Why patriarchy implies polygyny?

[Quartus]

I rather suspect they had the history of Adam and Eve passed on to them through Noah. There was never any concept of the example of Adam's monogamy requiring monogamy. They understood the nature of hierarchy.

The lives and times of the patriarchs seem to confirm this. According to the Bible all nations descended from Noah, and Shem was still alive in Abraham’s day. As Abraham’s patriarch, Shem would have had every opportunity to knock polygamy out of Abraham had he felt so inclined. Although there were no practising polygamists on the ark. all the nations descending from Noah’s family seemed to have practised it. Against that background then:

Abraham: feared that Pharaoh would kill him to take Sarah into his harem. Polygamy was OK, but remarriage to a divorced woman was obviously socially unacceptable, even for ready money.

Isaac: another monogamist! Never mind, Esau to the rescue: he takes a third wife of the descendants of Abraham to appease his parents for his previous polygamous marriage to two Hittite girls (Gen 26:34, 27:46, 28:8-9). So despite Isaac and Rebekah not being in a polygamous marriage themselves, they did manage to bring up Esau to realise that polygamy was perfectly acceptable, but marriage out of the truth was totally out of order.
Mainstream Christian thought has completely reversed this scriptural teaching.

Jacob, Isaac’s other son, was initially an unwilling polygamist if ever there was one. Nevertheless, when he woke up and found he was married to Leah, he quickly came to see the advantages of the majority view. Again the cultural commentary is of interest:
“Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn” (Gen 29:26).
The Biblical law of the firstborn can only relate to male children, but in Laban’s culture, we can see that firstborn status had also been applied to women: the narrative reveals that women’s lib is creeping into the ecclesia.
(Happily, this was rather an own goal for women’s lib as it was resolved by polygamy… Come to think of it, the problems in Jacob's household were not due to polygamy, they were due to women's lib!)

Anyway, to my mind, the lives of the patriarchs and the world they lived in do demonstrate that polygamy was indeed passed on by monogamists to their children.

Gen 18:19 For I know him (Abraham), that
he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD,
to do justice and judgment;
that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

 

[andrew]

I went back and re-read this thread just to refresh the memory banks, and for my two cents I don't think anything has improved since mystic put in his two cents on the first page. What I see is a lot of black-and-white, "it's either this way or that way" sort of argument going on. I think mystic nailed it: This is a qualitative or subjective matter.

You can have a kind of hierarchy or a kind of patriarchy in a monogamous culture. But where there is a denial of the legitimacy of polygamy (or the denial of any kind of multiple subordinate relationship), there is a fundamental denial of the kind of headship God intends for us. Not headship-yes or headship-no, but what kind of headship?

[Note: Choosing to have one wife is not the same as denying the legitimacy of polygamy. It's not always clear above that everyone's keeping that in mind. Nobody's knocking monogamous relationships per se.]

Going back to the employer/employee example: Say I start a business, and business is good. I believe I can handle more business with some help, so I hire an employee. Our teamwork is so effective that once again I find that I need more help, and I can envision a division of labor that would make us even more efficient and effective, so I hire another employee. And so on, and so on, and scooby-dooby-doo.... (anyone?).

You are offended that I have added more than one employee. You have some idea about the employer/employee relationship that suggests that all men should either be solo practitioners or have at most one employee. You have some reason to think it is your business how many employees I have. (Remember, we're not talking about the legitimacy of your decision to remain a mom-and-pop shop; nobody's criticizing you for that. We're talking about the legitimacy of my decision to build a larger enterprise.)

What is your idea? What is your reason? On what ground do you have an opinion about how I build my family or how large I build it? What's your beef, anyway?

That's what Tom is talking about (@tship67, feel free to correct me if I'm misapprehending your point). Whatever that thing is in your brain (that is, in the brain of that person that would deny the legitimacy of plural marriage, or the right of an employer to have more than one employee) that is causing you grief, what is it?

What it is is a sort of governor, a limiting device, that keeps the principle of patriarchy from operating at full throttle. To switch metaphors, it is an adulterating agent that, when added to the principle of pure patriarchy, dilutes that principle and turns it into a sort of 'patriarchy lite'.

So we can go on about formal propositional logic and the "does-to, does-not" aspect of this, I just don't think that's the issue here. Tom's original assertion as presented in the OP made perfect sense to me, because I already understood it the way mystic's "amplified translation" expounded on it. And it's been way too long since I read the book, but I'm thinking that looking at these two or three sentences out of context isn't really fair to Tom, and that mystic's (this is getting confusing) posts do a fine job of adding context and clarification to a point that we need to take very, very seriously: To the extent that one doesn't understand the legitimacy of plural marriage, then at least to that extent, one doesn't understand the concept of patriarchy that is implicit in biblical marriage.

 

[andrew]

Moving from play-by-play to color: One of my first experiences with 'getting into it' online was at the discussion forum of Patriarch magazine back in the day. They were extremely oppositional to the idea of biblical plural marriage while firmly claiming the moral high ground as defenders of biblical patriarchy. Whatever....

 

[Verifyveritas76]

You are offended that I have added more than one employee. You have some idea about the employer/employee relationship that suggests that all men should either be solo practitioners or have at most one employee. You have some reason to think it is your business how many employees I have. (Remember, we're not talking about the legitimacy of your decision to remain a mom-and-pop shop; nobody's criticizing you for that. We're talking about the legitimacy of my decision to build a larger enterprise.)

Perfect example and explanation.

 

[cnystrom]

When it comes to families that follow patriachy not all are pyramids. My arguement right now is with the definitions that are being used in attempt to make the arguement that patriarchy implies polygyny. There is the fact that not all hierarchies have a man at the head. So comparing patriarchy to hierarchy is using False equivalence arguement to support the False equivalence arguement that patriarchy impies polygyny. Its a logic fallacy.

I think you are stuck on the word proof as in mathmatics. The Bible is intended to be followed by the faithful and I do not think that faith works like that. I do not believe that the Bible proves things in any sort of mathematical sense.

For example, if hierarchy is say pyramid like 90% of the time and (in unusual cirmumstances) totem like 10% of the time, the 90% would be sufficient for someone who was following the Bible whole heartedly. You follow the most likely meaning unless there is evidence to the contrary.

The statement "patriarchy impies polygyny" itself confesses the lact of "proof", otherwise the statement would be "patriarchy proves polygyny".

The statement "patriarchy impies polygyny" means that it is up to monogamists to try to make their claims since totem-like monogamy would be the exception and pyramid-like polygyny fits in perfectly well with what is taught in Genesis, and most importantly would in fact be the normal and expected meaning (unless you are from a monogamist culture in which case your confirmation bias might get in the way).

It could be that Genesis is teaching that more unusual structure of a totem like hierarchy, but there is nothing in the text to indicate that.

 

[cnystrom]

I agree with this. Hierarchy is clearly established. However, without more information, we'd be arguing about whether it was supposed to be monogamous or polygamy was implied until the end of time. That could be a great reason why most Christian authors want to only talk about Adam and Eve and then skip all of the rest of the Bible's instruction on the topic. Without any explicit statement by God, we have a demonstration of hierarchy, but that's it. What kind of hierarchy is it? Well, one where the husband leads his wife. That's all we really have.

But that is a lot!

First of all, it is very important to establish that the origins story is a teaching of hierarchy (patrarchy) and not a teaching of monogamy. If it is a teaching of monogamy then all of these co-equal partner relationships are all Biblical and in compliance, etc. And clearly this teaching would be anti-polygamy. That door would be closed. Fortunately there is nothing in the story to indicate that it is about monogamy and everything in it points to patriarchy.

Second of all, if we establish that the Genesis story is about patriarchy specifically, then it seems to me the polygyny would clearly be allowed, unless it is disallowed here or some place else in the Bible, because polygyny fits in very well with patriarchy. Indeed when one thinks of the patriarchs a prime characteristic, and perhaps even first on the list of what charteristics patriarch hold, would be polygyny. When people (even monogamists) think of patriarchs they think of polygamy. I would even to say that that is where most people get the idea from. One could claim Mormons, but likely that is where Mormons got it from, too.

Thus patriarchy implies polygyny.

The rest is speculation based on the set of arguments we choose to embrace.

Indeed. But we have the luxury of examining those arguments and our motives for embracing them. There is nothing in the text to embrace a monogamist view. From there it is a simple matter to point out the cultural bias of such a view. And then ask how the patriarchs themselves viewed it. Indeed, how did Moses himself view what he wrote? It is quite a stretch for them to argue that any of the above thought of the story as a teaching on monogamy. The polygyny implication is too clear.

 

[cnystrom]

Going back to the employer/employee example: Say I start a business, and business is good. I believe I can handle more business with some help, so I hire an employee. Our teamwork is so effective that once again I find that I need more help, and I can envision a division of labor that would make us even more efficient and effective, so I hire another employee. And so on, and so on, and scooby-dooby-doo.... (anyone?).

Excellent.

I think the point that Shipley is making is in recognizing that this is in fact the system that God has created (by creating patriarchy), even though the example in the Bible is of only one employee.

If the Bible had a story of an owner and an employee, there would be no reason to think from that story that an employer could only have one employee, unless there was something explicit in the story itself, or in some other place in the Bible, that so indicated that that was the explicit meaning, because by default an owner could clearly have more than one employee.

Would it be mathmatical proof? No. But it would be the expected meaning.

Unless you came from a culture that taught that it was only moral to have one employee and you were unable to see it differently. In that case, you might get a wrong and un-intended message from the story.

 

[Nikud]

The statement "patriarchy impies polygyny" means that it is up to monogamists to try to make their claims since totem-like monogamy would be the exception and pyramid-like polygyny fits in perfectly well with what is taught in Genesis, and most importantly would in fact be the normal and expected meaning (unless you are from a monogamist culture in which case your confirmation bias might get in the way).

I believe all that biblical marriages affirm patriarchy. Patriarchy implies Biblical marriage. You can't delegitimize Patriarchy without deligitimizing marriage.
From my understanding Genesis teaches patriarchy. Scripture shows both monogamous and Polygamous marraige as aceptable both are hierarchies. I do not see monogamous marriages as an unnatural one on one relationship form of hierarchy, or cultraly bias since scripture promotes marriage (nonspecific).

This is my problem with using logic fallacies to prove one's point in this thread. If this thread was the first thing I read when I was someone "on the fence". I would have looked at the logic fallacies, and the statements made about Monogomy. Then came to the conclusion that if they willing to create logic fallacies to justify their bias (The same thing the monogamous only camp does) then they are willing to twist scripture to justify their beleifs as well (The thing the monogamous only camp does). Then as an undertone of this thread, it gives off an you must strive for Polygyny or your not following Patriachy (therefore living in an unbiblical marriage/living in an unbiblical way/poly is the only way) message. That undertone alone would have been enough for me to dismiss everything on this forum without taking another look.

The Bible is intended to be followed by the faithful and I do not think that faith works like that. I do not believe that the Bible proves things in any sort of mathematical sense.

We were debating Shipley's philosophical assertion that patriarchy implies Polygyny from his book not scripture.

Biblical Mathematical Proof. (One we all use on this forum to justify our belief in Polygyny)

G-d Condems sin 1
G-d does not condem Polygyny -1
Therefore Polygyny is not a sin 0
1-1=0

The Bible does work in a mathimatical sense.

BTW: Dont question my faith to try to make your arguement.

 

[Mojo]

The way I see it, this issue is black and white at the initial premise (JudeoChristian scripture emphasizes patriarchy, not matriarchy).

What we have now, in this thread, is caught in the weeds of how that is expressed. That is the grey area. But, are we splitting hairs and straining at gnats while the elephant in the room roams free?

While we debate over implications of monogamy and polygyny in patriarchy, the concept of patriarchy and what it looks like in either monogamy or polygyny is the big elephant.

So what if a man is polygynous. If he is not engaged in active leading and patriarchy, what does it prove? The inverse of "patriarchy implies polygyny" is "polygyny implies patriarchy". I don't think the inverse is true. I don't think one defines or implies the other very succinctly.

While we try to understand the implications, the institution of patriarchal marriage (in any of its forms) sits alone waiting to be released from its suppression.

As a society and faith, our overall war is for the heart and soul of patriarchy, regardless of its forms. Polygyny is just a side skirmish at this moment, in my opinion. The hearts and minds of the population at large need to be convinced of the legitimacy of true patriarchy, first, before they can even begin to hear us out about polygyny.

I do realize that only the Holy Spirit can convince someone completely, and that our first job is to live out our faith, not debate it. But when we give every man an answer, I think starting off with baby food is best.

Just my 2 copper coins.

 

[Mojo]

I've been thinking of this conundrum of "implications" lately. Will some of you logicians and deep thinkers help me see if my line of reasoning is sound?

In China, there has been a longstanding "one child" policy to maintain population control. In the West, we have implemented a "one wife at a time" policy to....I'm not sure what the purpose is, but it's there.

Does limiting the number of children limit the implications of parenthood? It limits choice by fiat, but is parenthood and its responsibilities and leadership diminished?

Does parenthood imply polyprogeny?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I’d say it implies having at least one

 

[Quartus]

In the West, we have implemented a "one wife at a time" policy to....I'm not sure what the purpose is, but it's there.

In the West, I see the "one wife at a time" teaching it as part of the development of the apostacy that would "forbid to marry" (1Tim 4:1-3).
I also believe that we are stuck with that teaching until the return of Christ, (2Thess2:8).
In the meantime, the Jezebel class that arose from within the true ecclesia will continue to teach Christ's servants to commit fornication (Rev 2:18-20) i.e. the general immorality of extra-marital sex and divorce that arises from monogamous teaching.
This aspect of teaching all nations to drink the wine of her fornication is mentioned 6x more in Revelation (Rev 14:8, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3, 18:9, 19:2).

I know not all will agree with my interpretation, but one point is incontrovertible: whatever the identity of this apostacy, it developed from within the ecclesia, (not from natural Israel, and not from Islam, and not from anywhere outside of it):
some shall depart from the faith, 1Tim 4:1,
a falling away first 2Thess 2:3
the ecclesia at Thyatira Rev 2:18

I can't think that modern China would interest itself in conforming to NT teaching, whether it was true NT teaching or false NT teaching.

 

[andrew]

@Kevin: Nobody's questioning your faith, and nobody's attacking the biblical legitimacy of your marriage or the patriarchalousness of your family. You might want to reflect on why you're getting worked up about this.

I do not see monogamous marriages as an unnatural one on one relationship form of hierarchy, or cultraly bias since scripture promotes marriage (nonspecific).

Nobody's saying that, and to the extent you're implying that's what we're discussing, it's a simple straw man argument.

There's nothing inherently unpatriarchal (or unbiblical in any way) about a particular monogamous family. To choose to live monogamously (or to reconcile yourself to living monogamously because you can't find anyone you'd want to add to your family) is not an inferior grade of biblical marriage, and the fact of a specific person's living monogamously does not imply that that person doesn't get patriarchy or doesn't understand biblical marriage.

However, to the extent that a person denies the very legitimacy of polygamy, and would prohibit polygamy by force, and try to tell other men how many women they could add to their families, then to that extent, that person does not get what "patriarchy" means: "rule by father-providers".

@Mojo: I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make with the China thing, but it helps me make my point nicely. A patriarchal society would absolutely uphold the right of a father to decide how many children he wanted to have (how big a family he wanted to build, which would be a function of how many dependents he could provide for). A communist society doesn't recognize ANY competing authority or any limit to the authority of the state, so of course doesn't recognize the authority of individual heads of households to determine how many children they will have. Frankly, I don't think they would recognize the concept of "head of household", let alone any rights or authority that would go along with that title.

That wouldn't keep individual families from trying to have a "patriarchal within the limits set by the state" kind of family, and good for them for doing the best they can under the circumstances. And a sincere belief in patriarchy wouldn't require all Chinese everywhere to just start making babies just to prove how "patriarchal" they were. But to the extent society—or any individual—tells a man how many children he can or cannot have, then to that extent a piece of the "archy" of that "pater" has been taken away from him. Same for wives.

 

[Nikud]

I do not see monogamous marriages as an unnatural one on one relationship form of hierarchy, or cultraly bias since scripture promotes marriage (nonspecific).

trying to show that God made a hierarchy with an unnatural one to one relationship.

We only think of this paticular hierarchy as possibly like a totem pole because of our own (unbiblical) cultural bias

Unfortunately the modern church does not like the hierachy either, which is why many, if not most marriages are not Biblical marriages.

With two you can establish a relationship. You do not need to establish a hierarchy. But why did God establish the male/female relationship as a hierarchy?

A one to one hierarchy would be the odd exception.

Sure it starts out with one customer in a one to one relatioship, but if you are in network marketing and have a less strong totem pole type organization than it will not be long before you are doing something else

Nobody's saying that, and to the extent you're implying that's what we're discussing, it's a simple straw man argument.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. These quotes amongst a few other things said changes the tone of the thread.

Nobody's questioning your faith, and nobody's attacking the biblical legitimacy of your marriage or the patriarchalousness of your family.

I think you are stuck on the word proof as in mathmatics. The Bible is intended to be followed by the faithful and I do not think that faith works like that. I do not believe that the Bible proves things in any sort of mathematical sense.

If we are discussing Shippley's philosophical statements, which as far as I know isnt cannon, What is the purpose of this statement if not to question my faith.

 

[mystic]

the "archy" of that "pater"

Person 1: Hey, you got archy on my pater!
Person 2: You got pater on my archy!
Voiceover: Two Greek roots that go great together.
Jingle*: Bee–Eff's … pay–tree–arkal love!

* to the tune from the old Reese's adverts

 

[Nikud]

I know i have had this conversation with a couple of yall. In some cases I will make the opposite, parallel or inclusive arguement to see how someone comes to their conclusion. I made the inclusive arguement that patriarchy implies biblical marriage to show that patriarchy is larger than Polygyny without trying to delegitimize polygyny. I see the validity of the arguement patriarchy implies polygamy, but not in the defenses made on the thread.

However, to the extent that a person denies the very legitimacy of polygamy, and would prohibit polygamy by force, and try to tell other men how many women they could add to their families, then to that extent, that person does not get what "patriarchy" means: "rule by father-providers".

This I agree with.

 

[andrew]

Oh, fine. I should have said nobody but Chris is saying that.

More later.

 

[Quartus]

> Kevin said: ↑
How does this apply to a polygamist marriage where the wife's are equal to each other and none holds a position of authority over the other?

An obvious difference is that the military goes on until no one is left.

In marriage if the husband dies its over. So there is no need for hierarchy among the wives. They are all free agents now to find new husbands.

God is pleased to reveal himself as a father as well as a husband. It is interesting to see how far polygamy can go and after all the original post was about that. However, naturally speaking, the concept of family beats polygamy hands down in coping with the military example. Since the concept of family is wider than polygamy, in certain cases, it may be capable of achieving more, or achieving the same thing more easily.

 

[Mojo]

I've got a headache right now, so let me see if I make sense:

I'm thinking in terms of definitions, especially as they relate to collective nouns.

Collective nouns operate as singular nouns for conjugation. They require a minimum of two participants (Marriage, team, class, etc. )

Unless something has changed, humans are still multicellular and reproduce sexually. You need two parent cells to reproduce at minimum one offspring. The diploid cell could split in the uterus and produce twins or triplets, but regardless, the two contributing cells came from the "parent" cells. Parent is singular, but you know there had to be another one out there at some point to create the offspring.

When someone is called a "parent", it is assumed they have a minimum of one offspring produced with another "parent". The implication is not affected by the number of offspring. All the responsibilities of "parenthood" begin with one offspring, potentially end with one offspring, are not diminished by the addition of other offspring.

I used the China example to say that the number of children is limited, but the institution of parenthood is not diminished by the limitations. Polyprogeny is not the implication of parenthood, it is merely one possibility.

I believe that applies to marriage(s).

 

[Quartus]

All the responsibilities of "parenthood" begin with one offspring, potentially end with one offspring, are not diminished by the addition of other offspring.

First that which is natural: God is the father of Adam: Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Then that which is spiritual (1Cor 15:46): God is the father of Jesus, and then Jesus is the first of “other offspring”
1Co 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that he (God), for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering.

Joh 3:6-7 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

etc etc may need a new thread etc…

I would consider that the overriding characteristic of the laws of China, USA, Henry VIII, and every “ism” under the sun is that all these ideas and laws are all part of the natural human race – the kingdoms of men.

Hierarchy is much more apparent to us in the concept of family than it is in marriage. However, I am wondering whether we may all have all been dozing off in our cosy cultural sleeping bags:

Western Christian polygamy: wives – no hierarchy.
Biblical polygamy: wives and concubines – very clear hierarchy.

Gen 16:6 But Abram said to Sarai, “Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please.” Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her.

In other words, it is far more difficult to establish hierarchy when considering the taking of another wife, but taking a concubine would be a completely different matter.