Overcoming Objections To Plural Marriage: Topic 4

[Doc]

Polygamy was only allowed as a 'necessary evil' in times past because certain conditions existed. For instance, in times of war where many man may have been killed, producing a surplus of women, it became necessary. Also, in many cultures where property or rights were extended through male lineage rather than law, it was necessary to protect those rights through the allowance of polygamy. However, in our world today these 'supply and demand' and 'property' issues are not a concern, therefore the reasons for polygamy no longer exist. Those who practice polygamy today do so either by choice based on available wealth, or by coercion through tightly-controlled communities who create false 'supply and demand' scenarios (example: FLDS communities forcing younger men out of their communities).

 

[CecilW]

Do a gender based head count at church next weekend. In most every church in the country, your argument will immediately fail.

Further, "adoption" can be described as a necessary evil, in that it would be preferable for each child to be raised by his own healthy loving parents.

But we don't live in a perfect world. And I choose to call adoption "God's perfect provision" for this area of our imperfect existence.

If you wish to argue that monogamy is God's ideal, enjoy yourself. No-one has yet produced a "Thus saith the Lord" to that effect, so it won't either impress or bother me much. I'll merely respond that similarly, PM is "God's perfect provision" in our imperfect world, so that every woman may have a home within a marriage. Ps. 68:6, "God sets the solitary in families..."

 

[RisingStar]

This is change of standards. Since Jesus doesn't change this is false.

 

[Who is like God?]

I would say that those were not all the reasons for polygamy, in fact polygamy could greatly assist in ensure there are no single mom's; which I may add that there are more single mom's now then ever before. I will confirm that many Christian girls cannot find an available guy in the church, in fact I know one . This argument is really just a bait and switch, a needless bunny trail and as mentioned already had not scriptural base. Shipley's book "Man and women under biblical law" address almost if not all these objections and his second book, "They shall be one flesh" hashes out several more objections at the end of his book.

Now that I am getting carried away here is the argument that I have found with the least circular reasoning and emotional roller coaster rides and the only complete argument that does not try to stuff polygamy into the adultery box:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pxlLkI ... &q&f=false


Above is a link to the book or at least a chapter in the book titled, “Flame of Yahweh”, the chapter title being, “Sexuality in the Old Testament”. This author, Richard M. Davidson, does the most thorough job in building a defense against polygamy being biblical. He does fall into the common mistake of arguing from an incorrect premise, and furthermore from the conclusion of the book leaning heavily towards women being ordained, assaults the patriarch example that is set forth in the opening Edenic descriptive narrative of Genesis which is confirmed explicitly in the Bible: Man shall be the head of women as Christ is the head of the church. I especially found his comments on Lev. 18:18 (page 194) intriguing as well as his insight to 2 Sam. 8-12. I must say that I did find it refreshing that he did not try to stuff polygamy in the adultery box.

 

[Mark C]

Above is a link to the book or at least a chapter in the book titled, “Flame of Yahweh”, the chapter title being, “Sexuality in the Old Testament”. This author, Richard M. Davidson, does the most thorough job in building a defense against polygamy being biblical.

Thanks for the interesting link. But I'd have to differ with the choice of the word "thorough" for that bit of "analysis".

Tortured is far more like it. It never ceases to amaze me how far some men will go to hang onto their traditions. It reminds me of the complaint of the Savior Himself against those hypocrites who also elevated the practice to an art form (Mark 7:5-9, etc) when He said to them, " "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me...
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men...
...All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition."

I'm always inclined to want to ask such a 'scholar' - did it EVER occur to you that He might simply mean what He said...especially when He repeated it so many times, in so many ways? :roll:

 

[Who is like God?]

Yes of course, the word choice of "thorough" was used very lightly as is the word "defense" because neither really apply since the position is un-defensible. Thanks for the discussion. (I should have written "from what I have read so far it is my opinion that this is one the most thorough ....")

Most of what I have read fits perfectly with what Mark said 'men desperately trying to cling to their traditions' through emotional arguments.

 

[Jim]

Polygamy was only allowed as a 'necessary evil' in times past because certain conditions existed. For instance, in times of war where many man may have been killed, producing a surplus of women, it became necessary. Also, in many cultures where property or rights were extended through male lineage rather than law, it was necessary to protect those rights through the allowance of polygamy. However, in our world today these 'supply and demand' and 'property' issues are not a concern, therefore the reasons for polygamy no longer exist. Those who practice polygamy today do so either by choice based on available wealth, or by coercion through tightly-controlled communities who create false 'supply and demand' scenarios (example: FLDS communities forcing younger men out of their communities).

Another response to this line of thinking, kind of sarcastic ... Why don't these conditions exist today, we have lots of wars going, even gang wars? Oh yea, almost forgot, government welfare programs, women don't need husbands, children don't need fathers, the government will provide. But shouldn't Christians turn to God's welfare program instead of hanging onto Church tradition? ...I think the government welfare programs have damaged God's creation, the patriarchal family.

 

[DMetzger]

I always thought polygamy existed (in the biblical times) as a way for a man to ensure his bloodline (family). Many biblical men took additonal wives because their first wife was barren and that was considered a bad thing to not have children, in particular, male children, hence, continuing the blodline. Even God himself considered it a bad thing for a man to not have children. I personaly would like to see where in the bible it says "polygamy is a sin" "having more than one wife is a sin" etc. etc.
IMO, PM is a "sin" because man has decided it is. If it was detestable to God like so many other things He has stated are, it would be in the bible. for example, we *know* it is a sin for a woman to have more than one living husband at a time, that is adultry, plain and simple, but it does not say that about men, at least not that I have found anyway.
In today's society, well, who knows. I think some choose it because "they can" or because it's an ego trip, or.... because they honestly feel that is what God has either called them to do or what God requires for their salvation and thus, they do not want to jepordize their salvation by not abiding.

That's my thoughts anyway.

 

[CecilW]

I always thought polygamy existed (in the biblical times) as a way for a man to ensure his bloodline (family). Many biblical men took additonal wives because their first wife was barren and that was considered a bad thing to not have children, in particular, male children, hence, continuing the blodline. Even God himself considered it a bad thing for a man to not have children.

A common idea. Not sure the facts bear it out. (Inconclusive either way.) But I doubt that was David's concern with the 20+ women he married, particularly not the last, in His old age. Samuel's mother, for another example, was a barren 2nd wife, while the first wife had several children.

It occurs to me that just as the Bible contains no Thus-saith-the-Lord either favoring monogamy or prohibiting polygamy, not a list of valid reasons for seeking a first marriage, it offers no approved list of reasons for a subsequent concurrent marriage either. Reasons could be complex, from love of big families, to economic necessity for same, to compassion for "widows" and "orphans", to simple attraction between man and woman. Whatever the reason, if it is done with right hearts towards God, it would seem to be a blessing from Him. (Prov 19:?)

Whaddaya think?