FALSE WITNESS ON POLYGAMY: A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL FOSTER

Written by Abraham Kilian.

PASTORAL PREFACE

Before undertaking a forensic examination of Pastor Michael Foster’s recent assertions, I wish to begin with a word of respect. Foster has laboured faithfully in the pastoral office—shepherding men toward responsibility, reforming households, and contending for Biblical masculinity in an age hostile to it. My critique, therefore, concerns not his intentions but his claims, for when theological argument steps beyond Scripture, binds the conscience without warrant, or imputes motives without evidence, brothers must speak plainly. May this rebuttal serve our shared pursuit of truth under the authority of YHWH's Word alone.

I. INTRODUCTION

Michael Foster’s polygamy[ia] thread (11 November 2025) arrives with the force of a courtroom summation—confident, sweeping, and rhetorically polished. Yet when the dust of eloquence settles, his case appears to rest not on Scripture, history, or exegesis, but on assumptions that go beyond the authorities he invokes. The stakes are not trivial. When a pastor publicly brands a divinely regulated marital structure as inherently lustful or spiritually corrupt, he does more than offer an interpretation: he binds consciences where YHWH has not bound them and imputes sins YHWH Himself does not impute[ib]—a breach made still more serious when committed by one who has publicly subscribed to the Westminster Standards, thereby condemning himself by the very confession that forbids “rash, harsh, and partial censuring” and “misconstructing intentions.”[ii]

The purpose of this article is therefore twofold. First, to examine Foster’s specific claims—historical, theological, ethical, and pastoral—according to the Biblical and Reformed standards he subscribes to. Second, to demonstrate that his argument not only lacks evidentiary support but repeatedly collapses into aggravated forms of false witness: assertions about the internal motives, moral character, and spiritual condition of other believers without Biblical mandate or empirical verification. [iii]

This rebuttal proceeds point-by-point through Foster’s argument, testing each claim against the witness of Torah, the historical testimony of Second Temple Judaism, the writings of the Christian Church Fathers, and the ethical framework of the Westminster Confession he subscribes to. The aim is not to humiliate a brother but to safeguard the authority of Scripture. Where YHWH has spoken, we bow; where YHWH is silent, no pastor may thunder.

II. Foster’s Polygamy Response Thread as False Witness: The Ethical Frame

Any theological dispute must begin where Scripture itself begins when adjudicating claims about another’s conduct: with the moral weight of the Ninth Commandment.[iv]

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour” - Exodus 20:16

Exodus 20:16 is not merely a prohibition against lying in court; it forbids imputing motives, constructing accusations without evidence, and circulating charges that divine revelation does not sustain.[v] The New Testament intensifies this ethic: believers must “put away falsehood” (Eph 4:25), refuse to “lie to one another” (Col 3:9), and refrain from judging the hidden counsels of the heart, for these belong to YHWH alone (1 Cor 4:5).[vi]

Scripture also establishes a stringent evidentiary standard for any serious accusation: “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 19:15; cf. Matt 18:16; Heb 10:28). While Deut 19:15 is given in a judicial context, the principle is that serious accusations require more than one man’s impressions or suspicions. When a pastor publicly charges a whole class of men with porn addiction and grooming-like motives, he is functioning as de facto witness, judge, and jury without that Scriptural safeguard. This rule is not a courtroom technicality but a covenantal safeguard designed to prevent precisely the kind of unfounded imputations Foster advances. Paul applies this rule explicitly to accusations against elders, warning Timothy: “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses” (1 Tim 5:19). If even a private allegation against an elder requires multiple witnesses, then a pastor levelling public moral accusations against an entire class of men without any witnesses, evidence, or demonstration violates not only the Ninth Commandment but the Biblical rules of testimony. Righteous judgment is impossible where the evidentiary threshold is ignored.

Reformed ethics sharpen the point. The Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 145 teaches that the Ninth Commandment forbids “misconstructing intentions,” “rash, harsh, and partial censuring,” “raising false rumours,” and—most pointedly—any such actions committed by persons in authority or against many persons. A pastor’s public assertions therefore carry heightened moral gravity, for his words shape consciences and can wound or mislead entire communities (James 3:1).

Against this Biblical and confessional backdrop, Foster’s article must be evaluated not merely as rhetoric but as testimony. He declares that men practising or defending Biblical polygyny today are driven by "pornography and self-gratification", “sexual addiction,” "craving for novelty", "domination", and "spiritual corruption". He further claims that such men resemble “the groomer reading to children in a library”—a comparison he deploys for rhetorical force, yet one that equates a Biblically regulated marital form with manifest perversion.

In this thread, Foster provides no Scriptural warrant, empirical data, or verifiable pastoral cases to substantiate these accusations. If such evidence exists, it is not offered; the reader is asked to accept sweeping psychological claims on Foster’s personal say-so. They are imputations of inward motive—precisely the kind of conjecture Paul forbids (1 Cor 4:5). And because they come from a minister addressing the public square, the prohibitions catalogued under WLC Q. 145 apply at their highest degree. The issue is therefore not simply that Foster is mistaken, but that the effect of his rhetoric falls under a Biblical category far more serious than ordinary error: it functions as false witness spoken from the pulpit. Whether Foster intends it or not, the effect of his rhetoric is to bind consciences where Scripture does not, placing moral weight on believers that the text itself does not impose.

III. Claim #1: “Polygamy Appears Only in Times of Collapse” — Historically Unsupported

Foster’s opening historical claim—that polygamy arises primarily in times of social breakdown, famine, war, or male scarcity—functions as the psychological frame for his entire article. Yet this premise is not merely unsupported; the Biblical record, rabbinic testimony, and mainstream scholarly analysis contradict it. Scripture presents polygyny not as an emergency mechanism for civilizational triage, but as a normal feature of covenant life among prosperous, stable, God-fearing men.[vii]

The patriarchs practiced polygyny in contexts of divine blessing, not desperation. Abraham took Hagar during a season of wealth and covenantal expansion, not societal collapse (Gen 16).  Jacob fathered twelve sons through four women during a period of growing household prosperity (Gen 29–30). Gideon fathered seventy sons through multiple wives after leading Israel into military victory and national stability (Judg 8:29–32). David received additional wives as part of God’s covenantal gift to him, not as a wartime survival measure (2 Sam 12:8). And in one of the clearest and often ignored examples, Jehoiada the priest—arguably the holiest statesman of his era—gave two wives to Joash during the restoration of national order (2 Chr 24:3). These are not men navigating social collapse; they are men entrusted with covenantal responsibility in times of strength.

Historical Judaism corroborates this. Polygyny remained accepted and regulated through the Second Temple period and deep into the medieval world.[viii] Maimonides affirms its lawfulness under halakhah,[ix] and even the Karaites—opponents of rabbinic tradition—maintained it as normative.[x] Modern scholars likewise reject Foster’s thesis. David Instone-Brewer notes that polygyny "was never made illegal" and that "even God was portrayed as married to two sisters, yet polygamy was a legal and socially embedded marital form” and "Polygamy was allowed in Mosaic law".[xi]

Foster cites no Biblical data, no demographic evidence, and no historical testimony to support his thesis. It is not drawn from Scripture or scholarship but from a modern monogamy-only imagination retrojected onto the ancient world. If the foundation of his historical argument is unsound—and it is—then the moral superstructure built upon it cannot stand.

IV. Claim #2: “Polygamy Is Lust, Addiction, Domination” — A Catalogue of Slander

If Foster’s historical thesis provides the frame of his argument, his psychological claims supply its emotional force. He declares with sweeping certainty that men who practice or defend Biblical polygyny today are “trained by pornography,” driven by “sexual addiction,” ruled by “cravings for novelty,” hungry for domination, spiritually hollow, morally compromised, and living in isolation from the corrective presence of the Church.

These accusations share two features: they are consistently negative in tone, and nothing in this thread substantiates them. Foster does not cite a single study, statistic, pastoral case file, or empirical inquiry supporting these claims. He does not distinguish between righteous polygynists, unrighteous polygynists, or hypothetical abusers. He does not acknowledge that every marital structure—including monogamy—can be corrupted by lust, selfishness, or sin. Instead, he imputes inward motives to an entire class of believers without evidence. Scripture identifies such projection as a violation of justice (Deut 19:16–19) and a trespass against charity (1 Cor 13:5–7). Paul explicitly forbids Christians from concluding “the hidden things of the heart” (1 Cor 4:5). The Westminster Larger Catechism considers this “misconstructing intentions” and “rash, harsh, and partial censuring”—both aggravated breaches of the Ninth Commandment (WLC Q. 145).

More gravely still, Foster’s rhetoric stands in direct contradiction to Scripture’s treatment of the very practice he condemns. Torah not only permits polygyny, but it regulates it (Exod 21:10; Deut 21:15–17), commands it under certain conditions (Deut 25:5–6), and protects the rights of wives and children within it. The moral category Scripture attaches to lawful polygyny is not “lust” but “justice.” When Scripture depicts sinful polygynists, it condemns their sins, not their marital form. Likewise, when Scripture depicts sinful monogamists, it never claims monogamy itself produces the sin.

Foster’s psychological claims are therefore doubly flawed: they lack an evidentiary foundation, and they contradict YHWH's own legal treatment of the marital structure in question. Rather than exposing the moral dangers of polygyny, they expose a deeper ethical problem—a shepherd imputing motives YHWH has not named, and condemning what YHWH has permitted.

V. Claim #3: “Polygamy Always Creates Chaos” — The Narrative Fallacy

Foster next turns to narrative examples—Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah, David’s household—to argue that polygyny invariably produces jealousy, rivalry, and familial fracture. Yet this move reveals a fundamental hermeneutical error: deriving universal moral prohibition from descriptive narratives involving sinful people in a fallen world. If such reasoning were valid, vast swaths of Scripture would be rendered incoherent.

A. Sarah and Hagar

Sarah and Hagar clashed not because their marital structure was immoral, but because of contempt and disrespect (Gen 16:4), harshness and partiality (Gen 16:5–6); and the irony is that the Angel of YHWH Himself sent Hagar back to Sarah, commanding her to return and submit (Gen 16:9).

B. Rachel and Leah

Rachel and Leah’s rivalry did not arise from the marital structure, but from Jacob’s unequal love that left Leah “unloved” (Gen 29:30–31) and from the painful contrast in their fertility, for when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister (Gen 30:1). Yet ironically, the two sisters later united in the field against their father (Gen 31:4–16), and after that moment of solidarity, Scripture records no further strife between them.

C. David and his Sons

David’s sons did not rebel because he had several wives; Scripture places the blame squarely on David’s failures of discipline, justice, and impartiality—his refusal to punish Amnon (2 Sam 13:21), his passivity toward Absalom (2 Sam 14:28; 15:6), and his indulgence toward Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6). And yet, ironically, YHWH Himself declared that He had given David his master’s wives into his bosom (2 Sam 12:8), confirming that the marital structure was not the source of David’s household turmoil.

D. Hannah and Peninnah

Hannah and Peninnah did not clash because the marital structure was immoral, but because Peninnah maliciously exploited Hannah’s childlessness, provoking her “to irritate her” precisely because YHWH had closed her womb (1 Sam 1:6). The tension arose not from polygyny but from a heart hardened toward a suffering sister. Yet ironically, the very affliction Peninnah weaponised drove Hannah to pour out her soul before YHWH (1 Sam 1:10–11), and YHWH vindicated her by opening her womb (1 Sam 1:19–20)—with Scripture offering no rebuke of the marital arrangement itself.

E. Sin in the Story Is Not Sin in the Structure

Each narrative records sin within polygynous contexts; none attributes sin to polygyny itself. As David Instone-Brewer notes, “no criticism of polygamy" and it was "never made illegal".

F. CONCLUSION

If narrative dysfunction establishes moral prohibition, monogamy collapses under its own weight. Consider the following:

• Adam and Eve, the archetypal monogamous couple, ushered sin into the world through deception, blame-shifting, and disobedience.

• Abraham and Isaac lived monogamously, endangering their wives twice—yet no one argues monogamy causes deceit.

• Ahab and Jezebel, a monogamous couple, embody idolatry, murder, and tyrannical abuse.

• Hosea and Gomer, monogamous, illustrate serial infidelity and profound dysfunction.

By Foster’s logic, monogamy produces chaos, monarchy produces corruption, and the priesthood produces apostasy. Yet Scripture treats monarchy, priesthood, and marriage not as inherently corrupt structures, but as divine institutions stewarded by sinful humans. Dysfunction in narrative does not render an institution immoral; it reveals the moral failure of individuals operating within it.

Only law—not narrative—defines sin (1 John 3:4; Rom 7:7). And the law of God does not forbid polygyny; it regulates it (Exod 21:10), protects its vulnerable (Deut 21:15–17), and even commands it under certain covenantal circumstances (Deut 25:5–6). Foster’s narrative argument, therefore, proves only that sinners sin within whatever structures they inhabit—monogamous, polygynous, or otherwise. And to declare evil what God has called lawful is itself a violation of His moral order (Isa 5:20). Scripture nowhere blames polygyny itself for the sins committed within polygynous households.

VI. Claim #4: “The Creation Ordinance Establishes Monogamy Only” — A Misreading of Genesis 2:24

Foster’s theological foundation rests heavily on Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” He treats this as a universal marital statute mandating numerical exclusivity for all time. Yet this interpretation faces three insurmountable exegetical problems: linguistic, historical, and apostolic.

A. First, the linguistic problem.

The Hebrew terms ’ish (“man”) and ’isshah (“wife/woman”) are grammatically singular but semantically flexible; they function as class nouns, capable of plurality in context. Scripture frequently uses the singular for general categories (“the righteous man,” “the wicked man,” “the king”) without implying exclusivity. If Genesis 2:24 were numerically restrictive, then every repetition of singular nouns in legal or poetic texts would likewise become restrictive—a hermeneutical absurdity.[xiv]

B. Second, the historical problem.

Moses wrote Genesis centuries after polygyny had already become a normative, regulated institution in Israelite society. On a continuity-of-law hermeneutic—which Foster, as a Reformed pastor, ostensibly shares—practices positively legislated and regulated in Torah stand unless expressly abrogated. Within that framework, reading Genesis 2:24 as a strict numerical prohibition creates a tension: Moses would elsewhere be regulating and even commanding the very practice he is alleged to be forbidding. This does not prove the case by itself, but the cumulative pattern is striking: the same lawgiver who narrates Genesis 2 then proceeds to regulate polygyny (Exod 21:10; Deut 21:15–17) and even command it in levirate duty (Deut 25:5–6), making the monogamy-only reading increasingly implausible. The lawgiver who supposedly ‘banned’ polygyny then turns around and regulates and commands it—a tension that makes the monogamy-only reading exegetically unstable.[xv]

C. Third, the apostolic problem.

Paul explicitly quotes Genesis 2:24 to ground Christian marriage ethics (Eph 5:31–32). But as scholars like William Luck and David Instone-Brewer note, Paul applies this “one flesh” principle not to marital arithmetic but to covenantal union grounded in Christ’s relationship to the Church. Here, the creation ordinance signifies mystical union—not a numerically exclusive structure. Thus:

Ephesians 5:31–32 quotes Genesis 2:24 directly and applies the ‘one flesh’ principle to every lawful Biblical marriage—whether the husband has one wife or several—because the mystery concerns the Messiah and the Ekklesia, not arithmetic.

The early Church Fathers understood this clearly. To my knowledge, no extant pre-AD 350 commentator treats Genesis 2:24 as a numerical ban; the early interpreters consistently stress covenantal union rather than marital arithmetic. They instead follow the Jewish interpretive tradition: the verse describes covenantal attachment, not marital quantity.[xvi]

Foster’s argument, therefore, adds to Genesis a prohibition YHWH never inserted. It treats descriptive narrative as prescriptive statute and imposes a Western monogamy-only norm onto a text that neither speaks of numbers nor condemns polygyny. In doing so, it shifts from exegesis to cultural eisegesis—binding consciences where YHWH has not bound them.

VII. Claim #5: “Deuteronomy 17:17 Prohibits Polygyny” — A Misapplication of the King’s Law

Foster leans heavily on Deuteronomy 17:17—“He shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away”—treating it as a universal prohibition against polygyny. Yet this interpretation fails on exegetical, contextual, and covenantal grounds.

A. First, the scope of the command is limited.

Deuteronomy 17:14–20 regulates a specific office—the Israelite king. It restricts three areas—horses, wives, and wealth—because each created avenues for foreign entanglement, political manipulation, or covenantal compromise. These limits do not apply to ordinary Israelites, whose marriages are governed instead by Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15–17—statutes that explicitly regulate polygyny as lawful. The Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 21a) derives an upper numerical limit for royal wives from the letters gimel (3) and vav (6) in Deut 17:17, yielding eighteen—a midrashic safeguard against political excess, not a universal marital law.[xvii]

As Friedman shows, the restriction of Deuteronomy 17:17 applies exclusively to the king. The Geonic responsa express the distinction plainly: “Every man (may marry wives) according to his ability; there is no limit… This is in reference to the king, for the kingdom requires his leadership… but an ordinary man whose leadership is not needed by the public has no limit as long as he can maintain them.” In short, the limitation on royal wives is a governance safeguard, not a universal marital statute.[xviii]

B. Second, “multiply” does not mean “more than one.”

The king is forbidden to “multiply” horses, gold, and wives in the same sense: excessive accumulation for political leverage and personal aggrandisement. If the term meant “have only one,” the king would be allowed a single horse and a single coin of gold—an interpretation few would attempt. The prohibition concerns excess, not plurality.

C. Third, Scripture provides an internal example.

Rehoboam took “eighteen wives and sixty concubines” (2 Chr 11:21–23)—precisely the upper boundary established by the Law of Kings (1 Sam 10:25; cf. m. Sanh. 2:4).[xiii] Scripture critiques him not for polygyny, but for political excess and covenantal drift. The issue aligns exactly with the concerns of Deuteronomy 17: self-exaltation, foreign entanglement, and royal overreach—not marital number.

D. Finally, the Law cannot contradict itself.

The same Torah that supposedly bans polygyny for all men simultaneously:

• regulates it (Exod 21:10),

• protects inheritance rights within it (Deut 21:15–17), and

• commands it via levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–6).

A prohibition cannot annul a command. Deuteronomy 17:17 thus restricts royal hubris, not righteous plurality. Foster’s argument misapplies a targeted statute as a universal law, transforming a warning against political excess into a prohibition YHWH never issued.

VIII. Claim #6: “The New Testament Requires Monogamy” — A False Claim

Foster’s New Testament argument is built on a syllogism never found in Scripture: (1) Yahshua affirmed Genesis 2:24; (2) Paul requires elders to be “husbands of one wife”; Therefore, (3) polygyny is forbidden to all Bible believers. But each premise is misunderstood, and the conclusion does not follow.

A. First, Jesus never prohibits polygyny.

On a continuity-of-law reading—again, the hermeneutical approach assumed in Reformed theology—practices positively legislated and regulated in Torah remain lawful unless explicitly overturned. In that framework, Jesus’ and Paul’s silence is not a neutral vacuum; it favours continued permissibility, because abrogation requires explicit repeal, not assumption. Jesus intensifies the existing moral law (Matt 5:17–20); He does not amend YHWH’s marital legislation. Had He intended to outlaw a practice that YHWH legislated, protected, and at times commanded (Deut 25:5–6), He would have spoken plainly. Silence in the presence of divine legislation is not prohibition but confirmation—and Yahshua Himself declared that He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it.

B. Second, Paul never prohibits polygyny.

Paul, a “Pharisee of Pharisees” trained under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), was intimately aware of the halakhic norms of the first century, in which polygyny remained lawful. His vice lists condemn every major sexual sin known to Torah (Lev 18) and Greco-Roman society—adultery, fornication, homosexual practice, prostitution. They never once condemn polygyny. This does not function as a stand-alone argument from silence; rather, within the continuity-of-law model Paul himself presupposes (Acts 24:14; 25:8), such silence carries interpretive weight. If the apostles intended to overturn a long-standing, legislated marital structure, explicit abrogation would be expected.

C. Third, the phrase “husband of one wife” (mias gunaikos anēr) does not mean “must be monogamous.”

This expression appears nowhere in Greek literature as a ban on polygyny. Rather, as demonstrated by scholars such as William Luck[xix], Tom Shipley[xx], and David Instone-Brewer[xxi], it means “a faithful husband,” or more specifically, “a one-woman kind of man.” In Greek idiom, the phrase functions morally, not numerically—distinguishing fidelity from infidelity, not monogamy from plurality. As Luck demonstrates, all known occurrences of mias gunaikos anēr in pre-Christian and extra-biblical usage function morally—signifying a faithful, upright husband—rather than arithmetically, as a numeric restriction on marital structure. The section is pastoral counsel, not marital legislation; if Paul intended numerical restriction, the later widow-qualification criteria in 1 Timothy 5 would be unintelligible.

D. Early Christian testimony confirms this interpretation.

Every pre-AD 350 interpreter applies the phrase to condemn digamy (a second marriage after divorce or widowhood) or sexual infidelity, not polygyny. The earliest commentary comes from the Shepherd of Hermas[xxii], which defines “husband of one wife” as forbidding remarriage after divorce or widowhood—never mentioning polygyny. If the early Church had believed Paul to be abolishing polygyny, one would expect debate, commentary, and canonical struggle. Instead, silence prevails-because the only “offense” later writers could find in plural marriage was its divergence from Greco-Roman social norms, not any apostolic prohibition.[xxiii]

E. Fourth, leadership standards are not universal commands.

Yet no one argues that all Christians must therefore marry, father children, or manage households. Leadership qualifications are prudential standards for officeholders, not universal moral prohibitions—and it would be ludicrous to require elders to be restricted to a single covenantal household while permitting the congregation an unlimited number of lawful covenants. The qualifications define exemplary order, not numerical limits. In sum, the New Testament nowhere forbids polygyny, never redefines marriage numerically, never contradicts Moses, and never treats plural marriage as sin. Foster’s claim imposes upon the apostles an argument they never make and binds consciences with a law YHWH never delivered.

IX. Claim #7: “God Does Not Model Polygyny” — The Opposite Is True

Foster asserts that polygyny distorts hierarchy and perverts the divine pattern for marriage. Yet Scripture itself deploys polygynous divine covenantal metaphors as the primary vehicle for portraying YHWH's covenantal relationship with His people. The claim that “God does not model polygyny” therefore collapses under the weight of divine self-revelation.

In the prophets, YHWH identifies Himself explicitly as the husband of two wives—Israel and Judah. Jeremiah portrays YHWH as married to both, grieved by the adultery of the northern kingdom, and issuing a conditional bill of divorce (Jer 3:6–10). Ezekiel 23 intensifies the imagery: Oholah (Israel) and Oholibah (Judah) are two wives whose unfaithfulness provokes divine judgment. Their shared Husband does not represent sin; He represents covenant fidelity wounded by persistent rebellion. Far from condemning the marital structure itself, Scripture uses polygyny as the metaphor through which YHWH communicates His own covenantal anguish and steadfast love.

Isaiah likewise speaks of Zion as a formerly forsaken woman restored by her Husband (Isa 54:5), while Jeremiah 31 anticipates the reunification of the two wives into a renewed covenant. As David Instone-Brewer notes, the entire prophetic corpus assumes the legitimacy of the marital imagery it employs: The prophetic use of a polygynous marriage as central covenantal imagery presupposes that the structure itself was not universally treated as equivalent to adultery or sexual perversion among the original audience; otherwise, the analogy would obscure rather than clarify YHWH’s covenantal posture.[xxiv]

If polygyny is intrinsically immoral, then the prophets unintentionally portray God as modelling what He forbids. Such a conclusion sits uneasily with the Reformed insistence that YHWH does not ground His self-revelation in images His people would uniformly recognize as inherently perverse. The Reformed tradition rightly insists that God cannot depict Himself through imagery grounded in sin. Thus, the prophetic witness stands as both rebuke and refutation: polygyny, properly ordered, aligns with divine covenantal symbolism.

Foster’s claim, therefore, contradicts not merely Biblical law but Biblical theology. The God who regulates polygyny in Torah and employs it as a metaphor in prophecy cannot be marshalled as a witness against it.

X. Claim #8: “Monogamy-Only Is Historic Christianity” — Actually a Roman Import

Foster concludes his argument by appealing to a supposed historic Christian consensus against polygyny, implying that the Church uniformly regarded plural marriage as sinful. Yet this claim reflects the same pattern seen throughout his article: rhetorical confidence without historical substance and assertions contradicted by the primary sources themselves.

A. First, the Jewish context. Jesus and the apostles ministered within a Judaism in which polygyny was lawful, regulated, and socially uncontroversial. Josephus states this explicitly and unequivocally:

“For it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time” (Ant. 17.1.2 §14).

Neither Josephus nor Philo treats the practice as immoral. Rabbinic tradition continued to regulate polygyny into the medieval era, and the later ban of Rabbenu Gershom (c. 1000 AD) applied only to Ashkenazi Jews—not Sephardic, not Yemenite, not Karaite communities—and it rested on communal decree, not Biblical mandate.

Second, while attitudes toward plural marriage harden over time, the earliest Christian sources we possess tend not to classify polygyny as inherently sinful. Instead, they regulate irregular marital situations (bigamy, trigamy, certain forms of polygyny) through measured penance rather than treating them as equivalent to adultery or fornication. Tertullian acknowledges that Scripture does not forbid it and attributes Christian monogamy to Roman custom rather than divine command. Augustine likewise concedes that the patriarchs’ plural marriages were lawful and that Scripture nowhere condemns them; his argument for monogamy rests on shifting social expectations, not revelation.

Third, the canonical evidence significantly weakens Foster’s claim. As John Witte notes in his survey of early Christian marriage law, the Church Fathers did not uniformly classify plural marriage as an intrinsically damnable offence; instead, they treated cases through graduated discipline rather than automatic exclusion. This is clearest in Basil the Great, one of the Cappadocian Fathers and a principal architect of Eastern canon law. In Letter 199 and its associated canons, Basil addresses situations of bigamy, trigamy, and polygamy by assigning penitential terms rather than excommunication. In a case involving a man with two simultaneous wives, Basil neither labels him an adulterer nor expels him from the Church; he assigns three years of penance, a sanction far lighter than those for adultery or fornication. As Witte observes, this reflects a pastoral and regulatory approach, not a declaration that polygyny is inherently immoral. Had Basil regarded the practice itself as inherently adulterous, the penalty would have been exclusion, not restoration after penance.

Fourth, Roman law—not Scripture—shaped later monogamy-only norms. As demonstrated by scholars such as Witte, Shipley, and Instone-Brewer, the Christian universalization of monogamy emerged through the Church’s absorption of Roman civil law, which restricted plural marriage for reasons of inheritance control, census administration, and social order. Thus, the so-called “historic Christian consensus” is not the voice of Scripture but the shadow of Rome. Foster’s appeal to tradition, therefore, rests on selective Roman memory rather than historical fact.

XI. The Pastoral Breach: False Witness from the Pulpit

Having examined Foster’s historical, exegetical, and theological claims, we arrive at the most sobering dimension of the matter: the pastoral ethics of public accusation. When a minister of the gospel speaks, he does not merely publish an opinion; he exercises a stewardship of souls. His words shape consciences, instruct households, and—when misapplied—can wound righteous believers whom YHWH Himself has not condemned. Scripture therefore imposes a stricter standard upon teachers:

“Not many of you should become teachers… for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).

Foster’s imputes inward motives ("lust", "pornography training", "sexual addiction"), assigns psychological diagnoses, and levels moral indictments ("rot", "perversion") without evidence. Such accusations fall within the Ninth Commandment's prohibitions and, coming from a minister, qualify as aggravated breaches under Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 145—'rash, harsh, and partial censuring,' 'misconstructing intentions,' etc.

Moreover, Foster binds Christian consciences where YHWH has not bound them (WCF 20.2). To condemn what Scripture permits, regulates, and sometimes commands is to “teach as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). And to associate lawful plural marriage with predation is to step beyond scriptural warrant (Exod 23:1).

This is not a trivial matter. Real wives, real children, and real households suffer when pastors condemn what YHWH has not forbidden. The issue, therefore, is not merely pastoral overreach, but spiritual harm. Accuracy is charity; false witness is not simply error but injustice. A shepherd must not scatter the flock through zeal untempered by truth.

XII. The Pronomian Alternative — What Scripture Actually Teaches

Having dismantled Foster’s claims, we return not to modern preference but to the witness of Scripture itself. When the Torah speaks of marriage, it identifies three righteous callings, each honourable before YHWH and each governed by covenantal fidelity: celibacy, monogamy, and polygyny. Scripture never treats these as moral hierarchies but as lawful vocations through which men embody faithfulness, justice, and provision according to their station. Indeed, the irony cuts sharply: if monogamy were the sole moral ideal, then celibacy—like polygyny—would also collapse under condemnation, despite Paul’s explicit elevation of singleness as a gift (1 Cor 7:7).

Celibacy is honoured in figures like Jeremiah and Paul, whose undivided devotion to ministry exemplifies the gift of singleness (1 Cor 7:7). Monogamy is the normative pattern for most households, providing simplicity and accessibility to the majority of men.[xxv] Polygyny, regulated carefully in Torah, serves particular covenantal and familial functions: protecting vulnerable widows (Deut 25:5–6), preserving inheritance (Deut 21:15–17), and ensuring equitable marital provision (Exod 21:10).

The moral touchstone for all three vocations is not number, but covenantal integrity. A man who loves, provides, protects, and maintains justice within his household upholds the law of God, whether he has one wife or several. A man who violates covenantal obligations—through neglect, abuse, or infidelity—sins grievously, even if married to only one.

This is precisely the point made by scholars such as William Luck, Tom Shipley, and David Instone-Brewer: polygyny is morally neutral in Scripture; righteousness depends on fidelity, not arithmetic. The prophets employ polygynous imagery to describe YHWH's own covenantal posture toward Israel and Judah—an unmistakable sign that the structure itself is not inherently corrupt.

The pronomian alternative is simple: bind what YHWH binds, loose what YHWH loosens, and refuse to condemn what YHWH regulates. The Ekklesia must guard the freedom Scripture grants.

XIII. Conclusion — Let God Be True, and Every Man a Liar

The case Michael Foster presents is rhetorically vigorous but offers no demonstrable evidence in this thread to sustain its central claims. His historical claims do not withstand the testimony of patriarchs, prophets, and Jewish legal tradition. His psychological assertions rest on conjecture rather than Scripture. His narrative conclusions confuse human sin with marital structure. His exegetical arguments misread Genesis, misapply Deuteronomy, and misunderstand the New Testament. His appeal to church history ignores the Jewish context of Jesus and the apostles, the concessions of Augustine and Tertullian, and the corrective clarity of Basil’s canon law.

And at each stage, the ethical concern grows sharper: when a pastor imputes motives YHWH has not named, condemns what YHWH has regulated, or binds where YHWH has not bound, he steps into a territory Scripture identifies not merely as error, but as injustice. And the danger cuts deeper still: when a pastor adds sin where God has named no sin, or adds law where God has given none, and does so without meeting Scripture’s own evidentiary standards, he unintentionally assumes a prerogative that belongs to YHWH alone—the authority to define righteousness and transgression. To declare sinful what God has permitted is, however unwittingly, to place one’s own judgment beside the Lawgiver’s. Scripture treats such presumption not as zeal, but as a form of functional usurpation—whatever the intention behind it.

This rebuttal is therefore not a defence of every polygynous man nor an argument that all men should pursue polygyny. It is a defence of Scripture’s integrity, YHWH's legislative consistency, and the liberty of the Christian conscience. Truthfulness in testimony is required of all, especially pastors; the pastoral office demands restraint in unsubstantiated accusation; and the gospel requires us to distinguish between human custom and divine command. Tradition may prefer monogamy; Roman law may have enforced it, but YHWH's Word never prohibits covenantally faithful polygyny.

Thus, the issue is not desire for novelty, nor cultural rebellion, nor moral compromise. The issue is fidelity—to the text, to the law, and to the YHWH who speaks through both. And so the final counsel stands, sharpened to its simplest truth:

Where Scripture permits, no shepherd may forbid. Where YHWH is silent, no pastor may thunder.

ENDNOTES

[ia] Polygamy is a gender-neutral term referring simply to marriage with more than one spouse. Scripture distinguishes between polygyny (one man with multiple women) and polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands). Polyandry is expressly condemned in the Torah, since a married woman having a second husband is classified as adultery (Exod 20:14; Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). Polygyny, by contrast, is regulated rather than forbidden: the Law protects the rights of multiple wives (Exod 21:10) and governs inheritance in polygynous households (Deut 21:15–17), demonstrating that the practice itself was permitted under covenantal legislation. [ib] Exodus 20:16; 1 Corinthians 4:3–5

[ii] Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 145, in The Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture Proofs at Large (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1855), 157.

[iii] 1 Tim 5:19; James 3:1; John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), 844–46; cf. David Instone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 147–50.

[iv] Supra ii.

[v] See Exodus 23:1–2 and Psalm 35:11; John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, vol. 3 of A Theology of Lordship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), “The Decalogue and the Case Laws.”

[vi] The New Testament consistently grounds its ethical warnings in the enduring standard of God’s law: “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4), and “through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20; cf. 7:7). Accordingly, the apostolic prohibitions against falsehood and motive-judging affirm this same legal-moral continuity—Paul commands believers to “put away falsehood” (Eph. 4:25) and “not lie to one another” (Col. 3:9), while simultaneously warning that the judgment of intentions belongs to God alone (1 Cor. 4:5). If sin is known only by the law, then where, precisely, does Scripture prohibit polygyny?

[vii] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 17.1, in Josephus II, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library 203 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930). See also Mordechai A. Friedman, Polygyny in Jewish Tradition and Practice (n.p., 2005). See also David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2002).

[viii] Ibid. Antiquities of the Jews.

[ix] Maimonides, “The Laws of Marriage” (Hilkhot Ishut), in The Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah), Book of Women, translated by Isaac Klein, Yale Judaica Series 19 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), chap. 14.

[x] Piotr Muchowski, “Polygamy of the East-European Karaites: An Unknown Document from Crimea,” Jewish History Quarterly 251 (2014): 546–553.

[xi] Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2002.

[xiii] “Cf. the tradition preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 21a, which derives an eighteen-wife limit for kings from the verbal tally in Deut 17:17 (ג × ו = 18).”

[xiv] William F. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), esp. pp. 212–218, demonstrating that singular Hebrew nouns function morally rather than numerically and cannot be used to prohibit polygyny; See also Tom Shipley, Man and Woman in Biblical Law (Arlington Heights, IL: TGS Publishers, 2010), 38–45, likewise showing that Genesis 2:24 employs singular nouns in a covenantal, not restrictive, sense.

[xv] Ibid. Man and Woman in Biblical Law.

[xvi] John Witte Jr., The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). See also Supra Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible.

[xvii] Supra. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 21a.

[xviii] Supra. Polygyny in Jewish Tradition and Practice

[xix] Supra. Divorce and Remarriage

[xx] Supra. Man and Woman in Biblical Law

[xxi] Supra. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible

[xxii] Mandate 4.1.6, c. AD 140

[xxiii] Supra. The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy

[xxiv] Supra. Divorce and Remarriage

[xxv] Cf. the sociological observation in Witte 2015, 34–41, that modern Western monogamy-only ethics often function as an unexamined cultural absolute rather than a direct biblical mandate. foster polygamy response