Polygamy is in the Bible

[Neopatriarch]

True. Later in the NT epistles the apostle Paul promoted that leaders of the church be married only to one wife. That seems to have brought in the concept of no polygamy in the church except for the Mormons.

True.

Thank you. It is not very often that people demonstrate even that much humility.

Later in the NT epistles the apostle Paul promoted that leaders of the church be married only to one wife.

To which verse are you referring? I cannot find such a verse with the word "only" in it. Is it possible that you are assuming the concept into the text? The word "one" even in English isn't always a number, but is sometimes an indefinite article like the words "a" or "the". Such is the case when the Greek word "mia" is translated into the English word "one". Additionally, it can also be translated as "first", as it is in the phrase "first" day of the week. In context, these men had to be married with children. How else would you judge the household? So while the text might be rightly translated "a wife" or "first wife" there is no indication of "only one". It is important to let the scripture speak.

That seems to have brought in the concept of no polygamy in the church except for the Mormons.

That is not entirely true. There are a number of examples in history such as the Anabaptists of Munster, Germany. Martin Luther allowed polygamy and wrote that he could find nothing in scripture against it. Members of the Wesley family were polygamous. Even today there are Christian converts in Africa that continue the practice and remain faithful to the text. There is actually a fairly sizeable polygamy movement among evangelical Christians in the US, especially among African American churches. So there is that...

Thanks Bradley. Have a great day.

 

[Bradley D]

To which verse are you referring? I cannot find such a verse with the word "only" in it. Is it possible that you are assuming the concept into the text? The word "one" even in English isn't always a number, but is sometimes an indefinite article like the words "a" or "the". Such is the case when the Greek word "mia" is translated into the English word "one". Additionally, it can also be translated as "first", as it is in the phrase "first" day of the week. In context, these men had to be married with children. How else would you judge the household? So while the text might be rightly translated "a wife" or "first wife" there is no indication of "only one". It is important to let the scripture speak.

It does not have the word "only."

Qualifications for Overseers
(Titus 1:5–9; 1 Peter 5:1–4)

1This is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,a temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not dependent on wine, not violent but gentle, peaceable, and free of the love of money.

4An overseer must manage his own household well and keep his children under control, with complete dignity. 5For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for the church of God? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same condemnation as the devil. 7Furthermore, he must have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the snare of the devil.

Qualifications for Deacons

"Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued or given to much wine or greedy for money. They must hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. Additionally, they must first be tested. Then, if they are above reproach, let them serve as deacons.

In the same way, the women must be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in all things.

A deacon must be the husband of but one wife, a good manager of his children and of his own household. For those who have served well as deacons acquire for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 3:8-13).

Also an "overseer" (1 Tim. 3:2), "elder" (Titus 1:6), "widow" (1 Tim. 5:9).

 

[Neopatriarch]

It does not have the word "only."

So Bradley, do you use the Berean Study Bible very much?

None of the major Bible translations include the word "only" or the word "but". Most probably because it's not in the Greek.

I'd stick with a more literal translation like the KJV or the ESV.

... but you do you.

 

[Bradley D]

So Bradley, do you use the Berean Study Bible very much?

None of the major Bible translations include the word "only" or the word "but". Most probably because it's not in the Greek.

I'd stick with a more literal translation like the KJV or the ESV.

... but you do you.

For online theology I like to use the https://biblehub.com/ which has the Berean Study Bible. For offline I am studying the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV). I have finished the NT and am now on 2 Chronicles. I use my old KJV Bible to look up references. Also studying "A theology of the New Testament (revised edition)" by George Eldon Ladd.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It does not have the word "only."

So what? The meaning is the same:

 

[Neopatriarch]

It does not have the word "only."

So what? The meaning is the same:

Not at all. The phrase "only one" would more clearly indicate that the word "one" was a numeral, rather than an indefinite article. Considering the semantical range of the mias it might actually have been translated that way. Just because a word can be translated in such a way though doesn't mean it must be, or that we can just claim that it is. That would be to engage in the semantic range fallacy, but we are looking for truth here. Perhaps you read Greek, but I don't. Instead, I rely on the translations of thousands of experts over a number of translations to lay out the meanings in English.

Of the top five English translations in use, not one translates mias "but one" or "only one".

KJV - ...the husband of one wife,...
NIV - ...faithful to his wife,...
NRSV - ... married only once...
NAB - ...married only once,...
The Living Bible -...faithful to his wife...

Considered as a whole, it is speaking of the treachery of divorce as we wrote about in Malachi earlier in the thread, and the cycle of divorce and remarriage that Jesus overtly opposed. Many commentaries take that tact, saying that polygyny was illegal. Most recently I heard Albert Mohler saying so in a video. While it is true that Roman citizens could not be polygamous (a pagan ideal), the Jews continued the practice for another 1000 years.

Of course, even if we consider the wording to be "only one wife", you run into a greater problem for your position, because it would mean there were polygamists among the early church that were embraced by the community as legitimate members of the local church.

I happen to be in the anti-serial marriage camp

Lastly, most of those translators were likely monogamy-only people. If they could have made it sound more anti I am sure they would have, but as Christians, they have to try to make an honest attempt. I think perhaps they found themselves much like Martin Luther.

“It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.” De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459

Understand, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He wrestled with this issue...

“As to divorce, it is still a debatable question whether it is allowable. For my part I prefer bigamy to it.” On Marriage

Below is more of the text presented above. It gives some context.

The founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

I hope that gives you some things to think about.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not at all.

Uh, yeah, it does mean the same thing, given the context and what is actually said...

The phrase "only one" would more clearly indicate that the word "one" was a numeral, rather than an indefinite article. Considering the semantical range of the mias it might actually have been translated that way. Just because a word can be translated in such a way though doesn't mean it must be, or that we can just claim that it is. That would be to engage in the semantic range fallacy, but we are looking for truth here. Perhaps you read Greek, but I don't. Instead, I rely on the translations of thousands of experts over a number of translations to lay out the meanings in English.

I literally gave you the greek AND it's DIRECT TRANSLATION in the image you CLEARLY ignored.

THE ONLY WAY for the verse to be translated any other way than "the husband of one wife" is to intentionally interpret it as such.

The greek says exactly:

"[to be] [of one] [wife] [(the) husband]"

Of the top five English translations in use, not one translates mias "but one" or "only one".

Again.... So what?

The verse cannot be translated to mean "more than one" wife, because it says, quite exactly, "the husband of one wife." Unless you are claiming that "one" can mean more than one...

Of course, even if we consider the wording to be "only one wife",

I never claimed that it says "only" at all. I'm saying that whether it says "only" or not, the meaning is the same. Paul is saying, directly, that in order to be in a position of leadership, one must be married to one woman, or, if we were to translate it LITERALLY, he must be a "one-woman man," or "one-wife husband," if you prefer.

you run into a greater problem for your position, because it would mean there were polygamists among the early church that were embraced by the community as legitimate members of the local church.

AGAIN, Paul is saying that a deacon MUST be a "one-woman man." And since there aren't two standards each for deacons and general believers, thus polygamy is disallowed for all believers, deacon or not.

I happen to be in the anti-serial marriage camp

Lastly, most of those translators were likely monogamy-only people. If they could have made it sound more anti I am sure they would have, but as Christians, they have to try to make an honest attempt.

The personal beliefs of the translators is not as important to consider as you seem to want to make it. What matters MOST is what the verse actually says!

[/QUOTE]“It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.” De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459[/QUOTE]

And he was wrong, because as the above scripture verse says... Well, supra.

The founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

I hope that gives you some things to think about.

When any man tries to pass off his opinion as if it should be held religiously, you should compare what he says to scripture, and if what he says does not fall in line with it, you can safely reject what he says.

In this case, I fully reject what Luther says there, because it is NOT in line with Paul.

 

[Neopatriarch]

I literally gave you the greek AND it's DIRECT TRANSLATION in the image you CLEARLY ignored.

"That is not how this works. That's not how any of this works!" (an old commercial)

If it did there would not be a need for so many translations. We would all just use literal translations and that would be that. Instead we, at least the rest of us, rely on translations mostly by committees of educated people that understand, not just the original languages, but the cultures in question, and the figures of speech that they utilized.

The verse cannot be translated to mean "more than one" wife, because it says, quite exactly, "the husband of one wife." Unless you are claiming that "one" can mean more than one...

Literally, we are not talking about the English word "one" but rather the Greek word "mia". A point you seem to have overlooked. That word can be translated as the English word "first" as it is eight times in the ESV. Such as in the verse below also by Paul.

1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper so that there will be no collecting when I come.

I have mentioned this before... so "first wife" is just as literal as your take on the text.

Additionally, as in English the word "one" and the Greek word "mia" can be and is used in the text as Definite Article like the words "a" and "the". One does not have to use the word "one" as a numerical as I have done with the first word of this sentence. So "a wife" would work just as well as a literal.

So yes, David has one wife, just not "only one". The text doesn't demand that he does.

...Paul is saying that a deacon MUST be a "one-woman man." And since there aren't two standards each for deacons and general believers,...

I do like Bob Enyart, but he is wrong about this. This is not a list of "standards", but qualifications. If it were to be so, a male would be a higher standard than being female and married would be a higher standard than single. Teachers would be better than being something else. Perhaps this is how you think, but it is not what the text is about. It is about qualifications.

In this case, I fully reject what Luther says there, because it is NOT in line with Paul.

Speaking of qualifications, I did not catch yours. What qualifies you to judge Martin Luther's translation? And the plethora of translation committees that have been tackling this very phrase for hundreds of years. Why should I/we submit to your personal understanding?
..
JudgeRightly, I like that handle. Before you put this issue to rest, perhaps there is still some more studying to do before you can judge rightly

 

[JudgeRightly]

Literally, we are not talking about the English word "one" but rather the Greek word "mia".

Duh!

A point you seem to have overlooked. That word can be translated as the English word "first" as it is eight times in the ESV.

The fact of the matter is that it does, in fact, mean "one," regardless of whatever else it also means.

The point I'm trying to make is that the context defines the meaning of the word.

Take, for example, the word "yom" in Hebrew (English "day"). It can mean a 24 hour period, a portion of that 24 hour period (day vs night), or it can mean a long period of time, but the meaning is ALWAYS defined by the context of its usage.

The same applies here with "mia." The meaning is determined by the context.

1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper so that there will be no collecting when I come.

As I said above, the meaning is determined by the context. In this context, it means "first" rather than "one."

I have mentioned this before... so "first wife" is just as literal as your take on the text.

So let's test the verse to see if that's an appropriate meaning for the word "mia." Does it fit the context? Does it do damage to other scripture if it means "first" rather than "one"?

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of the first wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;..."

Having a "first" wife implies (at least to me) that he is married to AT LEAST one woman, which makes him a womanizer and potentially unfaithful to one or more of his wives, OR he has had at least one prior wife and now has a different one, which would disqualify him if it meant "first" rather than "one."

It would EXCLUDE anyone who has only ever had one wife who is still living and to whom he is still married, even though he is probably the most qualified to be in a leadership position, because he is capable as the head of his family. He is faithful to his wife and not distracted by other women.

It would also exclude anyone who has divorced (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as most but not all divorces are sinful), or been widowed, and in the case of the widower, it punishes him (especially if he was capable as the head of his family) for having his wife die, which is cruel, or in the case of divorce for sexual immorality (which even Christ says is the only just reason to divorce someone), it means that even if he justly divorced his wife for sexual immorality, he can no longer be in a position of leadership, despite him doing the right thing.

So, instead of limiting who can be in a position of leadership in the church to those who are faithful to their wives (one husband and one wife per family) and excluding those who likely aren't good leaders or good role models for their or others' families, it does the opposite!

And THAT isn't even including what it does to other scripture!

For example, in Genesis, God defines marriage for humans as one man and one woman, where "a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his..." .... Wives? NO! "WIFE"!

God's intent was for men to have one wife!

Additionally, there aren't two
separate standards for bishops/deacons and the rest of the church, there's only one standard! Meaning if the leadership is required to have a first wife, then the rest of the church must have a first wife! Or if the leadership must have one wife, then the rest of the men in the church must have one wife, and if he doesn't have a first wife (and consequently, at least a second), then he's sinning! Not only that, but such would contradict what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7!

So no, having "mia" mean "first" doesn't fit here.

Additionally, as in English the word "one" and the Greek word "mia" can be and is used in the text as Definite Article like the words "a" and "the". One does not have to use the word "one" as a numerical as I have done with the first word of this sentence. So "a wife" would work just as well as a literal.

I could see "a wife" working...

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of a wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;..."

... since the meaning is practically the same as saying "the husband of one wife," but there's no room for it in the greek, as the direct translation says "einai mias gunaikos andra," or "[to be] [of one] [wife] [(the) husband]," where the "the" in front of "husband" is added in by translators to make it easier for us english speakers to understand, but not actually in the original text. "[To be] [of the] [wife] [(the) husband]" doesn't really work anyways, because "the" is a definite article, but there's no specified "wife" defined elsewhere in the passage for "the wife" to refer to.

I do like Bob Enyart, but he is wrong about this. This is not a list of "standards", but qualifications. If it were to be so, a male would be a higher standard than being female and married would be a higher standard than single. Teachers would be better than being something else. Perhaps this is how you think, but it is not what the text is about. It is about qualifications.

The qualification for a man (not a woman) to be in a leadership position is that a man has to be married to one woman, because married men are, generally speaking, better leaders than unmarried men.

The STANDARD for married Christian men is that he be married to one woman, and if he's not married, then he shouldn't be doing married things with a woman he's not married to.

Which goes back to what I said above.

Speaking of qualifications, I did not catch yours. What qualifies you to judge Martin Luther's translation?

I can read and use my brain, and compare it to what scripture says plainly, and see that what he said is not consistent with what scripture says.

And the plethora of translation committees that have been tackling this very phrase for hundreds of years.

If your standard is the committee that translated the verses into what we have today, then that's not my problem, that's yours. This applies to Luther as well.

There is a sermon Will Duffey did a while back at Denver Bible Church that details why DBC uses the NKJV. I'll have to look through them and tell you which one later.

But basically, I personally prefer the NKJV over other translations as it's as close to the original meaning of the text that you can get while still being easy for everyone to read.

Why should I/we submit to your personal understanding?

You don't have to.

I would hope you submit to the truth, rather than my opinion, while I try to get as close to the truth as I can with my beliefs.

JudgeRightly, I like that handle.

I didn't come up with it. Bob and co. did, as part of a flyer they had a long time ago.

 

[JudgeRightly]

"That is not how this works. That's not how any of this works!" (an old commercial)

If it did there would not be a need for so many translations. We would all just use literal translations and that would be that. Instead we, at least the rest of us, rely on translations mostly by committees of educated people that understand, not just the original languages, but the cultures in question, and the figures of speech that they utilized.

Literally, we are not talking about the English word "one" but rather the Greek word "mia". A point you seem to have overlooked. That word can be translated as the English word "first" as it is eight times in the ESV. Such as in the verse below also by Paul.

1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper so that there will be no collecting when I come.

I have mentioned this before... so "first wife" is just as literal as your take on the text.

Additionally, as in English the word "one" and the Greek word "mia" can be and is used in the text as Definite Article like the words "a" and "the". One does not have to use the word "one" as a numerical as I have done with the first word of this sentence. So "a wife" would work just as well as a literal.

So yes, David has one wife, just not "only one". The text doesn't demand that he does.



I do like Bob Enyart, but he is wrong about this. This is not a list of "standards", but qualifications. If it were to be so, a male would be a higher standard than being female and married would be a higher standard than single. Teachers would be better than being something else. Perhaps this is how you think, but it is not what the text is about. It is about qualifications.


Speaking of qualifications, I did not catch yours. What qualifies you to judge Martin Luther's translation? And the plethora of translation committees that have been tackling this very phrase for hundreds of years. Why should I/we submit to your personal understanding?
..
JudgeRightly, I like that handle. Before you put this issue to rest, perhaps there is still some more studying to do before you can judge rightly

Recommended reading:

What Does the Bible Say About Polygamy? | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Neopatriarch]

Thanks for chatting with me about this. I enjoy the back and forth.

The fact of the matter is that it does, in fact, mean "one," regardless of whatever else it also means.

Are you sure about that? After all one cleaves a watermelon very differently than one cleaves to their spouse. At least, I hope so.

If a word has multiple senses the first one is not the most important one. It is also not the most ‘correct’ one. The senses of each word are organized in one of two possible ways: beginning with the oldest known sense or the most common one. merrium-webster.com

The same is basically true for Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

So let's test the verse to see if that's an appropriate meaning for the word "mia." Does it fit the context? Does it do damage to other scripture if it means "first" rather than "one"?

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of the first wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;..."

That sounds good, and very much in keeping with other texts. It certainly prevents the cycle of divorce and remarriage so popular today.

Malachi 2:16 “For the LORD God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
Says the LORD of hosts.
“Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.”

Having a "first" wife implies (at least to me) that he is married to AT LEAST one woman, which makes him a womanizer and potentially unfaithful to one or more of his wives, OR he has had at least one prior wife and now has a different one, which would disqualify him if it meant "first" rather than "one."

I am glad you said it this way. These were offered as a proof text of the monogamy-only position (MOP). While you are absolutely free to have whatever opinion you want. Assuming what you are attempting to prove, just demonstrates that this is not good proof of that doctrine.

It would also exclude anyone who has divorced (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as most but not all divorces are sinful), or been widowed, and in the case of the widower, it punishes him (especially if he was capable as the head of his family) for having his wife die, which is cruel, or in the case of divorce for sexual immorality (which even Christ says is the only just reason to divorce someone), it means that even if he justly divorced his wife for sexual immorality, he can no longer be in a position of leadership, despite him doing the right thing.

Not everyone has to be a Bishop/Overseer. Qualifications are designed to narrow down the possibilities. Very much how lapping water like a dog doesn't really have anything to do with one's skill as a warrior. Yet, God used drinking styles to limit the army to 300 in Judges. Serial monogamy is a misnomer. I once met a lady who told me she was monogamous. "I have been monogamous with every man I have been with. ", she said. Not monogamy.

So, instead of limiting who can be in a position of leadership in the church to those who are faithful to their wives (one husband and one wife per family) and excluding those who likely aren't good leaders or good role models for their or others' families, it does the opposite!

God did not limit leadership this way before. He even gave leaders their wives. I am not sure why you would assume that now.

For example, in Genesis, God defines marriage for humans as one man and one woman, where "a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his..." .... Wives? NO! "WIFE"!

It sure would be a shame if the Hebrew word translated "wife" here wasn't singular at all, but rather an irregular plural word. You know; like the English word "sheep". One sheep, two sheep, a hundred sheep. That would really mess with your theory. You probably should check on that.

This brings me to the question, What could God say in his word that would express approval for co-wives? How about if he called them wives? If he considered their offspring legitimate rather than bastards? What if he portrayed himself as a polygamist? If he gave wives to people? If he commanded men to marry without regard for their current marital status?

God's intent was for men to have one wife!

Merely your opinion. The Bible does not say that anywhere. In fact the phrase "one man and one woman" is nowhere in scripture, in any context.

Additionally, there aren't two
separate standards for bishops/deacons and the rest of the church, there's only one standard! Meaning if the leadership is required to have a first wife, then the rest of the church must have a first wife! Or if the leadership must have one wife, then the rest of the men in the church must have one wife, and if he doesn't have a first wife (and consequently, at least a second), then he's sinning! Not only that, but such would contradict what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7!

Thats not true, at all. Jesus says some men are Eunuchs for the kingdom. Paul encouraged members to remain single and serve Christ.

In the OT certain priests had to marry virgins, while other men were free to marry widows and prostitutes and whatnot. Exclusive language is not a general command for everyone. That would make the word void of meaning, or that it means somethings eles than what it says. Which would be confusing.

I could see "a wife" working...

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of a wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;..."

Me too. David had a wife named Abigail. Joseph had a wife named Rachel.

The qualification for a man (not a woman) to be in a leadership position is that a man has to be married to one woman, because married men are, generally speaking, better leaders than unmarried men.

Probably. That seems to be what is indicated.

The STANDARD for married Christian men is that he be married to one woman,

Where is that in the Bible?

and if he's not married, then he shouldn't be doing married things with a woman he's not married to.

The Bible addresses this.

Exodus 22:16
“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.

Is that how they handle it at your church? Or do they use the repent and abandon doctrine many churches use? BTW did you notice how this has nothing to do with the mans marital status? It is not ,if he is single do X ; if he is married do Y.

I can read and use my brain, and compare it to what scripture says plainly, and see that what he said is not consistent with what scripture says.

Oh good. Me too.

There is a sermon Will Duffey did a while back at Denver Bible Church that details why DBC uses the NKJV. I'll have to look through them and tell you which one later.

I would love to hear it. I do like Will Duffy especially his debates. He has been instramental in my understanding of time and open theism.

I personally prefer the NKJV over other translations as it's as close to the original meaning of the text that you can get while still being easy for everyone to read.

Did you notice how I have used the NKJV in this post? I am using it just for you. I couldn't get one with Strong refrences for my Olivetree App, but whatever...

I would hope you submit to the truth, rather than my opinion, while I try to get as close to the truth as I can with my beliefs.

Me too. Truth is the most important thing in any discussion of doctrine.
Hey, thanks for chatting with me about this. Iron Sharpens Iron.

 

[Neopatriarch]

Recommended reading:

What Does the Bible Say About Polygamy? | KGOV.com

kgov.com

I have read that before. IF you like I can write a full rebuttal. I would have before but there is no place to post it under the article.

As for the debate itself, it was just sad. Leland was not the sharpest tack in the box. I can think of a half dozen pastors and theologians that would have made for a better show and made a strong argument. I think even I might have done better.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[Neopatriarch]

For example, in Genesis, God defines marriage for humans as one man and one woman, where "a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his..." .... Wives? NO! "WIFE"!

God's intent was for men to have one wife!

I forgot that I had edited this response to this argument. It is a different tact, by Martin Madan from his book, Thelyphthora or a Treatise on Female Ruin. I hope you'll consider it, and let me know what you think.

Wife not Wives

Some may argue that because it was said, “A man shall cleave to his wife”, and not wives, therefore, it is unlawful for a man to have two or more wives in succession and can only have one so long as he lives because Adam had but one. This sort of conceit supposes that God forbade wearing cloth, silk, or linen because He clothed our first parents with skins. (Genesis 3:21 ) Reasoning like those mad heretics of the second century, who called themselves Adamites, that Christians are to meet together stark naked without any shame because it is written, “Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed”.

If we take upon ourselves to interpret this or any act of God merely by our imaginations, we take upon us what does not belong to us. It is written that “ the Secret Things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed, belong to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of His law”. (Deuteronomy 29:29 ESV)

That God might have created 10,000 men and as many women, is certain. Why He did not, He hath nowhere told us any more than why He created only one man and one woman. This and all things else are to be resolved into His good pleasure, and the counsel of his own will. (Ephesians 1:11) Our attempting to account for any of His holy acts or dispensations, any farther than the revelation of His word expressly authorizes us, is to be wise above what is written, to involve ourselves in endless mazes of error, till --professing ourselves wise, we become fools (Romans 1:22)

God’s bringing the woman to the man --that solemn denunciation--therefore shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh-- form a conclusive argument against wanton and causeless divorce; and are expressly made use of by Christ for that purpose in His dispute with the Pharisees (Matthew 19:4-5) but it is nowhere in the whole of scripture, made use of as an argument against polygamy. There were doubtless opportunities enough in the antediluvian, as well as the postdiluvian world to have given occasion for it, had any such thing been intended.


An excerpt from Thelyphthora pages 140-143
Edited by RBK

 

[Bradley D]

I believe God set an example with Adam and Eve. One wife.

 

[Neopatriarch]

I believe God set an example with Adam and Eve. One wife.

I did address this reasoning before. Reasoning like those mad heretics of the second century, who called themselves Adamites, that Christians are to meet together stark naked without any shame because it is written, “Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed”.'

 

[Bradley D]

I did address this reasoning before. Reasoning like those mad heretics of the second century, who called themselves Adamites, that Christians are to meet together stark naked without any shame because it is written, “Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed”.'

Well I'm not Adamite. Plus do not believe in stark naked gatherings. But, do believe in having only one wife. Paul also wrote that Chrisitians should marry believers.

 

[Lon]

I forgot that I had edited this response to this argument. It is a different tact, by Martin Madan from his book, Thelyphthora or a Treatise on Female Ruin. I hope you'll consider it, and let me know what you think.

Imho, this, treatise shows a lack of understanding of the whole of scripture. While Polygamy is 'evidenced' in scripture, can you think of even one instance where marrying a second wife (or any number after one) is commanded?

In every mention in the New Testament, do you know of any mention of a man with more than one wife?

Next, the Greek meis is a singular verb: Husband of 'one' wife.' If you are looking for 'only' then note that wife is also singular thus 'a wife only' 'one wife' (only in English means one).

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 says that a married man/woman is concerned about family and so his/her time and devotion are divided. We do have people who are remarried in scriptures, but scripture talks about this in a negative sense because 'the man you are with now is not your husband.'

The Bible repeats "the two shall become one flesh." One flesh is divided if the man then married another because there is no 'the three shall become one flesh and so forth.' I certainly hope this theology discussion isn't amped up like it is with Mormons and Islam with a fleshly desire for many women. That'd simply be 'fleshly' and sad. "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother, and cling to his 'wife' (singular). Sorry, I believe the scripture is abundantly clear with next to no wiggle room on this one. There certainly are a lot of examples of polygamy in the Bible. I know of no direction to do so, even if such isn't condemned. Mostly, it was the privilege of kings, or when women had problems. For Abraham, it was a fleshly solution to take Hagar. In most cases, polygamy is given in a negative light in scriptures or at the very best, neutrally mentioned.

 

[Neopatriarch]

Well I'm not Adamite.

Yeah, that was the point. Why aren't you an Adamite? Considering that you use the same reasoning to support your beliefs, why aren't you an Adamite? Are you being consistent? Are you a vegetarian farmer?

 

[Neopatriarch]

Imho, this, treatise shows a lack of understanding of the whole of scripture.

That is just not a problem the Reverend Martin Madan had

While Polygamy is 'evidenced' in scripture, can you think of even one instance where marrying a second wife (or any number after one) is commanded?

There are no general commands to marry but there are three conditional commands to marry. (If/then statements) None of them exempt men that already have a wife.

for example:
Exodus 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.

In every mention in the New Testament, do you know of any mention of a man with more than one wife?

This is simply an argument from silence. Families were huge in the OT. Peter was married to at least one woman. Paul wasn't married at all. Other than that there are only a few more. Most of the men mentioned their marital status is unmentioned.

I do think that this wording is interesting.

1 Corinthians 9:5a Do we have no right to take along a believing wife,...

Why does it limit them to "a wife"? The wording is entirely unnecessary in a monogamy-only paradigm.

Next, the Greek meis is a singular verb:

Not even close. We have discussed this word extensively. I invite you to reply to that.

The Bible repeats "the two shall become one flesh."

Did the author Moses read this as a monogamous mandate? Can you think of a single verse in which a polygamist is confronted with this text to demonstrate their error?

Thanks for joining the chat Lon.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[Bradley D]

Yeah, that was the point. Why aren't you an Adamite? Considering that you use the same reasoning to support your beliefs, why aren't you an Adamite? Are you being consistent? Are you a vegetarian farmer?

Because I'm of the Adam that ate the forbidden fruit knowing good and bad.