Monogamy

Sojourner<>< · Mar 24, 2007

Greetings

For those of you who live in America, you probably know all too well that the definition of marriage is a current hot topic of debate. In an effort to solidify my understanding of its Biblical definition, I've been studying and searching for the passages that provide black and white definitions of the different aspects of marriage. The male + female aspect of marriage is clearly covered without question. However, the one man one woman aspect seems a little foggy since the Bible seems to support polygamy, at least in part.

After reading up on some extrabiblical sources on the history of the spread of monogamy, it seems that the popular opinion is that its spread was contiguous with the spread of Christianity. If this is true, then its foundation must somehow lie within the Christian faith. But where is it? Are there some doctrines held by the older churches that I'm not aware of?

One other opinion I've heard is that monogamy was a Roman cultural standard that predated Christianity. In this case, it would have been adopted by and promoted by Christianity. Could there be any truth behind this scenario?

Help would be much appreciated

mcart909 · Mar 24, 2007

I've been studying and searching for the passages that provide a black and white definition of one man and one woman.

The Bible is clear that polygamy is OK.

Tyndale · Mar 24, 2007

another fire-starter.

Marriage is sex between a man and a woman. That marriage should not be broken by another, as it's approved by God

Sojourner<>< · Mar 24, 2007

Tyndale said:
another fire-starter.

Marriage is sex between a man and a woman. That marriage should not be broken by another, as it's approved by God

Sorry but I'm not exactly sure about what you mean. Could you rephrase?

Stinker · Mar 24, 2007

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph.5:31-32) Monogomy

The U.S. law resulting from the secular court's definition of marriage is indeed based on the Jewish and Christian definition. This is because Christianity was so dominate in the lives of people from the 1700s up to the 21st century.

I think now that so many transitional fossils are turning up and so many Christians themselves are studying the Bible critically, that many Christians and non-Christians are no longer afraid to change the legal definition of marriage to meet today's need.

Sojourner<>< · Mar 24, 2007

Stinker said:
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph.5:31-32) Monogomy

The U.S. law resulting from the secular court's definition of marriage is indeed based on the Jewish and Christian definition. This is because Christianity was so dominate in the lives of people from the 1700s up to the 21st century.

I think now that so many transitional fossils are turning up and so many Christians themselves are studying the Bible critically, that many Christians and non-Christians are no longer afraid to change the legal definition of marriage to meet today's need.

I would agree with you if the Bible didn't also contain verses that are clearly in support of polygamy. There are even some Christian sects that accept the practice. So then, if the popular monogomous definition is based on Christianity, then where is its foundation? There must be some doctrine of the church that codifies it. If not, it looks like its foundation is more cultural than scriptural.

buck · Mar 25, 2007

KJV English Concordance for "Monogamy"
Learn More About Our Word Search Tools
Sorry! the word Monogamy doesn't occur in the KJV

helenofbritain · Mar 25, 2007

Well, I was thinking of Stinker's verse too, so I agree with him. Since you want more, lets take a look...

(sorry for no chapter + verse - I'm holding a wriggly baby anf typing one handed).

Genesis: God creates Adam and Eve. He does not add Neve for good meausre.

Exodus: Thou shalt not commit adultery. We know what adultery is - but if someone is only married-in-God's-eyes married to their _first_ wife, then they would be adultering if they were polygamists.

Matthew (I think). Divorce teaching. If God doesn't recognise the remarriages of divorced people, why would he recognise the "marriages" of polygamists?

JonF · Mar 25, 2007

This thread was moved to Christian Philosophy & Ethics to comply with rule 3.5:

3.5 Controversial Topics to Be Discussed Only in Certain Forums

A. You will not post content regarding the following subjects anywhere on CF except in Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology, Christian Philosophy, or any subforums in the Congregation or Recovery* categories:

drug use
gambling
polygamy
extramarital or premarital sexual activity
homosexuality
transsexuality
abortion

*You will not make posts promoting or endorsing any of these subjects in Recovery forums.

B. Controversial doctrines listed below must be discussed in the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines or Liberal Theology forums only:

Full Preterism
Open Theism
Universalism or Universal Salvation
Annihilationism
Freemasonry

Sojourner<>< · Mar 25, 2007

helenofbritain said:
Well, I was thinking of Stinker's verse too, so I agree with him. Since you want more, lets take a look...

(sorry for no chapter + verse - I'm holding a wriggly baby anf typing one handed).

Genesis: God creates Adam and Eve. He does not add Neve for good meausre.

Exodus: Thou shalt not commit adultery. We know what adultery is - but if someone is only married-in-God's-eyes married to their _first_ wife, then they would be adultering if they were polygamists.

Matthew (I think). Divorce teaching. If God doesn't recognise the remarriages of divorced people, why would he recognise the "marriages" of polygamists?

The same law which charges us to not commit adultery also includes some statutes regarding the marriage of multiple wives (I can dig it up if you need). It just isn't a black and white issue.

biblestudy123 · Mar 25, 2007

Sojourner<>< said:
Greetings

For those of you who live in America, you probably know all too well that the definition of marriage is a current hot topic of debate. In an effort to solidify my understanding of its Biblical definition, I've been studying and searching for the passages that provide black and white definitions of the different aspects of marriage. The male + female aspect of marriage is clearly covered without question. However, the one man one woman aspect seems a little foggy since the Bible seems to support polygamy, at least in part.

After reading up on some extrabiblical sources on the history of the spread of monogamy, it seems that the popular opinion is that its spread was contiguous with the spread of Christianity. If this is true, then its foundation must somehow lie within the Christian faith. But where is it? Are there some doctrines held by the older churches that I'm not aware of?

One other opinion I've heard is that monogamy was a Roman cultural standard that predated Christianity. In this case, it would have been adopted by and promoted by Christianity. Could there be any truth behind this scenario?

Help would be much appreciated

Yes, "monogamy was a Roman cultural standard that predated Christianity."
In the USA ploygamy is illigal. But their are many countries, generally third world, where it is still practiced a legal. We are to bring the message of Christ to all the world whether they have ten wives or one.

TamiinKS · Mar 26, 2007

The Bible reflects many things about the society of its day. Such as slavery and polygamy. Saying that this reflection is support is taking a wild and unsupported leap. No prophet speaking as the mouthpiece of God says "Thou shalt get thee as many wives as thy can." No apostle in the NT talks about having many wives. In OT times, polygamy was practiced in many cultures. That is reflected in the scriptures, not supported.

ig3L · Mar 26, 2007

Sojourner<>< said:
I would agree with you if the Bible didn't also contain verses that are clearly in support of polygamy. There are even some Christian sects that accept the practice. So then, if the popular monogomous definition is based on Christianity, then where is its foundation? There must be some doctrine of the church that codifies it. If not, it looks like its foundation is more cultural than scriptural.

I would need to see some citations to support the idea that the Scriptures support polygamy. I can think of examples in which one could infer that God tolerated polygamy, but I am not aware of anywhere where it is clearly supported.

dayhiker · Mar 26, 2007

I believe there are scriptures that support poly relationships.

It was practiced by many of the OT saints and there is no sensure by God for them practicing this. This I believe include Moses taking a 2nd wife in Nun.12. In my mind if God's law giver took a 2nd wife and it was wrong, God would have to respond.

Cleave to one wife. From my study of this word, it is used twice in reference to marriage in the OT. The reference in Gen.2 that we hear all the time. But the other reference is when Solomn is rebuked for all his foreign wives that lead him astrey to follow foreign gods. This scritpure reads to me that God was upset with the idol thing not the many wives. Solomon is clearly seen as cleaving to many wives. So the OT doesn't see a problem with cleaving to more than one wife.

The levite marriage doesn't include an exemption for the brother that is already married. So a married bother is commanded to raise up a son for his bother to preseve his inheritence. In some cases then polyamy is commanded.

The definition of adultry in OT (Lev.20 and Dt.22) and even the Greek word as I read them wouldn't make man that has more than one wife an adulterer. Even my pastor who I've talked with about this said he wouldn't say that polyamy was adultry. He felt those that said it were twisting the scriptures. He thinks its a sin to be poly tho.

As for the NT, I agree that the Roman rule was monogamy. Its my understanding that Isreal had a special exemption to this rule and only they had it. So it was important enough to Isreal in Roman times to get this law passed .. in my mind kinda goes against the idea that polyamy was dying out among the Jews. The 1st rule against polyamy by Jews was some rabbi ( I forget his name) in 1048AD. So it took 1000 years of the church poking fun at the Jews to change their rules. Tho that is only in effect in the west for Jews .. IE not jews in Arab countries.

Thus I would expect the NT to not have a lot to say about polygamy as it was against the law in Rome. Yet the NT does list many men and women of faith Heb.11 who are the examples we are to follow. By my count, what we know of their sexual lives would keep almost half of them from being an elder in a church today or being accepted by church people as examples of good Christian living.

my thoughts ....
dayhiker

Sojourner<>< · Mar 26, 2007

Good post on the subject dayhiker.

dayhiker said:
I believe there are scriptures that support poly relationships.

It was practiced by many of the OT saints and there is no sensure by God for them practicing this. This I believe include Moses taking a 2nd wife in Nun.12. In my mind if God's law giver took a 2nd wife and it was wrong, God would have to respond.

Cleave to one wife. From my study of this word, it is used twice in reference to marriage in the OT. The reference in Gen.2 that we hear all the time. But the other reference is when Solomn is rebuked for all his foreign wives that lead him astrey to follow foreign gods. This scritpure reads to me that God was upset with the idol thing not the many wives. Solomon is clearly seen as cleaving to many wives. So the OT doesn't see a problem with cleaving to more than one wife.

Would you happen to have a scripture to reference on Solomon's rebuke? I'd like to study more on this but I'm not familiar with the passage.

The levite marriage doesn't include an exemption for the brother that is already married. So a married bother is commanded to raise up a son for his bother to preseve his inheritence. In some cases then polyamy is commanded.

The definition of adultry in OT (Lev.20 and Dt.22) and even the Greek word as I read them wouldn't make man that has more than one wife an adulterer. Even my pastor who I've talked with about this said he wouldn't say that polyamy was adultry. He felt those that said it were twisting the scriptures. He thinks its a sin to be poly tho.

As for the NT, I agree that the Roman rule was monogamy. Its my understanding that Isreal had a special exemption to this rule and only they had it. So it was important enough to Isreal in Roman times to get this law passed .. in my mind kinda goes against the idea that polyamy was dying out among the Jews. The 1st rule against polyamy by Jews was some rabbi ( I forget his name) in 1048AD. So it took 1000 years of the church poking fun at the Jews to change their rules. Tho that is only in effect in the west for Jews .. IE not jews in Arab countries.

So monogamy was really Roman law, not just a cultural standard? That would make alot of sense since Christianity is not a religion of rebellion. I could see how Christians might have felt the need to conform to the Roman laws rather than assert their rights, especially when alot of them were being persecuted and executed.

Thus I would expect the NT to not have a lot to say about polygamy as it was against the law in Rome. Yet the NT does list many men and women of faith Heb.11 who are the examples we are to follow. By my count, what we know of their sexual lives would keep almost half of them from being an elder in a church today or being accepted by church people as examples of good Christian living.

my thoughts ....
dayhiker

Yeah. Again, its sounding more like a cultural thing as opposed to a truthful or Biblical thing.

ig3L · Mar 26, 2007

dayhiker said:
Yet the NT does list many men and women of faith Heb.11 who are the examples we are to follow. By my count, what we know of their sexual lives would keep almost half of them from being an elder in a church today or being accepted by church people as examples of good Christian living.

my thoughts ....
dayhiker

I think it would be hard to argue that Hebrews 11 was intended to suggest that the "heroes" are examples to follow in every aspect of their conduct. The author seemed more interested in ways in which their faith led to accomplish great things. It does not suggest that these men and women were also to be honored for their moral conduct. In fact, just to name a couple of examples, Moses was a coward with major anger issues and a murder, David was an adulterer and a murderer, Samson repeatedly disobeyed God to impress a chick, and Jephtah arguably offered his own daughter as a human sacrifice in order to keep a rash and disobedient vow -- hardly examples of good moral role models. We, therefore, should not infer from this passage any sort of approval for the lifestyles which these people may have chosen. Instead they are merely examples of people, who at some point or another, acted in faith, and acheived resulted therefrom.

Sojourner<>< · Mar 26, 2007

ig3L said:
I think it would be hard to argue that Hebrews 11 was intended to suggest that the "heroes" are examples to follow in every aspect of their conduct. The author seemed more interested in ways in which their faith led to accomplish great things. It does not suggest that these men and women were also to be honored for their moral conduct. In fact, just to name a couple of examples, Moses was a coward with major anger issues and a murder, David was an adulterer and a murderer, Samson repeatedly disobeyed God to impress a chick, and Jephtah arguably offered his own daughter as a human sacrifice in order to keep a rash and disobedient vow -- hardly examples of good moral role models. We, therefore, should not infer from this passage any sort of approval for the lifestyles which these people may have chosen. Instead they are merely examples of people, who at some point or another, acted in faith, and acheived resulted therefrom.

Even though this thread really isn't about polygamy per se, I think that there is scripture that supports it as an honorable arrangement. Hebrews 13:4 says "Marriage [is] honourable in all..." It doesn't say that this refers to monogamy, and monogamy only. If it includes polygamous marriages then we should be able to find other scripture to support this and I believe that Psalm 45 does just that. Now I realize that this is a sensitive area for many Christians so be forwarned, but it's in the Bible. Why hide it? Psalm 45 is a messianic portrait which portrays the Son of God as receiving the daughters of kings into his household. It seems clear to me that this is explained because the author thought of it to be a testament to His greatness. It's obviously symbolic but it raises an interesting point. The author of this psalm, being filled with the Holy Spirit, thought of a plural marriage as not only allowable, but honorable enough for the holy Son of God. Now if you think that polygamy is really sin that's allowed by God, I suppose we should probably cut Psalm 45 out of the book.

Hopefully now you see why I feel just a little confused about the definition of marriage under God as we should accept it.

ShermanN · Mar 26, 2007

Sojourner,

Your observations concerning the biblical non-forbidding of polygamy are accurate. As you note, several Mosaic laws assume polygamy was acceptable. And Judaism practiced polygamy until the 11th century.

During Jesus' day polygamy was under debate by Rabbis. Those who supported polygamy pointed to the multiple examples of godly men that were polygamous, and the Mosaic laws that assumed polygamy. Those who promoted monogamy pointed to the stories of Noah and Creation. And when referencing creation, they actually quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. They did this because the Septuagint translates Gen.2 as "and the two shall become one flesh", whereas the Hebrew actually reads, "and they shall become one flesh." Preachers always quote from versions that most clearly express what they are pointing out.

It is significant then to note that Jesus actually quotes the Septuagint in Mat.19.6. "So then, they are no longer two, but one flesh." One can thus say that Jesus supported monogamy as an element of the divine ideal of marriage.

Of course, understanding Jesus' endorsement of monogamy tied together with the Greco-Roman cultural tradition of monogomy helps us understand the development of early Christian tradition and later "legislation" of monogamy as the basis for the "Christian" family.

Please note though that I said that we can conclude that monogamy was "endorsed" by Jesus; however, we can not say that Jesus "legislated" monogamy. I believe that monogamy is an element of the divine ideal of marriage, what He intended from the beginning; but we live in a fallen world, and God loves us anyhow and recognizes and blesses marriages and families that fall outside of this divine ideal.

One must also take into consideration the fact that MDR is under civil authority as opposed to church authority. In the USA, polygamy is against civil law because of being very strongly influenced in its birth by European Christianity. In other countries in the Middle East and Africa, polygamy is still practiced in some cultures; thus their understanding of family is very different from Western thought.

People might think this is not a big issue, but as a student of cross-cultural missions this is very significant. If an Arab with four wives came to Christ, should he divorce three of them and destroy their lives and tear apart his family? I think not!

Blessings,
Sherman

p.s. I closed this post purposefully on a controversial note to spur further discussion.

mcart909 · Mar 26, 2007

It is significant then to note that Jesus actually quotes the Septuagint in Mat.19.6. "So then, they are no longer two, but one flesh." One can thus say that Jesus supported monogamy as an element of the divine ideal of marriage.

This passage does not support monogamy any more than the commandment "Love thy neighbour" means we should love one neighbour only.

When a man takes a wife, the two become one flesh. And if he takes another wife, the man and the second wife also become one flesh. What Jesus said here does not fly in the face of polygamy.

Sojourner<>< · Mar 26, 2007

ShermanNobles said:
Sojourner,

Your observations concerning the biblical non-forbidding of polygamy are accurate. As you note, several Mosaic laws assume polygamy was acceptable. And Judaism practiced polygamy until the 11th century.

During Jesus' day polygamy was under debate by Rabbis. Those who supported polygamy pointed to the multiple examples of godly men that were polygamous, and the Mosaic laws that assumed polygamy. Those who promoted monogamy pointed to the stories of Noah and Creation. And when referencing creation, they actually quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. They did this because the Septuagint translates Gen.2 as "and the two shall become one flesh", whereas the Hebrew actually reads, "and they shall become one flesh." Preachers always quote from versions that most clearly express what they are pointing out.

It is significant then to note that Jesus actually quotes the Septuagint in Mat.19.6. "So then, they are no longer two, but one flesh." One can thus say that Jesus supported monogamy as an element of the divine ideal of marriage.

Of course, understanding Jesus' endorsement of monogamy tied together with the Greco-Roman cultural tradition of monogomy helps us understand the development of early Christian tradition and later "legislation" of monogamy as the basis for the "Christian" family.

Please note though that I said that we can conclude that monogamy was "endorsed" by Jesus; however, we can not say that Jesus "legislated" monogamy. I believe that monogamy is an element of the divine ideal of marriage, what He intended from the beginning; but we live in a fallen world, and God loves us anyhow and recognizes and blesses marriages and families that fall outside of this divine ideal.

One must also take into consideration the fact that MDR is under civil authority as opposed to church authority. In the USA, polygamy is against civil law because of being very strongly influenced in its birth by European Christianity. In other countries in the Middle East and Africa, polygamy is still practiced in some cultures; thus their understanding of family is very different from Western thought.

People might think this is not a big issue, but as a student of cross-cultural missions this is very significant. If an Arab with four wives came to Christ, should he divorce three of them and destroy their lives and tear apart his family? I think not!

Blessings,
Sherman

p.s. I closed this post purposefully on a controversial note to spur further discussion.

That is a very good point. I'm sorry but what do you mean by 'MDR'?

Monogamy

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Active Member

Veteran

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Senior Veteran

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Active Member

St Mary MacKillop of the Cross, pray for us

Sapere Aude!

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Mature veteran

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Active Member

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Active Member

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Similar threads