Ontological Defense

[Zach]

As I ramp up my studies into Biblical polygyny, I see a lot of discussion from a moral/ethical/legal framework: "Polygynous marriage is Biblically allowed/good/acceptable/permitted/etc." But it seems to me there an even more basic argument from the framework of Biblical ontology (i.e. what things exist), namely: "Polygynous marriage is marriage", or "Polygynous marriage is an actual thing [a recognized category of real existence, whether good or evil]", or even just "Polygynous marriage is".

To clarify the significance: I personally, together with a large portion of modern Christians, can't make those same statements about that which our culture calls "homosexual marriage":

• "'Homosexual marriage' is marriage"? Nope, that's an abuse of terminology. There is no Biblical grounds for calling what transpires in same-sex union "marriage". That's not what marriage IS.
• "'Homosexual marriage' is a thing"? Nope, just as a "square circle" is not a thing. Two words juxtaposed together don't necessarily describe anything that exists in reality, as the case here.
• "'Homosexual marriage' is"? Nope. As noted above, there is no substantive entity to ascribe to the phrase. It has no "IS"ness.

In contrast, it seems even an honest anti-poly needs to admit that Scripture speaks of polygynous marriages as marriages. "Esau went to Ishmael, and married, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath...", etc. etc. When a man takes multiple women for his life-long partners, Scripture consistently describes that act as "marriage" and the women as his "wives". Think about this for a second, because in what seems obvious there is profundity. Forget for a second about whether Scripture views "he married other wives" as good, bad, or neutral, and mediate for a bit on the more fundamental reality and mere fact that Scripture makes statements like "he married other wives". Such phrases exist in Scripture, describing real life historic scenarios, because "he married other wives" at least means something (whether good or bad). unlike "square circle" which is neither good nor bad because it is nothing.

Why does it matter? For one thing because ontology is not even arguably subject to dispensations. In moral discussions you have to grapple with how different epochs in redemptive history affect the particularity of laws or their application. But apart from ex-nihilo creation itself, the "IS"ness of things, or lack thereof, is generally quite stable. So if Old Testament polygynists were actually married, then modern Christian polygynists are actually married.

An anti-poly can still revert to ethical categories at this point to argue that God sees every PM as a repulsive/offensive marriage, like a Jew with a Canaanite. But the mere acknowledgement that a PM is a marriage is already a very significant concession. For example, as arises in the missionary dilemma, if something is a marriage then the only ways to sever it are death and divorce, so any Biblical arguments against PM at least have to be weighed against much clearer Biblical arguments against divorce.

Pardon my rambling and naivety if I'm just rehashing well-established discussion points.

 

[Gary Slaughenhaupt]

As I ramp up my studies into Biblical polygyny, I see a lot of discussion from a moral/ethical/legal framework: "Polygynous marriage is Biblically allowed/good/acceptable/permitted/etc." But it seems to me there an even more basic argument from the framework of Biblical ontology (i.e. what things exist), namely: "Polygynous marriage is marriage", or "Polygynous marriage is an actual thing [a recognized category of real existence, whether good or evil]", or even just "Polygynous marriage is".

To clarify the significance: I personally, together with a large portion of modern Christians, can't make those same statements about that which our culture calls "homosexual marriage":

• "'Homosexual marriage' is marriage"? Nope, that's an abuse of terminology. There is no Biblical grounds for calling what transpires in same-sex union "marriage". That's not what marriage IS.
• "'Homosexual marriage' is a thing"? Nope, just as a "square circle" is not a thing. Two words juxtaposed together don't necessarily describe anything that exists in reality, as the case here.
• "'Homosexual marriage' is"? Nope. As noted above, there is no substantive entity to ascribe to the phrase. It has no "IS"ness.

In contrast, it seems even an honest anti-poly needs to admit that Scripture speaks of polygynous marriages as marriages. "Esau went to Ishmael, and married, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath...", etc. etc. When a man takes multiple women for his life-long partners, Scripture consistently describes that act as "marriage" and the women as his "wives". Think about this for a second, because in what seems obvious there is profundity. Forget for a second about whether Scripture views "he married other wives" as good, bad, or neutral, and mediate for a bit on the more fundamental reality and mere fact that Scripture makes statements like "he married other wives". Such phrases exist in Scripture, describing real life historic scenarios, because "he married other wives" at least means something (whether good or bad). unlike "square circle" which is neither good nor bad because it is nothing.

Why does it matter? For one thing because ontology is not subject to dispensations. In moral discussions you have to grapple with how different epochs in redemptive history affect laws or their application. But apart from ex-nihilo creation itself, the "IS"ness of things, or lack thereof, is generally pretty unchangable. So if Old Testament polygynists were actually married, then modern Christian polygynists are actually married.

An anti-poly can still revert to ethical categories at this point to argue that God sees every PM as a repulsive/offensive marriage, like a Jew with a Canaanite. But the mere acknowledgement that a PM is a marriage is already a very significant concession. For example, as arises in the missionary dilemma, if something is a marriage then the only ways to sever it are death and divorce, so any Biblical arguments against PM at least have to be weighed against much clearer Biblical arguments against divorce.

Pardon my rambling and naivety if I'm just rehashing well-established discussion points.

I like your points but I have yet to see a logical anti-poly argument or have an anti-poly person do anything more than resort to name calling and slander.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I'd say those are excellent ramblings that will be appreciated by most everyone here.
Looking forward to your future contributions!

 

[PeteR]

I think you need to consider that the word 'marriage' or 'wife' never appear in the Hebrew or the Greek.

Technically, 'he took a woman' or 'his woman/women' etc... the point being that consistently in Scripture he possesses her and, as the master in a master-bondservant relationship, has the authority to have as many bondservants as he can master. Further a man (or woman) cannot serve two masters.

That said, it exactly parallels the relationship between man and Messiah. Man has one Master, but Messiah is in covenant with many men.

In other words, the ontological argument is that a master can possess, a man can take. .. master, by definition, implies bond-servant. Adon (lord), by definition, implies headship with option and authority to grow that holding....

Thoughts?

 

[frederick]

Thoughts?

Yup.

 

[FollowingHim]

An anti-poly can still revert to ethical categories at this point to argue that God sees every PM as a repulsive/offensive marriage, like a Jew with a Canaanite. But the mere acknowledgement that a PM is a marriage is already a very significant concession. For example, as arises in the missionary dilemma, if something is a marriage then the only ways to sever it are death and divorce, so any Biblical arguments against PM at least have to be weighed against much clearer Biblical arguments against divorce.

You're completely correct, and this is the first and most fundamental step to understanding the missionary dilemma. Because even if polygamy is sinful to enter, once you've already entered it, it is marriage. The only way out is divorce - and that is clearly a sin unless narrow scriptural justifications apply, with polygamy not being one of them.

So however pro-monogamy-only a person is, they should be able to recognise that you can't solve one sin by sinning more. Two wrongs do not make a right. Rather, like the woman caught in adultery, we are to "go and sin no more". This means that divorce is not an option for a polygamous convert.

Furthermore, if PM is a marriage, then it is governed by the New Testament command to not deny each other - therefore the middle-ground option of continuing to support all wives but only being intimate with one of them, living as a monogamist but with financial obligations to others, is also sinful as it is a breach of the obligations to these other, very real, wives.

 

[Zach]

Technically, 'he took a woman' or 'his woman/women'

I was aware that "he took her" was a frequent Biblical form, but didn't know it was so universal as to cover all(?) instances where English translations have put "he married her". I will seek to 'trust but verify' you on that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

That observation would change some of my phraseology in the original post, but I don't think it affects any of the intended substance. I deliberately sought to avoid making claims regarding what the actual ontological nature of marriage consists in: a covenant, a right of ownership, some form of spiritual/mystical soul bond, the physical union both in the act of intercourse act itself as well as the intermingling of body fluids which give rise to new life, and/or some combination of the above. I didn't nail that issue down because I'm not presently sure [pointers to discussion on that question would be welcome]. My goal with the OP is to K.I.S.S.: a marriage, notably including a polygynous one, is something in God's sight. It is some thing. I don't even need to know what that "thing" is, just yet, to already be able to say, "OK, wow, if polygynous marriages were some thing in the OT then their thingness hasn't changed, whatever that thingness might be".

 

[cnystrom]

But it seems to me there an even more basic argument from the framework of Biblical ontology (i.e. what things exist), namely: "Polygynous marriage is marriage"

This is a very important point. The Biblical word for polygamy is "marriage". It is not even defined as a separate thing.

We only think of it as a separate thing because of our culture, but this is not a Biblical idea.

Which means all of the verses about marriage would apply to polygamy as well. So a verse like 1 Timothy 4:3 now takes on new meaning.

 

[FollowingHim]

I deliberately sought to avoid making claims regarding what the actual ontological nature of marriage consists in: a covenant, a right of ownership, some form of spiritual/mystical soul bond, the physical union both in the act of intercourse act itself as well as the intermingling of body fluids which give rise to new life, and/or some combination of the above. I didn't nail that issue down because I'm not presently sure [pointers to discussion on that question would be welcome].

A relevant discussion is below. Not exactly "what is a marriage", more "when does marriage begin", but that is a very similar question because it comes back to when does the thing that marriage is begin.
https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/0-when-does-marriage-begin-structured-discussion.13233/

However, my take on "what" it is becomes simpler the more years I ponder this. And it comes back to what @PeteR has stated about the language, because scripture simply talks about a "man" and "his woman", not a "husband" and "his wife", although it is translated that way.

Marriage is the exclusive assignment of a woman to a man.

If a caveman says "that woman's mine, touch her and I hit you with this club", that's marriage. If a royal couple go through a long courtship and all manner of formality followed by a million dollar wedding with ceremonies and fancy clothing, with the end result being that she's exclusively assigned to him, that's marriage. And everything in between is marriage, regardless of the level of cultural ceremony and paperwork - whenever a woman is exclusively assigned to a man in the culture of the day, that's marriage. Which is why in every culture through all of time, people marry (or form such unions but call them something else) and those marriages are valid marriages.

And if a missionary turns up at a tribe, and someone says "this is my wife", you will automatically accept that as a valid statement without questioning the basis for that statement - which shows that at a deep automatic level we accept all marriage customs as valid, because marriage itself is very simple.

If two people are sleeping together but do not have a personal or cultural understanding that this is an exclusive assignment of that woman to that man (e.g. prostitution or casual sex), that is not marriage. Sex alone does not form a marriage. However, biblically, if we sleep with a woman we should take her as a wife.

I don't think it's a mystical, spiritual thing. It's very practical - it's more a description of what humans naturally do anyway.

 

[Zach]

If two people are sleeping together but do not have a personal or cultural understanding that this is an exclusive assignment of that woman to that man (e.g. prostitution or casual sex), that is not marriage

And yet, as I've seen noted elsewhere on this site, 1 Cor 6:16 quotes Gen 2:24. Your take on that?

 

[FollowingHim]

And yet, as I've seen noted elsewhere on this site, 1 Cor 6:16 quotes Gen 2:24. Your take on that?

"One Flesh" does not equal "marriage".

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
A man cleaves to his wife - she's already his wife - and they shall then be one flesh.
Eve was Adam's wife already because she was assigned to him by God. After she was assigned to him as his own woman, he then had sex with her, becoming one flesh.

"What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."
A man cleaves to a harlot - she's already a harlot - and they shall then be one flesh.

This very clearly describes a physical thing. The word is one "flesh" - not "spirit", but clearly "flesh". This is a physical act by definition, not a mystical union of any form. "One flesh" describes the closeness of sexual intercourse, and the physical changes in the bodies of both participants that occur as a result of mixing body fluids - they truly do become one flesh in a real sense, as science is increasingly discovering.

It parallels the "one spirit" closeness that we have with Christ. That is a spiritual union, "one flesh" is not.

1 Cor 6:16 does not say that a man is married to a harlot. If that were the case, she would have many husbands in an enormous polyandrous mess. Rather, it says that sex is important. This is something that actually forms a close physical bond. It is something that you should be doing with your wife, and should not be doing with a harlot, as it is far too intimate and important to use in that way, and has much deeper physical consequences than you may realise.

 

[cnystrom]

I don't think it's a mystical, spiritual thing. It's very practical - it's more a description of what humans naturally do anyway.

I think it becomes a spiritual thing, at least in Christian marriage, when God joins them together as in Mark 10:9.

Which also explains perhaps why God hates divorce.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think it becomes a spiritual thing, at least in Christian marriage, when God joins them together as in Mark 10:9.

Which also explains perhaps why God hates divorce.

That is a good point - however, does "God joining them together" have to be spiritual? Could that not be physical also? God designed our bodies to become one through intimacy in ways we are only beginning to appreciate scientifically. Could this not be God joining them together?

I am not saying this is necessarily the answer, just musing aloud.

 

[The Revolting Man]

"One Flesh" does not equal "marriage".

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
A man cleaves to his wife - she's already his wife - and they shall then be one flesh.
Eve was Adam's wife already because she was assigned to him by God. After she was assigned to him as his own woman, he then had sex with her, becoming one flesh.

"What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."
A man cleaves to a harlot - she's already a harlot - and they shall then be one flesh.

This very clearly describes a physical thing. The word is one "flesh" - not "spirit", but clearly "flesh". This is a physical act by definition, not a mystical union of any form. "One flesh" describes the closeness of sexual intercourse, and the physical changes in the bodies of both participants that occur as a result of mixing body fluids - they truly do become one flesh in a real sense, as science is increasingly discovering.

It parallels the "one spirit" closeness that we have with Christ. That is a spiritual union, "one flesh" is not.

1 Cor 6:16 does not say that a man is married to a harlot. If that were the case, she would have many husbands in an enormous polyandrous mess. Rather, it says that sex is important. This is something that actually forms a close physical bond. It is something that you should be doing with your wife, and should not be doing with a harlot, as it is far too intimate and important to use in that way, and has much deeper physical consequences than you may realise.

Do not make me come in here. I will turn this thread around right now!

 

[The Revolting Man]

And yet, as I've seen noted elsewhere on this site, 1 Cor 6:16 quotes Gen 2:24. Your take on that?

Excuse me while I remind everyone of something, SEX IS THE DEFINITION OF POSSESSING A WOMAN. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MARRIAGE. IF YOU HAVE POSSESSED A WOMAN THEN YOU POSSESS HER! YOU BREAK YOU BOUGHT IT. Or you’ve committed adultery. I defy all of you again to bring me anything in scripture about ceremonies or covenants or intent. It’s not there. You’ve all proven to yourselves and everyone else over and over that it’s not there. Don’t now return to acting like it’s there simply because you want it to be there. It’s simple, if you possess a woman then you possess the woman. End of story. Although I’m sure it’s not the end of me having to beat this dead horse. That story will go on and on. Usually that’s okay but adultery is a grievous sin and if we don’t understand how a one flesh relationship is formed then we are almost guaranteed to end up committing adultery, or at least being barred from taking another wife.

 

[FollowingHim]

@Zach, for context, please note that @The Revolting Man and myself (along with others) have a long-running disagreement on whether sex = marriage. You'll see it pop up in old threads all over the forum - this horse has been flogged to the point that it's not only dead, it's been splattered everywhere. I'd encourage you to consider both perspectives and make up your own mind. Either one of us is wrong or both of us are wrong. I'm not going to debate with @The Revolting Man on this.

However, I'll try to just clarify what we're saying and where we agree and disagree, without arguing against his points, as there is potential for confusion as to what we're saying.

Where we agree:
"Marriage" isn't really a mystical thing. What it's fundamentally about is whether a man possesses a woman, or not. It's fundamentally very simple.
This possessing is labelled "marriage" in general culture, and we usually use the same terminology for simplicity, but underlying it is the concept of possession rather than something mystical.

Where we disagree:
At what point can a man be said to "possess" a woman?

• @The Revolting Man would basically argue that if you have sex with a woman, and she's not already someone else's woman (ie she isn't already married), she's automatically yours. You now have all the obligations in scripture that are associated with a man and his wife (woman).
  Or, to put it in shopkeeping terms: "you break it, it's now yours".
• I would basically argue that if you have sex with a woman, you should take her to be your own. Once you have sorted out competing claims, e.g. the claim of her father to her (including paying a dowry if he requires it), and her own claim to personal autonomy (she has herself agreed to be yours), then she's yours. If no such agreement is forthcoming (e.g. her father decides you're a scumbag and won't let her marry you), she is not yours.
  Or, "you break it, you must now buy it, and once you pay for it it will be yours (until then it still belongs to the shop)".

I hope that's a fair summary @The Revolting Man. If I've misrepresented the two basic perspectives please do post a clarification for @Zach, maybe copy that summary and edit it to fix any errors. I don't want to debate it again, I'm just trying to help him to see both perspectives clearly. I've already pointed him to a major thread where we've thrashed this one out in detail if he wants to delve into the back-and-forth detail.

 

[Mojo]

how different epochs in redemptive history affect the particularity of laws or their application.

But, this is where you will get your biggest blowback.

You will get many honest people to agree with you that polygynous marriage was a "thing" in the OT and even get them to see that there was nothing special about it...it just was.

But, the standard retort would be "but God doesn't mean for us to engage in that today". That was then, this is now. Christ overcame the Law, etc, etc.

 

[Joleneakamama]

But, the standard retort would be "but God doesn't mean for us to engage in that today". That was then, this is now. Christ overcame the Law, etc, etc.

Then we should have more freedom not less. Right?

 

[The Revolting Man]

@Zach, for context, please note that @The Revolting Man and myself (along with others) have a long-running disagreement on whether sex = marriage. You'll see it pop up in old threads all over the forum - this horse has been flogged to the point that it's not only dead, it's been splattered everywhere. I'd encourage you to consider both perspectives and make up your own mind. Either one of us is wrong or both of us are wrong. I'm not going to debate with @The Revolting Man on this.

However, I'll try to just clarify what we're saying and where we agree and disagree, without arguing against his points, as there is potential for confusion as to what we're saying.

Where we agree:
"Marriage" isn't really a mystical thing. What it's fundamentally about is whether a man possesses a woman, or not. It's fundamentally very simple.
This possessing is labelled "marriage" in general culture, and we usually use the same terminology for simplicity, but underlying it is the concept of possession rather than something mystical.

Where we disagree:
At what point can a man be said to "possess" a woman?

• @The Revolting Man would basically argue that if you have sex with a woman, and she's not already someone else's woman (ie she isn't already married), she's automatically yours. You now have all the obligations in scripture that are associated with a man and his wife (woman).
  Or, to put it in shopkeeping terms: "you break it, it's now yours".
• I would basically argue that if you have sex with a woman, you should take her to be your own. Once you have sorted out competing claims, e.g. the claim of her father to her (including paying a dowry if he requires it), and her own claim to personal autonomy (she has herself agreed to be yours), then she's yours. If no such agreement is forthcoming (e.g. her father decides you're a scumbag and won't let her marry you), she is not yours.
  Or, "you break it, you must now buy it, and once you pay for it it will be yours (until then it still belongs to the shop)".

I hope that's a fair summary @The Revolting Man. If I've misrepresented the two basic perspectives please do post a clarification for @Zach, maybe copy that summary and edit it to fix any errors. I don't want to debate it again, I'm just trying to help him to see both perspectives clearly. I've already pointed him to a major thread where we've thrashed this one out in detail if he wants to delve into the back-and-forth detail.

It’s not an unfair description of you discount how much better my side sounds when I say it. But fine, whatever.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think that's because "you break it, you bought it" sounds great!

YOU BREAK YOU BOUGHT IT.

It's just not actually what either you or I mean, or even what a shopkeeper means if you do break something in his shop. The shopkeeper actually means "if you break it, I expect you to pay for it, and if you do you'll own the broken product".

Imagine if you walked through a car-sales yard, read the "you break it, you bought it" sign, smashed a dent in the side of a car with a hammer, then got in the car and started driving away. Car dealer says "hey, you need to pay for that". You say "no, the sign clearly says if I break it, I have bought it, therefore it's mine and I'm taking it home now." That excuse won't work in court!

Unfortunately if the car dealer put up a sign saying what he actually meant, it would be too long and nobody would read it. So he uses a snappy little phrase that is inaccurate, yet gets across the point because everybody knows what he actually means, which is different.

To accurately represent what both of us actually mean (and what the shopkeeper means), the snappy little phrase has to be tweaked in one or the other direction, and ends up less snappy as a result. I tried to keep it as snappy as I could, but it was difficult!