Tradition, not "the Bible alone" prohibits Polygamy
A. The Christian Church has always condemned polygamy
1. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:
"Your imprudent and blind masters even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob."
2. Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:
"Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..."
B.Scripture does not explicitly condemn polygamy
Polygamy was lawful to first century Jews and Pagans. The Old Testament Patriarchs had multiple wives
'Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another women commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery’" (Mk. 10:11-12).
This speaks only of divorce and remarriage. Nowhere does it say men cannot take a second wife if they retain the first one
Rom 7:2-3:2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. (NIV)
1 Cor 7:39:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.(NIV)
Applies only to Women
1 Tm. 3:2; Ti. 1:6
Only forbids only overseers to have multiple wives
C. The prohibition against polygamy is an extra-biblical tradition
Either polygamy is a “non-essential” that Christians can agree to disagree upon or an extra-biblical apostolic tradition is authoritative. In the words of Martin Luther: (Martin Luther, De Wette, II, 459): “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife, he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God.
Polygamy was lawful to first century Jews and Pagans. The Old Testament Patriarchs had multiple wives
Your imprudent and blind masters even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob
Just as a question to think about--Is polygamy justified just because people do it? Is polygamy justified just because godly people participated in it?
If so, then who is the "author and perfector of our faith"? Christ or the patriarchs?
If not, then we go to your other point that it doesn't contradict scripture. That can be debated from there.
One final thought. Genesis says "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife."
Just as a question to think about--Is polygamy justified just because people do it? Is polygamy justified just because godly people participated in it?
If so, then who is the "author and perfector of our faith"? Christ or the patriarchs?
Of course Christ is, but he does not directly address the issue in scripture
If not, then we go to your other point that it doesn't contradict scripture. That can be debated from there.
One final thought. Genesis says "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife
How would you respond to that verse?
I believe the early Church's prohibition against polygamy is a part of the apostolic deposit of faith and is a restoration of God's original plan in Genesis.
If one goes back in genesis you find the boundries for marriage. Gen 2: 24 - Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Also, im Matthew we find Jesus refering back to this. Matthew 19: 4-6 - And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
So we find that Marriage is One man and one woman. Not FMF, ior MM, or FF, or MMFF or MFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, or FMMMMMMMMMMM or anything of the sort.
I got this from a pro-Christian Polygamy website in regards to Matthew 19 4-6:
<LI>
Neither God nor Moses saw any violation or contradiction of Genesis 2:24 to the law which not only allowed polygamy, but, as was seen earlier, in some cases commanded it. It would be strained exegesis to say that God, in Genesis 2:24, is establishing some kind of monogamous law that excludes, or somehow condemns, polygamy.
Exegetically and contextually, Jesus' point, in Matthew 19:4-6, when he cites Genesis 2:24, is the indissolubility of marriage, for He says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate." The expression "one flesh," insofar as it relates to the structure of marriage, refers to the indissolubility of a man and his wife within a marriage, whether it be monogamous or polygamous. This was our Lord’s point in quoting the Genesis passage, and in no way condemns polygamy.
Now what about Saint Paul's expression 'one flesh'? Far from being a certain revelation concerning monogamy, the Pauline usage would illustrate, rather the broadness and flexibility of this Old Testament expression. For Paul, this unity in the 'flesh' is not confined to the conjugal union of one husband and one wife, nor is it limited to the bonds of kinship. Even a man who joins himself to a prostitute becomes 'one flesh' with her (1 Corinthians 6:16-17). This kind of unity is obviously not exclusive in the way that a monogamous union is supposed to be, for a man can become 'one flesh' with any number of prostitutes. According to this use of the expression, it would follow also that a man becomes 'one flesh' with more than one wife in a society which accepts this form of marriage. If a sinful prostitute can become "one flesh" with many men, then why would it be inconceivable that a godly man like David could have been "one flesh" with the wives God gave him?
...
It is important to recall that the real background to marriage in ancient Israel, the background against which the biblical passages on marriage are to be seen, was the larger community of the family and the clan. Marriage was not understood primarily in terms of the husband-wife relationship, and certainly not in terms of an exclusive relationship between only two persons. Marriage was regarded as a social instrument required for the preservation and continuation of families and clans. Through daughters being married into different families, there was a mutual strengthening of kinship bonds-each family giving its own flesh and blood to other families.
"Flesh" has a wider social or kinship meaning found frequently in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 29:14; 37:27; Lev. 18:6; Judges 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:12-13; Neh. 5:5; Isa. 58:7). 'One flesh', is not confined exclusively to only two persons. The several children of one mother are 'one flesh' with her, by reason of their unity in generation and in maternal love. The relationship between the mother and each child, respectively, may even be regarded as a union of 'two' in 'one flesh', without thereby excluding the other children from this same relationship with their mother. So, by reason of a socially valid polygamous marriage, a man may be conjugally united with each of his wives, respectively, as 'two' in 'one flesh'-both in a carnal sense and in terms of kinship.
Who's to say this isn't a non-fundamental issue that Evangelicals can agree to disagree upon? Again, I don't support polygamy, but I do believe that it is Tradition, not Scripture that is authoritative on this matter.
You are absolutely right that Scripture does not condemn polygamy. Mark Shea makes this point very will in his book By What Authority?
That is the most false thing I have ever heard. When Jesus says that a man may not divorce his wife and marry another without committing adultery (unless he is divorcing her because she cheated on him), does that not make it plain that he must divorce his wife before he may marry again? The idea presented is that he cannot marry any other woman so long as his wife is still alive, and he cannot divorce her if she has not committed fornication. He then, can only be married to her alone. That is a condemnation of polygamy. But there is also an explicit condemnation of it as well:
(1 Cor 7:2) "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
To each man one wife, and each woman one husband. That is a condemnation of polygamy. Tradition is based on Scripture, unless it is false tradition.
__________________ "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" (from the Nicene Creed)
What baptism? Water baptism, in which a believer is raised with Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit (Col 2:12) and recieves the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and has his sins washed away by Christ's blood (Acts 22:16) and is planted in the likeness of Christ's death so that he may be in the likeness of Christ's resurrection (Rom 6:5) and is saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)
That is the most false thing I have ever heard. When Jesus says that a man may not divorce his wife and marry another without committing adultery (unless he is divorcing her because she cheated on him), does that not make it plain that he must divorce his wife before he may marry again? The idea presented is that he cannot marry any other woman so long as his wife is still alive, and he cannot divorce her if she has not committed fornication. He then, can only be married to her alone. That is a condemnation of polygamy. But there is also an explicit condemnation of it as well:
(1 Cor 7:2) "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
To each man one wife, and each woman one husband. That is a condemnation of polygamy. Tradition is based on Scripture, unless it is false tradition.
Yes, but none of these passages explicity condemns polygamy. It can be inferred, but a pro-polygamist can come up with other "proof-texts" as I quoted above. The bottom line is that how is disagreeing over Polygamy any different than disagreeing over infant baptism, the nature of the Lord's Supper, Premillenialism or any other "in-house debate"? You are correct in saying "Tradition is based on Scripture, unless it is false tradition" the correlary of this is that "true interpetations of Scripture do not contradict Tradition.
That is the most false thing I have ever heard. When Jesus says that a man may not divorce his wife and marry another without committing adultery (unless he is divorcing her because she cheated on him), does that not make it plain that he must divorce his wife before he may marry again? The idea presented is that he cannot marry any other woman so long as his wife is still alive, and he cannot divorce her if she has not committed fornication. He then, can only be married to her alone. That is a condemnation of polygamy. But there is also an explicit condemnation of it as well:
(1 Cor 7:2) "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
To each man one wife, and each woman one husband. That is a condemnation of polygamy. Tradition is based on Scripture, unless it is false tradition.
I want to make it clear that I in no way support polygamy. It is wrong and adulterous. But there are in fact examples in Scripture of men having many wives.
Tradition is not based on Scripture. You have it backwards. Scripture is based on Tradition. The Church existed for four hundred years without a Bible. The Bible did not arrive, faxed from heaven, leather bound and gold embossed. The canon (or table of contents) of Scripture is in fact Sacred Tradition. The bishops employed Sacred Tradition to decide which books were inspired and infallible and which were not.
__________________
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.
Linear Mode
