-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
God not a polygamist?
- Thread starter Evo
- Start date
I like to think that God is part of every marriage, and that would classify Him as a Super Polygamist.
I don't see any reason to argue for or against that statement. It's just irrelevant.
God was willing to describe himself as a husband of two wives. That helps to show us that he doesn't see polygamy as sinful. Even if he doesn't remain a polygamist, he's still shown he doesn't see it as sinful, because he was willing to be a polygamist for a period of time.
C
Cap
Guest
This actually falls in line with the monogamous view that polygamy was only meant for the old testament times.
Which by the way, I have never seen argued completely, here or elsewhere, to prove the claim that it's not.
I would suggest changing this to a MEAT thread and we have a discussion about whether polygamy is meant to be lived in a new testament era. I believe in polygamy 100%, but would be willing to take on the role of adversary to find out if polygamy is really meant for today.
God continues to be a polygynist. His desire is to have bothhouses, both brides walk in unity. Isaiah 2:5, I think, says, 'Come house of Jacob, let us walk in the light.' Ezekiel 37 says the two sticks become 'echad', united, not singular. The last verses of the chapter have in view the united houses/brides.
Further, in the NT, the 'ekklesia' generally translated as 'church' should be translated as 'Assembly' because 'ekklesia' is used in the LXX of Israel at Sinai. The LXX predates the NT by about 150 years. The point is, God's view of the Assembly hasn't changed and the prophetic timeline points to the restoration of both houses to dwell in unity for eternity. Therefore, He will still have two brides, according to His own revelation.
Finally, nowhere in Scripture that I am aware of is the term 'bride' associated with the 'church.' It most often refers to Jerusalem with a lone 'gune' reference that implies His being wed to a previously married woman, exactly matching the redemption and recovenanting of the divorced house of Israel.
Further, in the NT, the 'ekklesia' generally translated as 'church' should be translated as 'Assembly' because 'ekklesia' is used in the LXX of Israel at Sinai. The LXX predates the NT by about 150 years. The point is, God's view of the Assembly hasn't changed and the prophetic timeline points to the restoration of both houses to dwell in unity for eternity. Therefore, He will still have two brides, according to His own revelation.
Finally, nowhere in Scripture that I am aware of is the term 'bride' associated with the 'church.' It most often refers to Jerusalem with a lone 'gune' reference that implies His being wed to a previously married woman, exactly matching the redemption and recovenanting of the divorced house of Israel.
I would quibble and point out that those two wives become millions of individual wives. In heaven God is an infinite polygynist.
Wait, now, the Worry Police will be getting anxious about the Monogamy Conformists concluding that you're labeling our LORD a Supreme Slut!
He's only a slut if He doesn't keep covenant.
C
Cap
Guest
The idea that God is a NT polygamists because He will be married to each one of us, seems contrived. I don't know of any place where God as a whole relates to an individual as 'married' to one individual. They only thing that comes close is the overshadowing of Mary. But that has it's problems when you try and relate that relationship to an earthly one individually. Song of Solomon's comes close, but it's an allegory of love not marriage.
Scripture portrays God being married corporately to two nations. He divorces one nation and therefore only has one wife. (I will leave out what I think happens to that one wife) But then, the story changes and now the focus is on His Son and His Bride, who is not an individual but a collection of believers. But some say that then makes the Son of God a polygamist because he is married to each individual in that collective group. Are you married to the cells in your body? I guess, but that really is a difficult comparison.
The OT is full of stories and explanations related to the reason for polygamy. In the NT there is barely in reference to the subject at all. Accept for the many membered bride analogy, including the separate churches, and the 10 virgins. But that is all vague.
The analogy of the 10 virgins eventually breaks down. If they are brides, then they have all been betrothed to God, and therefore God has to divorce the five that do not come. Scripture does not say he does this, so to assume that this is describing a marriage with multiple wives is not technically correct.
God understands and has operated under the principle of polygamy, but now the NT is not focused on that as a meaning for relationships. Doesn't mean the principle is not important and a bases for relationships, but is not the focus anymore. What if the Mormons are correct. Polygamy is a principle that had relevance in the OT, but is not necessarily meant to be lived today?
Consider the fruit. Can anyone say that the fruit of polygamy is good today? How many polygamist relationships do you know that have been created in the resent past? How many positive interactions between individuals to produce such a thing make it obvious it is in the process of building such a thing? Based on the number of marriages that take place today, there should be a percentage of them that reflect plural marriages. It would be small, but there still should be a percentage. That's not happening, at least on the scale that would tell anyone polygamy is a thing. There are profoundly more gay marriages than polygamist ones. Does that mean gay marriages are at least on a better position than polygamy ones?
If God is a polygamist in the NT, where is that reality today? Where is it specifically referenced in the NT besides innuendo and hearsay, as it is in the OT?
Maybe polygamy is more a part of the Law and not a major facet of Grace? It's a foundation of marriage but it is better understood spiritually?
Scripture portrays God being married corporately to two nations. He divorces one nation and therefore only has one wife. (I will leave out what I think happens to that one wife) But then, the story changes and now the focus is on His Son and His Bride, who is not an individual but a collection of believers. But some say that then makes the Son of God a polygamist because he is married to each individual in that collective group. Are you married to the cells in your body? I guess, but that really is a difficult comparison.
The OT is full of stories and explanations related to the reason for polygamy. In the NT there is barely in reference to the subject at all. Accept for the many membered bride analogy, including the separate churches, and the 10 virgins. But that is all vague.
The analogy of the 10 virgins eventually breaks down. If they are brides, then they have all been betrothed to God, and therefore God has to divorce the five that do not come. Scripture does not say he does this, so to assume that this is describing a marriage with multiple wives is not technically correct.
God understands and has operated under the principle of polygamy, but now the NT is not focused on that as a meaning for relationships. Doesn't mean the principle is not important and a bases for relationships, but is not the focus anymore. What if the Mormons are correct. Polygamy is a principle that had relevance in the OT, but is not necessarily meant to be lived today?
Consider the fruit. Can anyone say that the fruit of polygamy is good today? How many polygamist relationships do you know that have been created in the resent past? How many positive interactions between individuals to produce such a thing make it obvious it is in the process of building such a thing? Based on the number of marriages that take place today, there should be a percentage of them that reflect plural marriages. It would be small, but there still should be a percentage. That's not happening, at least on the scale that would tell anyone polygamy is a thing. There are profoundly more gay marriages than polygamist ones. Does that mean gay marriages are at least on a better position than polygamy ones?
If God is a polygamist in the NT, where is that reality today? Where is it specifically referenced in the NT besides innuendo and hearsay, as it is in the OT?
Maybe polygamy is more a part of the Law and not a major facet of Grace? It's a foundation of marriage but it is better understood spiritually?
It is not written that while waiting for the bridegroom, any of them have the status of brides or of being betrothed - a reader might overlay (eiseget) such an assumption, but it is not stated. Betrothal was often practiced according to custom, but never required by law to be instituted before a marriage could take place. (No evidence it happened between David and most (or any? ...maybe Michal?) of his wives) In Matthew 25 there is no wording to verify a prior established relationship (arranged, contracted, promised or otherwise) or even that there was any previous meeting or communication with, or encounter at all between the bridegroom and virgins. Even on earth today, any number of virgins could potentially wait for and prepare for the arrival of a sought after man who they want as their bridegroom and who they are expecting to arrive; waiting and hoping for the arrival of a bridegroom (even a particular one) does not in itself prove the existence of betrothal or that they will ever end up being his brides. If there is no proof of any prior contractual arrangement to marry (as in a betrothal), a male then has the final say as to whether or not an eligible-to-married woman has met his criteria for acceptance into marriage with him. Thus, applying the word divorce to the 5 foolish virgins of Matthew 25 appears to me as eisegesis - no verified betrothal existing and no marriage having taken place with the 5 foolish ones - means the word divorce is not applicable. As to the 5 wise ones who are waiting as virgins and do end up going into marriage with the bridegroom... a scenario like that looks very much to me as a description of a polygynous marriage. If 5 virgins going into marriage with one bridegroom does not define as polygynous marriage - what does?
C
Cap
Guest
Betrothal, consummation, wedding feast is the standard Galilean progression of the marriage process. For the Son of God to 'take' the virgins there has to have been a contract. And there was, the New Covenant. And so, if these are truly suppose to represent brides, then the 5 would have had to have been divorced under deut 24. Same as the situation with Joseph and Mary at one point.
In any event, what you are describing actually takes away from the idea that this was a wedding, and therefore what I am trying to say that even the parable of the 10 virgins is not a good display of polygamy in the NT.
That's an assumption as well.
The idea that the parable of the 10 virgins in the NT to explain polygamy is a stretch. There has to be more, like there is in the OT.
Last edited by a moderator:
In case you missed it, the names of the two nation/brides are Judah and Israel. You don't need to fret because Scripture promises that the new covenant is with them and it clearly explains how each is gathered and how they'll walk together in the future. Isn't that awesome? Covenant keeping God who seeks and saves both brides to live in unity in one house! His house.
AMAZING!
Yes! God is a faithful polygynist! Today!
C
Cap
Guest
Can you please provide that NT scripture. And, no I have no interest in going to some book or paper you have written.
C
Cap
Guest
The quesiton here is whether the parable of the 10 virgins was in fact a marriage to the parties involved. Major Christian commentary have them as bridesmaids. Maybe there is a reason.
I raise this issue to try and see if there is solid evidence that polygamy is actually in the NT. Most of the people I encounter and try and talk about the structures of families having the benefits for plural marriage is routinely meet with the criticism of the fact that polygamy is not in the NT. I am trying to find the answer to the response. If you are suggesting that I should just ell them believe what you want, "I know what I believe, you can believe otherwise" is going to bring people to an understanding, you are sadly mistaken, or maybe you haven't had the time or patience to help others who don't believe to come to an understanding. .
If you have nothing more to say, that's fine.
If a person cannot see that 5 virgins going into marriage with one bridegroom is in fact polygyny - I believe they are in need of more help than what time or patience will accomplish. Accepting reality simply for what it is would be a good place for them to start. Then I could have at least some hope of them gaining understanding. Then also I could see a reason to apply more time and patience. Otherwise - over and out.
P.S. That "bridesmaids" idea which some commentaries impose on Matthew 25 - it's pure eisegesis.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
What's really hard to accept is your notion that a group of virgins are just waiting around and they just so happen to go after someone and get married. The whole beginning idea of the parable of the virgins is the foreknowledge and some type of gainful commodity that they believe is a part of the deal. Not unlike what I betrothed bride would do if that is the case. Therefore, if there is a wedding in this case, there must have been a betrothal, in which is a marriage contract, which would need a divorce to break.
Such a hard stance as you take in the efforts to help someone understand polygamy, is not really a good approach when it comes to family members per se.
I fear in the face of Proverbs 30 verse 6. Betrothal and divorce are not mentioned in Matthew 25. I cannot add those things regardless of anyone saying they see them there. Not going beyond what is written has sorted out so many issues for me - it sorts this out for me too.
I'll now address your divorce argument.
I don't know why it might be that virgins (supposedly betrothed) who fall asleep and do not have everything ready as they are supposed to, therefore have lawful grounds for divorce established against them. That's a new one. If that is an acceptable grounds for divorce - then there's a lot of catching up many of us need to do on our understanding of such things. But actually, to me it seems more like it's a whole new grounds for divorce that you personally have added to God's words. It is not so stated, explained or exemplified anywhere else in the scriptures. I have to believe your addition is wrong. Not being ready on time is simply not grounds for divorce. However, I can imagine some guys might like to have such grounds for divorce available to them - after all - Jesus did it... Right?
I am satisfied with what God has said without making it into something more. I certainly can't believe I will help family members (as you mentioned) understand by introducing things or ideas that God has not said.
It is kind of amazing what people see in Biblical texts. Some people even see that all men are limited to having only one wife due to the obvious fact Adam got only one. It can be called "reasoning unstated things or ideas into existence", or it could be called "extrapolation", or simply - "eisegesis". Again, I'm back to Proverbs 30 verse 6. If exactly what God has said (not more and not less) is not accepted as sufficient, I can't believe that introduced new ideas (like a totally new grounds for divorce) will accomplish a correct understanding.