Was "Monogyny Only" Ordained by Jesus-Jehovah?
Elkanah
Rebuttal/Reply to "Polygamy" at
http://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 - - 13
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6382095167
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2648256332