On Polygamy in the Scriptures and Reformed Church History

[Sam Jer]

The Westminster Confession, in chapter 24.1, states:

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time. a

a. Gen 2:24; Prov 2:17; Mat 19:5-6.

Some have also quoted Leviticus 18:18 against polygamy, though I understand this is disputed:

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

And 1 Timothy 3:2:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

However, the scriptures are full of examples of polygamy, and like divorce, the Mosaic law allows also for polygamy.
This raises two questions:
- What does God's moral law say of polygamy?
- What would it instruct those who already practice it?


So what does the sctipture teach? How was this matter handled historically? How do traditional Presbyterian churches today with missions in places like Africa (such as the FPCoS in Zimbabwe) handle the issue?

 

[ReformedChristian]

In Scripture God did allow for polygamy but it was not ideal, but because of the fall it was a result. Further Christ when speaking on marriage goes back to Creation as the root Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:8-11 and is a model of the Church Ephesians 5. Divorce was also permitted due to hardness of heart Mark 5:2-5.

 

[Sam Jer]

In Scripture God did allow for polygamy but it was not ideal, but because of the fall it was a result. Further Christ when speaking on marriage goes back to Creation as the root Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:8-11 and is a model of the Church Ephesians 5. Divorce was also permitted due to hardness of heart Mark 5:2-5.

So would a Mormon / Bedouin / African convert put away wives 2-4 or stay married to all four of his wives?

Would it have been a sinful divorce if Solomon put away wives 2-700 and all 300 concubines? Or was it adultery to still be with them?

 

[Sam Jer]

Here is some further confessional data:

Larger Cathecism Q & A 139:

Q. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks; impudent or light behavior; immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life; undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancing, stage plays; all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

Scripture proofs for the first statement in bold, here,
For the second, even more relevant one, here.

 

[Theoretical]

Based on the commands in Deuteronomy, Solomon's repentance would have needed to be pretty bloody (and the retribution from the surrounding nations would have been brutal) in terms of following Deuteronomy 13 regarding the idol worshipping wives, but that's another reason the king was commanded not to take many wives. For Yahweh worshipping wives, I think he would have needed to keep them and would owe love, support, and faithful marital love to all of those wives at least in the OT, polygamy-permitting context. For example, Elkanah fell on the "good" side of a bad situation of his own doing, but still had a lot of grief that Isaac and Rebekah didn't have even in their grief over her barrenness but that was what Abraham and Jacob experienced in their own homes.

In the modern context, missionaries have historically either forced divorces of all but the first wife or permitted the existing polygamous unions to stay but that no additional wives be taken and all of them must be loved and provided for, including sexually. On top of that, church leadership is barred to the polygamous (husband of one wife requirement). I can see the arguments for both approaches where it's an actual legal marriage.

I think this is quickly going to be an issue again in the Western world with just how "cool"/"trendy" polygamous relationships and marriages are at the present. Marriage + mistress (or misteress?) is easy to solve - stop the adultery. It's already reaching mainstream publications this year (the Atlantic recently, along with The New Yorker) and I suspect it'll be about as common as a gay or lesbian marriage is now in about 10 years, at least on the "committed relationship" side and maybe even multi-marriages, given the current trajectories.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

the scriptures are full of examples of polygamy, and like divorce, the Mosaic law allows also for polygamy.
This raises two questions:
- What does God's moral law say of polygamy?
- What would it instruct those who already practice it?


So what does the sctipture teach? How was this matter handled historically? How do traditional Presbyterian churches today with missions in places like Africa (such as the FPCoS in Zimbabwe) handle the issue?

On the issue of morality and the moral law, the relevant commandment (7th) prohibits adultery. On the most exacting standard, multiplication of wives (or spouses generally) violates the spirit and intent of the law. Yet, men have studied to find space for doing as they please, while maintaining professed interest in the inviolate nature of the standard. Hence, making a second wife evades the accusation of adultery inasmuch as the parties are bound to an "exclusive" relationship in law--that is, law by mankind, a conventional morality. Formally speaking, adultery and fornication fall outside of this marriage relation. As to the issue of the heart, it seems fairly clear to me those sins are herewith brought within the cover of law--still, it's worth remembering that happens with many behaviors.

Jesus makes the original standard perfectly clear, Mt.19:5-6, when dealing with the question of divorce; yet what is said is applicable to the question of polygamy: "They two [not three, etc.] shall be one flesh." Paul expands on this further in his exposition, 1Cor.7:2, "Let every [each] man have his own wife, and let every [each] woman have her own husband." The apostle here pushes the one-to-one exclusivity of the standard. See also Eph.5:31. Office-bearer standard for leaders of Christ's church show how conformity to creation/Jesus/apostolic teaching must be non-negotiable for the sake of godly example, 1Tim.3:2&12; Tit.1:6.

Now then, how should the church deal with the legalized practice of polygamy? In the first place, its teaching on God's moral requirements must not be watered down. The church should not encourage its members taking up polygamy under any circumstances. But this does not address the issue of already-polygamous converts. It should be said that no actions ought to be encouraged by the church that increase rather than decrease the actual well-being of members or those connected to its membership--most especially the wives and children of the convert.

A wife taken lawfully, though she be a second wife (or third, etc.) does not cease to be a wife, and possessed of legal rights and social credit, if her husband has come into the faith. This fact is reflected in the Mosaic law, e.g. Ex.21:10 or Dt.21:15-17. If missionaries bring the faith to a remote place where polygamy is common practice, it is a cruel piece of legalistic morality to demand that converts divest themselves of marriage connections (and the children of those marriages) entered into by law and social convention, by declaring second and later marriages to be no marriages at all--as if this was the teaching or implication of Christ and the apostles, in distinction from Moses and the prior era of humanity more generally.

Such a man with multiple wives, though he were otherwise exemplary for consideration to church office, must be passed over on account of his condition. It happens that I know of a missionary situation where a man with one wife was considered for the pastoral office; but when he chose (against counsels) to marry a second time for the sake of his social standing in the wider community, he was informed that he could no longer pursue church office. I know of another situation where a pastor took a second wife in a culture where that was acceptable, which man lost his connection to a sponsoring mission organization (if he maintained his church affiliation in that foreign land, I don't know).

The church must maintain its stance with respect to Christian morality, regardless of how the society around it thinks already, or seems to be heading. It's members must face the moments when they must make a stark choice: either to conform to the mores of local custom so maintaining or gaining public clout; or accepting the world's disfavor, and possible shutting the ears against witness to Christ, for the sake of the truth according to scripture. At the same time, the changes to the social order that could be possible over the long term by the presence of faithful Christians is a blessing to be prayed for and sought for the good of the church and all of humanity.

By Christian practice of monogamy the benefits of it within the Christian community will be observable to those outside, if it takes multiple generations to realize the impact. Meanwhile, the church accepts that for one generation (at least) they will receive those in its ranks who cannot (at the moment of reception) fully exhibit an ideal image of marriage either to those within or those without. But they may behave toward those in their households in ways befitting a believer, in much the same way that slaveholders in ancient time learned to behave toward their bondservants (chattel slavery being another case of corruption of an institution grown out of dependency and authority in human relations, abuses which Christianity's presence progressively curtailed).

 

[Sam Jer]

A wife taken lawfully, though she be a second wife (or third, etc.) does not cease to be a wife, and possessed of legal rights and social credit, if her husband has come into the faith. This fact is reflected in the Mosaic law, e.g. Ex.21:10 or Dt.21:15-17. If missionaries bring the faith to a remote place where polygamy is common practice, it is a cruel piece of legalistic morality to demand that converts divest themselves of marriage connections (and the children of those marriages) entered into by law and social convention, by declaring second and later marriages to be no marriages at all--as if this was the teaching or implication of Christ and the apostles, in distinction from Moses and the prior era of humanity more generally.

Thank you rev. Buchanan, I always appreciate your'e answers on these threads.


Would your'e answer change if:
- The situation is one of polyandry (a woman with several husbands)
- The marriages are incestous (say, one wife is the sister, daughter, or mother, of the other)
- polygamy is outlawed in that land, but common in that region, and so only one marriage is registered with the state
- the polygemous man was already in the church when he married the second wife, was excommunicated, and after a while repented
- there aren't just two, three or four wives, but dozens or hundreds of them

In the modern context, missionaries have historically either forced divorces of all but the first wife or permitted the existing polygamous unions to stay but that no additional wives be taken and all of them must be loved and provided for, including sexually. On top of that, church leadership is barred to the polygamous (husband of one wife requirement). I can see the arguments for both approaches where it's an actual legal marriage.

Do you know if any of them have written on the issue, from either side? Is there perhaps a synod or a presbytery which wrote a report or a study on the question? A Reformed theologian of the past?

 

[Theoretical]

- The marriages are incestous (say, one wife is the sister, daughter, or mother, of the other)

I'm not Rev. Buchanan, but that one would be inherently prohibited/against natural law quite apart from the marriage. Even in the heartbreaking cases today where two separately adopted children marry and then discover that they're brother and sister (and that's going to be a far worse and more common problem with IVF/donor situations in the future), not only does their marriage end legally but they must end it because it's no marriage at all. That goes no matter what madness the state might come up with, especially if in the future gene modification and repair therapy advances to the point where multi-generational incest could "safely" produce children without inbreeding genetic defects, which would obsolete the pragmatic argument regarding inbred children and leaving primarily the moral one(s).

Those would be invalid per se post-giving of the Law in a way polygamy is not.

 

[Sam Jer]

I'm not Rev. Buchanan, but that one would be inherently prohibited/against natural law quite apart from the marriage. Even in the heartbreaking cases today where two separately adopted children marry and then discover that they're brother and sister (and that's going to be a far worse and more common problem with IVF/donor situations in the future), not only does their marriage end legally but they must end it because it's no marriage at all. That goes no matter what madness the state might come up with, especially if in the future gene modification and repair therapy advances to the point where multi-generational incest could "safely" produce children without inbreeding genetic defects, which would obsolete the pragmatic argument regarding inbred children and leaving primarily the moral one(s).

Those would be invalid per se post-giving of the Law in a way polygamy is not.

It is my understanding that marrying a pair of sisters is common in polygemous socities, and there are many old testament examples of this.
Thus, many polygemous marriages, in many socities, will have to be put away by this principle alone; despite rev. Buchanan calling such a putting away "a cruel piece of legalistic morality". Is it no longer cruel, or does this create a greater principle, which the polygamy itaelf does not?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would your'e answer change if:
- The marriages are incestous (say, one wife is the sister, daughter, or mother, of the other)
- The situation is one of polyandry (a woman with several husbands)
- polygamy is outlawed in that land, but common in that region, and so only one marriage is registered with the state
- the polygemous man was already in the church when he married the second wife, was excommunicated, and after a while repented
- there aren't just two, three or four wives, but dozens or hundreds of them

There's an old saying, "Hard cases make bad law." Perhaps it would be best to propose that in the most difficult cases, where a missionary or church was called on to provide moral clarity, they would weigh the particular situation in light of the word of God, and pray for wisdom as they dispensed advice for their members.

I find it hard to believe that even in "primitive" cultures, generally, there are absolutely no sexual norms and taboos. Where no such things exist, one can hardly speak of a "culture" of any kind, and with no culture or society there is no law to speak of. The missionary would be imposing Christian morality where there was no other competitor. He would be imposing some form of order on sexual anarchy. If you know of any culture where the closest forms of incest as we count it are unknown, then we can start a discussion on where a church body ought to declare such unions null and void.

With regard to polyandry, I made some effort in my original reply to suggest that the church should ordinarily take the path of least social disruption, as Christianity is capable of establishment in a wide variety of conditions. Are there many (any?) examples of such a matriarchal-led society, that one woman takes numerous husbands? Is there ZERO testosterone in such a place, where men take their turn servicing their wife? Whose child is this? Someone look up the stats on infanticide in domestic situations where one woman has multiple partners. In theory, perhaps a similar policy would be fitting; but this situation as conceived is already contra-nature, and the church would be set up (if properly) as a significant counter-cultural situation where men alone were expected to occupy the leadership positions in the church institution. I think the church would be in a position here of trying to establish some actual order for their own members, with benefits of that order soon reflected in the surrounding situation. I'm having a hard time conceiving of a law-bound culture (something besides a subculture) where menfolk are under this kind of control.

Where the laws locally already on the books forbid polygamy, the church is already obliged to urge conformity to the power established by God. Lax moral habits should not be encouraged by the church, but firmly discouraged. Concubinage (which is what you seem to be describing) is yet another way men have devised to expand loopholes for their lusts, while maintaining some form of outward respect of the law. Seems to me, the best course is to expose the subterfuge in hopes of eliminating it, demand that the men cease their extralegal sexual liaisons, while insisting that they must continue to support the families they created while they enjoyed the libertine culture they inhabited.

The polygamous man, who defied the church's teaching being contrary to the local custom, but who repents: he has taken on the obligation as the secular law demanded it; I would put this biblical text to another purpose when I quote it, "he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days" (Dt.22:29). He repents, he is received again to the church, but some decisions cannot be undone without added damage and worse results than a quick surgery might seem to solve.

Kings have been converted, and they had harems. Hard cases, again. Besides the outrages that such situations reveal (as existing problems and detriments), they are occasions for object lessons. I'm sure the king probably slept with some of the women one time only (and so cut them off from legitimate marriages to a single husband and formation of a stable family situation). The male population is also at a loss, when one man has largely monopolized the available female population. Perhaps some legal way of recognizing the "sham" character of many of these marriages could be discovered? If not, I don't see the legitimacy of either mass-divorce or annulments. Some sins have consequences that may not be walked-away from, and this includes being saddled with a huge harem, and no honest way of reneging on certain obligations one so eagerly assumed in a former, heathen and lust-driven life.

 

[Theoretical]

It is my understanding that marrying a pair of sisters is common in polygemous socities, and there are many old testament examples of this.
Thus, many polygemous marriages, in many socities, will have to be put away by this principle alone; despite rev. Buchanan calling such a putting away "a cruel piece of legalistic morality". Is it no longer cruel, or does this create a greater principle, which the polygamy itaelf does not?

I didn't think about that point post-giving of the Law being a phenomenon/common practice in polygamous societies. It was not immoral for Seth to marry one of Adam & Eve's daughters nor was there any indication Abram and Sarai were immorally married (though obviously his wicked deceit to Abimelech was only made possible and half-truthful - unlike Issac's fully false one). That seems to be something of a post-giving of the Law that's clearly binding henceforth.

I think it's more like an independent condition and a dependent condition either of which makes it invalid.

Condition 1: Is it a marriage? If yes, proceed to condition 2. If no, break up with the girlfriend/domestic partner/mistress/whatever. In that context Condition 2 being yes is merely an aggravating factor in the sin already present (say in a free love or partner sharing type situation).

Condition 2: Is the relationship incestuous? If yes, then it's inherently immoral and I think it needs to end in a way that would not be applicable for a non-incestuous polygamous marriage, though likely with something akin to support for the unfortunate non-spouse if applicable/appropriate. Obviously, no matter what the society says or how some relationship, sex is thenceforth 100% off-limits due to the incestuous nature.

---

Rev. Buchanan's answer is far wiser here. There's an old saying, "Hard cases make bad law." Perhaps it would be best to propose that in the most difficult cases, where a missionary or church was called on to provide moral clarity, they would weigh the particular situation in light of the word of God, and pray for wisdom as they dispensed advice for their members.

 

[Sam Jer]

There's an old saying, "Hard cases make bad law." Perhaps it would be best to propose that in the most difficult cases, where a missionary or church was called on to provide moral clarity, they would weigh the particular situation in light of the word of God, and pray for wisdom as they dispensed advice for their members.

The main point of these hard cases was to clarify your'e view and see how it applies, whether it is consistant.

I find it hard to believe that even in "primitive" cultures, generally, there are absolutely no sexual norms and taboos. Where no such things exist, one can hardly speak of a "culture" of any kind, and with no culture or society there is no law to speak of. The missionary would be imposing Christian morality where there was no other competitor. He would be imposing some form of order on sexual anarchy. If you know of any culture where the closest forms of incest as we count it are unknown, then we can start a discussion on where a church body ought to declare such unions null and void.

I was referring to cases where someones wives are related to one another. It is true that if any are the husbands relatives, it is a diffrent issue than polygamy.
Such cases as I mentioned are common, especially one's of a pair of sisters (consider Leah and Rachel).

With regard to polyandry, I made some effort in my original reply to suggest that the church should ordinarily take the path of least social disruption, as Christianity is capable of establishment in a wide variety of conditions. Are there many (any?) examples of such a matriarchal-led society, that one woman takes numerous husbands? Is there ZERO testosterone in such a place, where men take their turn servicing their wife? Whose child is this? Someone look up the stats on infanticide in domestic situations where one woman has multiple partners. In theory, perhaps a similar policy would be fitting; but this situation as conceived is already contra-nature, and the church would be set up (if properly) as a significant counter-cultural situation where men alone were expected to occupy the leadership positions in the church institution. I think the church would be in a position here of trying to establish some actual order for their own members, with benefits of that order soon reflected in the surrounding situation. I'm having a hard time conceiving of a law-bound culture (something besides a subculture) where menfolk are under this kind of control.

Polyandry does exist, though it may not be common. I am not necessarily speaking of the full matriarchal society you are describing, perhaps just one that tolerates it and thus it happens at times. This, similarly to the incest question, was mostly to yest if there are further nuances in your'e view, and test it's consistency.

Where the laws locally already on the books forbid polygamy, the church is already obliged to urge conformity to the power established by God. Lax moral habits should not be encouraged by the church, but firmly discouraged. Concubinage (which is what you seem to be describing) is yet another way men have devised to expand loopholes for their lusts, while maintaining some form of outward respect of the law. Seems to me, the best course is to expose the subterfuge in hopes of eliminating it, demand that the men cease their extralegal sexual liaisons, while insisting that they must continue to support the families they created while they enjoyed the libertine culture they inhabited.

Here I can cite an actual example: that of the Bedouins in Israel. They certainly don't think of it as concubinage, but as full, religiously solemnized (though unregistered) marriage, though on second thought there are often stark paralells to concubinage in practice.
Either way, if putting away the second wife is "a cruel piece of legalistic morality", and continued marriage is otherwise lawful, wouldn't the magistrate, in effect, be rquiring divorce, which is a sin in and of itself?

Kings have been converted, and they had harems. Hard cases, again. Besides the outrages that such situations reveal (as existing problems and detriments), they are occasions for object lessons. I'm sure the king probably slept with some of the women one time only (and so cut them off from legitimate marriages to a single husband and formation of a stable family situation). The male population is also at a loss, when one man has largely monopolized the available female population. Perhaps some legal way of recognizing the "sham" character of many of these marriages could be discovered? If not, I don't see the legitimacy of either mass-divorce or annulments. Some sins have consequences that may not be walked-away from, and this includes being saddled with a huge harem, and no honest way of reneging on certain obligations one so eagerly assumed in a former, heathen and lust-driven life.

Could it be that your'e position in secceptible to a reductio ad absurdum here? Just imagine the lonely island with 49 singke men, Jeff, and Jeff's harem, or multiply someone's wife-count to absurdity, in a circumstance where the sham character cannot be discovered.


To clarify, I am seeking clarity on the doctrine of marriage with these questions. There is nothing here against you or necessarily the position you take.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The main point of these hard cases was to clarify your'e view and see how it applies, whether it is consistant.

The difficulty of the practice of law is that legal expression can be so specific as to hardly apply anyplace, or so general it smothers everything and demands constant qualifications. Perhaps consistency, if attempting to apply the law in unforseen circumstances, is an invalid effort. What kind of consistency? Perhaps a whole new approach is necessary. Polygamy was the original proposition, and a systematic answer was given consistent with several biblical data points. The test of the validity of the view presented does not depend on how well it might answer for different if related inquiries.

I was referring to cases where someones wives are related to one another. It is true that if any are the husbands relatives, it is a diffrent issue than polygamy.
Such cases as I mentioned are common, especially one's of a pair of sisters (consider Leah and Rachel).

In part, I misunderstood the question, as you specifically referred to incest, which typically describes certain blood-relations for forbidden marriage (and yes, I am aware of the "affinity" connection to the term). If a convert has married sisters, where such a form was allowed in local custom, it hardly seems like Christian compassion to despise one or both those women as falsely married. When one considers the marriages of Leah and Rachel, it is clear that if no legitimacy was ever possible for sisters sharing a husband, then Jacob was in gross sin from the outset, never repented, and never sought him remedy.

You raised the possibility of a mother-daughter combination of wives; this appears to me a most illegitimate union, and I think most human societies would recognize it as some form of child abuse (like the man married a woman to get access to her children). Amos 2:7 and 1Cor.5:1 together bear witness to the universality of honest awareness that no cultural appeal can make certain unions tolerable.

Polyandry does exist, though it may not be common. I am not necessarily speaking of the full matriarchal society you are describing, perhaps just one that tolerates it and thus it happens at times. This, similarly to the incest question, was mostly to yest if there are further nuances in your'e view, and test it's consistency.

Again, please name or describe the actual culture (not a subculture, such as might exist in certain areas even in western nations, existence of which degraded estate depends on the wider culture with its laws and norms) where polyandry is practiced. It's one thing to recognize that isolated cases of women binding two or more men to her exclusive relationship must be possible. Courtesans have such a reputation, if not the legal recognition. These are almost always mercenary connections, with women few and far between. Limit the product, and high demand will command a high price. How does this not shortly devolve into pimp/madame controlled prostitution? I reiterate my belief that this estate is basically contrary to nature, inherently unstable, and cannot be perpetuated outside of isolation.

Here I can cite an actual example: that of the Bedouins in Israel. They certainly don't think of it as concubinage, but as full, religiously solemnized (though unregistered) marriage, though on second thought there are often stark paralells to concubinage in practice.
Either way, if putting away the second wife is "a cruel piece of legalistic morality", and continued marriage is otherwise lawful, wouldn't the magistrate, in effect, be rquiring divorce, which is a sin in and of itself?

Bedouin subculture, in other words, sustained in whatever unnatural estate it may due to a more powerful social order providing the stability. Furthermore, they likely have them such wives as (presumably) their Muslim faith allows, while in practice conforming to whatever legal limits the secular overlords impose, thereby keeping the peace. I named the practice concubinage, because by whatever it is called the thing is what it is or most closely resembles. Concubines found in the Bible were (multiplied) wives, but not in name and legal recognition from the culture. Wives had a certain status and rights along with it; while concubines were closer to servants of a certain rank--again, Jacob's household provides us with illustration.

We have been discussing what the church, rather than the magistrate, should be imposing on it members. It seems to me, if a Bedouin with multiple women--a wife and one or more concubines--becomes a Christian, a pastor or session would be wise to consider the balance of previous higher authorities to which this man was once (and is still in some cases) submitted, as they consider how to advise him on a delicate moral dilemma. If the man and those women consider that he is, in fact due to religion though not according to the laws of the state, married to them--then perhaps he actually is what he appears to be: a polygamist.

The same dilemma could be found in certain (subculture of a subculture!) Mormon communities in the USA. Yet, perhaps location and history demand greater weight in one case's consideration versus the other. Polygamy in the Muslim-dominated MiddleEast is a widespread cultural error requiring one form of patience and sensitivity. Polygamy in Mormon counter-culture is an act of religious and social rebellion; note its relatively recent origin, combined with the false-teacher pattern of 2Tim.3:6. The situation in this part of the world might demand a different resolution; but it still could compel the church to deal with providing ministry for a sinfully broken household.

In your part of the world, the secular magistrate appears already to not-recognize a second (third, etc.) marriage exists. You cannot divorce if you are not married. Our concern is not what the magistrate does, but what the church ought to do and recognize, and how it speaks to its members on their moral duties in the midst of their situation.

Could it be that your'e position in secceptible to a reductio ad absurdum here? Just imagine the lonely island with 49 singke men, Jeff, and Jeff's harem, or multiply someone's wife-count to absurdity, in a circumstance where the sham character cannot be discovered.


To clarify, I am seeking clarity on the doctrine of marriage with these questions. There is nothing here against you or necessarily the position you take.

It just seems to me that this partakes of my original objection (see above) that by some deconstruction of that position I advocate, a foundational principle or set of them can be discovered, from which a whole series of alternative results may come. And if more than a few of them seem confused or obviously false, or if I am unwilling to abide by those conclusions, therefore my original proposal lacks validity. This is not proper logic, not a proper reductio. I am not concerned with providing a neat and tidy solution that solves for every theoretical hard case or cases.

 

[Sam Jer]

The difficulty of the practice of law is that legal expression can be so specific as to hardly apply anyplace, or so general it smothers everything and demands constant qualifications. Perhaps consistency, if attempting to apply the law in unforseen circumstances, is an invalid effort. What kind of consistency? Perhaps a whole new approach is necessary. Polygamy was the original proposition, and a systematic answer was given consistent with several biblical data points. The test of the validity of the view presented does not depend on how well it might answer for different if related inquiries.

In part, I misunderstood the question, as you specifically referred to incest, which typically describes certain blood-relations for forbidden marriage (and yes, I am aware of the "affinity" connection to the term). If a convert has married sisters, where such a form was allowed in local custom, it hardly seems like Christian compassion to despise one or both those women as falsely married. When one considers the marriages of Leah and Rachel, it is clear that if no legitimacy was ever possible for sisters sharing a husband, then Jacob was in gross sin from the outset, never repented, and never sought him remedy.

You raised the possibility of a mother-daughter combination of wives; this appears to me a most illegitimate union, and I think most human societies would recognize it as some form of child abuse (like the man married a woman to get access to her children). Amos 2:7 and 1Cor.5:1 together bear witness to the universality of honest awareness that no cultural appeal can make certain unions tolerable.

Again, please name or describe the actual culture (not a subculture, such as might exist in certain areas even in western nations, existence of which degraded estate depends on the wider culture with its laws and norms) where polyandry is practiced. It's one thing to recognize that isolated cases of women binding two or more men to her exclusive relationship must be possible. Courtesans have such a reputation, if not the legal recognition. These are almost always mercenary connections, with women few and far between. Limit the product, and high demand will command a high price. How does this not shortly devolve into pimp/madame controlled prostitution? I reiterate my belief that this estate is basically contrary to nature, inherently unstable, and cannot be perpetuated outside of isolation.

Bedouin subculture, in other words, sustained in whatever unnatural estate it may due to a more powerful social order providing the stability. Furthermore, they likely have them such wives as (presumably) their Muslim faith allows, while in practice conforming to whatever legal limits the secular overlords impose, thereby keeping the peace. I named the practice concubinage, because by whatever it is called the thing is what it is or most closely resembles. Concubines found in the Bible were (multiplied) wives, but not in name and legal recognition from the culture. Wives had a certain status and rights along with it; while concubines were closer to servants of a certain rank--again, Jacob's household provides us with illustration.

We have been discussing what the church, rather than the magistrate, should be imposing on it members. It seems to me, if a Bedouin with multiple women--a wife and one or more concubines--becomes a Christian, a pastor or session would be wise to consider the balance of previous higher authorities to which this man was once (and is still in some cases) submitted, as they consider how to advise him on a delicate moral dilemma. If the man and those women consider that he is, in fact due to religion though not according to the laws of the state, married to them--then perhaps he actually is what he appears to be: a polygamist.

The same dilemma could be found in certain (subculture of a subculture!) Mormon communities in the USA. Yet, perhaps location and history demand greater weight in one case's consideration versus the other. Polygamy in the Muslim-dominated MiddleEast is a widespread cultural error requiring one form of patience and sensitivity. Polygamy in Mormon counter-culture is an act of religious and social rebellion; note its relatively recent origin, combined with the false-teacher pattern of 2Tim.3:6. The situation in this part of the world might demand a different resolution; but it still could compel the church to deal with providing ministry for a sinfully broken household.

In your part of the world, the secular magistrate appears already to not-recognize a second (third, etc.) marriage exists. You cannot divorce if you are not married. Our concern is not what the magistrate does, but what the church ought to do and recognize, and how it speaks to its members on their moral duties in the midst of their situation.

It just seems to me that this partakes of my original objection (see above) that by some deconstruction of that position I advocate, a foundational principle or set of them can be discovered, from which a whole series of alternative results may come. And if more than a few of them seem confused or obviously false, or if I am unwilling to abide by those conclusions, therefore my original proposal lacks validity. This is not proper logic, not a proper reductio. I am not concerned with providing a neat and tidy solution that solves for every theoretical hard case or cases.

Okay, this does clarify the nuances if your'e view