Polygamy: Legalism or Sexism

[Lionroot]

Robert,
As you have pointed out, I have never stated polygyny a sin since I do not see the Bible condemn it as such.

I would also point out that this concession is based entirely on the letter of God's word and not the spirit. The truth is the letter of the law is written by God and because of that embodies what some call the "spirit of the law".

On Biblical law being Principles and not simple commands

I would just add that the law illustrates his ways, or his principles.

I totally agree.

As for an illustration on Jesus teaching on Principles as opposed to simple commands, Mat 5-7 Sermon on mount, and Luke 14:1-6 come to mind. I should have given references. My apologies.

No apologies necessary.

I believe that if you read these chapters again you will see a restoration of God's truth. Jesus corrects the oral traditions of men, and he restores them to His perfect standard as it was originally issued. This makes sense, because in the beginning was the word and the word with God and the word was God (John 1:1). I understand that to mean the word of God is Jesus. So when Jesus seems to recite scripture, or "what is written" he is not reciting it the way we do, he is repeating Himself.

In Matthew 5 Jesus says the phrase "you have heard" or "It has been said" six times. This is a clear reference to the oral tradition. Each time this phrase is used it is followed by by the words,"But I tell you..." Each time he refers to the Torah, to set the issue right.

For example: Matthew 5:31-32

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Did Moses allow men to divorce for every reason? (Mat 19:3)

The people had heard about divorce, but not about reason one could divorce. Moses never allowed divorce without reason. In Deuteronomy 24 we see the reason is "uncleaness". This is translated from a Hebrew word that means," nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish): - nakedness, shame, unclean (-ness)." Clearly this is a reference to sexual sin. The exact sin that Jesus references in Matthew 5, as the only reason for divorce, fornication.Pornea - harlotry (including adultery and incest).

Jesus restores the standard he first gave to Moses, and that had been twisted by the oral tradition of man.

I am just not sure that this is a good representation of spirit versus letter, but then I am uncertain that you can excoriate the spirit from the letter either.

[JTownsend]

Hugh,
I am sorry that you have gone through such hardships because of the views you hold. I will remember to be praying for you.

I have clearly stated that I cannot say polygyny is a sin because the Bible never indicates it as a sin. I am not one to preach on church unity because it alludes me, but your church should agree with at least this much. I am unwilling to condemn any one for holding views on the propriety of polygyny.

As you stated, people divorce. Divorce happens because of sin. Does being divorced automatically make someone a sinner? Absolutely not. Divorce is a ramification of sin, not sin itself. I see polygyny in a similar fashion. It is a result of sin, but not sin itself. In the same manner, consumer debt is based on covetous, so debt, in this case, is a ramification of sin, not sin itself. I say polygyny is a ramification of sin because we don't see it until after the fall. Before the fall we only saw monogamy.

You are right. I cannot prove that monogamy is best. I can only explain my understanding. My understanding is that Adam and Eve were monogamous, that the human relationship of husband and wife is a picture to help illustrate that of Christ and the church, and that all NT church Elders were commanded to be monogamous. So in my mind I see monogamy as described before the fall, after the fall (in the example of Christ), and what we should be striving towards. To change my mind, that is what you will have to argue against... and we've been through all that and your arguments thus far are not compelling enough to make me utterly change.

As for Matt 19:12, I didn't see where Christ specifically stated anything like "This should be everyone's goal" - he merely stated that this is the way things are. With Christ we have a more difficult discussion since he is husband to the entire church, yet never married on Earth. It makes perfect sense to me, especially in light of my next paragraph...

As for 1 Corin 7:26-28, I will have to point out that Paul clearly says "I think that in view of the present distress..." There are 2 factors here. (1) that this is what Paul thinks, not necessarily a law, but rather his application of principles, and (2) that the context is based in light of current trouble. So if it had not been for the current troubles, his answer may have been different, but it is the current troubles that helps shape his thinking. So again, we come to Paul attempting to apply a principle instead of giving an absolute command. As this relates to Christ, Christ was already promised to the his Bride, the church. But had this not been so I would say that because of the troubles that Christ would go through, that it would be better that Christ should not marry on Earth.

How either passage deals with polygyny I don't really know.

[Hugh McBryde]

I say polygyny is a ramification of sin because we don't see it until after the fall. Before the fall we only saw monogamy."

Yes, yes, and before the fall we saw marriage to your own modified female clone, betrothal before life, marriage at creation, no belly buttons and nakedness. It could be that polygyny was a result of the fall, that is never stated, and you're not free to preach it, yet you do. When you go about naked, your argument gains credibility, but you do not nor do I see anyone advocating doing so.

You are right. I cannot prove that monogamy is best."

Then how did you "conclude" anything? You may certainly BELIEVE as you wish to believe, but how could you "conclude?"

NT church Elders were commanded to be monogamous."

Wrong, if you interpret it as Elders were to be monogamous, ELDERS WERE NOT COMMANDED TO BE MONOGAMOUS, the CHURCH was commanded to SELECT Elders from among the monogamous.

So in my mind I see monogamy as described before the fall, after the fall (in the example of Christ), and what we should be striving towards."

I don't care, nor should I be asked to care. You repeat this often, yet it should not be part of the discussion, because as you said: "I cannot prove monogamy is best." My argument is not necessarily to change your mind about what you believe, but to change your mind about what you can state is best, openly, to another believer.

How either passage deals with polygyny I don't really know."

Because both seem to relegate marriage in general, to not "being best."

[JTownsend]

Robert,
I don't see the Bible condemns polygyny by letter or by principle. I may be wrong, but I don't see the action itself condemned.

As for Jesus repeating himself in the Sermon on the Mount, I agree. Jesus was, in a way, repeating himself. I do not think God's law has changed ever, even from the beginning of creation. I see that often when Jesus spoke he was always referring people back to the OT laws because God's law never changes. They never change because they are principles based on God's unchanging character. It's like Jesus was saying "I've said it before... let me straighten you out on this... again."

God's law is complex because God is complex It is based on principles, not simple limited commands because God is full of character traits, and not simple programming. Often people talk about how the 10 commandments fall under the 2 greatest commands, but also the entire OT law cn find it's root in the 10 commandments. Our dullish minds have trouble understanding this principle based concept.


Hugh,
I think we should follow God as much as we are humanly possible to. There are some things that God can do that I, in my limitedness, simply can't. For example, I can't create my own modified female clone, have betrothal before life, marriage at creation, no belly buttons and run around naked. I am not omnipotent or all knowing and God has limited my actions to act under him in relation to these aspects. So when you bring these arguments it's like saying you don't agree with my because I don't create a universe from nothing. I can't do it, and I don't see where God asks me to. I do, however, see where God asks me to follow Him with all that I am.

You may be right about OT Elders... but then we see that the leaders in either case, must be monogamous. No polygyny allowed here.

You say you don't want to change my mind on what I believe... but that you want to change my mind about what I say. Well, since I say what I believe you will have to change one to change the other.

I have never said, that I recall, that all people must be married. I have admitted that some are meant for singleness. Your bringing up Matt 19:12 or 1 Cor 7:26-28 don't do anything for polygyny. It only agrees with what I have already stated, that not all will be married.

As for me making conclusions without proving them... God exists. I can't prove it, and yet I have still concluded that God exists. I can only share with you the wonderful things He has done in my life. I can explain why I believe what I do, but I can't prove Him to you. Will this fact lessen my faith in God? No. And neither will it lessen my faith in monogamy being a preference in marriage. I can't prove my point; I can only explain my understanding.

[Hugh McBryde]

I can't create my own modified female clone, have betrothal before life, marriage at creation, no belly buttons and run around naked."

You could go naked, but I'll grant you that has changed. You can arrange for the marriage of your sons to the daughters of believers at an early age, even before they are conceived, by promising them to the first female child, and vice versa. You can betroth. You do not. You don't even believe in following God in all ways possible. Either be consistent, or admit things change and you have no basis for believing that polygyny was not one of the things that was changed from the model of Adam and Eve.

I can even accept that it is a result of sin, though there is no proof of that. It could very well be a change like clothing, that once sin enters the world we ought NOT try to go back. Israel for instance, rebels against God at the first opportunity to enter the promised land, and then tries to "make up" to God by going in anyway, but fails, because the opportunity has passed. Sometimes sin makes things different, and the best path is no longer the path once offered. It could be that rebellious women as inheritors of Eve need to be offset by other women to be more humble in the home instead of proud. I do not know, God has not spoken to this issue. We should just accept that polygyny was clearly accepted by God and try not to decide what he WOULD have done, if sin had not entered the world, when there is no evidence at all what he would have done.

There is a proper way to conduct yourself in theological matters. God says in his word not to add to it, more often than he says not to subtract from it. Your supply of a reason to his paring of Adam and Eve and saying it is your opinion that monogamy is preferred, and then advertising that without proof in a theological debate is simply wrong.

This discussion really has begun to tire me because I believe you to be insincere, of unreliable memory, of doubtful truthfulness or a malicious prankster. I can't determine which, but did you truly NOT get what I was saying about Corinthians and Matthew? I was pointing to the fact that in both passages the whole idea of marriage was cast as substandard (from a certain point of view) by both Christ and Paul. So have it your way, polygyny is substandard, but so is monogamy because the whole thought of marriage doesn't seem to rate well between the two most important figures in the New Testament.

God exists. I can't prove it, and yet I have still concluded that God exists."

No, God proved his existence to you. James says that is so elementary no one should take credit for it, and says the devils believe, and tremble. So what? Faith is the evidence, and the most objective of facts there is.

[Lionroot]

OK so back to diffentiation...

How do you make a differentiation that the scripture does not?
I can show you how they are the same...

There is no general command to monogamy.
There is no general command to polygyny.
There is no general command to marry.

All conditional commands to marry may create a monogamy.
All conditional commands to marry may create a polygyny.
All conditional commands to marry result in a new marriage.

In these ways they are on equal footing. So in what way does the Bible teach that monogamy superior?

[JTownsend]

Hugh,
I am not insincere, of unreliable memory, of doubtful truthfulness or a malicious prankster.

In Matt 19 Jesus never says anything like marriage being substandard. Neither does 1 Cor 7:26-28. As Jesus clearly stated, Moses allowed divorce because the people's hearts were hard and the people were amazed with this "new" thought process that people shouldn't get divorced for any reason. The people said that it was better for people to stay single in this case. This again shows their hard harts. Jesus, said that some will be single for varying reasons. He never says marriage is substandard as you just stated.

Paul says that it is better to be single in light of the current troubles. He doesn't say anything about marriage being substandard. I totally understood your point Hugh- but your point is totally invalid and has no basis.

You want to say I can arrange for my children to be betrothed at an early age, or before birth. No, I can't. There are things which inhibit me to do so. For example, (1) I do not know what children I may have, therefore I cannot promise what I do not have. To do so would be akin to lying and assuming on the future - both of which God forbids. God is not limited by this but I am. (2) I do not know what my child's future spouse will be like when they grow up. To promise my child to another, without knowing the character of that person, would be poor stewardship of what God has asked me to oversee. Again, what you ask me to do would be sin. God is not limited in this like I am. (3) I do not know if the person, even if they had good character, would be a good fit for my child. Again, this deals with my proper stewardship of what God has given me.

Sure, I can physically do all these things, but I can't do them and still be obedient to God. That is why I say I can't do them.

Robert,
On making differentiation, you say the scripture does not make the differentiation. I say it is not clear because we are stuck in our habbitual sinful thinking. Once we shed our sinful thinking on a topic, then God's ways become clear. For example, many people have a 30 year mortgage or send their children to public school - I see both as probably sinful (certain extenuating circumstances apply), and yet the Bible never mentions a 30 year mortgage or public education.

I say it is better to be monogamous because that is how things started, that is how Christ is, and that is how leaders of the NT church are to be. I am following the example as much as humanly possible of life before the fall, of Christ, and of the qualifications for NT leadership. Should I follow other examples than of God's instituted sinless creation? Or another example besides Christ? Or of something other than what the Bible tells me the church leadership should be like?

My replies might be a little farther between because I am swamped with projects. Thank you both for your time in refining my thinking on this.

[Hugh McBryde]

You're not getting it. In Matt 19, Christ speaks of being gifted to be a Eunuch in response to his disciples saying "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry," & Paul says "I wish that all were as I myself am." Later he chimes in with "I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."

If you are to by implication to degrade polygyny to "not best" then these must take on greater importance and all married persons should be viewed as moral weaklings not possessed of "self control," or I am going to insist that your degradation my implication is no degradation at all, in view of the fact that you don't take these 2 passages as discouragements to marriage in general. Marriage is clearly a hindrance to the itinerant minister, Paul and Christ being unburdened to go about as they please, Christ noting this saying "has nowhere to lay his head." Not the statement of a married man.

You can set betrothal conditions. "If I have a male child in the next 5 years, I promise him to your first female child in the same time frame" and so on. You could wait until birth and betroth two living children, this is marriage at the earliest age. Paul's statement about being bound to a virgin indicates this was taking place. You say you would be a poor steward, but this is not demonstrated. Societies with arranged marriages have a lower divorce rate than societies with romantic self contracted marriages. You could throw in waiting until you know what the child's faith declaration was, but then you acknowledge what? That things change. The absolute truth of the matter is that we know God intended Adam to be monogamous, but we have no clue as to what he intended for future generations, without a fall factored in, with regard to number of wives. We ONLY KNOW THINGS ARE MANDATED TO CHANGE, RIGHT AWAY, in the first generation after Adam.

As far as the things you can do? I don't have your problem because I say things were always in any formulation, mandated to have changed, and I have proved this, and you have agreed things change, yet you wish to hold on to one "unspoken" ideal while casting away another. I can readily accept the idea that monogamy was intended, from the beginning, for all of us, provided there was no fall. This would make betrothal easy, there would be no fallen, and so on. By this formulation we abandon things that we CAN do as well as things that we have been instructed to abandon (nakedness) because things have changed because of sin. After their rebellion, the promised land was no longer open to Israel for that generation, so is the path that you supposed was ideal. Without a verse that clearly states monogamy WAS an ideal to be kept from generation to generation, you simply don't have a case.

[JTownsend]

Hugh,
I see your points - I just don't agree with them. I'm not saying that I have some feelings against your points, I'm saying I see your points but your math doesn't work.

You also disagree with my evidence and say it doesn't add up. So we are at an impasse. Whether we really understand one another or not, we are at an impasse because we both think we understand the other and we both think the other is wrong, and there is nothing we can say to the other to change our minds.

I don't see any reason to continue this argument between us. I don't think this is an issue for us to divide over. I thank you that you have forced me to think about my beliefs in light of scripture. I will continue to pray for you and a resolution with your church.

If you had any new information, or something else to add, I would be happy to hear it.

[Hugh McBryde]

I'm saying I see your points but your math doesn't work."

Then neither does yours, and that is where my complaint about your basic honesty comes in.

You also disagree with my evidence and say it doesn't add up."

It doesn't. Repeating that you believe it does, does not make it so. Again, I complain you are dishonest. Your FAITH does not transport you over the deficit of evidence. Adam and Eve were monogamous. The answer to that is "So what?" Polygynists had trouble in their marriages. The answer to that is two fold. So did monogamists, and we are sinful. Again, "So what?" Coming with a great number of stories that don't prove anything, still doesn't prove anything. If this were not something you held as an article of faith, then it would not be so hard to deal with you, but you flatter, you say "Nice points" you say you hadn't ever seen that before and I know what that is, it's a TACTIC. I think I am being agreed with so I don't go for the "nail down" and in the end, you have this business where your internal jury goes out, you reach a conclusion and you come back with "I just don't see it" and "we're at an impasse."

We're NOT at an impasse, we have gone far beyond that, you have utterly failed to prove your case and maintain that your earnest and sincere belief IS a case. Well and good, but only for you and you should not even be in this discussion. You should openly concede you have no case and make no mention of what it is that you BELIEVE. I don't care, I should not be asked to care and I'm not GOING to care.

What you have done here is admit defeat. Any contention that you have held your own is false sense all you did is state that you had a personally held take on the passages you use to lead you where you are, and you'd like to stick to it. All you can do is practice as you see fit. This is fine. I'll thank you not to state that it is what God preferred. It is only what you BELIEVE God preferred and that is not something for public consumption.

[JTownsend]

Hugh,
You are right

all you did is state that you had a personally held take on the passages you use to lead you where you are

I admit that I am a follower of Christ... and I'm suppose to be like Him... and he is monogamous with His bride, the Church... so I figure I should support monogamy too.

Again, you are right when you say

All you can do is practice as you see fit.

And in the words of Martin Luther, "Unless you can convince me by scripture or by clear reasoning, I am bound by my beliefs... I cannot and I will not recant. God help me. Amen"

Hugh, it seems you say I'm dishonest (evil ) because I don't agree with you. Let's carry that thought through... If everyone who disagrees with you is evil or dishonest, then you must be perfect. Now Hugh, buddy, I know you're not saying that, but that's what the ultimate conclusion ends up with.

I'm willing to admit I may be wrong on polygyny- I just haven't seen it yet. None of your arguments are able to convince me. Does your inability to convince me make me dishonest? No. As I said, neither of us agree and neither one thinks the other has a leg to stand on.

The only things that's left is to quit amicably or stand back and call each other names...

I would rather build unity between believers, even when we disagree. How about you?

(Jut so you know, I'm still praying for your hardships. May God bless you my friend.)

[Hugh McBryde]

No, you are dishonest because you deny straightforward logic and are selecting aspects of Adam's marriage to follow based on your preference. It's undeniable that Adam and Even married at an early age and had that marriage arranged at the earliest possible time, before Eve's creation. Eve was married to Adam from birth, yet you do not see it important to follow that aspect of their marriage, you claim you can't, but then allow that you could, but that you cannot in good conscience do so.

This is essential intellectual dishonesty and characterizing ME as selfishly claiming this dishonesty on the basis of your disagreement with me is yet another instance of such dishonesty.

You have NEVER said anything other than you don't think it's appropriate to betroth at such an early age. This is ARBITRARY. I have not by proving your arbitrariness in this matter proved a necessity for acceptance of polygyny, but I do severely limit your arguments, and you KNOW that, so you don't accept it. You don't want to fight your battle on the ridiculously small playing field that's left to you so you cling to this argument, and don't concede when you ought to.

I'll believe in the "unity of believers" you preach when a reformed denomination (not a liberal one) says that while it takes the position YOU do, that it can understand and accept sincere disagreement on the issue and accept members into it's body of believers that are polygynists, or believers in the practice. All you wish to do is extend the appearance of unity and conciliation, without actually having to be responsible for producing it.