How can Patriarchal Polygyny be a Christian view when Adam had only one Woman?
This is a common objection to plural unions. The argument goes like this: “God allowed people in the OT to have multiple women in a union in the OT but his ideal and perfect standard is for only one man to unite with one woman because this is how God set up the first couple in the Garden of Eden.” First, one must ask what the original purpose of Moses was for writing the first two chapters of Genesis? Evangelical scholar Dr. Bill Arnold has shown that several key points can be drawn from the first two chapters. First, God created everything in the universe by his sovereignty. Second, all that God created was good. Third, within this creative work God created a male and female as the climax of his creative acts. Fourth, this man, Adam, and this woman, Eve, were to relate and mate with one as husband and wife. Fifth, sexual relations between a male and female are holy as well the fruit of the union with children. Sixth, these humans were to take rule over the earth. Seventh, mankind was created to display the image of God and to relate to God.
To deduce more from the Genesis account than this is speculation. For one, to claim that the original order mandated monogamy because there were only two people in the original union of Adam and Eve misses the fact that if this were true then all animals should also be monogamous because of the natural order of things. Along with God making only one man and one woman he also made one pair of all the animals. This was to show that everything, both humans and animals, descended from one original pair. Obviously animals do not practice monogamous relationships as any person who has raised cats and dogs can plainly see. Thus the point of creation is that all of humanity was to come forth from one pair of humans. To add more to that then this is to read something into the text that Moses never intended.
If we attempt to claim that because Adam and Eve were the model, or the ideal, or the exact pattern to prove the one man to only one woman doctrine then we have made some serious logical errors. One does not have to be a philosopher to see this is a problem. It is easy to see this line of thinking would be arguing from a particular to the general which is putting the cart before the horse. If we use this form of logic in interpreting the details of Genesis we develop many scenarios that none of us would dare say. I will structure several arguments using the common reasoning brought to the text that tries to build a one man to only one woman doctrine from this one example and demonstrate how ludicrous this conclusion is.
1. The first marriage was monogamous therefore all marriages must/should be monogamous.
2. The first child born was male therefore all first born children must/should be male.
3. The first man and woman were married therefore every man and woman must/should be
married.
The first conclusion rules Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Ezra, Gideon and most of the heroes of our faith out. Furthermore, it means that Christ’s example of being married to his multiple members (the churches) that constitute his one body where he is the head over is incorrect. Of course some will claim Christ is married to only one church, which is not true but we will prove that later. For now it is enough to show that holy men, men who died and went home to the Lord (Abraham; see Luke 16) were righteous and with multiple women in a union. The second conclusion rules out many of us having daughters first. The third conclusion rules out our Lord and possibly the Apostle Paul at least ofr a season in his life (there is a legitimate debate over was he in a union with a woman at some point).
This type of logic above is skewed thinking. The rationale behind it leaves us with a system of thought that is utterly contradictory. We can not go to this one example, which is only a brief scene in Scripture, and try and force that scene onto every other area of the Bible. The creation scene is only two chapters and we only see a very brief glimpse of Adam and Eve’s life here.
Henceforth, we must then also note that we do not know what Adam and Eve did after they were cast from the Garden and after the birth of their children. We do know that for a time his children had to marry one another for the race to expand. There was no law at this point about intermarriage among the brothers and sisters. When you consider that Adam lived to around 930 years of age does that then allow room for him to marry a distant granddaughter? We simply do not know. Now, if you are reading this and something inside of you just shuttered at the thought of kin having sexual relations with one another then stop and think long and hard. You are probably infected with the idea that sex is bad, commonly a sin known as asceticism. At this point in history because the DNA had yet to break down there was no risk in brothers and sisters uniting with one another. If you admit that some of Adam and Eve’s children had to join one another then that in and of itself is enough to show that if a brother and sister could unite with one another without a violation of order or sexual decency laws then why not a great great great granddaughter uniting with Adam? If Adam was middle aged at age 450 then why could he not marry a lady who was 250 years old? A brother and sister are closer in DNA than a great great great granddaughter.
Thus if you admit that Adam and Eve’s children had to intermarry at this point in the human race to populate the earth, and that was not sinful, then there is no sin or harm done in thinking two more distant relatives could marry. Again, we are not saying Adam did marry another. We just do not know because the Bible is totally silent on this. To say he did or he did not is total speculation. But this is to simply show that one cannot make Adam a case for monogamy. It is also to suggest that we cannot claim that it would have been sinful for Adam to join another lady because had he done so this would mean he married a family member. At that time brothers and sisters had to unite with one another to populate the earth. Later God regulated against this because a union of two who were too close in kin would hurt the children who were to come from that union. As the DNA of mankind broke down two people with very close DNA would also mean they shared similar genetic defects. A union of those two DNA codes would then almost invariably produce a genetic defect in the baby. Furthermore, God’s purpose is to spread over the earth and to expand through missions. Reaching out past one’s family was a good missional effort.
Also, one must consider God’s wisdom in this matter. Does it not make sense that God would only give Adam one woman to begin with? After all, Adam did not do too well with his first leadership role now did he? Adam, the head of the human race, was to guide, lead, protect, and love his mate Eve. Yet he failed at doing this. As with anything it makes sense when one thinks of Christ’s words about faithfulness. He who is faithful over a little will be made a ruler over much. Adam was not very faithful with what he did have. This is not to suggest one way or the other if Adam ever took another woman. But it is to suggest that God likely would not have given Adam more than one to begin with because he had to learn and mature in how to lead a wife before he could ever govern more.
Lastly, to suggest that because Adam was given only one wife in Eden that this demands that all should strive for this goal defies other portions of Scripture. Are not some called to be celibate? If this text is the absolute norm for all people then all people ought to unite with a woman. The point is therefore that some will not be united, some will unite only once, and some men will unite to more than one woman. The totality of Scripture must be examined. One can not justify the idea of picking and choosing what verses to honor and others being rejected. Many scriptures speak of some men, holy men, having multiple women they are in promise with or in covenant with. Thus the original account of Adam and Eve cannot be superimposed onto the other passages of the Bible.
This is a common objection to plural unions. The argument goes like this: “God allowed people in the OT to have multiple women in a union in the OT but his ideal and perfect standard is for only one man to unite with one woman because this is how God set up the first couple in the Garden of Eden.” First, one must ask what the original purpose of Moses was for writing the first two chapters of Genesis? Evangelical scholar Dr. Bill Arnold has shown that several key points can be drawn from the first two chapters. First, God created everything in the universe by his sovereignty. Second, all that God created was good. Third, within this creative work God created a male and female as the climax of his creative acts. Fourth, this man, Adam, and this woman, Eve, were to relate and mate with one as husband and wife. Fifth, sexual relations between a male and female are holy as well the fruit of the union with children. Sixth, these humans were to take rule over the earth. Seventh, mankind was created to display the image of God and to relate to God.
To deduce more from the Genesis account than this is speculation. For one, to claim that the original order mandated monogamy because there were only two people in the original union of Adam and Eve misses the fact that if this were true then all animals should also be monogamous because of the natural order of things. Along with God making only one man and one woman he also made one pair of all the animals. This was to show that everything, both humans and animals, descended from one original pair. Obviously animals do not practice monogamous relationships as any person who has raised cats and dogs can plainly see. Thus the point of creation is that all of humanity was to come forth from one pair of humans. To add more to that then this is to read something into the text that Moses never intended.
If we attempt to claim that because Adam and Eve were the model, or the ideal, or the exact pattern to prove the one man to only one woman doctrine then we have made some serious logical errors. One does not have to be a philosopher to see this is a problem. It is easy to see this line of thinking would be arguing from a particular to the general which is putting the cart before the horse. If we use this form of logic in interpreting the details of Genesis we develop many scenarios that none of us would dare say. I will structure several arguments using the common reasoning brought to the text that tries to build a one man to only one woman doctrine from this one example and demonstrate how ludicrous this conclusion is.
1. The first marriage was monogamous therefore all marriages must/should be monogamous.
2. The first child born was male therefore all first born children must/should be male.
3. The first man and woman were married therefore every man and woman must/should be
married.
The first conclusion rules Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Ezra, Gideon and most of the heroes of our faith out. Furthermore, it means that Christ’s example of being married to his multiple members (the churches) that constitute his one body where he is the head over is incorrect. Of course some will claim Christ is married to only one church, which is not true but we will prove that later. For now it is enough to show that holy men, men who died and went home to the Lord (Abraham; see Luke 16) were righteous and with multiple women in a union. The second conclusion rules out many of us having daughters first. The third conclusion rules out our Lord and possibly the Apostle Paul at least ofr a season in his life (there is a legitimate debate over was he in a union with a woman at some point).
This type of logic above is skewed thinking. The rationale behind it leaves us with a system of thought that is utterly contradictory. We can not go to this one example, which is only a brief scene in Scripture, and try and force that scene onto every other area of the Bible. The creation scene is only two chapters and we only see a very brief glimpse of Adam and Eve’s life here.
Henceforth, we must then also note that we do not know what Adam and Eve did after they were cast from the Garden and after the birth of their children. We do know that for a time his children had to marry one another for the race to expand. There was no law at this point about intermarriage among the brothers and sisters. When you consider that Adam lived to around 930 years of age does that then allow room for him to marry a distant granddaughter? We simply do not know. Now, if you are reading this and something inside of you just shuttered at the thought of kin having sexual relations with one another then stop and think long and hard. You are probably infected with the idea that sex is bad, commonly a sin known as asceticism. At this point in history because the DNA had yet to break down there was no risk in brothers and sisters uniting with one another. If you admit that some of Adam and Eve’s children had to join one another then that in and of itself is enough to show that if a brother and sister could unite with one another without a violation of order or sexual decency laws then why not a great great great granddaughter uniting with Adam? If Adam was middle aged at age 450 then why could he not marry a lady who was 250 years old? A brother and sister are closer in DNA than a great great great granddaughter.
Thus if you admit that Adam and Eve’s children had to intermarry at this point in the human race to populate the earth, and that was not sinful, then there is no sin or harm done in thinking two more distant relatives could marry. Again, we are not saying Adam did marry another. We just do not know because the Bible is totally silent on this. To say he did or he did not is total speculation. But this is to simply show that one cannot make Adam a case for monogamy. It is also to suggest that we cannot claim that it would have been sinful for Adam to join another lady because had he done so this would mean he married a family member. At that time brothers and sisters had to unite with one another to populate the earth. Later God regulated against this because a union of two who were too close in kin would hurt the children who were to come from that union. As the DNA of mankind broke down two people with very close DNA would also mean they shared similar genetic defects. A union of those two DNA codes would then almost invariably produce a genetic defect in the baby. Furthermore, God’s purpose is to spread over the earth and to expand through missions. Reaching out past one’s family was a good missional effort.
Also, one must consider God’s wisdom in this matter. Does it not make sense that God would only give Adam one woman to begin with? After all, Adam did not do too well with his first leadership role now did he? Adam, the head of the human race, was to guide, lead, protect, and love his mate Eve. Yet he failed at doing this. As with anything it makes sense when one thinks of Christ’s words about faithfulness. He who is faithful over a little will be made a ruler over much. Adam was not very faithful with what he did have. This is not to suggest one way or the other if Adam ever took another woman. But it is to suggest that God likely would not have given Adam more than one to begin with because he had to learn and mature in how to lead a wife before he could ever govern more.
Lastly, to suggest that because Adam was given only one wife in Eden that this demands that all should strive for this goal defies other portions of Scripture. Are not some called to be celibate? If this text is the absolute norm for all people then all people ought to unite with a woman. The point is therefore that some will not be united, some will unite only once, and some men will unite to more than one woman. The totality of Scripture must be examined. One can not justify the idea of picking and choosing what verses to honor and others being rejected. Many scriptures speak of some men, holy men, having multiple women they are in promise with or in covenant with. Thus the original account of Adam and Eve cannot be superimposed onto the other passages of the Bible.