I’ve had this post sitting as a draft for well over a month. It’s a strange one.
If you had approached me a few months ago, and asked me, ‘Can someone believe in polygamy, and be a true Christian?’ you would have probably received a straightforward, ‘no’.
In fact, I probably rather naively wouldn’t have thought any genuine Christian would even consider it a possibility.
Apparently, that’s not so.
I read an article a couple of months ago which sort of caught me off guard. The author, Rick, (as much as can be known from the linear communication of the Internet) is a legitimate Christian. Yet, he is suggesting that the Bible sanctions multiple wives if men should decide it’s right for them.
After discussing his post back and forth a few times, I decided I should write on what I’ve learned, and expose you to this topic.
So, below I briefly state, 6 Reasons ‘Christian polygamy’ is not the will of God…
1. God’s order in Creation reveals the divine principle
God created a perfect world in six literal days. On the sixth day, He created man, and then woman out of the man to be a help for him.
God’s thoughts on all this? “Very good”.
With God revealling His desire that man should be fruitful and multiply, He could have speeded things up considerably by giving Adam more than one wife.
But, He didn’t.
2. It’s God’s way to aid raising a godly offspring
In Malachi 2:15 we read, “And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed.”
What’s the prophet recording? I’ll paraphrase it like this, ‘Didn’t God make one? Yet He had power to create more. So why one? For the purpose of raising children who fear and love God’.
Read the passage surrounding the verse for further clarity.
3. The Mosaic Law does not sanction it
One of the arguments used by those who may argue in defense of polygamy, is that it is not condemned anywhere in the Mosaic Law.
This appears to be true. But, neither is it sanctioned.
However, it is regulated, which, I confess, is rather interesting.
4. The marriage can be efficiently conducted with one wife
A man has no need for multiple wives. If man needed more than one, God, who was to give Adam a “help meet”, would have made him more than one wife.
The reasons for marriage can all be properly satisfied with one wife.
5. No man can hold office with multiple wives
If a man takes more than one wife, he immediately disqualifies himself from ever holding office in the church. An elder is to be the husband of one wife.
6. The picture of Christ and the Church teaches monogamy
Lastly, the theology and teaching of Eph 5 doesn’t match with having multiple wives, if it’s properly understood.
There is one head, and one body. There is Christ, and the Church; and it’s represented in marriage with man as the head. Should he have multiple bodies?
Also, that passage tells us that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the church? Sacrificially and particularly. You cannot properly sacrifice yourself to one wife, without minimising the sacrifice made to the other(s). Impossible. Neither can you love each one particularly as Christ loved the Church.
It’s a taboo and touchy subject, but I’m interested in your thoughts.
I’m sure you’ve wondered in the past why God blessed men who had multiple wives and concubines. Have you ever given it serious study?
Do you forget to visit the blog? Get free updates via email. Or via RSS if you use a feedreaderWant to read other articles? Try these...
Want to pray intelligently for this preacher? Go here to learn more!
Added Commentary
By Rick Beckman
on 28.06.09
Thanks for the conversation, Armen. My responses are online, but in short, yes, polygyny is sanctioned.
Regards.
Oh, and I definitely want to thank you for at least granting that I seem to be a genuine Christian. Not everyone is so generous or trusting. I appreciate that.
By Andrew
on 28.06.09
I haven’t thought much about this issue so these are only ‘off the cuff’ observations which may or may not change with further thought.
I have read Rick’s thoughts, the original post and the response to this one. So my observations are based on all three.
-
Not all polygamy is alike. To say that the Bible ’sanctions’ polygamy requires much more nuance and explanation.
Levirite marriage in Deuteronomy 25 v 5 - 10 has been mentioned. Israel was a tribal society with common land and this law was given to guarantee land in the case of a childless marriage. Be sure to note that the child is the dead brother’s.
This form of polygamy cannot be used to justify every other form of polygamy. You may wish to make the general point that if one form polygamy is sanctioned then at the very least other forms are not sin. This, however, is an inferential leap that cannot be made simply because you are not talking about the same thing. Political polygamy or promiscuous polygamy are not the same thing as Levirite marriage.
The Bible does record that David and so on had many wives. The mere record of is neither for nor against polygamy. That so many of the ‘heroes of the faith’ had multiple wives does not mean that God agrees with polygamy in the same way Rehab was not mentioned because she lied or David because he committed adultery or murder, they are all commended for their faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Adam and Eve are the prototypical marriage. Marriage is the binding of one man and one woman together. This establishes what marriage is. To say as a response that this commits us exclusively to tending the ground and multiplying is more than a little confused.
The qualifications that an officer of a church be the husband of one wife does offer a get out clause regarding polygamy for those that do not hold office. But consider that this injunction comes after ‘A bishop then must be blameless’ and before ‘ vigilant, sober, of good behaviour’ and so on. One wife is a virtue, something to be imitated, something to be promoted. The political analogy is interesting. John Adams in his political writings upheld the idea of the ‘aritois’, the idea that the best should govern. He suggested this for two reasons. 1) The best will govern best 2) Leaders are examples to us and so they should be the best. This is the same in the church, our deacons and elders are an example to the rest of us, these qualifications are given for express purpose that the best will rule in the Church.
The general point to be made is that one man, one woman is the ideal.
By kristarella
on 29.06.09
I agree that the bible seems to promote monogamy. It is the model of marriage in Genesis, Ephesians and Revelation. I also think I’ve never met a man who would be capable of fulfilling his marriage promises to more than one wife. It may not be directly condemned in the Bible, but it sure doesn’t seem wise.
On a different note, did you think that “six literal days” was relevant to the issue? It is distracting for someone who disagrees.
By alex
on 10.07.09
What about Jesus saying that his father’s house has many rooms, in the context that the groom prepares a room for a bride in his fathers house? And then the parable of the ten virgins and no talk of a separate bride? note the lamps, then the severn churches in revelations, and the severn lampstands and the prophesey in Isaiah 4:1 of seven women taking one man. If anything the jealosy of the different christian denominations is very like women claiming a monogamous right over the groom
By Armen
on 16.07.09
Hey all. Some interesting points have been made.
Rick,
Thanks for the post. The Christian doctor who posted in the comments raises some interesting points, no?
Andrew,
Excellent contribution. Particularly, “One wife is a virtue, something to be imitated, something to be promoted.”
kristarella,
Always good to get a woman’s perspective on this
On the “six literal days” point, I never really thought about it as distracting. To be honest, I don’t think there’s any difference between stating this and any other biblical statement made in the post which might not be wholly necessary, i.e. “There is one head, and one body.”
Aside from that, I would struggle to see how anyone who believes the Bible to be the word of God could conclude that the scriptures teach anything other than “six literal days”.
alex,
John 14 does not equate to a polygamist relationship. If you’re going to take it that way, doesn’t the groom leave his fathers house after marriage?
The parable is just that, a parable. They paint a picture to teach a particular truth. In this case, the parable is not to teach earthly marital relationships, so it’s not a relevant point.
By kristarella
on 16.07.09
On the “six literal days” point, I never really thought about it as distracting. To be honest, I don’t think there’s any difference between stating this and any other biblical statement made in the post which might not be wholly necessary, i.e. “There is one head, and one body.”
There being one head and one body is very material to a discussion on having more than one marriage partner. Not so with the other point.
Aside from that, I would struggle to see how anyone who believes the Bible to be the word of God could conclude that the scriptures teach anything other than “six literal days”.
I don’t really wish to get into a big discussion about it, nor do I care to change your mind about it. I will say that there are 3 main reasons why I don’t think they are literal days:
1/ Chapter 2 changes the order of events that were described in Chapter 1.
2/ There is no end to the seventh day. Why would the rhythm of the text be broken in this manner if each day is a literal day?
3/ Science agrees with Genesis if creation occurs in eras, rather than 24 hour days. Sure, the bible trumps science, but science is not irrelevant. All truth is God’s truth. The evidence science has found for the age of the earth could be an illusion, but we can’t know for sure so we should hold knowledge up in contention and be reasonable about it.
How can I think that the bible is God’s word and not think the earth was created in six literal days? Genesis 1 and 2 (and more of it as well) are written like poetry. There is a beautiful rhythm and repetition of language as well as a symmetry of the things in the order of their creation, which makes the description of creation poetic, and while completely true, not necessarily literal.
I wouldn’t be so arrogant to say that my opinion is the be-all-and-end-all of the topic. It’s how I feel about it at this point in time after having read Genesis last month and seeking God’s truth. Perhaps in time God’s Spirit will provide me different/further understanding into it, perhaps not, it’s up to him and the people/things he uses to provide understanding.
By Rick Beckman
on 16.07.09
That “Christian doctor” added nothing of significance to the discussion and repeatedly demonstrated her disbelief in what God has said. I deal in exegesis, not in “People abuse it, so it must be wrong.” I stand with the Scriptures and with theologians such as Augustine, Luther, Milton, and no doubt countless more who have concluded (often reluctantly) that polygyny is not a sin.
By kristarella
on 16.07.09
Just to be clear on my previous comment, I don’t mean to accuse anyone of being arrogant in their beliefs, but that I would be arrogant to think that I had it all correct on that particular issue.
I do not believe that polygyny is a sin because it is all over the old testament with no negative commentary from God. I do think that it is usually unwise and it is against the law in a good number of places therefore would be a sin in that sense.
However, Rick, Seriously? Of three comments only the last one was as you described, and in that context she is not necessarily using that as evidence that it’s a sin, but that it is not a great idea. The other two comments were exegetical (e.g. biblical use of mia) and, I think, deserve a response rather than a dismissal of unbelief.
By Rick Beckman
on 16.07.09
There are two NT verses used to support “monogamy only.” One passage, in which Jesus is speaking, is about divorce and the permanence of marriage. The other, in 1 Corinthians, is about avoiding temptation and allowing to marriage.
Neither passage in any way prohibits polygyny, for neither passage declares that a man cannot be “one flesh” with more than one woman. The rest of the Scriptures attest to the fact that he can. It is not exegetical to assume that just because a man should have a wife and the woman should have a husband that man can only have one. Assumptions don’t cut it in exegesis.
Also, the argument that “It’s a sin because it’s against the law” holds little water. The prohibition of marriage is itself a doctrine of demons.
By kristarella
on 16.07.09
I believe the point being made was that you stated that the word mia, or mias as you wrote it, can mean “one” and it can also mean “first”, but when it is used in scripture it is usually only used as “first” for the day of the week. Most of the other uses mean “one” and usually seem to mean a specific one, a certain one, or a singular one and that is the word that is used in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
I am no Greek scholar and don’t have any evidence one way or the other, except to say that reading through the references from Strong’s the argument does hold water.
I agree that the 1 Corinthians passage is about avoiding temptation and doesn’t command marriage period. However, if it’s true that the original intention is to allow one husband and wife to avoid temptation (as I believe was the commenter’s argument), then it contributes to the conversation. It makes little sense to argue in favour of polygyny by expressing the versatility of one greek word (mia) and then ignore someone else’s arguments about another greek word used to describe marriage.
I don’t have a conclusion as to whether 1 Cor says you can have a wife or one wife, but I think it’s an interesting point that you appear to be dismissing. Apologies if you’ve not merely dismissed it, but your previous comment and lack of reply to the original comments suggests it.
I didn’t say “It’s a sin because it’s against the law” and I agree that’s a silly argument. My point was that it’s currently against the law (in our current homes) and disobeying the law of the land is a sin. As I said before, I don’t think polygyny or polygamy is a sin, otherwise I think God would have said something to Jacob.
By Andrew
on 16.07.09
If Adam and Eve are the prototypical marriage then the task of the exegete in favour of polygamy is to show that this is not so.
Descriptions and narratives are not imperatives. It does not follow because polygamy is not condemned or judged, as it would seem some require, that it is acceptable, advisable, or virtuous.
I was recently reading through John Frame’s ‘The Doctrine of the Christian Life’ in the chapter on the seventh commandment and sexual purity there is a short section on polygamy, he writes this:
‘First Timothy 3:2 also opposes polygamy, for Scripture does not require elders to follow different moral principles than other Christians. If polygamy is wrong for church officers, it is wrong for everybody.’
This is an excellent statement and one that is more foundational than the one I made concerning the same verse.
He goes on to write…
‘But though Scripture upholds monogamy as God’s pattern, it does not reject polygamists from the kingdom of grace. The reason is obvious. Polygamy is not like other sins. A thief can stop being a thief immediately upon his conversion, and if he does not stop after a reasonable period of pastoral attention, he can and should be removed from the church. But a polygamist cannot stop being a polygamist. He has incurred obligations to his wives, and he cannot simply cast them off, a sinful divorce does not remedy the sin of polygamy.’
This, I think, gets to the root of the matter. We live in a fallen world and sin has consequences, we must live with our actions and bear the burden of our sins, ever repenting and praying for mercy and anticipating the return of Christ , who shall judge the living and the dead.
By Armen
on 16.07.09
As well as my biblical reservations concerning this topic, I’d love to know what motives would drive a N.T. believer to have multiple wives? I can’t think of any that are commendable.
kristarella,
Perhaps I’ll share my thoughts on the point made on “six literal days” in a separate post. That would help keep further discussion relevant.
Rick,
I also think some of the points that commenter made deserve a response.
Andrew,
Thanks for the quotes. It brings up an issue I discussed with another Christian some months ago; how to deal with converted muslims with multiple wives.
I’ve heard of men recommending that they ditch all the wives after the first one, because they’re all illegitimate. However, I’m inclined to think that the man has taken on the responsibility of caring and providing for all the women, so it’s his duty to do so until death.
To all: I responded to Rick’s follow up post in the comments.
By Andrew
on 16.07.09
I quoted Frame because in the passage quoted he recognises that sin is ever present and rather than being isolated incidents, unconnected and unlinked, the consequences of sin are forced upon us because we chose as we did. Polygamy is a bind and polygamists must deal with it. I am not sure how to deal with polygamy in the church though. Frame may well be right but I have worries.
It is a difficult issue and I think it rather depends on our thoughts about marriage in general.
There is something of a tension which I have not been able to resolve. Around the ‘homosexual marriage’ debate there is the conservative position that homosexual marriage is an oxymoron, similarly if marriage is defined as one man one woman then it is impossible to have multiple wives/husbands. All outside the first would not fit the definition of marriage. You can bring obligations on yourself for the other women but the divorce laws cannot apply in annulling these obligations. Scripture does take obligations, oaths, and such like very seriously, so maybe the answer is found there.
If I carry forward the analogy with homosexual marriage, few would say that a man who repents and trusts in Christ must fulfil his obligations to his male partner. Now the response will be that such obligations are void from the beginning because a homosexual civil partnership is not and cannot be marriage. Why is this not so for polygamy?
So I’m not sure how to resolve the issues that follow from the definition of marriage I favour.
By Christian MD
on 18.07.09
I am the Christian physician who posted on Mr. Beckman’s website. I am surprised to see that he represents my comments as repeatedly demonstrating my “disbelief in what God has said.”
I am uncertain what he bases this statement upon. He does not know me, and how he could reach this conclusion based upon my three postings is not clear to me at all. I believe as a Christian that a man must love his wife as Christ loved the church, in a self sacrificing way, placing her needs above his own. My clinical experience, as well as reviews of the medical literature on the topic, indicates that women and children in polygamous unions have poor mental and physical health outcomes. If a man truly loves his wife in the same self - sacrificing manner that Christ loved the church, he would not seek to place her health in danger by entering into multiple marriages.
By Armen
on 20.07.09
Welcome Christian MD,
I too, was quite surprised by Rick’s response to you. It seems an isolated case, as he normally goes to great lengths to respond.
I am not surprised that medical evidence supports my personal thoughts on the effects of polygamous relationships.
Even in scripture, I cannot think of any example where multiple wives increased family happiness and unity.
However, I can think of a couple of deliberately mentioned examples where the relationships brought disharmony and difficulty.
By Andrew
on 20.07.09
The word study of ‘one wife’ in First Timothy was excellent. I don’t think there has been a satisfactory response to this verse yet.
Arguing from the consequences of polygamy to the lawfulness of polygamy is a fallacy. I would guess that is why Rick dismissed it out of hand.
It is one thing to say that polygamy has negative consequences and quite another to say that it is wrong. The only way, I think, you could argue that polygamy is wrong based on consequences is to show that all polygamy necessitates the breaking of commandments.
By Armen
on 20.07.09
Andrew,
I agree that the study was good, and I also agree that arguing from consequence doesn’t make for a strong argument.
By Andrew
on 21.07.09
Armen,
How would you reflect on your exchange with Rick? Has your understanding of the Biblical teaching on polygamy changed?
Do you think the arguments you offered in this post, and subsequently, have been adequately dealt with?
Are there any parts of Rick’s position that you think you have been unable to answer?
Too many questions?
By Christian MD
on 21.07.09
I am not a Biblical scholar, I am simply a born again, practicing physician, as well as a residency training director and a professor at a major medical school in the NY Metropolitan Area.
I developed an interest in the effects of polygyny on the family over 10 years ago, when there was an influx of Moslems in the NY area where I practiced at the time. I treated several female patients who experienced physical and emotional abuse and financial ruin as a result of their spouse’s involvement with multiple wives.
I am very concerned that a group of people calling themselves “Christian” is now seeking to inform believers in the U.S. that this practice is sanctioned by Scripture, because I feel that it is not - and the practice is in fact dangerous to the health and welfare of women and children involved.
My patient care experiences led me to perform a search of the world wide medical literature on the topic of polygyny, which revealed that women involved in polygynous relationships had a MUCH HIGHER RISK of :
1) depression with suicidal ideation, (6 times higher risk ),
2) psychiatric admission for suicidal ideation ,
3) husband - on - wife physical abuse,
4) wife - on - wife abuse, and
4) abuse by wives of the children of a rival wife, sometimes resulting in death of a child, as well as
5) somatization disorder.
Children of polygynous relationships have MUCH HIGHER RATES of alcoholism, illicit drug abuse, poor academic achievement, antisocial behavior, psychiatric illness, and higher school drop out rates. These findings were noted worldwide in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Canada, the US, Malaysia, and the UAE.
This is alarming to me a s a physician. It may not be alarming to a theologian, but it is to a doctor.
Christian men are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Why would anyone who loved their spouse in a self sacrificing way want to put their wives and children at such great risk by engaging in polygamy? Why is Mr. Beckman providing a forum for discussion of the topic as an acceptable practice for Christians ? Even if he believes it is permissible according to Scripture, “much is permitted, but not everything is advisable …..” He did not respond to the concerns I raised.
With regard to the word study in First Timothy, I confirmed that the text indeed states that a leader of the church should be the husband of “one” wife, not the “first “wife, by reviewing the use of the word “mia” every time it is used in Scripture thru the use of “Strongs”. If the term “husband of the first wife” had actually been intended, the word “protos” would have been used instead ot “mia.”"Mia” is only translated as “first” when referring to the first day of the week. It took me two days to complete the word study review with Strongs. The word used for wife in the text is also in the singular. I think that in fact there were polygamists in the early church (probably converts from Judaism), but polygamy was not the desired, godly, standard of conduct which was desired for the faithful, thus, leaders were required to be monogamous.
By Christian MD
on 21.07.09
I have also found a text (not one of the false gospels) which revealed that the Apostle Thomas taught the Parthians (Persians) that polygamy was unacceptable. I don’t know if this fact is of interest to you.
By Rick Beckman
on 21.07.09
Christian MD: “three postings” — I count several more than 3 comments posted from your computer’s address.
—–
At this point, I’m confused what the argument *against* polygyny is.
Church elders can’t be polygynous? That’s fine. That’s like, what, 1% or less of the church? No such law or restriction is given to the common Christian.
Polygynous men screw things up? That’s fine. So do monogamous men. Actually, the only people who aren’t abusing wives, divorcing, and so on are the unmarried; if we want to argue through pragmatism, clearly remaining unmarried is the best way!
Polygynous men have questionable motives? That’s fine. Paul allows marriage for the sole reason of sexual desire — to avoid fornication. I’m not sure what other motives are being called into question here; still, questioning motives? That’s a pretty weak argument, if it’s an argument at all.
A marriage is one man and one woman becoming one flesh? That’s fine. “One flesh” isn’t restrictive. A man becomes “one flesh” with a prostitute if he fornicates with her, but that doesn’t preclude his becoming “one flesh” with a wife. Therefore, being “one flesh” with a wife doesn’t preclude his being “one flesh” with another wife simultaneously.
Every point in the post above has been answered via my blog, but little has been done to point out the errors in my responses; if I’m right, then Armen, please post a retraction to the above post. If I’m wrong, how so?
I’ve witnessed plenty of debates of this subject matter — and I’ve participated most often on the side of monogamy-only — and I hate to say it but most people when defending monogamy typically resort to using very weak arguments — what’s required of leaders is required of all, for instance — or they resort to arguments which avoid the real issue — pointing out the abuses or possible questionable motives which could lead to or result from polygyny.
There’s very little actual handling of the Word of God going on, and if there is and I’ve missed it, please let me know so that I can adequately apply. Until then, I’ll stand with Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, and Luther in allowing polygyny. None of them could point to a law and say, “It is a sin,” and none of you have done so either.
(Note that the Scriptures don’t even declare polygyny to be a sin for church leadership; it’s simply a requirement. If a man takes another wife, he must step down as church leader. There’s no sin involved there, just a change in situation.)
By Christian MD
on 21.07.09
With regard to the computer address used : I frequently use a shared computer in a public venue, used by people other than myself. I will not elaborate further. My comments are solely those labeled Christian MD.
With regard to your comment “polygamist men screw things up … so do monogamous men” …
It is not an issue solely of “abuse,” either physical or emotional, of women or children . Medical Research indicates that the RATES of psychiatric illness in women in polygynous societies is up to 6 TIMES HIGHER than in monogamous couples, with serious sequelae, such as suicide, as well as a MUCH higher incidence of psychiatric problems in the children of such unions, INDEPENDENT of physical or emotional abuse.
Polygynous men are simply not able to be available enough, physically, emotionally, or financially, for their wives and children. Society bears the burden of dealing with the casualties.
Outcomes for married women and children in intact families are known to be better than for single parent families, so the married state IS preferable to the single state, in terms of health outcomes for families.
Public policy decisions regarding marriage and family life should be based on scientific research and outcome data, not Scripture, just as medical treatment should be based on SCIENCE, not temple sacrifice.
Christians should not endorse practices which jeopardize the health and well being of the populace. It is irresponsible.
The United States is not a theocracy. We have been commanded to follow the laws of the country in which we live, to do otherwise is to SIN.
I don’t anticipate polygamy to be legalized anytime soon by the way, given that a recent survey indicated that 91% of American citizens perceived polygamy to be repugnant.
Polygamy is not mandatory in Christianity.
Obedience to the law of the land IS.
The only instance when the apostles defied government edicts was when they were forbidden to witness about Christ by the Roman or Jewish authorities - then they violated the law.
Of note, the Church outlawed polygamy about 160 AD, when the Roman Government outlawed polygamy.
Your statement that St. Augustine “allowed polygamy” is INCORRECT. He acknowledged that Christians did not practice polygamy because it was “against Roman custom and law”.
He stated that polygamy was necessary in the Old Testament times in order to “populate the earth” so it was not a sin at that time.
Apparently the early church fathers perceived that obedience to the LAW was MORE IMPORTANT than polygamy because obedience to the law is mandatory but polygamy is not.
I am very familiar with Catholic canon law, early church teachings, and tradition as a former Catholic. (now Baptist.)
Lastly, you state that Jesus permitted polygyny. I don’t see any evidence that he did. Usage of a parable (The Ten Virgins) does not mean that he permitted polygyny. It is simply a parable - and therefore cannot be interpreted as an endorsement of the practice of polygyny.
A colleague of mine from med school is a prominent radiation oncologist at Sloan Kettering and Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. He speaks, writes, and reads Hebrew and Aramaic fluently.
He informs me that Jewish texts of the NT period indicate that polygamy was uncommon in Israel prior to and during the life of Christ. He in fact commented that it was frowned upon as it was a source of trouble. (”many wives, much witchcraft” )
Levirate marriage was rare as well, as most men “opted out” preferring to be spat upon and have their shoes removed rather than marry their brother’s widow. Apparently declining Levirate marriage was not viewed as shameful in the days of Christ - it was much more common to refuse.
Apparently Jewish writings of the period indicated that polygamy was rare, practiced primarily by royalty, the Levitical high priests, and the very wealthy.
Most marriage contracts (ketubah) of the New Testament period had a stipulation written in them that the wife would not consent to the addition of new wives to the marriage.
Polygamy was not at all common amongst the general population in Jesus’ day, hence the New Testament’s relative silence on the subject.
David Instone Brewer, PhD, the pre - eminent Evangelical scholar on the topic of marriage and divorce in the Bible, wrote a paper on Jesus and Polygamy. He is of the opinion that Jesus opposed polygamy. I will find the article and post it.
By Rick Beckman
on 22.07.09
I wish you could see how culturally-colored your responses are. The Bible ascribes *shame* and *punishment* to those who refused levirate marriage, but you point out that just because people preferred not to do it, then that’s clearly the better choice. I’ll stick with the Word.
You point out that Jesus’ parable is “just a parable”; quite right, but would the Son of God depict Himself as a polygynous groom, if polygyny is as terrible as you say?
You point out that Augustine accepted Roman Law — I never said he didn’t. He did, however, say that polygyny is not a sin; that’s my whole point. It doesn’t matter what the law of nations is; sin is first and foremost defined as the Law of God. Once we determine there that polygyny is not a sin, then we can work toward removing the taboo nature of the sin. Also, it should be pointed out that polygyny is legal in America; bigamy, however, is not. You can marry whoever you want in the eyes of God; it’s only when you attempt to obtain multiple civil marriage licenses that things get tangled up as far as legality. And civil marriage licenses are in no way required for biblical marriage. So the “against the law” argument is useless and should be abandoned. Surely there are better biblical arguments against polygyny that could be presented?
I’m not saying polygyny is for everyone (even one marriage isn’t for everyone), nor am I requiring it of anyone. I’m simply attempting to establish whether or not it is sinful (it is not). And given that, I believe that people should be free to marry just as people did as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. Once we create “sin” where there is in reality no sin, then we run the risk of adding to God’s Law, which is expressly forbidden.
That the discussion can’t be kept on a strictly biblical level, though, seems to be a concession that on a strictly biblical level, there is no strong refutation of polygyny. If I’m wrong to conclude that, let’s continue into the Scriptures. I don’t really have much interest in arguing over cultural mores, civil law, or other things which have little to no bearing on the crux of my argument.
By Andrew
on 22.07.09
Until then, I’ll stand with Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, and Luther in allowing polygyny. None of them could point to a law and say, “It is a sin,” and none of you have done so either.
I’m not sure what the point of this statement is. What Moses, Jesus and Paul said about marriage is the point at issue. Augustine and Luther are great but over the past few days I have read statements from Calvin, Bullinger, Turretin, Owen, Gill and Bavinck, amongst others, against polygamy. Shall we add up our great theologians and settle the matter that way?
Secondly, the sinfulness of polygyny is established as a consequence of what marriage is and the corollary seventh commandment. Again this is the point at issue. Do we need a commandment that says ‘You shall not have more than one wife’? Doubtless that would make it easier. But don’t for a moment suppose that the absence of such a commandment supports your case or is devastating to the argument for monogamy. It isn’t!
By Rick Beckman
on 22.07.09
My point was that polygyny has Hebrew Scriptures, divine, Christian Scriptures, early church, and Reformation support, and is by no means a new idea or something which I and a few others are pulling out of a hat.
When “sin is the transgression of the Law,” then yes, it is appropriate to ask for a specific Law.
Also, “Do not commit adultery” is rather irrelevant; adultery is the taking of another man’s wife. It is not the taking of multiple wives.
God Himself in the Old Testament is depicted as having more than one wife in being wed to multiple nations; does God sin?
Jesus Himself is depicted as a bride marrying multiple women; is the spotless Lamb so readily represented by a polygynous man?
Stating that “polygyny is a sin” is somehow corollary to a man being unable to take another man’s wife is one thing; proving the point is entirely another.
By Armen
on 22.07.09
Andrew,
I’m glad I’ve had this exchange with Rick. No regrets about it at all, and I have found it a profitable study.
I wouldn’t say my understanding has changed. However, before I may have considered anyone who held to such teaching as ignorant. Now I can see why there may be confusion and place for debate. I think polygyny can be argued with more sense than the post-trib rapture
It’s hard to define how arguments are “dealt with.” Rick has dealt with most arguments in a manner which is satisfactory to him. Furthermore, I confess that most of the arguments put to him have been satisfactorily handled by him in my opinion also. However, a few critical one’s have not (see below).
I’m not sure if I feel there’s any part to RIck’s position/arguments that I cannot give an answer to. But, some of my arguments are not air-tight. E.g. Why did God give Saul’s wives to David? My only thoughts are that the scripture’s don’t clearly express that they were given in marriage to David. Rather, they were entrusted to his care.
Rick,
Did you mean this as a sweeping statement which included me, when you say, “There’s very little actual handling of the Word of God going on”
Apart from finding some of the stats mentioned by Christian MD interesting, I have continually referred to scripture. I must assume you didn’t mean me. In fact, you’re referring to a small minority of arguments. Andrew, Christian MD, myself, and others have primarily focused on the scripture. This statement is not at all true.
But let me get to a few things I honestly see as weaknesses in your stance.
Why do you think God made it a requirement for elders to be monogamous? Just because God demands it in a leader, doesn’t mean He doesn’t desire it in all Christians. Indeed, elders are to be examples of how believers should be in character and conduct, and I’d argue that their monogamous example is for all to follow.
Your distinction between what God demands for leaders and what God wants for all His people, is an extremely rare view, and one which I find inconsistent.
Further, I still don’t think you’ve grasped the teaching in Mal 2:15. I’ve tried to explain the passage as I understand it. Maybe that’s what’s wrong. So, let me quote other men.
Firstly, Matthew Henry: “Did not he make one, one Eve for one Adam, that Adam might never take another to her to vex her, nor put her away to make room for another? It is great wickedness to complain of the law of marriage as a confinement, when Adam in innocency, in honour, in Eden, in the garden of pleasure, was confined to one. Yet God had the residue of the Spirit; he could have made another Eve, as amiable as that he did make, but, designing Adam a help meet for him, he made him one wife; had he made him more, he would not have had a meet help. And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man? It was that he might seek a godly seed—a seed of God (so the word is), a seed that should bear the image of God, be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honour…”
Secondly, John Calvin: “Could not God, he says, have put forth his spirit to create many wives for one man? but his purpose was to create one pair; to make man a husband and a wife: as God then was not without a remaining Spirit, and yet did not exceed this measure; it hence follows, that the law of marriage is violated, when man seeks for himself many wives.”
You can click on their names to read further. Calvin in particular takes much effort to clearly show the meaning of this passage. The above quote is a summary of his conclusion.
I conclude, that polygyny is something which in time past, God winked at and regulated. Just as He did for divorce. It was not intended, it is not desirable, it is not holy, and it does not bring glory to God, which is what we should want all our actions to do.
By Andrew
on 22.07.09
My point was that polygyny has Hebrew Scriptures, divine, Christian Scriptures, early church, and Reformation support, and is by no means a new idea or something which I and a few others are pulling out of a hat.
My point was that monogamy has Hebrew Scriptures, divine, Christian Scriptures, early church, and Reformation support, and is by no means a new idea or something which I and many others are pulling out of a hat.
With regards the seventh commandment I take it to be rather more than ‘unable to take another man’s wife’. I take the Shorter Catechism view…
Q71: What is required in the seventh commandment?
The seventh commandment requireth the preservation of our own and our neighbour’s chastity, in heart, speech and behaviour.
Q72: What is forbidden in the seventh commandment?
The seventh commandment forbiddeth all unchaste, thoughts, words and actions.
I appreciate you may not agree with this, it seems evident you don’t. If you haven’t read the Puritans on the Law of God I would encourage it, not that this view is restricted to the Puritans only of course.
You will appreciate though, if my premises are true all polygyny is either fornication or adultery. Yes that leaves me with questions to answer but you can see, I hope, that the sinfulness of polygyny could be easily established on these terms.
The depiction of God and Christ is an interesting point. Analogy, metaphor, anthropomorphisms, parables etc are limited, often to a single point. I’m not sure about the propriety of the image. This is something I will need to consider more. Where in the Old Testament are you thinking of?
By Rick Beckman
on 22.07.09
Armen: I don’t think the Malachi passage is referring to the creation of one wife to Adam; rather, it seems more natural to read the passage as “Why are man and woman made one?” In other words, what is the purpose of a married couple being “one” together? It is to bring forth offspring. Such a reading seems more in line with modern translations such as the English Standard, and certainly allows for polygyny — not that the reading above prevents it. Adam was given one wife so that all of mankind would have a common ancestry; simple as that.
Reading into the Malachi passage a prohibition of polygyny is to read into it something that isn’t in view; rather, divorce is what is being discussed.
Andrew: Your logic is a bit flawed here; assuming that the Seventh Commandment forbids a more broad array of actions, upon what basis does it forbid polygyny? That the commandment forbids polygyny seems like it must be assumed, in which case the argument becomes circular:
“Polygyny is immoral because of the Seventh Commandment; the Seventh Commandment forbids polygyny because it is immoral…”
And such is the case with much anti-polygyny arguments: they must be built on assumption, despite more clear passages of Scripture. At the very least, the Levirate marriage is proof that polygyny is not a sin — men who refused it were publicly punished and shamed! And nowhere is the allowing of polygyny said to be because of anyone’s hardness of heart.
By Armen
on 22.07.09
Rick,
The men wanted to put away their wives to marry other women. We agree on that. The overall passage deals with their desire for divorce, and then the prophet argues why it is wrong.
You may have guessed, but by and large, I do not trust modern translations. Particularly paraphrased versions. Your desire for the passage to simply mean, “what is the purpose of a married couple being “one” together? It is to bring forth offspring” would hold true, except it doesn’t explain why the prophet points out that God could (by the boundless power of the Spirit) made more than one wife for Adam.
“Adam was given one wife so that all of mankind would have a common ancestry”. Again, this would hold true if it just said, “raise a seed.” But it says, “raise a godly seed”, teaching that the union between one man and one woman was the ideal environment for raising children who would love and worship God.
Perhaps you’ll not see this. But, I trust my view of this will not bring you to the conclusion that I’m a Bible denier. I have changed many of my ‘culture coloured’ views in my seven years of following Christ, and I imagine it may happen in the future. I’m not one to hold to tradition for traditions sake.
By Andrew
on 22.07.09
I meant if you grant that marriage is limited in the way that I and others have argued then polygamy must be either fornication or adultery. You don’t of course, which is why we are arguing.
And such is the case with much anti-polygyny arguments: they must be built on assumption, despite more clear passages of Scripture.
On the assumption of what?
By Rick Beckman
on 22.07.09
On the assumption that marriage precludes the possibility of a man having multiple marriages at once. I’m not denying the definition of marriage; and really, even in polygyny, a child will have two parents, just like Adam and Eve… So even the Malachi passage, taken as Armen explains it, fails to argue against polygyny.
—-
Also, if we’re to understand that polygyny is a violation of the Seventh Commandment, where is God’s enforcement of that commandment upon all the polygynists of the Scriptures? Why is it *real* adultery — the taking of another’s wife, such as the sin David committed — is pointed out, but not the general taking of multiple wives?
By Andrew
on 22.07.09
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth…O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
(Romans 9:15-18 & 11:33-36)
By Rick Beckman
on 22.07.09
Again, you’re reaching. I see what you’re saying: God is free to have mercy on the polygynous, overlooking their sin if He so chose.
But therein is the assumption that polygyny is a sin, and again passages that have little, if nothing, to do with marriage (let alone polygyny) are drawn upon to support the assumption that the sin of polygyny is never called a sin because God was having a mercy.
Oh, what a tangled web you’re weaving.
Is it really so hard to conclude from the Scriptures without the need to make assumptions the simple statement that polygyny is a sin? Of all the myriad sexual sins and regulations given in the Law, why was that one — which indeed was practiced! — not only not legislated against but is *sanctioned* in the Law?
By Christian MD
on 22.07.09
Here is an article written by Rev. Dr. David Instone - Brewer, senior research fellow in Rabbinics and New Testament for Tyndale House entitled “Jesus on Monogamy”.
There is extensive commentary on Jesus’ views on polygamy contained therein.
If you wish to contact him via e mail, he will answer any of your questions.
He is a New Testament Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic scholar.
I think that you will find it enlightening.
It involves exegesis on passages in Matthew and Mark.
go to
http : // http://www.tyndalehouse.com/staff/ Instone - Brewer /index.htm.
Select the article entitled Jesus’ Old Testament Basis for Monogamy. Click where it says (pre - published version)
The PDF will download.
Enjoyed talking with you all.
Please read it and let me know what you think.
By Rick Beckman
on 22.07.09
Just for transparency’s sake, I’m not going to follow links to read arguments by others not involved here. Such doesn’t make for interesting dialog, and I certainly wouldn’t expect any of you to follow and read any articles I would link to, which I have refrained from doing because doing so isn’t how I believe I should conduct myself in a conversation like this.
If anyone else happens to check it out and finds that there is new material to present, more power to you. I’m guessing there isn’t, though, or “Christian MD” would have already presented it.
Although, Jesus, as the God who presented the Law to Moses, revealed His view of polygyny when He mandated — wait for it — levirate marriages.
If polygyny were a sin, that wouldn’t have happened, at least not with a “this is because you all are hardhearted” notice, such as given to the divorce laws.
If polygyny were a sin, there would not be public shame and punishment for refusing levirate marriage.
If polygyny were a sin, it would not be unreasonable to expect Jesus to have said, “You have heard that it has been said, if your brother dies, marry his wife… But I say to you, don’t marry his wife. It is better for his family name to die out than for you to have two wives.” … Or something to that effect anyway.
But we don’t see anything like that. All we have are assumptions read into the Scriptures and misapplications of otherwise clear passages regarding things like divorce or fornication.
I know it doesn’t really amount to much, but I’ve been in your position (all of you — Christian MD, Armen, Andrew, and others). I spent months and countless hours writing thousands of words in argument against polygyny. Every argument against polygyny that I and others could raise could be easily refuted by proponents of polygyny, primarily Hugh McBryde. In an act of desperation — no one of the dozens involved could adequately defend monogamy-only — I wiped out all such discussions from my message board and banned Hugh. A long time passed, and I eventually realized that I had no choice but to be honest and accept that polygyny is not a sin. (And Hugh, if you happen to read this, again I apologize for wiping all those posts; I know now just how much work you put into writing those dissertations!)
I don’t mind being in the minority on this issue — even in polygynous cultures, those who are polygynous are the minority too! — but I believe that the matter is one of urgency for the churches. Once (God forbid) homosexual unions are embraced by the culture as “marriage,” then we will see the definition of marriage pushed even further by those who would want to legitimize polygamy (of both types), open marriages, and so on. Churches will have to deal with it sooner or later, and I argue the case of polygyny for the sake of those men, women, and fathers who all consent among themselves to create polygynous families.
By Christian MD
on 22.07.09
Brother,
Read the article
I have clinical responsibilities at the current time ( on call) and I do not have the time.
By Andrew
on 22.07.09
You have an unfortunate habit of not reading what people write. It may be a failure on my part to communicate properly, if it is I do apologise for that.
You asked me if polygany is adultery/fornication why did God not always punish it? I answered that question.
I said several posts pack if you grant that marriage is monogamous then it is pretty easy to see polygyny as a sin. The vital question is, as I have said before, what marriage is.
We have discussed this and come to no resolution.
By Armen
on 22.07.09
Rick,
Thank you for your diligence in answering. It’s difficult to reply to numerous people. I suppose we may never agree, much like many other areas of Christian doctrine.
As you maintain the freedom of a man to practice polygyny, I maintain that the scriptures support God’s desire to place emphasis on the original intention and proper outworking of the marriage union.
Imagine every man took his liberty to engage in polygyny. There would be no elders.
I cannot find one single advantage polygyny has over monogyny. Monogyny satisfies the passions of the flesh. Gives support to the weaknesses in both sexes. Provides the most solid environment for raising children. And, naturally gives place to roles within the home, without competition.
I say, foolish and naive is the man who thinks he can stop two (or more) woman from becoming jealous and spiteful within the home.
Polygyny encourages jealousy (Gen 16:4-5), fosters envy (Gen 30:1, 15, 20), and creates unhealthy competition in the home (1 Sam 1:6).
The many issues associated with polygyny in the scriptures are not to go unnoticed. Are there any monogamous relationships which caused such difficulties? I can’t find them.
The monogamous example of the first marriage, and spiritual leaders (elders), is to be followed as ideal. Should a man (for whatever reason) end up with multiple wives, he is bound to provide for them, but he is not an example to follow.
By Rick Beckman
on 23.07.09
I have no interest in arguing the practicality of polygyny — I’m not a polygynist, nor do I know any, so I won’t dare speak of how easy or difficult it might be. I will simply state that knowing of no advantage or finding practical difficulties with polygyny is by no means an argument — especially an exegetical one — against polygyny. Similar arguments can very easily be made about having multiple children — the first instance of which led to murder… So if you want to tread down the “multiples make mischief” path of argument, I hope you apply it consistently.
By Armen
on 23.07.09
Rick,
“I will simply state that knowing of no advantage or finding practical difficulties with polygyny is by no means an argument”
I would argue that God made us capable of logically thinking things through, and that many things are to be understood by good and necessary consequence. So, when God continually shows the folly resulting from polygynous relationships, I should at least question what’s going on. You don’t seem to be prepared to do that.
To compare my point to having multiple children may be valid, only God expressly commanded Adam to “multiply.” The same cannot be said for willful polygyny.
By Rick Beckman
on 23.07.09
Levirate marriage is a command to multiply wives — if you had one, you would then have two.
And while I agree that God gave us the ability to think logically, He has not given us the freedom to declare to be sin that which the Law does not forbid. So while you can decide for yourself that polygyny isn’t right — such will be the conclusion of the vast majority, just as is always the case when polygyny is allowed — we cannot state that it’s wrong for all men at all times. To do so requires some sort of absolute to base the claim upon.
Also, if you’ve been following the discussion over at my place, a rather bombshell case for polygyny that I had never heard before has been made. As it is, it proves that polygyny is not forbidden.
By Armen
on 23.07.09
Rick,
I have not yet said it’s wrong for all men at all times.
I have been following the discussion, but I hadn’t noticed the comment you pointed to.
Up until this point, I thought you were thorough in your study. To think that Deut 23:2 “proves” polygyny shows once again, the folly of modern translations.
By Rick Beckman
on 23.07.09
“Bastard” doesn’t seem any better a translation; if the word means “mongrel” — as in mixed — as Strong’s says, then “bastard” is just as fallacious; there isn’t an illegitimate child in view at all, but rather the product of a mixed parentage (Jew & Heathen).
If *that’s* what is in view, then yeah, Deut. 23:2 seems irrelevant to the discussion; if, however, the “modern” definition of “bastard” is in view, then this at least shows that polgynous marriages were valid marriages, otherwise the foundation of Israel’s twelve tribes would have relied upon illegitimate unions and the verse remains relevant.
Both definitions seem to make the verse irrelevant — which I’m fine with; polygyny isn’t against the Law, with or without that passage — but if Strong’s definition is correct, then the “old” translations are just as folly-filled as the modern ones so far as that verse is concerned.
By Christian MD
on 25.07.09
I see that no one has read the article yet. If they had, there certainly would have been a comment by now.
Armen, Andrew, and Rick - Please take a look at it !
By Andrew
on 25.07.09
Christian MD,
I read the paper yesterday, it is very good. I bought the book you suggested also but haven’t read it yet, maybe over the weekend…
His point about Christ’s quotation of the ‘anti-polygamy’ rendering of Genesis 24v24 is quoted here http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/polygamy-is-condemned-by-scripture.html text. The article is very good and deals with a number of points raised by Rick and others. Read the comments also, Pharisee (Hugh McBryde from Rick’s blog) debates the author, of which you can make your own judgment.
The blog itself is one of the best blogs for Reformed Christianity on the Internet. I’ve been reading it now for a few years and I have learned so much from it.
By Rick Beckman
on 25.07.09
I read the article at Triablogue; there’s nothing new there, and there’s certainly nothing strong so far as biblical argumentation is concerned. Jesus sided with anti-polygamists because He simply quoted passages that anti-polygamists use? That’s no argument at all. He quoted passages in the context of divorce.
The Scriptures — Old & New Testaments (keeping in mind Jesus’ voice is present in the Old Testament as well and He does not contradict Himself) — declare that a man can have more than one wife (thus being one flesh with multiple people). The language of Genesis is not exclusive; it can only be assumed as such, but that is eisegesis. If the language of Genesis was exclusive and a man cannot have more than one proper wife, then the Scriptures are a contradictory mess. There’s no way around it other than conveniently ignoring it for the sake of monogamy-onlyism.
By Christian MD
on 25.07.09
I would suggest that you read the entire article by David Instone- Brewer, not just the triablogue article.
By Rick Beckman
on 25.07.09
Surely someone would be willing to simply state the argument he gives that’s supposedly so good? I don’t have the time to read through an article which, if it’s anything at all like the Triablogue article, is filled with so much that is irrelevant to the conversation. Surely something as simple as monogamy-only has a simple proof — even Calvinism can be explained rather simply if one sticks with the Scriptures — but it remains to be seen.
And if there is nothing different to present rather than the “one flesh” argument of the “let every man have a wife” argument — which I have already responded to — than perhaps the argument is done and we’re just going in circles. Simply restating the argument — or pointing me to others who present the same — is doing nothing to actually *respond* to what I have said.
By Armen
on 26.07.09
Brethren,
I have not ignored the article pointed to, but between work, meetings, and other things, I haven’t set aside the time to read it.
Nothing Rick has presented to me has utterly convinced me that polygyny is right. Only that under God-given regulations, it was acceptable. That in itself is noteworthy.
I accept too, that we must always look to scripture. Dealing outside scripture is, 99% of the time, a pointless pursuit.
I am not, and by the grace of God, refuse to hold a view which is merely cultural. You may feel that’s what I’m doing, Rick, but no pro-polygyny argument has blasted what I see as God’s intention for man to be monogamous.
Continue the discussion as all desire, but do keep to scriptural arguments for the benefit of us all.
By Dwight Brown
on 05.08.09
Upon my own personal study this topic occurred to me one day, that while there are passages in the Scriptures that assume monogamy, polygyny (a term I was never familiar with) was never forbidden and in several cases encouraged.
I have found this and other sites in an effort to study this interesting topic further and have no personal desires to take another wife (I am happily married).
However, I must say that I have been severely disappointed by all those who argue against polygyny - here and elsewhere. As an outsider simply wanting to have an objective look at the subject and read well grounded arguments on both sides - the monogamy-only advocates seem entirely entangled in matters not related directly to the subject, and find themselves left with the short-straw of the straw man’s argument!
As a neutral party observing the discussion, the arguments against polygyny do little more then frustrate me for what the lack, and foster a desire to distance myself from those beliefs further. I thought you might like to know that.
I think the arguments against will do little more then allow people that have no desire to look into the subject themselves a way to give a quick quip and ignore what they have been taught to ignore all their lives.
What of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel? Or Elkanah, Hannah, and Pennnah? David, Ahinoam, and Abigail? Solomon? Esau?Gideon? Or perhaps Israel, Bilhah and Zilpah?
What impact does it have on the reading of Scripture to look at all such polygnous men as sinners? Like David whom’s heart was said to be wholly devoted to the LORD his God?
By Rick Beckman
on 05.08.09
Dwight, your observation is an accurate one; the arguments against polygyny are typically non-arguments, such as calling into question the motives of polygynists, pointing out the failings of families mentioned in the Scriptures, and so on.
And while the same sort of arguments against are repeated, there are usually no thorough responses — if any responses of any kind are provided. Why does Jesus portray Himself as a polygynist in a parable? Why does the Father portray Himself as a polygynist married to multiple nations? Why does the Law allow (even demand!) polygyny, with never a word of condemnation? These questions and more have been given no satisfactory answer, in my opinion, neither here nor elsewhere.
By Hugh McBryde
on 14.09.09
I did read it Rick, you need not apologize. It was ordained it worked out that way.
MAYBE I can find it on the wayback machine someday.
By Armen
on 01.10.09
Better late than never, eh?
Dwight,
To say my comments are not directly to the subject is unfair. Indeed, it’s plain wrong. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable. So, when a vast number of polygynist relationships have problems directly related to the issue, we should ask why.
To all,
There are many things in the scriptures which draw out questions, and some of them are nigh impossible to answer.
When it comes to polygyny, we must ask, was it ordained by God? Is it the preferred manner of intimate relationship? No.
Why does God demand church leaders to be monogamous? Why are polygynist men disqualified? Though it’s not explicitly stated, there’s something deficient in the man with multiple wives.
I suggest, it was not so from the beginning, but because of the hardness of men’s hearts it was so.
I’m convinced that every sanctified believer has a conscience which will guide them to practice God’s ordained example of the union between one man and one woman.
By Rick Beckman
on 01.10.09
Oh, I dunno. When Jesus describes Himself as the bridegroom, He does so in the context of having a potential ten wives at once. Polygyny may not be the preferred lifestyle for most men, but it seemed to suit Jesus just fine.
Paul also says that he’d prefer people to remain single because the single person is free to care about the things of the Lord while a married person’s attentions are drawn elsewhere. In light of that, it’s no wonder a church leader — who is responsible for not only his family but also all of those who assemble under his headship — is called to not divide his attention away from his work. Getting married isn’t a sin, despite its drawing our attention away from “spiritual” things; therefore, there is no room to call polygyny a sin based on the same sort of thing.
That’s why the Law allowed divorce; what evidence do you have that the Law’s allowance (and insistence) upon polygyny was due to the hardness of anyone’s hearts? Was Jesus’ heart hard when He described Himself as a polygynous bridegroom?
Or we could follow the example of the “father of the faithful” (Abraham) or the “man after God’s own heart” (David) in having multiple wives. Adam’s monogamy is never said to be prototypical of every marriage — only the permanent, “one flesh” nature of his marriage is made issue of.
The problems you mention are always related to other issues; the Scriptures never blame the polygyny itself. That you seem so willing to calls into question your faith in the actual texts themselves, and I can’t help but wonder what authoritative source you have for saying the men of the Scriptures sinned when taking multiple wives. Why does it appear that the prophets, kings, epistle writers, and apostles of the Scriptures weren’t privy to that source of authority?
By Rick Beckman
on 01.10.09
(Your site style would benefit greatly from indented blockquotes in comments. Just sayin’.
)
By Dwight Brown
on 01.10.09
Well I was going to chime in here but Rick seems to have covered pretty much everything before I could get around to replying.
Armen,
I was fair and accurate.
You have decided that certain issues are related and caused by polygyny and you have done so based on personal feelings. Why or where those come from I do not know.
While the inspiration of the scripture is by God and it is profitable, the same cannot (and should not) be said about our own interpretation and assumptions of it.
There are many who practice polygyny in the Bible from all spectrums of position and you are acting as though you assume any problems they went through or sins they may have committed ‘directly relate to the subject’ of polygyny.
As Rick stated that is simply unfounded and I’m surprised you are holding to those assumptions.
The root of the problems were not associated with polygyny, but it is as if you are saying that the root of the problem is also what is responsible for their polygyny.
When I say you or others are bringing up issues or topics not directly related to the subject, I mean that as in the relationship is speculative.
No doubt to you they are obviously directly related, it seems to you it is so simple to connect them. But that is only the case for yourself, it is not objective. It only works if we too were to share a belief in many other assumptions you seem to be making.
That is understandable and it is a mistake many people make throughout their lives, assuredly myself included.
I believe that for someone to come to grips with even the idea of polygyny as it existed in the Bible would require quite a radical viewpoint change that it will feel impossible for many people. And that will cause them to decide it *must be wrong*
It challenges so much of the American culture, as well as the Christian culture, especially relating to relationships. “What about your one true love God created just for me?” - that alone has so much attached to it that it can be mind blowing.
But I believe the closer someone comes to understanding this issue and what it means to their beliefs and their entire outlook on God that they will begin to better understand His love for us, and how it is not exclusive to any individual but every bit as real and committed. The capacity for love that God has for us all is reflected in the capacity a man has and too diminish that image is a real shame.
By Armen
on 01.10.09
Rick,
Are you suggesting that Christ is betrothed to those who are not saved? The parable is emphasising the need to be prepared, not Christ’s polygynist relationship with the church and the world.
Except, if a man doesn’t know how to rule his own house, how can he give leadership to the church of God? Polygyny doesn’t come in to the needs of a man or a church.
I find it interesting that the Greek for “her own” in 1 Cor 7:2 exclusively means ‘what is one’s own as opposed to belonging to another’. This cannot be said for a woman who must share her husband.
“One flesh” means more than ’till death us do part’. It means union. Nowhere is it suggested that a wife can be in union with another wife, which would unarguably be the case if a man becomes ‘one flesh’ with multiple women. My union with Christ assures my union with the Father and the Spirit.
Adam and Eve becoming one flesh affirms a union in which no other ought to take part. I admit it is inference to suggest polygyny is ‘managed’ due to the hardness of men’s hearts, but the God’s institution of marriage shows the ideal, so there is solid reason argue this point.
How so? Would Sarah have felt how she did if there was no Hagar? Would Hannah have been provoked if there was no Penninah? How is polygyny not connected to these problems in the home?
I don’t care what any culture is, monogamous or polygamous, male or female, everyone would desire to have their spouse to themselves. This is built into the nature of every man, because it’s found in the very character of God who commands that in the spiritual realm, we only have a love for Him.
Dwight,
See above.
Except, Christ’s love is for a singular ‘bride’, a ‘church’. a ‘body’. Though comprised of many members, it’s a singular, particular love.
By Dwight Brown
on 01.10.09
You seem to already be getting yourself entangled in your own contradictions.
If I am united with Christ to become one with Him then you cannot else you are also united and one with me?
Or is it that on the spiritual realm with Christ there is no individual person, no individual Brides, but we all as believers are one Bride, one Body that will be united with Christ ‘as a whole’?
The path of semantics is not going to sway an argument or discussion, yet it seems you try nonetheless.
You seem dangerously close to proving the counter point of your own argument, that there is a relationship of all of us individually to one God.
There is a distinct difference between polygyny and polygamy for which I am sure you are aware.
Yet you close with what appears to be a revealing remark:
So men and women are not simply equal, but identical? If this were so then there would be no difference between polygyny and polygamy.
A man is not the head of his family as Christ is the head of the church?
We’re all wired exactly the same and have the same desires and none of it has anything to do with culture?
You have ventured down a slippery slope and I feel as though you may not have reflected on the ramifications of all that you have said. You continue to make assumptions that based upon assumptions, specifically your knowledge and certainty of ‘how things are’, ‘what people want’ and ‘what the nature of man is’, which carries with it the weight of ‘who God is’ and ‘what God wants’. Topics that, in my opinion, we as humans should be able to humbly admit only God truly knows.
By Rick Beckman
on 01.10.09
Yay for blockquote styling!
No, I’m suggesting that Christ is betrothed to His church. Paul uses the language of betrothing others to Christ, though, as though they are a separate bride from himself. At the very least, it must be conceded that both Christ & Paul used polygynous language to describe His relationship to the church.
If polygyny is a sin, then using such to describe Christ & the church is nothing short of scandalous.
There are plenty of reasons why a man might have more than one wife. A wife being barren is one reason we see in the Scriptures. Yes, there are alternatives — adoption, for example — but that deprives men of natural born children. Selfish perhaps, but it’s a blessing that God speaks very highly of in the Scriptures. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again here: you may have no reason to be polygynous. That doesn’t mean every man doesn’t.
The same word is used in Romans 14:4 of a servant’s “own” master. Can a master have only one servant? Either the word means what you want it to mean — personal, exclusive ownership — or it’s a bit more flexible.
The same Greek word is used throughout the New Testament to denote ownership or association. In Luke 2:3, for instance, the word is used to describe everyone returning to their “own” city; did each citizen own a city that was exclusively their own? That’s what your definition requires, but that’s a misuse of the word. Similarly, such exclusivity isn’t required by 1 Corinthians 7:2, especially when the Law of God establishes that a man can, in fact, have multiple wives that are his own.
When so many people supposedly “violate” the ideal with God never chastising them for it, then yes, you do need to argue the point. No one in the Scriptures assumes Adam & Eve’s monogamy was prototypical, so if you’re wanting me to believe it, then you’ll need an argument for it. As it stands, I’ll agree with the father of the faithful, the giver of the Law, the man after God’s own heart, and so many others who seemed to take polygyny for granted and were never chastised for it.
Also, the moment the Scriptures say that a man has “wives,” the Scriptures establish that a man can be “one flesh” with more than one woman. Being “one flesh” is inherent in being married. If Scripture recognizes the marriages, then it recognizes the “one fleshiness.”
If a man cannot be one flesh with more than one woman, then you have to argue that there really were no polygynists in the Bible because they really weren’t married, despite the language used of the unions.
So if there are problems in a monogamous family’s household — and proportionally there are likely far more screwed up monogamous families than there are polygynous ones — those problems can be linked to the monogamy?
Interesting theory.
If that is true, then what on earth was Sarah doing looking for another wife for Abraham? And why is it that even today there are quite a few polygynous families grow precisely because the wives are the ones encouraging the growth?
Again, just because you don’t believe yourself to be wired for it, doesn’t mean that everyone isn’t. And yes, such people are out of the ordinary. Polygyny was by no means the “norm” in the Scriptures, nor is it the norm today. It takes a lot of character and resources to properly handle polygyny without diminishing any previous wife’s care and love — most men would be fools to attempt to bring in a second wife… but I dare not forbid them to marry. Their life is between them, the elders in their area, and God.
By Dwight Brown
on 01.10.09
You might also say that the scripture proves we should never have multiple children (or simply does not sanction or recommend it).
Why? Well look at the first example, it resulted in the first recorded murder. Obviously if there was only one son, this would not have happen. Thus having many children is unwise, and should not be allowed.
Clearly such an argument is silly and ridiculous. Yet it is that same deductive reasoning that is being applied to this discussion.
By Armen
on 01.10.09
Dwight,
I don’t think I’m tangling myself. If my union with Christ necessitates my union with the Father, then the union of a husband and wife necessitates the wife’s union with other wives. Yet, “two become one flesh”, so that’s not a biblical regulated marriage.
I’ve dealt with this before. 1. It goes against God’s command to fill the earth. 2. This is an exception, whereas it’s the majority concerning polygynist relationships which are commented upon by the Spirit.
Rick,
In the case of the ten virgins, it cannot be used to show any polygynous language, otherwise is shows Christ’s commitment to marry those who end up in Hell. No? To use Paul’s language in that way, I believe, destroys the overall biblical picture of one bridegroom and one bride. Looking at the passages where Paul writes explicitly of marriage, his language is very clear.
Isn’t barrenness decided by God? Isn’t the man refusing God’s will?
Conceded.
Israel violated much of God’s intention without chastisement. Divorce for one, and a king for another.
Agh, should I go on with this?
The thing is Rick, Dwight (and others), I see nothing in scripture to encourage polygyny. Either explicitly or implicitly. Yes, it’s managed, and it’s not condemned, but, I don’t see that as sufficient to warrant it to be God’s will for any man.
God, Almighty God, deliberately created a living being, perfectly suited to all the needs of man. That’s biblical fact. You deny this, you deny God and make little of His wisdom.
The Fall has had effects to corrupt God’s perfect work, resulting in problems like childlessness. Nevertheless, this is not excuse to deny the perfect order.
Men after Adam may not have fully realised God’s perfect order, but NT teaching reaffirms it.
I can’t go on too much with this discussion for now. I have other more pressing studies, but I trust the article and comments prove useful to all who read.
Let it be known to all though, if you believe polygyny is an option for you, you’re inevitably exalting your wisdom over God’s, indirectly stating that God’s purpose-built help is not sufficient.
By Dwight Brown
on 01.10.09
The ultimate problem I have with your article and your comments is that you propose to know things you ought not.
You have decided that you know “God’s perfect order”
You have decided to declare what is natural and desired for man’s heart and of God’s.
You have decided that anyone who even believes polygyny is acceptable they they are exalting their wisdom above God’s.
So much of what you have said does well to show the exalted opinion you have of your wisdom.
I’m sure you think highly of your studies and your understanding of God’s word and His will. It is evident that you have much confidence in your abilities and influence in those areas.
But you make so many assumptions and are apparently blind to that fact. Choosing instead to trust in your own deductive reasoning and the conclusions you have come to based upon that. Do you carry this attitude with you in all studies?
No doubt there are many areas in which you believe God’s design to be done in a fashion to symbolize our relationship with Christ and the Father, and great parables He has told to the same affect.
Yet you also choose those which you believe for your own reasons and make up your own. It’s clear to you that Adam & Eve are the very symbols of how relationships should be and how we should be (disobedient sinners with murderous children?) and you have decided what that example means and how it should apply to everyone’s life.
The purpose of my initial comment was simple, to make you aware that you were not making a good argument and from an objective point of you, lacked all objectivity and made far too many assumptions to be taken seriously.
I came to your site wanting more, looking for more. I wanted to a really good counter argument and I wanted something well founded and scripturally backed. That is not what is here, but you seem insistent that it is.
By Rick Beckman
on 01.10.09
Not necessarily. That Jesus was prepared to marry all ten of the virgins goes right along with His preaching to the whole world, “Come unto me.” Only a select few actually do come, but the preaching is a general thing. If those five unwise virgins would have only been ready, then yes, they too would have wed the bridegroom. So to would the damned be numbered among the saved if only they would believe.
Isn’t sickness decided by God? Isn’t medicine a refusal of God’s will? Are fertility treatments a refusal of God’s will? What about adoption?
A woman may indeed be barren, but that doesn’t mean a man must have no children. Such a leap is not borne out in the Scriptures and thus should not be assumed.
Sin is transgression of the Law. The Law does not condemn polygyny. Therefore, polygyny is not a sin.
Also, the Law commands, via levirate law, potential polygynies and calls shame and public derision upon those who would refuse. Likewise, in Isaiah 4:1, women — when faced with a shortage of men — begin to marry men en masse — at a 7:1 ratio — in order to take away their shame. The prophet does not criticize them for this, nor does he point out that a man taking multiple wives is a shameful act. Polygynies occur to remove shame, so says the prophet.
You’re passing a judgment that God does not pass in the Scriptures. Be careful lest you become guilty of adding to His Word. Your words are condemnation upon Abraham, Moses, David, and so many others in the Scriptures.
God discouraged them from having a king and pointed out the folly of it. Jesus also pointed out that divorce was permitted “because of the hardness of their hearts.”
The Scriptures do speak about those matters. They do not speak negatively concerning polygyny.
I applaud you for conceding that the verse stating “let every woman have her own husband” does not require exclusivity. Not everyone is willing to make that admission. I can only hope that you will continue down the path to the point that you are accepting of polygyny — if not for yourself, than for others. There will come a time when Christian leadership must deal with those who are involved in polygynies. By and large, they are going to met with leadership who seek to do nothing more than to break up the families by encouraging the husband to divorce all but one wife (despite God’s hatred of divorce), when in fact what these people are going to need is understanding and encouragement. They are following a path tread out by holy men of old. It is a grand tradition preserved throughout the Scriptures and which has only (relatively) recently been nearly-universally condemned by those who would seek to forbid people to marry, which Paul calls a doctrine of demons. (The passage can only speak of polygyny, really… No one anywhere is forbidding monogamy, and while many will point to the Catholic priesthood, there is no “forbidding” — it’s all voluntary. Polygyny, however, is forbidden most everywhere these days.)
Take care, Armen. The discussion’s been enjoyable, and I hope there are no hard feelings about anything!
By Armen
on 01.10.09
Rick,
Only making this point, because I feel it’s important.
I don’t believe they should divorce, because, like you point out, divorce is worse. If I was called to a muslim, zulu, etc culture and saw men with multiple wives converted to Christ, I’d certainly encourage them to take no more. But, I would not tell them to leave those they’ve committed themselves to. Divorce is worse. I’m not sure how my church feels about that, but that’s been my conviction for about a year now.
Yes Rick, I’ve enjoyed it too.
Dwight,
Are you a retired unitarian, universalist minister?
By Dwight Brown
on 01.10.09
Haha! Quite the opposite in every way; I’m about as far from that as is possible.
By Dwight Brown
on 02.10.09
Armen,
I think by the time you got back to replying to comments I had lost the context of the article and previous discussion.
If my reactions or posts were offensive or belittling I do apologize. I felt as though many of your own comments were condescending and were being made with a stubborn “I’m right” attitude without being willing to actually step back and look objectively.
Perhaps this was just me and was not in fact true. I do urge anyone that “think they know” about a subject to reflect with humility and not assume to “know” something God has not told them in His scriptures directly.
I believe we all must be cautious of having faith and trust in our own beliefs, ideals, and understanding - rather then God. That me must strive to keep the perspective that we are but humble men and that any faith in ourselves in feeble. Faith enough in God and His will and Love that it’s okay if we are wrong about anything we believe, because if our hearts are after Him, he will see us through and correct us (yet still we must be careful that it not simply us deciding God has correct us).
I am going to refer back to your original article in my responses, forgive me if I simply reiterate anything discussed in comments.
When taken with the viewpoint I described above about us being cautious of trusting in our own opinions in matters of God, this first point is already problematic to me.
All of what Got great was Very Good, and there is no contention with that. I feel as though that point alone was to suggest something like polygyny was in turn not “Very Good” because it was not a part of the order in Creation.
Perhaps that is not what you meant, and if so you can clarify. However many good things God did not create in the beginning. Namely, children.
And he could have created more men, and more women, or simply populate the earth in the same way he did with all manners of other life.
He could have created have created Adam & Even and 7 perfect children to get things started. But He didn’t.
We don’t assume that meant people shouldn’t have children, of course, not he clearly told them to be fruitful and multiply.
My point is simple, there are many things God could have done or not done and we should not assume to know or understand why.
I can get behind the idea, it does make sense on some level. But it is not you or I having “faith in God’s design”, it is us assuming we know specific things about the reason for the design that is not being told to us - we would just be deciding we knew what it inferred.
I think your paraphrasing and use of Malachi 2:15 is entirely misplaced. You are using “one” as “one wife” whereas it is unlikely “one” is even referring to the wife; especially when reviewing the passage across several translations. The backing for this use appears unsubstantiated.
Consider instead that the focus of the passage may be that a man is to be faithful to his wife and honor their covenant; for that is important to raising godly offspring.
—
I will end here as I have to get to work. My responses to the other points would have been similar, however.
It would clearly be a fundamental shift of someone’s beliefs to consider polygyny as something other then “unnatural” considering the religious and cultural ramifications it would have from not only what a proper relationship is, but also what marriage is, and the image of God and how the established assumptions taken in translation and studies of such topics.
But be careful not to base your study and outlook on that fact. The idea that such a controversial topic could have such broad implications on your fundamental beliefs does not make it wrong, incorrect, or misguided. It could instead be revealing exactly the opposite.
This is the position I found myself in, and the the effects are quite evident. I have no desire to be polygynous myself, but my prejudice and subsequent study into the matter - and the reflection on my own heart and beliefs - has brought with it an entirely new outlook on most importantly, my self and the things I assume and accept, what I ignorantly take for granted as true.
By Andrew
on 02.10.09
It is no good talking about union everywhere as if it means the same thing or that when one form of union is made a picture for another that it is applicable in every sense. The union of man and woman into one flesh in Genesis and the reaffirmation of this union as two into one flesh in the New Testament is conclusive. Marriage is not a nominalist parlour trick.
With respect to the parable of the ten virgins I think too much is being read into it. At any rate if it must be described as a positive case for polygyny because Christ would not liken himself to a sinful analogy I trust you will follow through with this elsewhere. In both Jeremiah and Ezekiel God is described as married to the sisters Judah and Israel which is forbidden in Leviticus 18v18. Was it sinful for God to picture Himself in a sinful relationship?
The parable, then, is a moot point. It proves nothing one way or the other. So we will continue to chase fox tails down holes.
To read that the monogamist position is culturally conditioned, that it is historical but not biblical is getting a bit old. More so is the continued patronising comments that the ‘polygyny-is-permissable-ists’ have been in the monogamists shoes and have striven to defend the indefensible and when every possible argument had been exhausted then with a gasp at first and then a shout, ‘oh at last I see, polygyny is permissible!’ As has been said concerning another point, the experience of one is not the experience of another, and however convincing you think your case for polygyny is let me confess that I do not find it convincing at all.
What happened at creation is the key to this debate (does that sound familiar?). It controls how we are to understand everything else, it is logically and temporally prior to every point of contention. So it doesn’t really matter that Solomon had many wives or that a brother-in-law is commanded to marry his dead brother’s wife - Creation mandates monogamy and everything else about marriage, husbands, wives etc must be explained with reference to this truth.
/rant over
By Rick Beckman
on 02.10.09
Creation only mandates monogamy if the Scriptures say it does. And they don’t. In multiple incidents when the marriage of Adam & Eve were brought up, the issue was always divorce and the permanence of marriage. No one ever said, “Oh, and by the way, this also means a man may only have one wife.”
You’re reading too much into the Creation account.
By Dwight Brown
on 02.10.09
I actually find the reference of Leviticus 18:18 quite interesting.
At first it seems to suggest you are not allowed to be married to two sisters at one time (such as Jacob, Leah, and Rachel).
The fact that it was made a point of at all is interesting, as it seems to acknowledge polygyny and make an except ‘just not your wife’s sister’
However on second glance it does not seem to be the marrying of your wife’s sister that is being forbid but rather doing so for specific reasons. Specifically “to vex her” (your wife) or to “uncover” her beside your first wife.
Jacob, in fact, was the father of the 12 tribes of Isreal; and unless I missed it somewhere was never reprimanded or condemned for not only having two wives, but two wives that were also sisters.
By Armen
on 02.10.09
Dwight,
Okay. Forgive me, but I just had to ask. I found another man promoting unorthodox ideas with exactly the same name. I figured, if that’s you then there’s no point in discussing this with someone who denies central and explicit truths in the scriptures.
I agree on your point about holding our views with humility. No man is infallible. I confess, I do find it weird when I meet people who want to refute strongly, something which God does not have a problem with (monogamy).
Indeed, it’s odd for Christians to evangelise the practice of polygyny. It’s certainly not NT practice, and often appears to be something to divert their attention away from promoting Christ.
I don’t think so, because Adam had to be the federal head of mankind.
Rick,
I think to ignore the mention of the word “two” when referring to the original design of marriage, is to miss an anti-polygyny point taught by Christ and Paul.
Gen 2:24 does not mention the word ‘two’ (or ‘twain’).
Yet, when this passage is referred to by Christ and Paul (Mark 10:7-8, Eph 5:31), they make mention of the word ‘two’ or ‘twain’.
Why is that emphasised when it’s not in the original?
By Hugh McBryde
on 02.10.09
Um, that the “Two” are “one flesh?”
You read too much into the condition of “one flesh.” This is easily illustrated by the fact that a propeller is composed of blades which are one with the shaft, but not one with one another.
In fact the blades of the propeller wouldn’t even work correctly if they were one with one another, and not one with the shaft.
That would be called a plate.
By Armen
on 02.10.09
Hugh,
Illustrations only work on undeniable truths. You can get illustrations to teach anything. I could just as easy point out that each blade is only joined to part of the shaft. A true union between man and wife is a complete union.
The point is, if polygyny is taught by Christ and Paul, why change the quotation from Genesis? Remove the word ‘two’ and it gives more leniency to choose polygyny. Add the ‘two’ and you’re more likely to lead people into monogyny. So, why do this?
By Hugh McBryde
on 02.10.09
Armen, so you deny the woman’s individuality? The point is not that my illustration is governing, but by coming up with an alternative I prove that yours isn’t either.
The monogamy only side of this discussion keep repeating in mantra fashion “but the two become one, which frankly carries no more weight than Nigel Tufnel’s insistence that “these go to 11.”
To further illustrate, you have been conditioned to believe that when the two become one or “one flesh,” that the operation is the same as the forming of a zygote, a closed operation, once completed. Your belief that this is true is not stated in scripture, and thus to be true, must be the only possible sort of “combining” of “two into one” and thus the contention that the two have become one would be governing.
I on the other hand have only to bring from nature, an illustration that the two can become one, and one part of that union can go out and become one with another, again, without interrupting or modifying the previous union.
I have done that.
Since I have it is up to you to find a “zygote” type description of “one flesh” in the whole of scripture, and that is easily defeated by the very verses you cite.
Whether preferred or not, a man is (not might be or occasionally is) “one flesh” with his wife and we clearly have in God’s law, God speaking and clearly declaring that a man can indeed have two or more wives.
For that reason, since you ARE (not might be) one flesh with your wife, and you CAN (whether it be preferred or not) have more than one at the same time, you are necessarily “one flesh” with more than one woman in a marriage relationship, simultaneously.
By Armen
on 02.10.09
Hugh,
Drawn from the teaching of Christ in Mark 10, try to understand the following scenario.
A man and a woman are married. The man divorces the woman, and marries another. According to Christ, he has now committed adultery. Why? Because he’s still married to the first.
Therefore, what makes him an adulterer isn’t that he divorced his wife. It’s that he took another wife while still (in God’s eyes) married to the first.
Thus, marrying another while still legitimately married to the first, means you’re an adulterer. Hence, polygyny is adultery.
By Hugh McBryde
on 02.10.09
No, that’s not according to Christ. That’s according to you. That’s an interpretation, a supplied reason by the reader for it “being adultery.”
By Rick Beckman
on 03.10.09
We don’t have a problem with monogamy, Armen. I’m monogamous, and happily so at that. I’m not refuting monogamy, just monogamy-onlyism.
No one’s trying to divert attention from Christ. Rather, I make an issue of polygyny because there are polygynous Christians out there, surrounded on all sides who would seek to forbid their family situations from being recognized as valid, righteous, moral, or acceptable. Paul preached against the forbidding of people to marry. This was a bit easier in his day when polygyny was still taken for granted by quite a few. Today, however, more effort than “don’t forbid people to marry” is required to overcome decades of feminism and centuries of increasingly prudish views of marriage & sexuality within Christendom.
I argue the case not for my sake but for the sake of those who have stepped into plural marriages or who have converted to Christ after having already begun a plural marriage. These believers need encouragement and support, and quite honestly, telling them “Well, you can’t repent of your sin because divorce is worth, so you’re just going to have to live with the sin of polygyny for the rest of your life. But don’t let that stop you from living a righteous life!…oh wait…” isn’t going to cut it.
By Dwight Brown
on 03.10.09
For me it came up one day while reading the Bible.
It occurred to me that I don’t even bat an eye when anyone in the Bible is described as or suggested to be polygynous. I had not really even ever noticed.
I realized for an unbeliever that’s probably something they would really notice and it was strange that I never really paid any attention to it all my life.
This was while reading the story of Jacob and Rachel. It just hit me suddenly “wait, this guy is still married to Leah!”
By Dwight Brown
on 04.10.09
I realized just recently that a very important issue regarding this topic has been completely overlooked, and I believe its central to the disagreements we may have with on another — and something I also believe is founding principle of those who argue pro-polygyny.
Sex is Marriage.
I believe that is a core concept heavily supported by the Scriptures and one that has been almost entirely lost not only in our society and culture, but in the Christian world at large.
I strongly encourage anyone and everyone to consider that and the impact it has not only in the reading and interpretation of the Scriptures and theology, but also in the present world we live in.
For those interested in that important topic, I refer to Matthew 19:4-6 as a starting point.
By kristarella
on 05.10.09
Dwight, some of the discussion was on Rick’s blog (linked in the intro of the post… seems to be down at the moment). I did ask the question there as to what actually constitutes marriage since in some cases they just have sex and are married (Isaac & Rebekah), but a man isn’t considered married to a prostitute.
By Dwight Brown
on 05.10.09
kristarella
Thanks, I’ll look into that.
As for the issue of prostitutes, please refer to 1 Corinthians 6:16 where the same reference (Genesis 2:24) is used by Paul to describe the union of a man and a harlot; it is the same as the first definition of “the two shall become one flesh” that is used to describe marriage.
In this instance, however, consider that a harlot is not a virgin and as such becoming “one flesh” with her would be adultery.
By kristarella
on 05.10.09
Dwight, I think that’s what I meant when I asked the question: the same “one flesh” language is used, but I’m pretty sure that no one considered the man to be married to the prostitute.
It doesn’t track that it’s adultery just because she’s not a virgin. It’s not adultery to marry a widow. E.g., a brother was supposed to give children to his widowed sister-in-law, or David & Bathsheba: obviously the first time they had sex while her husband was alive was adultery, but later when Uriah was dead David took her as his wife and there’s no indication that her bearing Solomon was adulterous.
It seems that sometimes one flesh = marriage and sometimes it’s adultery. Virginity can’t be the only deciding factor in whether it’s adultery, nor can the woman’s marital status (obviously adultery if she is married, but a prostitute is likely to be “single”). I can’t help think that while some marriages appear to only be instigated by sex, there must be something more to it because not all instances of sex result in marriage.
In the other thread someone mentioned some legal requirements of marriage, but I’m not sure if they were biblical prescriptions to the Israelites, or if they were historical laws that evolved in Jewish history.
By Dwight Brown
on 05.10.09
kristarella,
I do understand the contention of the topic but I am not convinced the separation is Biblical; and regardless of what anyone else has supposed or determined is not something I can let dictate to me what I believe, nor should you (even with what I say, but only without own careful study and prayer).
However, if Genesis 2:24 is the first declaration of what marriage is, then that must be weighed carefully. I believe God spoke clearly that it is ‘a man and a woman’ that are the ‘two that become one’ and that this is specifically of sexual intercourse. There is no mention of any other ceremony, but rather that the sexual union of the man and woman was an institution of God and that no person should separate that union.
Sex is the union, or joining, of two such people (a man and a woman), and the word to describe that specific kind of union is “marriage.”
I am not saying there is no difference between a Marriage and a Marriage Covenant as I believe there is if not simply in the hearts of those involved. But I do not believe we can suppose that sex itself is not a God-design covenant. I believe that a joining of a man and a virgin woman is a blood covenant and that holds significance.
You mention a prostitute being “single”/unmarried, but what “Sex is Marriage” suggests alters that point considerably. The first man she lay with and they separate ways (”put away”) she has been married (joined, united, “one flesh”) to that man, and further unions with other men would be adultery, with a prostitute this is likely a continued lifestyle which would deserve noting (and hence application of the word harlot vs simply adulteress).
A key point here being that the first man that lay with her abandoned her or her him, and there be no known husband or man laying claim or taking responsibility for her (regardless of her desire for that).
The Word is clear that if a man lay with a virgin he is to keep her as his bride, at some point the prostitute was a virgin and a man did lay here. Clearly this itself is a misdeed and displeasing to God that neither honored their secred union.
There are of course special cases to consider (such as rape) and Deut, covers these topics well - that they not be held against her as it was a crime against her.
But we must not lose site that Genesis 2:24 and it’s references in the new testament are clear that sex is a union (or “marriage”) that no person should separate for any reason.
Also we should be careful to keep hold of the truth that God is love and is abundantly gracious. He can forgive and set even those with sexual sins on a righteous path as it seems was even the case with Rahab.
By Hugh McBryde
on 05.10.09
Dwight, a husband/wife relationship is not always called marriage. Sometimes she is called a concubine.
By Dwight Brown
on 06.10.09
Exactly, a concubine is still a lawful wife.
The entire point I am trying to make is that I believe the Scripture is clear that it is the sexual union of a man and woman that makes them man and wife. What word is used to describe that union after the fact is a matter of inferring other conditions beyond their union.
A concubine is still a wife and as such she is still bound by her husband and he to her. He still must love her and take care of her as he must all his wives, and if she were to lay with another man it would still be adultery against God and her husband (Judges 19:2). Even so what God has joined together let no man separate.
So a concubine is still married to her husband, there is a “marriage” there, even if the term used to describe the wife tells us her status is not the same as the other wives.
I have yet to find Scriptural support for this differing of rights or treatment of a concubine versus other wives, and with God’s definition in Genesis 2:24, “concubine” appears to have been purely a societal/cultural descriptor not put in use by God or Christ Jesus.
By kristarella
on 06.10.09
Dwight, what do you think makes the “one flesh” part of Genesis 2:24 more important than the first and second part of the verse that a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife? I think the verse is clear that sex is a part of marriage and not a part of anything else (therefore sex outside of marriage is sinful). What makes the leaving and cleaving part any less of the marital process?
I don’t think that Genesis 2 is prescriptive of sex being the main component or instigator of marriage. One could even go so far as to say (although I wouldn’t want to strongly argue it) that the one flesh comes after the cleaving to his wife, which could involve promises binding himself to her, or an emotional connection of some kind.
By Dwight Brown
on 06.10.09
Simply put, because the first two do not describe the union of the man and woman. A man may leave his father and mother for other reasons, he may also cleave (stay with) a woman and not be joined to her. But the becoming one flesh is the union, or joining, the “marriage” of the two.
What I am trying to explain is simply that the term “marriage” is not a definition of what a man and woman does, but any two things can be “married” together to some extend, such as dance and music, etc.
Marriage is union in a general sense, and sex is such a union. I am not contending to say other things cannot be marriage as well. Simply that sex is marriage (union).
God created sex as a union that joins a male and female into one flesh, and He said that God-design “marriage” or “union” should never be separated for any reason.
I think we have to be careful to not let our reading of such a verse be tainted by the sin that entered the world after this.
The most difficult part of this idea to swallow is, in my humble opinion, the impact sin has and continues to have on this. If you look at this from a pre-sin viewpoint I don’t think it seems nearly as difficult to understand.
All separation of a man and woman once joined is hated by God and the complicated issues when you take all this together and mix in sin is greatly troubling to almost everyone, I’m sure.
But I think we should ask, what about in the beginning? What about in the end? God’s plan is to restore His perfect plan that is set before us in Genesis and purge sin entirely from the world.
We get too focused on the complications of making everything understandable in this sinful messed up world we live in, but that is not our responsibility, it is only for God to know. We must strive to follow His perfect will through grace.
You might find this interesting concerning the topic of marriage and weddings: http://www.next-wave.org/may03/marriage.htm
By krstarella
on 06.10.09
I think I see what you’re trying to say: sex comprises marriage, but marriage can be composed of leaving, cleaving, sex etc.
I suppose it’s hard to say much more on that since it emphasises what you’ve been saying, while accommodating my point…
The link is very interesting. Part of it says pretty much exactly what my point was:
I think the use of “and” in Genesis 2:24 is important in the description of the formation of the relationship. He will leave and cleave and become one flesh with her. “Cleave” is a lot more than to “stay with”, it is to hold fast, to cling to, to have a strong connection with… arguably it could be inappropriate for a man to cleave to a woman who wasn’t his wife (or daughter, which is obviously part of the process as indicated by the first part of the verse, parents fit in there at some point). While a man might physically leave his parents for some reason, is there a cause to relinquish familial responsibility other than to marry and make his own new family?
I thoroughly agree that marriage and sex should not be separate for any reason. If they were it would be sin, in every circumstance. However, I’m still not sure that you can read Genesis to say all sex is marriage. I haven’t read much of the levitical law on the topic recently, perhaps they shed more light.
By Dwight Brown
on 06.10.09
Right, I did not provide the link, strangely enough, to actually be undeniable proof or backing of what I’m saying; I think I am taking it farther in a sense.
Although he does also mention the idea they are already married.
My thoughts on the question of “but where do we draw the line” was expressed in my prior post.
We don’t. That isn’t for us to do. That’s the perfect example of someone not being able to fully embrace a concept because of the impact sin has on it. Put sin in the equation and we don’t know what to do with it. Of course, I think that’s overstepping our bounds.
I also think I see your interpretation of “sex and marriage shouldn’t be separate” however that is not what I believe is being said, but rather that the two who were joined by the one flesh act should not have their marriage separated — that the sex is not simply a temporary physical joining.
Do you feel the definition I am describing is simply too broad because of the ramifications it would have on all those who became “one flesh” with each other? That seems to be what the person you quoted (Steve) was worried about.
I’m coming at this form the angle that it doesn’t matter how we can make this work or what it means when applied to a sinful world, but rather let each individual work out his salvation with fear and trembling. Our merciful God can sort out that complicated mess Himself as only He could.
We need only turn others towards God and His Word. The weight of our sins is greater then we can imagine, and by His grace we do not have too.
I fully expect most people to view “Sex is Marriage” as far too puritanical and the weight of excepting this principal too heavy. Yet that is what the Word and the Spirit is to do, is it not? Call to attention people’s sins that they may repent and be purified by Christ.
By kristarella
on 06.10.09
Right, misinterpreted your use of the word separated. Yes, that is true from Matthew.
No, that is not my concern. I think if it’s what God ordained that sex institutes or instigates a marriage relationship, then that’s something we need to work out in our lives and before God.
Given the divorce rate, even among people who call themselves Christian, it’s evident that it wouldn’t matter whether sex alone constitutes marriage or not, people would still break that covenant.
I’ve just been trying to look at the text and figure out if that is what God is saying. To me it seems like it may be reading too much into it, or saying something definite, which is not clearly defined. Trying to see whether is says “they were married and they had sex” or “they had sex, so they became married”.
Can’t argue with that.
By Dwight Brown
on 06.10.09
Right, and studying and seeking ourselves is of the utmost importance!
For me those two options you list “they were married and they had sex” or “they had sex, so they became married” takes on new meaning if you simply change the word “married” to “joined” — which I believe you will find are synonymous the more you study.
Just as you seek to ensure that something is not taken as definite when it is unclear, so do I seek to ensure that something is not separated that should not be.
There are many other scriptures to seek out in this research, not simply Genesis 2:24 (such as Genesis 24:67), but it is certainly key to much discussion on any subject related to a husband and wife.
By Armen
on 07.10.09
Since the direction of discussion has turned to trying to define what marriage is, I’ll throw out an open question for anyone/everyone to answer… When were Adam and Eve married? Before, or after the Fall?
I think the answer might shed light on what marriage is, and whether it’s primarily physical, or primarily the intent to commit to serve one another.
By Hugh McBryde
on 07.10.09
Before. I don’t think the answer may shed as much light as you think. If it is a rigid formatting of how or who or how many we may marry, we’re in a lot of trouble.
You cannot for instance, claim that the number of persons you may marry is declared by Adam and Eve’s marriage. Romans 7 would say this is not true. Clearly a widow may marry more than one man. Levirate law says the same. Number is not defined by Adam and Eve.
You cannot claim that who you might marry is declared by the pasage. Adam married a woman made of his own body. We become “one flesh” through marriage, Eve was “one flesh” with Adam by method of her creation.
Adam married a being not his normally begotten sister, or daughter, but a being made out of him, for him. Adam’s progeny who are under the righteous command given to Adam while he was yet sinless, to be “fruitful and multiply,” MUST of NECESSITY marry a different kind of person than Adam did. Adam’s children, whether fallen or righteous were under the command to marry differently than he did.
Be careful that what you think “sheds light” on what marraige is, doesn’t selectively shed light in a way you believe to be right, while ignoring implications that discount your belief.
By Dwight Brown
on 07.10.09
I believe in the case of Adam and Eve they had a unique union that existed upon the creation of Eve, because she was created from Adam, flesh of his flesh.
so in that regard, she was married to him by her creation; physically one flesh from the beginning.
By Armen
on 07.10.09
Hugh and Dwight,
All I’m interested is understanding how ‘marriage’ is determined. That’s all.
If Adam and Eve were ‘married’ without the physical union, then you can’t say that marriage is simply ’sex’ as Dwight seems to be saying.
I can’t be dogmatic, but I don’t believe Adam and Eve came together physically before the Fall. Surely when everything is perfect, it would guarantee conception?
My point then, to reiterate, is that I don’t believe marriage to be simply the physical act.
On another point, I’m beginning to wonder if this discussion has reached a point beyond edification. As I’ve read the arguments and meditated on this, I’m not convinced as some of you seem to be.
Creation still is the ideal, in spite of what arises in the lives of a minority. There is a repeated emphasis of the ‘wife of thy youth’ and to be satisfied with her. Plus, I’ve not received a satisfactory answer to this point.
By Hugh McBryde
on 07.10.09
You’re belief is not a sound enough footing for any doctrine or shading of a doctrine, to preach to other men.
I too do not believe that marriage is a simple physical act. You’re conflating a result (Mandated or Preferred Monogamy) with the observations you are making.
You’re MISSING the point that the first generation after Adam, that was MANDATED by God’s command PRIOR to the fall COULD NOT reproduce to fulfill THEIR responsibility without BREAKING YOUR IDEAL.
You’re Polyanna, picking the parts that make you happiest that fulfill your fairy tale vision. I am sorry to be so hard on you but that’s what you’re doing.
I do not HAVE to give you a satisfactory answer to that point, you have no point. You have no point in Mark 10. I cannot fight air. It is your INTERPRETATION, a BAD one at that, passed down for about 500 years as I can determine from one bad theologian after another. You’re not even arguing your own point. Christ does not say “he’s still married to the first so it’s adultery,” YOU DO, and repeating it like a MANTRA to make it so does NOT MAKE IT SO.
By Hugh McBryde
on 07.10.09
One other thing that I forgot to mention. Do you believe that Matthew 19 and Mark 10 refer to the same event?
By Dwight Brown
on 08.10.09
Armen
The verse in Mark 10 is establishing that “wife replacement” is a sin. This is a reoccurring theme in the Christian world today with regards to “serial monogyny” and a man breaking God’s commandments by divorcing his wife for all but one reason.
God also makes it clear that he hates all divorce for any reason.
Regarding “Sex is Marriage“:
I believe both of you (Hugh and Armen), and anyone for that matter, to demean the physicality of mankind that God designed and found to be “very good” should seriously consider the implications of that.
Sex is a physical act, but do not demean it on those grounds; for we are but mere men, and we do not understand the full extent of the connections between the physical and the spiritual.
God designed the act of sex and in many places throughout the Scripture men are acknowledged as taking wives through no other action.
And consider the God-designed “physical act” of sexual union and “virginity” for a moment.
A virgin is permanently changed by the man during the first occurrence time they become one flesh. No other man may “take” her virginity, it has been given to that man.
The woman does not in any real or strict sense do the same to him. It is a patriarchal event that a man may do to multiple women (virgins) but another man may never do to someone else’s wife.
Likewise two people of the same gender cannot share this same kind of “bond” or union, it is not possible because God designed the physical act of such a sexual union to be exclusive to a man and a woman.
We tell God about our heart when we study His Word, let us hope he finds us seeking Truth, not justification (of actions and beliefs).
Back on topic of polygyny, many may find this article an interesting read: http://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/article4.html
By Andrew
on 08.10.09
Rick
“Creation only mandates monogamy if the Scriptures say it does. And they don’t. In multiple incidents when the marriage of Adam & Eve were brought up, the issue was always divorce and the permanence of marriage. No one ever said, “Oh, and by the way, this also means a man may only have one wife.”
You’re reading too much into the Creation account.
You’re reading too little into the creation account.
The words used intend monogamy, that is what they mean. It doesn’t need to say ‘this also means a man may only have one wife.’
Hugh
If Armen’s is a bad interpretation what are the true implications of Mark 10 or Matthew 19?
‘You’re MISSING the point that the first generation after Adam, that was MANDATED by God’s command PRIOR to the fall COULD NOT reproduce to fulfill THEIR responsibility without BREAKING YOUR IDEAL.’
Is this an argument that polygyny is acceptable?
Since incest is forbidden in the Law and since Adam and his children could not fulfil their responsibility to reproduce without committing incest the same principles which are applied to this cannot be denied in explaining the existence (and tolerance, to assume the point at issue) of polygyny.
It could be argued that the law against incest wasn’t given at that time whereas marriage had been given so a difficultly exists for one that does not exist for another. I think this objection misses the point.
If you believe that prohibition of incest is an emendation to marriage at creation then you must also explain why the various other marriage laws are not also emendations. If, however, you believe that incest is forbidden at creation, Adam knew the Moral Law and so forth, then you must also agree that God could allow polygyny to exist (which was not a necessity whereas incest was) despite it being sin in the fulfilling of His command to multiply. The two general positions are not necessarily opposed, I would tend to think of them as a continuum. In either case there is an admission which protects the monogamists position.
The other objection might be that there is no law against polygyny so the comparison does not apply. For the sake of argument I will agree that there is no such law in Israel. But to believe that there is no law at all is to beg the question against the monogamist understanding of the creation account of marriage. I believe that God established monogamy at creation this is what prohibits polygyny.
Of course you may just believe that incest is not forbidden.
By Hugh McBryde
on 08.10.09
Andrew, it’s an argument that several things change of necessity, by God’s “Perfect Plan,” even if Adam and Eve did not fall. Adam and Eve’s children had to marry among themselves for instance. That’s decidedly different from the fashion in which Adam and Eve got married.
Armen is arguing the pattern of the original marriage as governing, without a statement that it is generally governing. Since God makes by play, immediate alterations that flow from necessity, we’re not free to say that God intended us to marry just as Adam and Eve did.
What you call incest is later forbidden in the law, though clearly it was mandated originally. Prior to the law a Levite did not have to marry a virgin of Israel, after the law it did. There is another emendation for you. Shall I name others?
You can’t simply construe every element of the law as necessarily a moral statement. You can only construe the law to need obedience and disobedience to the law to be immoral. Thus it is not intrinsically wrong to marry your sister, it’s just no longer permitted.
Thus there is no tolerance of the practice either, as you state that God would have had to tolerate something less than desirable in a perfect people.
Prior to discussing Matthew 19 and Mark 10, I’m afraid I’d need to know from you whether or not you see the passages as discussing the same incident.
I’m tired of listening to leap of faith arguments as well. I don’t care what you believe. So you believe that Monogamy was established. Linus believed in the Great Pumpkin. You must show your work to preach it to me.
By Rick Beckman
on 08.10.09
Which words, why is that what they mean, and how did some of the most praised men in the Scriptures (including the one who penned Genesis) apparently miss the point?
I can only assume you have some extra revelation you’re going on. If you point to anything Jesus said, keep in mind it has already been established He was not refuting polygyny but rather was speaking of the problem of divorce.
Likewise, and again, levirate marriage — a *command* in God’s *righteous* Law that was never spoken ill of or said to be because of the hardness of man’s heart — requires polygyny in at least some instances. It’s God’s will that levirate marriage take place; if it’s also God’s will that man remain monogamous, then God’s will is contradictory. Like dividing by zero, that would destroy the universe. But well, we’re all still here. Polygyny does not contradict God’s will.
By Hugh McBryde
on 08.10.09
“Since God makes by play” makes more sense if the last word is PLAN.
By Andrew
on 08.10.09
Rick
Sure I know we disagree about all that, what of it?
Hugh
You can name as many additions as you like, I didn’t deny there were other changes. That isn’t even my point.
“You can’t simply construe every element of the law as necessarily a moral statement. You can only construe the law to need obedience and disobedience to the law to be immoral. Thus it is not intrinsically wrong to marry your sister, it’s just no longer permitted.”
When God speaks, when is a law not a moral statement? What is the difference between the two? What does ‘intrinsically wrong’ mean?
I’m not disagreeing, just interested in your thoughts. Do we agree that the creation account of marriage is magisterial? Alterations during the Mosaic economy should not, at least not always, be read back into the creation account?
“I’m tired of listening to leap of faith arguments as well. I don’t care what you believe. So you believe that Monogamy was established. Linus believed in the Great Pumpkin. You must show your work to preach it to me.
I’m aware you don’t care what I believe but my statement of belief in context is clearly not intended as you have responded to it. Linus may have believed in the Great Pumpkin but he also believed that pumpkins were vegetables. I on the other hand believe pumpkins are a fruit. This causes no end of confusion when I visit his grocery store. My poor memory along with his oversight bear out the same routine week in and week out.
Prior to discussing Matthew 19 and Mark 10, I’m afraid I’d need to know from you whether or not you see the passages as discussing the same incident.
Why do you need to know what I think about these chapters before you can tell me what you think? Restrict your comments to Mark 10 if that is acceptable, since that is the passage Armen used.
By Hugh McBryde
on 08.10.09
I find that unless my point is made after that declaration Andrew, I tend to get different answers.
You say:
“When God speaks, when is a law not a moral statement? What is the difference between the two? What does ‘intrinsically wrong’ mean?”
When a law’s action or prohibited action differs over history, or differs when applied to groups then it isn’t moral. It is wrong for me to murder anyone. It is not wrong for me to “disobey” my son, it is wrong for my son to disobey me.
A levite could marry a virgin of Israel only, Boaz could marry Ruth who was disqualified on both counts.
My lack of caring about your opinion will continue. I honestly do not mean it in a harsh or hostile way, but I do wish to be clear.
If you see a mandate to monogamy I don’t. Go and be monogamous. You still must show your work, your sincere belief only carries because you have the weight of popular opinion in the church behind you. That’s not doctrine. That’s a poll.
By Andrew
on 08.10.09
‘My lack of caring about your opinion will continue. I honestly do not mean it in a harsh or hostile way, but I do wish to be clear.
If you see a mandate to monogamy I don’t. Go and be monogamous. You still must show your work, your sincere belief only carries because you have the weight of popular opinion in the church behind you.’
Well as I say my statement of belief a couple of posts ago wasn’t meant to be convincing. I think I have made clear that I think points are being made against the monogamist position which only apply if the monogamist position is false. Begging the question and so on.
As for showing my work. I have stated my position concerning the creation account of marriage and why it is monogamous. You have disagreed using a couple of illustrations. I think they are faulty in more ways than one but I am taking them seriously which is why I haven’t responded.
By Hugh McBryde
on 08.10.09
Andrew,
If you do not mean to be convincing, you are being a cheerleader. “Go Monogamy!, GO TEAM.”
Your position is that you BELIEVE that because creation had a monogamous couple, that God recommends this state above all others, or mandates it.
That’s still just clicking your theological heals together three times and hoping it gets you there. I’ve shown we cannot and do not follow Adam and Eve in all ways so it’s up to you to show me why the monogamous aspect of their marriage is governing.
No law of Moses (and consequently that of God) shows this. No action of his people. No action of high priests such as Jehoiada shows this mandate, yet you find it. Outlining WHAT circumstantial evidence leads you to a conclusion is not a verdict.
By Andrew
on 08.10.09
“If you do not mean to be convincing, you are being a cheerleader. “Go Monogamy!, GO TEAM.”
Your position is that you BELIEVE that because creation had a monogamous couple, that God recommends this state above all others, or mandates it.
If you can’t (or won’t) represent what I write accurately then there is really no benefit in discussing this with you.
The faithful troop may lap it up but I won’t.
By Rick Beckman
on 08.10.09
“Intrinsically wrong” means something is wrong in and of itself. Murder comes to mind.
It is not intrinsically wrong to eat pork, though the Law forbade it. Eating pork while under the Law is disobedient to the Law but is not in and of itself an intrinsically immoral issue.
I didn’t think Hugh was too hard to understand. Perhaps you’re just avoiding the issue?
“I guess that depends on what the definition of “is” is.”
By Hugh McBryde
on 08.10.09
That IS what you wrote Andrew. You drew conclusions from circumstantial evidence.
You fail to deal with the points I bring up that we are not and in some cases CANNOT follow the examples of Adam and Even in marriage.
Instead you assert that they are monogamous, and say, “they are monogamous, SEE?”
I KNOW they were monogamous. This is not a point you have made, this is an anecdote you have referred to. If you go to declarations that we are not to DIVORCE because “from the beginning it was not so” with the assertion that because Adam and Eve were permanent, you only go to that assertion.
Fine, we are not to divorce because Adam and Eve were permanent.
Adam and Eve did not marry a brother or sister. Arguably Adam married his own daughter, or his “Y” deficient genetic twin.
Adam was betrothed to his bride prior to her creation, and was married to her at the moment of her creation. They were married when she was ZERO in age. Is that your recommendation as well?
You see, I have no problem at all with the concept that they were monogamous. My answer, in all seriousness, and with all respect is SO WHAT?
Absent the clear direction of scripture or a person of scripture that their coincidental monogamy is compelling, it is merely the estate God chose FOR THEM, just as God chose that an apparently unique feature of marriage, that prior to the creation of Eve, she be betrothed as wife, and married to Adam at age ZERO.
By Armen
on 08.10.09
Hugh,
.
You throw yourself in opposition to the greatest theologians. I was going to elaborate here, but I think all with any discernment can see it.
To be honest, I think it’s your dogmatic manner, which sadly is the greatest reason you win over any adherents to your views.
I have, in all good conscience, weighed up the arguments presented. You can say what you like against me; God knows.
By Hugh McBryde
on 08.10.09
Armen,
So maybe I am one of the world’s greatest theologians, or maybe some of the world’s greatest theologians are wrong sometimes (Peter for instance) or maybe you throw yourself in opposition to some of the greatest theologians in the world.
You’re engaging in so many logical fallacies that I barely know where to begin.
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: The appeal to authority.
The fictional Noah Cross’ favorite, the argument to tradition or antiquity which has him declaring that “even old buildings and whores become respectable with time.”
A subtle form of the personal attack, Argumentum ad Hominum where you assail me as dogmatic.
Now you are settled within your own mind. This if fine, but I will thank you to be quiet about it. Prove your point, or don’t offer your point as doctrine for the rest of us to follow.
You appeal to the conclusions you do not wish to share, and if I may HUMBLY offer, that is because if you trot them out they will be summarily shot to pieces as they already have been.
If I cannot know which answer, already dealt with here by your opposition, is the telling argument for you, then I cannot discuss it for the rest who read here to see. This is a version of taking your ball and going home. That, is DOGMATISM.
Every last one of the established theological brain trust, no matter how large the pedigree, runs and hides from the polygyny discussion. I had a short exchange with Gary DeMar for instance, over a decade ago, in which he threw up his hands and said “why don’t you just go get another wife then.”
Would he say that to me on a public stage? Would he even appear with me on a public stage to have that debate? We “no” the answer.
Woody Lauer, a Hebrew Professor for the OPC has gone into hiding on me. The local body has expressed faith in an answer to my question that they haven’t found or heard yet but they know they will find it and when they do “they’ll get back to me.”
Monogamy only is bad doctrine Armen. Pure and simple. The long adherence to bad doctrine doesn’t certify it as good doctrine, or you say the reformation is over. Not an idea the reformers would have endorsed.
If I seem short, abrasive or dogmatic to you it is because you’re not honest with us.
If I am winning converts, it is of God, and I pray constantly that it is for good, not for evil. I don’t win anything, God purposes all. I stand with Luther and Job and demand scripture, and plain reason.
By Dwight Brown
on 09.10.09
It seems clear that the issue between most opposers is what they believe Genesis 2:24 says.
Genesis 2:24: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
So it is a man and a woman (no other combination) that become one flesh (sexual union); there is nothing there to found the concept of monogamy on.
Can a monogamy-only stance really rely so heavily on semantics and wordplay of a translation of the Bible?
Not only in this scripture, but in the context of elders having “one” wife, the focus is on the word “one for those on the monogamy-only side, yet looking at the original text it is not so specific. Instead “a” seems to be the more appropriate word - and that changes everything, doesn’t it?
To squabble over a couple verses with the misuse of a single word while ignoring everything else seems a fool’s errand.
By Hugh McBryde
on 09.10.09
Dwight,
Whether true or not, I think most who inveigh on behalf of monogamy only fear they will be divorced simply if they express to their wives that they accept polygyny. It’s not popular with the “one wife” that a man has, to have her husband change his mind on this doctrine, even if he intends not to practice plural marriage. Many women strongly suspect that their husband, in the future, plans to somehow wriggle his way into a polygyny and they simply don’t want that unknown.
Odd, having sex and having a child presents much of the same problems. You never know what you’re going to get. I think it’s primarily a fear of not having control over their man.
The other thing is that they will immediately be in hot water in their denomination. It is a third rail issue. If they touch it, they’re dead to the denomination. Almost instantly.
By Armen
on 09.10.09
Hugh,
I’m amazed by this statement! The monogamist who comes to a conviction of polygamy will have little in the way of problems in comparison to the polygamist who comes to a conviction of monogamy.
You have much more to lose than anyone like myself, who doesn’t hold your views. Consequently, you have to fight your corner all the more.
Honestly, Hugh, looking at this from a birds-eye view, you appear to take this issue as a bedrock doctrine of Christianity, as if all of us in monogamist relationships were in sin and you’re part of the remedy to reform the error in the Church. It’s like the calvinist who proudly spends his time refuting the arminian, thinking he’s benefiting the Church.
The reality? Most of the discussions are vain babblings, with little profit. That goes for both sides.
By Hugh McBryde
on 09.10.09
Wanna bet? They’re all afraid of their wives.
Again, you appeal to antiquity and authority, but the authority is not God’s authority, it is your interpretation.
Please bring something, as you show your bag is empty and you simply wish to get away from the discussion.
For instance, if there was one argument, what is it that convinces you? I am going to bet it has been refuted and you simply cling to it still claiming “vain babblings.” What an insult.
You cannot answer so you tar your opposition with epithets such as “vain babbler?”
By Dwight Brown
on 09.10.09
Come now, he has already said (as have others) that there is nothing wrong with monogyny.
It’s monogyny-only theology he (and others) have the problem with.
And rightly so, while you are quick to dismiss the discussion as ultimately pointless, it has implications far and wide, including how that affects the way those look at important biblical men.
It’s a double standard and that is a big problem. Such as the idea that a converted polygynist may keep his wives as a matter of exception, as well as special cases, perhaps, for the men in the bible?
Study should lead you to understanding of the scriptures as utterly non-contradictory without the need for clausal exceptions.
By Hugh McBryde
on 09.10.09
One of the implications we do not wish to face is that in a relationship of believers, women are deprived of the only valid reason for a divorce.
We teach them that they may divorce for their husband’s adultery, and even if you look at Matthew 19 and Mark 10 you have no evidence that scripture ever teaches a man CAN commit adultery against his wife. Against his ex wife? It would seem so, depending on how you read the passages.
So even if we were never to practice polygyny for whatever reason we have this fascinating consequence which may account in part for the continued resistance to the doctrine of acceptable polygyny.
The vast majority of even the most conservative Biblical teachers and counselors have advised against God, and told women they may divorce their husband’s for their IMAGINED infidelities. If a man can have more than one wife, he does not commit adultery against his existing wife by having another woman.
By Dwight Brown
on 09.10.09
And to clarify, by “Study” I actually mean that “God will lead…” not that you will understand purely by study.
By Armen
on 09.10.09
I’m not saying everything you have said is vain babblings. The discussion in general has become a vain one. Pointless. We’re going nowhere.
Also Dwight, I didn’t mean to suggest any of you had a problem with monogyny. My point is, it seems to be an unhealthy hobby horse some are riding upon, which is not a fundamental to the Christian faith.
My point on Mark 10 is logically deduced. You may think it’s wrong, that’s up to you. If a man is committing adultery when he takes another wife after divorcing the first, it is only ‘adultery’ because he is still legitimately (before God) married to his first wife. Thus, when a man marries another woman while still married to the first, he is an adulterer. This is the position of every polygynist.
On top of that, is my point on Christ’s emphasis using the word “two”. If a man marries two women at the same time, Christ’s words are broken. “They two shall be one flesh”, not “they three…” or whatever. A number is given, ‘two’.
Finally, I’m not out to make enemies. The discussion ends here. If people read it and conclude that I’ve avoided the issue, been unfair, or whatever, so be it.
May Christ further sanctify His Bride, and lead us out after Him. Grace be to you.