• 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.

Overcoming Objections To Plural Marriage: Topic 1

DocInFL said:
When God created mankind, He did not create humanity en masse, rather, He created one male and one female, and from this He commanded they be fruitful and multiply. God solemnized this union (Genesis 1:27, 2:22). This union was monogamous. Since this was the first marriage, it was the measuring rod for all future marriages. Therefore, polygyny is a lower form of marriage than monogamy, and not the ideal.

Responses?
Click to expand...

I agree with the statement. Jesus in His discourse on divorce stated that divorce "is not how it was in the beginning." I take the reference to "in the beginning" to mean pre-Fall man when there was Adam and Eve in Eden with God in absolute freedom. Monogamy is the pre-Fall state of mankind, that much seems clear.

But the point is that we are living in a post-Fall world and God allowed the creation of institutions in order to ameliorate man's post-Fall condition.

One such institution is God's division of mankind into "nations" after Babel. The point was to limit man's fallen pride by dividing mankind into national units that could more readily call forth man's feelings of love and loyalty - families extending to clans extending to tribes extending to nations - that man could by nature more easily live in in charity. Whereas mankind lived in unity "in the beginning" before the Fall, God in His wisdom lessened temptation to sin and by playing on man's instinctive preference for those related to him. It would be far better for mankind to be united as it was "in the beginning" but that's not possible now as we always get Babel when we try that, and dividing the world into nation states is the best that can be hoped for in this fallen world.

Another example of God's post-Fall mercy is the institution of Biblical slavery. I'm not talking about the sinful hereditary enslavement of an entire race that took place in this country, or the even more abominable slavery practiced in pagan Rome. I am talking about the right of a poor man to contract with a wealthier man to provide all of his labor for seven years (limited by law) in exchange for food, clothing and shelter. The slave in Godly slavery had rights that were enforceable in court. If the slave was with the household for a couple of seven year terms, the household had to care for him in his dotage. Biblical slavery was God's way of ensuring that the poor could find a place in a more prosperous household and avoid degrading privation. It is not at all the sort of absolute freedom that God willed for us "in the beginning" but it's better than living on the street and eating from a garbage heap.

I view polygyny is a similar light. Monogamy is the ideal since this is how it was "in the beginning" before sin and death entered the world. But after the Fall we have fewer marriageable men than women, due to male risk-taking, wars, alcoholism, laziness. Polygyny was God's way of caring for His daughters, helping them to avoid the privation of no sex, prostitution, single motherhood, by allowing more successful men to take another wife, sometimes more than one. And as in slavery, God limited the institution of polygyny and set rules for how the wives should be treated.

R. J. Rushdoony said (I'm paraphrasing) that polygyny is a lesser form of family, but it is family, and it should be allowed in order to protect women. Frankly, I fail to see how anybody could take an honest look at our current situation with all of these fatherless kids and uncared for single mothers who are forced into drudgery and sexual hookups just to meet their basic needs. How many of our young men are alcoholics, or homosexuals, or on drugs, or in jail or on parole, or are otherwise ill-educated ne'er-do-wells who work some dead-end job and play video games well into their thirties? Those fatherless kids need fathers now, not in some pie-in-the sky future when the Christian Right will have re-instituted monogamy (don't hold your breath). Those single mothers need dependable husbands now to meet their economic and sexual and emotional needs now and not after the Second Coming.

Polygyny is a lesser form of marriage, but it is Biblical marriage and all parties thereto deserve status and respect.

Polygyny is a lesser form of family, but it still is family, and the children have two parents (and hopefully a loving Aunty who is sister wife). They are not bastards - they have status and respect.

Polygyny must be at least tolerated in our society. We must either do that, or get serious about enforcing the adultery and sodomy laws, and that will never happen. Maybe limit the number of wives, but absolutely polygyny should be an option for women in our society, especially single mothers.
 
Interjecting something about forms of marriage that is nowhere in the Bible is suspect at best, and bears no fruit. I would suggest that posting the suggestion of plural marriage and families being of a lesser form is rude and thoughtless. Considering the site is home to many practicing plural families, an apology should be given to the families of this type that have been insulted by this trashy drivel that has NO scriptural foundation.

Somewhere a wife sits at her computer, struggling today with some issue that poly people face and comes on this site for support. Instead, some insensitive and ignorant fool types out that she is a lesser form of woman. Thanks a lot, you are an (word deleted by moderator).

How in the world does poly make a family or marriage into lesser form?
Is the second wife a lesser wife than the first?
The first wife is made lesser when her husband marries another? How does this happen?
Obeying God's holy ordinance of Levirate law made a man have a lesser family, and the man had no choice because he had to follow God's Law?
God's example of Himself with his two wives is a lesser form of marriage?

Please stop the madness, please, and think before you post.
 
Polygyny must be at least tolerated in our society.
Click to expand...

Hey Erskine,

You have some interesting thoughts there and many have come to similar conclusions as you have. If I recall corectly even the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Al Mohler, has arrived at a similar idea to what you have here. If I understand correctly he, along with some others, say that if people are already married and in this type of relationship they should remain as they are as it is indeed a family and a true marriage.

But, I find that this position has its own set of tensions in that if examined with a very careful and critical eye, along with the laws of logic applied, this mindset runs into some exegetical, historical, and theological errors that would lead one towards a different direction that is still more of a pro position than a negative, or tolerate only position.

But, if you never change your mind and come any further I do wish more would at least come to your position where it truly is tolerated. Many who are in this lifestyle have been treated very badly and have been damaged by the intolerant spirit.

I give you this challenge. Do all you can to at least move the monogamy only people to where you currently stand. If you accomplish that much with many you will have been a true aid for the cause of love among God's people.

Also, if you like, read over the historical article below on How and Why Polygyny, which at one time in the early churches was very common, eventually became uncommon. I think it might challenge your thinking about some things and expand your thinking in these matters. You can read that article here:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2063
 
Erskine Childers said:
R. J. Rushdoony said (I'm paraphrasing) that polygyny is a lesser form of family,...

Polygyny is a lesser form of marriage, but it is Biblical marriage and all parties thereto deserve status and respect.

Polygyny is a lesser form of family, but it still is family, and the children have two parents (and hopefully a loving Aunty who is sister wife).
Click to expand...



Erskine,
You could not be more wrong about these statements that you made. They are hurtful, degrading, incorrect, and inaccurate. Of all the people that I personally know who are living in a plural marriage, I would have to say that it really takes strength, courage, integrity, patience, & humility to make a plural marriage work and more so than a monogamous marriage. There is nothing wrong with monogamy by the way. It is not a lesser form of marriage nor is it a higher form of marriage. I am monogamous at the moment, but when I think about taking another wife I cannot begin to imagine how it is that I would be able to meet all the needs of my wives adequately. I am but one man with finite abilities and it is only by Yahuweh's grace that I ended up with such a wonderful wife that I have now. But with all the plural families that I personally know, they put a lot of time and effort and energy into making their marriage work and they are doing a good job at it. They are an inspiration not only to myself, but also to many others. They have a lot more time for family time. They have a lot more trusted people that they can lean on during the rough times. They have security in places that you would not even think about. Yahuweh did not punish king David with multiple wives. It was a reward. He even said that He would have given David more if that had not been enough. You have absolutely no basis for calling plural marriage a "lesser form of marriage". I agree with Paul in that you owe an apology to the board and especially to those wonderful people who are living in plural marriage.

Just speaking personally by the way.
 
Hey Erskine,
Let me take a minute or two here to chat with ya.

First, I understand your line of thinking. I think there is a more consistent conclusion than where you currently stand, but I do understand your thoughts in this, especially in light of reading some of the theologians you have read.

Second, as you did note it is better for those who need a father to have one than not to have any at all. I commend you for having an open mind in that regard and for operating in the spirit of love for thinking of what is good for another. Love is always defined as "doing what is good or best for another." Also, you have indeed arrived at the right conclusion that polygynous people are indeed a family and are justifiably in a true union. Though you seem to prefer or think it is not the ideal you have at least arrived at that position which is further towards the side of biblical truth on the continuum of positions offered in the Evangelical world.

But, as for the third point let me emphasize something to you here. You use the language of ideal versus not the ideal, yet you also must work with another set of terms: sin or righteousness.

The law of non-contradiction means that something cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time. In theology it would mean something can not both be right and wrong in the same sense at the same time in the same way.

Thus, I want to challenge you to think deeper on this subject. If you use the words sin or righteousness which side of the coin would you see a polygynous couple? Let us start with this situation just as a basic scenario for you to work with in your own mind as you try and think through these issues in a clearer way.

Scenario A: John is joined with Jane and they cleave to each other in a union for 2 years. John then unites to Becky and they cleave together for 2 years. Then while on a street corner John hears a fella share his testimony about Jesus Christ saving him. He comes under conviction and then is saved. He then leads both of his ladies to Christ. Now as a Christian family they must decide what to do. Does John remain as he is or does he put away one of the ladies? He weighs out his options and decides that since he is in a union with both that divorce is clearly a sin and there is no word against him having two ladies in the Bible so he keeps both and they live for Christ and love the Lord, his word, and work in their life to share the gospel of love with others.

Now, according to your confession as it stands, you already confess that this indeed is a family and a valid union.

But here is where the rubber hits the road so to speak. You have some verses in the NT that clearly condemn sexual immorality and even some verses that clearly without reservation say that no one who is born of God can practice sin.

I'll quote the verse for you here to examine:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homsexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

"No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother" (1 John 3:9-10).

Alright, now, if the people above remain in this, how do you deal with this in your view of things? If this is a "lesser family" as you call it, does that mean it is a sinful family, an unrighteous family, and that if they live in this for life that they will not make it to heaven? You at some point have to be able to answer this. Eternity is a serious issue and we either have to say it is sin or it is not sin because if it is sin and they live in it forever then the Bible says those people who practice something like sexual immorality will not make it to heaven.

Do you see the issue here? I understand your position about ideal versus the best. To some celibacy is the best option for them because they are designed that way. To some monogamy is the best as this where they are at in their walk at the current time. To some polygyny is an option that is better for them, as the scenario above displays.

But as saints we have to define things a little more in tune with more than just good or ideal versus not the ideal. We have to actually look into this deep enough to define it either as sin or not sin.

We certainly would do that for any other type of union. If two men were in a sexual union we would call it sin and tell them they were going to miss heaven if they live that way without repentance.

So too in this with a man and multiple women in a union. We have to take it one step further and discuss it in terms of whether it is sin or can it be righteous.

I know some of the passions have been strong in the posts over what you have said. The brothers here are just really passionate for their views and I think they might feel like you are attacking them for the practice of pm and thus they are coming forth with some strong stands against your position.

But like I said, your position does have some merit to it even if it is not fully developed to where it ought to be and can be if you think through this a little more. Gosh, I've met some who will not even admit as much as you have. Yet, I think you are sharp enough to become even more balanced and more biblical in your position if you will examine this even further. But be careful because if you slip a little in where you stand you might just oppose something that God himself never opposed.

So, what do you think in this area of sin versus righteousness. How would you counsel the people in Scenario A above? If we get through this one we can move to another Scenario in another post but I'm curious as to how you would handle this in light of the verses of Scripture I have just posted.

Grace to you brother as we discuss this matter.
 
erskine,
a lot of what you wrote is very much true.
obviously, our problem is with your conclusion. i am going to ask a very simple question.
if monogamy is the higher way and honors YHVH the most, then we all should choose that most righteous way. how is YHVH honoured as we turn our backs on the husbandless and the fatherless?
Isa 58:6 ¶ [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?


Isa 58:7 [Is it] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
Click to expand...
how can what honours YHVH the most be what He prefers the least?
 
Alright, now, if the people above remain in this, how do you deal with this in your view of things? If this is a "lesser family" as you call it, does that mean it is a sinful family, an unrighteous family, and that if they live in this for life that they will not make it to heaven? You at some point have to be able to answer this. Eternity is a serious issue and we either have to say it is sin or it is not sin because if it is sin and they live in it forever then the Bible says those people who practice something like sexual immorality will not make it to heaven.
Click to expand...

I think that this sums up the crux of the issue. The point is that good things are not sinful, they are indeed good, but that among good things some are better than others. It seems clear to me that the Bible sees the following as acceptable (not sinful) lifestyles for adults (in descending order):

1. Celibacy (Jesus, Paul, probably John the Baptist and John the Evangelist)

2. Monogamy (as it was "in the beginning")

3. Polygyny (the Patriarchs, etc.)

St. Paul himself says that he would prefer that others live like him (i.e. celibate) but that, in effect, this gift wasn't given to all by God, and that they should marry instead.

Monogamy is preferable - churchmen were to be the "husband of one wife," as one example.

Polygyny is good, but it's not as good as monogamy, which in turn is not as good as celibacy.

Actually, this is basically what I was taught as a Catholic growing up (St. Thomas Aquinas says that "marriage is good, celibacy is better" in his shorter Summa) - I break from my Catholic roots to add that polygyny is also good, albeit a lesser good.

I said on another thread that the Catholic Church's rejection of polygyny stems from St. Augustine's insistence (following St. Paul) that Christians should obey Roman civil law to the extent that their consciences will allow. Since Roman law instituted monogamy only, and since there was no good reason to essentially go to war over the issue getting Christians into more conflict with the pagans of the day, St. Augustine instructed us to go monogamous.

The reason that I came to see that polygyny must now be permitted and instituted in law is my belated recognition that St. Augustine's argument no longer holds water. For the reasons I stated in my post above, polygyny is desperately needed now to protect the millions of women and children who are essentially made widows and orphans by the triumphant Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and all the horror it wrought on our society.

Just to be clear, polygyny is clearly not sinful. It is good. A lesser good than monogamy or celibacy, to be sure, but a good nevertheless.

Does that answer your question?
 
erskine,
a lot of what you wrote is very much true.
obviously, our problem is with your conclusion. i am going to ask a very simple question.
if monogamy is the higher way and honors YHVH the most, then we all should choose that most righteous way. how is YHVH honoured as we turn our backs on the husbandless and the fatherless?
Click to expand...

This is precisely the point I'm trying to make. God is mocked by the presence of millions of unprotected single mothers and their children among us. Polygyny is clearly needed to prevent His children from being damaged.

Polygyny is marriage. Marriage is good. Monogamy is a higher form of marriage, but that fact doesn't make polygyny bad, it just makes monogamy better. Celibacy is best of all, but it is given to few.

Each have a gift - a vocation - to live out. I believe that God may be calling me to polygyny, a lesser calling, but a good calling nevertheless.
 
The reason that I came to see that polygyny must now be permitted and instituted in law is my belated recognition that St. Augustine's argument no longer holds water. For the reasons I stated in my post above, polygyny is desperately needed now to protect the millions of women and children who are essentially made widows and orphans by the triumphant Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and all the horror it wrought on our society.
Click to expand...
so how can something that is needed to protect the millions of women and children who are essentially made widows and orphans be a lesser marriage? it would seem that sharing would be a higher calling than not sharing.
 
I believe that God may be calling me to polygyny, a lesser calling, but a good calling nevertheless.
Click to expand...
it is confusing to me that one might feel that something that the Almighty is calling him to is a lesser calling. He asks for us to give Him our best, but then asks you to walk in third best? (celibacy being first best, monogamy being second best)
 
Alright, let's just go ahead and get things cleared up REAL quick.


  • 1. Polygyny is NOT a lesser form of marriage.
    2. Monogamy is NOT a higher form of marriage.
    3. Everyone is NOT called to celibacy by default.
    4. The Roman Universal Church, I mean Roman Catholic Church(Catholicism) is the number cause for the pagan dogmas that exist with Christianity.

Even before the fall humanity was given the command to multiply and fill the earth. A directive more effectively carried out through polygyny. Even before the fall patriarchy was instituted and in effect. A hierarchy more required with polygyny than monogamy. Even Yahuweh Himself said that He GAVE Dawid "wives". But I guess you would conclude that He is a "lesser" god for doing that.

It seems as though your major mistake is believing and following the teachings of catholicism. They are nothing more than a continuation of the roman empire and more specifically the roman pagan religions. Including the belief of monogamy only, polygyny bad, or polygyny lesser. There are not such things as saints and dead spirits DO NOT watch over us every day. I would love to see you state scripture that states all of this "lesser" talk that you have been throwing out, but I am not going to hold my breath because it simply is not scriptural. It is nothing more than heretical catholic teaching. And that is exactly why my toilet has a flush handle.

Just speaking personally by the way.
 
steve said:
I believe that God may be calling me to polygyny, a lesser calling, but a good calling nevertheless.
Click to expand...
it is confusing to me that one might feel that something that the Almighty is calling him to is a lesser calling. He asks for us to give Him our best, but then asks you to walk in third best? (celibacy being first best, monogamy being second best)
Click to expand...

God's universe isn't a democracy - it is a Kingdom with God at the pinnacle and His creation arranged in a hierarchy descending downward.

Some angels are higher than other angels - this is clear in Revelation. All of God's angels are good, but some are better than others. Some angels have more good in them - they have more capacity for good because God made them that way - than others.

God made the animals, and they are good indeed. But God also made man and placed him above the animals to rule them. Animals are good, mankind is better. Each of us is worth far more than a whole flock of sparrows, as Jesus put it. Or as the Centurion put it, those above me tell me to go here and I go, and I tell those below me to go here and they go.

God's universe is a hierarchy. It is not a democracy. All are not equal. All of God's creation is good, but some of God's creations are better than others.

So it is with individual men. We each have a station in life. Some of us have greater capacity for good than others. It doesn't make the lesser man evil, it just means he's not as good as the better man.

So it is with our vocations. Some are called to loftier things, some to lesser things. Each according to the very unequal bestowing of God's talents and graces upon us all.

Some are called to celibacy and to a life of virginity and absolute commitment to preaching the Gospel (to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, as Revelation describes the celibate clergy), others are called to monogamy, still others are called to polygyny. God will judge us each in our station.

I merely point out that the station of monogamy is higher than polygyny, and that the station of godly celibacy is higher still.

The point is that my "giving my best" as you say may not be as good as the "best" of, say, St. Francis of Assisi, to put it mildly. I'm not all that terribly impressed with my own goodness as a point in fact. I'm a man of rather limited gifts in many ways. As to God calling me to polygyny, I think that if I am discerning a genuine vocation then it's because God prefers that to allowing me into temptation and providing for a single mother and her children. In this fallen world of ours, such things are allowed to prevent worse things.

I think that - and I say this with all respect - that you are importing some of our ambient American "democracy" into your Christian theology. Men truly were not created equal, any more than were the angels above us, or the animals below us. In the same way, some stations in life are higher than others. There's no shame in having a lesser vocation, because it's still good. It's just that others may have higher callings.
 
“The reason for this toleration [of polygyny] was the fact that the polygamous family was still a family, a lower form of family, but a tolerable one ... Biblical law thus protects the family and does not tolerate adultery, which threatens and destroys the family.”
Click to expand...

R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Craig Press, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 364
 
well, i am thankfull that my Lord and Savior has chosen what you consider the lesser of the lesser (one that must be tolerated) states of matrimony and will include me in His polyganous bride.

sir g. bumbleberry said that i am being sarcastic, but after i gave him a good throttling he now sees how reasonable the post is. ;)
 
Erskine Childers said:
I merely point out that the station of monogamy is higher than polygyny, and that the station of godly celibacy is higher still.
Click to expand...



Still waiting for the scripture from where you get this theology.
 
Here's an article that I googled that I think sums up rather well why the Bible holds monogamy to be superior to polygyny:

http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/3511/

MARRIAGE—THE BOND BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN
The creation of Adam and Eve was not an accident of design but a deliberative model of the Creator to establish humankind in the context of family. The creation of Eve was for Adam, a helper suitable for him, so that together they might exercise the dominion accorded them as imagebearers of God. While their physical union would be blessed with the fruit of children, it is noteworthy that the reflection in Genesis 2:24 on the nature of marriage is complete, despite the absence of children. A man leaves his father and mother, cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh. Moreover, it is an exclusive union. Only two people can enter into a marriage designed by God. In Jesus’ words, they are no longer two but one (Matt 19:6; Mark 10:8).

The first recorded deviation from this model is the person of Lamech, who took two wives, Adah and Zillah (Gen 4:19). The context suggests that his bigamous activity was coordinate with the other vices evident in Lamech’s song, including murder, arrogance, vindictiveness and further murderous intent (Gen 4:23-24). Indeed, the unfolding of the history of humankind evidences a strong connection between violence and oppression when there is a departure from monogamy.

The early chapters of Genesis suggest the original intention of marriage was one man and one woman. In the New Testament, this understanding is reiterated by Jesus and Paul. In the context of a discussion about divorce, Jesus reaffirms the divine intention that marriage is between two people, where the two become one (Matt 19:4-6; Mark 10:2-9). Similarly, Paul endorses the union of one man and one woman (Eph 5:31). In the extended discourse concerning marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, the presumption is both explicit and implicit: each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband (v. 2).2 Thus, when Paul comes to outline the requirements for a bishop/elder or a deacon, he indicates that the bishop/elder or deacon must be the husband of one wife (1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). This, like the other ethical characteristics of church leaders, is not a restriction limited to elders and deacons alone, but rightly defines the characteristic of all Christians. In other words, Paul is not invoking a new ethic for the leaders of God’s people, but is reinforcing the creation ordinance for all people, as depicted in Genesis 2 and reaffirmed by Jesus in the Gospels.

In this respect it is interesting to note that while monogamy appears the norm in first century Judaism (cf. Luke 1:5; Acts 5:1), polygamy was not unknown among the Jews.3 Moreover, the lex Antoniana de civitae, which made monogamy the law for Roman citizens in 212 AD, also made an exception for Jews. Quite possibly it was knowledge of this defection from the Creator’s intention for monogamous marriage that prompted Paul to make explicit, in relation to the appointment of elders and deacons, what God required of his people.4

THE TOLERATION OF POLYGAMY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
However, one does have some sympathy for the view that polygamy ought not to receive any rebuke under the new covenant, as it was clearly practised in the Old Testament. Furthermore, whereas adultery received the death penalty under Mosaic Law, polygamy attracted no such sanction. For it is not only the ungodly Lamech and unbelieving Esau (Gen 36:2) who fail to subscribe to monogamy, but also Jacob (Gen 29:21-30), Gideon (Judg 8:30), Elkanah (1 Sam 1:1-2), David and Solomon, who had many wives (notwithstanding the explicit warning of Deuteronomy 17:17). While Adam, Noah, Lot, Isaac and Moses and many others were monogamous, the instances of polygamy, though few in number, are conspicuous deviations from the ideal of Genesis 1-2.5

While it is true that legislation existed under Mosaic Law to regulate polygamy (Exod 21:10-11), such legislation did not thereby legitimize polygamy. Rather, it is a sufferance exercised by God, a divine permission, which best explains the accounts of polygamy in the Old Testament. The parallel with respect to divorce legislation has often been put forth as an explanatory model of such divine toleration. In the instance of divorce, the regulations in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 are interpreted by Jesus as permissive legislation because of Israel’s hardness of heart (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5). Yet from the beginning this was not so. In other words, Jesus indicates that the existence of sin among the people of God requires regulations so as to prevent sin from wreaking further havoc among God’s people.6 Thus, on the one hand, God can say that he hates divorce (Mal 2:16), while on the other hand, he can provide guidelines for its regulation both under the old covenant (Deut 24:1-4) and under the new covenant (Matt 19:1-9; 1 Cor 7:15). Sin is always complicating. Once sin erupts in the midst of relationships it has a habit of multiplying and worsening the situation. The Bible therefore regularly seeks to limit the effects of sin, wherever possible. Two further examples from the marriage bond helpfully illustrate this principle.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10 Paul exhorts believers not to separate from their spouses. However, he then goes on to say, concerning the separating wife, “but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor 7:11). Her ‘sin’ of separation must not be confounded by a further sin of remarriage. The same is true for the separating husband. Thus Paul regulates the effects of sin, so as not to complicate the situation further. The reason for this counsel is that Paul wants the original marriage to be restored, and in accordance with the principles of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, a second marriage would preclude all possibility of restoring the first marriage, even if the second husband died.

A second example is the Bible’s prohibition of a Christian marrying a non-Christian. Despite this prohibition, if a believer chooses to marry an unbeliever and then regrets the decision, the believer has no grounds for divorce. On the contrary, if the unbeliever wishes to stay in the marriage the believer is bound to do so (1 Cor 7:13).7 In other words, the wrongful act of marrying an unbeliever is not righted by ‘undoing’ the marriage. Rather, the wrongful act is tolerated, and in the providence of God may even be turned to good in the conversion of the unbelieving spouse (1 Cor 7:16).

Repentance from sin does not always free us from the consequences of sin. Nor, thankfully, does such sin and its consequences bar one from the fellowship of the saints. Polygamy, while falling short of the ideal that God intends for his people, is not an unforgivable sin, even though it is contrary to God’s intentions for marriage.8 Once it is understood how God’s toleration of polygamy is still compatible with his revealed law on the nature of marriage, it is possible to understand the way in which the African Churches have come to terms with the admission of converted polygamists into the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
1 Corinthians 7
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband . . ."

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion . . . "

36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.[c]
Click to expand...


Actually, 1 Corinithians 7 is filled with the basic understanding that "marriage is good, but celibacy is better." It really couldn't be clearer.

In Revelation we have this arresting image of those who endured to the end celibate vocation:

Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
Click to expand...

Godly celibates are the "first fruits." The rest of us are also God's harvest, but we're not going to be first in Heaven.

Jesus speaks of the celibate vocation:

Matthew 19: 2For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Click to expand...

In sum, the Bible clearly holds celibacy to be the highest calling, but biblical marriage is good. Of the two kinds of biblical marriage, monogamy is clearly better than polygyny, although both are good of themselves.
 
Polygamy, while falling short of the ideal that God intends for his people, is not an unforgivable sin, even though it is contrary to God’s intentions for marriage.
Click to expand...

The above quote infers that Polygamy is necessarily a sin, just not an unforgivable sin. Is this the position that you hold?
If so, then it would hold true that Monogomy would also be a sin and instead of rejoicing in a Godly union, we should be asking for forgiveness.

-Rubicon
 
Nice, Erskine. I readily admit and agree that Catholic theology creates the hierarchy you've proposed. And that many modern Christian theologians work hard to support it. Best=Celibacy, Good=Monogamy, Allowed=Polygamy. However ...

I propose that, while all are indeed allowed, the hierarchy is upside down, and should read: Best=Polygyny, Good=Monogamy, Allowed=Celibacy.

1st, let me address the concept that "Celibacy is best". During the creation week, while every word out of His mouth turned into Natural Law, God said, "IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE! I'm gonna do something about it!" (Gen 2:18 paraphrased) He didn't make another man so that they could hang out at the bar and be buds. He made a woman, so that they could be lovers.

When God has clearly said that being alone is NOT GOOD, to the point of requiring His involvement to fix it, how do we get to the idea that it is the highest good? Only possible via the ideological involvement of the one who says, "Whatever God said ain't so!"

Lest a comeback argument state that that was a one-time pre-fall involvement of God, please check out Ps 68:5,6 which rather definitively says, "God sets the solitary in families." How could it get any clearer than that? I think that the best we can say for it is that "Celibacy is allowable."

Btw, Eunuchs and Celibates are two separate things. Eunuchs are unable to father children. That has never kept them from having marriages or being sexually active. This has been true in many cultures across time. Celibates swear off sexual involvement and thus marriage. (Priests and their immoral hi-jinks notwithstanding.)

Monogamy? Let's agree for the sake of this discussion that it is in the middle of the stack. If it needs to be argued that the pre-fall Genesis story did not in fact state a preference for monogamy over polygamy, we can do that, too. But for now, just arguing the best to worse prioritization, I'll agree to leave it alone.

Which brings us to Polygamy. What possible rationale could I have for rating it highest? Well, I could point to the many leaders in Biblical days whom God blessed with multiple wives, but I'm going for something more basic.

Jesus said, "If you want to be great in the kingdom, be the servant. The one who serves the most will be the greatest." or words to that effect. Now I ask you, Who serves the most folks the most?

Does a man who creates and runs a company providing employment to 500+ people directly, not to mention employment for the employees of his suppliers and services for the many people who purchase his company's product serve more people than, say, a self-employed drywall hanger who works on one house at a time? (expected answer is "Yes". :lol: ) While the self-employed drywall hanger is good and admirable, the company-builder would seem to be, by Jesus' definition, greater. It is a higher calling and worth aspiring to. Applicability?

By the same thinking, a man who provides headship and love and example and fiscal provision for a larger group of women and children is serving the needs of more folks, and is therefore greater, than the man who intentionally limits himself to serving the various needs of one. It is a higher calling and worth aspiring to.

And that places it, as a calling, ABOVE monogamy.

Granted, there are passages in the writings of Paul that seem to extol celibacy and monogamy. However, as you continue studying the subject, I suggest that you will find a number of well reasoned critiques of these showing that when translation and context are taken into consideration, the writer's actual intent was to harmonize with the rest of Scripture, NOT to unilaterally revise it. This is especially true when considering that others of his writings clearly say just the opposite.

No, appealing to Paul to justify the original hierarchy just doesn't hold up. Much better to reverse it. It lines up with Scripture so very much better.

Steve, Sir BumbleBerry waves his lollipop and says "Boo!" in your direction, wherever you be draggin' yer trailer. :lol:
 
rubicon said:
Polygamy, while falling short of the ideal that God intends for his people, is not an unforgivable sin, even though it is contrary to God’s intentions for marriage.
Click to expand...

The above quote infers that Polygamy is necessarily a sin, just not an unforgivable sin. Is this the position that you hold?
If so, then it would hold true that Monogomy would also be a sin and instead of rejoicing in a Godly union, we should be asking for forgiveness.

-Rubicon
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out. i do not agree with everything in that article. I posted a portion of it only because I think it sums up the pro-monogamy scriptural argument fairly well.

Polygyny is clearly not sinful. If it were sinful, God would never have required it in certain instances (i.e. leverite marriage) and Jesus could never have told the parable of the ten virgins.

It's not ideal, that's all. In Eden there was monogamy. There was also, for example, no division of mankind into nations, and no division of material goods into individual holdings called property, nor was their slavery.

But after the Fall God instituted these things - polygyny, nation states, private property, biblical slavery - in order to limit the consequences of sin. The excerpt from the article I posted above explains that rather pithily.

Monogamy is of Eden, polygyny is a lesser form of marriage allowed, and sometimes mandated by God, to limit the effects of sin in this fallen world.

And these things really are all of a piece. I believe passionately in private property and free enterprise as God-mandated institutions that no human power could ever negate. So, too, God Himself mandated the division of mankind into nations with defined territories, mostly insular bloodlines, and unique languages and cultures. I believe passionately in the American nation, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top