No, it’s not a personal care issue we’re facing at the moment. No, we’re not looking to assimilate Mormon teaching into Biblical Christianity. No, I’ve not met someone else. It’s just that someone pointed out that if God could get His head round some of the Bible’s great heroes and their ‘dodgoire’ sexual ethics, why can’t he tolerate the sexual self expression of us lesser mortals? In other words, why can’t God learn to tolerate homo- sexual activity in the same way that he tolerated poly-marital sexual activity?

Australian Bishop, Glenn Davies put it this way in his Briefing essay, ‘Is Polygamy a Sin?’

‘Conservative Christians in the Anglican Communion – especially those in Africa- have fought a long, hard battle against the acceptance and blessing of homosexual activity. Now, some Western Anglicans are charging the Africans with hypocrisy for arguing against one form of sexual deviancy whilst accepting another –polygamy’.
The Briefing Issue 318 March 2005

His article is worth reading if you want to follow up this issue.

A few definitions are in order. Polygamy is multiple simultaneous marriage. It’s not a massive feature of western life. Our issue is serial monogamy rather than simultaneous polygamy. Technically polygamy is a term that covers polygyny (marriage to more than one woman) and polyandry (marriage to more than one man). It was common throughout the ancient world. Even in the first century it was not unknown amongst the Jews. According to Davies’ research, the lex Antoniana de civitae issued in 212AD made monogamy the law for Roman citizens, but it also made an exception for Jews.

1. Polygamy was never God’s intention for humanity

In the ancient Near East, creation narratives were used to demonstrate not just what was, but also what should be. The Bible teaches that the world was created with a purposeful order. To deviate from that order was sin. God created male and female. He designed humanity so that men would marry women and then exercise dominion over the world. Therefore a man was expected to leave his family and cleave to a woman who would become his [only] wife. Only these two people were supposed to enter into the marriage designed by God (Genesis 2:24). This view of marriage was reiterated and reinforced by both Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (1 Corinthians 7:2 & Ephesians 5:31). Anything that deviates from this pattern of marriage fails to fulfil God’s creation purposes. Therefore polygamy can never be God’s ideal for human relationships.

2. Polygamy was sometimes observed in Old Testament times

There’s no getting away from it, most of the Old Testament Patriarchs and many of the Old Testament Kings were polygamous. It would be so much easier if it wasn’t the case. But it was. Lamech, Jacob, Esau, Jacob , Gideon, Elkanah, David and Solomon all had multiple wives (Genesis 4:19, 29:21-30, 36:2, Judges 8:30, 1 Samuel 1:1-2). That’s some line up. Presumably polygamy was popular precisely because it gave people social status. It also enabled them to make various political alliances (2 Samuel 3:2-5, 5:13-16, 12:7-10, 1 Kings 3:1, 11:1-4). The list of names highlights that to have more than one wife was a significant sign of power and wealth that few could achieve. However, the fact remains that polygamy was clearly practised in Old Testament times and apparently without the obvious disapproval of God. But Christopher Ash’s observation is helpful at this point. In his book on marriage he says,

‘The Old Testament did not forbid polygamy, nor very clearly disapprove (for the most part). It is concerned with the telling of a much bigger story, of which the polygamy of kings is moistly but a minor prop on a grand stage. The Old Testament writers were not primarily concerned to teach us lessons about the sex lives of its kings and patriarchs. These men lived in cultures where it was acceptable for the rich and powerful to have more than one wife. Had the narrators turned aside to indicate approval or disapproval of every action described, the story would never have been told’
Marriage: Sex in the Service of God, p252.

And yet, there are one or two ways in which the authors make it obvious that polygamy wasn’t the way things should be. Where multiple simultaneous marriages are described, the picture of family life that emerges could hardly be taken as an endorsement!

3. Polygamy was regulated by God’s law

Whilst it’s true that legislation existed under the Mosaic Law to regulate polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11), this legislation didn’t legitimize polygamy. We could never say that polygamy was lawful, in the true sense of being an activity approved of by God. The appearance of regulation in the Mosaic Law amounts to little more than divine permission. He accommodated His requirements for His people taking into account their propensity for sin. It’s similar to the divine permission for divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). God’s Law was an attempt to make the worst of a bad situation. And so, the Mosaic Law gave protection to concubines and multiple wives, but not in order to sanction the practice. It was tolerated by God’s Law. It was never approved of by God. He simply sought to regulate it and limit the damage that it would cause. It had the potential to wreck a family. And so God gave His word to prevent sin from causing further damage. Once sin erupts at the heart of a relationship it has a habit of multiplying and worsening the situation. And so, the Bible regularly seeks to limit the effects of sin.

4. Polygamy prohibits a man from eldership

I know it’ll sound like a semantic sleight of hand but the Bible doesn’t view polygamy in the same way that it views adultery. The reason for that, I think, is that a polygamist extends his exclusive marriage relationship by including other wives in his marriage covenant. But an adulterer violates his exclusive marriage relationship by breaking his marriage covenant with his wife. I take it that the reason that the Old Testament distinguishes adultery from polygamy is that polygamy was plural marriage which still operated within covenantal boundaries. Adultery broke those boundaries. Nevertheless, polygamous marriage still violates God’s original intention and breaks the seventh commandment. For that reason, when Paul outlines the requirements for an overseer, he indicates that the elder must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2&12, Titus 1:6). If polygamy is wrong for church leaders, it’s wrong for everyone else. As John Frame points out, ‘Scripture does not require elders to follow different moral principles than other Christians’.

Therefore, even though it has occured in the history of God’s people and even though it continues to occur in an African context, polygamy is wrong. God has always thought so. He’s tolerated it and regulated it. But he still opposes it. It’s a heterosexual sin applied to marriage. It’s different to homosexual sexual sin. And it’s still wrong.

For further reading see
G. Davies, ‘Is Polygamy a Sin? A Consideration of Polygamy and the Bible, The Briefing Issue 318, March 2005
J. Frame, The Seventh Commandment: Sexual Purity’, The Doctrine of the Christian Life

16 thoughts on “Polygamy

  1. Lauri October 26, 2009 / 5:46 pm

    Interesting. Does this mean that we should not be apposed to homosexual civil partnerships as long as they do not include same sex sexual relations?

    Also, I am intrigued about the Frame quote. It is not readily clear that scripture doesn’t require higher standards from those leading the church. On the contrary, it seems that it very much does require that, for it sets out specific rules for who can be a leader and who cannot. But it does not set out such specific rules about who can be a follower of Christ and who cannot, though it makes recommendations about the good life that we should seek to live.

    Equally, while polygamy was not approved by God, and neither was murder or adultery, some of the heroes of the old testament where polygamous, murdered and committed adultery. This is something I think we should not forget. God calls David a man after his own heart, but nevertheless, David fails God drastically at least in the second two categories.

    • theurbanpastor November 3, 2009 / 2:09 pm

      Thanks Lauri
      On your second point it’s worth noting that Frame says ‘different moral principles’ he says nothing about higher standards. He’d argue that elders should be known for their progress in godliness, for sure, because that’s what the Bible teaches, as you rightly point out. His point is simply that though church leaders follow the moral requirements of God’s word to a higher standard, it’s not a different standard. In other words, polygamy can’t be legit for the ‘laity’ even though it’s ‘not legit’ for the clergy. That’s a distinction the Bible doesn’t let us make.

      On your first point, I think Christians should be ‘opposed’ to any form of relational arrangement that isn’t one man and one woman in lifelong monogamous sexual union. But we’d need to spell out what we mean by ‘opposed’. We need to be clear what the Bible teaches about male and female relationships, and especially marriage. Regardless of whether same sex activity takes place in a relationship, if a civil partnership is a statement of marriage then it falls short of God’s intention for his people.

  2. Lauri November 4, 2009 / 2:36 pm

    I agree with you in your response to my first point in relation to the Church in the now and not yet, but what about the State? I am trying to flesh out what you mean by “oppose.”

    (For the benefit of others not necessarily aware of where I am coming from this response might be verbose but I would rather it be that than unclear.)

    The reason I asked the question earlier (gay civil partnerships) is because polygamy was allowed in OT times in relation to the law, which was both for the smooth running of a nation (Israel) and a faith movement (Gods people). In relation to the nation, it seems you are arguing that it was permissible to have multiple wives, but not according to Gods desire for his people.

    So because Jesus separated Gods people from being only Israelites by allowing all to be included as citizens in the new Kingdom, does it then mean that we should always seek to implement the spirit of Gods desires for his people (as seen in the Old and New T) at the state level? (Here I am assuming that marriage is a matter for the church, and civil partnership being something outside the church though with relatively equal benefits in relation to the state.)

    This is particularly important in relation to the beginning of your post (and the article you quote from) with regards to the liberal western church calling the African church hypocrites. The L.W.C concerns aren’t about polygamy as much as they are about how homosexuals are treated in parts of Africa with the consent of the church. I bring this up not because I have sympathy with western liberal views on the gay issue inside the church, but rather because I do want it to be clear what it is they are accusing African Christians of.

    Currently a bill is being debated in Uganda which would make the punishment for homosexuality stricter (it is already illegal to have same sex sexual relations). The bill would require church councillors working with homosexuals to give them up to the State for trial if they had committed same sex sexual acts. The punishment for the crime is the death penalty. Some in the Ugandan church have said that they think the sentence should be jail for life rather than the death penalty but others have expressed full support as it currently stands.

    Now given that large sections of the Ugandan church have supported this bill and given that they are seeking to implement the spirit of the law in relation to the Ugandan States handling of matters relating to homosexuality, does that then not mean the African church should be stronger agitators for legislation against polygamy as well?

    Do you agree with the proposals in the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill? (Don’t worry about answering that, but it is important in my mind to think about what the LW church is accusing the African church of within a context that is not our context.)

    On the other point you say: “In other words, polygamy can’t be legit for the ‘laity’ even though it’s ‘not legit’ for the clergy. That’s a distinction the Bible doesn’t let us make.” Why did Paul have to make that distinction then? Was it only for those Jews who already where in polygamous relationships? That’s the point I am trying to make here. It’s not to say that if I don’t want to be an elder its ok for me to have more than one wife! Nevertheless these are clearly two different standards (as per rules and regs. in church governance and ecclesiology), but perhaps that’s a moot point.

    Also, I mention King David in my first response, because he committed sins which where not ‘regulated’ by the state but where forbidden, yet God calls him a man after his own heart, because of his fidelity to God. In my mind this is so crucial to the above debate as well.

  3. Phil C November 9, 2009 / 1:21 pm


    About your point on standards for leadership vs non-leaders: isn’t it just about there being a measure of obedience? Some people, for whatever reason, are more obedient, or more whole-hearted, than others. We’re all called to live whole-heartedly for Jesus – not all of us do (yet), but those who would be leaders are expected to meet some minimum standards.

    Is your other question basically: should the church lobby for a legal system that directly reflects how God expects his people to live?


  4. Lauri November 9, 2009 / 5:48 pm

    Not really Phil, at least not in relation to this point, given that polygamists are not allowed to be elders, but can def. be Christians. Baring in mind that polygamy is uncommon in the West but not in Africa and further to the East where polygamy is still a big issue, I think we are looking at this question with our evangelical personal-holiness lenses (not necessarily wrong) rather than the simple pragmatism of church leadership that Paul was developing. Presumably he did not want elders to have more than one wife, because he did not want them to be ‘too’ distracted (like when he says that it is better not to be married so you can devote more time to God). On the other hand he may have been seeking to ensure that in the future Christians do not adhere to Old Testament practice which God allowed but did not like (though whether he was doing that is not clear in the Pauline text). To illustrate from a current affairs point of view, if a tribal head, with x amount of wives where to become a Christian, and we are assuming that he then does not have to divorce all but one of his wives, he would not be allowed to be an elder even after he grew in maturity. This is not because he is not holy enough or righteous enough or “heading in the right direction spiritually”, but because he has x wives. Then that is not a matter of obedience to Christ after he is a Christian, but a matter of how things stand in relation to his previous life. Frames language does not really allow for this example, or if it does Frame and that is all I was pointing out.

    On the question of homosexuality I was trying to do a number of things. Sorry for not being that clear, perhaps I need to be blunter.

    I was trying to point out that what concerns (among other thing) western liberal Christians in relation to the polygamy and homosexuality issue, is the active work (by Christians) that has gone into legislating against homosexuality in African states, which has seemingly not gone into fighting polygamy. That is the hypocrisy the African church is being blamed for. This is a charge which after reading some of the headlines in relation to the anti-homosexuality bill I don’t think should be dismiss by mentioning only polygamy as an issue in a blog post about the “lifestyle” comparisons.

    That was not readily clear form the quote at the top of the blog post, though I admit that without the knowledge of what is currently going on in Uganda, Richard might not have thought it an issue worth mentioning. I think that on this issue clarity is crucial given the controversial anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda because we have partners at GAFCON who might or might not be involved and given the current problems we have in the Anglican Church about the issue within the church (rather than the state). If there is common ground we can agree on with the liberal westerners we should agree on it, while at the same time teaching truth through a grace filled approach.

    From this follows the two more general points about the difference between Gods commands to his people in the OT and how they apply to us in the Church now, but also whether they should apply to the state. So then, should Christians agitate for all OT laws (in church or out), only some, or non at all, because we are in a different time and place? (Richard did mention polygamy being permissible by God but not beneficial in OT times because of the cultural mores, but surely they where cultural mores of more than just the Israelites and so the Church, and those from within the Church who are given responsibility at the state level, have to in some way, relate to the culture around which it finds itself.) That’s a big problem.

    Finally, I was arguing that if we are going to try and get some form of laws, elements of which are derived from the OT, past in our individual countries (Uganda, UK etc) then we should at least attempt to be consistent about how we approach these.

    There are a lot of things in these paragraphs that need unpacking but the questions and points I think are worth making.

  5. Polymom November 18, 2009 / 4:18 pm

    As a polygamous wife, I would like to address a few things that you mentioned. Please forgive me if I ramble a bit, it’s early where I am located 🙂

    First, I would like to start off by saying I am a Christian Fundamentalist. I am conservative to the core. I am a lover of the Truth of God’s word and a Savior that came to clean me so that I may enter into the presence of God one day. I am also a polygamist. Why?

    Easy enough, I believe in the entire teaching of God. I believe that God NEVER changes and neither does His word. (Mal.3:6)I believe that marriage is a covenent NOT with the Gov’t as the churches reconizge, but between a Almighty God in Heaven, a husband and a wife. I believe that God CAN NEVER and WILL NEVER portray himself as anything that is immoral or against His word. He would never portray himself as a drunkard or a homosexual, but in Ezek. AND in Jeremiah, God portrays himself as a polygamous man in a loving relationship with his people. He is not a God on confusion, but a God of peace and love. So to save the confusion I am going to address two of your arguements

    1. Polygamy was never God’s intention for humanity

    Ok, I understand you on this. I know this is a BIG argument and something I heard when I got kicked out of my home church. However, God’s ORIGINAL plan of us was in fellowship with him. We walked and conversed with him and we were naked. Since the fall things have changed, obviously, and we are no longer in direct fellowship with God. You are presuming that this is God’s original plan, but after the fall we were scattered amoung the land. We needed to be in unity with each other and the only way to do that and ‘be fruitful and multiply’ was to live polygamously. Further reading in Gen and you would find that there is an example of a man being struck dead as to not practicing polygamy ( GEN 38)

    Additionally, I believe the Torah was penned by Moses, a polygamist. If God can kill a man for not living His commandment, then how much more would Moses be condemned for WRITING something intended for monogamy, but living polygamously, which you are saying is indirect offense of God? Food for thought!

    To say that God never intended is absurd. Christ himself came through a polygamous marriage. Many judges were polygamist man. One of the great Kings, Solomon, was a polygamist (and a romantic one at that) and King David was ALSO a polygamist and a friend of God. Heavenly Father, himself, said that He would give David more wives if he had only asked.

    2. Polygamy prohibits a man from eldership

    I’m assuming that you are talking about 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. I would like to note to the readers that when Paul writes ‘one’ the word is ‘mia’ in Greek. ‘Mia’ translated appropriately can mean ‘one’ or ‘first’ like ‘The First Day of of the week or ‘First Wife’

    I can agree with you on this, if you wanted to go off this logic. But of one wife, so that means single men and divorced men ALSO could not be Deacons or Bishop. All Christians MUST have well disciplined households, and all children must be believers. AND certainly women could hold NO leadership position. Look around in your church at how many people DO NOT fit that description. There is no room in the bible for implied scriptures. It is all or nothing.

    You can’t comdemn polygamy, but then put a twice married (and in most cases, twice divorced) man on the leadership team. Doesn’t work that way. We are commanded to not throw away the wife of our youth (Malachi 2:14-15) Divorce is not an option in God’s eyes. (Malachi 2:16) and yet, you say Christ says it’s ok in Matthew. I don’t understand the churches logic anymore.

    I am a polygamist because there simple are not enough men out there that are good men in these Latter Days. I would rather be under the covering of a Godly Christian men with two wives, then one wife of an absent, emmasculated man. I am a polygamist because I KNOW that this is a encouraged and blessed way of life in the bible. Christ came through a polygamist family and it is through polygamist families that the church will rebuild itself. I am a polygamist because I desire to live a sacrifical love and I do that by living this lifestyle. I am a polygamist because there truly is freedom in this lifestyle and when God ‘cursed’ Eve, I believe He knew the burdens that women would eventually have to carry in the Latter days and He blessed us with polygamy.

    I am a VERY PROUD polygamist!

    Thank you!
    In Christ’s love and mine

  6. CecilW November 18, 2009 / 4:23 pm

    I’m wondering, Pastor:

    ** Does God ever describe Himself as sinful? Even in allegory? No? Yet He describes Himself in polygynous terms in Jer 3 and Eze 23.

    ** Does God ever tempt men to sin? James explicitly said not. Yet God offered David his masters wives (plural), and said that if it were not enough, He’d have provided more.

    ** Does God give rules by which we may sin in a righteous manner? Sounds silly, doesn’t it? But while the laws given regarding murder and adultery and homosexuality were laws of punishment, rejection, and death, the laws given for polygamy were laws for reulating its fair continuance.

    This is too short a space to make the arguments about your initial statement that “Polygamy was never God’s intention for humanity”, but I ask you please to back your own statement with a reference from Scripture. Prov 30:6, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” scares me deeply about making such unsupported (and, truthfully, unsupportable) statements.

  7. Mark November 18, 2009 / 5:35 pm

    Our Savior was very clear when He repeatedly (see Matthew 23, among many) condemned as “Hypocrites!” those who put the “traditions of man” in place of His commandments. We are not to “add to” nor “subtract from” His Word.

    Man’s pagan-inspired egalitarian tradition of “forbidding to marry” is exactly such.

    God NOWHERE forbids a man from taking more than one wife, IF he does so in accord with the conditions He so clearly outlines. And to compare something He PERMITS and provides guidelines for (polygyny) with ANYTHING (like homosexuality) which He not only forbids unconditionally but calls “abomination” is to lie to His sheep and “reject knowledge” (Hosea 4:6)! It is an attempt to mix the clean and unclean, the set-apart (holy) and the profane.

    I note that the last few comments have done a good job at pointing out some of the errors above. I would add on that score only that those who claim to know what “God’s intent for humanity” is should at least start by making sure such hubris is consistent with His Word.

    To that end, rather than addressing such falsehoods again, I will shortly post here a piece that — from His Word — addresses those deceptions, and others which will doubtless arise — more directly.

  8. Stormy November 18, 2009 / 5:57 pm


    I will just comment on one part, for now.

    You said, “Polygamy was never God’s intention for humanity”. You then attempted to validate your statement by saying “Only these two people were supposed to enter into the marriage designed by God (Genesis 2:24).” You said “supposed to” as if Adam had another choice at this time! Then, as if one out-of-context verse proves your position, you write “This view of marriage was reiterated and reinforced by both Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (1 Corinthians 7:2 & Ephesians 5:31).” Exactly how do these passages reinforce that Adam would not have been allowed to marry other women if they were alive at the time? Furthermore, somehow, without any solid exegesis, you extrapolate that you know God’s intention by Genesis 2:24? What ever happened to progressive revelation? So, does this mean that when God made Adam a farmer that this was is original intention? Thank God for progressive revelation, or we would all be farmers based upon that kind of reasoning!

  9. Melanie November 18, 2009 / 10:35 pm

    I believe you are contradicting yourself somewhat in your statements regarding polygamy in the Old Testament.

    “…most of the Old Testament Patriarchs and many of the Old Testament Kings were polygamous.”

    Are these not men who are patriarchs in the literal sense and people who have an example we can be guided by?

    and yet you state in regards to polygamy…

    “there are one or two ways in which the authors make it obvious that polygamy wasn’t the way things should be. Where multiple simultaneous marriages are described, the picture of family life that emerges could hardly be taken as an endorsement!”

    If there were obvious ways that the bible expressed disapproval then i am sure you would have made full use of them. I would consider the issues surrounding marriage and family that are described in the bible are nothing if not realistic! We are all deeply flawed after all.

    In any case i feel that if you have to bend over backwards and make assumptions in order to get a black and white answer form the bible then you’re just doing it wrong. Keep it simple… the K.I.S.S method… applies well when seeking answers in the bible, not everything is a riddle, sometimes the answer is really very straightforward.

    God approves polygamy for some men, usually very righteous, strong men that can handle the extra responsibility. It was never meant for your average Joe.

    See…it’s really that simple!

  10. Stephen November 19, 2009 / 5:20 am

    The Word of God has the answer for Adultery, Divorce, and living a Godly Life…

    God hates divorce. Is this true?
    and yet we as the church don’t hate divorce we tolerate it.

    If a man divorces his wife and marries another woman. We put up with it, even though the bible calls that man an adulterer for divorcing his wife, and forcing her to marry another man.

    But if that same man, chooses to live Godly and marry two women and the Godly men of old did. We would call him a heretic and kick him out of the church.

    The Word of God is NOT our guide,, First our Religious culture is our guide, and then we interpret the Bible by our own Religious standard.

    We have mercy for the people who divorce, but for Godly people who would have more than one wife we have only judgement.. We truly are the same religious hypocrite’s that crucified our Lord.

    God created man with a GODLY Desire to have more than one wife, God’s only restriction was that the man stay with that woman and to NEVER divorce.
    The answer for situation that is destroying Christian homes is in God’s Authoritative word.


    The Truth will set you free,,
    Love the Truth not your religious culture

  11. theurbanpastor November 20, 2009 / 12:04 pm

    I think I’ve been outed in a polygamous forum – does Driscoll have to deal with this?!

  12. Polymom24 November 20, 2009 / 3:18 pm


    Because people disagree with you, doesn’t mean you been outed. It is possible that we might be on to something. People take the time to read the Word of God, AS IS, and believe it or not we also take the time to read the internet (especially when you type in polygamy news into a google search) and we also talk amoung friends (believe or not, we polygamist have friends..we also have upswept hair and I’m a robot and a servant to my husband..hahaha, I’m TOTALLY KIDDING)

    However, more and more pastors have been speaking about this very issue..so you are not alone in feeling like ‘ Driscoll’ whoever that is? 🙂

    I pray we have maybe opened your eyes a little bit to the errors that the church has been preaching. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to post freely on your blog without any hard feelings and with Christ’s like heart 🙂

    In Christ’s love and mine
    His Eternal Bride

  13. Mark November 20, 2009 / 3:46 pm

    I notice that you apparently won’t even pubilsh the second post which I submitted several days ago now.

    Is that because it uses actual Scripture to refute your “tradition” -based doctrine?

    Do you believe “iron sharpens iron”, or not?

    Yes, there are an increasing number of “Bereans” who have realized that the advice of both our Savior and His bondservants still applies:

    Search out the truth for yourself, and “see” if these things be True.

    Recognize that He called those “Hypocrites!” who took it upon themselves to “add to” or “subtract from” His Word (Deut. 4:2, 12:32, and MANY more. I won’t dwell on I Tim. 4:1-3!)

    Teachers are held to a higher standard – throughout Scripture. The essence of being “teachable” (or meek, or humble, as Moses was) is to be able to learn that some things that “you have heard it said” are NOT what “is Written”. Marriage is one of them.

  14. Mark November 20, 2009 / 3:53 pm

    You may post this, or consider it private.

    > I think I’ve been outed in a polygamous forum – does Driscoll have to deal with this?!

    I see evidence in your thread that you are a considerably more honest student of the word than Driscoll. Evidently, he doesn’t even tolerate, much less publish, any opposition to his tripe. (Yes, that word choice is deliberate, albeit overly polite.)

    But if you would like to see what an honest rebuttal of his “teaching” looks like, I would point you to the following:


    You will find that we are willing to engage in honest debate, and welcome questions. As I have said many times, there are “hard teachings” in Scripture — but this isn’t one of them!

  15. Paul Rollins November 20, 2009 / 10:02 pm

    “I think I’ve been outed in a polygamous forum – does Driscoll have to deal with this?!”

    I don’t know if you were trying to be funny, but when I read that, I LOL’d! I appreciate you trying to keep it lighthearted, if that is what you were doing. You do need to watch out for us, the crazy polygynists, we multiply quickly, just like that tribe of Israel that could muster more fighting men to defend God’s people because they had “many wives.” Anyway….

    The truth is that polygyny is an acceptable FORM of Godly marriage, just like monogamy. The fear comes from the assumption by monogamists that because THEY force a certain marriage structure on everyone, that WE will try to force polygyny on everyone, which is a numerical impossibility. Don’t worry monogamy only ladies, nobody is saying that you have to share your husband.

    When you speak the truth from God’s Word, you don’t have to worry about being “outed”. It is a cool feeling that I am sure you have experienced before. Just not in this particular case.

    BTW, how does anyone know what is “God’s best” or “original plan.” And AS important, why did He not stick with what HE knows is best? Did He not know that His original plan would fail? As far as my Bible reads, He gets what He wants, even His praise, even if the rocks have to cry out. If it is not His original plan, then it is at least part of His CURRENT plan, so either way, IT IS STILL ACCEPTABLE!

    The scary thing for the no-no polygamy stance is that regardless of “original” or “current”, we definately know that it will be “future” when Is 4:1 takes place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s