-
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.
Hello
- Thread starter Stranger
- Start date
Also, saying that polygyny is not ideal, begs the question, why did God chose that marriage structure to build His chosen nation? Maybe it’s extremely ideal.
Absolutely
Rth 4:11 all the people said: May the LORD make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel.
If we're spitting hairs it's now not monogamy that is the ideal, but celibacy.
Why be selfish and put ourselves at a disadvantage? Let's at least make sure if anything isn't ideal it gets shared out between all the monogamists as well.
Last edited:
It sounds like you think celibacy is ideal for everyone. Is that right?
Not at all.
Both Christ and Paul taught that it was better not to marry but made it very clear that was not advice for everyone.
Once we're past that and talking about marriage though, my point is that I don't think it's helpful to allow that monogamy is somehow the ideal form of marriage and polygamy is not.
It's great to meet you Stranger, and it will be interesting if we end up discussing some of your other views such as non-violence at some point, you have clearly put a lot of thought into many things.
If we are to define something as "ideal", there's a very strong argument that the ideal is celibacy, given that Paul within scripture itself states very clearly that celibacy is better than marriage for those who are called to it, and any marriage has the potential to distract us from our relationship with God. To argue for either monogamy or polygamy being ideal you'd have to argue against Paul, and I'm not going to try that.
I think it's better to consider the whole idea of "ideal" as being a red herring.
God has plans for all of us. Those plans are different. Celibacy, monogamy and polygamy are all permitted, all have both benefits and disadvantages, and all will be God's plan for somebody. In fact, at different times in life, all three might be in His plan for you!
And what is ideal is doing God's will, whatever that may be.
That emphasis is a heresy of the Catholic church, that the Protestant churches have not yet shaken off. The heresy of Catholicism is saying "the Church is the one bride of Christ, headed by the Pope, and to be saved you have to be in the one true Church". This is a heretical understanding that has been adopted in order for one individual in Rome to assume control of all Christians.
Interestingly, monogamy is also Roman culture, was adopted by the Catholic church from Rome, and was ultimately imposed on scripture and mandated for Christians by the Catholic church. The early church actually included some polygamists, because they were mostly Jews initially and Jewish culture was polygamous. Monogamy and Catholicism go hand in hand.
Yes, the church is sometimes spoken of as a singular entity - but the Greek word for Church refers to a group of individuals, not really a singular thing. Even when spoken as a singular the word used is one that emphasises that it is made of many individuals.
The emphasis in scripture is rather that all of us, as individuals, have an individual relationship with Christ. We can approach Him individually and without any mediator. We are all, individually, united with Him.
The Protestant reformers recognised that this was the crucial error of Catholicism and brought people out of that church into individual relationships with Christ. Protestantism rightly emphasises our individual relationships with Him - but has largely retained the monogamous terminology and imagery of Catholicism, and continued to prohibit polygamy.
A number of early reformers saw through this and realised polygamy was acceptable. Martin Luther said he could not condemn polygamy, and actually authorised a polygamous marriage. Associates of Luther wrote to King Henry VIII of England advising him to become a polygamist rather than divorce his wife, because that would be preferable. Some early reformers actually went so far as to take multiple wives - one of the Wesley's sisters actually married a polygamist! This history is covered up by the church, as this was a step too far for most people to be comfortable with.
However, an acceptance of polygamy is both the starting condition of Christianity, and the natural result of the reformation returning to that starting condition.
It is entirely reasonable that you incline to this perspective from your upbringing. Most of us start with that understanding. We then should critically examine that understanding to determine whether it is valid or not.
If we are to define something as "ideal", there's a very strong argument that the ideal is celibacy, given that Paul within scripture itself states very clearly that celibacy is better than marriage for those who are called to it, and any marriage has the potential to distract us from our relationship with God. To argue for either monogamy or polygamy being ideal you'd have to argue against Paul, and I'm not going to try that.
I think it's better to consider the whole idea of "ideal" as being a red herring.
God has plans for all of us. Those plans are different. Celibacy, monogamy and polygamy are all permitted, all have both benefits and disadvantages, and all will be God's plan for somebody. In fact, at different times in life, all three might be in His plan for you!
And what is ideal is doing God's will, whatever that may be.
Again, this is where most of us start. And this comes from our focus on the "Church" as a singular individual.
That emphasis is a heresy of the Catholic church, that the Protestant churches have not yet shaken off. The heresy of Catholicism is saying "the Church is the one bride of Christ, headed by the Pope, and to be saved you have to be in the one true Church". This is a heretical understanding that has been adopted in order for one individual in Rome to assume control of all Christians.
Interestingly, monogamy is also Roman culture, was adopted by the Catholic church from Rome, and was ultimately imposed on scripture and mandated for Christians by the Catholic church. The early church actually included some polygamists, because they were mostly Jews initially and Jewish culture was polygamous. Monogamy and Catholicism go hand in hand.
Yes, the church is sometimes spoken of as a singular entity - but the Greek word for Church refers to a group of individuals, not really a singular thing. Even when spoken as a singular the word used is one that emphasises that it is made of many individuals.
The emphasis in scripture is rather that all of us, as individuals, have an individual relationship with Christ. We can approach Him individually and without any mediator. We are all, individually, united with Him.
The Protestant reformers recognised that this was the crucial error of Catholicism and brought people out of that church into individual relationships with Christ. Protestantism rightly emphasises our individual relationships with Him - but has largely retained the monogamous terminology and imagery of Catholicism, and continued to prohibit polygamy.
A number of early reformers saw through this and realised polygamy was acceptable. Martin Luther said he could not condemn polygamy, and actually authorised a polygamous marriage. Associates of Luther wrote to King Henry VIII of England advising him to become a polygamist rather than divorce his wife, because that would be preferable. Some early reformers actually went so far as to take multiple wives - one of the Wesley's sisters actually married a polygamist! This history is covered up by the church, as this was a step too far for most people to be comfortable with.
However, an acceptance of polygamy is both the starting condition of Christianity, and the natural result of the reformation returning to that starting condition.
Loved your post, @FollowingHim, so please don't think otherwise just because I'm challenging a couple things . . .
I couldn't improve on that statement.
Yeah, well, tell that to the Shakers, who literally unf***ed themselves out of existence.
So much for being abiding by the first known positive commandment to be fruitful and multiply!
I agree with @Quartus's choice of scripture:
No scriptural evidence exists to negate the multiple messages that promote polygyny, not for everyone, because that would be materially impossible, but for those with a heart for it.
I'd argue that you'd more likely be arguing with yourself. Again, this is a matter of scriptural context. Paul wrote those sentiments about the relevant concerns about whether to choose marriage or celibacy during a period in which he clearly believed that the eschaton was imminent; in later writings (especially prison epistles), after the ultimate mystery had been revealed to him and he had been authorized to share it with the world, Paul dropped all such admonitions about celibacy being ideal. When he thought the world was about to end, it seemed to him that perhaps those most devoted to the message of Christ Jesus crucified and resurrected should devote every precious waking moment to it if they could do so with integrity, but when the full weight of what was ultimately revealed to him by Christ began to sink in, his sense of immanence dissipated.
I couldn't improve on that statement.
Yeah, well, tell that to the Shakers, who literally unf***ed themselves out of existence.
So much for being abiding by the first known positive commandment to be fruitful and multiply!
I agree with @Quartus's choice of scripture:
No scriptural evidence exists to negate the multiple messages that promote polygyny, not for everyone, because that would be materially impossible, but for those with a heart for it.
I'd argue that you'd more likely be arguing with yourself. Again, this is a matter of scriptural context. Paul wrote those sentiments about the relevant concerns about whether to choose marriage or celibacy during a period in which he clearly believed that the eschaton was imminent; in later writings (especially prison epistles), after the ultimate mystery had been revealed to him and he had been authorized to share it with the world, Paul dropped all such admonitions about celibacy being ideal. When he thought the world was about to end, it seemed to him that perhaps those most devoted to the message of Christ Jesus crucified and resurrected should devote every precious waking moment to it if they could do so with integrity, but when the full weight of what was ultimately revealed to him by Christ began to sink in, his sense of immanence dissipated.
Yes, my point was not so much that "celibacy is ideal", but rather "it is not clear that monogamy is ideal". I'm not actually saying celibacy is ideal, but rather that the burden of proof on anyone who states monogamy is ideal is not only to show that polygamy is not, but also that celibacy is not, and that makes the initial proposition more questionable.
It also means we COULD have a massively long discussion about it, but I have no intention of going down that rabbit hole as I think it is pointless, and actually have no position on the question that I'm trying to defend.
Because in reality I was really arguing that "ideal" was the wrong way to view the issue at all.
It also means we COULD have a massively long discussion about it, but I have no intention of going down that rabbit hole as I think it is pointless, and actually have no position on the question that I'm trying to defend.
Because in reality I was really arguing that "ideal" was the wrong way to view the issue at all.
Yeah, welcome, Stranger!
We cannot expect it of them, true. But we should desire it, seek for it, and pray for it even as Christ has prayed for us in this regard on our behalf. If for Christ's sake God has knit together for two millennia a bride without blemish from the dust of the earth, it does not seem crazy to believe that He would do likewise for a man in Christ who prays earnestly so for his wife/ wives. It would not happen by accident in any lifetime or universe but it is not pie in the sky if it is the will of God.
I agree that Catholicism's claim to being the "one true church" is not scriptural. However the idea that there is a "one-ness" to the church is born out by scripture. The irony is that it is almost impossible for humans to wrap their minds around a group acting as an individual when they themselves are a collection of billions of cells unified into one being. We who have individual relationships with Christ must love those who alike have a relationship with Christ in the same manner as He has loved us. If we are one with him, so also must we strive to be one with one another. It is submission in Christ, not the Pope on which the one-ness of the church is predicated.
Also point well taken on the subject of ideals. It may continue to be a prejudice of mine from my upbringing a little while yet (it can be hard to shake such things) but I will do my best to refrain from judging one thing God permits as "better" than another in a general sense.
Also point well taken on the subject of ideals. It may continue to be a prejudice of mine from my upbringing a little while yet (it can be hard to shake such things) but I will do my best to refrain from judging one thing God permits as "better" than another in a general sense.
In the beginning there was just Adam, no Eve, so therefor celibacy must be the ideal. 
Oh and he was naked. 
Oh and he was naked.
So am I.Oh and he was naked.
Are you a nudist or just playing on my joke?
I was just playing on your joke. I was hoping someone would read my comment and snort coffee out their nose out of surprise.
And I lied. I wasn't actually naked. Well, I was, but I had clothes covering my nakedness also. But that was irrelevant to the coffee-snorting goal.
If I'd been drinking coffee, I would have snorted at your yeah, I was naked, but I had clothes covering my nakedness also.
I guess we're all naked, then!
I guess we're all naked, then!
Last edited:
Oh, I totally laughed out loud!