Polygamy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 14259
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 14259

Guest
Hello,

Lately, in a Reformed Christian apologetics group I am apart of, I've seen some who appear to argue that polygamy isn't sinful or claim a neutral stance on the subject. Mainly, I've seen appeals to Ezekiel 23; Oholah and Oholiah as well as a reference to one of Christ's parables regarding virgins.

Additionally, I came across this same individual in the group arguing that the notion of adultery being defined as having sex with a third person/party is only a construct from 100 years ago. (Unless I'm reading it wrong?) I have screenshots below.

What could be a response to such claims?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240809-080536.png
    Screenshot_20240809-080536.png
    31.1 KB · Views: 62
  • Screenshot_20240809-080954.png
    Screenshot_20240809-080954.png
    90.1 KB · Views: 62
The first screenshot regarding the definition of adultery only arising within the last 100 years could not be more incorrect. Providentially I am reading through the short work, A Treatise Against Fornication and Adultery by John Downame and the inside cover says it was first published in 1608. I can assure you this treatise condemns adultery as we routinely define it today and it condemns David's adultery with Bathsheba specifically.

Update: Here is Downame's defintion of adultery: "Single adultery is that uncleanness which is committed, either between a married man, and a single woman, or a married woman with a single man. Double, when both the parties are married, who defile themselves one with another." (p.102)
 
Last edited:
William Perkins, Christian Oeconomie

Mariage is the lawfull coniunction of the two maried persons; that is, of one man, and one woman into one flesh. So was the first institution of mariage, Gen. 2. 21. which is expounded by our Sauiour Christ, Matth. 19. 6. Therfore they are no more two, but one flesh. And also by Paul, Ephes. 5. 31. For this cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and shall*cleaue vnto his wife, (as two boords are ioyned together with glue) and they which were two, shall be one flesh. Wherefore this is an eternal law of mariage, that two, and not three or foure, shall be one flesh. And for this cause, the fathers, who had many wiues and Concubines, it may be that through custome they sinned of ignorance, yet they are not in any wise to be excused.

....

From hence amongst other things, it may bee gathered, that it is in no sort lawful for a man, when his wife is dead, to marrie her sister, Leuit. 18. 16. Thou shalt not discouer the shame of thy brothers wife; for it is thy brothers shame. And Leuit. 20. 21. The man that taketh his brothers wife, committeth filthines, because he hath vncouered his brothers shame.

Against this doctrine it is obiected. First, that God commandeth not to take a wife with her sister, during her life, Leuit. 18. 18. in which place, hee doth not simplie forbid a man to marry two sisters one after another, but to marrie them both together, and therefore after the wife is dead, a man may marrie her sister.

Ans. The place is a flat prohibition of the sin of Polygamie. For to take a wife to her sister in the Hebrew phrase, is nothing else but to take two wiues one to another. The like forme of speech is vsed otherwhere by Moses, as Exo. 26. 3.

Fiue curtaines shall bee coupled together, [the woman to her sister] that is, one to another; and the other fiue curtaines shall be coupled [the woman to her sister] that is, the one to the other. Ezech. 1. 9. The foure beasts were ioyned with their wings, [the woman to her sister] that is, the one to the other. Againe, Moses himselfe there alledgeth two reasons against Polygamie: the one is, because the man is to loue, cherish and comfort this wife; whereas, if he should take vnto him another besides her, he should greatly vex his first lawfull wife. The other, because by that meanes he should vncouer the shame of his wife; that is, he should play a very dishonest part with her, to whom he was before lawfully married.
 
Is the OP asking about the conundrum missionaries are faced with when polygamist peoples are converted?
 
"Fornication is one thing, debauchery another, adultery another, incest another, and rape yet another. Fornication is any kind of unlawful intercourse that does not involve one's lawful wife...Adultery is the violation of another's marriage bed. Hence, adultery is called assaulting another's marriage bed. (Decretum Gratiani, 2.36 1.2; mid 12th Century)
 
ZackF said:
Is the OP asking about the conundrum missionaries are faced with when polygamist peoples are converted?
Click to expand...
If referring to the original FB thread, the OP didn't raise that issue from what I can see.
 
Wasn't polygamy and adultery dealt with all the way back in Gen 1 and 2, he made one husband and one wife "one flesh"?
 
ZackF said:
Is the OP asking about the conundrum missionaries are faced with when polygamist peoples are converted?
Click to expand...

No. There are real Westerners who believe this. They have this idea of "biblical marriage" where "being submissive" means the wife should be ready to breed at a moment's notice. If she isn't ready, well, that's where polygamy comes in handy. These people are real.
 
jwright82 said:
Wasn't polygamy and adultery dealt with all the way back in Gen 1 and 2, he made one husband and one wife "one flesh"?
Click to expand...
It was. The complication may arise for some by having no explicit prohibition for concubines, and some of the OT Saints having them, and multiple wives; including the father of our faith Abraham, and David "who was a man after Gods own heart." Notice God rebukes David for murder and adultery; but never in regards to polygamy. 1 Kings 15:5. Also, all of the children of Jacob were given legitimacy as the head of a tribe, even though their origins spring from polygamy.
 
Last edited:
We had a young (married) man visit our church earlier this year with that view.
Pro-tip: when you visit a church and within 60 seconds of talking to the pastor for the first time you’re going on about how polygamy isn’t sinful… please note that you sound like a fringe lunatic who is without hesitation going to cause division… in short, you sound like more trouble than you’re worth.

So had one of my REs encourage him to continue his Christian journey… elsewhere.
 
RamistThomist said:
No. There are real Westerners who believe this. They have this idea of "biblical marriage" where "being submissive" means the wife should be ready to breed at a moment's notice. If she isn't ready, well, that's where polygamy comes in handy. These people are real.
Click to expand...
We used to just call them old school Mormons.
 
davejonescue said:
It was. The complication may arise for some by having no explicit prohibition for concubines, and some of the OT Saints having them, and multiple wives; including the father of our faith Abraham, and David "who was a man after Gods own heart." Notice God rebukes David for murder and adultery; but never in regards to polygamy. 1 Kings 15:5. Also, all of the children of Jacob were given legitimacy as the head of a tribe, even though their origins spring from polygamy.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you but my mind keeps saying "that's after sin was introduced".
 
jwright82 said:
I completely agree with you but my mind keeps saying "that's after sin was introduced".
Click to expand...
But I think that may be one of the contentions. That is, nowhere is it explicitly defined as sin where it is exampled. So just saying it was sinful man being sinful, seems it would surely predicate a specific prohibition. Now we know from the conditions of pastors/elders that it is prohibited, and would be included in being above reproach; (even though the conditions of elders also include the necessity to be able to teach, yet, not being able to teach is not a sin,) but for someone seriously struggling with this issue, they may be trying to wrap their heads around when and why it became prohibitive. To say otherwise may put saints we know were defined as God-fearing and righteous, living in perpetual unrepentant sin, (if it were obvious to them they were sinning.) And there are those that believe people who live such a life, have reasons to doubt their election. I mean I think it is clear from the complete Bible, one man-one woman marriages are Gods design. But I also understand someone really trying to be a biblicist having questions because there are so many examples from the godly, to the contrary. For me, I do not need to know the exact when and why the change in allowance occurred; the ideal is explained by Jesus, and established by the Apostles; even if I am not fully convinced the OT saints were sinning by engaging in such practices.
 
Last edited:
If someone's methodology is a strict biblicism, then it is hard to see how polygamy is wrong. We know we shouldn't do it because of "creational logic (i.e., Jesus appealing to creation). But a biblicist can rightly respond, "Yeah, but he didn't say we couldn't do it."
 
davejonescue said:
The complication may arise for some by having no explicit prohibition for concubines, and some of the OT Saints having them, and multiple wives; including the father of our faith Abraham, and David "who was a man after Gods own heart."
Click to expand...
RamistThomist said:
If someone's methodology is a strict biblicism, then it is hard to see how polygamy is wrong. We know we shouldn't do it because of "creational logic (i.e., Jesus appealing to creation). But a biblicist can rightly respond, "Yeah, but he didn't say we couldn't do it."
Click to expand...
Or did he?

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. (Leviticus 18:18)
Click to expand...
 
AgentWillis said:
Hello,

Lately, in a Reformed Christian apologetics group I am apart of, I've seen some who appear to argue that polygamy isn't sinful or claim a neutral stance on the subject. Mainly, I've seen appeals to Ezekiel 23; Oholah and Oholiah as well as a reference to one of Christ's parables regarding virgins.

Additionally, I came across this same individual in the group arguing that the notion of adultery being defined as having sex with a third person/party is only a construct from 100 years ago. (Unless I'm reading it wrong?) I have screenshots below.

What could be a response to such claims?
Click to expand...


Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:8-11 show that concerning marriage Christ appeals to the beginning of Creation when He speaks on marriage. In addition, we have passages as Deuteronomy 17:17, and examples of Solomon and others who were chasten or faced difficulties because of it. Ezekiel 23 is also not a good argument since the chapter is God giving a graphic picture of how Israel has fallen into idolatry.
 
RamistThomist said:
I think that means you can’t marry two sisters
Click to expand...
There are two views (at least that I know of) on this passage, the first being anti-polygamy and the other being yours.
I am probably not going to be able to do justice for the argument that it is about polygamy. I have found the argument to be persuasive however.

Either way, you're view is left with a very weird situation where you can marry you're wife's sister once your wife is dead, as well as an implied endorsement of some forms of polygamy. All the while not solving the dilemma of Jacob's wives.
 
Sam Jer said:
There are two views (at least that I know of) on this passage, the first being anti-polygamy and the other being yours.
I am probably not going to be able to do justice for the argument that it is about polygamy. I have found the argument to be persuasive however.

Either way, you're view is left with a very weird situation where you can marry you're wife's sister once your wife is dead, as well as an implied endorsement of some forms of polygamy. All the while not solving the dilemma of Jacob's wives.
Click to expand...
Given that the Hittite laws also address the same issues (for them it is illegal for a man to marry a wife's sister during her lifetime, but permitted after her death) and they had no issues with polygamy, it seems unlikely that the Biblical laws are about polygamy per se.
 
It is a while since I looked into the issue and I didn't go very deep, so I am not going to defend this view here. Someone else can do that if he is so inclined.

I will ask for clarifications though:
iainduguid said:
Given that the Hittite laws also address the same issues (for them it is illegal for a man to marry a wife's sister during her lifetime, but permitted after her death) and they had no issues with polygamy, it seems unlikely that the Biblical laws are about polygamy per se.
Click to expand...
- Which Hittite laws, and what precisely did they say?
- Do you believe Leviticus 18 gives an implicit endorsement for polygamy? If not, how do you interpret that verse?
 
Sam Jer said:
It is a while since I looked into the issue and I didn't go very deep, so I am not going to defend this view here. Someone else can do that if he is so inclined.

I will ask for clarifications though:

- Which Hittite laws, and what precisely did they say?
- Do you believe Leviticus 18 gives an implicit endorsement for polygamy? If not, how do you interpret that verse?
Click to expand...
For the Hittite evidence, see here: https://ius.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Tranžík-Jan-Levirate-marriage-through-the-ages.pdf (p.5).

No. As with divorce, some of the OT laws are regulating sinful practices to prevent them from being even more harmful; that doesn't mean they provide implicit endorsement for the practice.
 
iainduguid said:
No. As with divorce, some of the OT laws are regulating sinful practices to prevent them from being even more harmful; that doesn't mean they provide implicit endorsement for the practice.
Click to expand...
In a context where he gives a catalogue of sexual sins, with no civil penalties or processes described, and clear moral-law language in the introduction and conclusion of the chapter?
 
OT legal lists are often exemplary rather than exhaustive, even when they list a lot of items. So I guess I'm not seeing why it would provide support for polygamy, even implicitly. It doesn't directly outlaw it, but that doesn't mean that it is presented as okay.
 
The primary Biblical and confessional hermeneutic is to interpret unclear Scripture with clearer Scripture. Generally that means interpreting narrative passages in light of didactic ones. Don’t most dangerous teachings arise when doctrine is based on narrative passages rather than didactic ones?
 
Last edited:
Why would Martin Luther had said something like this though? (I found it on Wikiquote)

"I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."
  • Letter to Chancellor Gregory Brück (An Den Kanzler Brück), 1524-01-13, in Dr. Martin Luther's Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken: volständig aus den verschiedenen Ausgaben seiner Werke und Briefe, aus andern Büchern und noch unbenutzten Handschriten gesammelt. From the Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette Collection of Luther's Letters (Berlin: Georg reimer, 1826) vol. 2, p. 459 (Letter DLXXII; Latin text)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Roots of Polygamy and Concubinage
Replies
5
Views
2K
moral necessity
moral necessity
Scott
  • Locked
Mark Twain, Mormonism, and Polygamy
Replies
9
Views
17K
Poimen
Poimen
J
  • Locked
Polygamy, a stumbling-block to the unbeliever
Replies
28
Views
7K
JennyG
J
Ne Oublie
  • Locked
Looking for more resources to help someone come out of Polygamy
Replies
9
Views
4K
Christusregnat
Christusregnat
Back
Top