Monogamy

[Sojourner<><]

Here's a repaste of my earlier post on scriptures that DO show polygamy is not lawful or good:
---------------
*edit addition*
The answer is found in Matthew 19; the prototype God gave for male & female union. This prototype also refutes gay unions and any other type of union.

Mat 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" ​

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'? ​

(also seen in 1 Cor 6:16 & Eph 5:31)​

Jesus gave us the lawful model for marriage and the number: 2 people become ONE flesh. Not 3 or more. And that BECUZ God made them male & female (in the beginning as the MODEL), that those 2 become one flesh. Not 2 men or 2 women, etc etc etc. It's very clear.​

Plus, you have further evidences... when marriage is spoken of, there is no PLURAL "wives" mentioned as lawful:​

1 Corinthians 7:33
but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife (singular, not plural),
again above, Mat. 19:3​

Also in the profile of a church overseer:​

1 Timothy 3:2
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..​

To be 'above reproach' includes having ONE wife only. If it's so lawful & acceptable in the NT, then a Pastor/deacon should be able to participate in polygamy like everyone else can since it's not sin.

We also need to remember that God allowed the people to do other things that we don't hold to today. God allowed writs of divorce that are actually sinful today (in remarrying after the unlawful divorce - which was actually constituing adultery in the process, but God allowed it - same with incest in Genesis, when it's not ok later).

Anyways, polygamy is SIN and it's not promoted anywhere in the NT, and the Greek grammar is clear to use singular wife, never plural in the marriage of 1 man - notwithstanding Jesus' instructions on the prototype of marital union using Adam & Eve as His first created order.
------------------------

I'd also like to add this, You also need to show me where Polygamy is common and promoted in the same scriptures. This is the same problem I see with homosexuals trying to claim the gay issue; so show me ONE NT EXAMPLE OF A SPIRITUAL POLYGAMOUS marriage that God was pleased with or who worked in the church in any good light.

You also need to show SUPPORT in the NT.

In the case of homosexuality, you have a clear scriptural refutation (a few actually) against the practice. There is nothing that I know of that shows in any way that scripture support homosexuality at all. Case closed.

This isn't the case with polygamy. You have scripture that seems to show it as God's will in some cases. There are proverbs and statutes in the OT law that assume that it is acceptable. If it was allowed but now is not, then there must be some scripture that clearly proves this. Something along the lines of "thou shalt not..." would definately be enough to do the trick. Unfortunately, there isn't such a verse in the whole Bible. The verses you mentioned are debatable. Especially matthew 19 since if this logic proves true, then how could Jesus go on to use a sinful adulterous practice to illustrate the Kingdom of Heaven later in Matthew 25? He wouldn't! There just isn't enough scriptural evidence to clearly show polygamy is not allowable. Actually, I think that there's enough scriptural evidence to show that if polygamy is a sin, then scripture is hypocritical. And we know that that's not true.

 

[ShermanN]

Nadiine, when you say that "God allowed the people to do other things that we don't hold to today", please ellaborate on that further. Jesus said that He did not come to change the law, and that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until heaven and earth passed away. In fact, he states such in Luke 16.17 immediately prior to speaking of divorce in vs.18, so to think that Jesus disagreed with Moses or wished to change the Law of divorce does not line up with the context. It's important not to take scripture out of context. A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an assumed meaning that often misses the author's intent.

Anyhow, could you please give other examples of God allowing things in the OT that He doesn't allow in the NT.

Thanks,
Sherman

 

[Romanseight2005]

I can elaborate. Concubines, slavery, eunuchs, do I need to go on? In all of the cases where plural wives are found in the scriptures, slaves and or concubimes are also found. None of these things are expressly spoken against in the scriptures, yet we know they are wrong. Why? This scripture says it best....
1 John 2:27
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
KJV
We know in our hearts that it is cruel to castrate a man. We know in our hearts it is wrong to own another person and subject them to our whims. By the way, the enslavement of the Israelites is a perfect example of God allowing something for a time, even making it happen. God gave them over to the Egyptians for a time, and I believe it is worded just that way in some translations. He also went to great length to free them from that slavery. Just because he had a purpose for allowing their enslavement for a time, doesn't mean that slavery was a good thing. We also know that it is wrong to subject the cruelty of polygamy on to women. Honestly the line between slavery and polgamy is very thin, and in most cases exactly the same. Not once is Hagar reffered to as Abram's wife. She was merely a slave who had to have sex with the master. No choice in it at all for her. Then she was thrown out. We are never told that she was given a paper of divorcement. Why? She wasn't his wife. If you want to open the door to polygamy, be ready for an onslought of ungodliness. Besides, if you legalized it for some, it would have to be legalized for anyone.

Back to the adultery question. If the definition for adultery does not change, then if a woman who is married, marries 2 other men, without divorcing any of them, is she an adulterer? If she is, then the definition for adultery must be changed in order for it not to be so in polygyny.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I can elaborate. Concubines, slavery, eunuchs, do I need to go on? In all of the cases where plural wives are found in the scriptures, slaves and or concubimes are also found. None of these things are expressly spoken against in the scriptures, yet we know they are wrong. Why? This scripture says it best....
1 John 2:27
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
KJV
We know in our hearts that it is cruel to castrate a man. We know in our hearts it is wrong to own another person and subject them to our whims. We also know that it is wrong to subject the cruelty of polygamy on to women. Honestly the line between slavery and polgamy is very thin, and in most cases exactly the same. Not once is Hagar reffered to as Abram's wife. She was merely a slave who had to have sex with the master. No choice in it at all for her. Then she was thrown out. We are never told that she was given a paper of divorcement. Why? She wasn't his wife. If you want to open the door to polygamy, be ready for an onslought of ungodliness.

Back to the adultery question. If the definition for adultery does not change, then if a woman who is married, marries 2 other men, without divorcing any of them, is she an adulterer? If she is, then the definition for adultery must be changed in order for it not to be so in polygyny.

I'm sorry, that just doesn't seem accurate at all. Can you elaborate please? Please explain how polygamy is the same as or close to slavery.

On a side note, you said that it is wrong to own another person, and I agree, but in one of your previous posts you stated that you're pro-ownership am I right? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Could you clear this up also?

 

[Nadiine]

Let's look at slavery. If people came to the U.S. today owning slaves, should we change our laws for them? The bible does not expressly forbid slavery, and even gave laws as to how slavery should work. Does that mean that it is good, or that it should be legal? God went to a lot of work to free His people from slavery. We went through a lot as a country to free people from slavery. Polygamy is in essence, slavery.

Another great point!

 

[Romanseight2005]

I'm sorry, that just doesn't seem accurate at all. Can you elaborate please? Please explain how polygamy is the same as or close to slavery.

On a side note, you said that it is wrong to own another person, and I agree, but in one of your previous posts you stated that you're pro-ownership am I right? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Could you clear this up also?

Slavery is evil. Nowhere have I stated that slavery is ok. I merely pointed out that slavery is not outright condemned in the scriptures.
Slavery and polygamy are similar in that a slave has no say about what happens to him or her, and if a master wants to have sex with them, they must comply. Many slaves have been impregnated by their masters. A wife in a polygynous marriage also can not choose what happens to her. She certainly has no choice about when she can have sex. Maybe she will be picked tonight, maybe not. Maybe her husband will decide to marry the 20 year old down the street. She will watch the man who once adored her fall for, and be captivated by another. She will be cheated out of this...
Prov 5:18-21
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?
21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings.
KJV
This passage broken down, and examined speaks of a man being so intoxicated with the wife of his youth, which implies that they are both old, that he can not be drawn away by another.

Now, this is in the absolute best case of polygyny, where the man might actually make an attempt at being a decent fellow. Most of the time, the man is not such a nice guy, and in fact the very nature ogf polygyny makes him not so nice. He is put in a position where he is ruler over them, and must harden his heart to their pain. If he is cruel, he may do anything he wants with them, just as a slave.

The fact of the matter is that where polygyny is practiced, women are not valued as people. The two go hand in hand. It is slavery.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I'm sorry, that just doesn't seem accurate at all.

Which part does not seem accurate? The part about making people into Eunuchs not being condemned in the scriptures? Is it the part about the biblical patriarchs who had multiple wives, and also had slaves and concubines, that's not accurate?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Which part does not seem accurate? The part about making people into Eunuchs not being condemned in the scriptures? Is it the part about the biblical patriarchs who had multiple wives, and also had slaves and concubines, that's not accurate?

Well Jesus did say that not all men could willingly be eunuchs, but we shouldn't stop the ones who can. I'm not exactly sure about what you're argument is. If you could clearly state the point you want to make I'd really like to hear it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Slavery is evil. Nowhere have I stated that slavery is ok. I merely pointed out that slavery is not outright condemned in the scriptures.
Slavery and polygamy are similar in that a slave has no say about what happens to him or her, and if a master wants to have sex with them, they must comply. Many slaves have been impregnated by their masters. A wife in a polygynous marriage also can not choose what happens to her. She certainly has no choice about when she can have sex. Maybe she will be picked tonight, maybe not. Maybe her husband will decide to marry the 20 year old down the street. She will watch the man who once adored her fall for, and be captivated by another. She will be cheated out of this...
Prov 5:18-21
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?
21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings.
KJV
This passage broken down, and examined speaks of a man being so intoxicated with the wife of his youth, which implies that they are both old, that he can not be drawn away by another.

Now, this is in the absolute best case of polygyny, where the man might actually make an attempt at being a decent fellow. Most of the time, the man is not such a nice guy, and in fact the very nature ogf polygyny makes him not so nice. He is put in a position where he is ruler over them, and must harden his heart to their pain. If he is cruel, he may do anything he wants with them, just as a slave.

The fact of the matter is that where polygyny is practiced, women are not valued as people. The two go hand in hand. It is slavery.

For the most part, I addressed the mistreatment of women in an earlier post. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a logical fallacy and it's rather misleading. If more crime is found in the neighborhoods of minority citizens than in the neighborhoods of white citizens, should we conclude that minorities are just bad people? Hardly!

In countries that allow polygamy, there is also a good deal of mistreatment of women. I think we can all agree to that. Now, if Christianity at large accepted polygamy as a valid family structure, then it would allow these families the opportunity of coming to Christ without any threat and His grace could clean things up a bit.

Now as for the women being under the headship of the man, that's a Christian standard for the home. Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."

 

[Romanseight2005]

Well Jesus did say that not all men could willingly be eunuchs, but we shouldn't stop the ones who can. I'm not exactly sure about what you're argument is. If you could clearly state the point you want to make I'd really like to hear it.

Are you saying that we should go around castrating men? I very clearly made my point. Your whole argument that polygamy is just fine , just because you don't see a clear declaration in the scriptures against it, is what I am arguing here. I am showing that there are other things that the scriptures don't come out and boldly condemn, and yet they are clearly wrong. I am also showing the correlation between polygyny, and slavery.

 

[united4Peace]

The Bible is clear that polygamy is OK.

What??

 

[Sojourner<><]

Are you saying that we should go around castrating men? I very clearly made my point. Your whole argument that polygamy is just fine , just because you don't see a clear declaration in the scriptures against it, is what I am arguing here. I am showing that there are other things that the scriptures don't come out and boldly condemn, and yet they are clearly wrong. I am also showing the correlation between polygyny, and slavery.

Scripture doesn't only not condemn polygamy, it honors it (Psalm 45, Mat 25, Heb 13:4).

If you can come up with some scripture that honors slavery like this then you might have a valid point.

 

[ShermanN]

Sojourner, I don't think that the scriptures you mentioned "honor" polygamy. Ps. 45 is psalm of worship to God with a prophetic allusion to Christ. The song aligns worship of God with the devotion that a Princess bride would have for her King groom. It mentions her servants (virgins) being part of her bridal procession and possible becoming concubines. The author of the psalm is using this cultural practice as a means of expressing both the intimacy and granduer of worship. But one can not say that it's meant to "honor" polygamy.

Mt. 25, I assume you're speaking of the parable of the 10 virgins, is speaking of a wedding feast that the 10 virgins were prepared or not prepared to attend. It's not that they were all brides, but guests at a wedding. Again, this parable can not be said to "honor" polygamy.

Heb.13.4 speaks of honoring marriage in general. " &#65279;4&#65279; &#65279;&#65279;Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; &#65279;&#65279;but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." It doesn't speak of polygamy specifically, but then again it doesn't rule out polygamy either. In polygamous cultures, honoring marriage would speak of protection of and provision for one's spouse(s).

Romanseight2005, I appreciate your passion for the oppressed and I agree that the oppression of women tends to be much greater in polygamous cultures. I'm also thankful to be living in a culture that made monogamy the standard under civil authority. Having a daughter, it's my prayer that God will some day bring a godly man to love her and her alone as long as they live. And I believe that it can be established biblically that monogamy is part of the divine ideal for marriage as shown in the Garden of Eden.

But we don't live in the Garden and as far as what the Bible sets forth, polygamy is a viable family structure recognized and even blessed by God and there is no scripture that forbids polygamy. There is scripture that regulates polygamy, but the regulation of polygamy implies that polygamy is valid.

Everyone, as mentioned before, a central issue to this discussion is which authority structure should rule over marriage. All authority comes from God; but which has He delegated to rule over marriage, divorce, and remarriage - Ecclesial, Civil, Domestic, or Personal? Your thoughts?

Another key issue is developing a clear definition of marriage. What is marriage? And when does a couple become husband and wife - intercourse, vows, ceremony, children, etc.?

Thinking through these issues biblically will help one have a well rounded understanding of marriage that will give a firm foundation for understanding the issue of polygamy from a biblical perspective.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Sojourner<><]

Sojourner, I don't think that the scriptures you mentioned "honor" polygamy. Ps. 45 is psalm of worship to God with a prophetic allusion to Christ. The song aligns worship of God with the devotion that a Princess bride would have for her King groom. It mentions her servants (virgins) being part of her bridal procession and possible becoming concubines. The author of the psalm is using this cultural practice as a means of expressing both the intimacy and granduer of worship. But one can not say that it's meant to "honor" polygamy.

I was not trying to make the point that those scriptures were written for the purpose of honoring polygamy per se, rather, polygamy is considered honorable enough to be used to illustrate the Son of God. The same principle is found both in Psalm 45 and Mat 25. It would be a little twisted, IMO, if a sinful adulturous practice were used for this purpose. In Psalm 45, the stated purpose for the King receiving the Queen and her followers into his house is so that he can fill the land with princes. It seems pretty clear to me about what's going on there. Perhaps Jesus even drew upon this Psalm in His parable in Mat 25, but that's just conjecture.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Sojourner, I don't think that the scriptures you mentioned "honor" polygamy. Ps. 45 is psalm of worship to God with a prophetic allusion to Christ. The song aligns worship of God with the devotion that a Princess bride would have for her King groom. It mentions her servants (virgins) being part of her bridal procession and possible becoming concubines. The author of the psalm is using this cultural practice as a means of expressing both the intimacy and granduer of worship. But one can not say that it's meant to "honor" polygamy.

In fact, I feel that there are sufficient grounds to say that because the Son of God Himself used a polygamous marriage as an illustration of the consumation of the church with Himself, polygamy is definitively not sinful in it of itself.

 

[Chie]

In fact, I feel that there are sufficient grounds to say that because the Son of God Himself used a polygamous marriage as an illustration of the consumation of the church with Himself, polygamy is definitively not sinful in it of itself.

There is honor in sharing the marriage bed with another? Gee , I didn't know it was called that , I thought that was called adultery.

 

[ShermanN]

I was not trying to make the point that those scriptures were written for the purpose of honoring polygamy per se, rather, polygamy is considered honorable enough to be used to illustrate the Son of God. The same principle is found both in Psalm 45 and Mat 25. It would be a little twisted, IMO, if a sinful adulturous practice were used for this purpose. In Psalm 45, the stated purpose for the King receiving the Queen and her followers into his house is so that he can fill the land with princes. It seems pretty clear to me about what's going on there. Perhaps Jesus even drew upon this Psalm in His parable in Mat 25, but that's just conjecture.

Concerning a sinful practice being used in scripture to communicate positive truths, in Jer.3.8 God warns Judah to repent and threatens to divorce her like he did her sister Israel. But He also says that if Israel came back to Him that He would take her back. And thus if one carries out the metaphor then God would be married to two sisters, Israel and Judah. Not only would this be polygamy, but being married to two sisters was against the Law of Moses. So in this metaphor, God would be doing something that He clearly forbid in the Law.

This is an example of making a passage say more than it says, or reading into a passage something that is outside of the intended message of the author. When interpreting parables and metaphors it's important to be careful not do this because it is very easy to fall into this error. We need to interpret such passages pointing to the central message that is being communicated and not use such passages to "prove" something beyond the central intended message.

In Jer.3.8, the message is that God loves Judah and wants Judah to repent so that they can remain in relationship with God. If they don't repent, then they will go into captivity like what happened in Israel - redemptive punishment. The passage is not a declaration that either polygamy, divorce, much less marrying two sisters is ok. Understanding how to interpret various scriptural genre is very important.

Blessings,
Sherman

P.S. I do use Jer.3.8 as the scriptural basis for the title to my book, "God Is A Divorce' Too!" But I'm very careful to not use the metaphor to "prove" anything. I only reference it to show that God understands the pain of divorce, in essence having gone through it Himself.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Concerning a sinful practice being used in scripture to communicate positive truths, in Jer.3.8 God warns Judah to repent and threatens to divorce her like he did her sister Israel. But He also says that if Israel came back to Him that He would take her back. And thus if one carries out the metaphor then God would be married to two sisters, Israel and Judah. Not only would this be polygamy, but being married to two sisters was against the Law of Moses. So in this metaphor, God would be doing something that He clearly forbid in the Law.

...

In Jer.3.8, the message is that God loves Judah and wants Judah to repent so that they can remain in relationship with God. If they don't repent, then they will go into captivity like what happened in Israel - redemptive punishment. The passage is not a declaration that either polygamy, divorce, much less marrying two sisters is ok. Understanding how to interpret various scriptural genre is very important.

Well at first glance, it looks like God is contradicting Himself here. However, as Jesus' statement concerning divorce seems to mirror this passage in that He allows divorce in the case of adultery, it appears that God is not in the business of hypocricy. He is careful with His words and I don't believe for a moment that He would use sin to illustrate Himself. The Hebrew word for sister (H269) in Jer 3:8 is commonly used in a broad sense and can mean both a sister as a literal and immediate relationship (sisters by blood) and remotely (like sisters in the faith). That being said, a man could have married a woman and her sister in the faith without being in violation of Lev 18:18. As this applies to nations, it would be difficult to prove that the relationship between Israel and Judah would be equivalent to an immediate type of relationship between sisters. If you can come up with a better example of God using sin to illustrate Himself then I would be convinced.

This is an example of making a passage say more than it says, or reading into a passage. When interpreting parables and metaphors it's important to not do this. We need to interpret that passage pointing to the central message that is being communicated and not use the passage to prove something beyond that central message.

I disagree. As I stated before my point was not that these passages were meant to condone polygamy, but that the principles that we can draw out of them do allude to this fact. That would be drawing information out of the truths stated in the passages.

 

[Sojourner<><]

There is honor in sharing the marriage bed with another? Gee , I didn't know it was called that , I thought that was called adultery.

Outside of a marriage relationship, it would be adultery or fornication.

 

[Chie]

Outside of a marriage relationship, it would be adultery or fornication.

man and woman become one flesh , not man and women.