Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Biblical justification for polygamy

I see this is a big deal so I will answer it. I called Pastor Jeff and asked him if there was a Biblical justification for polygamy and he said the Bible is filled with men who had multiple wives and with men who were instructed by God to take more than one wife. King David, Abraham, King Solomon, Jacob, and more all had multiple wives and so did Moses according to some people.

This part is from Pastor Jeff:

When read in the metaphorical context of the original Aramaic the use of the word 'wife' in the singular tense in Genesis and Deuteronomy denotes the relationship of marriage as being between a man and a woman but not between the women who were the wives of that man. In Aramaic a'aan tat is a wife and in the proper context you have to recognize that there is no plural form of a'aan tat in Aramaic because the relationship was not plural, it was singular between one man and one woman. Yet the man could also have other singular relationships that were not shared with anyone else. To clarify this, in Levitcan law a man could have multiple singular marriage relationships yet if a woman proposed to share a husband's relationship with one of his other wives she was breaking that law by laying with another woman. The sum of this is that the passages some people say are about monogamous marriage are literally about the relationship between a man and a woman not being shared with his other wives or concubines. Therefore, unless a man is a priest or a bishop or a deacon in the church he is not prohibited from having more than one wife.

To me it is simpler that God is okay with it because so many people are happy this way. It isn't perfect and it isn't for everyone I know but it is for some of us and no one should have a right to tell us we can't live this way.

The smell of fresh cut grass.


  1. Thank you Megan. That was an interesting response, and is a mainstream explanation of Christian polygamy.

    I was somewhat amused by your Pastor's interpretation of the Aramaic. In fact, I would sooner agree with your latter statement "it is simpler to say that God is okay with it because so many people are happy this way." Although the use of etymology and religion sounds elevated, I think people pursue polygamy quite simply because they want to. The relationship between God and happiness is a delicate one, and the notion that God is okay with what we are happy with is a considerable statement of faith. I would never dare assert it myself.

    As for your last statement "no one should have a right to tell us we can't live this way"; most people feel that way about their lives. My observation about polygamists in general, is that they actually derive some positive meaning out of the sense that they are being persecuted.

  2. I don't get it, there has never been any law against 'laying with another woman' where on earth did he get that from?

    1. Romans 1 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. (Natural being with a man and unnatural of course would be a woman.

  3. Natja, the only thing I can get from the bible is that God forbid Men laying with men. He condemned this act between them. That is from the old testament. IN the new testament he also condemned this act and this is where he mentions Women.

    Leviticus 18:22
    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13
    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    Romans 1:25-32
    25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their WOMEN did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    Romans 1: verse 25 - 26 work together.. God is saying in they both Man and Woman changed their natural use toward one another and was buried in their lust toward the same sex (having sexual relations with the same sex)and at the end he says that they are worthy of death and anyone who has pleasure in them that do these things are worthy of death.. I guess pleasure would mean befriending them, thinking their behavior is okay.

    Oh and

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10
    9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    The word effeminate is men having traits that are more often associated with traditional feminine behaviour, conduct, style and gender roles rather than masculine behaviour, conduct, style and roles.

    So according to the bible even effeminate's will not make it to heaven. Not my words but the bibles..

  4. Many religious sects justify a polygamous lifestyle based on the fact that the Bible speaks of it without negative connotations, just as Pastor Jeff has stated via Megan.

    The Bible speaks of many other things without negative connotations such as:

    *God commanding people to kill others simply because they are of a different faith or ethnically different (ethnic cleansing)

    *The Bible promoting the slavery of minorities (which was used to justify slavery in America)

    *It also speaks of children being stoned to death because they were disrespectful towards their parents.

    *Women were also stoned and had their tongues cut out for insubordination to their husbands.

    *Daughters were offered up to be raped by a mob of heathens by their father in order to protect angels.

    With that being said, one could argue, using the logic of those who legitimize a lifestyle or behavior because of it's Biblical roots, that all those horrific events that I just quoted should be lawful, just and moral because they are in the Bible - God's book - the same book that says homosexuality is a sin.

    By using the "Because the Bible Tells Me So" defense we should be able to have slaves, stone women and children, kill those who are different than us and invite rapists into our homes to rape our daughters, and degradate homosexuals and call them sinners (oh wait, that's already being done), and still be considered good, decent and moral people.

    If the Bible says it's so then it most be okay. Right?

    Sorry, folks, but in all honesty, the Bible defense is full of double standards and skewed logic. Picking and choosing selectively from the Bible to promote a personal agenda is not right or fair, when you turn around and condemn other examples and stories. If one Biblical story is used for justification to a lifestyle or behavior than they all should be.

  5. Hi ALM,

    As far as I know no one chooses to be a slave, no one chooses to be stoned to death, no one chooses to be killed for being different and no one chooses to be raped or degraded.

    However there are many women that choose to live in a loving committed plural marriage and share a good and just husband.

    Just my observations. Jorge

  6. ALM you have just shown yourself for what you are. I shouldn't have to explain it, it is so glaring it needs no explanation.

    Now that being said, let me say, over my life time I have read the Holy Bible numberous times and never read anywhere where God said to kill people for any reasond other than being a sinner of a magnitude that God considered worthy of death. He does say to kill those that attack those of faith in Him or to take over land that He was to give His People. In fact He does say Killing for anyother reason is murder and that person should also be killed.

    As for the accusations about slavery. It took me many readings before I finally woke up to what was ment. If you read the Holy Bible and study what is said about freemen and slaves you will realize that in their world there were only two forms of people. freemen and slaves. If you bring that line of thinking to todays world you can deduce that freemen, as then and now, were people who owned property and some form of business and was free from owing his life to another or having to work for another. Slaves on the other hand were, as they are today, those people who rely on others to survive. Inotherwords, those of us who have to go to work for someone else (the freeman) are the slaves of others because we are dependent on them to survive. I can't recall anywhere in The Holly Bible where slavery in the bible has nothing to do with any minorities or ethnic groups as per say.

    I do not recall God sanctioning any rape. Unless just him allowing it to happen is your justification. If that is the case what was the reason for him to allow it? invariably you will find it was punishment for some infraction to His laws.

    Just my thoughts. I hope I have not offended anyone.

  7. Thanks for your comment Jorge. Please understand that I am not talking about people's choices here, as you clearly say, but about their justifications for doing what they do. Choices and justification are two different thing.

    The purpose of my post was to point out that using Biblical history to justify a behavior or lifestyle simply because it is mentioned in the Bible without negative connotation is dubious and flawed thinking in comparison to the contents of the Bible as a whole.

    People who use the Bible to justify a lifestyle like polygamy fail to understand that the need for multiple wives back then was more about a man building his bloodline than anything else due to cultural, socio-economical needs. The more sons a man had the more livestock he could accrue and manage, thus increasing his wealth.

    Given that female children were not seen as an important asset like male children, a man needed to impregnate many women at the same time to insure and protect the family's resources as well as the bloodline.

    In today's world that type of family structure is no longer needed, simply because life today is very different than how life was for people who lived in Biblical times.

    Please understand that I have absolutely nothing against polygamy. My point again is using the Bible to justify it. That justification is hard to accept considering that not all things mentioned and condoned in the Bible (slavery, ethnic cleansing, rape, etc...) are socially, morally or ethically accepted today.

    My question to those who constantly use the Bible to justify a lifestyle (like polygamy) or to unjustify a lifestyle (like homosexuality) is how they can ignore the Bible's double standards when it's landscape is dotted with horrific crimes against humanity?

    I would like someone to explain to me how it is okay to say that having more than one wife is right because it's condoned in the Bible, yet stoning your kid for talking smack to you is not okay by them even though the Bible condoned it at one time in history.

    I want people to understand how important it is to see all aspects of the philosophy or religion they use to live their lives. To take a step back and see if there is any hypocrisy or double standards associated to their creed.

    It is easier to follow passively and be selective in order to justify our behavior rather than acknowledge inconsistancies in our foundation. Asking hard and uncomfortable questions about the "why" we live the way that we do is not easy and is scary, but it makes you stronger in your beliefs and convictions if you confront those nagging little flags and truly try to understand the ramifications of what you believe in.

  8. Sorry BN, nothing you wrote was a law, it was just a bunch of sayings that have been interpreted.

    A law is a commandment as it was in the Torah. The rest....doesn't tell me anything.

  9. ALM, what a two-faced piece of shit you are! You repeatedly insisted that Megan give you a 'Biblical justification' for polygamy, she finally gives it to you, and then you fucking complain because she gave you what you asked for? What a fucking manipulative hypocrite!

    Yeah, so here's you on July 20th: "If not, what is the religious basis the church uses to support polygamy as part of the faith?"

    And now here's your treacherous ass today: "My point again is using the Bible to justify it (polygamy)."

    YOU were the fucking cunt who DEMANDED a justification and then you USED the response YOU asked for to make some slam.

    Oh, but you don't want to offend anyone. That's right. You just want to bait them into answering a leading question just so you can enjoy a good follow up attack on their beliefs and values. What's offensive about that?

    Bottom line, douchbag, is that if you really don't like people using the Bible to justify their values and beliefs then maybe YOU should start by not asking them to do it.

    Since you're going to whine about how nasty I am instead of addressing the fact that you're a manipulative douchebag I'll close my comments today with "Go fuck yourself."

    Sorry if that offended anyone other than ALM.

  10. ALM,while I don't approve of Marcus using profanity of the most disgusting kind, I am afraid the truth of what he said in regards to your manipulation seems to be accurate.
    I am really dismayed that so many folks have chosen to continually try to "fix" Megan....She is happy...accept is O.K. for someone to Believe in God & enjoy the happiness that comes from following His Laws.
    I was under the understanding this was "Megan's Blog" not "Everybody elses fighting arena"...If you don't like what she believes...DON"T COME HERE ! I for one think she is a huge breath of fresh air in a otherwise corrupted world ! GO Megan....Don't let'em get you down!

  11. ALM said...

    The purpose of my post was to point out that using Biblical history to justify a behavior or lifestyle simply because it is mentioned in the Bible without negative connotation is dubious and flawed thinking in comparison to the contents of the Bible as a whole.

    I can understand where you're coming from; after all, what defines a denomination other than the lessons of the gospel that have been cherry-picked or selectively interpreted to fit that particular group's structure of beliefs?

    However it's a bit unfair to single out the church that Megan belongs to in order to decry hypocrisy when every other denomination does the same thing. Furthermore your accusations are leveled against a church that she is not familiar with and thus she is not in much of a position to defend.

    You asked a question about how her church justifies polygamy, she got an answer for you straight from the there you go. If you don't like it, you need to address it with the pastor or someone else active in this denomination, not Megan or the other commenters.

    Seriously, if you want to argue Christian hypocrisy with someone, go talk to the Pope about his policy against condom usage in AIDS-plagued Africa. If you can change his mind, you'll be worthy of a Nobel prize.

  12. give me a break. this blog is a phony puff piece to entice young women into entering a polygamous lifestyle. this is no doubt being written by a lecherous 50 year old who wants to entice an 18 year old like "megan" into his bed. if you e mail "megan", she will no doubt be able to help "arrange your placement" into a similar family with a middle age man who cannot wait to get a young woman into his bed. you expect anyone to believe this nonsense - "megan" is an 18 year old from los angeles who suddenly has "fallen in love" with a man more than twice her age in less than a month, and then we are told she adores chickens and has developed a talent for raising them. yeah,right ! do you think we are naive ? this is NOT christianity either. these folks do not know their scriptures. this is simply placing a religious facade over lust.

  13. Good "handle" Marcus. Keep it up. That is the closest you will ever come to classical Stoicism.

  14. J and Amp and C and whatever, said: "I am really dismayed that so many folks have chosen to continually try to "fix" Megan"

    Well, those who aren't trying to "fix" Megan are trying to "fix" all the commenters, so it must be human nature.

  15. Attention All -
    While the Old Testament did permit and regulate polygamy, the New Testament does not, contrary to what is quoted above from "Pastor Jeff"
    Christian teaching is that TWO married people become ONE flesh, not three, or four, or five....
    If someone wants to be a polygamist, that's fine, but don't call it Christianity, because it is NOT.
    For clarification of Christian doctrine regarding polygamy, please see the following : - Brewer
    Scroll down the page.
    Go to the article : Jesus' Old Testament Basis for Monogamy
    Click on : (pre pub version)
    A PDF file will download which will clarify Christian teaching for you on the subject of polygamy.

    1. 1 Cor 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

    2. I was raised Episcopalian. For many years I understood that "two become one flesh" passage to be about marital intimacy. But I had a personal revelation of the matter a few years ago. A man leaves his father and mother, means he establishes himself with a home of his own, so he can afford a wife.
      "And shall be joined unto his wife," is the part of Eph 5:31 about marital relations.
      "And they two shall be one flesh." is about the purpose of marriage being to have children, wherein their two DNA patterns are combined into one new, unique DNA in a child = one flesh combining both parents.

    3. Oh, I might add that recent studies on DNA have found that a woman's blood carries a little bit of the DNA from every lover she's ever had unprotected sex with in her life. Thus the two also become one flesh in the woman's body.

      I don't have a URL or any other way to post but Anonymously, but I am Dale and Megan knows my E-mail address.

  16. Oh my word, what a disgusting foul mouth rant that was. I am seriously embarrassed for Megan, how very dare that guy post that!

    I do not agree with demoiselle regarding Megan but I have to agree with her on the subject of so called 'Christian polygamy' polygyny is a practice which came out of the ancient near east, Christianity was nothing more than a small sect in the Ancient Near East but got its forms and tradtions from the Roman Empire,w hich was Monogamous, this was written into its scripture and traditions, what Christian poolygamists are trying to do is to claim Jewish traditions as Christian ones whilst on the whole disregarding most other Jewish traditions. You can't have your cake and eat it, Christianity is Christianity, the Torah is the Torah and we really have not met since Noah.

    Megan, good luck girl, you can take advice all you want but nothing beats doing your own reading ok?


  17. Natja, I always enjoy reading your posts.

  18. cmpdm67 said: "ALM you have just shown yourself for what you are."

    That's not true cmpdom, it has been obvious from ALM's first post who she is. And, it has been obvious from your first post who you are, it has been obvious who Marcus Pomp Aurelius is, who Natja is, who I am, and who everyone else is, including Megan. Anyone who suddenly sees a contrasting side to another person lives with the habit of functioning OK, but with their eyes half closed.

  19. Thank you Helene but they would be a lot more coherant if I just proof read them better!

    Poolygamy? What is that when it is at home??


  20. A lot of misinformation in some of these comments. I considered staying out of it, but it really bothers me when people misquote the Bible — mainly because other people could be mislead by these comments.

    BN quoted a lengthy passage from Romans to give evidence that the Bible considers homosexual acts to be sinful — fair enough, if he just left it at that. But then he does some woeful misquoting of those verses…

    BN, you've completely misunderstood the structure and meaning of verse 32. The verse is talking about people who knew the penalty for sin (not just sexual sins, but ALL sin!), but continued to sin anyway AND consented or approved of others doing the same. You suggested that befriending a homosexual person is a sin punishable by death, when the verse says no such thing!

    Also, you attempt to explain the meaning of the word 'effeminate' as used in the King James translation when there is little agreement between translators as to what Paul meant by this word. Some versions translate it 'male prostitutes', others 'perverts'. To build a doctrine about men with feminine characteristics on this one word is absurd.

  21. ALM was starting to regain my respect with some of her previous comments, but she's lost me with the way she baited Megan in an attempt to discredit the Bible… She obviously has some Biblical knowledge, but she's painted a pretty misleading picture with her choice of words…

    ALM said: God commanding people to kill others simply because they are of a different faith or ethnically different (ethnic cleansing)

    In the Old Testament, God exercised judgement on people for their sins, not because they were 'ethnically different' in some benign way. Sometimes he did this by some natural cause (such as Noah's flood) and sometimes he did it through war. If you take the time to read about the practices of the nations God commanded Israel to destroy, you will find some shocking stuff like the sacrificing of children. God foretold that if Israel did not do as he commanded, they would end up being lead astray and adopting the same evil practices, which is exactly what happened.

    ALM said: The Bible promoting the slavery of minorities (which was used to justify slavery in America)

    Slavery certainly existed, and could be considered a method of survival for someone who had lost everything. In 1 Corinthians 7:21 Paul writes, 'Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you — although if you can gain your freedom, do so.' So I would say it was tolerated rather than 'promoted'.

    ALM said: It also speaks of children being stoned to death because they were disrespectful towards their parents.

    Your choice of words implies a behavior which we might assume ALL children are guilty of at some time or other. The law actually said, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' There is no record in the Bible of anyone actually being killed for this. But where you see the law prescribe the death penalty, it indicates the seriousness of the crime in God's eyes.

    ALM: Women were also stoned and had their tongues cut out for insubordination to their husbands.

    Where does it say any such thing? I recall an odd law about a woman not getting involved in her husband's fight… but I don't know what you're referring to here.

    ALM: Daughters were offered up to be raped by a mob of heathens by their father in order to protect angels.

    Yes, and the angels stopped it from happening! What does that tell you? Lot's daughters were actually pledged to be married, which would have made the act of rape punishable by death according to the law of Moses. (Lot was pre-Mosaic law however.)

    ALM, you might have used examples like this one to illustrate a valid point… The Bible records many events — accounts of good, evil, and everything in between. Just because something was recorded in the Bible doesn't make it right. However, you can still find undeniable evidence of things God considers sinful — murder, idolatry, adultery, incest, bestiality, etc, etc. Polygamy however was certainly allowed under OT law (there are laws dealing with it), and even (it can be argued) commanded in certain cases. So a Christian who considers that Jesus came to fulfill the Jewish law, might well argue that such a lifestyle is not sinful based on what the Bible says.


    For ALL references and ALL arguments that could possibly be made against polygamy in scripture.

    I can't believe it's gotten this far. WOW.
    Such contraversy. Just look it up.

    ALOT of us are educated in utter lies about scripture.

    1. Learn to read Hebrew and greek.
    2. Seek to understand the Hebraic base of scripture (meaning, how things worked in biblical times).
    3. KNOW that if the New Testament and the Old Testament "seem" to contradict, that it is your UNDERSTANDING of the text that is causing it to seem that way.
    4. The Living God is NOT a God of confusion. So know that the Living God will NOT be glorified in your arguing.