Is polygamy forbidden only for church leaders?

[Guest]

"My name is Lee this will be my last message to you or this forum. I am offended at this pologomy nonsense sounds mormon to me."

That would be Polygamy, and the specific form practiced in scripture is known as Polygyny. Lee, I can only conclude, if you bother to read this response that you cannot defend your point of view, and would rather shut people up, than know what is true.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Hugh,

The Saducees' questioning of Jesus has nothing to do with the question of Christian marriage. You repeatedly cite Paul's metaphor in 2 Cor 11 as support for polygamy, ignoring the fact that the church singular is the bride of Christ, Eph. 5:23, Rev. 21. Christ has only one church, as you surely must know.

You need to go and learn the meaning of exousia, used by Paul to describe the right of the wife over the body of her husband:

Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "Exousia...means the right of a king...to dispose as he wishes". The word is used of the authority Jesus possessed.

Thayer's Lexicon: "to have full and entire authority over the body, to hold the body subject to one's will, 1 Cor. 7:4."

In spite of this you can not see Paul's plain, unambiguous, statement directly describing Christian marriage, as excluding polygamy. I give up.

By your methodology, I can prove Eve gave birth to frogs, after all the scripture informs us she was the mother of all living. Most anything can be prooved if you use scripture to address points that were not in the mind of the authors.

[Guest]

I'm gonna use a double negative.

"The Saducees' questioning of Jesus has nothing to do with the question of Christian marriage."

It's still a Polygynous example, Jesus chides them for what they don't understand, and guess what? One of the things on the list of stuff Saducees did not understand, wasn't Polygyny.

"You repeatedly cite Paul's metaphor in 2 Cor 11 as support for polygamy, ignoring the fact that the church singular is the bride of Christ, Eph. 5:23, Rev. 21. Christ has only one church, as you surely must know."

Nope, you know that, I don't. 2nd Corinthians 11 is a necessarily plural church example. In my view God goes back and forth between plural and single examples as they apply to the particular subject at hand, in one case we are his children, in another, his bride. God is not incestous, all forms of family relationships are used in trying to get us to understand our relationship to him, you've locked on to one and without prompting from scripture, decided that it is governing.

"You need to go and learn the meaning of exousia, used by Paul to describe the right of the wife over the body of her husband:"

Are we "word wrangling" now?

"In spite of this you can not see Paul's plain, unambiguous, statement directly describing Christian marriage, as excluding polygamy. I give up."

Your choice to give up, but the fact is that it's not plain, or unambigouous. You just want it to be. Paul's statements on other sorts of sexual misconduct are plain and unambigouous, why does he shade his supposed opposition to Polygyny in nuances of words?

"By your methodology, I can prove Eve gave birth to frogs, after all the scripture informs us she was the mother of all living. Most anything can be prooved if you use scripture to address points that were not in the mind of the authors."

Contextually, she is the mother of all living humans. Don't play that game with me.

By the way, if it's so plain, how come no one got it until after Christ was gone and the Apostles dead?

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Word wrangling? Or do you mean logomachy? The meaning of exousia is clear enough.

[Guest]

"Word wrangling? Or do you mean logomachy? The meaning of exousia is clear enough."

Ok, base an entire doctrine on the meaning of one greek word, against the clear evidence of uncontested and even advocated practice.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Hugh,

I agree with your assessment about polygamy in the Bible. And I'm not even offended. And I'm a WOMAN. Go figure. I can imagine some scenarios where it might be beneficial to women. I can even imagine some benefits to me, personally, if it was legal and the custom now -- not that my thoughts are totally pure. Anyway, I've been wondering -- why is it so important to you? Also, in places where it is practiced now in the world, it doesn't seem to be such a positive thing. Do you think that Christian polygamy would work out better?

[Guest]

"I've been wondering -- why is it so important to you?"

First of all Michelle it's the truth, but I would agree that if it had no immediate practical application beyond producing the occasional Polygyny, I wouldn't argue so passionately for it. It has immediate extensions into the arena of divorce, namely what cannot be reasons for divorce. Surely you must realize that if a man can have more than one consort at a time, and not sin, that women divorcing men for their supposed adulteries would evaporate. Not surprisingly all divorce law in scripture is written just that way. My immediate crusade is to correct the teachings of the various churches and try to stem the overwhelming tide of divorce that plagues us.

"Also, in places where it is practiced now in the world, it doesn't seem to be such a positive thing."

Several things I would like to point out, one, there is little Christian practice of Polygyny. Second, there is a cultural investment in proclaiming Polygyny a detrimental lifestyle, it goes along with the egalitarean nature of our western world.

"Do you think that Christian polygamy would work out better?"

I certainly hope so, I think it can't hurt our practice of all forms of marriage to teach the truth about it. It would be sad though if as with our monogamies, we simply became a mirror image for the faults of the world around us in the practice of Polygyny.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Thanks for your answer, and for giving me a lot to think about the last couple of weeks.

My immediate crusade is to correct the teachings of the various churches and try to stem the overwhelming tide of divorce that plagues us.

Well, that would be wonderful. I may be cynical, but wouldn't people still be selfish and self-centered and probably still get divorced anyway? I'm not an expert on divorce statistics, but among my friends who are divorced, I can only think of one who divorced her husband for adultery. The rest were divorced for non-biblical reasons.

Several things I would like to point out, one, there is little Christian practice of Polygyny. Second, there is a cultural investment in proclaiming Polygyny a detrimental lifestyle, it goes along with the egalitarean nature of our western world.

Good points.

I certainly hope so, I think it can't hurt our practice of all forms of marriage to teach the truth about it. It would be sad though if as with our monogamies, we simply became a mirror image for the faults of the world around us in the practice of Polygyny.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

[Guest]

"I may be cynical, but wouldn't people still be selfish and self-centered and probably still get divorced anyway? I'm not an expert on divorce statistics, but among my friends who are divorced, I can only think of one who divorced her husband for adultery. The rest were divorced for non-biblical reasons."

Getting women to recognize their husband's as a minor "lord" is imporant to getting them to understand they have no basis for divorcing their husbands. It is also true that in letting women believe that they can divorce their husband's at all has allowed a lot of other bad reasons to creep in. Michelle, as Christians we just don't know what marriage is to begin with, it's hardly surprising that we mess it up in practice.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

I think it is time to bring this thread to a close. Every point that needs to be made (and some more besides) has already been presented. I am not offended by it, as Lee was. Lee wondered why I have allowed Hugh to continue posting, whereas I gave Damon "time out." The reason is quite simple. Hugh was continuing to dialog and to interact with the arguments of his critics. Damon refused to do so. He only wanted to pontificate and then to insult those who took him to task for his points. Hugh also is (to a large degree) discussing scripture, whereas Damon was not.

I agree more with Homer than with Hugh in the above dialogue. I do believe (as I said in my first post on page one of this thread) that monogamy is indeed the scriptural norm for marriage (I gave my reasons there and have not seen anything to change my mind about it), but also that polygamy is nowhere directly addressed (and thus not forbidden) in the New Testament.

Christians often have to decide what to do, not merely upon those things that the scriptures directly command or forbid, but also on the drift or implications of the whole tenor of scripture.

With reference to the question of God calling us at once his bride and also His children, it seems clear to me that we are His children, considered as so many individuals, but His bride, taken collectively. No Jew was God's wife--Israel as a whole was. Likewise, no individual Christian is ever said to be the bride of Christ, but the church, taken as a collective whole, is the bride. Thus 2 Corinthians 11:2 speaks of the church (a collective group of many individuals) as "a chaste virgin"--not as "chaste virgins."