Overcoming Objections To Plural Marriage: Topic 1

[Doc]

When God created mankind, He did not create humanity en masse, rather, He created one male and one female, and from this He commanded they be fruitful and multiply. God solemnized this union (Genesis 1:27, 2:22). This union was monogamous. Since this was the first marriage, it was the measuring rod for all future marriages. Therefore, polygyny is a lower form of marriage than monogamy, and not the ideal.

Responses?

 

[CecilW]

The logic is based upon the aphorism "Begin as you mean to continue", in stating that the first set the tone for all subsequent unions.

But the logic quickly breaks down. Equally valid statements drawn from the story of beginnings (genesis), using the VERY SAME LOGIC, would include:

** The first man married every single woman then alive. This set the tone for us today, insofar as possible. Any attempt to settle for less = compromise and a lesser form of marriage. Or,
** The first man just hung out with critters until God Himself gave him a nap and formed his perfect mate from a spare rib. This set the tone for us today, and any other practice ... Or,
** The first man and woman were as close to genetically identical as possible. This set the tone. Any union with someone NOT a member of one's immediate family is therefore a lesser form. Or,
** The first man and woman wed dressed in the altogether. Any other practice denies the purity of the union and ... blah, blah, blah. Or,
** It was through this first monogamous union that Sin entered the human race. Monogamy is therefore most dangerous. Or,
** You get the picture.

The story isn't told in a book entitled by the author, "Guiding Principles from the Start", but simply "Genesis", the creation. Perhaps an aphorism more appropriate to the minds of both the author and the Creator would be "Ya gotta start SOMEwhere." Or even the Chinese version, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

With that aphorism in mind, we are more free to look to the rest of the Bible and see how the Creator's ideas and instructions on marriage developed over the subsequent few thousand years. In doing so, we might well note that when Biblical writers refered to the passage cited above, they inevitably do so in defense of the durability of marriage, not the exclusivity thereof.

However, if our objector wishes to stand by his or her position that the Creation story is PRE-scriptive instead of simply DE-scriptive, they are perfectly free to do so. However, we are equally free to note that to be consistent they must become nudists and live in a forest / orchard / garden without buildings. Anything less is a philosophically mixed bag (i.e. "confusion", i.e. "babel" or "babylon") and of no further particular interest.

 

[dory007]

the animals on the ark were pairs also, but many animals are non monogamous. it only take one breeding pair to replenish a population.

 

[CecilW]

the animals on the ark were pairs also, but many animals are non monogamous. it only take one breeding pair to replenish a population.

Ooooh. Now THERE'S a fun argument! Unclean animals went on the ark by twos, clean by sevens.

We were unclean humans until Jesus saved us, and washed us in His blood, etc. Now we're clean. That means we're supposed to run around in family groups of 7, with one male. But ONLY born again Christians are allowed to. Everyone else has to stay monogamous.

The baptism line is just over here to my left ... :roll: :lol:

 

[clyde44]

People have asked me (not sure why they'd ask me??!!) if God only created Adam and Eve, did Cain and their other children marry their sisters in order for the human population to grow. I've always figured after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden God created other humans for Adam;s and Eve's sons to "breed" with. It's only the first He created that mattered. Who cares about the second set of male and female He made? Or the third set or the fifteenth? If He didn't create others and their children had to "breed" with their sister(s), wouldn't that mean God was condoning incest? Personally I don't think that was the idea. Throughout the Old Testament there are many references to men with more than one wife. So, my thought is that if God condoned polygamy once, why wouldn't he still? That's just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Shimon]

I've always figured after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden God created other humans for Adam;s and Eve's sons to "breed" with.

It's a point, but I don't think it's valid. For one thing, the bible never mentions creating another set of people. For another, it was unnecessary. I'm sure that God created man as a genetically perfect species. In that case, incest, or sexual relations between close relatives, would have no ill effects. The were no nasty recessive genes to get reinforced by inbreeding. It would not have been until many generations after the fall, when genes had the chance to mutate, that such close marriages became dangerous. I believe that it was in the law God gave to Moses to formalize something that He had already spoken of to someone, or that people had begun to observe for themselves. As the scripture doesn't explain, the best we can do is speculate however, I'd be hesitant to believe a second line of man was created.

Dave

 

[seekHim1]

I would have to say that PM and monogamy are both not the ideal based on the New Testament standard of celibacy being best if we are going off of Jesus' example and if we are having this discussion with other "Christians". If/when I start going into this topic with those who oppose it, I will bring up celibacy first and foremost since chances are the same people who knock PM are themselves monogamous and are NOT living the ideal. I would think that should quiet them on that particular point about "God's ideal." Also, hubby has brought up the point that God originally only created Adam = celibacy, but as we all know, God felt Adam needed some companionship. But the original ideal would have been Adam and God.

 

[welltan]

Genesis 2:18 (King James Version)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Eve was an improvement.

 

[CecilW]

the New Testament standard of celibacy being best

I think that this NT Standard may be the result of misunderstanding. Paul also told people to marry. Further, he had no right nor mandate to supercede the word spoken by God during Creation week -- it ISN'T GOOD for man(kind) to be alone.

God's ideal answer, in the utopia of Eden, was that each person in existence live in a marriage relationship.

Mono or poly we have to learn from His later dealings with mankind. But this one we can safely state as it is a simple restatement of His own words.

He said, "Let there be light" once. And the sun is still coming up each and every day, 6000 or so years later. Same for dry land appearing, grass, trees, birds and fish and animals. Same for "It ISN'T GOOD for mankind to be alone. I'll get involved to fix it."

Therefore, respectfully, while I can support celibacy as allowable within the range of free will, perhaps sometimes necessary, and in some cases preferable (regrettably there ARE some idiots who shoulda been neutered at birth!), I can never accept it as God's ideal.

Women are not a consolation prize for poor men who can't hack being alone with God. They're a delightful complement, a matching and enhancing part of the man's life. The delay in their creation served one purpose -- to induce a knowledge of the NEED for human togetherness in mankind. Wheee!!! Did it ever work!!!

 

[Mark C]

I would have to say that PM and monogamy are both not the ideal based on the New Testament standard of celibacy being best if we are going off of Jesus' example...

The best response to that particular "argument" is to note that the example of our Savior was not to "add to" Scripture!

I would challenge you to read carefully; the verse that says He was "celibate" is probably in the same chapter as the one that says He mandates monogamy!

Actually, it's called an "argument from silence", and such arguments are bogus -- because they reflect "tradition" and what someone THINKS God should have said, but in fact did not.

(And this particular one -- while I don't have an opinion either way -- is funny, because people get so wedded to an opinion in spite of the facts. THAT is what is good to point out in such cases. In that regard, it's a bit like the Noah and seven pairs of animals issue; most people are just as surprised by what the Bible sometimes DOES say as what it in fact never says at all.)



Finally -- some food for thought. It was Shaul/Paul who espoused celibacy (in the "I would you are as I am" reference) and he was VERY clear to note that he was speaking only based on his own opinion, and not that of our Creator. But if Paul knew that the Savior was ALSO "celibate" - as he himself was, why wouldn't Paul have INSTEAD said, "be like our Savior was!" ??

 

[welltan]

Good point Mark. Because we don't know the details of other parts of Christ's life does not mean there were not details. Whether there was or was not a marriage, I do not know, and my opinion is that Christ was not married. But I do know that the idea of people being repulsed with the idea of a married Christ is completely bogus and almost comical, given the fact that they/we all want to be part of the bride of Christ anyway.

Part of the reason the church historically wants a celebate Christ is that the church claims to have a holy approach to marriage, but in fact does not, as of course this forum points out from the plural home aspect. Marriage (as with Eve) was a gift of help and holiness directly from God's hands. But not being able to leave something already holy from God and 'well enough alone' , the legal church (in general) siezes the authority of marriage, declares people married with the authority of the state and the denomination in a bed of unholy authority and then (watch closely now) and with hocus pocus from the front of the church "With the authority of God and the state I declare you husband and wife". Hello.......! Where did God give this authority away and when? God didn't do that. The fact is the state said that the church could do that and the church said that the state could. It is like two thieves asking each other for a free pass.

And since at the time Christ did not ask permission to do such a thing from the state or local religious leaders, Christ could not have had their version (sic) of a holy marriage. Therefore a celebate Christ is just easier, and for that matter was probably what he was.

 

[sweetlissa]

If there were a marriage of Christ and subsequent offspring, I believe that would create problems. If I were able to claim lineage to Christ then I would be making myself to be of his same genetic makeup. If there were people who believed that they were actual physical descendents of Christ, wouldn't that create problems?

SweetLissa

 

[Mark C]

If there were a marriage of Christ and subsequent offspring, I believe that would create problems. If I were able to claim lineage to Christ then I would be making myself to be of his same genetic makeup. If there were people who believed that they were actual physical descendents of Christ, wouldn't that create problems?

SweetLissa

Has, and does, Lissa. It may even have a lot to do with where such claims as "the divine right of kings" originate.

(Note that whether something is TRUE, or NOT, often has little to do with opinions, propaganda, and politics.)

Look up the various "conspiracy theories" associated with the "Merovingians" or Merovingian Dynasty sometime. Most of the "blue blood" (now THERE's term for ya! ) of Europe (from the Hapsburgs to the Windsors) claim such a lineage, at least according to some purported histories.
I still tend to put a lot more trust in what the Bible actually says than all the various alternatives.

 

[Doc]

Getting back to the topic at hand.....


How about this response to the 'Adam and Eve' argument?


Adam and Eve were created in a monogamous relationship. This was God's pattern from the beginning.
Therefore, polygamy is not in God's plan.

Adam and Eve produced a child, a son. This was God's pattern from the beginning.
Therefore, producing a daughter as firstborn is not in God's plan.

Whereas a lot of people would readily accept the first statement as true, they would be appalled at the prospect of the second statement, though both statements use the same logical assumptions.

The truth is, both statements are fallacious. Yet, again and again, I hear the 'fidelity of the original' response.

 

[Ephraim]

Good point Doc. I think Cecil also mentioned about living in a garden, walking around naked, etc. goes along with the same thoughts.

A similar thought I had was; because Adam and Eve’s children must have married their brothers and sisters, wouldn’t that have to also be accepted as God’s pattern from the beginning?

Another thought I’d like to add, and I think it goes with the discussion; why do we assume Adam was monogamous?

I know this may sound weird but think about it. Eve was taken from Adam’s body, so would Adam have really thought it to be any different? Adam and Eve’s descendants had to have married their siblings, yet those siblings are never mentioned in the Scriptures. I’m sure there are a lot of things that are simply not mentioned. Is it possible that Adam may have been polygynous? The Law was not given until much later. So at that time if brothers and sisters were marrying could it have been possible that Adam may have later had another wife/wives? I’m just speculating here.

 

[Mark C]

Is it possible that Adam may have been polygynous?

That is a point which should never be overlooked, Ephraim. The technical term for that Logical Fallacy is an "argument from silence".

The problem, of course, is that when the Bible simply does not say something at ALL, fallen men want to assume that it therefore MUST support their traditions. Similar examples abound.

The only reason that this is not the first response I sometimes use for the "monogamous Adam" fallacy is that it's usually so effective to debunk the other problems first. I really hate to miss out on asking why it is that they insist on assuming that the "most famously failed marriage in all human history, the one by which sin entered the world" (and which fathered the "first murderer") should be the model, the "ideal" for "marriage". Perhaps they can be persuaded to actually go and take another look at what the Savior was REALLY saying.

 

[Corey]

Let me present one more case.
1.) Author of Genesis? Moses. This isn’t just church tradition it is well established by Jesus and the New Testament writers.
2.) Audience? The children of Israel.
It was written looking back in history. In fact if you read it you can see where Moses as the narrator inserted the meaning of what was said to his audience in many places. This was written at the same time as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. If any one knew what its implications were it would have been the author. Moses had two wives and allowed those under his leadership to have more than one wife. He obliviously didn’t see monogamy even implied in his own writing of the Genesis account, and he certainly didn’t accuse the law of contradicting it. It seems to me that we are finding implications that aren’t there to justify our cultural preference rather than sticking with the author. By the way he was writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are only human and this wouldn’t be the first time we misrepresented an author. If you think about it, it isn’t like God conveyed his idea and Moses had 2,600 years to misunderstand. The Genesis account was fresh off the press, Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

 

[CecilW]

Lost text from the book of Genesis ...

... And Adam saith unto the Lord, "LORD! I STILL GOT 15 RIBS! Hook me UP, God!"

 

[CecilW]

Adam and Eve produced a child, a son. This was God's pattern from the beginning.
Therefore, producing a daughter as firstborn is not in God's plan.

And by the same logic, they first produced ONE child. Not a litter. God's pattern. What right did they have to try again and produce MORE. Oh, and don't you see it in the story? God PUNISHED them for having more by the loss of that second child, Abel, at the hands of the one and only VALID child, Cain! See? Having more than one child is invalid and brings problems.

 

[Shimon]

if God only created Adam and Eve, did Cain and their other children marry their sisters in order for the human population to grow. I've always figured after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden God created other humans for Adam;s and Eve's sons to "breed" with. It's only the first He created that mattered. Who cares about the second set of male and female He made? Or the third set or the fifteenth? If He didn't create others and their children had to "breed" with their sister(s), wouldn't that mean God was condoning incest?

I had another thought on this idea while studying. If you postulate that God created other men and women for Adam's children to mate with, those people would be new creations, thus not subject to the fall and curse of death. Only Adam's offspring are subject to the consequences for his sin. At least that's my understanding of the Word.

Dave