steel-man this for me, will ya?

[YoreyC]

a pastor and friend of mine:

1. God gave Adam one woman
2. Polygamy in Scripture is condemned by the patterns it follows (e.g., "Abraham listened to the voice of his wife" and took Hagar, resulting in generations of bloodshed between rival tribes)
3. An elder must be a man of one wife, setting the pattern for godly manhood
[5:34 PM]
4. Marriage is modeled on Christ and the Church, and Jesus only has one bride

point 1, that has low-level polemical value, but little scholarly value to me.
point 2, is important for proving points like i.e. luke 6 43 For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, [a]on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. 44 For each tree is known by its own fruit.
point 3, i find most compelling. if we pre-suppose that is the meaning behind an elder, then it means everyone else is falling behind if they have multiple wives.
point 4 seems to be disproved by the passages in which yahweh and/or jesus liken themselves to be polygamist husbands, i.e. the 12 virgins.

how do you engage with these?

 

[NickF]

a pastor and friend of mine:

1. [COLOR=var(--text-normal)]1. God gave Adam one woman

Does description equal prescription? That is the core argument being made. This description equals prescriptions for all mankind. Is it then equally sin to be single? Hermeneutical process then must insist all men are required to abide by all the rest of those passages as instructions for life. Be a nudist, vegan, gardener, use no tools, only marry women formed by God with your rib etc… Argument simply doesn’t stand the least bit of scrutiny.

1. 2. Polygamy in Scripture is condemned by the patterns it follows (e.g., "Abraham listened to the voice of his wife" and took Hagar, resulting in generations of bloodshed between rival tribes) 3. An elder must be a man of one wife, setting the pattern for godly manhood

2.The first marriage was monogamous. Several other monogamous marriages have resulted in bad results. Therefore monogamous marriage is sin. Look at the results of the first monogamous marriage. Sin enters the world purely because Adam was married to one woman. Again the argument folds under the least bit of logic. Assumptions about the results do not equal condemnation by God. He never condemns or corrects a man for having more than one wife. He never legislates against it. Where is the verse where God condemns, corrects, or legislates against it? Bueller?
3. Paul’s instructions specifically for some men operating in a capacity in the ecclesia does not create a pattern for all mankind. That pattern is several thousand years too late. God’s example as He instructed thousands of years earlier is the pattern. We follow His example.

1. [COLOR=var(--text-muted)][5:34 PM][/COLOR]
   [COLOR=var(--text-normal)]4. Marriage is modeled on Christ and the Church, and Jesus only has one bride[/COLOR]

I’d love to see that verse. Where is that found in scripture? If it’s true show the verses where Jesus is described as having “one bride”.

I’m writing a book on polygyny in scripture disproving all the tired arguments and proving the validity of marriage to one or more women. Below is a first draft response to the “one bride” doctrine copied from my working document. Please excuse any errors (first draft)

God Has One Bride So That Is The Ideal​

I haven’t been able to find the passage where God informs us he has one bride. I ask for that passage and people say “everyone knows it”, except nobody can show me where scripture says this. Let us be Bereans and search scripture to see if it is true. But I will say beforehand. I used to believe this lie because it had been repeated so often that I assumed it must be true. In fact when I heard someone proclaim contrary to what I believed, even after I understood polygyny to be acceptable. I still said in myself “there’s no way that’s true, of course God has one bride!” Then I searched scripture to find where God says so… And it does not exist.

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” - Joseph Goebbels

This word “bride” is used 8 times in the NT. And none of them indicate in any way fashion or manner that the ecclesia or the church is a singular collective bride. The false doctrine that the whole of the ecclesia (assembly of believers) is a singular person is nowhere found in scripture. It is a lie and a fabrication from the hearts and minds of mankind. It is a doctrine of men, not of God. We know this because God nowhere in scripture says it is from Him.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 8x
The KJV translates Strong's G3565 in the following manner: bride (5x), daughter in law (3x).
Outline of Biblical Usage

1. a betrothed woman, a bride
2. a recently married woman, young wife
3. a young woman
4. a daughter-in-law

Strong’s Definitions
νύμφη nýmphē, noom-fay'; from a primary but obsolete verb νύπτω nýptō (to veil as a bride; compare Latin "nupto," to marry); a young married woman (as veiled), including a betrothed girl; by implication, a son's wife:—bride, daughter in law.


John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

This does not say the ecclesia is a singular bride… Maybe the next passage will.

Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

This one doesn’t either…
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

This is awkward… The bride of Christ appears to be a city, not the ecclesia. Maybe one of the last two passages will show us that all believers are a singular monogamous bride.

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Oh no… It looks to be that in the whole chapter here, nowhere does the description of this bride match anything human. It’s all about how the city is constructed and the dimensions.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Well, that does it for all of the “bride” passages. It seems this doctrine is not found in scripture. Perhaps “one body” means “one person”.

Rom 12:4
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

Rom 12:5
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

1Co 10:17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1Co 12:12
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1Co 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1Co 12:20
But now are they many members, yet but one body.

Eph 2:16
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Eph 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Col 3:15
And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.


Eph 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, G1135 even as Christ is the head of the church (ecclesia) : and he is the saviour of the body (Strongs). 24 Therefore as the church (ecclesia: the assembly of believers) is subject unto Christ, so let the wives G1135 be to their own husbands in every thing.
The husband is the head of the wife. This is a shadow of the example of Christ being the head of the assembly of believers plural. Jesus is the head of and savior of the “body” of believers. This is not a singular personhood. This is a gathering of all of those wedded to Christ, all of those who individually possess what scripture calls a “one spirit” relationship with Jesus.

In like manner, let the wives (plural), be subject to the husband who possesses them in every thing.



1Co 6:17
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1Co 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Eph 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Eph 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Phl 1:27
Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;


I have yet to see in all of this scriptural evidence, one singular passage that describes the totality of believers as one person, one bride wedded or promised to Christ. Instead, I see copious evidence to the contrary, that we are all members of one collection of or assembly of believers, all with a particular and unique “one spirit” relationship or marriage to the Lamb. We are each joined individually to Jesus. And collectively we are a body or group of believers. Similarly in the USA there is a body of legislators who assemble together in the Senate. That assembly is called a “body”, or “one body” of senators. But in no way shape or fashion does their membership of that body negate their individuality or personhood, or transmute their personhood into a singular person.

 

[frederick]

a pastor and friend of mine:


point 1, that has low-level polemical value, but little scholarly value to me.
point 2, is important for proving points like i.e. luke 6 43 For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, [a]on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. 44 For each tree is known by its own fruit.
point 3, i find most compelling. if we pre-suppose that is the meaning behind an elder, then it means everyone else is falling behind if they have multiple wives.
point 4 seems to be disproved by the passages in which yahweh and/or jesus liken themselves to be polygamist husbands, i.e. the 12 virgins.

how do you engage with these?

I just read your comment and see that @NickF has already nailed it for you. I would add that we can look at the example of Jesus Christ and see He did not follow that "Creation Ideal." He was not married, was not a vegetarian, was not a gardener, and He wore clothes. If God giving Adam one wife set some kind of example everyone must follow, then why was Jesus Christ so very different?

 

[NickF]

I would add that we can look at the example of Jesus Christ and see He did not follow that "Creation Ideal." He was not married, was not a vegetarian, was not a gardener, and He wore clothes. If God giving Adam one wife set some kind of example everyone must follow, then why was Jesus Christ so very different?

Not only that but consider the following.

Some of the scripture references​

1. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
   1. All scripture, including the following two which give instructions to men who have more than one wife, or take additional wives alongside the previous wife.
2. Deuteronomy 21:15-17
   1. Instruction regarding how a man is to handle inheritance if he has two wives at the same time. If the wife was divorced there would be no inheritance conflict.
3. Exodus 21:10
   1. Describing how a man is to conduct himself towards subsequent wives if he takes additional wives.
4. 1 Samuel 25:40-43
   1. Some of David’s wives (no rebuke or correction from God)
5. 2 Samuel 12:1-8
   1. Pay special attention to the fact that God said if David asked for more wives, God would have given him more.
6. 1 Kings 15:5 & 2 Samuel 5:13
   1. He took many wives and it was right in the sight of God.
7. 1 Chronicles 2:18 & 46-48
   1. Caleb entered the promised land with multiple wives when Moses was excluded for one sin of unbelief.
8. 2 Chronicles 11&12
   1. Rehoboam had 78 wives and concubines while he kept the Law of God.
9. 2 Chronicles 24:1-3
   1. Joash had 2 wives that the High Priest got for him and God said it was right in His eyes.
10. Genesis 30:18
    1. Leah said God gave her a reward for giving her handmaid to be Jacob’s wife.
11. Song of Solomon 1:4 & 6:8
    1. The wife of Solomon speaks in a plural fashion. God chose to describe His relationship with us like Solomon’s with his many wives. The Shulamite is the 141st wife.
12. Jeremiah 3 & 31:27,31-32
    1. You divorce wives, two sisters are listed as the wives of God the Father. Ahola and Aholiba
13. Ezekiel 16&23
    1. God married two sisters, Ahola (Samaria/Israel) and Aholiba (Jerusalem/Judah)
14. Isaiah 4
    1. Isaiah 3 is destruction, 4 is God dwelling with the people who have been made clean, where 7 women will be the wives of one man. A woman’s reproach is almost always childlessness or being unmarried in scripture. The other excused requirements are a reference to Exodus 21:10.
15. Matthew 22:1-10 & 25:1-13
    1. You need to read the Greek because the translators changed plural words (γάμους gamous) to singular forms (γάμος gamos) contrary to what Jesus clearly said.

The below bold words are using the plural word instead of the singular form as it was written in all the Greek manuscripts but mysteriously the translators changed it into a different word that presumably matches the monogamy only teachings of the catholic church.

Mat 22:1
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
Mat 22:2
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made marriages for his son,
Mat 22:3
And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the weddings: and they would not come.
Mat 22:4
Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriages.
Mat 22:5
But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
Mat 22:6
And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
Mat 22:7
But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Mat 22:8
Then saith he to his servants, The wedding (singular marriage feast) is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Mat 22:9
Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriages.
Mat 22:10
So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the weddings [were] furnished with guests.
Mat 22:11
And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding (singular) garment:
Mat 22:12
And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding (singular) garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13
Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Many what are called? Many brides. I’m not an outsider, I have a “one spirit” relationship with Jesus like a husband has a “one flesh” relationship with his wife. I’m not a “bridesmaid” who would be excluded from being married to the Lamb. This is paralleled in the following parable where the Bridegroom (Jesus) takes 5 virgin brides to the marriage chamber where the marriages plural were consummated.

Mat 25:1
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
Mat 25:2
And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
Mat 25:3
They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
Mat 25:4
But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
Mat 25:5
While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
Mat 25:6
And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
Mat 25:7
Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
Mat 25:8
And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
Mat 25:9
But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
Mat 25:10
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriages: and the door was shut.
Mat 25:11
Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
Mat 25:12
But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know (the hebrew use of “know” is sexual intimacy) you not.
Mat 25:13
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

1. 1 Timothy 4:1-3
   1. Forbidding a woman to marry an already married man, and forbidding a man who is married from marrying an eligible woman is forbidding to marry.

 

[YoreyC]

Does description equal prescription?

jesus appeals to "the beginning" when re-iterating that marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman:

4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

how many times can a man leave his father and mother? once, or multiple times?

3. Paul’s instructions specifically for some men operating in a capacity in the ecclesia does not create a pattern for all mankind.

so, do you also think that only elders should be gentle, non-violent, and sober?
or, is it clear that this passage is filled with good qualities that all christians should strive to have, including monogamy?

> Marriage is modeled on Christ and the Church, and Jesus only has one bride
I’d love to see that verse. Where is that found in scripture?

i guess i dont have a verse for this one but i wouldn't think it controversial... the church is one composite entity. as a whole we make up his 1 bride.

 

[MemeFan]

Go on offensive: Ezekiel 23.

Chapter where Lord has two wives. Now he can't use rhetorical tricks. Or get out of his predicament.

And the way, this chapter is my nuclear weaponry for crushing monogamy-only crowd.

 

[FollowingHim]

jesus appeals to "the beginning" when re-iterating that marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman:

You misspoke in the above sentence. He was not re-iterating that marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman, that was not the topic of his discussion. He was re-iterating that marriage was intended to be permanent - this was a discussion about divorce. You are arguing a straw man here - Jesus simply was not talking about the topic you are putting in his mouth.

how many times can a man leave his father and mother? once, or multiple times?

Once of course. But as stated previously, the account of Adam and Eve is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Adam and Eve had an arranged marriage - their father told them who to marry, and they did what he said. In fact, had no other option at all, he only gave them one option, they had no choice but to obey him. If this account is prescriptive, then arranged marriage is mandatory. Do you believe we must all have arranged marriages? Or are you saying that some parts are prescriptive and some parts are only descriptive, and picking and choosing which parts to believe are prescriptive vs descriptive based on your pre-existing views of what marriage should be?

so, do you also think that only elders should be gentle, non-violent, and sober?
or, is it clear that this passage is filled with good qualities that all christians should strive to have, including monogamy?

Obviously these are qualities all men should have - but they are not mandatory either. You don't have to be gentle, or non-violent, or sober, to be a Christian - and there are times when you need to not be gentle and must be violent. But gentleness is better for a church leader. So, if you apply this argument to the marriage portion of the passage, the strongest you could possibly argue would be that monogamy was possibly better than polygamy, possibly more desirable than polygamy - but not mandatory. You cannot find a mandate of monogamy for all men in this passage.

For instance, take the case of a married man having an affair with a virgin. The Law is very clear that this means he is obliged to marry her. He is obliged to become a polygamist. You could argue that this is less desirable than him never having the affair in the first place, you could argue that he should have remained a monogamist. You could even argue that by having the affair he has disqualified himself from church leadership. But you cannot argue that he can now ignore his firm obligation to marry the second woman whose virginity he has taken because of these passages, and it would be sinful for him to do what the Law clearly requires. Therefore, this cannot be a mandate of monogamy - only a set of qualifications for church leaders.

i guess i dont have a verse for this one but i wouldn't think it controversial... the church is one composite entity. as a whole we make up his 1 bride.

If someone already believes monogamy is the only valid form of marriage, they will interpret the word "ekklesia" (church) as referring to "ONE group of people". If someone already believes polygamy is permissible, they will interpret the same word as referring to "one GROUP of people". It's all in the emphasis. This cannot prove either point as it can be easily read either way.

 

[NickF]

jesus appeals to "the beginning" when re-iterating that marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman:

Jesus does not stipulate what you are saying He said. This is incorrect and improper hermeneutical interpretation of the passage as Samuel said above.

how many times can a man leave his father and mother? once, or multiple times?

Description does not equal prescription. You cannot take a descriptive positive passage and twist it into a prescriptive negative passage.

so, do you also think that only elders should be gentle, non-violent, and sober?
or, is it clear that this passage is filled with good qualities that all christians should strive to have, including monogamy?

When applying for a job and you're required to have a pickup truck to do the job, that requirement does not mean you're forbidden from having more than one truck. The list of qualifications for Deacons and Overseers applies to those men. Some of those qualities are good for all men, but when instructions are given specifically to Levitical Priests, those instructions are by definition not instructions to 12 year old girls. You can tell because it says to whom the instructions are given. Likewise we don't say men are to reverence their wives just because it sounds like a good idea. The instruction was given to wives for how they are to behave. The instructions on requirements of deacons and overseers is strictly and explicitly to those men alone. It matters not if the qualities are good.

i guess i dont have a verse for this one but i wouldn't think it controversial... the church is one composite entity. as a whole we make up his 1 bride.

*Edited to add*(It’s not controversial, it’s patently false and not scriptural and I proved it with a word study copied above. Did you skip that post?)

The "church" is not one composite entity, there is no one bride of Christ. That's an imaginary doctrine invented by men and not found in scripture. Again, we don't just make up stuff because it "sounds good". If “the church” is a singular bride, show me in scripture where that’s so.

 

[NickF]

4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

jesus appeals to "the beginning" when re-iterating that marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman:

Can you highlight or exegete the passage so I can see the part that says what you think it does? I highlighted your statement in bold. I see a passage speaking about divorce where Jesus is saying from the beginning marriage was intended to be a permanent union. Where is the part about monogamy being the standard? Are you assuming a man can only be one flesh with one woman ever?

 

[Happyhen]

Does description equal prescription? That is the core argument being made. This description equals prescriptions for all mankind. Is it then equally sin to be single? Hermeneutical process then must insist all men are required to abide by all the rest of those passages as instructions for life. Be a nudist, vegan, gardener, use no tools, only marry women formed by God with your rib etc… Argument simply doesn’t stand the least bit of scrutiny.

2.The first marriage was monogamous. Several other monogamous marriages have resulted in bad results. Therefore monogamous marriage is sin. Look at the results of the first monogamous marriage. Sin enters the world purely because Adam was married to one woman. Again the argument folds under the least bit of logic. Assumptions about the results do not equal condemnation by God. He never condemns or corrects a man for having more than one wife. He never legislates against it. Where is the verse where God condemns, corrects, or legislates against it? Bueller?
3. Paul’s instructions specifically for some men operating in a capacity in the ecclesia does not create a pattern for all mankind. That pattern is several thousand years too late. God’s example as He instructed thousands of years earlier is the pattern. We follow His example.

I’d love to see that verse. Where is that found in scripture? If it’s true show the verses where Jesus is described as having “one bride”.

I’m writing a book on polygyny in scripture disproving all the tired arguments and proving the validity of marriage to one or more women. Below is a first draft response to the “one bride” doctrine copied from my working document. Please excuse any errors (first draft)

God Has One Bride So That Is The Ideal​

I haven’t been able to find the passage where God informs us he has one bride. I ask for that passage and people say “everyone knows it”, except nobody can show me where scripture says this. Let us be Bereans and search scripture to see if it is true. But I will say beforehand. I used to believe this lie because it had been repeated so often that I assumed it must be true. In fact when I heard someone proclaim contrary to what I believed, even after I understood polygyny to be acceptable. I still said in myself “there’s no way that’s true, of course God has one bride!” Then I searched scripture to find where God says so… And it does not exist.

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” - Joseph Goebbels

This word “bride” is used 8 times in the NT. And none of them indicate in any way fashion or manner that the ecclesia or the church is a singular collective bride. The false doctrine that the whole of the ecclesia (assembly of believers) is a singular person is nowhere found in scripture. It is a lie and a fabrication from the hearts and minds of mankind. It is a doctrine of men, not of God. We know this because God nowhere in scripture says it is from Him.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 8x
The KJV translates Strong's G3565 in the following manner: bride (5x), daughter in law (3x).
Outline of Biblical Usage

1. a betrothed woman, a bride
2. a recently married woman, young wife
3. a young woman
4. a daughter-in-law

Strong’s Definitions
νύμφη nýmphē, noom-fay'; from a primary but obsolete verb νύπτω nýptō (to veil as a bride; compare Latin "nupto," to marry); a young married woman (as veiled), including a betrothed girl; by implication, a son's wife:—bride, daughter in law.


John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

This does not say the ecclesia is a singular bride… Maybe the next passage will.

Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

This one doesn’t either…
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

This is awkward… The bride of Christ appears to be a city, not the ecclesia. Maybe one of the last two passages will show us that all believers are a singular monogamous bride.

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Oh no… It looks to be that in the whole chapter here, nowhere does the description of this bride match anything human. It’s all about how the city is constructed and the dimensions.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Well, that does it for all of the “bride” passages. It seems this doctrine is not found in scripture. Perhaps “one body” means “one person”.

Rom 12:4
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

Rom 12:5
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

1Co 10:17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1Co 12:12
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1Co 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1Co 12:20
But now are they many members, yet but one body.

Eph 2:16
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Eph 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Col 3:15
And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.


Eph 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, G1135 even as Christ is the head of the church (ecclesia) : and he is the saviour of the body (Strongs). 24 Therefore as the church (ecclesia: the assembly of believers) is subject unto Christ, so let the wives G1135 be to their own husbands in every thing.
The husband is the head of the wife. This is a shadow of the example of Christ being the head of the assembly of believers plural. Jesus is the head of and savior of the “body” of believers. This is not a singular personhood. This is a gathering of all of those wedded to Christ, all of those who individually possess what scripture calls a “one spirit” relationship with Jesus.

In like manner, let the wives (plural), be subject to the husband who possesses them in every thing.



1Co 6:17
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1Co 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Eph 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Eph 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Phl 1:27
Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;


I have yet to see in all of this scriptural evidence, one singular passage that describes the totality of believers as one person, one bride wedded or promised to Christ. Instead, I see copious evidence to the contrary, that we are all members of one collection of or assembly of believers, all with a particular and unique “one spirit” relationship or marriage to the Lamb. We are each joined individually to Jesus. And collectively we are a body or group of believers. Similarly in the USA there is a body of legislators who assemble together in the Senate. That assembly is called a “body”, or “one body” of senators. But in no way shape or fashion does their membership of that body negate their individuality or personhood, or transmute their personhood into a singular person.

How is the book coming? Have an expected publication/availability date?

 

[frederick]

jesus appeals to "the beginning" when re-iterating that marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman:

Hi and thanks for your comments. I notice you started your quote of Scripture above from v:4, which misses out the question Jesus was answering in the verses you quoted. Please look at Matthew 19:3; The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"

The answer Jesus gave was to address this question of divorce which included pointing out the indissolubility of marriage, not whether more than one wife is permissible.

Since polygyny was always lawful, if Jesus suddenly changed the Law of God, the Pharisees would have been right in rejecting Him and having Him put to death as a liar and false teacher. Because Jesus never advocated changing the Law of God, even the laws regarding having multiple wives, the religious leaders had to get false witnesses to testify against Him in the mock trial so they could legitimize having Him crucified. Look at Matthew 26:59-60; Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward and said, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.'" Take note that they didn't say He tried to change God's Law regarding marriage!

If you read again the passage you referred to above and read the context, you will see there is nothing about changing God's Law about marriage being presented by Jesus Christ. Shalom

 

[YoreyC]

ok, i'd say these responses pretty well corner me.
good catch, admin, noting i changed the subject in matt 19.
nick, i did not skip your post, i just wanted to make sure i had a sensible response to what specifically my friend said.

 

[YoreyC]

a different friend, also arguing against polygamy, cites calvin, citing 1 cor 7:1-7:

Here we are that a woman has sexual authority over her husband’s body and vice versa. Calvin uses this passage to argue against polygamy: “For this reason, also, polygamy (tolugamia) is again condemned; for if this is an invariable condition of marriage, that the husband surrenders the power of his own body, and gives it up to his wife, how could he afterwards connect himself with another, as if he were free?​

different friends, different arguments:

I did extensive research, and the conclusion was that kids that grow up in a polygamous household were off the charts when it came to mental health problems.
It has also never produced a stable culture when it has been practiced at scale.
What is an ideal example of a polygamous marriage from scripture?​

1. [COLOR=var(--text-normal)]absolute monogamy crushes other options according to Unwin

[/COLOR]

abraham jacob david solomon gideon ezra hosea... ​

1. [COLOR=var(--text-normal)]none of these are positive examples of polygyny

1. [12:47 AM]​
   [COLOR=var(--text-normal)]David comes closest, but if you use the analogy of faith, as you damn well should, it is clear that God using cultural standards for the majesty of kings to set David above every pagan king != endorsement of polygyny
   
   it was a sin from the beginning, but it was not prohibited in the law
   much like divorce
   
   polygamy is historically much rarer than these obsessed incels you're talking to want to make out. Most Jewish men had one wife. It was basically kings that messed with that rule
   
   in fact, societies that permit polygamy are unstable in proportion to how much polygamy there is
   
   as I'm sure you can guess, this is because God built a 50/50 ratio of men and women into creation (mysterious...I wonder what it means), so when a bunch of men take way more than their fair share, the ones who can't get wives start turning to violence and destruction
   
   Desire to investigate the principle could very well be subconsciously motivated by porn use in many cases
   
   
   Look also at it's origin point (monogamy starts in the garden; polygamy starts with Cain's descendent Lamech) and its consummation (the first city was built by Cain, but the last-- the archetype-- is the New Jerusalem of God; the first Adam had only one wife, and the Last Adam takes ​
   only one​
   Bride as well). God used plenty of polygamists in the Old Testament (from Abraham to Judah, three of the first four in Christ's Hebrew patriarchy were polygamists of some sort), and nowhere is it expressly forbidden ​
   per se​
   that I know of. But from Hagar's gloating over Sarah, to Leah & Rachel's rivalry, to Elkanah's favoritism in 1 Samuel 1, to the wars of Absalom's Rebellion, including the rape of his sister by her own half-brother, to Solomon's foreign treaty-wives leading him into gross idolatry, in nearly every instance of polygamy the Bible examines, the polygamy itself is a large part of the family's problems and possibly or definitely the source of several of them. So just because it's sometimes ​
   permitted​
   doesn't in any way make it a good idea.​
   [/COLOR]

[/COLOR]

​

 

[YoreyC]

sorry for the crummy coloring and formatting, im not used to this board's metacode and i dont have the ability to edit yet.

 

[FollowingHim]

a different friend, also arguing against polygamy, cites calvin, citing 1 cor 7:1-7:

First reasonable sounding argument, 1 Cor 7:4 being "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."
But for that to be a prohibition of polygamy, you would have to presume that the wife would object to it and tell her husband to not use his body in that way. If the wife thinks it's ok (not as uncommon as you might think, and actually normal in cultures where polygamy is normal - it's not uncommon for African women in certain tribes to encourage their husbands to take additional wives in order to reduce the housework she has to do), then polygamy is not prohibited for that man even if Calvin's argument is correct.
So even interpreted as generously as possible it's not a prohibition.

Regarding the other arguments:

• Mental health: Need to provide data, we cannot intelligently discuss a random claim like that.
• Never producing a stable culture: Another unproven assertion, need to back it up.
• Examples of polygamy not being positive: Just an opinion, not objective and analysable.
• Accusation of porn interest: Ad-hominum attack, irrelevant.
• ...

And so forth. Your last post is just a shotgun blast of random statements with no analysis behind them, and if any one was disproven the person saying it would just pick another. Basically, you're looking at it wrong, as are they, because the burden of proof is reversed.

You do not need to prove polygamy is acceptable. It's all through scripture and never condemned. The people you are discussing it with have to prove that it is forbidden. The burden of proof is on them. You can waste a lot of time going down rabbitholes arguing about little things like whether one particular person's marriages are a good example or not, but they're just distractions. People only resort to bucketloads of bad arguments when they don't have one good argument. Don't get distracted by this nonsense. Just keep taking them back to the core question and challenging them to prove what they are claiming.

 

[frederick]

a different friend, also arguing against polygamy, cites calvin, citing 1 cor 7:1-7:


different friends, different arguments:

​

It is claimed above, I did extensive research, and the conclusion was that kids that grow up in a polygamous household were off the charts when it came to mental health problems.

This is just foolishness. Adam and Eve were monogamous when one of their sons had mental issues, murdered his brother, lied about it to God, and denied responsibility.

It was a monogamous family that brought sin, destruction, and death into this world. There is no biblical example of a polygamous family as "off the charts" as that!

 

[Joleneakamama]

It was a monogamous family that brought sin, destruction, and death into this world. There is no biblical example of a polygamous family as "off the charts" as that!

This is true, as even though Gideon's bad apple son killed more brothers in a premeditated fashion, he was still only one wicked son. Cain also was one son who did wickedly.
Looking at the parents, Gideon though living in a sinful world did some very faithful things. Adam living in a sinless world did a faithless thing... he didn't believe God.

 

[NickF]

How is the book coming? Have an expected publication/availability date?

This is my busiest time of the year, no time to work on it for a few months. As for expected availability date, I have no idea. It could be years at the rate I've had to work on it. Not even finished with the first draft.

 

[Mark C]

I did extensive research, and the conclusion was that kids that grow up in a polygamous household were off the charts when it came to mental health problems.

While this has been addressed in part, it deserves greater debunking:

"Extensive research" - and it didn't even reveal the Fatal Flaw of not understanding even the WORDS used?

"Polygamy" is NOT, repeat NOT, what Scripture permits, and in some cases MANDATES. Polygyny is. (A man may have MORE than one wife, the converse is called 'polyandry,' and 'polygamy' includes not only "both of the above," but other perversions that fill the news today, including 'revolving door' promiscuity.

If your "extensive research" was adulterated by not even understanding the data set, sorry, but it's worse than worthless.

And in a society which demonstrably hates YHVH, the One True God of the Bible, the data is conflated for MANY other obvious reasons.

 

[NickF]

1. [COLOR=var(--text-normal)]none of these are positive examples of polygyny

We model our behaviors after God. If God portrays Himself doing something, that thing must be a righteous act because God is righteousness.
The ONLY example of marriage God gives in scripture is that of polygyny. He portrays himself as having two wives in the OT, and God the Son portrays Himself multiple times in the NT as having multiple brides. Where does God portray Himself as being a monogamist? I haven't been able to find that passage. If someone claims it, make them prove it. Where is that in scripture? If they can find it I'd really like to see it.

1. [12:47 AM]
   [COLOR=var(--text-normal)]David comes closest, but if you use the analogy of faith, as you damn well should, it is clear that God using cultural standards for the majesty of kings to set David above every pagan king != endorsement of polygyny
   
   it was a sin from the beginning, but it was not prohibited in the law
   much like divorce

Sin is transgression of the law. Where there is no transgression of law, there is no sin. Divorce is not sin. Define sin. If someone wants to use a definition in contradiction to scripture, that definition is not correct. Polygyny cannot be sin because God made no law against it.

1. polygamy is historically much rarer than these obsessed incels you're talking to want to make out. Most Jewish men had one wife. It was basically kings that messed with that rule
   1. in fact, societies that permit polygamy are unstable in proportion to how much polygamy there is

Prove the claims

1. as I'm sure you can guess, this is because God built a 50/50 ratio of men and women into creation (mysterious...I wonder what it means), so when a bunch of men take way more than their fair share, the ones who can't get wives start turning to violence and destruction

1. Look also at it's origin point (monogamy starts in the garden; polygamy starts with Cain's descendent Lamech) and its consummation (the first city was built by Cain, but the last-- the archetype-- is the New Jerusalem of God; the first Adam had only one wife, and the Last Adam takes
   only one
   Bride as well).

Argument from silence. Monogamy "might have" started in the garden. Polygyny might have started with Lamech. God did not tell us Eve was Adams only wife, we can only assume. Doctrines are not built from assumptions. Jesus does not have only one bride. Prove it. Matt 22 & 25 proves the opposite.
Use the same argument and flip it right back around. Monogamy started in the garden, look at the results. The son of a monogamous couple killed his brother, that monogamous pair let sin and death into the world. Clearly monogamy is bad.

1. God used plenty of polygamists in the Old Testament (from Abraham to Judah, three of the first four in Christ's Hebrew patriarchy were polygamists of some sort), and nowhere is it expressly forbidden
   per se
   that I know of. But from Hagar's gloating over Sarah, to Leah & Rachel's rivalry, to Elkanah's favoritism in 1 Samuel 1, to the wars of Absalom's Rebellion, including the rape of his sister by her own half-brother, to Solomon's foreign treaty-wives leading him into gross idolatry, in nearly every instance of polygamy the Bible examines, the polygamy itself is a large part of the family's problems and possibly or definitely the source of several of them. So just because it's sometimes
   permitted
   doesn't in any way make it a good idea.
   

Sinful people did sinful things. Some of those people were in monogamous marriages or progeny of monogamous marriages. Others were in polygynous marriages, or were progeny of poly marriages. The number of wives a man has does not make sinners of the people. The fact they're human is the problem. Solomon married pagan women, THAT is what led him into idolatry. That's what God's word says on the matter at least, but people don't like to actually read what GOD says about it because it doesn't match their own notions.

Why even try to make arguments from what one man thinks is "a good idea"? This is exactly what one of my brothers retreated to when I proved there is no scriptural argument that stands the test of reason. It may be a bad idea, it may cause trouble in a person's life. It may be inadvisable. It's important to not combine arguments, keep on track. Discussing the scriptural validity and acceptance in God's eyes is one argument. Once that is established, then the secondary concern is the question of whether it is advisable. So exhaust the scriptural argumentation and don't allow the goalposts to change. Then once you and your friend are on the same page about the fact that it's never condemned in scripture, God never corrects a single man for it, and he sees that God only ever portrays Himself as a polygynist... Then, and only then is there any point to discussing if it's a "good idea".

We must go to scripture. God's example is that of a man with multiple wives. He has given us the relationship of marriage to explain to us our relationship to Him. He has chosen to give us as His own example the image of polygyny, not monogamy.

1. God the Father's examples
   1. Jeremiah 3 & 31:27,31-32
   2. Ezekiel 16&23
2. God the Son's examples
   1. Matthew 22:1-10 & 25:1-13

If God's ONLY examples ever depicted in scripture of this thing we call marriage is that of polygyny, where in the world does one get off saying it's sin or even "not a good idea" to walk as God walks do do as God does. It's literally the definition of Godliness to do as He does, to mirror Him in His example. It cannot be unrighteous because He shows himself doing it. God is not a god of confusion, he doesn't model behaviors for us, forget to give the commands to NOT do the thing he shows himself doing, and then expect us to magically figure it out.

That's what the mono-onlyist want us to believe... God forgot to give us that command... He gives us a list of what multiple woman pairings are forbidden rather than just saying "Thou shalt have only one living wife in covenant with thee at a time, thou shalt take no other wives but the wife of your youth." That would be easy to say... Instead he gave a whole list of what multiple woman pairings were expressly forbidden... I mean, why would He give a list of laws forbidding a half dozen woman pairings if one simple command would cover all of them? It's illogical. On top of that, why would God give specific laws concerning how a man is to conduct himself if he has or takes additional wives?

1. Deuteronomy 21:15-17
2. Exodus 21:10

It's absolutely ludicrous to insist on the monogamy only doctrine when there's not one verse that says what they believe.

If polygyny as He modeled it for us is bad or sin, where is the command to not do it? He gives specific instructions hundreds of times but He forgot to include this one command? If it's sin, then it's transgression of the law. Where's the law? I cannot be charged with the transgression of the law forbidding me from eating scrambled eggs on a Saturday. If I went before a judge and that was the charge, I simply would need to ask to be shown that law. It doesn't exist, so I cannot transgress the nonexistent law.

He models right behavior. He gives clear commands to refrain from doing things against His will and design. Then He expects us to conform to both His image and commands. We are to be conformed to the image of Christ. Romans 8:29
By golly, Jesus gave us some strong imagery in how He conducts marriage. And it's not to a singular bride.
Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made marriages for his son,


Back to the question of whether or not it is "a good idea". It could certainly be a bad idea to get married at all. Having children could result in a bad outcome. A child could die, or turn into an evil man who kills his brother. (the result of the first presumably monogamous marriage) Going to work could result in a car crash. Eating could result in choking to death. Going swimming could result in drowning. Marrying a second woman could result in some hardship in life. Do we avoid everything because some theoretical threat exists?

Is it a bad idea to get married because some monogamous people have divorced, or because a woman killed her husband? It's a silly argument to make. The monogamy onlyists don't apply their arguments equally. If they did, then monogamy is a bad idea and sinful. Just look at all the people who have gotten married as monogamists and terrible things happened!!! Oh the humanity! Whatever should we do! The only clear possibility is that all marriage is sinful death causing terrible awfulness! There's nothing to do but be celibate! In fact, going outside could result in a meteorite falling on your head! Best to stay inside!

It can be a hardship if the first wife is unwilling to submit to God and lay down her selfishness and envy. In other words, if someone is hell bent on being the source of strife and division, that's going to be a problem. It is sinful for a wife to behave like that, no way around it. Do you avoid moving to a different city for a good paying job just because your wife is going to throw a tantrum?

The world might judge harshly and be unloving towards a family. We are not promised butterflies, roses and happy contentment. We're told that the world will hate us and have enmity towards us. We don't reject Jesus because of the world hating us, why should we reject marriage for the same threat of hate?

I think it's more unloving and hateful for sweet young women to be consigned to an empty lonely life by the monogamy only doctrine of devils that forbids them from marrying. I know several young women in their 20's and 30's who can't find a decent Christian man to marry. There might be a 50/50 split of females to males at birth, but that doesn't mean monogamy is best. What God says is best is what we as believers must adhere to. And God does not say monogamy is best. He says marriage is good. And women deserve the option to marry a believing man.

Sex Ratios in the Pews: Is There Really a Deficit of Men in American Churches?

There is a crisis of men in American churches. This is a widely accepted view. There are books on the topic, along with informative websites to help churches fix this problem, and there are occasionally surveys cited to demonstrate the severity. But much as Evangelical fears about widespread...

ifstudies.org

The mono-onlyists insist on forbidding those unmarried women to a life without a husband. They are forbidding to marry. That's a doctrine of devils.