Monogamy of Christ & The Church

[Zach]

I've read some of ya'll's content about The Father as Polygamist. That was helpful stuff I hadn't taken note of before. I'm not sure whether or not the monogamous nature of Christ's relationship with the church is a point of debate, but regardless here's my thought.

Assume that the universal Church body (with her many members taken collectively) is indeed the one and only bride of Christ [which has always been my understanding, though I'm sure ya'll will point out if I'm missing something]. OK, so for now we can say we appear to be His first wife as far as what's been revealed, but I don't recall any indications that His wedding vows with us included a pledge to never take another as well. What manner of plans God has for eternity future... are unimaginable. Even if I put my on most aggressively anti-poly hat with respect to human marriages, I have a really hard time conjuring up the slightest cause to get upset with Christ if He wants to take a second, or ten trillionth, wife in the future while His covenant love and perpetually fulfilled promises to us continue to burn white hot with inexhaustible blazing glory, passion, and intimacy in unfettered communion between us. I mean, what's the Church going to say, "No Jesus, don't take another bride because You belong solely and exclusively to me"? God forbid! Such a narrow grasp on His exceeding superabundance is actually quite disturbing. Rather, "spread out the tent pegs of our household and multiply the manifestations of your limitless lovingkindnesses!" Doesn't it seem more likely that the Church would ever be begging her Beloved to keep taking more and more and more "wives", as every new outlet for putting his generous beauty on display is new cause for our ecstatic joy as we behold and share in the mutual joy of more sisters to adore Him with us? Well, I think I already know what you folks here would say about that, but what I'm churning over is whether it is even possible to put myself deep enough into anti-poly shoes as to conceive of an alternate attitude which prefers an eternally static monogamy?
I guess all I can say to that is that if Christ wills an eternal monogamy with the Church (which maybe He does!) then, by faith, He certainly has glorious reasons for that, and He has other ways to manifest His manifold infinite love other than through more "wives". So be it. Either way will certainly be awesome; I just can't wrap myself into sensing how monogamy would inherently be more desirable given an Infinite Lover.

 

[PeteR]

Well.... here again is the problem of English words, v Hebrew...

Ekklesia means 'assembly.' The LXX refers to Israel as the 'Assembly' as Stephen relates in Acts 7:38.. further, this clarifies that it was Yeshua on Mt. Sinai who gave the commandments to Moshe. Therefore, if we understand Eze. 23 as identifying Israel as two sister brides when they left Egypt, then, Yeshua has two brides who, like Rachel and Leah, are at odds and He, the Head, has to sort this poly house for His glory... see Isaiah 11:11-16 as well as Eze. 37:25ff for the answers... (many, many OT prophecies support this.).

I can provide articles that support if interested..

 

[FollowingHim]

The illustration of the two brides that @PeteR has pointed out is completely true. However, simultaneously, there are other informative ways to look at this.

The word "Ekklesia" / "assembly" / "church" is a plural word. It does not refer to a single individual, but to a large number of individuals. It isn't a singular bride, but a collection of "brides".
We are told that just as a wife is "one flesh" with her husband, each of us is "one spirit" with Christ. In other words, the relationship each of us has, individually, to Him, parallels marriage. We are each individually married to Him, not just as a collective.
So the church can be also looked at as "the holy harem of God", rather than a singular bride.

And this makes far more sense than the church being a singular bride. It is our job to go out and evangelise, to bring more people into the harem. And it doesn't matter how many more people join the bride / church / harem, each of us still has our same one-spirit relationship with Him that is not diminished in any way by the fact that we are "sharing" HIm. This perfectly parallels earthly marriage.

Also, the monogamous singular bride concept is an opening for cults to say "we are the only bride of Christ, and you have to be in this church to be in the bride".

The other very important thing to remember is that the concept that the church is the monogamous Bride of Christ is not actually in the Bible. It was developed later in Catholic theology. The only entity described as something like the Bride of Christ, in the New Testament, is actually the city of New Jerusalem. But the concept that each of us has a one-spirit relationship with Christ, paralleling earthly marriage, is very scriptural - as is the two houses being two brides. So the only illustrations of the church as a "bride", in scripture, are polygamous and not monogamous!

 

[Zach]

if we understand Eze. 23 as identifying Israel as two sister brides

Yes, and yet there seems to me to be a fluidity in the numbering scheme. From Moses to Solomon the oneness (not twoness) of the nation really is emphasized, even if there may be foreshadowed hints of the twoness such as in matters concerning the settling of the Transjordan tribes. Then, as you cited in Ezek 37, we have prophesy that the two will be reunited in one, which I think receives at least partial fulfillment by the return from exile after which time the distinction between the two no longer seems to be important.

When it says "there were two women, the daughters of one mother. They played the whore in Egypt...", my sense is that he is applying something of a retroactive interpretation on the Exodus story. As we were all "in Adam" before we were born, likewise the two sisters were "in" the one mother who came out of Egypt. In the original telling of the story the one mother is in focus, whereas later after she has birthed the two, the story is now retold from the perspective of the two who originally constituted the one.

Although the human realm shadows forth the heavenly realm, the copy can never fully convey the original. One human wife cannot be divided into two and two human wives cannot be united into one. If we wanted to say something like "at least during the divided kingdom period of redemptive history the relationship of Christ to His people is presented as bigamous" then I'm quite content with that. However, when you use the present tense to say, "Yeshua has two brides", I'm not yet persuaded to come on board with that as I don't see the twoness pointed out as a quality of the present age. (And, switching gears, the image we are given for the inclusion of the Gentiles is not addition of a second bride but of grafting in of wild branches to an existing trunk.)

"Ekklesia" / "assembly" / "church" is a plural word

Do you mean that gramatically or semantically? Certainly the meaning of the word has to do with a collected plurality of individuals. But if I go look at the parsing information (as one who doesn't know Greek myself) for ἐκκλησίας in Eph 5:23 I'm told that it is N-GSF (Noun - Genitive Singular Feminine).

It does not refer to a single individual, but to a large number of individuals.

Not sure if I'm tracking with you, because of course nobody thinks that "church" refers to a single individual. But I would say it does refer to a single entity. That's the whole point of a collective noun, putting a singular combined/corporate identity upon a group of individuals.

In other words, the relationship each of us has, individually, to Him, parallels marriage.

Certainly we each have a personal relationship with him, but the extent to which that personal relationship parallels marriage is limited, I think, at best. Adoption and sonship I think are favored images for expressing the personal relationship aspect. The closer parallel to marriage, I think, is found in our corporate relationship with Him as expressed in the living city/temple of New Jerusalem made up of us living stones members.

One question for clarifying the count of God's wives would be: what entity or entities does He "make love with"? Certainly He loves us each individually, but parents love children and friends love friends, etc.; loving is not equivalent to "love-making". The parallel for sex itself, I believe, is worship (hence idolatry is adultery). Now again, yes, we each can and do worship God individually, but where does Scripture favor actually employing sexual language to the spiritual context? I would say it is when the nation as a corporate whole has gone a-whoring. On the positive side of the sexual coin, I don't know how you handle something like the Song of Songs, but personally I think the most fitting way to understand Christ's sex partner(s) is not so much believers taken one-by-one in a harem sense, but as one body assembled together out of the individual body parts to engage in passionate, multi-sensory and multi-gifted, adoration of Him which none of us are capable of experiencing solely on our own.

Well, as indicated in an earlier paragraph, even multiple horizontal shadows are insufficient to express the contours of the vertical reality. Adam, Moses, Joshua, David, Ezekiel, etc., etc., all combined were insufficient to prefigure the multi-faceted excellencies of Christ. I will certainly agree that human monogamy is insufficient to do justice to exemplifying the relationship between Christ and His church. Yet I don't think that polygyny perfectly portrays the relationship either. I still favor "the universal Church body (with her many members taken collectively)" as the "one bride of Christ" being the dominant Scriptural image for describing His current marital status, but will keep an open mind as I continue to ponder.

 

[Pacman]

Then, as you cited in Ezek 37, we have prophesy that the two will be reunited in one, which I think receives at least partial fulfillment by the return from exile after which time the distinction between the two no longer seems to be important.

"One" there means United not the singular number 1...

The distinction between the two houses is of upmost importance and is completely lost to the modern church. It is displayed throughout the remainder of scripture including the new Testament it is taught by the church that the two are the same in the new Testament but that teaching is false.

His current marital status

The wedding hasn't happened yet... We are betrothed.

 

[Zach]

The distinction between the two houses is of upmost importance

Could you unpack a little what you have in mind and/or provide a pointer/link to further information?

 

[Pacman]

Could you unpack a little what you have in mind and/or provide a pointer/link to further information?

This is Copy and paste of my comment from another discussion.

Israel is a name often applied to the entire assembly. (Both houses...) House of Israel is only the northern kingdom and their descendants. House of Judah (jews) is only the southern kingdom and their descendants...

So calling the southern kingdom Israel is accurate because they are Israel. But calling the southern kingdom "house of Israel" is not accurate because they are not of the northern kingdom.

As far as more information: natsab.com

Other names sometimes used for the northern kingdom are Ephraim and Joseph.

 

[PeteR]

Both @FollowingHim and @Pacman provide solid answers that are layers of the pictures Scripture gives us. A support for @FollowingHim is 1 Cor. 11:3. There is no 'church' in the sense the common man uses it. All men are in direct covenantal relationship with Messiah, women with their man.

To @Pacman 's point, the Hebrew 'echad' (אחד) is used over and over and generally translated as 'one' however, in many cases, the better translation is 'united one.' 'One flesh' does not mean 'singular flesh' but 'united flesh'.

 

[Zach]

The OP helps at least my own mind to clarify a primary hesitation which I think is felt by many with regards polygyny—not in terms of legal prohibition but in terms of practice—among sons of Adam in this world: I ain't no Jesus. What makes the notion of a polygynous Christ exceedingly glorious is the very same thing which makes the notion of a polygynous Zach terrifying: ability to do justice to such a blessed and favored role.

Luther's disposition in the Philip case seems essentially to have been: "I can't tell you from Scripture that bigamy is forbidden, but I'm terrified of what will happen to society if everyman hears they have that liberty." Now, I think Luther's concerns were probably overblown, if for no other reason than the sheer math of humanity prevents scenarios such as numerous lowlife men taking 100, 10, or even 2, wives even if they want and have legal ability to. But I appreciate what I see as the pastoral concern. It's just too bad that more leaders don't express their pastoral concerns directly for what they are, instead of couching them in poorly exegeted prohibitions.

Below is a paragraph on my profile over at the non-poly, missionary matchmaking site I mentioned elsewhere. Some of you may not resonate with all of my sentiments. That's fine, I'm not exhorting here so much as just sharing one man's journey:

I’m not giddy at the potentiality for ending up in a scenario with two (actively present) wives. In theory, I reckon the Lord’s provision of any Christ-zealous women in my life to indeed be a richly blessed gift, but the corresponding concern with that very thing is that I’ve been pained more than once in life to realize, “Zach, YOU CAN’T HANDLE GOOD GIFTS!” Far from fantasizing and day-dreaming over such a prospect, then, the notion of having once again even one (active) wife makes me feel something of Solomon’s burden when the weight of governing God’s people fell on his shoulders in 1 Kings 3:6-9. … Because… you see, my friend, you see, … a woman’s heart is an entire universe in microcosm, … and a husband is called to live with his wife “κατα γνωσιν” (“with knowledge”)—which I infer to include studying her in an effort to increasingly understand her multi-facted being, as a unique specimen of God’s design, front and back, top to bottom, backwards and forwards, depth and breadth, in and out, as Christ knows His Church. <Wow. Gulp.> Now, I do like research(!), but I think that one such project is plenty for my finite capacities in this life, unless the Lord kind of “forces the issue” otherwise.​

 

[PeteR]

Luther's disposition in the Philip case seems essentially to have been: "I can't tell you from Scripture that bigamy is forbidden, but I'm terrified of what will happen to society if everyman hears they have that liberty."

Martin Madan's very sound treatise, 'Thelyphthora' reaches precisely the opposite conclusion. He was terrified of the destruction to society if poly was not an option.

Essentially, the feminism in our culture today is rooted in the uneven ratio between men and women and the sin that follows uncovered women. It is a cocktail that produces disaster.

This is not to say that women are the reason for societal ills, but by nature they want/need covering and by nature man desires to do so. When there are women in abundance, men are drawn toward them leading to divorce and frustrated women in a mono only scenario, while in a poly culture, women benefit by having many options for a godly man and men benefit by fulfilling their innate calling to sop up the excess.

 

[FollowingHim]

Martin Madan's very sound treatise, 'Thelyphthora' reaches precisely the opposite conclusion. He was terrified of the destruction to society if poly was not an option.

As I recall Madan's fundamental point, he basically points out that women who are prostitutes etc don't choose to be prostitutes and lose their virginity in prostitution. They are women who have been used and abandoned by men, and then later resort to prostitution. If the first man that took their virginity was expected to marry them, not abandon them, even if he was already married, these broken women would not exist in the first place, as they would all be wives. Polygamy is therefore the solution to prostitution and related ills.

I’m not giddy at the potentiality for ending up in a scenario with two (actively present) wives. In theory, I reckon the Lord’s provision of any Christ-zealous women in my life to indeed be a richly blessed gift, but the corresponding concern with that very thing is that I’ve been pained more than once in life to realize, “Zach, YOU CAN’T HANDLE GOOD GIFTS!” Far from fantasizing and day-dreaming over such a prospect, then, the notion of having once again even one (active) wife makes me feel something of Solomon’s burden when the weight of governing God’s people fell on his shoulders in 1 Kings 3:6-9. … Because… you see, my friend, you see, … a woman’s heart is an entire universe in microcosm, … and a husband is called to live with his wife “κατα γνωσιν” (“with knowledge”)—which I infer to include studying her in an effort to increasingly understand her multi-facted being, as a unique specimen of God’s design, front and back, top to bottom, backwards and forwards, depth and breadth, in and out, as Christ knows His Church. <Wow. Gulp.> Now, I do like research(!), but I think that one such project is plenty for my finite capacities in this life, unless the Lord kind of “forces the issue” otherwise.

I like the way you look at this @Zach.

Do you mean that gramatically or semantically? Certainly the meaning of the word has to do with a collected plurality of individuals. But if I go look at the parsing information (as one who doesn't know Greek myself) for ἐκκλησίας in Eph 5:23 I'm told that it is N-GSF (Noun - Genitive Singular Feminine).

I meant the meaning, not grammatically.

Certainly we each have a personal relationship with him, but the extent to which that personal relationship parallels marriage is limited, I think, at best. Adoption and sonship I think are favored images for expressing the personal relationship aspect. The closer parallel to marriage, I think, is found in our corporate relationship with Him as expressed in the living city/temple of New Jerusalem made up of us living stones members.

1 Cor 6:15-17: "
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

The one body relationship with a woman is clearly paralleled with the one spirit relationship with the Lord. In both cases, it is "he that is joined", as an individual, who is joined in this way.

The major error of the Catholic church was to say that we had to go through the "true church" and its Pope to get to God. The major revelation of the reformation was the fact that we can approach Him directly with no mediator - we are all united to Him individually, not just as a collective.

On the positive side of the sexual coin, I don't know how you handle something like the Song of Songs, but personally I think the most fitting way to understand Christ's sex partner(s) is not so much believers taken one-by-one in a harem sense, but as one body assembled together out of the individual body parts to engage in passionate, multi-sensory and multi-gifted, adoration of Him which none of us are capable of experiencing solely on our own.

Song of Songs is an overtly polygamous love song, when read with no preconceptions:

Song of Songs 6:8-9
"There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her."

At the time of singing this, Solomon already has 60 queens and 80 concubines (total of 140 wives), making the Shullamite his 141st wife. Furthermore, he has "virgins without number", which I take to mean betrothed women he has not yet married, waiting to be married to him after the Shullamite has her turn. So there are innumerable women other than the one whom this song is addressed to.

Nevertheless, he loves this 141st wife (whose wedding is described in the song) so deeply that he writes this incredible love song for her. If you look carefully at how he describes and complements her, he always complements her as an individual, but not in comparison to others. The above quote is a good example. It says she is unique, her mother's favourite. It says the other queens and concubines blessed and praised her (again reinforcing the polygamy). But it NEVER says she is Solomon's favourite - just that he recognises and loves her for her uniqueness.

I would encourage you to re-read Song of Songs, from the perspective of it being written for an individual woman in a polygamous household (even if you think I'm wrong, just try reading it from that perspective anyway to see how it flows). I am positive you will find it just makes more sense that way - you'll likely find parts that you had previously interpreted figuratively, that can from this perspective be simply read literally. Less of it has to be "spiritualised".

But more importantly, it is also incredibly powerful and meaningful. Because the parallel is that God loves us as individuals, knows our own individuality even better than we do, and wants to have an intimate relationship with each of us. He is not comparing us to others and saying "you're not as good as that Christian over there", rather he is just looking at us as individuals.

I do agree with you that the Church is a collective also - nevertheless I think there is a lot more we can understand about the nature of that collective if we give more weight to the individual relationships.

Finally - given God had so many different prophets He could have told to write a love story for scripture if he wanted to, why did he just happen to choose the most crazily excessive polygamist in all of history to be the author of that love story? He could have easily had a monogamist, or at least someone with a sensible number of wives. Why Solomon, of all people? I can only believe that this was intentional, not a mistake, and an integral part of the entire illustration. If we ignore it we are at risk of missing the meaning. Solomon is the only person in all of history who had so many wives that he can be any sort of parallel for the relationship between Christ and his innumerable followers.

 

[FollowingHim]

The wedding hasn't happened yet... We are betrothed.

I just realised something major here. Yes, the wedding hasn't happened. But in scripture, the order is generally betrothal -> consummation -> wedding feast, NOT betrothal -> wedding feast -> consummation as in Western culture. The wedding feast celebrates something that already exists.
Could the marriage have already occurred, but we be simply waiting for the celebration of it?

 

[frederick]

I meant the meaning, not grammatically.

That's an important distinction.

When we interpret the Bible, we ought to do so according to the plain meaning of the text. We interpret history quite differently from how we interpret poetry, but both make sense when interpreted according to the plain meaning of the text.

When interpreting words grammatically, it's important we know and understand the rules of grammar. For example; an idiom in Greek is that a neutral plural subject usually has its verb in the singular; not always but usually, and it's essential we interpret accordingly.

 

[FollowingHim]

Yes, I said that poorly, and should not have done so using grammatical terminology. I will try not to say it that way in future.

 

[FollowingHim]

Another thought: The Shullamite is a nobody. She does not deserve to be the king's wife on her own merits. And she is just one among many, many women. Easy to overlook, easy to forget.

The king also does not need her. He has far more wives than he needs already. There is absolutely nothing she can do for or give him that he doesn't already have in abundance.

Yet he chooses this nobody, chooses to love her, chooses to bless her and honour her in the greatest and most intimate way a king can honour a woman. And it isn't just a meaningless gesture: he truly does care about her as an individual, and appreciate her for who she is. He goes to great detail describing her beauty.

To the world, she is a nobody.

But to the king, she is a precious, unique, and irreplacable jewel.

Now, how does God see you?

 

[rockfox]

The wedding hasn't happened yet... We are betrothed.

Yes, the wedding hasn't happened.

Whoa, on what basis are ya'll saying the wedding hasn't happened yet? We are already in Christ.

 

[FollowingHim]

We are talking about "the marriage supper of the lamb" described in Revelation as an apparently future event.

 

[Pacman]

He hasn't returned to take his woman yet...

John 14:2-3
In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. [3] If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.

 

[PeteR]

A really challenging study, @rockfox is the fact that the new covenant is not yet in place. We see shadows, parts, but it is not in place until the restoration of Israel... we are betrothed but have not been brought into the bond of the covenant yet...

<climbing down into foxhole>

 

[Mojo]

A really challenging study, @rockfox is the fact that the new covenant is not yet in place. We see shadows, parts, but it is not in place until the restoration of Israel... we are betrothed but have not been brought into the bond of the covenant yet...

<climbing down into foxhole>

I've heard of this thought too...and I'm not a Torah follower.