Comments on: A Christian Understanding of Polygyny

By: jay c

jay c — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:15:19 +0000

I was interested in the comments about Adam.

I can think of three points made concerning Adam off the top of my head:
1. The fact that God only gave him one wife is not a prescription for all men.
2. If the bad results of Abraham’s two wives is good enough reason to ban polygamy, then the bad results of Adam’s one wife is even greater reason to ban monogamy.
3. A husband and wife become one flesh after the example of Adam and Eve, but that does not preclude a man from becoming one flesh with more than one woman.
Are you interested in hearing more about one of these arguments, all of them, or something else?

By: bethyada

bethyada — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:16:02 +0000

I was interested in the comments about Adam. And the translation issues around one versus only versus first etc. for eldership requirement.
Meaning these are the passages around polygamy that I would be interested in knowing more about, from a pro-polygamy viewpoint.

By: bethyada

bethyada — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:36:36 +0000

Only just reviewed the comments now.
Mark, rants can be okay. But Jay wrote: Mark Niwot posted a great article showing a biblical understanding of marriage and polygyny. So I expected more explanation than defence.
I was interested in the comments about Adam. And the translation issues around one versus only versus first etc. for eldership requirement.

By: Mark Call

Mark Call — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:33:36 +0000

THAT argument, Hugh, I not only agree with, but have used myself many times.

By: Hugh McBryde

Hugh McBryde — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:12:52 +0000

All I’m saying Mark is the Elder requirement, whatever it is, is most certainly NOT a rip of polygyny. You can decide what you want as to what it means with regard to the number of wives an elder has.
I don’t think it’s best to argue the “mia” question, it is too much like word wrangling. I agree with Bryce that asserting it means “husband of ‘a’ wife” causes those that disagree with us to take us less seriously.
It simply doesn’t follow from the construction of Paul’s Elder Requirement, that anyone in the congregation is being instructed to be monogamous, unless it is an elder, and if indeed it is an instruction to be monogamous, I have already gotten the concession of a Biblical language expert and reformed seminary professor that it PROVES there were polygynists in the early church.
The reasoning goes as follows:
If it is a monogamy requirement for Elders, then it makes no sense unless the practice was extant (ongoing) and present in the congregations of the early church.
Cast in this light it is instructive to note that Paul could have then just said “Be monogamous” to everyone, but does not.

By: Mark Call

Mark Call — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:32:11 +0000

OK, Hugh…then we really do disagree, sorry.
I think that Paul would never have tried to do what his Savior so clearly would have called him a “hypocrite” for doing as well…by “adding” a requirement that is foreign to Torah.
The idea of being able to examine the “fruit” of a man who would serve in a leadership position is not only supportable, but not even remotely novel. But to put in a new burden of “only one” is. Whether on not pagan Roman law mandated something that the Word did not, Paul would not have needed to violate the clear prohibitions in Torah to deal with a transient situation.
(Finally, guys – and I do NOT wish to open ‘another can of worms’ — I am not at all convinced that these letters were ORIGINALLY written in Greek. And I’ve always considered the “Timothy/Titus excuse” to be one of the weakest of the admittedly weak Monogamania arguments anyway!)

By: Hugh McBryde

Hugh McBryde — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:06:17 +0000

I guess all I would be trying to hold out for is the idea that elders should be monogamous only means that elders should be monogamous, and absolutely nothing else.

By: Mark Call

Mark Call — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:55:00 +0000

Agreed, all.
(And we do agree, Bryce, that “a wife” is a far better translation.)
Much confusion lies in the fact that it is ONE thing to look solely at the Greek grammar rules, which seem to boil down to preference based on context. THAT, in turn, requires much discussion – as the above clearly shows.
I’m working on a longer piece, and will try to incorporate such distinctions…
Blessings,

By: Hugh McBryde

Hugh McBryde — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:16:30 +0000

I think I should have addressed the above remark to Mark.

By: Hugh McBryde

Hugh McBryde — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:15:36 +0000

Bryce,
There was no law to cover it. If indeed the elder requirement is that of monogamy, then it in all probability was to conform to Roman Law. There was no Hebrew Law to cover the Gentile Church so Paul speaks to a new situation. The precedent of obeying law when in captivity was established. Laws of course, that did not require sin.
There was no need for a man to have two wives, and Levirate law did not apply to gentile converts since they had no inheritance to protect. Assuming it is a mandate to monogamy Paul is following the precedent of the “set apart” nature of leadership, and he wants his leaders to be of good standing in the community.
There are in my view several ways to read the passage.
“Husband of ONE wife.” “Husband of UP to one wife.” “Husband to AT LEAST ‘A’ WIFE.” “Husband of the FIRST wife.”
Any of the above readings have no bearing on the practice of polygyny. At worst it would mean that an Elder should only have one wife, but then an elder is to be a man and an elder is to be gifted to teach.
Polygyny shares characteristics with “being a woman,” and not being “gifted to teach,” in that being a woman and not being gifted to teach are not immoral or morally substandard states. They just aren’t the characteristics an Elder should possess.