Re: Was "Monogyny Only" Ordained by Jesus-Jehovah?
CPC - Communist Party of China
in fact ,
in middle age ,
Christian early priest had many wives .
n Nov 23, 1:47 am, Elkanah <Elkanah21stC...@aol.com> wrote:
> Was "Monogyny Only" Ordained by Jesus-Jehovah?
>
> Rebuttal/Reply to "Polygamy" athttp://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/polygamy/
> As to "1. Polygamy was never God’s intention for humanity" and "Only
> these two people were supposed to enter into the marriage designed by
> God (Genesis 2:24). . . .Anything that deviates from this pattern of
> marriage fails to fulfil God’s creation purposes. Therefore polygamy
> can never be God’s ideal for human relationships."
> My reply is the same reply Jesus gave;
> "Mark 7:" 7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but
> rules taught by men.' 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are
> holding on to the traditions of men." 9 And he said to them: "You have
> a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe
> your own traditions! . . .13Thus you nullify the word of God by your
> tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like
> that."
> You will not find in the Scriptures the idea, concept or teaching of
> "polygamy can never be God’s ideal for human relationships." You will
> not find in the Scriptures the idea, concept of teaching that Biblical
> Christian polygyny "fails to fulfil God’s creation purposes." Such
> negative ideas, concepts and teachings about Biblical Christian
> polygyny set aside the commands of god in order to observe the
> traditions of humanly organized Christianity, which nullify the Word
> of God.
> FROM OBJECTIONS TO BIBLICAL AND GODLY POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES, & JESUS;
> Another Look for Christians.
> COPYRIGHT © JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved.
> Copyright © 01/14/'95; 01/12/'96, 07/26/2003; 3/28/09 (Revised)
> By L. Tyler P.O. Box 620763, San Diego, CA 92162-0763
>
> Gen 2:22 And the LORD God made the rib
> (which He had taken from the man) into a woman. And He
> brought her to the man.
>
> >>Is this an ideal setting for the first marriage?
>
> Yes. Do we have such a face to face relationship with
> God today? No. Had man been designated as her head/ruler
> yet? No. Had she been told by God yet that Adam
> would take the lead in their marriage? No. Weren't they
> still perfectly equal partners still? Yes. Is it realistic to
> take this perfect marriage-in-paradise and hold it
> up as the norm and standard for us today who live in a
> fallen and sinful world? No. Wasn't it
> God Himself that changed the marital relationship
> when they were expelled from the Garden? Yes. Does
> God anywhere in His Word say that this marriage-
> made-in-Paradise is to be our model and standard
> for Godly marriage? No. Where? No where in the Bible.
> If He didn't make it the norm and the standard, dare we
> make it the standard (Mark 7)? No.
>
> >>Is there anything in this first marriage
>
> that clearly and specifically allows only monogyny?
> No. Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly
> and specifically forbids polygyny? No. Is there
> anything in this passage that indicates that God set
> monogyny up as the model we must follow? No. Is there
> anything in this passage that clearly and specifically
> instructs us to follow Adam's example of monogyny? No.
>
> >>>The first mention of marriage in the Bible
>
> is where God miraculously provided Eve to Adam in
> the Garden of God. Monogamists say that if God
> approved of polygyny God would have given Eve,
> Eyvette, Eva and Evellyn to Adam. On the other
> hand, just like with you and I, if we have more than
> one good option, we don’t need to exercise all of
> them, just the one that is best at the time. There is
> no quarrel with the fact that God has ordained that
> the official male leaders in the local assemblies
> of his Church are to have one wife>33 , and that
> even in the Old Testament the kings were instructed
> not to “multiply” wives, horses or gold to
> themselves. Jehovah-Jesus described Himself in the
> Old Testament both as an monogynist >34 and
> as a polygynist >35. To be a valid prefigure of
> Christ (“the last Adam”) you would expect Adam,
> the first Adam, to have one wife, just as Christ, the
> “last Adam”, has one wife, the Church.
> [Footnotes: >33 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1; >34(Ezek 16);
>
> >35 (Ezek 23)]
>
> Gen.2: 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones
> and flesh of my flesh. [She] shall be called Woman because
> [she] was taken out of man.
> 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
> and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh. 25
> And they were both naked, the man and his wife; and they
> were not ashamed.
>
> >>>Does Jesus' statement “The two shall become
>
> one flesh” mean that only one man and one woman
> should become one flesh, as in monogamy>36 , as
> most of the "leaders" maintain? Doesn't the Spirit
> uses “The two shall become one flesh” principle in
> 1 Corinth. 6 to show “that he who is joined to a
> harlot is one body with her” , and then uses the
> same “one flesh” principle in Mt. 19 about a
> husband and his wife? Jerome (340-420AD)
> didn't indicate any problem understanding the
> possibility when he wrote, "Lamech, a man of blood
> and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh
> between two wives.">37
> [Footnotes:>.36 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF
> BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >.37 A
> Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
> Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII; p.
> 358.]
>
> >>>Since the harlot is one flesh with every fornicator
>
> she has sexual union with and the husband is one
> flesh with his wife, how can the “one flesh”
> principle be unique to marriage and how can it be
> an argument for monogamy or against polygyny ?
> Doesn't the “one flesh” principle in physical
> reality describe only the result of sexual union,
> whether it involve a harlot, a fornicator,
> a married couple or a polygamous marriage?
> Weren't David, Israel and Abraham “one flesh”
> with each of their wives in marriage>38, just as
> the adulteress >39 was one flesh in adultery with
> each of her adulterers? Under the Law by Moses,
> being “one flesh” could have been the basis for
> marriage>40 but not so for we nonJews/nonIsraelites
> after Jesus' Spirit decreed through
> the Apostles>41 that nonJews,
> nonIsraelites are not required to keep the Sinai Law
> of Moses >42, right? If we do not control ourselves
> today, aren't we commanded to marry>43 , with who
> to marry not specified, only that your mate be
> saved>44 and godly>45?
> [Footnotes: >38(Ex21:7-11; Deut 21:15,16; 2Sam
> 12:8); >39of Prov. 6 & 7; >40 (Deut. 22:22-30; Ex.
> 22:16,17). >41 (Acts 10 + 11 + 15 + 21); >42 (Eph.
> 2 and Col. 2, especially in the case of 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Tm.
> 5:11-14) >43 1 Cor. 7:1,2,9,36; 1 Tim 5:14;
> Appendix Six of this document. >44. 2 Corinthians
> 6. .>45 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14]
>
> Being one flesh, as Eph. 5:22-33 shows, is one of the
> best motives for the husband being good and godly to
> his wife. A Christian elder apparently maintains that
> godly equality is possible only in a monogamous
> marriage, and that polygamy increases women's
> subordination.>59 He apparently believes that the
> harmony and unity of Gen. 2:24 is unable to develop
> in a polygamous marriage, and that monogamy best
> reflects Christ's love to the Church>60. How did I miss
> that? Was it the blissful and enraptured love the
> Shulamite had for her Solomon who loved and adored
> her in their polygynous marriage>15? Was it Abigail
> who gave up her wealthy independence as Nabal's
> widow in order to be David's wife in a polygynous
> marriage?
> [Footnotes:>59. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME A
> POLYGAMIST; p21ff. >60. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE
> ME. . . . P. 25. >15 (Song of Sol. 6)]
>
> No, but I think a Christian elder missed the point that
> a tragic number husbands around the world have
> neglected, been unloving to, abused and subordinated
> their wives in monogamy. The women's movement
> for the right to vote, the heart breaking of spousal
> abuse and neglect, the right to have equal pay for
> equal tasks done by men, and the whole affirmative
> action program for women shows that monogamy
> proves to be a pretty effective context in which
> women can be subordinated and treated quite
> unlovingly. The problem, again, is that sin and the
> flesh are the problem, not monogamy or polygyny.
> There is no question that monogamy best reflects
> Christ's love to the Church, that is why He chose it and
> modeled it for all the Church leaders>16 of whom He
> is the Chief leader. The real situation is that we are
> all not Church leaders and we all have our "best", our
> different "gifts" from God>17 .
> [Footnotes:>16 (1 Tm. 3 & Ti. 1). >17 (1 Cor.
> 7:6,7,17-28)]
>
> I understand a Christian elder to state that in
> monogamy both leave and both cleave, becoming one
> flesh, and this is only possible for two marital
> partners, therefore polygamy is excluded by the
> Biblical idea of equality>61. He gives no scripture
> reference for this position, and I don't believe he
> would be able to do so. Statistics show that most
> Christian monogamous marriages fail to maintain this
> harmonious equality, and again because of sin and the
> flesh. There is no claim that in polygyny three
> "become one", but indeed the husband does become
> one flesh with each of his wives>18 and the
> fornicator becomes one flesh with each harlot with
> whom he fornicates>19 . There is no reason why a
> polygynist and his wives/concubines could not attain
> to the level of the saints in the early church where
> they shared all that they had, and had all things in
> common>20 in a sweet and loving harmony. In the
> Lord any family, even a polygynous family, can
> achieve that unity of the Spirit in the bond of
> peace>21 .
> [Footnotes:>61. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . >. P.
> 49ff. >18 (Matt. 19). >19 (1 Cor. 6:12-20).>20 Acts 4. >21 (Phil. 4:13;Eph. 4:1-5; Psalm 133
>
> and Acts 3 & 4)]
>
> ==============================================
>
> >>>>>Gen.3:6 Fallen Monogynous Adam and Eve and Polygyny
> >>>>>>Gen.3:
>
> 9 ¶ And the LORD God called to Adam and said to him,
> Where [are] you? 10 And he said, I heard Your voice in the
> garden, and I was afraid, because I [am] naked, and I hid
> myself. . . .
> 16 ¶ To the woman He said, I will greatly increase
> your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall bear
> sons, and your desire shall be toward your husband, and he
> shall rule over you.
>
> >>>Monogamy was established in a sinless
>
> world with sinless people. Monogamy was established
> when Adam and Eve were still perfectly equal before Jesus,
> for Jesus didn't tell Eve that " he shall rule over you" until
> after they had sinned. Monogamy was established when Eve's
> desire had not yet been centered in Adam ("your desire shall
> be toward your husband"). Monogamy was established when there
> would have been no pain in childbirth ("In pain you shall bear
> sons"). Divorce and separation were inconceivable and impossible
> in the Garden before the sin and fall. This is not the condition
> of monogyny today.
>
> >>>Sin destroyed the cacoon, the paradise in which
>
> monogamy was conceived. Sin caused monogyny to be
> dramatically changed by Jesus. Jesus does not require us to
> experience and know monogyny as He established it in the
> Garden before the fall, so how dare we require others to
> experience and know monogyny as He originally established
> it? We shouldn't for if we do so, we are guilty of vainly worshipping
> Jesus "teaching as their teachings commandments of men. . . leaving
> the
> commandment of God," to "hold what is delivered by men to keep --"
> setting
> " aside the commandment of God," to "observe what is delivered by
> yourselves to keep.
> . . "making void the word of God by your traditional teaching which ye
> have delivered; . . Mark 7
>
> >>>The monogyny and polygyny the came into existence after
>
> the sin and fall and expulsion from the Garden reflect the nature
> of humans and marriage after the sin, fall and expulsion. The
> monogyny that came into being after the sin and fall was monogyny
> under THE CURSE OF SIN.
>
> >>> Aren't they now in a whole new "universe",
>
> under a curse, mortal, subject to sickness and
> weakness and a whole new way of relating to each
> other as a result of their sin? Isn't there a
> significant change in their relationship with each
> other and with God? Hadn't the ideal first marriage
> become a very different thing because of sin?
> Didn't their world become like ours is today? Isn't
> this the beginning of the changes that would take
> place in human matrimony? Is there anything in
> this first marriage that clearly and specifically
> allows only monogyny? Is there anything in this
> first marriage that clearly and specifically forbids
> polygyny? Is there anything in this passage that
> indicates that God set monogyny up as the model we
> must follow? Is there anything in this passage that
> clearly and specifically instructs us to follow
> Adam's example of monogyny?
>
> Leaders say that one of God's purposes in
> creation was that the marital standard for man be
> monogamy>32 even though there is not one
> scripture, quoted or paraphrased, that says that.
> Yet I understand a Christian elder and most of the
> "leaders" to persist, apparently maintaining that
> there is no doubt that God's indisputable will, as
> seen in the Old Testament, is monogamy.>33.
> [Footnotes:>.32 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF
> BIBLICAL LAW, page 362, by R. Rushdonney.;
>
> >33. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.21]
>
> Whether or not it is the best form of
> marriage for each individual depends on the gift and
> the leading (Rom. 8:1-14) each individual receives
> from God. St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a
> gentler way of saying it that I feel more reflects the
> God of Gen. 1 and 1 Cor. 13. Consider the following:
> “That the good purpose of marriage,
> however, is better promoted by one husband
> with one wife, than by a husband with
> several wives, is shown plainly enough by
> the very first union of a married pair,
> which was made by the Divine Being
> Himself, with the intention of marriages
> taking their beginning therefrom, and of its
> affording to them a more honorable
> precedent. In the advance, however, of the
> human race, it came to pass that to certain
> good men were united a plurality of good
> wives, --- many to each; and from this it
> would seem that moderation sought rather
> unity on one side for dignity, while nature
> permitted plurality on the other side for
> fecundity. For on natural principles it is
> more feasible for one to have dominion over
> many, than for many to have dominion over
> one.”
> [Footnote: >..34 2b A Select Library of the Nicene
> and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church;
> Vol. V; p. 267]
>
> Not one verse, quoted or paraphrased, says
> that God's purpose was that "monogamy be the
> standard for man" but most of our relgious leaders
> teach this doctrine. They say that Gen. 2:18-24
> shows that "The normative marriage is clearly
> monogamous.”
>
> First that passage says nothing about Gen 2
> being normative, and no other passage in the Bible
> says that. None of us are commanded by God to
> emulate or imitate Adam. Adam had to be unique as
> the first Adam just as Christ had to be unique to be
> the “last Adam”>35. , and being unique it is no
> surprise that both “Adams” have one unique wife
> (the first Adam, Eve; the last Adam>36. Jesus, the
> Church). In the Old Testament Jesus portrayed
> Himself as a polygynist>37 in accordance with His
> own Law governing polygyny, and as King of Kings
> He did not “multiply” wives to Himself. In the New
> Testament as the Leader of the Church, He could
> have only one wife in accordance with His own Law
> governing the marital status of Church leaders>4
> [Footnotes:>.35. 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-
> 21. >.36. DITTO 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-
> 21. >.37 Ezekiel 23; >.>4 Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3]
>
> "Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam
> and Eve, since God created only one wife for
> Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the
> time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not
> forbidden inScripture. . . ...Polygamy
> continues to the present day among Jews in
> Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental,
> and African countries." [Douglas’ New Bible
> Dictionary : MARRIAGE: .....p.787]
> “. . Elkanah, the husband of Hannah and
> Peninnah, is an interesting example of a
> man of no particular position who
> nevertheless had more than one wife; this
> may be an indication that bigamy, at least, if
> not polygamy, was not confined to the very
> wealthy and exalted. At all events, polygyny
> was an established and recognized
> institution from the earliest of times.”>39
> [Footnote: >39. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF
> THE BIBLE; p.259.]
>
> “Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham,
> Jacob, the Judges, David, Solomon; 1 Ch 7:4
> is evidence of its prevalence in Issachar;
> Elkanah (1 Sam.1:1ff) is significant as
> belonging to the middle class; Jehoida (2 Ch
> 24:3) as a priest. . .Legislation . . .
> safeguarded the rights of various wives,
> slave or free; and according to the
> Rabbinical interpretation of Lv 21:13>40. .
> . .the high priest was not allowed to be a
> bigamist. . . The marriage figure applied to
> the union of God and Israel . . . implied
> monogamy as the ideal state. . . Being ..
> apparently legalized, and having the
> advantage of precedent, it was long before
> polygamy was formally forbidden in Hebrew
> society, though practically it fell into
> disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was
> strongly against it. Herod had nine wives at
> once. . . Its possibility is implied by the
> technical continuance of the Levirate law,
> [Deut. 25:5-10] and is proved by the early
> interpretation of 1 Ti 3, whether correct or
> not. Justin reproaches the Jews of his day
> [A.D.] with having 'four or even five
> wives,' and marrying 'as they wish, or as
> many as they wish.' The evidence of the
> Talmud shows that in this case at least the
> reproach had some foundation. Polygamy
> was not definitely forbidden among the Jews
> till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000),
> and then at first only for France and
> Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it
> persisted for some time longer, as it does
> still among the Jews in Mohammedan
> countries>41.
> [Footnote: (>.(40. Septuagint Lev. 21:13 "He shall
> take for a wife a virgin of his own tribe.". .>41.
> HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.583ff.]
>
> Eugene Nida's (American Bible Society)
> book Customs and Cultures>42 documents the
> practice of polygyny by Christians in non Western
> countries, and how it is still practiced in China, SE
> Asia, India, Africa and parts of South America.
> Eugene Nida points out that when polygamists
> become Christians they are told of their limitations
> in church offices and are asked not to take any
> additional wives because it stumbles western
> Christians>5 . They are not usually asked to
> abandon their other wives to a premature
> widowhood because of l Cor. 7:1-15.
> [Footnotes:>.42 1954, Harper & Brothers, New
> York; >5 (Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and 10)]
>
> The unscriptural condemnation of
> polygyny/concubinage by the Western Christian
> community has proven to be one of the main
> obstacles for people in Eastern and third world
> countries to accept the message of Christ,
> especially if Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
> Oriental, or African, fulfilling Christ's Word in
> Mark 7:13 "making the word of God of no effect
> through your tradition which you have delivered . .
> ." The Western “Christian” tradition against
> polygyny hinders the spread of the Gospel of Christ
> in Moslem and other polygynous societies.
>
> What about all those third world folks,
> especially the Moslems and Africans, who are practicing
> polygyny/ concubinage and are told that they have
> to dump or abandon their extra wives in order to
> become Christians? This requirement keeps many
> from Christ and alienates many against Christ,
> being one of the biggest obstacles for the Moslems and African
> communities. These "Christian" folks who feel
> their own tradition about monogamy and polygyny
> must be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
> Oriental, and Africans and other third world
> polygamists for them to become Christians, sound
> like the folks: Mat. 23:13 "¶ But woe unto you,
> scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up
> the kingdom of the heavens before men; for *you*
> do not enter, nor do you suffer those that are
> entering to go in."
>
> The angels are waiting to rejoice over the
> conversion of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu,
> Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African or third
> worlder. "Christian legalists and traditionalists"
> wont let them into their "Christian" churches
> unless they sin by (1) "dealing treacherously">6
> with their wives by putting them away in
> repudiation, (2) disobeying Christ's command not
> to leave their wives>7 , and (3) not remaining in
> the marital condition in which they were called to
> Christ, whether it be concubinage, polygyny or in
> monogamy. I understand one source to make the
> point has been made that it would be brutal for the
> Christian community to force a polygamist to have
> to choose between (1) being saved and then
> baptized, and (2) having his wives in legally and
> sociably acceptable polygyny.>43.
> [Footnotes:>6 Malachi 2; >7 1 Cor.
> 7:11,12,13,14; ^>.^43. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE
> ME. . . P.33; [Karl Barth, CHURCH DOGMATICS,
> III/4, p. 203].
>
> So what is the solution? What is God's
> solution? At the very least the Spirit's Word in
> Paul tells us that if you, husband or wife, are saved
> in polygyny/concubinage, then remain in
> polygyny/concubinage and accept it as God's
> distribution for each person involved in particular.
> 1 Cor.7: 17 ¶ “However, as the Lord has divided to
> each, as God has called each, so let him walk; and
> thus I ordain in all the assemblies. . . . 20 Let each
> abide in that calling in which he has been called. . . .
> 24 Let each, wherein he is called, brethren,
> therein abide with God. . . . 26 I think then that
> this is good, on account of the present necessity,
> that [it is] good for a man to remain so as he is. 27
> Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed; are
> you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife."
>
> FURTHERMORE, most of the "leaders" say that one of the
> products of Adam and Eve's fall clearly was
> polygamy, appearing in a sinful world>89 , even
> though no where in the Word of God does the Word
> say this. God portrays Himself, in the fullness of His
> holiness, as the polygamous husband of two wives in
> Ezekiel 23. I believe God was not a victim of the fall,
> and remains holy in a world of sin. If "polygamy
> clearly appears as a product of the fall" then why isn't
> there one scripture or even one verse that says that?
> Since there isn't, it seems to be more men's teaching.
> No where does polygyny appear, in the Old or the
> New Testaments, in any list of sins, list of fleshly
> works or list of abominations to God. I understand
> Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make the following points: (1)
> In Old Testament times a Jewish polygynist's
> marriage was fully recognized as marriage, protected
> by the Law and the elders; (2) the Jewish
> polygynist's faith in or faithfulness to God was not
> questioned because of his polygyny; (3) the polygyny
> of the Jewish polygynist did not keep him from being
> admitted to the congregation with full
> membership.>44. Moses did not forbid polygamy>8
> (Dt. 21:15,16) >8 but apparently it was unusual
> among average people .>45.
> [Footnotes:>.f89 Please see p. 362, THE INTSTITUTES
> OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney. >44.
> Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; (AFRICAN
> THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev. Gerhard Jasper of
> Lutheran Theological College in Makumira, Tanzania;
> Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please see THE
> INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p. 407.]
>
> St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good word on
> this subject. Consider the following:"That the holy
> fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him,
> to whom God gave His testimony that "they pleased
> Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who
> is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to
> certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality
> of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication
> of their offspring, not the desire of varying
> gratification. . .In the advance . . . of the human race,
> it came to pass that to certain good men were united a
> plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from
> this it would seem that moderation sought rather
> unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted
> plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on
> natural principles it is more feasible for one to have
> dominion over many, than for many to have dominion
> over one.">46
> [Footnote: >46 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
> Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church Vol. V; p. 267.]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus http://groups.google.com/group/BiblicalChristianPolygamyPolygyny http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyOption4ChristiansWithSTDs/http://groups.myspace.com/BiblicalChristianPoly- - 13http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6382095167http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2648256332