Monogamy

[Nadiine]

The man only wrote a book on the subject. C'mon now, an accusatory tone isn't exactly a loving way at approaching a debate on scriptural exegesis.

I'm not accusing, I really do wonder when people seem to fight hard about something like that.

But I didn't know he wrote a book on the subject - I haven't been able to read this thread from the beginning becuz I was involved in another detailed thread & was back & forth the past couple days.

But I still stand by the verses used - I don't see as they can be swept under the carpet when they're that defined and obvious.
I see the same is often done with homosexuality despite the clear verses condemning that lifestyle. It seems nothing that's said is good enough.

I do get frustrated becuz of that, I admit that.

 

[ShermanN]

Do you SLEEP with your whole family & have sex w/ your offspring?

Becoming "one flesh" has nothing to do with sex, if that's the case then in Gen.29, Laban is speaking of having sex with his brother-in-law Jacob. The word flesh is an idomatic ancient near-eastern biblical term that can mean kinship, family and has nothing to do with sex. Though that is what is errantly taught in many churches because the minister has not done his research.

the 2 CREATE A UNIT. The man leaves his parents for the woman and they become a new unit - they then procreate, making themselves a family unit together; in one household. A new unit. That is in NO stretch condoning or supportive of polygamy.

It neither condons nor forbids, supports nor opposes polygamy, that's my point. To use the scriptures mentioning "one flesh" to oppose or "prove" that polygamy is wrong is an errant use and faulty interpretation of scripture.

Laypeople love to use the Strongs dictionary for word meaning but there's more to it than just looking up 1 word. You don't know grammar surrounding it which can also make a difference.

Excuse me, but I do know the context of these passages (or that's what I think you mean when you say "grammar surrounding"). Context determines the meaning of any word. A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an assumed meaning that often misses the authors intent. To pull any text out of it's context to prove a point that the context is not talking about will likely lead one to some faulty conclusions. That's what you're doing with the scriptures that you repeatedly highlight in bold letters in your posts - pull them from their context and interpret them to say something that they are not saying. The passages that you are speaking of are not speaking against polygamy, but you are trying to force them to do so.

Also, when you say "Laypeople" are you refering to yourself or me? And is this a negative in any way? I believe we're all called to study the Word using whatever tools are available to us. Furthermore, I believe that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things if we will listen to Him; and often He speaks through brothers and sisters in Christ, even the least educated among us if we will only listen. But for your information, I am a minister and happen to serve as an Academic Dean in a Bible college. And I'm well qualified to teach courses on hermeneutics - proper biblical interpretation methods and principles. But I hesitate to even mention that because God can use any of us to reveal truth from His Word. God often uses my children (physical and in the faith) to correct me.

Do you WANT polygamy to be condoned? Do you want to have multiple wives?
With the way people are trying so hard on this thread, it does make me have to wonder about things?

I've repeatedly said that I don't want multiple wives and I'm glad that monogamy is the law in my culture; and I believe that it's part of the divine ideal of marriage. Furthermore, I have a daughter and want no less for her than for God to bless her with a godly young man that will love her and her alone all of his life. I'm simply trying to explain why I believe that the bible endorses monogamy, but that it doesn't forbid polygamy. Furthermore, I've read each post on this thread and have not noticed anyone speaking as an advocate for polygamy in anything they written, much less what I've written.

Let's reread the verses again:
4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 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'?

Singular "wife", singular "man", Plural "TWO" become "ONE" flesh. How can it be spelled out any clearer to us? God also allowed simple writs of divorce in the OT for any reason... it isn't condoned in the NT when the verbage in the singular for wife.

As I mentioned before, yanking scripture from it's context and interpreting it say more than it does is not good biblical exegesis.

Another errant thing you mentioned is that the "simple writs of divorce in the OT for any reason...it isn't condoned in the NT". This is for another thread, but that's also a common misinterpretation of what Jesus said concerning divorce. Actually Jesus repeatedly said that not one jot of tittle would pass from the Law until heaven and earth disapper. "not one jot or tittle", I believe that includes the bill of divorce. But that's for another thread.

If you will Nadiine, please answer the questions in my other post concerning what new believers must do who are in polygamous families in Africa. In order for him or her to fully follow Christ, should he/she divorce his/her spouse?

Blessings,
Sherman

P.S. And please don't take anything I said to harshly or as a personal attack; I know this is a passionate topic for many. And I also believe that you love the Lord and want to be true to His word and teach what is good and true. Hopefully, you assume the same about me.

 

[ShermanN]

Nadiine, the title of my book is "God Is A Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgivenenss." It does challenge many (what I believe to be) errant traditions and interpretations of scripture.

And by the way, I'm happily married 18 years and have never been divorced, nor has my wife ever been divorced. This is the first and only marriage for both of us. Several years ago I came across some information that radically changed my understanding of what Jesus said concerning divorce. As I researched it further, I found many other errors in the traditional doctrine of marriage. I started to write a series of articles and soon found that the only way to fully communicate the message was to write a book.

 

[Nadiine]

Becoming "one flesh" has nothing to do with sex, if that's the case then in Gen.29, Laban is speaking of having sex with his brother-in-law Jacob. The word flesh is an idomatic ancient near-eastern biblical term that can mean kinship, family and has nothing to do with sex. Though that is what is errantly taught in many churches because the minister has not done his research.

Of course, but when a family is a family it's very obvious there are different "loves" involved. Incest actually isn't specifically defined as forbidden in the NT... and neither is bestiality specifically. I've looked.
So I also can't assume that just becuz those perversions aren't condemned that it opens the door to them being lawful in the NT (under grace).

The scripture is still clear. The 2 become 1 flesh (I consider it one whole unit) who then procreate to create the offspring.

It neither condons nor forbids, supports nor opposes polygamy, that's my point. To use the scriptures mentioning "one flesh" to oppose or "prove" that polygamy is wrong is an errant use and faulty interpretation of scripture.

See above (re. bestiality & incest). Polygamy can very well be covered by "fornication, adultery or uncleanness' in the whole spectrum of sexual impurity.

Excuse me, but I do know the context of these passages (or that's what I think you mean when you say "grammar surrounding"). Context determines the meaning of any word. A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an assumed meaning that often misses the authors intent. To pull any text out of it's context to prove a point that the context is not talking about will likely lead one to some faulty conclusions.

K you can look them up yourself and see the context. I believe the context is very specific to this - Jesus is speaking w/ the pharisees who were seeking to trap Him in their questioning regarding divorce of married couples.

That's what you're doing with the scriptures that you repeatedly highlight in bold letters in your posts - pull them from their context and interpret them to say something that they are not saying.

I already knew the context and find it valid

The passages that you are speaking of are not speaking against polygamy, but you are trying to force them to do so.

I don't believe Jesus has to be on the subject of polygamy at all; he's on the subject of marriage and divorce. He's defined the proper & lawful union of 2 and that they are male and female specifically and that God made it to be so from the beginning. (His ideal).

I think the statement defines God's will right there
when He's defining what a married couple IS and why it exists as such (the created order in original design and purpose).

Also, when you say "Laypeople" are you refering to yourself or me? And is this a negative in any way? I believe we're all called to study the Word using whatever tools are available to us.

I consider laypeople anyone who isn't a professional scholar or theologian.
And/or those who do not read or write Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic fluently. (altho I have heard some teachers claim Aramaic was never used)

Furthermore, I believe that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things if we will listen to Him; and often He speaks through brothers and sisters in Christ, even the least educated among us if we will only listen. But for your information, I am a minister and happen to serve as an Academic Dean in a Bible college. And I'm well qualified to teach courses on hermeneutics - proper biblical interpretation methods and principles. But I hesitate to even mention that because God can use any of us to reveal truth from His Word. God often uses my children (physical and in the faith) to correct me.

Agreed. I've also seen so-called scholars teach falsities in scripture - denying central tenets of the faith, so....
I fully understand what you mean.

I've repeatedly said that I don't want multiple wives and I'm glad that monogamy is the law in my culture;

K, as I said, I haven't followed this entire thread, but I'm glad to hear that.

I'm simply trying to explain why I believe that the bible endorses monogamy, but that it doesn't forbid polygamy. Furthermore, I've read each post on this thread and have not noticed anyone speaking as an advocate for polygamy in anything they written, much less what I've written.

As I had stated, I believe that polygamy is covered in the generalized uncleanliness laws for sexual sin. I don't believe that every sexual sin has to be spelled out; we do know in our hearts if something is wrong by our inner conscience... most Christians do find this sinful and wrong... I don't think that's any coincidence.

As I mentioned before, yanking scripture from it's context and interpreting it say more than it does is not good biblical exegesis.

Agreed, and I argue the same thing when I see many do it as well, but I don't believe I've done that when it defines the marital union: how it was established and why.
Once it's defined, the rest is simple process of elimination imo.

If you will Nadiine, please answer the questions in my other post concerning what new believers must do who are in polygamous families in Africa. In order for him or her to fully follow Christ, should he/she divorce his/her spouse?

As I see it, the man isn't even married in God's eyes to anyone but the first wife. So yes, he can "divorce" (altho there's nothing being dissolved in the first place - it's merely formality).
He should provide for them until they become stabilized; either in working to support herself or till she's married to another. (consider it palimony) heh
He could even continue to live with them, but stop the sexual activity completely.

I believe the issue is this, SIN CAUSES PROBLEMS no matter how you want to look at it. We cannot just surmize that "oh, a problem will occur if I stop sinning, so it must be right for me to continue".
I know women who stay and sleep with men who financially support them, strip or become prostitutes becuz they would be homeless otherwise.
It's not enough to lift up a scenario to untangle as if that would help support the issue at hand. Sometimes there's no easy solution without just plain causing more pain & trauma - but that's what happens sometimes.
It becomes an issue of how much God means to us & how much we're willing to lose for our salvation.
Some have lost whole families, material goods, spouses, life & limb - not just extra lovers.

I can say this however, I have known new converts who God just didn't deal with ALL their sins at once... I've seen the Lord slowly convict them of sins one at a time over a period of a few years - it doesn't make what they're doing any less wrong, but God knows our frame and how far He can go with us as we grow & mature.
God could easily let that slide for a period until it's time to deal with it... by then, circumstances could be drastically different and much easier to make the alterations less painful.

P.S. And please don't take anything I said to harshly or as a personal attack; I know this is a passionate topic for many. And I also believe that you love the Lord and want to be true to His word and teach what is good and true. Hopefully, you assume the same about me.[/

Thanks. I don't take it personal - I don't take things in debate personal becuz I know this is a separate format for issues like this. I can separate it.
Even then it takes alot to offend me - I'm very practical, fair & open. So no, I took nothing as harsh or rude. =) Thanks for asking tho.

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, the title of my book is "God Is A Divorce' Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgivenenss." It does challenge many (what I believe to be) errant traditions and interpretations of scripture.

And by the way, I'm happily married 18 years and have never been divorced, nor has my wife ever been divorced. This is the first and only marriage for both of us. Several years ago I came across some information that radically changed my understanding of what Jesus said concerning divorce. As I researched it further, I found many other errors in the traditional doctrine of marriage. I started to write a series of articles and soon found that the only way to fully communicate the message was to write a book.

Thank you for that information. I wasn't intending to offend you in my statements... I hadn't followed this thread closely at all, just in and out periodically, so a lot was missed.

If I had time I'd continue, but I have to tell my husband's 3rd wife to start dinner so I can go feed the pets.
take care

 

[Sojourner<><]

Uh... I'm pretty sure that both bestiality and incest are covered in the law, as is homosexuality. They're clearly forbidden.

 

[ShermanN]

Nadiine, I'm glad you stuck by your guns and didn't whimp out. If your line of reasoning and interpretation were correct, then a Christian in a polygamous family would need to divorce his/her spouse and take other appropriate actions.

Of course, I disagree with your interpretation of scripture and line of reasoning as delineated in previous posts. Concerning your comment about beastiality and incest being similar to polygamy and covered by the word fornication in the NT - they are very different. Both beastiality and incest were forbidden in the OT, wherease polygamy was allowed and regulated. Fornication in the NT would thus apply to illicit immoral relationships as defined in the OT.

I too must go now. I need to take care of my kids so that all of my wives can have a break.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Romanseight2005]

I have done a lot of research and I have studied the scriptures. I have prayed over them and asked God specifically about these areas with a true desire to understand God's Will in this area. The scriptures as well as the logic that I have set forth, are valid, and they have been born out of much study and prayer. There is much that I have put forth on here that has either been dismissed with no evidence, or not responded to at all. The fact that the two become one flesh has not been dealt with, insofar as the two part, is one of those issues. As I said before, if polygamy is covered in this, than it is really multiple monogamy. This is clearly a perversion of the original design. All of the wives don't become one anything. Furthermore, I have a problem with Strong's Concordance being dismissed so easily, yet I am supposed to take the Message Bible's version of something, or some other secular philosopher's word over the closest to the original greek and hebrew as I can get? The message Is a paraphrase of someone's interpretation. How is this more accurate than the concordance, along with careful prayer and study? Maybe I will one day learn both greek and hebrew, I would like to. For now, seeking the Lord's wisdom and reading my bible with the concordance will have to suffice. I have studied textbooks that have analyzed the cultures during scriptural times, and do not get a propolygamists view from doing so. I have also studied polygamist cultures, and read many, many, excerpts and letters from women in polygamist marriages. What they have endured is truly enough to make me throw up.

You had mentioned Poly. groups coming to the U.S. which I have responded to clearly. Now you are asking about what happens when a man in Africa who already has multiple wives, is supposed to do when he comes to Christ. Like anyone in any less than desirable situation comes to Lord, I would not force them to do anything. I would let the Holy Spirit convict them, and let God deal with and lead that situation as He wills. This however, does not mean that polygamy is ok. This is the crux of are discussion, whether or not polygamy is ok, is it not?

Not that you give any credence to the concordance, but it is interesting that the word for help meet is counterpart or mate, opposite of. All of these meanings speak to the reality that the one woman was his other half, just like the saying, go figure. This again does not fit with polygamy.

The scriptures about rejoicing with the wife of your youth, very clearly speak against being enticed by others. Again, no room for polygamy here. While it may not be an outright prohibition, it clearly promotes monogamy. At any rate, if you have chosen to believe what you want, then no amount of scripture will change it. I will not stand idly by however, while God's character is defamed. He cares so much more for women than the men on here have given Him credit for. You brought up your daughter. How would you feel if she married a man. and then later she found out that he was already married? Or what if she knew he was, and wanted to marry him anyway, because she was infatuated, and only saw what he was like when he was chasing her?

 

[Romanseight2005]

As to the comment about monogamy being a modern day ideal, you are wrong. Monogamy was started and created by God almighty, and it is the way that He originally set up marriage. In fact it is how He defined it.

I don't think that I made any statement like that. Were you referring to someone else?

Here is what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by Chie
QUESTION????
So my husband could take in another woman , become one with her as with me, share our marriage bed. And if I wanted to become one with another man would that be ok , or adultery ?
Your scenario here is based on modern ideals. Unfortunately, the only problem with ideals is that they're not always true.

The only thing that made her scenario what it was, was the concept of monogamy being the only legal marriage here. Were you referring to something else besides a monogamous perspective of marriage?

 

[Sojourner<><]

I don't think that I made any statement like that. Were you referring to someone else?

Originally Posted by Chie
QUESTION????
So my husband could take in another woman , become one with her as with me, share our marriage bed. And if I wanted to become one with another man would that be ok , or adultery ?
Your scenario here is based on modern ideals. Unfortunately, the only problem with ideals is that they're not always true.

The only thing that made her scenario what it was, was the concept of monogamy being the only legal marriage here. Were you referring to something else besides a monogamous perspective of marriage?

It didn't have anything to do with monogamy.. It was about the whole equality of the sexes scandal. Society today says men and women are equal in every way whereas scripture says men are women are equal in Christ, but we have different roles to fit and different levels of authority in the home.

 

[Nadiine]

Uh... I'm pretty sure that both bestiality and incest are covered in the law, as is homosexuality. They're clearly forbidden.

Oh, yes, they are covered. Only I've seen people argue that when grace came, whatever specific laws that aren't listed from the OT are now condoned.

OR, I see people argue that the only laws they're under in the NT are what Jesus Himself commanded - not the rest of the NT apostles. (red letter commands as I call them).
That's one I saw used alot to condone homosexuality.

 

[Chie]

It didn't have anything to do with monogamy.. It was about the whole equality of the sexes scandal. Society today says men and women are equal in every way whereas scripture says men are women are equal in Christ, but we have different roles to fit and different levels of authority in the home.

It was not a sexiest question and it has everything to do with the unity and ordained marriage of one husband and one wife .
I corn 7:2 makes that clear and further scriptures as well.

Is the message of the 10 virgins is being used here, literal, to justify the wives and not wife, and that be the case do all that practice this stop when they get 10 wives and all the others that don't are living in adultery?

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, I'm glad you stuck by your guns and didn't whimp out. If your line of reasoning and interpretation were correct, then a Christian in a polygamous family would need to divorce his/her spouse and take other appropriate actions.

Of course, I disagree with your interpretation of scripture and line of reasoning as delineated in previous posts. Concerning your comment about beastiality and incest being similar to polygamy and covered by the word fornication in the NT - they are very different. Both beastiality and incest were forbidden in the OT, wherease polygamy was allowed and regulated. Fornication in the NT would thus apply to illicit immoral relationships as defined in the OT.

I too must go now. I need to take care of my kids so that all of my wives can have a break.

Blessings,
Sherman

LOL
My point about the general sexual laws was that polygamy can be lumped in with uncleanness - any sexual impurity/perversions etc.

I believe the verses of God's prototype of the marital union He designed is the best proof against polygamy.
Along with the rules for church Elders & Bishops.
That in order to appear "unblemmished", they were to be the husband of ONE wife.
IF multiple wives was common, fully condoned by God and practiced openly in their culture (Israel), then they woudln't need to be TOLD that they need to have just one wife to keep from appearing sinful.
I think that's extrordinary evidence that shouldn't be ignored.
Ask, why is that put in there if polygamy CONTINUED to be a common lifestyle? Or if it's not morally questionable?

I cannot ignore that.
We still have the issue where born again Christians do not predomanantly or by any majority believe polygamy is right.
The Mormons did it & even they stopped the practice - granted, it could be for reasons other than sin. But it's still true.

 

[Romanseight2005]

It didn't have anything to do with monogamy.. It was about the whole equality of the sexes scandal. Society today says men and women are equal in every way whereas scripture says men are women are equal in Christ, but we have different roles to fit and different levels of authority in the home.

Well. I don't see it as a matter of equality, but rather a matter of #1 valuing and loving a person. #2 going back to the definition of adultery. It also recognizes monogamy as the standard, and calls sex outside of this, immorality.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Well. I don't see it as a matter of equality, but rather a matter of #1 valuing and loving a person. #2 going back to the definition of adultery. It also recognizes monogamy as the standard, and calls sex outside of this, immorality.

It was not a sexiest question and it has everything to do with the unity and ordained marriage of one husband and one wife .
I corn 7:2 makes that clear and further scriptures as well.

Is the message of the 10 virgins is being used here, literal, to justify the wives and not wife, and that be the case do all that practice this stop when they get 10 wives and all the others that don't are living in adultery?

I'm sorry, what are we talking about?

 

[Chie]

I'm sorry, what are we talking about?

lol post 131 and the one you just replied to,

 

[dayhiker]

I said nothing of Roman culture, and in fact one of my points was that monogamy predates polygamy. I am an honest person, and I said nothing from dishonesty. No misleading. When Jesus was here, he was talking to the Jews, not the Romans. He still said the,"Two,"shall become one flesh. Much of the argument for polygamy is based on the assumption that there isn't enough evidence condemning it. That is erroneous logic because the same could be said the other way. Jesus specifically brought them back to the original order of things. He also specifically said, "Two." He could just as easily have said,"Or more." He could have said they will be joined to the previous family members, etc. In reality polygamy is nothing more than multiple monogamy, which in reality honors monogamy at it's core. Comparing the issue of slavery to this one, is very valid, and in fact if you are going to contend that polygamy can ever respect or value women, then show me. I have researched polygamy in different cultures, and even in the best cases, where the man really wasn't a tyrant, it was still extremely oppressive, just by the very design of it. It is also no coincidence that where and when polygamy was happening in scripture, slavery also was. If you believe it is a coincidence, show some evidence.

Hi Romans8,
I'm sorry, I in no way meant that you wre dishonest or that you personally intended to mislead people.
I personally have often mislead people because of my limited knowledge and have often heard pastors peach things that were misleading because of limited knowledge about a topic they touched on.
See even talking about Mat.19 saying that Jesus was bring back the original order I fine misleading. That's what I would have said for 35 years of my Christian life. But Jesus is talking about divorce, the breaking of a marraige not poly relations. This is the clear context as I read it. I had to stop misleading people for taking Mt.19 out of context. So to this day I don't see any Scripture that is negative to poly relationships.

again I'm sorry you took my comments personall, Its my believe we all mislead because we are finite beings. Limted knowledge and understand will always lead us to mislead ourselves and others. That's why I understand that we are hear lovingly sharing what we think so we can limit our misunderstandings.

God bless
dayhiker

 

[Nadiine]

See even talking about Mat.19 saying that Jesus was bring back the original order I fine misleading. That's what I would have said for 35 years of my Christian life. But Jesus is talking about divorce, the breaking of a marraige not poly relations.
This is the clear context as I read it.

This is true, HOWEVER, you are missing the KEY factor in how it directly relates to polygamy.

Jesus in giving the divorce/marriage instruction, IS ALSO DEFINING WHAT MARRIAGE IS in the eyes of God.
He states what the union is and the reason it is such.

If Jesus defines the marriage union as "a man and wife" (1 man, 1 wife), that they are male and female (ie. not 1 male w/ 1 male / not 1 female w/ 1 female), then He is defining the lawful marriage unit in covenant with one another.
So how does a polygamist say God is ok with polygamy which involves 2 or more extra persons in the marital covenant/unit???
It doesn't. In Jesus speaking on marriage & divorce, He is giving the specification of what constitutes a lawful marriage in the first place - THEN the divorce issues.

Adding in more than 1 is corrupting Jesus' own definition of marriage. The rest of the verses I offered only strengthen this fact.

I had to stop misleading people for taking Mt.19 out of context. So to this day I don't see any Scripture that is negative to poly relationships.

No one misled anyone, it directly relates to polygamy in its context becuz the guideline of the definition of what a Godly marriage is constituted of is given: 1 man + 1 woman.
not more than 2, and not 2 of the same sex (and both of the HUMAN species). Jesus' outline refutes polygamy and homosexuality for the marriage unit by defining it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

This is true, HOWEVER, you are missing the KEY factor in how it directly relates to polygamy.

Jesus in giving the divorce/marriage instruction, IS ALSO DEFINING WHAT MARRIAGE IS in the eyes of God.
He states what the union is and the reason it is such.

If Jesus defines the marriage union as "a man and wife" (1 man, 1 wife), that they are male and female (ie. not 1 male w/ 1 male / not 1 female w/ 1 female), then He is defining the lawful marriage unit in covenant with one another.
So how does a polygamist say God is ok with polygamy which involves 2 or more extra persons in the marital covenant/unit???
It doesn't. In Jesus speaking on marriage & divorce, He is giving the specification of what constitutes a lawful marriage in the first place - THEN the divorce issues.

Adding in more than 1 is corrupting Jesus' own definition of marriage. The rest of the verses I offered only strengthen this fact.


No one misled anyone, it directly relates to polygamy in its context becuz the guideline of the definition of what a Godly marriage is constituted of is given: 1 man + 1 woman.
not more than 2, and not 2 of the same sex (and both of the HUMAN species). Jesus' outline refutes polygamy and homosexuality for the marriage unit by defining it.

I still haven't seen anyone effectively answer my argument about mat 25. If what you say is true, does that mean that God used sin to illustrate Himself and the Kingdom of Heaven? How can that be justified?

 

[Sojourner<><]

lol post 131 and the one you just replied to,

.... I thought I was replying to Romanseight because she said that I was talking about monogamy when I was really replying to your post where you were asking if it was fair that a man be allowed to marry multiple wives when women are not allowed to marry multiple husbands. So you see, my reply to your post wasn't about monogamy, it was about the difference in how society deals with equality of the sexes vs the way scripture does.