Polygamy
What Does the Bible Say?
Who Practices Polygamy?
•
•
•
•
Tribal peoples
Muslims (Qur’an 4.3)
Mormons / FLDS (D. & C. 132)
Christian Polygamy Movement
– Mark Henkle, Founder (1994)
– Truthbearer.org
What Is God’s Plan for Marriage?
• God’s plan for marriage is monogamy – “the two
shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2;15;
Mt. 19:5-6; Mk. 10:8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31)
• NT Law on marriage speaks of one man and one
woman only (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:2)
• All other deviant sexual relationships are wicked:
polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery,
fornication (“living together”)
Answering A Popular Argument
What About Polygamy in the OT?
• Argument: There are several polygamists mentioned
in the Old Testament (approximately 19), men like
Lamach, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.,
whose polygamy is never condemned by God;
therefore, polygamy is right.
• Answer: God’s silence about OT cases of polygamy
does not imply that he approves of such. No positive
rule can be drawn from the silence of God. God’s
expressed will (not his silence) is in favor of
monogamy, not polygamy.
Answering A Popular Argument
What About Polygamy in the OT?
• Answer: (continued) … Why then was polygamy not
immediately punished? God does not always
immediately reward obedience or punish
disobedience. Remember, suffering the
consequences of polygamy was punishment enough
(Abraham, David, Solomon). The OT records and
regulates polygamy without approving it. God’s
silence (there is no “Thou shalt not commit
polygamy” in the OT) is not approval!
Answering A Popular Argument
What About Polygamy in the OT?
• Answer: (continued) … Monogamy, not polygamy,
was the norm in the OT (Gen. 20:3-7; Ex. 20:7; 21:5;
Lev. 18:8,16,18; 20:10; 21:13; Num. 5:12; Deut. 5:21;
22; 28:54,56; Prov. 5:18-20; 12:4; 18:22; 19:13;
31:10-31; Eccl. 9:9; Mal. 2:10-16).
Misc. OT Arguments
• Argument: God is depicted as a bigynist married to
two women in Jer. 3 and Ezekiel 23.
• Answer: These passages are symbolic and analogous
of God’s love toward Israel and Judah. Note also that
Israel and Judah were “sisters” in these texts. Can a
man marry two sisters then (Lev. 18:18)?
Misc. OT Arguments
• Argument: God gave David his wives (2 Sam. 12:8).
• Answer: God can give things without approving of
them (Hos. 13:11). Note also that God would “give”
away these wives to another (2 Sam. 12:11; see
16:22).
Misc. OT Arguments
• Argument: Exodus 21:10ff and Deuteronomy 21:1517 speak of polygamy.
• Answer: These texts regulate polygamy but do not
approve it. Like divorce (Deut. 24:1-4) and other
sinful practices (Deut. 23:19), God regulates them
without approving of them.
Misc. OT Arguments
• Argument: The Levirate marriage law approves of
polygamy (Deut. 25:5-10)
• Answer: This argument assumes that the brother
who marries his brother’s widow is already married.
The brother could be a younger, unmarried brother
(see Gen. 38).
Misc. OT Arguments
• Argument: Leviticus 18:17-18 teaches that you
cannot marry a woman and her daughter / sister, but
it says nothing of marrying another woman
• Answer: This is an argument from silence. The same
line of reasoning applied to Leviticus 19:29 would
permit one to turn another man’s daughter into a
harlot.
Marriage Is Honorable
Hebrews 13:4
When it is (Gen. 2:18-24)…
• Homosapien, not with animals
• Heterosexual, not homosexual
• Monogamous, not polygamous
• Pure, not adulterated
Christian Polygamy Movement
TruthBearer.org is an organization, serving many Members and believers in the American continent and around the world.
Because the organization's founder has personally been in numerous media reports about polygamy, it became necessary to
provide a few details about what he has accomplished, to demonstrate how he gives interviews, and to even provide an
insight into how he answers many of the important questions pertaining to this new movement called, Christian Polygamy.
This page is created to answer the related questions, to assist the media with insight, and even to inspire supporters on how
to successfully answer such questions before others. While this page provides these details about the founder, the
organization itself is, of course, about all the Members and working together to bring the Truth of Christian Polygamy to the
Churches and beyond. It is hoped that this page will further help readers understand more about the movement, the
organization, and the founder himself.
Mark Henkel is the Founder of the TruthBearer.org organization, the established cross-national, cross-denominational
organization for the modern social movement called, "Christian Polygamy." Having begun in 1994, this new movement does
not have any doctrinal or rhetorical connection to anything pertaining to Mormonism, Islam, or any form of liberalized
relationship arrangements. Although it is true that liberalism's "tolerance" dogma requires liberals to also accept this prowoman consenting-adult model of Biblical marriage, the Christian Polygamy movement originated from - and is premised
upon - a conservative evangelical Christian perspective. As Founder, Mr. Henkel had laid out both the Christian Biblical
argumentations and the conservative political/rhetorical argumentations by which the movement was able to spread and to
be taken seriously. To protect women from unkind, immature, or downright abusive husbands, he also established the prowoman "Standard of Christian Polygamy," called, Love-not-Force. That the two words "Christian Polygamy" together are no
longer considered a contradiction in terms - but instead is acknowledged as a recognized movement - is directly attributable
to Mr. Henkel's established argumentations.
Having established such powerful argumentations, and with the resulting growing movement thereafter, Mr. Henkel has thereby
successfully provided the answers to both the Christian morality questions and the conservative political questions about
polygamy. Through the TruthBearer.org organization, he has thereby paved the way and empowered other fellow believers
to learn and duplicate the argumentations too. As an effective iconoclast against untruthfulness, his efforts have been
obliterating the absurdly false stereotypes that polygamy is supposedly defined as Mormonism, abuse, or promiscuity.
Because he and the TruthBearer.org organization cannot be dismissed as "Mormon, Muslim, liberal, lustful, or anti-woman,"
that powerful credibility has enabled him to succeed in championing the fight for polygamy rights where no others
previously could. Consequently, Mr. Henkel has become the established National Polygamy Advocate.
As the MEDIA directory at this organization's web-site demonstrates, Mr. Henkel has been interviewed and reported by many
major media sources, including the 700 Club, The Washington Times, NBC's TODAY Show, Newsweek, and many, many more.
Clearly, the efforts of the TruthBearer.org organization to bring Christian Polygamy to the public are unmatched, both in
their quantity and in their success - effectively changing the course of history.
Christian Polygamy Movement
This is NOT about polyandry or polyamory.
This is NOT about fornication or adultery.
This is NOT about group marriage or wife swapping.
This is NOT about dishonest bigamy or infidelity.
This is NOT about underaged or arranged marriage.
This is NOT about any form of mormonism.
This is NOT about re-defining marriage.
Christian Polygamy Movement
In September 1994, only two months after first publishing my newspaper, THE STANDARD BEARER, I found a very interesting book
in the Portland (Maine) Public Library, a book of which I had never heard before nor had anyone else (nor even in Christian
Polygamy, as this was long before the topic would later first appear on the WWW ---since absolutely no one advancing
Christian Polygamy doctrine was on the world wide web before February, 1996). For at this time, in September, 1994, I was
the only man teaching the masses the Scriptural doctrines of Christian Polygamy (at that time in our area).
The title of the Book was, "The History and Philosophy of Marriage, Or, Polygamy and Monogamy Compared". It was originally
published in 1869 by a (non-Mormon) "Christian Philanthropist", named James Campbell.
The book itself was so old that the Library would not even let the book be taken out. One was only allowed to read the book there
in the special old-books reference room of the Library, in which the book was stored.
The next day or so after first discovering that amazing book, I was planning to return to the Library to read more of it. (Portland
was a thirty minute automobile-drive away for me, and I do not usually go to that Library much at all.)
But not only did I want to go back, but I also wanted to bring my wife so that the two of us could read it together. (My wife had
known of the righteousness of Christian Polygamy, but was, at that time, still unhappy about the idea. For indeed, I was the
absolutely only man anyone had ever heard of (in our area at that time) who was teaching the Scripturality of [non"mormon"] Christian Polygamy ---something which sometimes gave my wife reason to wonder if her husband had "gone off
the deep edge".)
Anyway, I informed my wife about the book, how I had wanted to go read it, and how I thought that it also would be beneficial to
her for her to also come and read it with me. I explained how it could provide her with some comfort to see that someone
else, over a century previously, had written about the very same topic of Christian Polygamy!
It is also vital to understand that, at the very same time in which I was inviting her to come with me to the Library to read this
book, my wife was actually suffering a very painful (and chronic) affliction in a very sensitive area of the body, something she
has suffered often. And on top of that, of course, she was neither really very positive nor excited about the fact that the
book was about POLYGAMY either. (She was still in need of growing to fully accepting that concept.) So, clearly, my wife did
NOT really want to go with me to read that book.
I then said something to the effect that it might just be that she SHOULD go. She understood and, indeed, then wanted to turn to
God right then for His help in this affliction she was suffering. And so, we prayed over her affliction, asking God for a miracle
in casting off this torment, which was so painful and interfering that it made even sitting a very difficult thing for my wife to
do. After the prayer, my wife then gladly agreed to go with me to the Library!
So we drove the thirty minutes to get to the Portland Public Library, went to the old-books reference room, and began to read the
book. ( continued next slide)
Christian Polygamy Movement
(continued from previous slide)
My wife and I sat there together for two solid hours reading that 125-year-old book. It described the history of the Christian
church and the changing of the doctrine of adultery to that being aligned with roman "false-god theologies".
My wife, herself, was quite intense in reading it with me ---much to my surprise at the time! And after a couple of hours of sitting
there reading it, I suggested and she agreed that the book was just too long to read in one sitting. So, we then both agreed
that I would have to come back to the Library later and spend the $25 it would cost to photocopy all the pages of the book
(as the Library's old-books reference room had a ready-available photocopier for that very purpose). Mind you, we certainly
did not have that kind of money to be "throwing around", so I would have to return later, after finding that amount of
money to somehow cover the cost of photocopying all the book's pages.)
But clearly, my wife's attitude was profoundly positive at this point. She had been quite blessed by that book. She had thereby
gained more of an understanding about Polygamy than she had ever had previously (not in terms of doctrine in Scripture
which she intellectually accepted, that is, but rather in terms of the historical perspective as the book demonstrated). And
what was most convincing for her was that the information had come from someone OTHER than her own husband. Indeed,
the book was confirming what I, her husband, had been teaching for almost a year by that point ---when there had been
absolutely no one else anywhere (in our area at the time) teaching these doctrines to the masses.
We then returned home, and it then occurred to me that something else had happened as well. That is, I was suddenly amazed as
I then realized that my wife had been able to sit through all that time that we had been at the Library, reading that book
about polygamy.
And by this point in time, after we had arrived home, she was then in a very joyous and faithful frame of mind and spirit, even
despite the agony of the affliction. She wholly accepted the truth of the doctrine of Christian Polygamy. And the LORD
blessed my wife. For that very evening, God performed the miracle. Her affliction had been removed! It had disappeared.
Vanished. Gone.
The LORD our God had blessed my wife with a miraculous healing, as she had been willing to read the book which God had given
to confirm the work of God, which she had otherwise been witnessing, that the LORD was performing in her husband to
teach others the Scripturality and Righteousness and Holiness of Christian Polygamy.
The LORD God is faithful!
Yes, my wife and I were profoundly blessed!
Alleluia Hallelujah!
Praise ye the LORD!
Christian Polygamy Movement
Learn all about Polygamy
This organization teaches how to teach others the absolute Scripturality of Christian Polygamy and that this really is only
about profound, selfless Christ-like LOVE for women. Thereby are we Successfully Changing the Course of History!
This ministry is a Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Scripture-believing, cross-denominational organization. As such, this web-site is 100%
"family-friendly." It does NOT contain or endorse any form of vulgarities or "fleshly foolishness."
Christian Polygamy
More specifically, polygyny, and only according to the 100% Bible-believing Christian paradigm, is only about life-long-committed
(hence, NON-promiscuous), consensual, NON-abusive, loving Christian MARRIAGE. Because we are Christians in deed and in
truth, we, of course, place the GOSPEL and the Scriptures as being "Above All Else" doctrinally.
The only educational matter here is that this is about men ever-growing in
other-centered,
ministerial,
giving,
selfless love
in marriage to more than one woman
(as Christ so selflessly and givingly loves the Churches).
Accordingly, we place the initial warning to all men who have not yet grown to such profound maturity in selfless loving, "Do Not
Try This At Home." Until one grows toward loving wives as selflessly as Christ life-givingly loves the Churches, any personal
thoughts about plural marriage should be foremost about growing to that level in Christ.
Vision This organization preaches only according to the principles of the "The TruthBearer Vision of love-not-force". Indeed, "lovenot-force" has become and now is The Standard of Christian Polygamy, the way for discerning the true from the false.
Mission This ministry is merely "Continuing the Reformation" as we bring this very obvious Scriptural truth to our fellow
Scripture-believing Christians. We do this with what we call the "TruthBearer Mission of Bringing Christian Polygamy to the
Churches".
The "movement" is growing! Yes, we are succeeding.
(continued next slide)
Christian Polygamy Movement
(continued from previous slide)
The History of the Movement of Christian Polygamy is well over a decade old; and, we continue to grow and grow. Bible-believing
Christians, spanning many different denominations, are likewise seeing its Scriptural undeniability. And they are joining us to
help share the truth with others, because God's Word is Truth ---no matter what.
Supporting Pastors
Many pastors have long quietly known the truth of Christian Polygamy, but they have often been isolated and unable - even
disallowed - to be bold in their churches. The TruthBearer.org organization provides organized support for such dear pastors.
With the organization, now those pastors can know and show that they are no longer alone! When ready, those pastors can
now quickly show their denominational hierarchies and congregations that the pastor is not some lone isolated "fringe"
individual on this issue. Our organization's very existence and established media identification proves it. This empowers
pastors to be bold when the time is right for them to do so, whether they are bringing this issue before their denominational
hierarchies or before their congregations. Now pastors can freely let Scripture be Scripture when they do that, without being
falsely and cruelly maligned as "lone wolves" or even "wackos." The TruthBearer.org organizational support enables those
dear pastors to overcome those obstacles when the time is right for them to do so in their churches.
Supporting Bible-believing Christians
In numerous churches, across numerous Bible-based Christian denominations, very often it is the most Bible-dedicated believers
who are sitting in those Churches, quietly disappointed that their Church or its leadership seem to be blind to so obvious a
Scriptural Truth as Christian Polygamy. These believers are not the "newbie Christians" either. These are the ones whom the
pastors know do seriously study the Bible regularly. Yet these same serious Christians know that they are not (yet) free to
point out the obvious Scripturality of Christian Polygamy to their church. And because they genuinely love their pastors and
church leadership, they do not want to undermine them or disturb the entire church by "showing them up" or just raising
the issue. The TruthBearer.org organization provides those Bible-dedicated believers with assurance that they are "not
alone," and support when the time is right for them in bringing the issue to their churches in the most Christ-like loving and
effective manner.
Polygamy in the Media
With our continued, unstoppable growth, the MEDIA have come to exclusively rely on the TruthBearer organization for
experienced, expert information on this most fascinating topic!
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: Oftentimes, in an attempt to try to disprove that polygamy is Biblical, some people
hastily resort to what TruthBearer.org's Mark the Founder has termed (as that organization's copyright
phrase), The "Lamech `scuse“ ©. The Biblical passage used in the "Lamech `scuse" © (Lamech excuse) is
Genesis 4:19-24. Because that passage is the first explicitly recorded example of a polygamist in the Bible,
and because Lamech was a murderer, the "Lamech `scuse" © makes a false association between
polygamy and murder that never exists. That is, it asserts that, because the first explicitly recorded
example of polygamy in the Bible is associated with that of a murderer, that somehow "proves" that
polygamy, itself, IS sin. The absurdity of this "Lamech `scuse" © is quickly evident, however. If one were to
follow the same logic-flow, then the following likewise examples also would have to be "true“. Namely, the
logic-flow would also establish that, because the first recorded child born of a woman was a murderer
(i.e., Cain, who was Lamech's ancestor!), this same logic (or, rather, the lack thereof) would require saying
that having children is (somehow) sin too! Even beyond that, that same Genesis 4:19-24 passage itself also
reveals that, if one applies this same logic (or, rather, the lack thereof), one would equally have to say that
the following are also (somehow) sinful, due to these particular matters being the first recorded examples
and because they are so recorded as associated with that of the murderer Lamech and his family: dwelling
in tents, having cattle, harps, organs, and artificers in brass and iron. Obviously, that is wholly absurd.
Truly, no one would suggest that these other matters are somehow sinful simply because of being the first
recorded examples in the Bible thereof and of being associated with the murderer Lamech! To use a
modern colloquialism in the United States, this attempted and extremely weak argument to try to use
against polygamy is clearly a very "lame excuse" indeed. It is truly the "Lamech `scuse". ©
Old Testament Arguments
• Answer: The example of Lamach’s polygamy (bigamy)
is not wrong because it is the “first recorded”
example of such. It is wrong because it is contrary to
God’s ideal for marriage laid down in Gen. 2.
Old Testament Arguments
Argument: “Moses was a polygamist (Zipporah –
Ex.12:21 / Cushite woman – Num. 12:1), as such, he
would have know God approved of polygamy and
would not have written against polygamy in the first
five books of the OT”
Answer: 1) We cannot prove from the text that
Zipporah was alive at the same time as the Cushite
woman; and 2) an inspired man may write truth, but
practice something contrary to what he writes
(remember Moses struck the rock; Num. 20)
Old Testament Arguments
Argument: "ADULTERY" --- na`aph (pronounced: naw-af') in the Hebrew means,
"WOMAN that breaketh wedlock". This applies to the Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that
(in Matthew 19:9) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by
violating Exodus 21:10, in putting her away so as to "replace her") that he is therefore guilty
of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty. He had CAUSED his first wife to "break her
wedlock contract". And of course, that first wife for "breaking her wedlock contract" with her
first husband, and the "second husband" for participating in that act, are both guilty too. But
notice, the SECOND WIFE is not guilty of anything. And if the first husband had not put away
his first wife, but instead kept her as well as marrying the second wife, he would not have
CAUSED his first wife to "break her wedlock contract". Hence, he would not have been guilty
of any Adultery in any way. Indeed, Adultery simply and only means "WOMAN that breaketh
wedlock".
Answer: 1) the idea of “woman” does not appear in the
original Heb. Word or Gr. word; 2) the man marrying
a second wife in Mt. 19:9 while keeping the first wife
is assumed in the argument above but not proven
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness,
beside the other in her life time.” Leviticus 18:18. Occasionally, some people confuse this simple verse to
assert it as "proof" of some prohibition of polygamy. Actually, however, it proves just the opposite! This
verse simply prohibits a man from marrying two sisters while both of them are alive. Moreover, the
phrase, "beside the other", in that verse, rather emphatically makes it clear that this is speaking in terms
of the man being married to them at the same time. The fact that this verse is even instructed actually
PROVES that polygamy is otherwise a valid marriage possibility! After all, if polygamy was really a sin
anyway, it would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary to specify a prohibition against marrying
sisters anyway! That is, if it was truthfully a sin for a man to marry more than one wife anyway, then
OBVIOUSLY he would not be able to marry two sisters beside each other in their lifetime! It is additionally
important to also note something about the previous verse (not listed here, Leviticus 18:17) and its
relevance to this verse 18 here. Namely, the previous verse 17 prohibits a man from uncovering the
nakedness of a mother and her daughter. That is also, by such implied instruction, clearly also meaning
that it is a prohibition from marrying both mother and her daughter. That makes that also another proof
that polygamy is Biblical by the fact of it even being instructed. But even beyond that, whereas that
previous verse 17 only spells the matter out as being "not uncovering the nakedness" of a mother and her
daughter, this verse 18 here is even more explicit. Namely, this verse 18 even more explicitly includes the
word "WIFE". A man shall not take sisters TO WIFE beside each other in their lifetime. This makes it even
more explicitly clear that this is talking about a man marrying more than one WIFE, just not being allowed
to marry sisters while they're both alive. Therefore, this is a very clear and simple prohibition ---but not
against polygamy. Rather, the instruction is clear that men may not marry sisters beside each other while
they're both alive. Thus, this verse is actually another clear PROOF that polygamy really is Biblical!
Old Testament Arguments
• Answer: The argument mentions what Lev. 18:18
does not talk about (i.e. a man and a woman other
than a sister) and attempts to assert this as “proof”
of polygamy. This is arguing from silence.
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall
he not diminish." Exodus 21:10. Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse
comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in Exodus 20:14.
Answer: 1) This verse legislates against misconduct
within polygamy, but does nothing to condone it.
Note that “if” a man do such and such.
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: "If a man have two wives..." Deuteronomy 21:15a. The passage of Deuteronomy
21:15-17 is a specific instruction in the Law Itself to any man with "two wives". If polygamy was a sin, then
it would not be possible for a "man to have two wives" in the Law. "If a man have two wives, one beloved,
and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn
son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that
he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the
firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion
of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Deuteronomy
21:15-17.
Answer: 1) The same answer is given here that was
given to Exodus 21:10 above. Note that it is
“possible” to do that which is sinful.
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: “Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does
not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort
to saying one of the following assertions: "Yes, but God never condoned polygamy.” "Yes, God allowed it,
but He was against polygamy.“ "Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's". "Yes, but God never approved
of polygamy.“ The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise. "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. The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for
David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed,
and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin. Also, at the point in time of this
situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:4243, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.) But, in this verse 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all his wives! In fact,
this verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives. If
God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.
But the LORD did not stop there. That verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than
that! The LORD God even went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself
said that He would have given David even more! It was only because David had sinned, in committing
adultery by taking another man's wife, and then causing that man's death to try to hide David's sin, that
the Lord was calling him out through the prophet Nathan. There was no sin in the polygamy at all. This is
later confirmed that this was the only matter by 1 Kings 15:5, which says the following: "Because David did
that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded
him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. “ 1 Kings 15:5.
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: “Two verses before that, in 1 Kings 15:3, the Bible says that David's heart was
perfect with the LORD God. Very clearly, therefore, what all this shows is that God is the One Who gives
wives, even when more than one wife. This is, of course, confirmed by 1_Corinthians 7:17. "But as God
hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all
churches.“ 1 Corinthians 7:17. Be it NO wife, ONE wife, or MORE THAN ONE wife, it is only has God calls
and gives. As such, it is clear that the Bible does, in fact, explicitly show "Yes, God did condone polygamy.“
"Yes, God allowed it, and He was not against polygamy.“ "Polygamy is not a man's idea, but God's". "Yes,
God did approve of polygamy.“ In 2 Samuel 12:8, He Himself said so!
• Answer: God gave these wives into David’s care.
Everything of Saul’s was given to David. God can give
things without approving of them (Hos. 13:11). Note
also that God would “give” away these wives to
another (2 Sam. 12:11; see 16:22).
Old Testament Arguments
Argument: 1_Kings 11:3-4: Solomon multiplied wives (up to 1,000!) which was prohibited and
prophesied that a king would do in Deuteronomy 17:17. But that passage in 1_Kings 11:3-4 says his father
David's heart was "perfect". Indeed, as the previous verse of Deuteronomy 17:16 also prohibits a king
from multiplying horses, no one would read that to think that it suggests that a king was somehow not
able to have/add more than one horse! As such, there is a clear difference between multiplying and
merely adding. And this can be seen as the difference between Solomon and his father David. Where
Solomon had multiplied (i.e., stored-up, hoarded), David had only added his 18+ wives. (In Genesis 25:1,
"Then AGAIN Abraham took a wife... Keturah". The word,"AGAIN", there translates to add --or "augment"- in the Hebrew. And, indeed, Abraham was adding his third wife Keturah to himself.) So, Solomon's sin
was multiplying wives (which turned his heart away from God) while his father David had simply added
wives. Hence, adding more than one wife is biblically acceptable (just as David did), whereas multiplying
wives (just as Solomon did) is what was prohibited in Deuteronomy 17:14,17.
Answer: 1) Who decides what is “adding” (a few
wives?) and “multiplying” (many wives?)?
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our
own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. "
Isaiah 4:1. That "seven women" would seek to be called by the name of "one man" is a clear evidence of
polygamy (polygyny) in the Bible, even in prophecy such as this passage. Of course, though, the situation
described in this prophetic verse is not all that positive. A rather small minority, however, does view that
verse as a "literal" prophecy, foretelling of a time when women might out-number men, seven-to-one.
Howbeit, most Bible-believers see that verse, instead, as a negative prophecy, regarding the churches of
God seeking to "do their own thing". According to the verse, the seven women are arrogant women. Their
only motivation for marrying the man is to use him. They only want to be CALLED by the man's name, only
so as to take away their reproach, their shame. But they still arrogantly want to do things their own way.
They want to provide their own things their own way. This, of course, does NOT present an image of the
type of wives that Bible-believing men would want to marry! It certainly does not describe marriage within
the Biblical marriage-model of Ephesians 5:22-25. Given, as the majority of Bible-believers believe, that
this prophecy is an image about arrogant churches (rather than "literally" about arrogant women wanting
to marry a polygamist), this passage presents a "wake-up call" for all Bible-believers. Namely, the "seven
women" are understood as being churches who only want to be CALLED by the name of Christ, to be His
brides. They only do so in hopes of having their fruitless shame (as per sin) removed, even though they
still arrogantly want to do things their own way. They want to feed themselves their own bread, instead of
being fed on the bread of Christ. They want to clothe themselves in their own apparel, instead of being
clothed in the righteousness of Christ. While there is reasonable debate among many as to whether the
similitude of the "seven women" in Isaiah 4:1 is connected directly with the "seven churches" of
Revelation chapters 2 and 3, many still agree, nevertheless, that Isaiah 4:1 is a negative prophecy
concerning arrogant churches.
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: “It is the foretelling of seven churches wanting to marry Christ who do so only with
a selfish motive to seek to have His salvation (i.e., to be CALLED "Christian", to be CALLED by His Name)
but while, at the same time, still wanting to be doing things their own way, to stay in their sin. They want
to be CALLED "Christian" but they do not want to BE Christian, in ALL their ways, "in spirit and in truth“. As
TruthBearer.org's Mark the Founder has said, Isaiah 4:1 could be seen as a forewarning, that this prophecy
could even be foretelling of any Churches that adamantly refuse to believe or to allow themselves to see
the Biblically-proven truth that polygamy (polygyny) really is Biblical. That is, such Churches want to be
called by the name of Christ, while they simultaneously close their ears to the Biblical truth of polygyny
and thereby unwittingly even accuse Jesus Christ Himself of supposed "sin", because of Matthew 25:1-13!
This is, of course, combined with the matter that 1 Timothy 4:1-3a reveals that the Holy Spirit expressly
foretold of the time when people would be forbidding to marry any families such as that of polygamous
Abraham, Moses, David, and others, as well as how The Lord described Himself polygynously too, as Jesus
clearly did, for example, in Matthew 25:1-13. Indeed, Isaiah 4:1 is not the only time that a prophecy
describes the relationship between The Lord and the Churches in a context of a polygamist marriage
setting. Namely, this Isaiah 4:1 prophecy does indeed also provide such additional confirmation of the
Biblical presentation of the plurality of Churches (i.e., more than one) being as brides of Christ (plurally).
Just as Christ is presented as polygamously married to His Churches (i.e., being Bridegroom of the "five
wise virgins") in Matthew 25:1-13, so too does this Isaiah 4:1 present Christ in another context of
polygamous marriage with Churches. Even as the Isaiah 4:1 prophecy is indeed so perceived by most Biblebelievers as such a negative prophecy regarding the churches, it does still, nevertheless, demonstrate a
key point about the topic of polygamy. Namely, the fact that this prophecy would detail the idea of seven
women who WANT to marry a polygamist (even in the context of churches unto Christ), that fact itself,
that a prophecy of God would use polygamy in such an example, is further proof again that polygamy
really is Biblical.
Old Testament Arguments
• Answer: The fact that a prophecy uses a sinful
practice as an illustration does not mean that the
illustration itself is authorized. Starting with Isa. 3:16,
one can get a complete picture of what these
ungodly women are willing to do to survive God’s
judgment.
Old Testament Arguments
Argument: Malachi 3:6a-b and Hebrews 13:8 --- God does not change, nor would He, therefore,
"tolerate" sin, as some mistakenly assert. Indeed, many Christians often speak of the "curse of the Law" in
that, under the Old Testament, there was no "tolerance" for sin at all. And yet, such ones will then equally
assert the opposite ---and thereby illogical--- thought that "polygamy" was supposedly a "sin" about which
God supposedly "tolerated" in the Old Testament. Moreover, to suggest that God somehow "tolerated" sin
is to then mistakenly assert that Christ supposedly did not need to "go to the Cross" for the salvation of
sinners! (God forbid!) Indeed, the very gospel is precisely because God does not "tolerate" sin, that He
prepared a means of redemption through Christ. The merciful Lord God does not change!
Answer: 1) These passages speak of the unchanging
character of God. He never tolerates or condones sin.
The sin of polygamy was regulated by God but never
condoned.
Old Testament Arguments
Argument: Malachi 2:14-15 --- "wife of thy youth" is a man's first wife, the wife with whom he grew
and learned how to so love, bless, and edify any wife.
Answer: 1) This passage actually builds a strong case for
monogamy because it goes back to God’s ideal for
marriage laid down in Genesis 2 – marriage between
a man and a woman who become “one.”
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: One of the most commonly attempted arguments against polygamy makes the
assertion that polygamy is supposedly not the "original plan of God for marriage". This assertion is based
solely upon two sequential factors. Jesus's reference to "at the beginning" in Verse 4 of the Matthew 19:39 passage, and thus, the "Beginning" story: Adam and Eve. That "at the beginning" phrase, which Jesus
used there, of course, was only addressing divorce, not polygamy. Moreover, there is an additional very
exegetically important matter to note about all this. Namely, the very story of "the beginning" (with Adam
and Eve) ---indeed, the entire book of Genesis (which starts with the first three words, "In the beginning")-- was written by Moses. And Moses was a polygamist with two wives! Certainly, the very mortal author of
the story "at the beginning" would know what he wrote and whether his own polygamy was not part of
"God's plan" (if it was not)! Accordingly, it is clear that that phrase, "at the beginning", is simply not
relevant to the topic of polygamy, anyway. Nevertheless, though, that phrase is what forms the basis for
the subsequent factor pertaining to Adam and Eve. Namely, the argument asserts that, because the
Scriptures only record that God seemingly only made "one Eve" for Adam, that somehow implies an
"original plan of God for marriage" only for monogamy. The resulting implied speculation from that is that
polygamy is to be perceived as somehow against that perceived "original plan of God for marriage". Upon
deeper investigation, however, that speculative assertion does not hold up. If doctrine would hold people
to a perceived "original plan of God", then at least two things must also be binding upon mankind. For
examples, people must only walk around in nudity, and people must never die. Of course, to suggest such
things is an absolute absurdity. According to the Bible, the reason that those two examples are obviously
not binding as doctrine is because of Adam's sin. That sin of Adam had forever after changed (as it were)
the "plan of God" as applies to us for doctrine.
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: The Scriptures inform us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). From that,
the Bible further explains that, "Wherefore, as by one man [[ i.e., Adam ]] sin entered the world, and
death [[ entered the world ]] by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans
5:12.) When Adam sinned, death entered in. Adam's sin is why we now die. And it is also why we now
wear clothes rather than remaining nude, according to Genesis 3:21. The fact that we now wear clothes
and do die is the proof that we are no longer under any perceived "original plan". So what has God
planned for us instead? He gave us "the second Adam", which is Christ, that we might have life everlasting
in Him (per John 3:16.). "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [[
which is Christ ]] was made a quickening spirit.“ 1 Corinthians 15:45. The first Adam brought death by his
sin. The second Adam, which is Christ, brought life by His righteousness. "Howbeit that was not first which
is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth,
earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:46-47. Adam was of the flesh, while
Christ is of the Spirit. Because Romans 8:1 shows us that we are to walk in the Spirit and not according to
the flesh, we are certainly NOT supposed to follow after the example of the first Adam (who was of the
flesh), but after the second Adam (who is of the Spirit), which is Christ. With this now realized that we
follow after the "second Adam", Christ, we look to Christ as the example set for us in the true and current
"plan of God for marriage". And this is explicitly confirmed and explained for us in Ephesians 5:22-25.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the
wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it". Ephesians 5:22-25
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: This is very explicit. The "plan of God for marriage" is detailed as being modeled
after, not the example of the first Adam (of flesh) and his wife Eve, but after the example of the second
Adam, which is Christ (of Spirit) and His Churches.Following this model, each husband is to love his wives
as selflessly, "footwashingly", and life-givingly as Christ so loves the Churches (that He laid down His life in
the depth of such love). So too, each wife is to love her husband as each Church so loves the one and only
Christ Jesus. As there is only one Christ for the Churches, there is only one husband. And as there are more
than only one Church loved by Christ, it would not be sinful if there be more than one wife, of course. This
is confirmed, of course, by the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. The Lord Jesus Christ
described Himself as the polygamist Bridegroom for the "five wise virgins", which are the Churches. So, in
conclusion, what we see is that the "plan of God for marriage" is very explicitly NOT after the model of the
fleshly, death-causing first Adam and his (Scripture-recorded) apparent "one" wife, Eve. Rather, the Bible is
clear that the current "plan of God for marriage" is after the model of the Spiritual, life-bringing second
Adam, Christ, and His Churches.
Old Testament Arguments
• Argument: 1) Jesus and Paul referred to the
“beginning” with reference to marriage, not with
reference to nudity or other things in Genesis 2-3; 2)
The argument uses “husbands” and “wives” in
Ephesians 5:22-33 to speak of one man with many
wives, but Paul does not use these words in that
way; 3) The argument assumes denominationalism
(Christ loves many churches) and then parallels it
with polygamy
New Testament Arguments
• Argument: In Matthew 19:3-9, the Lord Jesus is not speaking about polygamy.
Rather, He is only answering a question about divorce. Indeed, the entire passage is about
divorce, not polygamy ... Indeed, in Matthew 19:8-9, Jesus simply repeats the Deuteronomy
24:1 "as it had been in the beginning", that God has always been against divorce of what He
joined together. In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees were asking about "every" reason for
divorcing, but Jesus returned back with the only one allowed reason (the woman's
"fornication / uncleanness"), as per Deuteronomy 24:1. Polygamy is about marriage, whereas
divorce is about breaking up marriage. Accordingly, Jesus was not speaking against promarriage polygamy in Matthew 19. He was instead addressing marriage-destruction of
divorce. It was about divorce, not polygamy.
Answer: 1) Jesus was not speaking against
homosexuality in Mt. 19, does that make it right? 2)
The argument is just wrong on Deut. 24. Jesus
answered using Gen. 2:24, not Deut. 24. The Jews
brought up Deut. 24, not Jesus.
New Testament Arguments
• Argument: “1_Corinthians 5:1: a son had fornicated with his "father's wife“. This
does NOT refer to the man's mother. Indeed, the term, "father's wife", is a very specific term.
Leviticus 18:8 refers to "father's wife" as specifically separate from "mother" in the previous
verse of Leviticus 18:7. Note that the "nakedness" of a "mother" is referred to as her own
"nakedness" while the "nakedness" of a "father's wife" is referred to as the FATHER's
"nakedness". This same differentiation is observed again in Deuteronomy 27:20,16. In fact,
what the fornicator had done as per 1_Corinthians 5:1 was the same sin as that of
Jacob/Israel's firstborn son. Reuben had committed the identical sin with Jacob/Israel's wife,
Bilhah, in Genesis 35:22. (Yes, Bilhah was Jacob's wife; see Genesis 37:2.) And for Reuben's
act of "uncovering his father's nakedness" by fornicating with his "father's wife", Bilhah,
Reuben lost his birthright as firstborn. 1_Chronicles 5:1 reveals that this was because Reuben
had "defiled his father's bed“. Indeed, the reference to "father's wife" in 1_Corinthians 5:1
does reveal an actual polygamist identified in the New Testament, i.e., the father of the
mentioned fornicator.
Answer: 1) It is assumed that “father’s wife” means a
second wife.
New Testament Arguments
• Argument: “There absolutely is an example in the Bible, where God actually does
command a situation of polygamy ---in the New Testament, even. 1_Corinthians 7:10-11 &
27-28. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own
"recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment
of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those
two verses is the "commandment of the Lord". (It should therefore also be noted that the
other areas in which he clarifies as being only his "recommendation" can NOT be used to
otherwise and incorrectly assert that God Himself is creating some sin or doctrine. After all,
Paul's ultimate "recommendation" therein is celibacy!) With that realized, it is clear for
readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different.
Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the
"commandment of God". "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not
the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:1011. Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed
to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is
subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent
instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.
New Testament Arguments
• Argument: “Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND,
the believer WIFE is commanded of God to either: remain unmarried, or be reconciled back
to her husband believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to: not put away any wife, and to
let any departed wife return back to him. The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the
same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but
the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be
married to him, either way! Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry
another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d. "Art thou bound unto
a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou
marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.” 1 Corinthians 7:2728d. The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the
wife has departed. As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when
he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose
wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not
another's wife). And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the
following situation. A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded
of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently
marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have
not sinned, per verses 27-28.
New Testament Arguments
• Argument: The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND. In
that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the
Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to
him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife. As
such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for
the family in that situation. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the
New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer
husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be
reconciled to her husband. There truly IS a "commandment of the Lord" for a situation of
polygamy to be found in the Bible ---and it's in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!
• Answer: The right to marry in 1 Cor. 7 (vv. 2,28, etc.)
is given to the single Christian who has a right to
marry.
New Testament Arguments
• Argument: A common argument often used as the last-resort "excuse", in trying to
still assert that polygamy (polygyny) must somehow be a sin, is what is known as the "law of
the land" argument. In quoting Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1 Peter 2:13-26, this attempted
argument asserts that, because polygamy is perceptibly against the "law of the land", and
because these passages instruct Bible-believers to follow the "laws of the land", this itself
makes polygamy a sin. Before addressing this argument directly, it is important to first
address the details by which no "law of the land" is actually being broken. In a legal technical
sense, polygamy itself is not usually specifically against the law. Rather, the legal term,
"bigamy", is the outlawed act of a person having government-recognized existing marriages
(i.e., government-recognized by "marriage license") with more than one living spouse at the
same time. As such, as long as polygamist families do not obtain government-recognition
(e.g., seeking a marriage-license), there is no breaking of any law. To Bible-believers, marriage
is defined by God Who alone has the authority. It is not defined by any government. In the
Bible, there is not one single example of any marriage becoming "legitimate" because of
definition or decree by government. The truth is, if marriage is defined by governments, then
that would say that none of the men in the Bible were actually married. That would be
absurd, of course! While the Churches have mistakenly acquiesced (even capitulated) their
trust in God's authority (as sole definer of marriage), in their wrongly thinking that
government has such authority to define marriage, even so, the reality is this:
It is not against the law to NOT GET MARRIED, in terms of any government definition of
"getting married".
New Testament Arguments
• Argument: Cohabitation is no longer against the law of the land of most countries in
•
the modern era. If any government simply views a relationship as being that of cohabitating
(which is not illegal), then even though Bible-believers and God know that the same
relationship is indeed that of marriage before God, as defined by God alone, the truth
remains: no "law of the land" is being broken. The interesting thing to note about this
attempted argument against polygamy, though, is the blatant obviousness of the "circular
logic" which this "law of the land" argument employs. Namely, the argument says this:
Polygamy is a sin beause it is against the law. How did the bigamy laws come into existence
in the first place? They made polygamy against the law because they thought it was a sin!
Therein is the "circular logic". The argument has no external support supporting it. It goes
round and round in trying to support itself, saying: Why is polygamy against the law?
Because it's a sin. Why is polygamy a sin? Because it's against the law. But why is it against
the law? Because polygamy is a sin. Why is it a sin? Because polygamy is against the law. And
round and round it goes. Of course, as it is clearly proven that polygamy is not a sin, because
polygamy really is Biblical, then that "circular logic" falls apart. Since polygamy is NOT a sin, it
should NOT be against the law! And since most polygamist families are actually not breaking
the law anyway, it is still not sin. As such, there should be no "law of the land" against
polygamy. And that leads to the final irony that anyone would use the "law of the land"
argument in the first place!
New Testament Arguments
• Argument: In countries such as the United States, Bible-believers take great comfort
in knowing and acting upon the legislative process by which the "laws of the land" can be
passed, amended, and even repealed. If any law were passed, amended, or repealed which
resulted in making things harder on true Bible-believers, they would (rightly) call it their
Biblical DUTY to rise up to overturn the passing, amendment, or repeal. Therein is the irony!
Even as polygamous Bible-believers are meticulous to not break any "law of the land", the
bigamy laws are, nevertheless, truly burdensome. All the while, many non-polygamous Biblebelievers would continue to look the other way and use the flawed "law of the land"
argument to still oppose polygamy. In using the "law of the land" argument, though, the very
Bible-believers who would rightly work to make changes in law if it isolated or it made things
harder for fellow Bible-believers are unwittingly relying on this flawed "circular logic"
argument to NOT do their otherwise self-defined Biblical duty to overturn laws which do
isolate and make things harder for fellow Bible-believers with polygamous families. Thus, to
not help such fellow Bible-believers with polygamous families to have freedom from the
burdensome bigamy "laws of the land", such ones can be viewed as simply, albeit mostly
unwittingly, continuing to fulfill the Spirit-given prophecy of 1 Timothy 4:1-3a. While all this
happens, of course, polygamous Bible-believers will continue to not break any laws, simply by
means of cohabitation before government, but of marriage before God. No doubt, should the
bigamy "laws of the land" ever become changed and repealed, the "circular logic" will clearly
require those who employ the "law of the land" argument to then have to wholly accept that
polygamy really is Biblical.
New Testament Arguments
• Answer: Civil law one way or the other plays no role
in this debate. God’s law authorizes monogamy, not
polygamy.
New Testament Arguments
Argument: "Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2,12 - "One wife“ - mia is the Greek word from
which the word, one, was translated in those passages. Yet, it can also be translated as first,
just as it is, for example, so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1,
Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7. Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow's "one man" is not mia
but the Greek word "heis", meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of
"first“… The fact is, no one can INSIST that these three "one wife" verses can NOT be instead
translated as "first wife", which makes more sense to translate those verses as "first wife"
anyway.
Answer: 1) Paul would be saying “the husband of the
first wife” … and what would this teach? 2) In the
example above of the “first day of the week” there is
but one of these days, Sunday. Changing the Greek
word to “first” does not prove the case.
New Testament Arguments
Argument: "1_Timothy 4:1-3a: the "Spirit speaketh expressly" and prophesied of the
time of "forbidding to marry". Today's churches, (some unwittingly) "speaking lies in
hypocrisy", would forbid the marriages of Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses, Gideon, and David --not to mention forbidding how God described Himself in Polygamist terms in Jeremiah 3
and Ezekiel 23, and how Christ the perfect Savior did likewise when He referred to Himself as
the Polygamous Bridegroom in the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. Indeed,
such churches would not even allow such holy ones in the Scriptures to bring their
polygamous families into such present-day churches. And yet, clearly, the Spirit expressly
foretold of this profoundly obvious (even though often unwitting) hypocrisy, in 1_Timothy
4:1-3a.
Answer: 1) It is assumed that “forbidding to marry” is
talking about forbidding polygamy. This is asserted
without proof. Could a homosexual uses this verse
against me if I “forbid” his marriage?
OT / NT Arguments
Argument: “ONE FLESH" --- "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24, referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8,
1_Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31. A man is "one flesh" with EACH woman with whom he copulates,
whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot). When a married man, who is therefore already "one
flesh" with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being "one flesh" with
the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1_Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be "one flesh" even
with an harlot. As even a married man, therefore, can become "one flesh" with an harlot, that proves that
a married man can indeed be "one flesh" with more than one woman, without negating his being "one
flesh" with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true
regarding a man being "one flesh" with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides
the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e., 1_Corinthians 6:17: "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one
spirit." As EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the
plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, so too may EACH
woman be joined as "one flesh" with one man. Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark
10:8, was re-quoting that original "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of
divorce, saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6c-d.)
That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as "one
flesh". For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse itself of Genesis 2:24,
which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with)
two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). The term,
"one flesh", could not otherwise allegedly mean that a man could not be "one flesh" with more than one
woman because three things did indeed happen. 1) Moses did marry two wives. 2) Moses did author such
other verses as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. 3) Jesus Christ did not speak against Moses' being
"one flesh" with two wives. Hence, the Scriptures reveal that Jesus and Moses knew what "one flesh"
meant when Moses authored Genesis 2:24: a man may be "one flesh" with more than one woman.
OT / NT Arguments
Answer: True, a man may be “one flesh” with someone
other than his wife, but not without approval. Paul
says “God forbid” (1 Cor. 6:15-18). “One flesh” does
not mean a man and woman are married. It means
an intimate relationship between any man and
woman.