6. Monogamy (Remastered)

Monogamy

R.J. Rushdoony

Our Scripture is 1 Timothy 3:1-7. And our subject, ‘Monogamy.’ 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

Biblical Law at this point disturbs many people. There is a seeming tolerance of polygamy, whereas in the Old Testament an intolerance of adultery with the death penalty for it. Today of course the moralist takes a very radically different position; he will tolerate adultery but not polygamy. There is here, then, a radical conflict of view points. The passage we have just read is the best known insofar as it deals with the subject of monogamy in the entire Bible. And because it seems to say that it is the Bishop or ‘Presbyter,’ to translate more literally, who must be monogamous, the husband of one wife, many people tried to get around the force of this by saying: “Well, what it forbids is second marriages of any kind,” there is no evidence, of course, for that.

What it simply says, is, the elder or presbyter or pastor, must be monogamous. 

Now, what does the law teach specifically on the subject? First of all it is obvious that the purpose of God in creation was monogamy; one man, one woman. This is the way He created Adam and then Eve. This is normative, this is the standard. It is also obvious that polygamy was a product of the fall, and it first appeared in the line of Cain. Lamech was the first reported polygamist who had two wives; Adah and Zillah, as Genesis 4:23 makes clear.

Moreover, there is an implicit prohibition of polygamy in the creation ordinances, Genesis 2:23-24. Also, one reading of Leviticus 18:18, which is almost certainly the correct reading, declares that: 

“…thou shalt not take a wife to another, to uncover her nakedness beside her in her lifetime.” 

This reading makes it clear that there was a prohibition of polygamy, this was the standard.

There is at least a prohibition of polygamy to any church officer in the passage we just read. Then, moreover, there is an implied condemnation of polygamy in Deuteronomy 17:17, which forbids kings to, “multiply wives to themselves.” Similarly the High Priest was forbidden to have more than one wife, and that had to be a virgin at the time of marriage, according to Leviticus 21:13-14.

Moreover, our Lord, when He spoke of marriage, referred to the creation ordinance and declared that true marriage meant the two, the twain, becoming one flesh, one man and one woman. Moreover, St. Paul speaks of marriage in monogamous terms as the standard for all believers. 

“Let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.”

1 Corinthians 7:2.

In passage after passage, monogamy is assumed to be the God-ordained standard. On the other hand, we must say that polygamy is recognized as a fact and regulated. It is actually less prominent in Biblical history than most people believe. The number of polygamous marriages that are cited in the Bible are relatively few. It is only that people notice them more than anything else and the case of Solomon is so conspicuous.

The Law, however, the Biblical Law, did recognize and regulate polygamy or concubinage; the concubine was the secondary wife, the wife who had no dowry. But, as we analyze the Biblical Law, we find that the man could not simply use the concubine as though she were nothing. She was entitled to her food, and her clothing, and her sexual relations without diminution. Failure to provide any of these three were grounds for divorce. This is plainly stated in Exodus 21:10-11. Not even a captive slave girl captured in war could be denied her rights according to Deuteronomy 21. 

Moreover, we find that according to the law, a bondmaid betrothed to her husband, the case there dealt with in Leviticus 19:20, that is a girl who is not a wife but a concubine, could not be put to death for adultery. Now, a wife or a husband could be killed, could be executed for adultery in Old Testament Law, but a concubine could not be. Both she and the guilty man could only be punished by scourging; they can be whipped, and that was the extent of their punishment.

There is a very important principle embodied in this variation. Since a concubine, a secondary wife, received a limited status, and is given less dignity and position in the marriage, only a limited loyalty could be expected. Adultery was still a sin on her part, it was still punishable, but the punishment was less because her status was lower than that of an endowered wife. The wife had a position of high responsibility as did the husband, and therefore betrayal of the marriage by either was more serious.

In other words, here as elsewhere we find the Biblical principle: 

“To whom much is given, from him much is expected.”

Luke 12:48.

We see therefore that the law only tolerated polygamy while establishing monogamy as the standard. The reason clearly was that the polygamous family was still a family, a lower kind of family life, but still a form of family life and therefore tolerable.

Humanistic law today does not protect the family; it protects the anarchistic individual; he can do as he pleases, there is no penalty for his behavior. The anarchistic individual is protected in law today; in Biblical Law, the family was protected.

As a result, polygamy was tolerated, but the standard established at creation was held forth to be the standard in the Old Testament for king and priest. In the New Testament for all Christians, and especially mandatory for all church officers.

Now, having said this, let us analyze ancient polygamy so that we have an understanding of it and realize how different it was from contemporary ideas of it. One form of ancient polygamy which we still find in primitive cultures is the economic form, economic polygamy. This does not appear in the Bible as far as we know. It was common in the ancient world, it is still common, for example, in Africa. The wife being the field hand, the only way a farmer for example could prosper was to have more than one wife; the richer he got, the more wives he had because he needed more field hands. And this is why in economic polygamy, the wives are [sought], for an extra wife or two, always; it means more help with the work. And after all, if you have ten acres to take care of, it becomes all the more important for you to have help in that.

But the kind of polygamy we meet with in the Bible by and large is governmental. Governmental. Now, what is governmental polygamy? Well, we can understand it by an incident which was just reported not too long ago in publications, in one of the Trucial States in Arabia. In one of the smaller Arab countries, an area of land held by one very oil-rich Arabian ruler is contested by a nearby Arab state. Now, he is in danger of sometime losing this area. There will no doubt be extensive subversion by his adjacent ruler who claims that territory. So what has he done? This particular Arab ruler has gone to each town and city in that contested territory, oil-rich territory, and he has married a woman there and left her there to rule the area. 

Now, he visits these wives once a year, one day to check on them. What is the function of these wives? It is not sexual. They are women who have considerable ability to administer, so they are his administrators. They have the prestige of being married to him, and having all authority there. So what do they do? They exercise oversight to make sure there is no subversion, because if there is it means that they’re finished. Thus, he has taken care of the problem of subversion in each of those areas. Who can nose around and know best what is going on, and know if anyone is subversive better than a wife? She will protect her husband’s interests.

In governmental polygamy very often the wives are older women, widows of a prominent businessman or merchant or government official who have ability in administration. As result a great deal of Biblical polygamy was governmental. This was a large part of Solomon’s household. Most of the wives were as a result, of treaties; foreign powers would send him several women who were trained in some aspect of foreign trade. They would be faithful to him and to their own country so they would be the same as diplomats in his court, and yet they would, by virtue of marriage to him, have a loyalty to him also. Governmental polygamy, in other words, took the place of civil service and a very large percentage of the wives in governmental polygamy, would be older, experienced women, administrators. 

There is also religious polygamy, polygamy for religious purposes, which is the Mormon form. But most polygamy, and when people think of the word polygamy think of it purely in the sexual aspect, and this is of course that which prevails in most Moslem countries and most parts of the world where polygamy still survives. And of course, this is the idea that is popular in male circles, of a dream world; to have a harem, a polygamous establishment of women that can be used at will. This is a dream; women have never been used in history without getting even. 

Now, there are a number of things that we need to say about this form of polygamy as we survey it in the world today. It is important to analyze it because God has made man, and men and women as God has made them cannot be put to uses other than God's purpose, which is monogamy, without a penalty. Well, what are the penalties? Polygamist marriages of the sexual form are marriages still, they are the union of two families. Now, in polygamous cultures, what happens? The basic loyalty is to the family from whence you came, so that the loyalty of a wife in a polygamous establishment, where there may be three or four other women or ten or twenty other women, is to her brothers because she knows she can depend on her brothers more than she can her husband. And as a result there is a severe in-law problem in all polygamous marriages.

Moreover, since the polygamous marriages are endowered marriages, there is a severe economic penalty if the husband mistreats his wife. As a result, in a polygamous marriage, although technically the husband can do as he pleases with all these women in his establishment, he is in danger from about twenty, thirty, forty, depending on how many wives he has, brother-in-laws and father-in-laws who are ready to cut his throat if they feel that their daughters or sisters rights are abused.

As a result, he has a very, very severe problem. Very few men in any polygamous country are powerful enough to be able to overcome this problem of in-laws, a whole slew of in-laws. Again, where they are powerful enough, say a Sultan as in Turkey, what happens there? We know from the history of the Sultans in Turkey from the earliest days until World War I that the Turkish Sultans often killed their wives wholesale. Sometimes they did it out of fear for their lives; this was usually the case because very often the wives were plotting to have them assassinated. So more than one Sultan lived in fear of his harem and killed them.

We know that Ibrahim, one of the most vicious, killed 300 of them just for the fun of killing them, and having the fun of picking out another 300. He had the power to kill them. But did he have the power to live with them successfully? Now, anyone can kill someone, that’s easy to do, and if you are a Sultan you can get away with it. But living with someone is another thing. And this was too much for Ibrahim or any of the other Sultans. 

What was the consequence of their life? Any time they chose one of the hundreds of women in the Harem, they had to face the jealous rivalry of every other woman. So, how did they do it? Well, they had a eunuch-slave tell the favorite who was going to be with them that night, secretly, quietly, so no one overheard them, she was smuggled into a special room, and the rooms were changed from night to night, so that no one else knew about it. This was the fear he lived in from the other women. After all, he was one man against hundreds of women. He could kill them, but live with them in peace? That was another matter.

Now, how was he going to keep the loyalty of any of these women whom he enjoyed or make them pleasing to him? He had to pay them. So for this one night he had to shower a number of gold pieces on her and jewelry. So it was a very expensive proposition and not a very rewarding one.

Thus, even in the polygamy of the sultans, they had the power to kill but no power to live successfully with their harem. Moreover, in every society there are certain obligations between man and wife; whether it is monogamous or polygamous, there are certain inescapable obligations.

Now what happens in a monogamy? In marriage in our country among Christians, do you have a long legal contract in which the rights of the husband and the wife are spelled out? Not at all. Why? Because when it is one man and one woman, there is a situation of mutual trust; of love, of faith. And so, there is no need to spell out the rights in great detail precisely. But what happens in a polygamous country? It has to be spelled out very carefully because otherwise the rights are readily abused where the wife is one among a number.

Let me read to you a brief description, for example, of one such situation, from a book published not too long ago by the University of Pennsylvania press:

“Among several tribes of the Syrian-Arabian desert a man has to divide his marital attentions equally between his two wives. He must alternately spend one night with one and one with the other. Each of the wives cook for him a day in turn, and on that day it is the woman’s right to have the husband spend the night with her, whether he cohabits with her or not. If the husband spends the night with one wife out of turn, he must compensate the other with a sheep or a goat as the price for her night. Sometimes the two wives strike a bargain and one of them buys a night from the other whose turn it is.” ⁱ

Now, imagine this situation if you would. Now, this is a very brief summary, but it is typical of the type of contract in every polygamous country. Let us assume a man has four wives. The first night, number one cooks for him and he must sleep with her. And no doubt you can imagine immediately what the consequence is. She is there to out-do the other three wives with her cooking. So she will cook a tremendous dinner, and he must eat with appetite everything that is set before him or she is going to be offended. And whatever he says or does, or whether he enjoys the food or not, what is she going to say to wife number two the next morning? She is going to say: “Oh, he went for my cooking, he really made a pig of himself he enjoyed it so much. And I hardly got a wink of sleep all night long, he was so passionate.” And what happens? The second night he has a second dinner prepared for him, and he had better enjoy every bite of it, or he is going to pay for it. And if he tries to sleep, he is in for trouble. He has got to outdo everything wife number one said, because she is not going to be second fiddle or he is going to pay for it. And the same thing happens on the third night, on the fourth night, and again on the fifth night with number one. Now, is it any wonder than in polygamous countries men hate women?

This is the reality. All you have to do is to go to Buddhist countries and Arab countries, Mohammedan countries, and what do you find? No good word by any writer about women, they hate them with a passion! They don’t trust them. And their life is a hell because of this polygamy. And the only reason it survives is that it is a kind of a status symbol. But this is the reality, this unceasing competition.

Buddha said: “Woman is the personification of evil.” And you can find even worse remarks in all the Arab and Moslem countries about women. The fact is, you see, only in Christian monogamous marriage does the man have real rights because only in a truly Biblical marriage is there a true union of man and wife. Instead of competition for the man between women, there is, in godly marriage, the union of man and wife in godly faith and love. There is trust, not rivalry. Christian monogamous marriage is thus marriage in its truest form.

But there is something further to be said that is of especial interest. During the first half of this century, a major work of research was done by a British scholar, J.D. Unwin, a sociologist, who set out to prove that there was no relationship between morality and cultural achievement. He very quickly found out that he was radically wrong. He found out as a result of his research of every known society today, and for every society for which there is any documentation, that there is a strict correlation between the sexual regulations and behavior of a culture and its cultural and intellectual performance. 

Thus, a society which has no premarital or postmarital chastity is at a dead level culturally. It has virtually no idea of an after life, very little ability to count beyond the ten fingers, there are one or two that cannot count beyond three, and is in every respect at a dead level culturally; they are primitive savages. 

A culture which begins to have regulations on pre-marital chastity begins to improve in its cultural level until you come to Biblical morality, and then and then only do you have civilization as we know it. Moreover, he found as a result of his studies that when this kind of Biblical monogamous standard breaks down, in three generations society goes back to a dead level.

As a result he found, and he was not entirely happy about what he found, that there is a very strict mathematical relationship between sexual relations and cultural behavior and progress. It’s not surprising that Unwin’s work, which no scholar has been able to challenge, has been simply shelved because they don’t like it.

And as a result, two other books, which are pathetic works, have been made the Bible of the modern ‘free love’ movement. Malinowski’s Sexual Life of Savages, and Rachewiltz’ Black Eros: The Sexual Customs of Africa. And it is interesting to note that in both cases they have to go to among the most primitive peoples for their ‘ideal’ society. To the Trobriand islanders of Malaysia, about as backward as any you can find in the entire Pacific islands, and to the savages of Africa.

Malinowski at one point goes so far as to say that there is no crime, no problem among these people, and I quote from Dr. Blake at this point: 

“… the noted anthropologist stated unequivocally that the “Trobianders know, in their third decade of our century (1920–1930), no sexual perversions, no functional psychosis, no sex murder: they have no word for theft; homosexuality, and masturbation, to them, mean nothing but an unnatural and imperfect means of sexual gratification, a sign of disturbed capacity to reach normal satisfaction. The socially accepted form of sexual life is spontaneous monogamy without compulsion, a relationship which can be dissolved without difficulties; thus there is no promiscuity.” 

He is quoting Malinowski at this point, and we can say from Malinowski’s own writings that he gives evidence to the contrary that they have all these things. But what is the point? Blake comments: 

“Of course, there is no promiscuity, technically speaking, where there are no laws or social taboos. If there were no laws against murder, there would be no murder either. Where there is no obligation, no responsibility on anyone’s part, it is simple enough to say that the problems of rape, adultery, child-love, non-support, etc. do not exist.” ⁱⁱ

It is that simple. We have that same kind of playing games with words with regard to Denmark today. We are told that since Denmark has abolished its laws on pornography, there is a tremendous decline in perversions. There is, because there is no prosecution now. Did you know that in the last decade in the United States there is, statistically speaking, a radical decline in homosexuality? Because there is no prosecution for it now.

So, much of the statistical evidence you get nowadays rests primarily on this kind of game. Unwin’s testimony does stand unchallenged. The Biblical standard alone gives culture and progress. Man was created by God, and there is no life apart from God’s terms possible for man. All they that hate me, said our Lord, love death.

Let us pray.

* * *

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto thee for thy Law-Word. And we thank thee that thy Law is our life, our way of health and progress. Make us every faithful to the whole of thy Law and every joyful therein. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Are there any questions now, first of all with respect to our lesson? Yes.

[Audience Member] Was it wrong to have a concubine, Dr. Rushdoony? ⁱⁱⁱ

[Rushdoony] They were still wives, and it was still a violation, but it was a tolerable violation in that it was still a strict family standard, you see.

[Audience Member] Surely the Bible is chock-full of polygamy?! ^iv

[Rushdoony] Well, I think if you were to sit down and tabulate every known instance of polygamy in the Bible, you would find that there aren’t many. For one thing, mathematically, it has never been possible for more than a few men to be polygamist. Normally, the ratio of women to men is virtually equal unless war or some such thing disturbs the ratio. As a result it isn’t possible as a normal thing for society, and those African societies today where it prevails, it does mean that some men have to go wifeless if the chief has a sizeable harem. So the number of instances by and large are very few. 

[Audience Member] Could you comment on the woman having more than one husband, Dr. Rushdoony? ^v

[Rushdoony] Polyandry. Of course that is consistently and totally condemned by Scripture. The purpose of polyandry where several men have one wife is not sexual, it is to preserve property. Tibet, historically, has been the place for that. It is one of the most ugly, unsatisfactory situations of any family arrangement the world has ever seen. But the whole purpose in Tibet is to pass on, or has been, we don’t know what has taken place there since the Communists have taken over. It was to pass on generation after generation the property without change. As a result, the property was maintained and the family was sacrificed. All the brothers became joint heirs of the property. They then had to marry, together, one wife. They or woman as the case might be were just sent into Buddhist monasteries, but it is one of the most deadly of all forms of marital life practiced, and as I say the purpose was to preserve property unbroken. And Tibet, which prior to this had been a country of some culture and progress, simply stagnated from there on and became a dead area because individuals were sacrificed totally to maintain a social and property structure.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Weren’t the prositutes at the temples, Dr. Rushdoony? ^vi

[Rushdoony] In paganism yes, right. They were fertility cults and their worship was highly sexual. In all of the Canaanites cults, most of the religions of the world, India today, prostitution is a religious matter, yes. Only in the Bible do you find any religion that has opposed that. But this was routine everywhere, this was routine in Europe for example, in the pre-Christian era.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you comment on Mormon religious polygamy, Dr. Rushdoony? ^vii

[Rushdoony] With the Mormons it was a religious means of salvation and exaltation. It meant that the man became a higher ‘god’ by virtue of the number of wives he had in the world to come and the number of descendants he had. So its purpose was religious.

[Audience Member] Has it died out? ^viii

[Rushdoony] No, it still prevails, although supposedly the marriages now are only for heaven. But it still has the same religious function in Mormon doctrine.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Are the wives released when the polygamous ruler dies? ^ix

[Rushdoony] No, then the next ruler simply takes over and she becomes his wife and governs. So that she continues as a wife, normally, as long as she is an able administrator. There have been a number of answers to the problem of government civil service, and this is one of them. And we still haven’t come up with a good answer, I might add. 

Our time is just about up, there are a couple little items I would like to share with you of a lighter sort. Those of you who have enjoyed the poetry of Alfred Lord Tennyson perhaps imagine that his lordship was as romantic as his poetry often is, and you might find this of interest. Some of the younger ones here might not know what ‘stays’ are. Stays were part of a structure of old-fashioned corsets. This is from a work of some few years ago, this is concerning Lord Tennyson. 

This brusqueness was rather a way of his; at another function of the kind near his country house at Aldworth, there was a young lady of the neighbourhood the dream of whose romantic soul was to be introduced to him. Her heart’s desire was granted her, and they sat down side by side on a garden seat. Dead silence fell ; she was far too rapt and reverent and overpowered to speak, and he had nothing to say. Suddenly he found something to say, and he pronounced these appalling words, ‘ Your stays creak.’

Nearly swooning with horror and deeply hurt at this absolutely unfounded accusation, she fled from him without a word, and recovered her composure as best she might by converse with less alarming folk. Presently she observed that he was stalking her ; she tripped from one gay group to another, and always the poet followed her, like a bloodhound on her trail. The dream of her soul had turned into a nightmare : certainly he was after her, and who could tell what he would say next? She dodged and she doubled, she hid behind trees, but she could not shake him off. Then she made a dreadful tactical error, for she scurried up a long path in the kitchen-garden hoping to distance him beyond pursuit, only to find that she had entered a cul-de-sac bordered by cabbages and asparagus and closed at the far end by the potting-shed. She fumbled at the latch, intending to hide herself from the dreadful presence, but it was locked, and now he closed in on her. ‘I beg your pardon,’ he said, ‘it was my braces.’” ^x

Then this little item amused me and in case some of you are as fond of pets as I am, dogs and cats, though the case for exotic pets seems to be growing, and a new variety, of course, is snakes. And here are some hints in case you are interested in this, from the paper the other day. 

“Snakes in captivity may refuse to eat. ‘You can maintain life by giving them injections,’ said James Ruth, animal doctor at Manhattan Animal Medical Center, ‘but eventually they will lose weight and develop wrinkles, extremely unattractive in a snake. To revive interest in food, try lubricated chicken hearts stuffed with bone meal. You will have to push them gently down the snakes throat. Snakes get cold frequently too; if you have a sneezing snake inject him with diluted pepper and keep him out of the swimming pool for a few days.’” 

Well, with those instructions, now you are prepared for snakes.

One last word, some of you asked for additional copies of the last Chalcedon Report; if you want one, come up and get them please. 

You are adjourned.

i. Raphael Patai, Golden River to Golden Road, Society, Culture and Change in the Middle East (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962), p. 94.

ii. Roger Blake, The Free-Love Groups (Cleveland: Century Books, 1966), p. 94f.

iii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

iv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

v.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

viii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

ix.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

x. E.F. Benson. As We Were: A Victorian Peep-Show. London: Longmans, Green, And Co., 1937, p. 116.