• 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.

Twist on the Edenic Ideal line of argument

S

Shadowjak's Dancer

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
So, in a recent debate, that old Edenic Ideal argument came up again. I'm the sort who likes to look at what is there and that isn't.

So, as it commonly is, it was insisted that if God wanted us to be polygamists, he would have made Eve, Mary, and Sue as wives for Adam.

I then asked if that had happened, would it be fair in such a world for people to insist that since God had made three wives for Adam, monogamy was not living up to God's ideal?

I think the thought has potential for further development, but what do y'all think?
 
I agree with this line of thinking.

To be honest, the whole idea of first mention setting the standard is one that has no merit if you ask me. Taking Edenic Ideal argument, one could argue that all men should be married. After all, God said it was not good for man to be alone.

Or perhaps we should say that a man should not ever listen to the voice of his wife. By that standard, women cannot offer their opinion on anything ever again - ever. (No, I am not debating headship, and yes, I realize this is talking about headship, but I am using the words here to emphasize a point.)

Oh, and I guess all clothing is ideally made of animal skins? Wait, that came second. Ideal is naked! Let us implement that now.

Ah yes, once we were sent out of the garden, man was to cultivate the ground. I guess the most righteous profession then is farming.

I guess we should only have two children unless one of them kills the other? (Yes, I know how ridiculous this argument is.) And I suppose first children should be boys?

The list could go on and on.

Some would say polygyny was proven to be wrong due to Lamech, but the text says nothing of the sort, so perhaps we should simply say that God showed early on that marriage to multiple women was accepted. Killing two folks? Not so much.
 
Yup
She was made for the man. She wasn't made with a choice of whether or not she wanted to be married.
The bottom line is that every woman in the garden had a husband. Period.
 
Here is another variation on my meditation on God's supposed ideal:

I dont believe that God's ideal for one man is necessarily a standard of ideal for all men.

Here is why.
The young widow is encouraged to remarry, yes? So, ideally, a man will be willing to marry her despite her widowhood.

Yet, not any man....

After all, a High Priest is forbidden to marry a widow. Thus the ideal for the man who is the High Priest and the ideal for the man who will take the widow into his home are polar opposites.
 
I'd counter that by stating that it is God's ideal that a man marries "a" woman, not necessarily "that" woman. So although it may be ideal to marry, that doesn't necessarily say that it is ideal for any particular person to marry any particular other person. To add another example - it's not ideal for you to marry your sister, but it might be ideal for your neighbour to marry your sister... It's still ideal for the High Priest to marry someone (a virgin from the tribe of Levi). It's still ideal for the widow to marry someone (just not the High Priest). It's still ideal for you to marry someone (just not your sister).
 
jacobhaivri said:
I dont believe that God's ideal for one man is necessarily a standard of ideal for all men.
Click to expand...
So... I'll go a step further. Why does there have to be an ideal at all? Are we commanded to meet a standard simply because it is an ideal (assuming a case where both the ideal and the non-ideal are not sinful)?

We are commanded to not sin. We know that singleness is not a sin. We know that a single marriage is not a sin. And now we know, for men, multiple marriages are not a sin.

Where two paths are both lawful, Paul considers what is expedient, or beneficial -- not what comes closer to meeting some conceptual ideal. Might some things be expedient for some but not for others? Christianity, as Paul presents it, seems to be very practical. Rather than do something simply because it meets some conceptual ideal, or avoid it simply because it does not, it takes the specific situation into account. Will speaking in tongues lead to chaos without an interpreter? Don't do it. Will eating meat cause a weaker brother to stumble? Don't do it. Will eating with Gentiles further the Kingdom of God? By all means, go for it. Rather than look for some "ideal", Paul becomes "all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."

So again, I wonder why there has to be an "ideal" that must be met, and I can't help but wonder whether this conceptual ideal is a latent form of Platonism -- a secular Greek philosophy that influenced Gnosticism. Platonism has the notion of pure and immaterial "platonic ideals" which are shadowed imperfectly in the inherently corrupted material realm. In this view, conforming to the ideal brings you closer to "salvation", by bringing you closer to transcending the evil physical realm. Please note: I'm NOT claiming that anyone here believes that! I'm just wondering whether it has been a subtle influence on the way the church has thought about these things throughout time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top