering that polygamy was quite rare in the time that Paul was writing. 2) The Greek could literally be translated as “one-woman man.” In other words, a bishop must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to. This interpretation acknowledges that the original text focuses not on marital status but on moral purity. 3) The phrase could also be understood to declare that, in order to be an elder/deacon/pastor, a man can only have been married once, other than in the case of a remarried widower; in other words, a pastor cannot be a divorcé. Interpretations 2 and 3 are the most prevalent today. Interpretation 2 seems to be the strongest, primarily because Scripture allows for divorce in exceptional circumstances (Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:12-16). It is also important to differentiate a man who was divorced and remarried before he became a Christian from a man who was divorced and remarried after becoming a Christian. An otherwise qualified man should not be excluded from church leadership because of his actions prior to coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior. Although 1 Timothy 3:2 does not necessarily exclude a divorced or remarried man from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, there are other issues to consider. The first qualification of an elder/deacon/pastor is to be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2). If the divorce and/or remarriage had no biblical grounds, then the man has damaged his testimony in the church and community; the “above reproach” qualification will exclude him from the pastorate rather than the “husband of one wife” requirement. An elder/deacon/pastor is to be a man whom the church and community can look up to as an example of Christlikeness and godly leadership. If a past divorce and/or remarriage detracts from this ideal, then he should not serve in the position of elder/deacon/pastor. It is important to remember that, even though a man is disqualified from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, he is still a valuable member of the body of Christ. Every Christian possesses spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-7) and is called to participate in edifying other believers with those gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7). A man who is disqualified from the position of elder/deacon/pastor can still teach, preach, serve, pray, worship, and play an important role in the church

Wow that’s a hell of a question stumped me outta the gate

Great topic. Hard to wrap my head around it as I’m not in that type of a marriage. But I am a divorced by my choice woman whose been remarried for 25 years.

Ahh.. The age-old question.

Personally I believe they should stay married but they can't take any more wives. Divorce is too much of a problem.

Very good sober biblical perspective!

in many cultures a woman who is divorced and sent back to her family has her reputation stained. In this case for no cause of hers. She will have to live the rest of her life with this burden, possibly outcast.

My husband told me that polygamy was Biblical so acceptable (he is a Christian, that's why I married him). He told me a man could have more than one wife though a woman could not have more than one husband. I used to wish he would get another wife who would also earn money (as he did not earn and we were always broke), and be my friend cos I was a bit lonely as I didn't seem to have any friends since getting married, and so that he could sleep with her instead of me and stop manipulating me into sex most nights. I'm an intelligent woman, but he persuaded me that he was right - and because he was the man, I had to submit to him of course. I wonder if that was abuse. I am no longer in that marriage anyway.

As much as I find polygamy an uninteresting option, and as clearly as the Bible demotes it in the grand scheme of God's plan (like disqualifying from position of Pastor), it can't be denied that polygamy is allowed in the Bible and it is traditions of man imposed upon the Scriptures that deny this. When David already had several wives, God told him he would have given him more if he was unsatisfied (notice it was a response to him taking Uriah's wife, 2 Samuel 12:8). Take special note of this: Joash had two wives that Jehoiada the priest retrieved for him, and the Bible's commentary in the immediately connecting verse says that he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of his life (2 Chronicles 24:2-3). We may not like that, but who cares? Certainly not God, its His world. God is right, we are wrong.

It's my opinion is that he is to stay with those wives..... It merely disqualifies him as a leader, teacher, or elders

Thank you Mike

Minute 9. You have a catholic mind; it is not the marriage which is violated with adultery, it is the spouse who is violated.

Interesting dichotomy that results that the husband to many wives has less right (has to keep the marriage(s) going) while the wives retain the rights and privilege of spouse status based upon their judgement. This is all for the same reason: the provision and protection of the spouse. It may feel unfair to the husband of many wives, but this feels like a just consequence of a polygamal marriage. I think it makes sense.

I always found it odd that Jewish law never forbids polygamy outright, but it does adultery. Almost as if they are considered two different things culturally. Many other laws are very specific (i.e. not cutting your hair/beard a specify way), but not with what is probably a much more important topic. Why not say that polygamy is wrong/sin/forbidden period, anywhere in the bible?

Hi Pastor Mike. Let me first say that I agree with you on your stance on polygamy. Now, my question may sound odd, because it isn't a common one, but I'd like to get your take on Galatians 5:2-6. I'm really hoping to hear from you on this, because there isn't much discussion on this out there. The question is on the impact of circumcision on a believer. In this video, I've heard your take on 1 Corinthians 7:17,20,24 as a legitimate reason for someone to seek to stay in the calling in which they were called, or the situation in which they were in when they accepted Christ, that is, for a man to not divorce anyone even if they are in a polygamy, and I agree with you. We see that 1 Corinthians 7:18 is a further explanation of that command as it concerns circumcision. However, in Galatians 5:2-4, there appears to be real ramifications for someone accepting circumcision after having believed while uncircumcised. The warnings contained there cannot be taken lightly, unless of course one says that they only applied to Galatians (which doesn't seem to make sense to me). If circumcision puts one (especially a believer) under the law, then this is either a true statement across the board, or it isn't true at all. But the issue with that passage is found in the seeming contradiction between Galatians 5:2-4 and Galatians 5:6, which is also echoed in 1 Corinthians 7:18 and 19. There appears to be two interpretations: 1. Circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing, therefore it doesn't matter if a believer becomes circumcised or not. However, this interpretation completely invalidates the warning in Galatians 5:2-4, and the command in 1 Corinthians 7:18 (though the proponents of this interpretation see them as advice and suggestions, and not authoritative teachings and commands, even though Paul clearly states that 1 Corinthians 7:18 is a command in all the churches - 1 Corinthians 7:17. Some who have accepted that it is indeed a command say that it is Paul's command, and therefore not Christ's or God's, borrowing from 1 Corinthians 7:10-12. My reply to this has been that we cannot use 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 to mean that all of Paul's word is only authoritative when he says it is directly from Christ, otherwise what would we say about "salvation by grace, not works"? Paul didn't say that he directly quoted Christ in that matter. I said that 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 is only applicable to the matters that are spoken about in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12. I also quoted John 15:20 in my defence which was that even if it is Paul's word, it is still authoritative on account of him being made the apostle to the Gentiles by Christ, just as any legitimate agent or messenger's word in their master's absence is accepted as the master's word.) 2. The second interpretation is one that I've come to by myself seeing as circumcision is not really a popular Christian topic (try searching RU-vid or Google). This interpretation says that the warning in Galatians 5:2-4 and the command in 1 Corinthians 7:18 are both valid, and therefore, when Paul says "circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing", he is talking about those who were circumcised BEFORE receiving the Gospel, or at least receiving his warnings and commands which would make them accountable. But even this interpretation does not cover issues such as: a) What if circumcision is needed in a life-threatening situation? Is death to be preferred over circumcision? b) What if a Christian accepted circumcision after receiving Christ, but before receiving this warning, but went through with circumcision for the sake of keeping peace with their family? Do they need to repent, and can they even repent? Or do they have to start keeping the Law of Moses? c) Why then did Paul circumcise Timothy? My current take on this is that either Paul had not yet received the revelation on the impact of circumcision (see Galatians 5:11 - "if I STILL preach..."), or that it is okay to circumcise for the sake of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:19-23; Colossians 3:23-24). One other way to try and reconcile Acts 16:1-3 with Galatians 5:2-4 is this: the command is only for non-Jews/Gentiles. This takes into account the context of the whole book of Galatians (how much it speaks against becoming circumcised), and the fact that Paul sometimes uses the word "circumcision" to mean Jews (Romans 2:26,28-29; 3:1; 15:8; Galatians 2:12; Ephesians 2:11; Philippians 3:2-3; Colossians 4:11; Titus 1:10). The argument is that if Paul uses the word "circumcised" to refer to Jews in 1 Corinthians 7:18, then he may have circumcised Timothy because his mother was a Jew, hence "keeping" Timothy circumcised. I know it's a stretch, but it's possible. It would also explain Paul's actions in Acts 21:20-26, because although he did not verbally deny the accusations against him, he appears to have denied them with his actions (it's important to note that the accusation was that he was teaching JEWS everywhere not to circumcise their children and observe the Law of Moses). One final comment is that I had previously considered Galatians 5:2-4 to only be speaking of the intent behind circumcision, but my view has changed concerning that matter. Let me give a short example to communicate why this is: say that a man is circumcised today for a different reason other than to obey the law of Moses. Let's assume that this is acceptable, though I want it to be clear that this is an assumption. If 5 years from now, he gets into an argument with a fellow Christian concerning a matter of the law e.g. Sabbath, or not eating pigs, will he be arguing as a Jew, or Christian? See, he has already fulfilled the physical requirement necessary in order to be considered a Jew, and under the law of Moses (see Exodus 12:48). And having fulfilled that prerequisite, by law he is required to keep the whole law (see Galatians 5:3). The warning in Galatians 5:4 is now very real for him, because he is basing his righteousness on the law. And since he is circumcised, he is in more peril than the one who cannot even be under the law because they are not circumcised. Maybe this is why we see Peter and Paul refer to circumcision and the law of Moses as a yoke or burden (see Acts 15:10; Galatians 5:1, and also refer to Matthew 11:28-30 and the arguments over the law that follow from Matthew 12:1-14, and consider whether this is a coincidence, or by design [the original writing had no chapters, verses, paragraphs or even sentences, as I'm sure you already know]). God did not require any uncircumcised person to keep the law of Moses, nor did He even deem it acceptable or legitimate if someone practiced some things under the law while being uncircumcised (see Ezekiel 44:6-9; Exodus 12:48; Genesis 17:14; Joshua 5:2-12).

The fact that God required the son of first wife would get a double portion. This show God had no issue with it otherwise he would have condemned it.

Hahahahahaha Solomon is always used for reason not to have multiple wives but it wasn't the many wives that got Solomon into trouble. It was Solomon building temples to other gods and worshiping the gods of some of his wives homeland. So idolatry, false gods and stepping away from his GOD is what did Solomon in.

Thank you. I think you do an excellent job of explaining all sides of the issue from a biblical perspective.

Wow! So many people going the wrong way through bad teaching.

Minute 9:28 is funny how you got confused on your own logic hahaha sorry but I have to say in the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, you're still very contaminated by the Catholicism on this subject of marriage and divorce.

As far as the U.S....polygamy is illegal so acquiring any additional wives would be adultery.

My first thought was “What does scripture say?” And I thought about the same ones you pointed out.

Mike, what about the topic of same sex marriage in the same scenario? These days we see lots of same sex marriages that include children so would they enter the church with the same type of restrictions as a polygamist family?

I Love the thought, consideration, and research you do from all sides regarding an issue. It's painstaking, and I appreciate it. You take your responsibility very seriously, so I thank you. The people you attract in the comments seem to be very thoughtful, too. My take is that, due to the Genesis verse, any additional "marriage", or anything else others define as "marriage" deviates from the Genesis definition and is therefore not legitimate. There's no divorce if the "marriage" isn't recognized by God to begin with. Certainly any kids from the relationship(s) should be a part of the family, and the moms, too, as co-parents and hopefully friends. Will it be uncomplicated and perfect? No. But, technically, it wasn't going to be that way anyway, hence, the Genesis verse. There might have to be some counseling for everyone, but it's possible for everything to be generally harmonious, and honoring to everyone, as much as possible. I think you're right on about this problem happening more often. To say it's worrisome is an understatement.

How can you advocate polygamy based on in not being specifically stated in the New Testament? This teaching questions whether or not adultery is a sin, and attempts to redefine it as a covenant of marriage. The reason Jesus is not calling for divorcing a second, or third, marriage after a divorce is because he only designates it as sin, not a covenant of marriage. So Jesus is calling remarriage after a divorce the sin of adultery in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18. He is commanding the married (not divorced and remarried), and separated, such as the abandoned husband in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, "not to divorce" his wife, and the wife abandoning him to "remain unmarried or be reconciled" to her husband. To call for a divorce of an adulterous union would be to invalidate what God joins together as one-flesh, and allow man to define this sin as God's will. Remarriage after divorce is clearly stated as sin, by Christ, and all sin requires repentance, according to Luke 13:1-5 and Galatians 5:19-21.

I know this is an old post but am only coming across it now. I found myself in a polygamous marriage . When I discovered the situation I left him. I now struggle with whether it would be sin for me to remarry.

I think you're spot on with your initial teaching. On your ending however, have you considered how adultery is defined in the bible (the Torah specifically)? There are indications that adultery is defined differently to how we define it in Western society. Marriage in the west is often based on a skewed romantic ideal compared to the rest of the world where it is often a means for the survival and wellfare of the woman (which you touched on briefly). All that said, I do believe monogamy is God's intention and it has proven to be a major factor for stable societies.