• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Is polygyny different under the New Covenant?

B

Bartato

Seasoned Member
Male
Do you have any thoughts?

Many Christians (wrongly) think that polygamy is now no longer lawful.

We understand that it is lawful and can therefore be done in a manner pleasing to Christ.

At the same time, I also believe that the polygamous man of God must now practice it somehow very differently this side of the cross and the empty tomb.

Perhaps you might share some insights with me. We have some deep thinkers here, and I hope we can help sharpen our understanding.

Here are a few of my thoughts.

I'd argue "No" in the sense that the basic moral law of God is universal. Marriage is what it is, and the definition hasn't changed. The Creator clearly defines it for us in the Torah. The man is the head, and the woman (or women) is the helpmate.

I'd also argue "Yes" in the sense that the life, ministry, teaching, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ radically changed EVERYTHING!

The kingdoms of this world are being smashed and replaced by the kingdom of God, in Christ.

It's my conviction that the believer is personally bound to the risen Son of God Himself rather than being bound to the Law (Romans 7). Nevertheless, the Law is not done away with. Instead, it is now even more earnestly followed by the Saints. The Law is from God, from the Logos Himself. We love it and follow it because we love, fear, believe in, and hope in Him.

Let's look at slavery as a possible parallel moral/legal category.

The Torah permits and regulates slavery.
The book of Philemon indicates that slavery isn't necessary done away with in the New Testament, but it has now radically changed for the Christian. The slave is now more importantly a beloved brother and co-heir of Christ. The master and the slave are both slaves of Christ and free men in Christ.

Returning to the topic of marriage, we see that the man is still the head, and the woman still the helpmeet, yet there is now another dimension to their relationship. They are now both also co-heirs with Christ. They are also brother and sister, belonging to Christ.

Our father Jacob was a righteous polygamous man. He honored God and behaved properly toward his wives. God was pleased with him. His father Isaac was likewise upright and righteous in his monogamous marriage. He also pleased God.

I believe it is now possible under the New Covenant, for the Christian man to do even better, and to please God even more deeply whether he has one wife or more than one.

While I'm sure there were heathy and happy monogamous and polygynous household's in Old Testament Israel, I also believe the Spirit filled, and Spirit led Christian household has a new Divine power to soar to even greater heights of blessedness.
 
I noticed that Joleneakamama liked the post.

She and her family seem to be a blessed polygynous household, demonstrating Christian patriarchal polygyny in a beautiful way.
 
I think it remains unchanged because scripture does not say anything has changed as far as I've been able to find. Our relationship to God has changed, but the relationship between husband and wife has not. The example God gave us in the OT of Him with His wives is still the same example of Christ with His wives.
 
NickF said:
I think it remains unchanged because scripture does not say anything has changed as far as I've been able to find. Our relationship to God has changed, but the relationship between husband and wife has not. The example God gave us in the OT of Him with His wives is still the same example of Christ with His wives.
Click to expand...
I think you hit the nail on the head, and I will message you the rest of my thoughts separately so this thread doesn't get locked also. 🤣
 
NickF said:
I think it remains unchanged because scripture does not say anything has changed as far as I've been able to find. Our relationship to God has changed, but the relationship between husband and wife has not. The example God gave us in the OT of Him with His wives is still the same example of Christ with His wives.
Click to expand...
Right. The nature of the institution of marriage hasn't changed.

Maybe it more that the hearts of the men and women are changed.

I do think marriage (both monogynous and polygynous) can now be more glorious than it was before.
 
Bartato said:
Returning to the topic of marriage, we see that the man is still the head, and the woman still the helpmeet, yet there is now another dimension to their relationship. They are now both also co-heirs with Christ. They are also brother and sister, belonging to Christ.
Click to expand...
NickF said:
I think it remains unchanged because scripture does not say anything has changed as far as I've been able to find. Our relationship to God has changed, but the relationship between husband and wife has not. The example God gave us in the OT of Him with His wives is still the same example of Christ with His wives.
Click to expand...
I agree, Nick. Men and women were always co-children of God.
 
Keith Martin said:
I agree, Nick. Men and women were always co-children of God.
Click to expand...
In one sense yes:

"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:38 NKJV)

We all descend from Adam, who was formed by God. Therefore, in that sense we are all His children.

In a deeper sense, only those who believe Jesus are the children of God.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

John chapter 8 tells us that the Jewish leaders who rejected Christ were not the children of God, but were instead the children of the devil.

When I am talking about brothers and sisters in Christ, I'm talking in terms of inheritance. In that sense, God doesn't seem to have sons and daughters. Instead, He has One Son, who is the Heir of everything, and that Son has a people who belong to Him (us believers) that are co-heirs in Him.

We aren't younger sons that inherit less, or daughters that do not inherit. Instead, we are in the Firstborn (and only begotten) Son who inherits everything.
 
Bartato said:
In one sense yes:

"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:38 NKJV)

We all descend from Adam, who was formed by God. Therefore, in that sense we are all His children.

In a deeper sense, only those who believe Jesus are the children of God.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

John chapter 8 tells us that the Jewish leaders who rejected Christ were not the children of God, but were instead the children of the devil.

When I am talking about brothers and sisters in Christ, I'm talking in terms of inheritance. In that sense, God doesn't seem to have sons and daughters. Instead, He has One Son, who is the Heir of everything, and that Son has a people who belong to Him (us believers) that are co-heirs in Him.

We aren't younger sons that inherit less, or daughters that do not inherit. Instead, we are in the Firstborn (and only begotten) Son who inherits everything.
Click to expand...
Are you asserting that female Israelite believers in Yahweh were not equally children of Yahweh until Christ appeared?
 
Keith Martin said:
Are you asserting that female Israelite believers in Yahweh were not equally children of Yahweh until Christ appeared?
Click to expand...
Do you mean equal children with the male Israelite believers in Yahweh prior to the appearance of Christ, or equal children with believers post death, resurrection, and ascension?

I'm not sure about the first. Regarding the second, I would say that they weren't prior to the coming of Christ, but have since been made equal through the Work of Christ retroactively applied to them.
 
Bartato said:
She and her family seem to be a blessed polygynous household, demonstrating Christian patriarchal polygyny in a beautiful way.
Click to expand...
That is what we hope. I certainly feel blessed personally, but we have also seen new opportunities open up for our family in the last year too.....and the littlest blessing is loved by everyone!

I hope more people will come to see it as a viable and good option.
 
Bartato said:
Do you mean equal children with the male Israelite believers in Yahweh prior to the appearance of Christ?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Please excuse the inadequate construction of my question.
Bartato said:
I'm not sure about the first.
Click to expand...
Well, if you do think it's possible that women were unequal to men in YHWH's eyes prior to Christ's birth, passion and resurrection, I see absolutely nothing in any part of Scripture that would support such a view or provide any evidence that women were inferior beings in His Eyes before, during or after Yeshua's appearance. The Hierarchy asserted by Paul in I Corinthians 11:3 is not evidence of inferiority relative to either Yeshua or His Father, before or after Yeshua's life on Earth.

I'm neither casting aspersions on you nor assuming that you don't recognize this, but a subtle but highly meaningful distinction needs to be grokked between 'unequal' and 'inferior.' Men and women are not equal, as in women are not men's equals, but that doesn't make women inferior to men or men superior to women.

Nonetheless, I can't hitch my sails to a viewpoint that asserts that Christ's entrance into humanity created any new sense of equality between men and women. This, to me, smacks of propaganda peddled by feminist-dominated modern denominational Corporate Churchianity, which, in essence, is promoted in order to subtly ignore the appropriateness of male headship and to less subtly actually advance the notion that women are indeed superior to men.
 
Keith Martin said:
Yes.

Please excuse the inadequate construction of my question.

Well, if you do think it's possible that women were unequal to men in YHWH's eyes prior to Christ's birth, passion and resurrection, I see absolutely nothing in any part of Scripture that would support such a view or provide any evidence that women were inferior beings in His Eyes before, during or after Yeshua's appearance. The Hierarchy asserted by Paul in I Corinthians 11:3 is not evidence of inferiority relative to either Yeshua or His Father, before or after Yeshua's life on Earth.

I'm neither casting aspersions on you nor assuming that you don't recognize this, but a subtle but highly meaningful distinction needs to be grokked between 'unequal' and 'inferior.' Men and women are not equal, as in women are not men's equals, but that doesn't make women inferior to men or men superior to women.

Nonetheless, I can't hitch my sails to a viewpoint that asserts that Christ's entrance into humanity created any new sense of equality between men and women. This, to me, smacks of propaganda peddled by feminist-dominated modern denominational Corporate Churchianity, which, in essence, is promoted in order to subtly ignore the appropriateness of male headship and to less subtly actually advance the notion that women are indeed superior to men.
Click to expand...
I agree. Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top