• 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.

Any good anti poly arguments?

Paul not the apostle

Paul not the apostle

Member
Real Person
Has anyone ever had a discussion regarding the validity of plural marriage and heard an argument against that was well supported from scripture? I know that this is a somewhat loaded question because plural marriage is biblical and so there really won't be one, but has anyone experienced anything even remotely close to being a good one?

I read a really bad one yesterday and it is bothering me, not shaking my views on poly, but a little depression or just feeling sorrow for the "church" and how bad the preaching (if you can call it that) and exegesis has become. This is an actual intro line from the paper-

You may be surprised to learn that Abraham was not a polygamist -- that David completely repented of it -- that God's legal statutes made polygamy illegal in ancient Israel!

I will spare you the body of it, the author LOVES the CAPS BUTTON. Anyway, if anyone has ever heard a decent one, please let me know. It is not really important, I just sometimes feel like it would almost be easier to have at least one that was decent so that I don't have to feel so bad about how willingly blind most believers are about this topic.

On a side note, I do think that it would be very difficult to be "Mormon" because of the recent history of polygamy in their church. Nothing like a little recent history hypocrisy to rub you raw.

At least in protestant catholic circles, we can close our eyes and pretend that polygamy is some new crazy thing that the perverts and self-hating women have come up with in these "last days."

Or jewish, "the ban is over, why are you still against it?"

See what happens when you honor the 4th commandment? You end up with Sunday for this type of posting.
 
Truth be told, PaulTNA, I would have to answer - after a decade of searching and hearing many of the same arguments dozens if not hundreds of times - that the answer is NO. I can honestly say that while I have had people who simply REFUSE to be like the Bereans and "see if these things be so", but ultimately VERY few if any who believe in the Written Word but will not accept after study what it so clearly says.

The verse(s) that most people new to the topic will consider "irrefutable" is the "husband of one wife" (mia wife) interpretation of Timothy and Titus. At worst, this one claims that polygynists may not be elders ("deacons", "overseers", etc) while it simultaneously cedes the contrary point that therefore other NON-elders may have more than one wife, since otherwise no such distinction makes sense. Just as arguably, however, the verse serves as an illustration of cultural bias, and prohibits a far greater population of elders from service - those who are divorced or otherwise unsuitable to head a house. (And THAT one won't fly in most places!)

People also tend to quixotically cling to the First Monogamist Precedent, often while simultaneously claiming that it is polygynous marriages which the Bible presents as failures. I find this double-think at this point to be both sad and a bit humorous; after all, how can one claim that polygyny is "always" portrayed negatively in Scripture and yet idolize the marriage "by which Sin entered the world"? (I realize that description is not necessarily "fair" -- just funny. Reducto ad absurdum is not intended to be "fair". ;) And, after all, a statistical study of ALL marriages in the Bible will show what in hindsight should be obvious: we learn from examples with problems in most cases.)

I believe the most pervasive argument, when all is said and done, is the "it's not God's preferred plan" (the fallback option) position -- to which there are a couple of obvious rebuttals. First, Paul (speaking for himself) clearly preferred celibacy anyway (not a practical long-term solution for humanity in general, of course :D )
...and there's Isaiah 4:2, for those of an optimistic bent.
 
Yeah, Paul... add to that that Moses wasn't really a polygamist either, that in fact the whole country of Ethiopia got up from it's location in Africa south of Egypt, and floated on wings of angels over to Saudi Arabia, where everyone's skin paled from black to a light tan long enough for Moses to marry the daughter of the high priest, herd some sheep, have kids, and rescue the Israelites from Egypt, oh, and hang out with his Pop-in-law a bit more before rising and floating back to Africa where their, um, deeper tans returned. That just HAS to be the way it happened, cause he couldn't have married BOTH semite and ethiopian girls and then been honored by God. Unh-unh.

Where do they come UP with this stuff?

Oh, to answer your question, Nope. Nothing not easily handled in years. Part of why I dropped out for a while. Got bored with the same old tired objections. Shouldn't have. They were real to the folks who made them.
 
I heard a good argument against one of the common proof texts concerning King David (2 Samuel 12:8). The argument is that Hashem gave King David wives that he married.
I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care...
Click to expand...
Well, the argument against Hashem giving all of King Saul's women to King David as wives is this: King David was married to King Saul's daughter and one of Saul's wives was her mother. It is a violation of Torah for a man to marry a daughter and her mother.

It is good to try to argue the opposing position. Here's an article I read recently that shows why...

"Seeing the Other Side"
http://messianicsfortorah.wordpress.com ... ther-side/

I think you'll like it a lot.
 
Ok here's something,

Is it reading something into the Bible that is not there when someone says " Well I believe the reason that God gave the wives to David and to ever other Poly guy in Bible is because he allowed for it similar to the way he allowed for divorecement-because of "hardness of the heart" (sounds like atherosclerosis!), but in the case of polygyny he allowed for it because of lust in men's hearts. I actually heard this argument from my brother who has been studying this subject on and off since I brought it up a while ago to him. It is funny as I'm writing this then I am actually coming up with my own answers! Why would God make a loophole for one shortcoming and not for all. Well he kinda did make one for all (Jesus) but did not make some for particular sins (If you really want to lie I suppose I will make some white and others not so-haha!) Anyway just want others' thoughts on this one argument.
 
I believe that can be true - that Hashem allows polygyny because of our weaknesses. However, I don't see anything wrong with that. Take my situation, for example. I was abandoned by my wife and, after being alone for a few years, I took another wife. I still hope for my first wife to return, but it will require a miracle - well, perhaps two miracles. :D One miracle for her to even want to return to me and the other miracle because she will have to share me with my wife. :D If I was able to remain single then I wouldn't have taken a second wife, but I need to have a wife and so I took another. Some men have the strength to wait - sometimes until death - for their wives to return. I would say that they are stronger than me.

I also believe that some men need to love more than one woman - even though one should be enough. I think Hashem understands, and so He permits men additional wives. Again, there is nothing wrong with it, but it isn't necessarily perfection either.

It's the same with divorce. I have chosen to keep my first wife who is guilty of adultery, and someone I am permitted to divorce. I was too weak to simply remain married to her only and wait for her to possibly return, so I took another wife. I believe the choice I made is much better than divorcing her so I could take another wife.
 
...in the case of polygyny he allowed for it because of lust in men's hearts. I actually heard this argument from my brother...
Click to expand...

I've heard this one quite a bit, too (usually, perhaps, as the "hardness of your hearts").

At one point I tended to give a somewhat sarcastic response, along the lines of how God always tries to accommodate sin ;) (like permitting sodomy, but only if it's REAL love, or pagan idol worship, but only if the cover story makes it sound sufficiently 'Christianized') -- but then I realized that there really DID seem to be an exception case. (Not for things He calls 'abomination', however.)

To the best of my understanding (so far), there is only one place in the Word that I have EVER seen text to the effect that, "you are NOT to do this; but IF you do..."

Surprisingly, that is, I contend, I Corinthians 7:10-11:

And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

In other words, the wife is NOT to leave...but IF she does it anyway...
an "exception clause" for rebellion if I've ever heard one.

And yet look at the 'coincidence' here. This is the Brit Chadasha (New Testament) equivalent of the "Levirate Law", where a situation is outlined which might in some cases REQUIRE polygyny!

The man is "not to divorce" his wife (presuming that he is obedient, since he is permitted to, but not required; clearly forgiveness is the better option, just as the Numbers 5 "remedy for jealousy" shows). But neither is the abandoned husband required to remain celibate, of course, as is the guilty wife. He may take himself another wife -- but must understand that if his departed wife repents and returns, he should take her back.

So, itoktobesingle, if anything, the accommodation for the "hardness of our hearts" cuts both ways -- and God's ordination of marriage STILL provides the best, and most gracious, solution. And, as you correctly observe, if He didn't already understand our fallen nature far better than we do, He would not have needed to provide us a Redeemer! (And note that, even then, it is an idolatrous, fallen, departed wife that He is willing to take back - IF she repents!)

Blessings in Him,

Mark
 
Itsoktobesingle said:
Argument against: "Well I believe the reason that God gave the wives ... he allowed for ... "hardness of the heart"
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I'm sure we've all run into this one.

First answer I tend to give is, "And we all know He's got Alzheimer's and can't remember what He said consistently, cause he spoke clearly about such seemingly inconsequential matters as cutting the beard as a sign of mourning for the dead, and was real clear as to His thoughts on divorce, yet couldn't remember in 1800+ years (the span over which the Bible was written) to make a clear statement about PM, despite all the cases, good and bad, before His eyes. Yup. Makes all kinds of sense."

Second answer would probably be, "Oh! I thought His remedy for hard hearts was to take OUT the stony (hard) heart, give us a heart of flesh, and write His law on it. Not satisfy it with some poor unfortunate one of His daughters, doomed to spend her life receiving love, care, provision, companionship, and (hopefully) mindblowing sex just to satisfy his animal nature."

My third suggestion might be to show him the T-shirt design posted yesterday that says "solve for families", and invite him to do so without PM. Nothing else works. This allows you to take the argumentative tack that monogamist theology unwittingly teaches that God loves men more than women, since there are an "excess" of women who are doomed to an involuntary life of singleness or temporary marriage followed by being cast aside, while polygamist society teaches explicitly that God loves us all the same, and has a place in a family for every single one of us, if we're willing and teachable.
 
I think the follow the laws of the land argument comes closest to resembling a real argument. It could be argued that only if your dead brother is in need of carrying on the name should you engage in polygamy.
 
Good point, Paul - but that is why I'm always careful to ask "Who do you serve?", and suggest not to take a license from the Other Guy. That way (back when we still had a Constitution :cry: ) the Law, at least, was still clear...
 
Paul not the apostle said:
I think the follow the laws of the land argument comes closest to resembling a real argument. It could be argued that only if your dead brother is in need of carrying on the name should you engage in polygamy.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. And I could even be swayed by that if it weren't that abiding by the laws of the land on this topic actively HARMS people. How so?

Back to the demographics equation.

Further it actively harms society, as any number of studies on the long-term effects of father absenteeism show.

Further, it actively warps people's image of God. Once again back to the demographics, either God HAS made a solution to the problem, or He does love men better than women. Take your pick.

In consequence, I'll argue with going along with the laws of the land insofar as possible: Don't get a marriage license or register the mariage. Handle name changes through the legal system. Handle property ownership issues through standard business structures and contract law. All of these tend to eliminate the government from the marriage itself anyway.

But "visiting the orphans and widows in their distress", i.e. taking steps to alleviate the husbandlessness and fatherlessness, which James defines as pure religion? Ignoring that due to the laws of the land? I don't think so. That's at the core of my religion.
 
If a man seduces a virgin he is supposed to marry her (Exodus 22:16-17). So, his poor choice is remedied by him taking another wife - a requirement of his faith. If that conflicts with the "law of the land" then we must choose the Law of Hashem first.
 
Law of the land arguments are weak. There are many bad laws on the books. For example, it is illegal to play dominoes on Sunday in Alabama. Should Christians worry about keeping a silly law like that? Where do you draw the line? Apparently, in the USA, men haven't been arrested for polygamy since the early 1950's. The government is pretty aware of the fact that it isn't a decent law.

Laws of man that infringe upon a man's right to take a wife are laws that I think are in conflict with His Law.
 
No, but some of us HAVE been arrested for sending private emails to our wife, QUOTING the Word of God.

The real issue is not "law" at all, once a land becomes a nation of "men, not of law".
 
I actually heard an interesting new argument brought up today. This pastor was talking about King Solomon starting to turn away from our Heavenly Father's wisdom and putting our Father on a shelf and doing his own thing. He implied that maybe King Solomon regretted having all those wives from this verse in Ecclesiastes 9:9, "Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun..." . The pastor said why did Solomon mention "wife" why didn't he say "wives"?

I actually pondered this today. Then I turned toward my Concordia Self-Study Bible which states under Author and Date of Ecclesiastes, "No time period or writer's name is mentioned in the book, but several passages strongly suggest that King Solomon is the auther. On the other hand, the writer's title (see note on 1:1), his unique style of Hebrew and his attitude toward rulers may point to another person and a later period.

This made my think that a) maybe King Solomon didn't write Ecclesiastes or b) maybe the word "wife" means something else like in the Scripture saying "Deacons must be the husband of but one wife.." 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

I would appreciate any thoughts, because I don't really know if I agree or disagree with this pastor's sermon today.

Michelle
 
Ecc 9:7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
Ecc 9:8 Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.
Ecc 9:9 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

I am no scholar, but….
Whoever the author is, he is obviously telling someone else to do these things and not talking about himself. A verb with no subject assumes the “you” as in...

You go thy way, you eat thy bread with joy, and you drink thy wine….
You let thy garments be ….and you let…
You live joyfully with the wife whom….etc, etc, etc…

Even if this is Solomon, there is no way to truthfully use this verse to say that he regretted his wives. He may have regretted some of them, the ones that turned his heart from God, and caused him to worship idols. I would regret that myself. This says nothing regarding him regretting all of his marriages. I bet that the pastor said the word “maybe” just like you wrote. Has modern preaching come to include the word “maybe” so flippantly? Why would you even care to let something come out of your mouth that was based on a “maybe” and then expound on it. Don’t let this man preach on salvation or faith.

This is similar to the “God would have given Adam two wives if polygamy was a part of His plan” arguments. If God gave Adam two wives, then the false assumption would be that every man would have to take two wives. Poor men who could not support more than one wife would be forced to try to provide for two and then the socio-economic chaos would destroy the people of God, especially when you consider that there are not enough women for each man to have more than one. We know that some would take this example literally and do whatever it was to be in God’s will. Men would be killing each other to get a second wife in order to be in God’s will.

This false of example being the rule is based in the monogamy only frame of mind. Because they incorrectly assume that monogamy is the only form of marriage, they are stuck in the mindset that there is only one form that marriage takes. If they admit that polygamy is a form of marriage, then they again falsely assume that it can be the only form marriage takes. If the light ever comes on for the monogamaniacs, I think the first step will be the realization that marriage structure can be monogamous and polygamous, and that there is not just one form. They don’t have to be polygamous if they say that it is a form of marriage, but for some reason they don’t understand that.

The problem with this interpretation is that polygamy and monogamy are both marriage, and both the polygamists and monogamists in the Bible are examples of marriage, and neither can be used as the rules of God regarding marriage, or His intent for the structure of marriage. His rules are the ones that say if you take a second wife, then... and if a man has two wives…and all of the other instructions regarding marriage and divorce and inheritance. All of God’s actions are interpreted by looking through the eyeglasses of His Law. It is for this reason that we know that polygamy is not a sin, and is an acceptable form of marriage.

If the author of Solomon said wives instead of wife, then the assumption would be for every man to have wives instead of wife. The pastor was taking liberty with God’s Word, or more accurately, Solomon’s words and intent. There is probably not a plural form of that Hebrew word anyway, and it could be interpreted “wives” and is used as “wife” because of the monogamy oriented translations.

Off the soapbox now, sorry.
Paul
 
By the way, nobody monogamous ever says that they regretted their marriage? They did? Monogamy marriage must be a sin according to this logic, or at least not God's best choice or perfect structure.

Where is Mr. Bumbleberry when you need him to scenario Adam and Eve and Jill in the Garden of Eden to show how polygamy would have prevented sin from entering the world?
 
I like getting on my soapbox too--especially if I'm talking about something I'm passionate about. Thanks for your thoughts, Paul. I wonder how many churches would although it if the state legalized it?

Michelle
 
Paul not the apostle said:
Where is Mr. Bumbleberry when you need him to scenario Adam and Eve and Jill in the Garden of Eden to show how polygamy would have prevented sin from entering the world?
Click to expand...

Ummmmm ... He's at the Funky Blizzard competition. I called and asked. He said, "QED, Cecil. They'd'a been too busy shopping for fig leaves and such at the mall to mess with any old stupid snake. Plus, the snake wouldn't'a gotten a word in edgewise in the first place. AND, with them shopping, Adam would'a been nowhere to be found to tempt anyway."

However ...

"Did you know that Adam had a wife before Eve? No, she isn't mentioned in the Bible and the story is that while Eve is written, Lilith is spoken and hence the details are hazy. This is what I could find.

"According to Jewish folklore, Lilith was Adam's first wife. God made them from a single form of clay, as equals, and when he had completed them he separated them with one swift cut. Lilith and Adam were anxious to be joined again, so Adam asked Lilith to lie down beneath him. Lilith wasn't keen and challenged Adam wanting to know why she had to be underneath when they were equals. Why did he have to dominate when they were two halves made of the same clay? Adam tried to force her, but they were also of equal strength and he did not succeed. So Adam turned to God for help, lamenting about Lilith's defiance and refusal to serve him. She was banished from the Garden of Eden and turned into a demoness.

"Adam was then given a second wife, Eve, who was fashioned from his rib to ensure her obedience to her man. And the rest is Biblical history.

"So, there you have it- the story of Lilith, Adam's first wife and the world's very first feminist. "
(from http://femina-elisa.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... -wife.html )
 
lutherangirl said:
The pastor said why did Solomon mention "wife" why didn't he say "wives"?
Click to expand...

If this is the sum total of the Pastor's argument against PM ... then I gotta say, They accuse US of making leaps of logic?

Second thought agreed withi Paul, that there's no reason to think that the demographics were skewed to the point of 2+:1, so the instructive voice would most properly use the singular.

Third thought was that Solomon was trying to corner the market on females for himself, leaving but one each for everybody else anyway! The stinker!

Fourth though was, "Yeah, Michelle!" for checking it out and finding that it might not have been Solomon anyway. Who knows.

Anyway, kudos to the pastor. However weak the argument, it WAS original -- one I'd not yet heard in 12 years. That makes it a treat. A little one, yeah, but a treat nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top