# What to do if husband has 2 or more wives when converting to Christ?



## monoergon (Feb 10, 2018)

I curious to know what must a newly converted husband do if he has two or more wives— due to his ex-religion or tradition, such as Islam or native Indian tribes.

Or, perhaps I can restate the question like this:
What must a husband do before he converts to Christ if he has two or more wives— due to his ex-religion or tradition, such as Islam or native Indian tribes?

- Should he only remain married to the wife he married first and divorce all his other wives?

- Should he only remain married to the wife who converts to Christ (along with him) and, therefore, divorce all his other wives who may not want to convert to Christ?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 10, 2018)

monoergon said:


> What must a husband do before he converts to Christ if he has two or more wives



Are you asking if the problem _must_ be solved _before_ conversion? I think the first way you stated the question is better. _The wind blows where it wishes. _But still, you are asking a good question.


----------



## Jeff Low (Feb 10, 2018)

If we have to do something (repentance included) before we convert to Christ, we’ve lost the plot and gone off the deep end. 

It might be more helpful to ask how one should deal with this situation upon/after conversion.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk


----------



## monoergon (Feb 10, 2018)

Jeff Low said:


> If we have to do something (repentance included) before we convert to Christ, we’ve lost the plot and gone off the deep end.
> 
> It might be more helpful to ask how one should deal with this situation upon/after conversion.
> 
> ...


Yes, correct. Initially, I was thinking in terms of the husband considering how his life would be different in light of the Bible. There are times when people hear the Gospel message for the first time, but it can take days, months or years before that person may actually come to Christ.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 10, 2018)

Here's my opinion, and it is only an opinion: God is the god of polygamists, too. Even if one acknowledges that polygamy is not God's original intention, the fact is that it was permitted in the OT and was not an automatic disqualifier from being considered "righteous" (at least by OT standards!), though it would be a disqualifier from service as an elder per 1 Tim 3:2.

That said, God's original intent was one man and one woman for life, and that's what we should advocate for and what we should expect as normative. But in terms of what to make of people who come to the faith with multiple wives, I believe that Paul's instruction in 1 Cor 7:17-24 has great applicability here, and I believe that application of that passage would be for him to love his wives faithfully, fulfilling the obligations and granting the rights due them as his wives. I would not advocate for divorce. However, it could very well be that one (or more!) of the wives would not want to stay with him due to his conversion. In that case, I'd suggest that 1 Cor 7:12-15 applies.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 10, 2018)

Nathan:

I think that it's a bit more complicated than you present. 

Regeneration makes one more loving and responsible, not less (cf. Luke 19 and Zacchaeus). I don't think that it would be loving and responsible for a newly converted man to kick to the curb his "other" wives and children (all except the first, though some would counsel a version of that; certainly not to the one who "converts to Christ," v. I Cor. 7). 

The following answer to that question on the OPC website's Q and A is, I think, helpful: https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=419. At the very least, there needs to be provision for all the women and all the children _are_ his legitimate children. 

Missionaries have long had to address this, and I think that this answer provides a reasonable model for this thorny problem. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 12


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 10, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Nathan:
> 
> I think that it's a bit more complicated than you present.
> 
> ...



I agree with the answer in the Q/A and see it as being essentially consistent with my own view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 10, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Nathan:
> 
> I think that it's a bit more complicated than you present.
> 
> ...


God would overlook this before conversion, but once the person was born again, would he not expect them to now be the Husband of one wife?
Likewise, if a Lesbian/Homosexual couple married, and one was then saved, would not God demand that to be null and void?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God would overlook this before conversion, but once the person was born again, would he not expect them to now be the Husband of one wife?
> Likewise, if a Lesbian/Homosexual couple married, and one was then saved, would not God demand that to be null and void?



David:

Did you read what I linked in my post, above? That would answer your question: regeneration is not a "redo" button. One cannot simply pretend as if these marriages, with all accompanying them, did not occur. It's neither loving nor responsible to address this as if one's personal, private welfare were the only thing at issue: a polygamist has many ongoing responsibilities that Christianity doesn't erase but makes him all the more want to do right by all concerned. The consequence of sin is not dealt with by pretending it didn't happen.

A same-sex union was never in any proper sense a marriage and can have no offspring produced by such. This does not mean, however, that the converted party may have no obligation whatsoever to the other party: if the converted party, for instance, was the source of insurance/healthcare for the unconverted party and that unconverted party has pre-existing condition(s), the converted party should not throw the other to the curb.

That may seem shocking to some people, but Christianity calls us to love God and neighbor as never before, even those with whom we should not have been in relationship but were, and have some obligation to them, even now that we're converted and they're not.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 14 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 10, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> David:
> 
> 
> A same-sex union was never in any proper sense a marriage and can have no offspring produced by such. This does not mean, however, that the converted party may have no obligation whatsoever to the other party: if the converted party, for instance, was the source of insurance/healthcare for the unconverted party and that unconverted party has pre-existing condition(s), the converted party should not throw the other to the curb.
> ...



Pastor, I'm glad you addressed this. Jurisprudence shows every sign of wanting to keep up with the sexual revolution. People are now and will in greater numbers be converted who have been in SS relationships, 'married' or otherwise, for years and decades. Some of these people will have natural and adopted children. I think we are also going to see legalized polygamy. Flatfooted ways of handling these situations are not going to work.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 10, 2018)

The answer already given—that the man should remain faithful to all his wives if they will remain with him, but may not hold church office—has generally been the position taken by Bible-minded missionaries. It does no good to add another sin on top of the original error by making the man cast off a woman to whom he has pledged faithfulness.

Paul's instruction that an elder must be the husband of one wife suggests this was his answer. It sounds as if there were men in the church who retained their multiple wives and were still regarded as believers in good standing. Else why might they be considered for eldership in the first place?

Missionaries actually tend to struggle more with the office-holding part of this rule. In many cultures, the men who had multiple wives when converted are also the men who seem most responsible and held leadership roles before they heard the gospel. It can be hard to explain why such men are unqualified for leadership in the church, especially when they were unaware at the time of their marriages that polygamy is not God's design.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 10, 2018)

Jack K said:


> The answer already given—that the man should remain faithful to all his wives if they will remain with him, but may not hold church office—has generally been the position taken by Bible-minded missionaries. It does no good to add another sin on top of the original error by making the man cast off a woman to whom he has pledged faithfulness.
> 
> Paul's instruction that an elder must be the husband of one wife suggests this was his answer. It sounds as if there were men in the church who retained their multiple wives and were still regarded as believers in good standing. Else why might they be considered for eldership in the first place?
> 
> Missionaries actually tend to struggle more with the office-holding part of this rule. In many cultures, the men who had multiple wives when converted are also the men who seem most responsible and held leadership roles before they heard the gospel. It can be hard to explain why such men are unqualified for leadership in the church, especially when they were unaware at the time of their marriages that polygamy is not God's design.


So if the person was a Mormon with multiply wives who was saved, and some wives decided to stay in the marriage, he is under obligation to fulfill his vows to them, but if they choose to live him as no longer Mormon, that is acceptable also?


----------



## Jack K (Feb 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So if the person was a Mormon with multiply wives who was saved, and some wives decided to stay in the marriage, he is under obligation to fulfill his vows to them, but if they choose to live him as no longer Mormon, that is acceptable also?



In the case of most Mormons who might find themselves in this situation, I suspect the latter marriages would not be legally recognized, which adds a wrinkle to the case. Hard cases make bad law, as they say. The principle to act out of love and fulfill financial commitments certainly applies, but I wonder how one might negotiate the situation if some marriages were deemed illegal by the state. Perhaps someone else here has heard of an actual case where a church dealt with this.


----------



## monoergon (Feb 10, 2018)

These are great answers. 

Does anyone know if great reformed theologians has written about this issue of polygamy, such as Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, Berkhof, Charles Hodge, the Puritans etc?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 10, 2018)

monoergon said:


> Does anyone know if great reformed theologians has written about this issue of polygamy, such as Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, Berkhof, Charles Hodge, the Puritans etc?



Yes, Nathan, in that these, along with those of the ancient and medieval church, often commented that I Timothy 3:2 and elsewhere forbade polygamists as office-bearers.

In so commenting, they would often note (Calvin especially comes to mind here) that while polygamists may become Christians, they cannot be office-bearers (noting that "mias gunaikos andra," meaning "one-woman man," whatever else it may mean, certainly prohibits polygamists). Tertullian, in his work on monogamy, after becoming a Montanist, took it to mean one wife in a lifetime (for all Christians)!

It is something that would be worth looking into more narrowly respecting the missionary situation.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2018)

We work in a tribal context and this happens sometimes. We just baptized a polygynous man last October. 

The man knows he cannot hold church office, nor should he add further wives. He must treat his current wives in love and remain faithful to them and fulfill all of his obligations to them. There is no adultery and all of his children are legitimate. He has promised to teach both wives the gospel and to feed and supply both with needs.

Missionaries should never encourage divorce for these cases, as has been done by some Fundy groups like WEC in Africa. This creates illegitimate children and poverty-stricken women in an instant.

God bore patiently with polygamists for generations in the Old Testament. We can surely bear with it 1 or 2 generations among tribal societies until it dies a natural death on its own.

Reactions: Like 12 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 10, 2018)

I was hoping, Trevor, that someone like you (actually I was hoping you would!) would chime in from the mission field and tell us how you were lovingly and responsibly addressing this. 

Thanks so much for doing so!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God would overlook this before conversion, but once the person was born again, would he not expect them to now be the Husband of one wife?
> Likewise, if a Lesbian/Homosexual couple married, and one was then saved, would not God demand that to be null and void?



I think that you are comparing apples and oranges. While polygamy falls short of God's standards, homosexual "marriage" is a revolt against nature and such relations can never be legitimate nor are they ever tolerable.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2018)

There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" but there is such a thing as polygamous marriages. The Bible treats these as true marriages instead of the perverted charade of homo unions, and multiple wives are still called wives. 

Apples and oranges for sure.

The irony is that the West tolerates homosexual marriage but polygamy is still illegal. The slide downward into sin is sometimes inconsistent.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## monoergon (Feb 11, 2018)

Dr. John Frame on polygamy:
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_frame/Frame.Ethics2005.Polygamy.pdf


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 11, 2018)

monoergon said:


> - Should he only remain married to the wife he married first and divorce all his other wives?



No. Keep all wives but he is forbidden from becoming a church officer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 11, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Tertullian, in his work on monogamy, after becoming a Montanist, took it to mean one wife in a lifetime (for all Christians)!



Indeed, and he wrote letters to widows almost warning them not to remarry.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 11, 2018)

monoergon said:


> These are great answers.
> 
> Does anyone know if great reformed theologians has written about this issue of polygamy, such as Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, Berkhof, Charles Hodge, the Puritans etc?



I know Hodge has a lot to say on how close one can marry regarding sanguinuity (in other words, can you marry your deceased brother's wife, or some equivalent). But the others were writing from the benefit of Western civilization (at the risk of triggering the Gospel Coalition) and they likely never had to face this issue in a real sense.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So if the person was a Mormon with multiply wives who was saved, and some wives decided to stay in the marriage, he is under obligation to fulfill his vows to them, but if they choose to live him as no longer Mormon, that is acceptable also?



As Jack noted, they aren't legal marriages by US (or mainline LDS) law. Only fringe Mormon cults stay true to Mormon teaching.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Feb 11, 2018)

monoergon said:


> Dr. John Frame on polygamy:
> http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_frame/Frame.Ethics2005.Polygamy.pdf



I was going to say that Frame is not a "Dr." and does not represent himself as such but I see on his RTS profile that he does. His doctorate, as far as I know, is honorary and thus he is not entitled to the appellation (despite his substantial corpus of academic work). Not that it's material to the discussion at hand, but it's surprising to see RTS flouting academic convention like that. Frame does not use the title in his published work that I've seen, at least.


----------



## monoergon (Feb 11, 2018)

Thank you all for clarifying this issue for me. I have learned a lot.

If there are any free Reformed online articles on this issue, please share them here.


----------



## Cymro (Feb 11, 2018)

Nathan, I have just read Turretin on polygamy. See Vol 2:15-16 and page 122.


----------



## monoergon (Feb 11, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Nathan, I have just read Turretin on polygamy. See Vol 2:15-16 and page 122.


Thank you Jeff. Currently I don't own that work, but I'm sure someone in my church has it.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 13, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> We work in a tribal context and this happens sometimes. We just baptized a polygynous man last October.
> 
> The man knows he cannot hold church office, nor should he add further wives. He must treat his current wives in love and remain faithful to them and fulfill all of his obligations to them. There is no adultery and all of his children are legitimate. He has promised to teach both wives the gospel and to feed and supply both with needs.
> 
> ...


So this would be the case where God would permit something that was against His revealed will regarding marriage relationship due to the parties involved being in the dark so to speak regarding the truth of God, and now saved, God would see the upheaval from breaking the stable and working arrangement to be far worse than letting it stay statas Quo?
And Missionaries should also still reinforce that God tolerated this before, but now since the light of God has come, going forward, needs to be as God commanded?


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 13, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think that you are comparing apples and oranges. While polygamy falls short of God's standards, homosexual "marriage" is a revolt against nature and such relations can never be legitimate nor are they ever tolerable.


You make sense here, as while God for a time permitted many wives in the OT, He never OK at all same sex marriages, period.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So this would be the case where God would permit something that was against His revealed will regarding marriage relationship due to the parties involved being in the dark so to speak regarding the truth of God, and now saved, God would see the upheaval from breaking the stable and working arrangement to be far worse than letting it stay statas Quo?
> And Missionaries should also still reinforce that God tolerated this before, but now since the light of God has come, going forward, needs to be as God commanded?



I don't quite understand the phrasing of your response. Can you restate your point?

Yes, societal upheaval will result by the missionary encouraging divorce. Never in the Bible is polygamy explicitly said to be sin, but God is said to hate divorce. Therefore, getting back to the ideal of one-husband-one-wife monogamy can occur in the 2nd generation to prevent family disintegration, the instantaneous making of formerly legitimate children into illegitimate bastards, and the reduction of former wives into second-class citizens (on the level of concubines instead of honorable wives) without a husband to provide for them. This method of letting polygamy die a natural death in the 2nd generation is the better method at ending polygamy than to suddenly end it and create many sudden further social problems.

In II Samuel 12 Nathan the Prophet says that God would have given David many more wives, "_And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife.." _

Nathan calls David's adultery evil but says God would have granted David many more wives if only he did not do this sin of adultery. Therefore, we can prove that adultery is far worse than polygamy and that polygamy is not merely contractualized adultery, as some claim, but that it is true marriage.

Also, we can see that adultery is not an awful abomination as, say homosexuality is, by the fact that God would not have offered something that heinously evil to David. The wives of the former king became his, and God had so richly granted so much wealth, and so many cattle, and so many wives to David that David's sin of taking what was not his was even worse because of it.

In Ezekial 23 and Jeremiah 3 God portrays himself as a polygamist by way of illustration to show the unfaithfulness of his two kingdoms. We cannot fathom that God would portray himself as a homosexual or an adulterer, and yet God paints himself as married to two daughters of the same mother.

Eze 23:1 The Word of Jehovah came again to me,
Eze 23:2 Son of man, there *were two women, the daughters of one mother*.
...*And they were Mine, and they bore sons and daughters*.
Eze 23:36-37 And Jehovah said to me: Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah, and declare to them their abominations, that *they* have *committed adultery*,



Foreign sins always appear as more sinful than familiar sins.

I would argue that Western promiscuity and adultery and divorce are worse sins than the polygamy of the Patriarchs. We read the OT and we marvel that these polygamist patriarchs could be God's people....but they, in turn, would marvel that sex-saturated modern Westerners who engage in sexual encounters freely with people who are not one of their many wives could be saved. We are at the stage in Western history where a return to the polygamy of the Patriarchs would be a moral improvement.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 14, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I don't quite understand the phrasing of your response. Can you restate your point?
> 
> Yes, societal upheaval will result by the missionary encouraging divorce. Never in the Bible is polygamy explicitly said to be sin, but God is said to hate divorce. Therefore, getting back to the ideal of one-husband-one-wife monogamy can occur in the 2nd generation to prevent family disintegration, the instantaneous making of formerly legitimate children into illegitimate bastards, and the reduction of former wives into second-class citizens (on the level of concubines instead of honorable wives) without a husband to provide for them. This method of letting polygamy die a natural death in the 2nd generation is the better method at ending polygamy than to suddenly end it and create many sudden further social problems.
> 
> ...


Yes, assuming that while in a polygamy marriage, the husband is fulfilling his sexual and financial and all other activities for each wife, this would be seen as being superior to cheating while only married to one wife. The ideal marriage standard would still be one woman and one man relationship as God originally created and intended it to be from the very beginning, as Jesus said that it should be.


----------



## Berean (Feb 14, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, assuming that while on the polygamy, the husband is fulfilling his sexual and financial and all other activities for each wife is superior to cheating while only married to one wife, but would still see that the best way would be to be one woman and one man relationship as God originally created and intended it to be from the very beginning, as Jesus said that it should be.



That's one incredible sentence.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 14, 2018)

Berean said:


> That's one incredible sentence.


I have modified it to keep a proper flow of thought.


----------



## timfost (Feb 14, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> In II Samuel 12 Nathan the Prophet says that God would have given David many more wives, "_And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife.."_



Perg,

I have appreciated a number of your responses on this topic.

Regarding the portion above, I think God is talking about blessing David with things, though it doesn't necessarily mean God is approving of polygamy. "Much more," not "many more."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 14, 2018)

timfost said:


> Perg,
> 
> I have appreciated a number of your responses on this topic.
> 
> Regarding the portion above, I think God is talking about blessing David with things, though it doesn't necessarily mean God is approving of polygamy. "Much more," not "many more."


God seemed to have blessed David in spite of his many wives.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2018)

timfost said:


> Perg,
> 
> I have appreciated a number of your responses on this topic.
> 
> Regarding the portion above, I think God is talking about blessing David with things, though it doesn't necessarily mean God is approving of polygamy. "Much more," not "many more."



Nevertheless, we read:

"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.

God gave David his wives, and would have given him more. If only David would not have sinned by adultery.

The point is to see how God views polygamy in comparison to adultery or divorce. One is so much worse than the other from this context. But because remote tribal peoples do it, we see foreign sin as more heinous because it is unfamiliar, even as sexual promiscuity is not considered too bad in the West anymore. Our culture clouds our sense of which particular sins are worse than others.

Add to this, the law of the Levirate and also God's willingness to portray himself as married to two wives, and we can gain a proper gradation of which sins are worse than others.

My main point here is not to excuse polygamy. It naturally dies off everywhere the gospel is spread. But I just want to put it into proper perspective when compared to the sins of the West. If we overemphasize how bad polygamy is, we can do more harm to tribal societies trying to suddenly rid the society of this evil overnight...and cause many worse problems in our sudden efforts. The better course is to exercise patience.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 16, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Nevertheless, we read:
> 
> "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.
> ...


When the scriptures are promoted and practiced among the recently evangelized say in nations that allow for many wives, God will be able to weed that out from among the people, and get back to one man for one wife over a process of time.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 17, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> We work in a tribal context and this happens sometimes. We just baptized a polygynous man last October.
> 
> The man knows he cannot hold church office, nor should he add further wives. He must treat his current wives in love and remain faithful to them and fulfill all of his obligations to them. There is no adultery and all of his children are legitimate. He has promised to teach both wives the gospel and to feed and supply both with needs.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you have said so far. 

But what about if the situation were reversed, a situation of polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)? Would the same standard apply? Or should the surplus husbands be told to divorce and move on? I would assume it would be less economically devastating for a husband to move on in this situation than for a wife. I know the situation is more rare, but it does happen. Have you ever encountered it or heard about it in a missions context?


----------



## ZackF (Feb 17, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I agree with everything you have said so far.
> 
> But what about if the situation were reversed, a situation of polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)? Would the same standard apply? Or should the surplus husbands be told to divorce and move on? I would assume it would be less economically devastating for a husband to move on in this situation than for a wife. I know the situation is more rare, but it does happen. Have you ever encountered it or heard about it in a missions context?



Paul's instructions are the same. If you become a Christian you are not to break your marriage vows. If the non-believing spouse leaves due to your faith then that is on them. Why is it different for a woman in this case? By what authority does she have to flick off her husbands if they don't leave?

If what you are describing is real, then the immediate social fabric would depend on this and the best course be the slow, multigenerational death that Perg wrote about.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 17, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I agree with everything you have said so far.
> 
> But what about if the situation were reversed, a situation of polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)? Would the same standard apply? Or should the surplus husbands be told to divorce and move on? I would assume it would be less economically devastating for a husband to move on in this situation than for a wife. I know the situation is more rare, but it does happen. Have you ever encountered it or heard about it in a missions context?


I speak with no confidence about polyandry because we have no biblical examples, and those societies are quite rare. But I suppose, to be consistent, I would have to also urge the same principles to be followed. I have never heard of a missionary dealing with polyandrous marriages. As an example, according to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 [tribal West African] societies noted, 588 had frequent polygamy, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous, and four had polyandry. I would love to research this further, though.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 18, 2018)

Some more recent research, Trevor, purports to find dozens more of such cultures (that practice polyandry). 

But they're still quite negligible. I've only done a bit of research on this question but have found the one or two "reputable" reports of this sort to be suspect in their motives and goals. Bottom line: apart from the "multiple brothers marrying one woman" types of Tibet and like poor (and land-poor) cultures, there's very little clear evidence of more widespread polyandry. 

My answer, frankly, is that we should, missiologically, cross that bridge when we come to it, and I am not aware that we have. I don't think that we should allow ourselves to get trapped by saying that we would treat it the same way as we would polygamy. 

I'd want to see all the facts on the ground, like we have in polygamous contexts. Claiming that polyandry is more widespread than previously thought may well have ideological motivations of which we should be suspicious. I would want to look very carefully into this matter before committing. Thus I am not prepared to say that I would regard this the same way in the context of the mission field. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 18, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I agree with everything you have said so far.
> 
> But what about if the situation were reversed, a situation of polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)? Would the same standard apply? Or should the surplus husbands be told to divorce and move on? I would assume it would be less economically devastating for a husband to move on in this situation than for a wife. I know the situation is more rare, but it does happen. Have you ever encountered it or heard about it in a missions context?


Multiple husbands cannot simultaneously have a valid marriage to the same woman, so divorce doesn't apply. Rather, the woman has committed adultery from her first husband. I think this would need to be corrected within the discipleship process, rather than tolerated, just like homosexuality would. 

Those "husbands" who came later cannot be properly married to her, as it is a property violation. She belongs to her first husband, who is improperly sharing her with other men. Multiple wives, however, involve multiple contracts by the same man, which was tolerated, but was never the original model. It is better to honor the contracts instead of breaking them. The "head" of a household can theoretically make multiple contracts, but the beneficiary of that "headship" cannot be under two headships.

That's how I understand it.

Blessings!


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 22, 2018)

Common sense would dictate that the original marriage is the authentic one, and the ones that followed are null in void.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> Common sense would dictate that the original marriage is the authentic one, and the ones that followed are null in void.


Your common sense is not informed by Scripture then, which calls all wives as wives and not as adulterers or partners in adultery.


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 23, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Your common sense is not informed by Scripture then, which calls all wives as wives and not as adulterers or partners in adultery.


What did Jesus say to the woman at the well? 

John 4:17:18


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 24, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> What did Jesus say to the woman at the well?
> 
> John 4:17:18


They must have been living together and not married.

The OT speaks of multiple WIVES. Under your logic you could not have WIVES but a wife and then many illicit lovers. But the OT speaks of these women as true wives. And when David sinned with Bathsheba God answered by saying (In 2 Samuel 12), "I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!"

God tells David he woudl have added even more wives to him...if only he did not sin the sin of adultery with Bathsheba.....therefore, multiple wives if not as great a sin as adultery. And thus these women were counted as wives and not anything else less than wives.


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 24, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> They must have been living together and not married.
> 
> The OT speaks of multiple WIVES. Under your logic you could not have WIVES but a wife and then many illicit lovers. But the OT speaks of these women as true wives. And when David sinned with Bathsheba God answered by saying (In 2 Samuel 12), "I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!"
> 
> God tells David he woudl have added even more wives to him...if only he did not sin the sin of adultery with Bathsheba.....therefore, multiple wives if not as great a sin as adultery. And thus these women were counted as wives and not anything else less than wives.


What exactly is your assertion, that you are a polygamist and that God encourages you to be so? Is that the end game here? Paul teaches that for someone to be an elder they are to be the husband of one wife, that' a good indication. Also the account in Genesis says we are to become one flesh. Ever think that Israel broke rank and fell into sin, and therefor their customs changed?


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 24, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I don't quite understand the phrasing of your response. Can you restate your point?
> 
> Yes, societal upheaval will result by the missionary encouraging divorce. Never in the Bible is polygamy explicitly said to be sin, but God is said to hate divorce. Therefore, getting back to the ideal of one-husband-one-wife monogamy can occur in the 2nd generation to prevent family disintegration, the instantaneous making of formerly legitimate children into illegitimate bastards, and the reduction of former wives into second-class citizens (on the level of concubines instead of honorable wives) without a husband to provide for them. This method of letting polygamy die a natural death in the 2nd generation is the better method at ending polygamy than to suddenly end it and create many sudden further social problems.
> 
> ...


Never in the Bible is premarital sex explicitly said to be sin. Never in the Bible is masturbation explicitly said to be sin. By this logic, were gonna have a whole lot of depraved liberty going on.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 24, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> Never in the Bible is premarital sex explicitly said to be sin. Never in the Bible is masturbation explicitly said to be sin. By this logic, were gonna have a whole lot of depraved liberty going on.



David:

Have you read this thread and the contribution to it of Trevor [Pergamum]? You unfairly characterize him and his position here, warranting revision and/or retraction. 

Trevor is a missionary and has been discussing how to handle the exigency of multiple wives on the mission field. He in no way believes that the Bible condones multiple wives but is seeking to deal pastorally in the situation where such exists, especially when a man having multiple wives comes to Christ and has a continuing responsibility to his wives and children. 

This is not an unusual position that Trevor is taking but one present throughout the history of the church, in the missionary context especially. We we all agree that a man with more than one wife cannot serve as an office-bearer. But this does not mean that he is not to continue to care and provide for his wives and children: his newfound faith renders him more not less responsible, and conversion does not reverse the consequences of all that one has done in the past. He has continuing obligations and Trevor has been seeking responsibly and pastorally to address such. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 24, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> David:
> 
> Have you read this thread and the contribution to it of Trevor [Pergamum]? You unfairly characterize him and his position here, warranting revision and/or retraction.
> 
> ...


I did not know that.

Trevor,

I extend my most humble of apologies. It was my impression that you were defending polygamy, I am sincerly sorry.

In Christ,
David


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 26, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> I did not know that.
> 
> Trevor,
> 
> ...


No problem, brother. Foreign and strange sins often seem more heinous than our "normal" and everyday sins. The ideal is a monogamous loving marriage. Pray that my tribal group would end up at that goal instead of their occasional polygyny and child-bridism and casual neglect and occasional beatings of their wives (not to mention the widespread adultery). This is a broken world, but its breaks look different in different parts of the world.


----------

