Conversation I had

[chrisinmiddletn]

Finally getting around to posting this. I love breaking down arguments to their essential core as they tend to break out from the standard hum drum comparison of verses. I'm sure that what I'm about to say is nothing new but maybe saying it again will help someone.

I raised up the question of polygyny to a man a few weeks ago and, of course, there was an immediate reaction of something like "Jesus confirmed that it is one flesh". I then raised up the verses about the ten bridesmaids to which he points out that the verses are not talking about marriage but about preparedness and those that have not given their hearts to the Lord. With a few intently listening on, I then said "good. We can then both agree that when Christ was approached about divorce that we shouldn't take it out of context and imply that it He's really talking about limiting a man to one woman." He almost agreed and then said something like "Wait...um no...how does that apply?" Of which I pointed out that if you are going to start throwing verses out by enforcing strict context to the intent of what was being addressed then we should apply that reasoning to both sides of the argument. He tried to kick at it a little and then relented to Matthew as he went to the creation mandate in Genesis to which I replied that we are now talking about the same God who gave David his wives. Looking a little desparate, he then went back to the hardness of their hearts of which I reminded him that his rule of strict context means his argument does not apply. In short (after a few other attempts), he responded that God did not say that those wives were good. It ended with me saying, then you are saying a lot when you imply that God did something unholy when Christ proclaimed none is good but God. We then had to both leave.

The moral to the story is that giving up a Quean is not always a bad idea when your oppnent only has pawns to your nights and rooks.

 

[Crossgeared Viking]

I'll take the other side of the board on his behalf. The ten bridesmaids parable is indeed not a commentary on marriage. (Though I do find it odd that Jesus would use such an analogy if polygyny was unheard of in New Covenant times as many Christians claim.) The parable is designed to send a message of salvation through Yeshua. The passage detailing the conversation over divorce with the Pharisees is however, not figurative in nature, but rooted in literal meaning. While not dealing directly with the issue of multiple, wives, I don't find it too far a stretch for an individual to interpret the passage with the inference that one flesh equals one wife. It is a "play it safe" interpretation, but completely valid.

 

[CecilW]

Actually, NOT valid, Crossgeared Viking. Why?

First, because no-one likes to talk on one topic and then have someone else claim that they were talking about something else. In Matt 19, the subject was DIVORCE, pure and simple. It SAYS so. No excuse to claim otherwise. The Genesis 2:27(?) verse on "one flesh" was quoted in the context of the DURABILITY of marriage -- once united, they cannot be divided, much like two raindrops that have merged on a windowpane. The subject of EXCLUSIVITY was not even on the table.

Secondly, "becoming one" is not intrinsically limited to two. Those Christians who believe in a Trinity believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are individuals yet are One. Jesus prayed that His disciples may ALL be one. Trying to limit it to two just doesn't work, logically.

Nope, sorry. I just cannot concede any validity to those who want to put Mono Only teaching in Jesus' mouth. It's just not there!

 

[Crossgeared Viking]

Actually, NOT valid, Crossgeared Viking. Why?

First, because no-one likes to talk on one topic and then have someone else claim that they were talking about something else. In Matt 19, the subject was DIVORCE, pure and simple. It SAYS so. No excuse to claim otherwise. The Genesis 2:27(?) verse on "one flesh" was quoted in the context of the DURABILITY of marriage -- once united, they cannot be divided, much like two raindrops that have merged on a windowpane. The subject of EXCLUSIVITY was not even on the table.

And I agree, divorce was absolutely the only topic of that discussion. I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that taking that verse as it stands on it's own brings in it's own implication of EXCLUSIVITY. The very fact that Jesus used a finite number leads me to believe that at the very least monogamy is the ideal form of marriage (though I imagine that's probably a different thread altogether ). If HE wished to make it perfectly clear that polygyny was on par with monogamy, why not use the equivalent of the pronoun "they"?:

"And for this reason a man shall leave his family and cling unto his wife and they shall become one flesh."

"They" already carries the possibility for more than two in the relationship. It would seem to be more practical to use an ambiguous term if that is the message you wished to send. It is not at all conclusive, but a perfectly sound interpretation if you lean that direction. I should take time to clarify my position. As a pronomian, I have no problem with polygyny personally and I certainly don't see it as a sin (why would YHWH dictate instruction designed to regulate behaviour that He abhorred?). I speak of the interpretation of such passages in regard to personal preference of the individual. I am certainly not arguing for a "MONO ONLY DOCTRINE" that all christians must accept if they wish to recieve the right hand of fellowship.

 

[CecilW]

The reason Jesus did not use "They" so as to include poly was because that was not the topic. Divorce is always a personal issue between 2 people. A man divorcing his wife involves 2 people. If he divorced a second wife, it would again be between 2 people. each individual marriage is between 2 people, the man and woman.

Further, it helps to understand the political and philosophical climate of the day. The reason this was such an issue for debate was because of the strong Greek influence that was being felt among the Jews. The Greeks practiced monogamy only. But a man was free to divorce his wife for any reason and marry another. Some Jews were trying to twist Moses' words to fit that. Jesus was simply saying, "No way. From the beginning, the marriage was designed to be permanent and indissoluble."

Mono as ideal or allowance for poly were simply NOT part of the discussion in ANY way. To try to inject it into it, no matter how carefully or sideways like, is to try to create something that simply isn't there.

Nonetheless, I will agree that for those who read it fast, and don't bother to check up on what they are seeing, and have a mono omly predisposition, it is possible to get that from it. I concede that only because so many do. However, it also takes only a few words to blow big holes in the theory.

Is monogamy ideal? Who knows? The Bible simply does not say. The most accurate answer might well be that it is ideal for some people, whereas polygamy is ideal for others.

 

[Crossgeared Viking]

The reason Jesus did not use "They" so as to include poly was because that was not the topic. Divorce is always a personal issue between 2 people. A man divorcing his wife involves 2 people. If he divorced a second wife, it would again be between 2 people. each individual marriage is between 2 people, the man and woman.

Conceded, but only as it pertains to the Matthew 19 passage. I doubt we can claim that the Genesis passage is discussing divorce as well?

 

[sola scriptura]

And I agree, divorce was absolutely the only topic of that discussion. I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that taking that verse as it stands on it's own brings in it's own implication of EXCLUSIVITY. The very fact that Jesus used a finite number leads me to believe that at the very least monogamy is the ideal form of marriage (though I imagine that's probably a different thread altogether ). If HE wished to make it perfectly clear that polygyny was on par with monogamy, why not use the equivalent of the pronoun "they"?:

"And for this reason a man shall leave his family and cling unto his wife and they shall become one flesh."

"They" already carries the possibility for more than two in the relationship. It would seem to be more practical to use an ambiguous term if that is the message you wished to send. It is not at all conclusive, but a perfectly sound interpretation if you lean that direction. I should take time to clarify my position. As a pronomian, I have no problem with polygyny personally and I certainly don't see it as a sin (why would YHWH dictate instruction designed to regulate behaviour that He abhorred?). I speak of the interpretation of such passages in regard to personal preference of the individual. I am certainly not arguing for a "MONO ONLY DOCTRINE" that all christians must accept if they wish to recieve the right hand of fellowship.

Marriage is only between one man and one woman, thus the statement "they twain shall become one flesh". A man has the ability to have more than one marriage, but each marriage is an individual unit.

Cecil, rather than looking at the one-flesh concept as two raindrops merging together, consider looking at it like the word ishshah (woman/wife) is used when describing the tabernacle in Exodus 26.

The word is used as "joining to" in those verses and I think that is a more appropriate picture, as each wife "joins to" her husband. He can have many wives joining to him, yet each wife's relationship with the husband is separate and distinct.

Katie

 

[CecilW]

Of course, Katie. Allegories are always limited in their applicability. The raindrop thing is no exception.

Cross-geared Viking: The Genesis passage is quoted precisely twqice in Scripture. Once by Jesus, once by Paul. In both cases, the subject was the durable nature of the union as designed by God, though divorce was not specifically mentioned in the Paul quote..