Debate Question

[Anonymous]

When I was talking to a friend about polygyny, one of her "proofs" of God's intentions for monogamy only from the beginning of creation was that God only created one woman and one man, and her further proof was that when Noah was on the ark, he only had one wife, and all his sons only had one wife. To her, this was proof positive that when God "started fresh" with mankind after the flood he intended monogamy only for marriage.

I can reasonably explain why God chose at Creation to use one man and one woman, but I don't really have an answer for why Noah and his sons each had only one wife.

Anyone have a clue?

 

[Doc]

Adam and Eve response: while it is true there was only one man and one woman, that does not necessarily establish a pattern. Adam and Eve also lived naked. Since they were naked, then we should be too, LOL

Noah: once again, a pattern is not established. Besides, after Noah, you have Abraham, Jacob, David, etc, all polygamists who came AFTER Noah. None of these great men of faith were condemned for plural marriage. The laws that Moses set down regarding plural marriage also came after Noah.

 

[Tlaloc]

Adam and Eve: One Blood. Act 17:26. This would not be cleanly accomplished with more than wife created for Adam, and there is no room for a Lilith race.


Noah: Natural probability and scarcity of the righteous, polygamy isn't a mandate and not everyone is going to do it. There is neither an act of God nor a mandate nor even a lesson attached to Noah having only one wife, its just how it was. What Doc said about Abraham, Jacob, David, etc is a positive example that such said pattern was not established.

 

[sweetlissa]

This one came to me last week during a rousing discussion with a doubter. Yes, in the beginning there was one man and one woman. And in the beginning there was incest, otherwise, how could they have populated the world. So if that was God's perfect plan, why did he later condemn incestuous relationships. Should be go back to being incestuous in order to be like God created us in the first place?

SweetLissa

 

[Shimon]

I can reasonably explain why God chose at Creation to use one man and one woman, but I don't really have an answer for why Noah and his sons each had only one wife.

I think everyone here has nailed it. Polygyny was never mandated, but also never prohibited. There is never any requirement that men take more than one wife. Among those who believe in PM on this board, there are many men who only have one wife. And as Tlaloc said, at that time there was a very real scarcity in the number of righteous women available to marry.

Dave

 

[Doc]

I like Tlaloc's 'Scarcity' defense. The number of righteous women were limited (...."as in the days of Noah"....hmmmm, sounds like today!)

 

[CecilW]

That whole "There was 1 man and 1 woman in the beginning" argument is based upon an underlying assumed principle -- "Begin as you mean to continue".

It sounds good, and is often a good principle to follow. However, in this argument it results in us, as Doc said, needing to live Nekkid in gardens with lots of critters roundabout. Perhaps even try to marry every woman in existence? Or possibly "wait on the Lord" for our own personal ribectomy.

Au contraire, if we look at the story with the underlying assumed principle, "Ya gotta start SOMEWHERE." it will likely work out much better. You don't get stuck with these side issues -- which is good, cause most of us look better dressed anyway! Now all it is is the story of how things started, except where God spoke out a principle -- It isn't good for man(kind) to be alone, for instance.

 

[Anonymous]

One aspect that I haven't seen addressed yet regarding Noah and his family is this, they were all on the ark because of faith. They were there by choice. There was plenty of room for others, but none chose to board. When Noah received the call of God to begin the building of the ark , he and he alone was the only righteous man on the earth, not Mrs. Noah or their kids. This kind of encourages me to keep on going in my calling and not to measure success by worldly standards. Bottom line, Noah and sons only had one wife with them (could have been others that didn't believe) because they were the ones that believed God and obeyed His Word. They were the ones that chose to swim against the tide of public opinion and get on the first cruise ship in history.

 

[Shimon]

In Genesis 6 the sons of God (which can mean angels) saw the daughters of men and there were giants in the earth in those days

I believe that the original phrase, "sons of God" was translated just about everywhere else in the OT as angels. Also, 'giants' is arguably a mistranslation of Nephilim.

Below is a quotation from Clarke's Commentary

Nimrod - Of this person little is known, as he is not mentioned except here and in 1Ch_1:10, which is evidently a copy of the text in Genesis. He is called a mighty hunter before the Lord; and from Gen_10:10, we learn that he founded a kingdom which included the cities Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Though the words are not definite, it is very likely he was a very bad man. His name Nimrod comes from מרד, marad, he rebelled; and the Targum, on 1Ch_1:10, says: Nimrod began to be a mighty man in sin, a murderer of innocent men, and a rebel before the Lord. The Jerusalem Targum says: “He was mighty in hunting (or in prey) and in sin before God, for he was a hunter of the children of men in their languages; and he said unto them, Depart from the religion of Shem, and cleave to the institutes of Nimrod.” The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel says: “From the foundation of the world none was ever found like Nimrod, powerful in hunting, and in rebellions against the Lord.” The Syriac calls him a warlike giant. The word ציד tsayid, which we render hunter, signifies prey; and is applied in the Scriptures to the hunting of men by persecution, oppression, and tyranny. Hence it is likely that Nimrod, having acquired power, used it in tyranny and oppression; and by rapine and violence founded that domination which was the first distinguished by the name of a kingdom on the face of the earth. How many kingdoms have been founded in the same way, in various ages and nations from that time to the present! From the Nimrods of the earth, God deliver the world!

The word giant here is the same as used in Genesis which is transliterated as Nephilim and is a different word from the Hebrew for giants as in men of very large stature.

Of course this probably belongs in a seperate thread, as I don't think the two seed theory bears much on PM.

Dave

 

[Anonymous]

My original question was how to counter my friend's statement that, "God started with one man/one wife (Creation) and when He started over again (the Flood) there was one man/one wife.

I know my friend's statement isn't the greatest debate question to try to de-legitimize PM, but I would really like several options to counter her narrow viewpoint.

I like the "scarcity" idea. Very plausible.
I like the idea that there may have been other wives that chose not to believe. Also very plausible.

Any others?

 

[sweetlissa]

Hubby calls it progressive revelation. If God gave us everything in the first chapter of Genesis, why would we need the rest of the Bible.

Look in for the story of Caleb. He had multiple wives and God found no fault in him. David had at least 9 wives and he was a "man after God's own heart" and God gave him his wives and would have given him more if he had asked.

These were all after Adam and Eve and yet God never once admonished them for marrying more than one woman. He never called it sin.

 

[Tlaloc]

Actually you're friends argument concerning Noah is a fantastic one for debate, debate isn't usually about being right as much as wearing an opponents resistance down and filibustering. The genius of this point is that the passages in question have absolutely nothing to do with polygamy or marriage. It's a completely speculative argument based on a presupposition. It shows nothing more than that they can explain something in light of their belief. Ideally you could call someone on that, but normally people can't tell the difference between something that substantiates their belief and something that is a result of their belief. The cart is before the horse, Noah can be explained in the light of Monogamy, but Monogamy is not proven by Noah. The same is true of polygamy, we can explain Noah in the light of polygamy being good and acceptable and righteous, but nothing about Noah will prove polygamy.

Hence the only responses we can give are just as plausible and just as unprovable as you're friends. Its a no-win situation because the information we are working with was not intended to answer the question we are asking. If you can call the freind on the presupposition and get to more pertinent verses then thats good, if you can't then well, you've got that and whatever else this brainstorming session comes up with.

Kudos to John about mentioning how they may have had other spouses that left them, very good food for thought.

For interests sake, the thing that made me think of the scarcity of righteous women where the Mormons. They believe there will be more good women than men in the end. As much as I love women I believe they are and can be just as bad as men, hence if there is only one righteous man there is no reason to expect there would be more righteous women than that. My line of reasoning there was just so strange I had to spell it out...

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Tlaloc. Excellent point. I know my friend's question was sincere, but I think it was putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. There really is no way to prove monogamy or polygyny from Noah's situation. When it seemed to be a good argument to support her belief, that was the one she chose!

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Jesus married zero women and he was sinless, so maybe everyone should have zero wives, because zero is the exact number of physical wives Jesus physical body had sex with as opposed to the Bride the Church which he did not have sex with.

If Adam married two women. The Anti-Polygamists, would not say you are only allowed to marry two women and if you are only married to one it is a sin! So, this argument is ridiculous. Adam had to marry a certain number of wives. We can not say that you are only to marry the exact number of wives Adam married. No more than we should be naked and without shame when we go grocery shopping because Adam was perfect and was naked without shame. It would seem reasonable to conclude based on the text that Adam did not have any children before he sinned, forget the fact that God told him to have children, we should simply not have any children to copy Adam before he sinned. Adam was not said to use a horse and buggy before or after Genesis 3, therefore we can not use horses and buggies.

If it was okay for Adam's children to marry their sibling, why couldn't Adam marry one of his daughter as a second wife?

If Adam did not get a second wife, does that mean that God forbade it?

It is often laughable to come up with moral laws from historical events, when God did not state moral laws.

About Noah
There were not very many righteous women in Noah's time it was hard to get people on the ark, so maybe Noah had trouble finding a wife, who he wanted to marry.

 

[mrscottyl]

Jesus married zero women and he was sinless, so maybe everyone should have zero wives, because zero is the exact number of physical wives Jesus physical body had sex with as opposed to the Bride the Church which he did not have sex with.

This is something because we have been talking exactly about this on another forum. To be sinless, Jesus would have had to obey all 613 commandments. The very first commandment is to be fruitful and multiply. Just because the Bible doesn't tell us something does not mean that it did not happen. For example. the Bible never says that during the entire time everyone was on the arc, that anyone cleaned the arc. Does that mean no one did? No. Can you imagine for as long as they were in there no one cleaning?

Kudos to John about mentioning how they may have had other spouses that left them, very good food for thought.

Yes I agree. Never had looked at it this way. There are some very good and well thought out responses here. Mine would be something more sarcastic, in that if you were going to be stuck in the arc for that long, if each man had multiple wives, how long until major arguments broke out from all of them being couped up and not being able to get away from each other. I say this because I spent over 3 years in the US Merchant Marines, being on boats and ships where if you and someone else got into it, there was absolutely no place to go. Imagine lots of women each getting on the others nerves, and with no where to go to get away from each other. This would be a blessing that each man only had one wife. Just a thought, not meaning anything bad towards any one of the more beautiful sex.

Scott

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I assume the be fruitful and multiply command is only for married people and does not apply to non-married people. Therefor it was not a command for him unless he got married.

Oh and by the way the Da Vinci code is probably not considered a historically accurate source by most historians. :roll:

 

[mrscottyl]

I assume the be fruitful and multiply command is only for married people and does not apply to non-married people. Therefor it was not a command for him unless he got married.

Oh and by the way the Da Vinci code is probably not considered a historically accurate source by most historians. :roll:

The problem is that you are assuming here. He also said this to the animals, so to continue your assumption, all of them had to be married here too. No, this was a command given to everyone, regardless of marital status. To be fruitful and multiply means that one must be married.

Scott

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I assume the be fruitful and multiply command is only for married people and does not apply to non-married people. Therefor it was not a command for him unless he got married.

Oh and by the way the Da Vinci code is probably not considered a historically accurate source by most historians. :roll:

The problem is that you are assuming here. He also said this to the animals, so to continue your assumption, all of them had to be married here too. No, this was a command given to everyone, regardless of marital status. To be fruitful and multiply means that one must be married.

Scott

For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[a] Or have made themselves eunuchs

Mathew 19:12 NIV

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am
1 Corinthians 7:8 NIV

 

[mrscottyl]

For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[a] Or have made themselves eunuchs

Mathew 19:12 NIV

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am
1 Corinthians 7:8 NIV

I could go into a full book on how corrupt the NIV is as a translation, of which I alread have entitled "What Is The Truth" (http://stores.lulu.com/mrscottyl), but I shall stick with the points made. Was the comment Yahuwshua made in the first quote a sarcastic one? Other than the Ethiopian Eunuch, where are any other eunuchs mentioned in Scripture, as a basis for this belief. Everything has to have two or three witnesses, so where are the other witnesses to back this one up, if it was not a sarcastic comment.

The second one says that in a perfect world without sin, there would be no need of marriage, but, and this is where you cut Paul off, since this is not a perfect world, people should marry. If you are having sexual urges, you need to marry. As long as you are not tempted by or having sexual urges, then yes this would be fine. But how many people are like this? And again, I ask where are two or three other witnesses to go with this passage? People have taken these single verses and made so many religious doctrines out of them, without having the required two or three witnesses as Scripture itself demands.

Scott

 

[Anonymous]

I believe that the command to be fruitful and multiply is given to everyone, not just those who God wills to be married. It also must have more meaning than just having children, else those who are not able to bear children would be in direct disobedience to this command. Since God opens and closes the womb, He would not purposely cause someone to be in disobedience of this command, so the command to be fruitful and multiply must have more than one meaning.

I have read the writings of precious, godly, not-so-young women who are waiting for a husband. From their perspective, there is still plenty of kingdom work that is fruitful and they are able to multiply, not physically, but spritually, by investing into the lives of other believers. Thus, they are able to keep this command, even though they aren't married.

I don't give this example as a great theological treatise, just that there are other ways of looking at the "fruitful" command.