An Old Testament Case Against Polygamy

There has been an uptick in the trend in those arguing for so-called “Christian” polygamy. While it’s easy to dismiss the polygamy chatter as “another social media” trend, acceptance of polygamy among Americans has risen from 7 percent in 2001 to now 21 percent as of the most recent Gallup polling. A threefold rise in public moral approval is more than an isolated social media fad.

While numbers regarding the opinions of Christians on polygamy weren’t readily available, other views on marriage and sexuality were not promising. Even without hard numbers, there are a few signs, including men like, Vince Bantu, a church history professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, publicly accused of practicing and defending polygamy, and Chuck McKnight, a professing Christian, openly writing in defense of his own polyamorous marriage.

The preparedness of most Christians to engage heretical teachings is undermined by a pandemic of Biblical illiteracy. Only 39 percent of Americans engage Scripture on their own even three times a year, tying the lowest figure in over a decade of tracking (American Bible Society, State of the Bible), and the share of evangelicals doubting the Bible’s literal truth has risen from 17 percent to 26 percent since 2016 (Ligonier Ministries / LifeWay Research, State of Theology).

In contrast, those pushing heresy are already attempting to justify beliefs and thoughts which conflict with the established teachings and cultural norms, reasoning — poorly or not — why his or her sin is justified.

The natural result is an asymmetry in messaging. The church responds “That’s wrong and icky” and the heretics respond, “Here is why Scripture says it’s not.”

This is a shame, because Scripture, front to back, provides a robust defense against polygamy.

Why then does there seems to be a consensus that, at one time, God permitted and blessed polygamy? This position is popularly repeated by theologians and pastors who in the same breath will argue now polygamy is wrong. A few reasons come to mind, but the biggest being, a general distaste for the Old Testament and the Torah, and how either have any relevance to Christian ethics, even among those who reject antinomianism outright.

The end result is a Christian doctrine which treats the Old Testament as largely irrelevant to Christian ethics, the law of God as functionally unrighteous, and an inability to properly defend marriage when it’s most under attack.

The Old Testament makes a positive case for monogamous marriage. The New Testament writers don’t introduce this as new — they reiterate what marriage was designed for from the beginning: a picture of Christ’s singular, covenantal love for His Church (Eph. 5:22-33).

This argument is essential for understanding and refuting the heresy of so-called “Christian” polygamists who believe they are introducing a legitimate, alternate morality that is biblically defensible. It isn’t. It turns the biblical theology of marriage on its head.

A key belief of the Protestant Reformation is that God has spoken clearly, infallibly, and authoritatively by His Word (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible is God speaking, therefore the words written in Scripture are the most authoritative interpretation of other words in Scripture.

Building on this, our argument does not artificially remain in the Tanakh. If New Testament speakers provide interpretations of the Tanakh and what it has always meant, we accept their interpretations as authoritative.

Most, if not all presentations, of “Christian” polygamy is technically polygyny — one man, multiple wives — though the broader category includes polyandry (one woman, multiple men) and polygynandry (combination). This article uses the umbrella term polygamy throughout.

Polygamy is worth distinguishing from polyamory and open relationships, which lack polygamy’s formal marriage bond, though it should be noted that both serve as ad hoc polygamy in places where polygamy is illegal.

Jesus does not reach for a new interpretation — Which He could arguably do as God incarnate. Instead, He grounds the Pharisees in the first book of the Torah, citing Genesis 2:24 — the very passage He then quotes directly. Starting in Matthew 19:4-6 (LSB):

4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

He expects teachers of the Torah to already understand this from a plain reading of the text, as it has already been revealed to them.

Christ’s appeal to Genesis 2:24 is the conclusion of a scene, and the scene builds toward it deliberately. Before woman exists, God brings every animal to Adam to name:

“but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:20).

The search fails first, on purpose. God did not discover, in real time, that Adam needed a helper — the delay was not God learning something as He went. He already knew. The failed search exists to make the point undeniable that Adam was without a suitable companion. The solution was always going to be Eve.

God’s solution is not to build several women. He takes one rib from Adam and forms one woman (Gen. 2:21-22). Woman’s very existence, before any command has been spoken, is already singular in its material cause.

Adam’s response is recognition, not classification — “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23) — a demonstrative pointing at one person, not a category of persons. Even the naming is built for one: ishah (woman) is formed from ish (man), a one-to-one correspondence embedded in the Hebrew itself.

Then verse 24: “For this reason” — עַל־כֵּן, al-ken, “therefore” — “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.” “Therefore” draws its conclusion directly from what was just narrated: one rib, one woman, one marriage.

The Word who became flesh (John 1) defined marriage from the first definition. One man and one woman, joined as one flesh — not one man leaving his father and mother to cleave to his wives.

This is why “have you not read” functions as a complete rebuttal in Christ’s mouth. He is not citing an isolated sentence and hoping it holds alone. Genesis 2 is a structured argument, and 2:24 is its conclusion. Every later text this article draws on inherits its force from an argument Genesis had already made in full.

Click the button below to read this entire article for free on my website, JesusIsRisen.org.

Read for FREE on JesusIsRisen.org

Premium Subscribers can continue to read it below.