If asked, modern Christians will usually say that polygyny is sinful. If we look at the Book of Job, we see a man described as “perfect.” He was “the greatest of all the men of the east.” The English translations are not very accurate, but in Hebrew, he is described as having many women in his family household.
In Hebrew the word for household in Job 1 verse 3 is עֲבֻדָּה ʿăḇudâ. It is a female noun that means the sum of his household servants. The passage in English says that he had: “a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.” The word translated as “great,” in Hebrew describes what he possessed, his wealth. The magnitude of it is the implication. So, Job is described as having many female servants, in his household, and that was a blessing from God. According to the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, this word servant was a feminine noun. It was used twice in scripture, the other time being Genesis 26:14.
As you will see in the coming pages, there was an obligation on the part of a man to provide the conjugal privileges of his female servants. Some of those might be handed off to sons (Job’s lived in their own households so that wasn’t an option.) Others might be given sexually to male servants, thus satisfying both people’s needs (I will show that in a few paragraphs). For the most part, however, if female servants (who were indentured), lived within the household, their master had sex with them.
Clearly, being married to multiple women, and having concubines and slaves as sexual partners was not considered sinful, it was admired. Further, for those who claim that behaviors were allowed in the “Old Testament” but were not in the “New Testament,” polygeny was practiced long after Christ was crucified, Paul implied it in his instructions that Bishops should limit themselves to one, and Jesus clearly stated in Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
While we are on the subject of passages that deal with being married to one woman, I would like to turn our attention to one of the most frequently misapplied, Paul’s instructions in 1Timothy 3: 1-2.
The word in this verse is specific to those men who aspire to the position of Bishop, the passages refer to the office of “Bishop”. The word is episkopē in Greek. It means the presiding officer of a Christian Church. It is NOT applied to other positions. It does not apply to the counsel of deacons, it is the Bishop. The specific reference in Thyer’s Greek Lexicon for that word, identified as Strong’s G1984, in 1Tim 3:1 and 2, says: “After the analogy of the Hebrew, פְּקֻדָּה (Numbers 4:16; 1 Chronicles 24:19 (here the Sept. ἐπίσκεψις), etc.), oversight i. e. overseership, office, charge; Vulg.episcopatus: Acts 1:20, from Psalm 108:8 (Ps. 109:8); specifically, the office of a bishop (the overseer or presiding officer of a Christian church): 1 Timothy 3:1, and in ecclesiastical writings.”
Notice in that definition, applied to the passage we are referring to, 1Tim 3: 1-2, the word applies SPECIFICALLY to the person who desires to holds that office. To apply that passage as indicating that monogamy was instructed by Paul is wrong.
I want to explain this topic with complete accuracy because it is at the root of our decline. Christ was clear that he did NOT oppose the “law” or the “prophets,” so let us look at what that specifically says and some passages that have been often misused.
One such passage is Deuteronomy 17:17. One commentary says this passage: “instructs future kings not to “multiply wives,” implying that polygamy is not ideal for those in positions of leadership.”
That statement is completely untrue. What the word “multiply” rāḇâ in Hebrew, means to “increase greatly, exceedingly.” Strong’s Definitions translates it as “Exceedingly.” Further, the word rāḇâ is an “imperfect plural.” That means it is describing a past action. The example in the dictionary is “I was watching tennis.” Watching is an “imperfect” verb.
In this case, Deuteronomy 17, what is being described is that the Israelites were being instructed that when they entered the land God was going to give them as they came out of Egypt, they must choose a King from among them who would focus on not returning the people to Egypt (Chapter 16), but rather on serving the people instead of using the situation to magnifying his wealth. Horses, gold, and silver were specifically mentioned, along with wives. It doesn’t say he can only have one wife or one horse and it certainly doesn’t say or imply that the people are so limited. That is a mistaken teaching. Scripture says that he should not use that transition period from Egyptian captivity to add to his wealth “exceedingly.”
Again we see commentators in error, promoting their bias when the tools are readily at hand to see what the passage was actually saying. Clearly, in future generations, the kings of Israel had many wives, concubines, and slaves. The only rebuke they suffered was when Solomon married FOREIGN women, who worshiped other gods. THAT was his rebuke in 1 Kings:11.
Moses wrote the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy as part of the Pentateuch, the five books which are accepted as a direct depiction of how God instructed his people to live. In Exodus 21:1, it clearly states, “Now these are the judgments (H4941) which thou shalt set (H7760) before (H6440) them.”
The numbers shown are from Strong’s Concordance, an authoritative word study in the original languages. H4941 means “ordinance, or what is proper and fitting,” as a judge would use in deciding a matter brought before him. So, the laws that followed are how God wanted the people to live and how their judges decided cases.
Exo 21:2 describes that Hebrew servants can be purchased and after six years they would be offered freedom without payment to their master.
Exo 21:3 says that if the man is married when he is purchased, his wife comes or goes with him, she does not belong to the master, nor do his children.
Exo 21:4 states that if his master gives him a wife, the wife and her children belong to the master and after six years the servant does not take her, nor her children, with him if he decides to accept freedom. Remember, there are about 40 Hebrew nuances all translated into the word WIFE. Clearly this relationship does not conform to what we view as marriage or what is described in Genesis 2:24, which we will discuss further down in this paper.
Exo 21:7 explains that a man can sell his daughter to be a “maidservant.” That word in Hebrew means “maidservant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine.” That passage clearly states, “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”
So, at the end of six years of service, female slaves did not get freedom because their master was having sex with them, and they would be defiled for marriage. In verse 8, it is described that if the master no longer wants her, he can sell her into slavery in another nation, but not in Israel. Verse 9 describes giving her to his son as a concubine. The word “Betrothed” refers to a woman who is under contract to either become a wife or a concubine. No slave would become married to her master. Again, men had sex with their slave girls, and this was considered righteous by God.
Verse 10 is interesting because it clearly states that if the man takes another wife, the new wife cannot reduce a slave’s clothing, food, or conjugal rights. So, not only was a man allowed to have sex with his maidservants, but he is required to. She had a right to sex, and his wives could not diminish his duty.
Verse 11 dictates that if the master does not do one of the three things described in verses 8, 9, or 10, the slave woman (be her a servant or concubine) shall be set free without payment to the master. Specifically, if he does not fulfill conjugal rights to the woman servant, she can gain her freedom without him being compensated for her loss to his household. I am certain that it would have been a rare thing for a man to voluntarily lose property like that. What would be the purpose?
