Polygamy: Legalism or Sexism

[JTownsend]

Thanks Hugh and Robert for sticking through this discussion.
Here are my conclusions from our discussion:

I see that monogamy is still directed and encouraged, being the form of marriage instituted in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:24), and enjoyed by Christ (Eph 5:23,24), and directed for the leaders of the Church in the New Testament age (1 Tim 3:2). At the same time, God allows for limited situations of polygyny as a divine form of protection and provision for the innocent due to the ramifications of sin in this world (Gen 38:8-11, Deut 25:5-10, Exodus 22:17, 2nd Sam 12:8).

This limited allowance for polygyny is always a grace given by God for the innocent party. As such any mass application of polygyny has not been proven by scripture. In fact Deuteronomy 17:17 warns about many wives, commanding against the practice, again reminding us of the limited nature of polygyny.

Though I still see monogamy as preferred, and even directed, polygyny, in those cases where it is applicable, should also not be looked down upon. In fact, in those limited cases where polygyny is apparently prescribed by the law, it should be embraced and encouraged, just as we should embrace and encourage all kindness given us by God. If we do not embrace God's kindness then we are dishonored (Deut 25:9).

For reference:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/con/ntb/v ... mber=T3913
http://www.searchgodsword.org/con/ntb/v ... mber=T3214

Is there anything that it seems I have overlooked?

[Hugh McBryde]

I see that monogamy is still directed and encouraged, being the form of marriage instituted in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:24), and enjoyed by Christ (Eph 5:23,24), and directed for the leaders of the Church in the New Testament age (1 Tim 3:2). At the same time, God allows for limited situations of polygyny as a divine form of protection and provision for the innocent due to the ramifications of sin in this world (Gen 38:8-11, Deut 25:5-10, Exo 22:17, 2nd Sam 12:8)."

In Eph 5, Gen 2:24 is quoted. You perform slight of hand to say that in Genesis, monogamy is the preferred form of marriage. You're just making things up. REGARDLESS OF LIMITED APPLICATION, GOD COMMANDS MEN TO BECOME POLYGYNOUS, EVEN AS A SIDE EFFECT, THIS MEANING HAS TO BE ALLOWED AND BUILT INTO GEN 2:24. Again I point out that NO ONE is commanded to marry, and an honest disputant realizes that Levirate law probably produced more polygynies than monogamies.

I too see that monogamy is directed & encouraged, but you clearly mean this as a preference, & that is dishonest. The preference is in your mind. If in Eden, a monogamy is created, and the monogamy is such an UNIMPORTANT aspect of that marriage that the language and the culture surrounding and using it didn't even have a word for it, I fail to see how a polygynous man (Moses) penned a passage before, after or during the receiving of the Law that instituted a preference for that unnamed practice.

This limited allowance for polygyny is always a grace given by God for the innocent party."

By abusing an existing wife with the addition of another? How CATHOLIC. Are we going to start with indulgences again? I don't care WHO you reference, this is made up out of whole cloth, out of the necessity of explaining away a practice that was regulated because it was thoroughly righteous. Why is Hannah the wife of Elkanah? David the husband of Abigail? Why did Jehoiada give Joash TWO wives? Was it for the failure to produce children?

As such any mass application of polygyny has not been proven by scripture."

The vast majority of men whose marital state we can make conclusions about, that are described as principle and Godly figures, were polygynous. Again you are dishonest and suppose that marriage = monogamy and thus polygyny = exception. Marriage was an act a man could undertake many times while his other marriages were still in place.

In fact Deuteronomy 17:17 warns about many wives, commanding against the practice, again reminding us of the limited nature of polygyny."

Wrong, and I have directed you to a proof written by me. Did you not read it, because you merely assert and do not answer it. The particular form of "rabah" is to indicate a great many, not two.

Is there anything that it seems I have overlooked?"

It seems to me you make a big show of understanding and using flattering words, and then get convenient amnesia.

[JTownsend]

Hugh,
I feel rather playful with your antagonistic response... so here's my 2 cents.

If you can show me how Genesis 1 and 2 intended polygyny, then I will consider changing my views on it. Until you can show 2 wives I will stick with the scriptures which show that God gave 1 wife to Adam. To refresh your memory, 1 spouse is called m-o-n-o-g-a-m-y.

When I said that there was limited allowance for polygyny and that polygyny seems intended for only limited circumstances to provide for an innocent person... You totally missed that... didn't you? According to all Biblical regulations we have there are only a very few verses that give a conditional command to marry... and if you take the time to notice, in each circumstance the woman is at a specific stage of disadvantage. Would you deny God's mercy to justify your own ideas? Shame on you. God gives grace TO THE INNOCENT PERSON and yet you liken it to the sins of the Catholic church. Isn't it nice God commands we provide for the spouse of a dead brother instead of leaving her fend for herself? Isn't it nice that God wants to retain the dignity of a young girl as opposed to having her live life as some harlot? And you want to take God's grace away from these people. Tisk tisk. If you can show me where God says we can marry anyone we want and as many wives as we want, then I will consider your position. Until that time I will have to keep to the example of Adam and Christ, and of the leaders of the New Testament age, and limit polygyny to those cases the Bible seems to indicate are allowable.

You point out that many people in the Bible were polygynyous, as though that makes it "alright". Well everyone is a sinner... even good people. And yet sin isn't okay. You can't justify polygyny by saying "everyone else is doing it." If everyone else jumped off a cliff would you...? Don't answer that.

As for Deuteronomy 17... you evidently didn't understand what I wrote. Here - I'll say it again in smaller words: God allows multiple wives in limited circumstances but he also gives us a warning about having lots of wives. Funny thing is I never limited my statement to just 1 or 2... but you still had to try to paint it that way. Now who's the dishonest one here? Me for sticking to scripture... or you for putting words in my mouth?

To sum things up, you say:

Adam's 1 wife was really a polygyny
We shouldn't show God's grace to women
We should live in sin since "everyone's doing it"
and you like to call me dishonest for sticking to scripture while you put words in my mouth.

All kidding aside, I admit that I was wrong on polygyny. I thought it was merely an abuse of men. But here I have found that there are limited situations where God allows it, and that we should encourage God's grace in those times. I still think that most of the cases of polygyny were abuses of men, but now I understand that scripture did allow some.

[Hugh McBryde]

If you can show me how Genesis 1 and 2 intended polygyny, then I will consider changing my views on it."

I did already, I experience great frustration with you JT, then feel bad about that, and then feel bad about the regret of my frustration, in the first place. One of several very disturbing things is in place. Playful JT? This is deadly serious stuff. If you're in this just for fun, then please, grace someone else with your mirth.

Next, if it's not just amusement you're after, then you seem to shine people on, because I have shown how Genesis 2:24 speaks to polygyny, yet you answer those assertions as if you accept and understand them, and then return to your original position that you didn't see it. If you didn't see it, then you should have raised the objection then. Are you not reading and pretending that you have?

Or are you just possessed of a bad memory?

Or are you maliciously recycling arguments because it irritates and you get a kick out of it?

Once more, WHATEVER is meant by Genesis 2:24, it was written by a polygynous man. Clearly, he did not see as excluding or degrading polygyny when compared to monogamy. For all we know JT, Genesis, while it's events occur before Deuteronomy, was largely written at the same time or after Deuteronomy, and thus Levirate Law could easily have been penned, along with God's regulation of polygyny in Exodus 21 before anyone ever puts Genesis 2:24 to paper. Since God compels polygyny as easily and perhaps more often than monogamy as the result of Levirate Law, and the passages were written in the lifetime of Moses, and Christ harks back to them in Matthew 19 and in verse 8 says WHATEVER they meant, that meaning doesn't change, we are forced to conclude that polygyny is built into Genesis 2:24, or things DID change. Christ says they don't.

It's a chalk line JT, from the beginning to Moses, through the entire law, straight without deviation to Christ (who was there in the beginning) when he utters the words of Matthew 19:8, "But from the beginning, it was not so." Again, whatever Genesis 2:24 meant (the verse Christ quoted) it has an undeviating meaning throughout Biblical history. To say then, that it preferred monogamy over polygyny when there is no evidence of this whatsoever in the law, is to deny Christ, who says nothing at all, changes. No one of that time, interpreted it as we seem to now.

You are not more expert, than Jehoiada, the High Priest of Israel.

[JTownsend]

Hugh,
Why get all upset? Just deal with the arguments.
I wasn't the one who said

You're just making things up.

or

but you clearly mean ... & that is dishonest.

or

How CATHOLIC

like simply being Catholic is an insult, or

I don't care WHO you reference

SPECIFICALLY when I reference a long list of applicable scripture, or

Again you are dishonest

and one of my favorites

Or are you just possessed of a bad memory?

Oh- and here's another one

Wrong, and I have directed you to a proof written by me

(supporting your view with your own viewpoint<-- that's a good one)

How should I respond to such goading Hugh? You are not the knight on the white horse like you try to seem. Are you being at all respectful with these slurs? I doubt you would be so respectful if someone did the same to you... as my last post CLEARLY illustrated. I respectfully request an apology.

See Hugh... I've been very polite. I think God want's people to be polite even in their disagreements. And I even appreciated it when you made statements such as:

Thanks for your patience with me. I am crotchety to say the least.

It shows you poses a higher moral fiber.

Your arguments that Moses was a polygynist does not validate polygyny. We are sticking to the scriptures, and you must validate your argument with scripture. You've given logical arguments, but no Biblical arguments for absolute polygyny. Your arguments end in conditional polygyny, which I fully admit and agree with. I admit that there are conditional commands to marry that would have allowed polygyny, that it was one of God's means of grace, And I thank you for this insight.

[Hugh McBryde]

Just deal with the arguments."

I can't. You ignore mine, or agree with them, and then back up on them.

like simply being Catholic is an insult"

It isn't. I'm married to a Roman Catholic. The point is that you are selling indulgences.

SPECIFICALLY when I reference a long list of applicable scripture"

I was referring to a study you linked to outside the forum. It's not YOUR work is it? Furthermore, I do think you are either sandbagging me, teasing or can't remember.

supporting your view with your own viewpoint<-- that's a good one)"

No, it's a long argument, constructed by me, that doesn't fit in this forum. Did you read it? I'd publish it here, but I can't.

I respectfully request an apology."

You're not getting one.

I've been very polite."

My view is you're flattering. This is not just my observation. The discussion/argument seems to progress, and suddenly you press the reset button and go back to old arguments as if no discussion had taken place. I can make no progress with you because you renege on past agreements. I will not waste my time repeating myself ad nauseum, to have you agree, then have you pretend you never did.

[Lionroot]

To be fair, I have to say that JT has come a long way.
Already, he is stretching his neck out as he makes the declarations he did.
His concessions will not endear him to true MOPs.

I believe his journey has just begun.

JT, I would be curious of how you have created the distinctions that do not exist in the language, much less the scripture.

I noticed that you attributed the Levitical law to grace to the widow, but that is not what the text says. It certainly holds providence for her, but it is not about her.

I think you have jumped ahead...thats why you have gotten snagged on the Leviticus reference. That is not a monogamy mandate, rather its a constraining mandate not to have a great many. Expicitly it allows polygyny for the Kings of Isreal.

There are many scriptures still to explore...
Like verses in Numbers that give us an idea of how many families were polygnous... it might just surprise you.

I think you might have done what you were trying not to do. That is draw conclusions with incomplete evidence. Levitical marriage is just one brick in the position that I have taken. Yes, I want you to see it for what it is, but that doesnt require you to make a rush play to the endzone. It does not settle the issue by a long shot.

...breath a little bit, and we can discuss more, as you feel comfortable.

God Bless,

Robert

[Hugh McBryde]

A further point about citing Catholicism, in a seemingly pejorative way. It is not a slap against Catholicism, it is an insult directed at the reformation. I am subjected constantly to the notion that we in the reformation (this is Gary's forum, right?) have a better view of the truth. To sell retroactive indulgences to the Israelites in the form of "protecting" the innocent is nothing more than the practice that Luther railed against.

[JTownsend]

Robert,
Thanks for the compliment. No matter how I see things, I hope to never become set in my ways so much that I ignore scripture. I know we all have troubles with some things... but there is a big difference between having trouble with something and completely ignoring it. I hope I never fall into the latter. MOPers might not agree - but I think we have shown conclusively that polygyny is allowable at some level.

You asked

JT, I would be curious of how you have created the distinctions that do not exist in the language, much less the scripture.
I noticed that you attributed the Levitical law to grace to the widow, but that is not what the text says. It certainly holds providence for her, but it is not about her.

Let me try to answer.

God's law always upholds righteousness. It's not only about convicting the guilty, but also protecting the innocent. The command to not murder can also be understood by the antithesis, to preserve life. There's some fancy phrase for this, but I'm a simple man with simple words. The law is TO the murderer, but there is also a victim involved. The law is as much to protect the victim as to condemn the murderer.

God always works by principles and never simple laws. All His laws are principles, not simple commands. Jesus constantly corrected the teachers of the law because they always followed the letter of the law and not the spirit. Well, we should learn from that, learning to identify and apply the principles and not just the simple letter of the law.

In the case of Exodus 22 where the young girl has been lured from following her father I see that 2 people are directly involved:(1) the perpetrator, and (2) the victim. In this case the young girl is the victim. The man is at fault, but the girl is the victim. God's law tells us not only to punish sin, but also to uphold righteousness. How can the victim be vindicated in this instance? Answering that question is how I came to my conclusions.

When considering Deuteronomy 25, who is the victim etc? The wife is the victim- a victim of the curse of death caused by sin. The wife has had her husband and leader stolen from her. Though we might not be able to punish "sin" itself in this case, how can we vindicate and repay her for her loss?

So, how do I draw distinctions that are not in the language? By trying to understand the principles God has laid out in His law.

Most people, amazingly still today, never consider the commandments as interrelated principles. And neither would I had not someone painstakingly instructed me.

Does that make sense? Did I explain it clearly?


And by the way, those "studies" linked outside the forum were actually just a long list of Biblical passages from an online study tool http://www.searchgodsword.org
It was just a list of scripture passages that would be helpful for us all.

FYI- I never post quickly and always reread my posts many times. Prov 15:1

[Lionroot]

... I hope to never become set in my ways so much that I ignore scripture. I know we all have troubles with some things... but there is a big difference between having trouble with something and completely ignoring it.

Amen

... I think we have shown conclusively that polygyny is allowable at some level.

Which moves you firmly out of the "monogamy only" position. In truth you stepped out of that position when you understood that polygyny is not a sin. Perhaps though you are beginning to see the ramifications of that truth.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear when I asked about "distinctions". Specifically I was referring to the fact that the Biblical Hebrew draws no distinction between monogamy and polygamy in the sense that there are no words that categorize them as different. There is just "ish shah" (Heb: woman, women, wife, wives) and marriage, that is translated from several words for "give", "take", "join" and other words. Which adds to the point there is no specific word even for "marry"...but that is what we call it, so that is how it is translated.

Understanding that, how does the Levitical law impact a single man different from a married man? How is it "justice" for an innocent man to be imposed upon by the Law with his brothers widow? How is it justice for the wife of the man whose brother died to be imposed with an inferior situation? (That still represents your position. Right?)

The wages of sin is death( Romans 6:23), not marriage. A man who finds a wife is shown favor with God(proverbs 18:22), not punishment. David's own wives were listed among the blessings God had given him.(2Samuel 12:8)

God always works by principles and never simple laws. All His laws are principles, not simple commands.

I would not argue that. I would just add that the law illustrates his ways, or his principles.

Jesus constantly corrected the teachers of the law because they always followed the letter of the law and not the spirit.

I wish you would be more specific. There were certainly times when Jesus corrected them, not because they followed the law, but because they did not. Substituting tradition instead. (Mat 15:3,6, Mark 7:8-9,13)

Well, we should learn from that, learning to identify and apply the principles and not just the simple letter of the law.

Agreed...and we discover those principles through God's word...

[JTownsend]

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

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.

Understanding that(the whole "ish shah" thing), how does the Levitical law impact a single man different from a married man? How is it "justice" for an innocent man to be imposed upon by the Law with his brothers widow?

Excellent question. I would submit that there is no way to be perfectly equal when it comes to dealing with sin. Once sin comes into the picture you can never actually fix things like new. It's a curse of sin. For example, divorce.

In Divorce two people often divide their belongings how they best see fit. They compromise on what they want. The problem is this isn't justice, it's compromise. They own things equally, so perhaps they should divide things equally; shoes, pants, and dressess, car, etc. But when this happens all things become worthless. So they compromise.

I would argue that all sin is always like this. Take rape for example. How can we ever make things right? You can never return what has been stolen, even if we carry out Biblical justice of capital punishment. Further more the victim will always live with the memory. In the case of Exodus 22, the girl is taken advantage of - so how can we best compromise for all those involved? The scripture answers this.

There's a saying when dealing with unwanted things "You can live with a turd, but try to polish it and you just smear it around." Sin is like that. We can live with it, or we can shovel it out of our lives... but when we gotta get down and handle it - things just get messy. I don't think Polygyny is an "inferior" position, so much as a situation caused totally by sin. Once you are in the situation you need to deal with it, and I see polygyny as probably impossible to get out of. But should God place us in that position, then we should willingly fulfill our duty. But no one wants to live with the ramifications of sin.

[Hugh McBryde]

I don't think Polygyny is an 'inferior' position, so much as a situation caused totally by sin."

And you source this from what? This is really not a concession that it is not a sin. Let me tell you why.

I am being denied formal membership in my church. Why? Not because I practice polygyny, but because I believe it is not a sin. The practical effect of saying "it's not best" is to then squint, smile, lean forward, pat someone on the hand and say "we wouldn't want to sanction, what isn't best, now would we?"

This then becomes for all intents an purposes "Polygyny is a sin," because the church doesn't treat it any differently than a sin. In fact they are more accepting of situations like divorce, which is clearly stated to be a result of the fall, and always involves sin, either sin in the woman who is divorced, or sin in the man who divorces her without justification.

JT, no one cares what you think or feel. In a theological discussion they shouldn't care what I think or feel either. You cling to his idea that "monogamy is the ideal and what is best," yet you cannot prove that. The best you can come up with is "an elder is to be monogamous," which by the way is far from certain and "Adam and Eve were monogamous."

It would seem Christ never married and said that singleness is a good thing. Matthew 19:12 (ESV):

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

Paul would seem to relegate all of marriage to the place you send polygyny:

I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that." 1st Corinthians 7:26-28 (ESV)

This pernicious notion that "polygyny is not best" costs me, even though I am not a practitioner, and you can see how I resist accepting even that.