View source for Polygyny as an example

''Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord.'' 

In this verse the Lord is using a polygynous marriage as an example, referring to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah.  It clearly states in this passage that the Lord was "a husband to them".   The logical question to ask is whether the Lord have done this if polygyny was a sin.  If it was something the Lord did not approve of, would He have lowered Himself to the world’s standards?

Another example is from Ezekiel, where the Lord describes to Ezekiel the sins of Samaria and Jerusalem.

''Ezekiel 23:1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 "Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother; 3 and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and there their virgin bosom was handled. 4 Their names were Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister. And they became Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And as for their names, Samaria is Oholah and Jerusalem is Oholibah.''

How would we respond if the Lord told us He were going to commit adultery?  What about if He told us He were going to steal? (Some may argue that He tells His people to kill, an obvious contradiction of a commandment, but I encourage everyone to read [http://righteouswarriors.com/controversial/article4.html Righteouswarriors.com's definition of words] to better understand this and why it is not a contradiction.)  The point is, sin is repulsive to God.  God cannot sin.  In fact, I believe sin is so unacceptable to God, that He cannot use something sinful even as an illustration when it describes Him.  Therefore, why would we think polygyny is sinful?  Do we think the Father would use polygynous relationships to describe His relationships with people groups if it were sinful?  '''NO!'''  Of course He would not.

One interesting point in this scripture is that the Lord is speaking of being married to sisters.  Some may question whether this contradicts the above comments suggesting the Lord wouldn't lower himself to even use sin as an example.  This is, in fact, used as a [[Biblical arguments against polygyny|argument against polygyny]], that a man is not to [[marry sisters]].  Nevertheless, this is not sinful either.

Tom Shipley writes:

{{quote|That it is, indeed, polygamy which is used as a metaphor in these passages is manifest. Verse 2 of Ezekiel 23 explicitly mentions “two women,” of whom the LORD says, “They were mine and they bare sons and daughters.” It is also manifest in both examples that Judah and Israel are spoken of as simultaneously being married to Yahweh. Judah, called “Aholibah,” is represented as witnessing the whoredom of her sister Israel, called “Aholah,” and yet committing adultery against Yahweh, their husband, also. That a polygamous situation is used to describe Israel and Judah is indisputable. Likewise in Jeremiah 3, verse 8 tells us that Judah, upon witnessing the adultery of Israel, went and played the whore also. The figure of polygamy is used in both cases.

God’s use of polygamy to describe His relation to His people is a prima facie endorsement of polygamy as valid. That is, since God is righteous, it is pointedly irrational to assume the unrighteousness of that which He portrays Himself as doing. On closer examination, this endorsement turns out to be more than superficial. The metaphors of marriage, adultery, divorce and polygamy were intended to illustrate the lawfulness or unlawfulness of that which they represent.

When God compares idolatry to whoredom in order to condemn idolatry, it is manifest that whoredom or adultery is presupposed as evil. When God compares His covenant with Israel to a man marrying a woman, it is manifest that marriage is presupposed as good. In a metaphor or parable there must be a correspondence of that which is good and evil both in the representation and in the thing represented. Without such correspondence, the metaphor or parable is reduced to absurdity and meaninglessness. Therefore, when the righteous and holy God depicts Himself as a polygamist married to two women, the logic of the metaphor requires us to presuppose the goodness of polygamy.

Jay E. Adams explicitly recognizes this necessity concerning the question of divorce. As the following quotation from Adams is read, mentally substitute the word “polygamy” for “divorce:”

''“It is plain from this evidence (i.e., the scriptures which portray God as divorcing His wife, Israel, for adultery.—T.S.) that divorce for adultery by fornication was considered a natural option for God to use in referring to His relationship to Israel. Here we must be careful not to plead that God can do as He pleases and that His actions are not an example to us. The figure of marriage (and divorce) that He uses to explain His actions and His various relationships to Israel would explain nothing, but only confuse the reader, if, indeed, stoning was the only way to deal with adultery. It is inconceivable that God—without some explanation—did that which was contrary to all that He requires of His own people in the same circumstance...The very least we can say is that in these prophets, by His recognition, adoption and (implied) endorsement of the practice, God placed His approval upon it.” — (“Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible,” pg. 73)''

To paraphrase Adams, “It is plain from this evidence that polygamy was considered a natural option for God to use in referring to His relationship to Israel. The figure of polygamy would explain nothing, but only confuse the reader if polygamy were unlawful. The very least we can say is that in these prophets, by His recognition, adoption and (implied) endorsement of polygamy, God placed His approval upon it.” The same logic that Adams applies to divorce in this metaphor must, of necessity, apply to polygamy. Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3 provide powerful, indeed conclusive proof for the thesis that polygamy is a valid option for a man. Echoing Adams, it is “inconceivable” that it could be otherwise. What shall we say then to those who condemn polygamy? Quite simply that in doing so they condemn God Himself. There cannot be any stronger proof required for the validity of polygamy than this. The “monogamy only” position is thus utterly devoid of any merit at all and is shown to be the substitution of the word of man in place of, and in defiance of, the word of God.


Shipley, T., Man and Woman in Biblical Law, A Patriarchal Manifesto, Resurrecting the Biblical Family, Part 1, 2004, p. 119}}

[http://www.Lockman.org Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.]