Why patriarchy implies polygyny?

[tship67]

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."--I Corinthians 8:6

I think there might be some confusion on the part of some regarding what are my premises vs conclusions. My premise, my beginning point, is not "polygyny, therefore patriarchy," but "patriarchy (hierarchy), as an institution ordained of God...therefore polygyny." Hierarchy is the more fundamental principle. That is my premise. As I mentioned in my previous response, the one-to-many aspect (or potentially one-to-many) aspect of hierarchy logically results in the validation or legitimization of multiple (or potential multiple) subordinates in the hierarchy. This is consistent with the principle of hierarchy whereas the reverse is not (thus the condemnation of adultery in Scripture). Logically, there could be (there isn't, but there could be) some consideration extraneous to the consideration of hierarchy which could delegitimize polygyny. If we are considering the marital hierarchy in and of itself, polygyny is logically right there from creation, whether actualized or manifested or not. Now, unless we want to invoke some extraneous principle, the denial of the legitimacy of polygyny constitutes a denial of the legitimacy of patriarchy. Again, to reiterate, the one-to-many aspect of hierarchy is intrinsic or inherent in the fact of hierarchy. This is why feminists, especially "Christian" feminists, spend so much time denouncing polygyny even though, as a practical matter, it is virtually non-existent in Christendom. It is too prominent in Scripture to ignore. They, unfortunately, grasp the logic here whereas many Christians dedicated to male headship in marriage do not. They correctly perceive that to repudiate the legitimacy of polygyny is to repudiate the legitimacy of patriarchy, male headship, in marriage. For them, this is the proverbial "end game." They are engaged in a spiritual assault against the ordinance of God, and part of the "program" to this end is to attack the propriety of polygyny, thus logically denying the propriety of patriarchy.

 

[joe88]

tship67, I appreciate your response. You give lots to great arguments to consider.

Hierarchy is the more fundamental principle. That is my premise.

I'm pretty sure most, if not all, people on this site agree with this part. Hierarchy is spelled out repeatedly throughout Scripture. We're on the same page here.

Logically, there could be (there isn't, but there could be) some consideration extraneous to the consideration of hierarchy which could delegitimize polygyny.

We agree on this as well. However, if this statement is true (that it would be possible to separately delegitimize polygamy -- even though it wasn't done), then it indicates to me that hierarchy correlates strongly with polygyny, but doesn't necessarily institute it by default and would not fall if polygyny were not approved. In the converse, attacking polygamy would not automatically erase hierarchy. They may complement strongly, but are separate. Your illustrations of boss --> employees, God --> individuals, male lion --> pride, parent --> children, polygamist husband --> wives, and others dovetail nicely with hierarchy's coexistence with polygyny. However, hierarchy could easily have been maintained in the form of God --> church, president --> vice-president, soldier --> armor-bearer, male wolf --> female wolf (wolves and some other animals typically pair bond for life, e.g. gibbons, beavers, geese, penguins, etc.), monogamist husband --> monogamist wife, and others. There were plenty of examples of patriarchs who took multiple wives, but we needed God's approval in His affirmative statements to the patriarchs, in prophecies concerning Himself, and in the Law to establish polygyny convincingly -- especially in the face of those who proclaim Adam and Eve's created monogamy as normative.

I find it significant that God makes a very early comment on polygamy in the Scriptural record to establish precedent (before we even have explicit mention of several of the 10 commandments!). While Lamech's marriage is essentially ignored morally-speaking, we have God's comments on the next polygamists profiled in Scripture, Abraham and Abimelech. God's pronouncement that they behaving righteously -- specifically in their marriage relationships -- establishes polygamy as legitimate (Gen 16:9, 20:3-7, 20:17-18, 21:13). Subsequent patriarchs are treated similarly. The Law and the Prophets are of course consistent with early statements, and the New Testament presents further confirmation (e.g. Parable of the Ten Virgins).

Feminists hate polygyny because it is probably the strongest visible demonstration of hierarchy, but they hate hierarchy in monogamy, in the church, and have successfully either torn it down in secular organizations or have inserted themselves at the helm. They have effectively neutered hierarchy in marriage through family law and no-fault divorce statutes and have undermined parents' authority over children through UN "child's rights" policies. They hate the possibility that social norms may have authority over them, so they parade under slogans of "slut walks" and "free the nipple." They hate the authority of created feminine biology which silently proclaims that their bodies and lifestyles will change through the process of bearing children - even to the point of murder. Ultimately, they hate God's authority and want to "be as God, knowing good and evil," yet believing that they "shall not surely die." They hate any situation where they have to submit to any authority and want to do whatever they want to do, so they will bristle whenever and wherever authority is even hinted at -- especially male authority.

I think we agree that hierarchy and polygyny are approved by God and that they complement each other well, but at present I can't see how they rise or fall together. I can conceptualize ways in which (theoretically) God could've excluded hierarchy and preserved polygyny or instituted hierarchy while excluding polygny. That's not how it worked out in reality, but it could've, and that's enough for me to be cautious about using one as a logical foundation for the other.

 

[cnystrom]

I can conceptualize ways in which (theoretically) God could've excluded hierarchy and preserved polygyny or instituted hierarchy while excluding polygny.

True, but the hierarchy implies the one to many relationship. A hierarchy with a one to one relationship is an unnatural exception. God could have made an unnatural exception and I think that is what the monogamist are trying for: trying to show that God made a hierarchy with an unnatural one to one relationship. It does not take much Biblical knowledge to clearly see that this is not the case.

Unfortunately the modern church does not like the hierachy either, which is why many, if not most marriages are not Biblical marriages. In fact I think moderns hate the hierarchy even more than polygamy and patriarchy is considered the enemy by definition. The"open minded ones" can accept polygamy but in thier minds hierarchy is equivalent to abuse.

Lastly, Tom thank you for your excellent work. It really is a tour de force.

 

[Mojo]

What @joe88 said. That was good.

This isn't a denial of what Mr. Shipley has done and written, but I think it's overreach to link the two concepts together as inseparable. It isn't necessary to promote our viewpoints.

 

[Nikud]

A hierarchy with a one to one relationship is an unnatural exception

Please clarify. Every hierarchy is established first with a one on one relationship even a polygynist marriage begins with a first wife. Unless the first wife comes already with kids.

 

[Mojo]

IMO, the only way you could say that God established the one-to-many in creation would be in Adams dominion over the other created beings, but that is not headship patriarchy.

I shudder to use the monogamy only argument, but if God wanted to institute the patriarchy/polygyny link....why not more than one wife at the beginning? You only need one female to create headship. You don't need children either. It's the seed that must be planted to grow the tree that has the potential to multiply fruit and produce more trees.

 

[Quartus]

why not more than one wife at the beginning? You only need one female to create headship

.... and you can only have one female to create one seed

may I suggest that certain aspects of this are better argued from the patriarchs?

Father Abraham - God as the Father (e.g. Gen 22)
Isaac - his "only begotten" son (Heb 11:17), prepared to be a willing sacrifice, submitting to his aged father
Jacob and his seed - the development of the seed (natural/spritual Israel, the ecclesia)

NT confirmations:
Jesus challenges to Jews - if you were the children of Abraham... Isaacs (true sons)? or Ishmaels (mockers of the true son)? Gal 4:21-31 refers
parable of the mustard seed (Abraham small start) grows into tree - natural Israel from whence Christ the branch was taken (Ezek 17:22-24)
Christ's prayer that his ecclesia would be established in accordance with the patriarchal type (John 17:21, John 17:22, & John 17:23 - three times for emphasis)

Polygyny is clearly used not only to establish the seed but also to develop the allegories (Gal 4:21-31 again).
These allegories develop past Jacob (Judah tries to destroy the seed royal by intending that Tamar should be burnt, and despite the multinational promise to Abraham his sons refuse to allow repentant Gentiles into the covenant (Dinah and Shechem), not to mention selling Joseph their eventual deliverer for a few pieces of silver).

But push the theme of the seed back to Eden where it all starts, and I feel that it is the Melchisedek theme that is being prioritised: 1st Adam, so there can be ONE 2nd Adam (Christ/Melchisedek) and after that there will be MANY Melchisedeks (which both Israel and the ecclesia are called to be: ecclesia of firstborn, nation of Kings and priests etc).
Natural firstborns always fail, and the firstborn blessing of headship passes to an elected younger son (e'g; Judah rejected, Joseph chosen).
What happens as soon as there is a woman and she has sinned? There is IMMEDIATELY the promise of the seed of the woman in contrast to the seed of the serpent who will be her enemy (just as IMMEDIATELY there is the promise of Hieracrhy - so nothing is lost).
And Eve is the mother of all living - because the whole family is to be taken from one seed - so Adam never needed more than one wife.

So I would consider that Abraham&Co do a better job to establish principles of of polygyny than Adam. But Adam's monogamy is there even in the life of Abraham, as the true seed (singular, Christ) can only ever come from one woman, whether it is Eve, or whether it is Sarah.
The Jewish taunt was and still is (of Christ) "who's your father?" The inspired retort (to mocking Jews) is "Never you mind that your natural father is Abraham, you make sure that Sarah is your spiritual mother" Gal 4

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

One seed can only ever have one mother, even if the one is destined to become many later.

 

[cnystrom]

Please clarify. Every hierarchy is established first with a one on one relationship even a polygynist marriage begins with a first wife. Unless the first wife comes already with kids.

With two you can establish a relationship. You do not need to establish a hierarchy. But why did God establish the male/female relationship as a hierarchy?

A hierarchy is a method to handle complexity. For example the military it is imperative that someone is in charge and that a single person (the captain of the ship) can be responsible for hundreds and sometimes thousands of people. And when the missile comes in and a bunch of people die or get incapacitated, then it is imperative that the hierachy immediately reestablishes itself to remain functional. Every person from top to bottom are in a pecking order. Even officers of the same rank are in an order based on date of promotion. And the officers are well aware of who is senior and who is junior in the same rank. And if there is any doubt, there is an actual list of all officers and their dates of rank and seniority. All of this is to handle a complex organizational problem.

The fact that God set up the male/female relationship as a hierachy does not "prove" polygamy, but it strongly implies that God was looking ahead to it. It makes for a family that is CAPABLE of adding more. The hierarchy creates a framework for a family that can be orderly while still complex with multiple wives, etc. Whether or not it actually does, or needs to, depends on the circumstances. In some cases it was mandatory such as levirate marriage. A hierarchy facilitates this later requirement.

The genius of Mr. Shipley is that he recognized that the model family WAS a model family. But the model is not monogamy, it is patriarchy. And that hierarchy (patriarchy) implies polygyny.

The fact that the patriarchs saw it this way and did not see any contradiction, including probably the author Moses, seems to confirm this view.

 

[cnystrom]

I shudder to use the monogamy only argument, but if God wanted to institute the patriarchy/polygyny link....why not more than one wife at the beginning? You only need one female to create headship.

True.

First of all it is important to acknowledge that that is in fact what he did. He used one female to create a headship relationship.

Secondly, that this is the important point: headship. God was not trying to encourage polygamy. Or discourage it. The point is that polygamy was not the important point. Headship or patriarchy was.

The last point is that polygamy was not the important point, because from the above teaching, dare I say that polygamy was a given? Is there any place in the OT where it is even debated? Is there any place where it is even questioned? It was not an important point for God to teach because everyone understood it already?

Polygamy was not even an issue until it clashed with bad Greco/Roman thought thousands of years later. We want God to have Adam with multiple wives to make it explicit for us, but I might suggest that it is our own peculiararity that creates this need/desire and not a deficiency in the teaching.

For many years I thought polygamy was this wierd anachronism in the Bible. Then one day it dawned on me that the Bible was not out of step. It was me.

 

[Nikud]

Every person from top to bottom are in a pecking order. Even officers of the same rank are in an order based on date of promotion. And the officers are well aware of who is senior and who is junior in the same rank. And if there is any doubt, there is an actual list of all officers and their dates of rank and seniority

How does this apply to a polygamist marriage where the wife's are equal to each other and none holds a position of authority over the other? In a Heirachy such as the military as you stated their are senior staff who have authority over junior staff who have authority over those under them. If the Military Heirachy model is used to support patriarchy implies polygyny statement then it would imply that wivess would have authority over other wives. I can see where your coming from, in a business department model you have the boss who have authority over department heads who have authority over their departments. The department heads are indepent from each other but must work with each other under the authority of the boss. The thing is even a business once again starts with a one on one relationship. Employer to first employee. That is a Heirachy as well. To say that that patriarchy implies polygyny over looks the nessecity of the first marriage which without it polygyny can not be established. Shipley would have been absolutely correct if he would have said Biblical polygyny implies/affirms patriarchy. You can't build a house without a foundation.... Well you can but don't be surprised when its not stable.

 

[cnystrom]

We agree on this as well. However, if this statement is true (that it would be possible to separately delegitimize polygamy -- even though it wasn't done), then it indicates to me that hierarchy correlates strongly with polygyny, but doesn't necessarily institute it by default

That is the point! With hierarchy the default would be ... multiple. A one to one hierarchy would be the odd exception.

The important point is: The patriarchs never saw any contradiction in polygamy because it never violated the important principle of hierarchy.

and would not fall if polygyny were not approved. In the converse, attacking polygamy would not automatically erase hierarchy. They may complement strongly, but are separate.

They are only separate to us because of our own peculiarity. There is no sign that the God or the patriarchs thought of it seperately.

Your illustrations of boss --> employees, God --> individuals, male lion --> pride, parent --> children, polygamist husband --> wives, and others dovetail nicely with hierarchy's coexistence with polygyny. However, hierarchy could easily have been maintained in the form of God --> church, president --> vice-president, soldier --> armor-bearer, male wolf --> female wolf (wolves and some other animals typically pair bond for life, e.g. gibbons, beavers, geese, penguins, etc.), monogamist husband --> monogamist wife, and others. There were plenty of examples of patriarchs who took multiple wives, but we needed God's approval in His affirmative statements to the patriarchs, in prophecies concerning Himself, and in the Law to establish polygyny convincingly

We do not need to be defensive. We do not need to establish it. From the Biblical perspective it is a given. The Bible never tries to establish it or defend it.

-- especially in the face of those who proclaim Adam and Eve's created monogamy as normative.

Which is why the critical point here is that the Adam and Eve story establishes hierarchy (patriarchy). We do not have to guess about what it might be about. The story is all about hierarchy. It is built in to the story. Monogamy is only circumstance and those who see it binding example for monogamy are only expressing confirmation bias. There is nothing in the text to indicate that.

I find it significant that God makes a very early comment on polygamy in the Scriptural record to establish precedent (before we even have explicit mention of several of the 10 commandments!). While Lamech's marriage is essentially ignored morally-speaking, we have God's comments on the next polygamists profiled in Scripture, Abraham and Abimelech. God's pronouncement that they behaving righteously -- specifically in their marriage relationships -- establishes polygamy as legitimate (Gen 16:9, 20:3-7, 20:17-18, 21:13). Subsequent patriarchs are treated similarly. The Law and the Prophets are of course consistent with early statements, and the New Testament presents further confirmation (e.g. Parable of the Ten Virgins).

God is not trying to establish a precedent. Polygamy references are all in passing. It is a given. The word for polygamy in the Bible is "marriage".

Feminists hate polygyny because it is probably the strongest visible demonstration of hierarchy,

Exactly. Which also illustrates the strong connection between hierarchy and polygyny.

but they hate hierarchy in monogamy, in the church, and have successfully either torn it down in secular organizations or have inserted themselves at the helm. They have effectively neutered hierarchy in marriage through family law and no-fault divorce statutes and have undermined parents' authority over children through UN "child's rights" policies. They hate the possibility that social norms may have authority over them, so they parade under slogans of "slut walks" and "free the nipple." They hate the authority of created feminine biology which silently proclaims that their bodies and lifestyles will change through the process of bearing children - even to the point of murder. Ultimately, they hate God's authority and want to "be as God, knowing good and evil," yet believing that they "shall not surely die." They hate any situation where they have to submit to any authority and want to do whatever they want to do, so they will bristle whenever and wherever authority is even hinted at -- especially male authority.

A strong organization has order and structure. Satan hates a strong organizations: church, marriage, family, etc. He wants to break them down and uses lies are to spread confusion. For Satan clarity is an enemy.

I think we agree that hierarchy and polygyny are approved by God and that they complement each other well, but at present I can't see how they rise or fall together.

Dominoes. First get rid of polygamy, and then it is easier to attack the real enemy: patriarchy. Can you imagine how hard it would be to attack patriachy in a polygamous society?

I suspect that the current rise in polygamy in our culture is God's answer to the lies of feminism and the glorification of homosexuality, etc.

 

[cnystrom]

How does this apply to a polygamist marriage where the wife's are equal to each other and none holds a position of authority over the other?

An obvious difference is that the military goes on until no one is left.

In marriage if the husband dies its over. So there is no need for hierarchy among the wives. They are all free agents now to find new husbands.

 

[Nikud]

I suspect that the current rise in polygamy in our culture is God's answer to the lies of feminism and the glorification of homosexuality, etc.

G-d has an answer for everthing.

 

[cnystrom]

The thing is even a business once again starts with a one on one relationship. Employer to first employee. That is a Heirachy as well. To say that that patriarchy implies polygyny over looks the nessecity of the first marriage which without it polygyny can not be established.

I do not think anyone is saying that a one on one relationship can not be hierarchal. Indeed everyone agrees that the Adam and Eve story is just so.

Tom Shipley's point is that the natural shape of a hierarchy is a pyramid, not a totem pole. We only think of this paticular hierarchy as possibly like a totem pole because of our own (unbiblical) cultural bias. The patriarchs and the Bible clearly see it as a pyramid.

The natural shape of a hierarchy is a pyramid as everyone in network marketing knows. Sure it starts out with one customer in a one to one relatioship, but if you are in network marketing and have a less strong totem pole type organization than it will not be long before you are doing something else.

 

[Nikud]

The natural shape of a hierarchy is a pyramid as everyone in network marketing knows.

When it comes to families that follow patriachy not all are pyramids. My arguement right now is with the definitions that are being used in attempt to make the arguement that patriarchy implies polygyny. There is the fact that not all hierarchies have a man at the head. So comparing patriarchy to hierarchy is using False equivalence arguement to support the False equivalence arguement that patriarchy impies polygyny. Its a logic fallacy.

G-d
A
B
C C C

G-d
A
B B
C C C C

G-d
A
B
C

G-d
A
B B B
C

 

[joe88]

Which is why the critical point here is that the Adam and Eve story establishes hierarchy (patriarchy). We do not have to guess about what it might be about. The story is all about hierarchy.

I agree with this. Hierarchy is clearly established. However, without more information, we'd be arguing about whether it was supposed to be monogamous or polygamy was implied until the end of time. That could be a great reason why most Christian authors want to only talk about Adam and Eve and then skip all of the rest of the Bible's instruction on the topic. Without any explicit statement by God, we have a demonstration of hierarchy, but that's it. What kind of hierarchy is it? Well, one where the husband leads his wife. That's all we really have. The rest is speculation based on the set of arguments we choose to embrace. Thankfully, the Lord revealed His intentions so that we all could be sure.

Dominoes. First get rid of polygamy, and then it is easier to attack the real enemy: patriarchy. Can you imagine how hard it would be to attack patriachy in a polygamous society?

Yes, you bet I can. Simply look out the window into our own society. "Polyamory," "swinging," "polyfidelity," and "communalism" (along with other "consenting adult" practices which are better left unnamed) are being praised and promoted. What they often have in common is the option for females to lead or for there to be no lead at all. They erase hierarchy and follow the satanic dictum of "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law." These arrangements are on the rise throughout the Western world. However, lifelong hierarchical polygamy with the husband at the head continues to be demonized and vilified.

With reference to dominoes, the first domino is always to attack the knowledge of the Word of God. My assertion is that the biggest problem in our world is widespread and intentional Biblical illiteracy - a pervasive unwillingness to know the Lord and follow His commands. After this domino falls, the rest will fall readily.

 

[Mojo]

Another fine job @joe88.

Biblical illiteracy and the need to create coequal partners, which eventually leads to matriarchy is our certain downfall. Our fathers thought Commies would bring our downfall. Not so.

 

[andrew]

Biblical illiteracy and the need to create coequal partners, which eventually leads to matriarchy is our certain downfall. Our fathers thought Commies would bring our downfall. Not so.

This is just an insert that could start a new thread, but we all need to realize, if we don't already, how important the issue of male/female relationships is an ultimate sense. It is the issue of our time.

I've mentioned this in other contexts, but the legal basis in the U.S. for a worldwide numbering system that controls commerce (hmmm, what does that remind you of?), codified at 42 U.S.C. §666 (what does that remind you of?...) is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. (I think. Mid-90s for sure, and the rest of the title is right.) Aimed at "deadbeat dads" (remember that slogan?), it provides for national and international (through reciprocity agreements) numbering, requires states to share numbers and enforce each other's child support orders, interferes with a man's ability to earn a living if he's not numbered or is behind on 'child support', sets up a 'new hires' database in each state to track employment, and even provides for work camps (I'm not making this up).

They told us the SSN would never be the basis of a national numbering system. They lied. We are in the fight of our lives.

"May you live in interesting times...."

 

[tship67]

I think some of the comments get far afield of the absolute simplicity of the matter: hierarchy involves a one-to-many potential. The early Israelites before Moses, did not have a Law of Moses to spell out the implications of hierarchy via case law, but I rather suspect they had the history of Adam and Eve passed on to them through Noah. There was never any concept of the example of Adam's monogamy requiring monogamy. They understood the nature of hierarchy. Since there is a straight line from hierarchy to multiple subordinates, then de-legitimizing multiple subordinates AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE denies the principle (hierarchy) which results in the multiple subordinates in the first place. It really is that simple and straightforward. Which brings me right back to my comment in the book. Like it or not, the "biblical" feminists logic on this point cannot be repudiated: deny the legitimacy of polygyny and you deny the legitimacy of the principle (hierarchy) which gives rise to it.

 

[Nikud]

AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE denies the principle (hierarchy) which results in the multiple subordinates in the first place. It really is that simple and straightforward. Which brings me right back to my comment in the book. Like it or not, the "biblical" feminists logic on this point cannot be repudiated: deny the legitimacy of polygyny and you deny the legitimacy of the principle (hierarchy) which gives rise to it.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking the strawman"