John Calvin on Evils of Polygamy

[C. M. Sheffield]

“Here, however, where God compares polygamy with divorce, he says that polygamy is the worse and more detestable crime; for the husband impurely connects himself with another woman, and then, not only deals unfaithfully with his wife to whom he is bound, but also forcibly detains her: thus his crime is doubled. For if he replies and says that he keeps the wife to whom he is bound, he is yet an adulterer as to the second wife: thus he blends, as they say, holy with profane things; and then to adultery and lasciviousness he adds cruelty, for he holds under his authority a miserable woman, who would prefer death to such a condition; for we know what power jealousy has over women. And when any one introduces a harlot, how can a lawful wife bear such an indignity without being miserably tormented?”—From Calvin's Commentary on Malachi 2:16

 

[Pergamum]

I disagree.

First, God condemns divorce greater than he ever condemned polygamy.

Second, The divorced person usually remarries...and so are connected to another woman anyway.

Third, he is not an adulterer to the 2nd wife, because she is a second "wife." No Old Testament Patriarch was condemned as an adulterer for having multiple wives. And the Bible called these women as wives. In cases where a harlot or concubine is mentioned, those words are used and not "wife".

Fourth, the women are not always miserable and in some cases the wives get along okay with one another.

4.a. Polygamy allows a child to retain a father over his household, whereas divorce does not.

Fifth, a "harlot" is not introduced...but a 2nd wife.


Both divorce and polygamy are not ideal. But of the two, divorce is condemned worse in Scripture. But we have a culture of easy divorce and little to no polygamy and so we think that foreign sins are more atrocious than close and familiar sins.

 

[hLuke]

Here, however, where God compares polygamy with divorce, he says that polygamy is the worse and more detestable crime;

I agree with Perg. Besides, God says 'he hates divorce' in Mal 2.16-- I wonder where Calvin thought to draw the comparison with polygamy which is very rarely condemned in scripture, but allowed.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yeah, sometimes Calvin is off base. This is one of those times.

 

[py3ak]

I agree with Perg. Besides, God says 'he hates divorce' in Mal 2.16-- I wonder where Calvin thought to draw the comparison with polygamy which is very rarely condemned in scripture, but allowed.

It's usually safe to assume that Calvin isn't being arbitrary -- you might notice that he's commenting on the very verse you reference as fatal to his position.

From Matthew Poole's annotations:

15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
And did he, God our Creator, not make one, but one man and one woman? Yet had he the residue of the spirit; yet he could have made more men and women; and if it had been good, and well-pleasing to him, he could have made many women for one man; but though by his power he could, yet in his wisdom, goodness, and holiness he would not make more; from the beginning marriage was ordained to be between one man and one woman alone at once. So Christ argued Matt. 19:4–6. And wherefore one, one couple, and no more? That he might seek a godly seed; or, a seed of God; either an excellent seed, as the Hebrew expresses the excellency of a thing by the addition of the name God to it; or rather a holy seed, born to God in chaste wedlock, and brought up under the instructions and virtuous examples of parents living in the fear of God, and love of each other, which in polygamy cannot be expected. Take heed to your spirit; keep your heart from wandering after strange wives, as you tender your life and souls. Let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth; though many have done so, let none now do it any more.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth †putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
The prophet enforceth his former exhortation, ver. 15, with the arguments laid here close together from the odiousness of the thing he exhorts them to forbear. It is odious to the Lord, who changeth not, but resents this evil practice as much as ever. God, Judge of wrongs and the wronged, hates such wrong. God of Israel by covenant, and in peculiar relation, and so much more engaged to punish it; and he now declares his hatred of these things. Putting away; divorce, such putting away of wives as these petulant Jews used to make way for some new wives. For one covereth violence with his garment; rather, and covering violence, &c., which God hates as much as divorcing or putting away. This superinducing of violence by a second wife taken in upon, or with, or over the first wife, called here a garment, God hateth. In sum, neither your divorces nor your polygamy may with safety be practised, for God hateth both. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and therefore be advised, take heed, as you love your life, your souls, your peace, and welfare, that ye deal not treacherously; neither on dislike divorce, nor yet, with unbridled lust, take another wife in to the former; both are perfidious treachery against her, thy covenant, and thy God; and what canst thou expect from such courses that God hateth, but to be cut off?

Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 1024.

 

[hLuke]

It's usually safe to assume that Calvin isn't being arbitrary -- you might notice that he's commenting on the very verse you reference as fatal to his position.

From Matthew Poole's annotations:

Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 1024.

Thanks Ruben. Poole's exposition helps a bit, but since Mal 2.16 and the surrounding context refers to divorce, where does Calvin and Poole draw out discussion on polygamy within this context? Is Calvin referencing Israel's whoredom with other other gods, therefore committing a type of spiritual polygamy? Or perhaps some Israelites' literal 'interfaith' polygamous relationships with other foreigners? I must be missing something.

 

[py3ak]

I think the idea of polygamy comes in under the idea of treachery or disloyalty (Diodati renders it dislealta) against your wife. There is more than one way to act treacherously and break the marriage covenant, after all! Older authors are not necessarily working with the understanding of this passage that we assume.

15 Did not one make her, and she is the residue of his spirit? And what doth one seek, but the seed of God? Keep then your spirit, and despise not the wife of thy youth.
16 When thou shalt hate her put her away, saith the Lord, the God of Israel: but iniquity shalt cover his garment, saith the Lord of hosts, keep your spirit, and despise not.

The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), Mal 2:15–16 (Douay-Rheims).

15 And did not he make one? yet had he abundance of spirit: and wherefore one? because he soght a godlie seed: therefore kepe your selves in your spirit, and let none trespasse against the wife of his youth.
16 If thou hatest her, put her away, faith the Lord God of Israél, yet he covereth the injurie under his garment, saith the Lord of hostes: therefore kepe your selves in your spirit, and transgresse not.

Geneva Bible (Geneva: Rovland Hall, 1560), Mal 2:15–16.

15 Wher oon dide not, and the residue of his spirit is? and what seekith oon, no bot the seed of God? Therfore kepe ȝe ȝoure spirit, and nyl thou dispise the wijf of thi ȝongthe; 16 whanne thou shalt haue hir in hate, leue thou hir, saith the Lord God of Yrael. Forsothe wickidnesse keuere the closyng of hir, saith the Lord of oostis; kepe ȝe ȝoure spirit, and nyl ȝe dispise.

John Wycliffe, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocryphal Books: Early Version, ed. Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden, vol. I–IV (Oxford: Oxford, at the University Press, 1850), Mal 2:15–16.

15 Nonne unus fecit, et residuum spiritus ejus est? et quid unus quærit, nisi semen Dei? custodite ergo spiritum vestrum, et uxorem adolescentiæ tuæ noli despicere. 16 Cum odio habueris, dimitte, dicit Dominus Deus Israël: operiet autem iniquitas vestimentum ejus, dicit Dominus exercituum. Custodite spiritum vestrum, et nolite despicere.

Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatam Clementinam., Ed. electronica. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005), Mal 2:15–16.

15 Καὶ οὐ καλὸν ἐποίησε; καὶ ὑπόλειμμα πνεύματος αὐτοῦ· καὶ εἴπατε, τί ἄλλο ἢ σπέρμα ζητεῖ ὁ Θεός; καὶ φυλάξασθε ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν, καὶ γυναῖκα νεότητός σου μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς. 16 Ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαποστείλῃς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ, καὶ καλύψει ἀσέβεια ἐπὶ τὰ ἐνθυμήματά σου, λέγει Κύριος παντοκράτωρ. καὶ φυλάξασθε ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπητε

Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version: Greek (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851), Mal 2:15–16.

 

[Taylor]

I’m not sure how we can say divorce is worse than polygamy (which is the same as saying polygamy is better than divorce) when God clearly provides instances when divorce is permissible, even temporally beneficial. No, divorce is not ideal, and yes, God says he hates it, but there is not a single time in the Bible where God ever says polygamy is permissible like he does with divorce.

If we really believe that divorce is worse than polygamy, then we are allowing people to be members of Christ’s Church who certainly ought not to be. At least in the OPC, divorce is not always an occasion for denying membership, exercising discipline, or excommunication, but polygamy always is.

I think Calvin is right. And it’s not because “polygamy is foreign” to me. I just think this is what the Bible teaches throughout.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I expect all you men demurring with Calvin to share your objections with your wives!

 

[hLuke]

I expect all you men demurring with Calvin to share your objections with your wives!

I don't have a wife. Who can I share my objection with?

 

[Pergamum]

I’m not sure how we can say divorce is worse than polygamy (which is the same as saying polygamy is better than divorce) when God clearly provides instances when divorce is permissible, even temporally beneficial. No, divorce is not ideal, and yes, God says he hates it, but there is not a single time in the Bible where God ever says polygamy is permissible like he does with divorce.

If we really believe that divorce is worse than polygamy, then we are allowing people to be members of Christ’s Church who certainly ought not to be. At least in the OPC, divorce is not always an occasion for denying membership, exercising discipline, or excommunication, but polygamy always is.

I think Calvin is right. And it’s not because “polygamy is foreign” to me. I just think this is what the Bible teaches throughout.

OK, two can play this game. Point out a single instance then of the bible calling polygamy sin.

 

[Pergamum]

I don't have a wife. Who can I share my objection with?

It would be scarier to argue this with your multiple wives!

Every wife (assuming she has two arms) can thus wield 2 frying pans.. Thus a 4 frying pan minimum bonking you on the head for polygamy whereas divorce gets you away from frying pan abuse.

 

[hLuke]

It would be scarier to argue this with your multiple wives!

Every wife (assuming she has two arms) can thus wield 2 frying pans.. Thus a 4 frying pan minimum bonking you on the head for polygamy whereas divorce gets you away from frying pan abuse.

Agreed

 

[Tom Hart]

OK, two can play this game. Point out a single instance then of the bible calling polygamy sin.

Abraham and Hagar. If you're looking for an explicit statement, you're unlikely to find it. The story makes it clear enough to the reader that such a sin as polygamy comes with consequences.

 

[hLuke]

I’m not sure how we can say divorce is worse than polygamy (which is the same as saying polygamy is better than divorce).

Who said divorce was worse than polygamy? Divorce is condemned worse than polygamy throughout scripture. Calvin, the blessed servant of God, is the one who says without expressing doubt that polygamy is worse and more atrocious in God's sight.

 

[Pergamum]

II Samuel 12: "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: `I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's WIVES into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even MORE."

Polygamy was even REQUIRED in some instances.

Neither polygamy nor divorce are the ideal. But Calvin is wrong here. I am defending neither polygamy nor divorce, but having experienced tribal cultures, I must say that family dysfunction can happen in a number of ways and divorce is the worse of the two.

 

[Taylor]

OK, two can play this game. Point out a single instance then of the bible calling polygamy sin.

Only if you can show me one instance where the Bible uses the word “Trinity.”

 

[Taylor]

Who said divorce was worse than polygamy?

Calvin’s thesis is: “God…says that polygamy is the worse and more detestable crime.” The very first response was, “I disagree.”

 

[No Other Name]

Calvin’s thesis is: “God…says that polygamy is the worse and more detestable crime.” The very first response was, “I disagree.”

I also am not sure I agree. Divorce is condemned in Scripture worse and far more explicitly than polygamy. But I think I agree with the other poster in that is not that divorce is worse than polygamy per se but that it is condemned more directly because the effects on families are more severe. Historical polygamous structures have a certain stability (less so than the monogamous counterparts to be sure) and even the tribes of Israel were founded on that structure.

Both are sins and against God's plan, but God treats them differently both in the Word and through actions in history.

I don't really have a dog in this fight necessarily and can be convinced otherwise if I am forgetting something in Scripture or Biblical history I am wide open to amending this statement.

 

[Joshua]

If only good and necessary consequence & analogy of scripture were interpretive principles.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Every woman that reads the OT asks the same question: “why does God never condemn polygamy?” No one ever asks the same of divorce.

I think the creation ordinance and all the trouble caused by multiple wives clearly show that God wants monogamy and that polygamy is a big problem. A “worse” sin than divorce? I’m not convinced.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Abraham and Hagar. If you're looking for an explicit statement, you're unlikely to find it. The story makes it clear enough to the reader that such a sin as polygamy comes with consequences.

Polygamy is not the sin Abraham is condemned for with Hagar. It was unbelief of God’s promise and establishing his own works.

 

[Taylor]

So is a man who divorces his adulterous wife worse than a polygamist?

 

[Eyedoc84]

So is a man who divorces his adulterous wife worse than a polygamist?

It isn’t a sin to divorce her for her adultery

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I find it funny that a quote by John Calvin espousing the confessional Reformed view of polygamy has garnered so much disapproval on the PuritanBoard of all places. The Westminster Divines obviously agreed with Calvin's interpretation of Malachi 2:14-15 because they cite it as a proof for the underlined clause in the Larger Catechism.

Westminster Confessions of Faith:
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5–6, Prov. 2:17).—WCF 24.1, LBCF 25.1

Westminster Larger Catechism:
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

 

[Taylor]

It isn’t a sin to divorce her for her adultery

But that’s really my point. Divorce isn’t always or necessarily sinful. Polygamy is.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm fascinated (just a bit) by the number of expressions of perfect confidence to be found in this thread. A number of authorities (this is not an argument from authority) have been cited, including Bible translations; and yet as I read through the comments, there's not much interaction with any of the arguments being offered by those we frequently admire for their acumen, nor with the alternative translation expressions of the Hebrew text (and there are some).

My point: the subject of marriage and divorce, coupled with the issue of plural marriage, may be "simple" when it is most pure, proper, and ideal. But the same is turned into a serious case requiring discernment and wisdom when it is corrupted in this world by sin. The more corruption, the more wisdom is required; and treating a hard case as if it is a simple matter of hammer, meet nail, only reveals how quick we are in our immaturity to run to grab an "off the shelf" solution.

Addressing one of the questions posed, "point out a single instance then of the bible calling polygamy sin," one may offer Mal.2:15-16 (see several of the above translations post#7). That this text is being debated here does not mean that it is {bracketed} for the purpose of the debate, and a different text must be produced. The point is that this text is interpreted by Calvin and others as a strong statement against polygamy. And if it is so strong a statement, then the student of Scripture needs to wrestle with texts that show certain Patriarchs (not all of them) and others of note and respect had multiple wives.

How is Mal.2:16 so interpreted? By the reading that takes "put her away" as God's furious counsel to those "haters" of their first wives, who "cover their sin" of hating and lust by the pretext of a second, polygamous marriage. Those twisters of the law might as well free the woman they hate, allowing her the possibility of finding a true husband by using that divorce provision in the law (even if it is against Moses' intent, as Jesus bore witness).

Polygamy is a corruption of marriage; and yet in ancient times (and also enshrined in the Law) the levirate institution ordained such a union for the long-term protection of a childless widow, hopefully to provide her with a child to care for her in old age. Of course, it wouldn't take much effort to further corrupt that institution. Polygamy may be seen as a solution (even the only solution imaginable) for some problem, some issue in society. Contrary to some people's notion, the marriage that is made is a real marriage where it is permitted by law. But as it deviates from the creational ideal, there must be a price to pay. So then, no man with more than one wife may be called to the Christian ministry, per the Apostle Paul (1Tim.3:2,12; Tit.1:6; and cf. Lev.18:18 which is interpretable as a prohibition of polygamy to priests; and by extension to all).

Divorce is a corruption of marriage. There is no free-for-all divorce for Christians, no "no-fault" temporary or at-will arrangements. Divorce continues to be regulated for believers in the New Covenant age. Not all divorce is sinful, but sin cannot be taken out of the picture. A polygamist should not add to his situation the sin of divorce, just to get down to "one wife." The matters of marriage, divorce, and polygamy are conditions the church once had, and still has, a special interest in. There is the plain law of God, following its clear direction both to encourage the good and deter from evil. And there is the duty to apply holy wisdom to situations where sin has entered from any direction, in order to find the best solution.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Why when there is disagreement by a handful to your post, but defended also by some, does the board get thrown under the bus? This exaggeration at best.

Just by the ratio of those objecting to Calvin to those defending him. Agreeing with Calvin that polygamy is a sin would appear by this discussion to be a minority position on the PB.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Just by the ratio of those objecting to Calvin to those defending him.

Based on a handful of members responding to your thread started just yesterday.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Based on a handful of members responding to your thread started just yesterday.

Yes. My comment was made within the context of this discussion. And yes, it is an exaggeration.