Overcoming Objections To Plural Marriage: Topic 7

[Doc]

Some adherents of Christian plural marriage use the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25) as a justification by Jesus for the endorsement of polygamy. A few things need to be pointed out:

1. The parable is being used by Jesus to show an example of the end times, not to etablish a doctrine on marriage.
2. The use of a parable as a standard for living would be akin to saying because Jesus said He would come "as a thief in the night," means we should follow that exampleand be thieves ourselves.
3. Most importantly, there is no indication that the ten virgins are marrying the bridegroom, rather, they are part of the wedding party that has been invited to the wedding feast AFTER the wedding.

Responses?

 

[CecilW]

If the objection is valid, so what? The doctrine is so thoroughly established as permissible elsewhere, that this is un-necessary for the establishment of the doctrine.

Furthermore, the objection is correct to a point. The purpose of the parable was not the establishment of a doctrine on marriage. Neither was it the reversal of a doctrine on marriage. Rather, it used the marriage celebration as practiced at that time, as a means to teach another subject entirely. Fair enough.

But is the objector's characterization of the story any more correct? If so, the story loses most of its force.

In a Jewish wedding ceremony, at what point does or did a door get closed? Who was inside and who out? Did a ceremony take place followed by a reception, or did the wedding occur with the main event being the uniting as one flesh while the celebration was going on? I'm not sure.

But one thing seems glaringly obvious. If these 10 virgins are just invited guests, and they miss the reception, so what? There will be another wedding with cake and punch in another week or two. The story has no punch.

If, however, they were there as brides of the royal groom and are shut out, that is another thing altogether! They've missed the opportunity to marry into royalty and become royalty themselves, as well as establishing a connection for the rest of their family! Catastrophe!

Now which impact would we guess that Jesus was trying to portray? It seems clear that He was trying to say that the 5 foolish virgins indeed brought catastrophe upon themselves by failure to be prepared. Catastrophe, not a few missed empty calories that they probably didn't need anyway!

So while I don't much care whether this particular argument/objection is valid or not, it does seem to me that for the story to carry weight, the argument is better than the objection.

 

[Mark C]

Cecil has already hit the central point:

But one thing seems glaringly obvious. If these 10 virgins are just invited guests, and they miss the reception, so what? There will be another wedding with cake and punch in another week or two. The story has no punch.

If, however, they were there as brides of the royal groom and are shut out, that is another thing altogether! They've missed the opportunity...

I, too, find that the need to trivialize His point (or worse, as likening Him to either a thief, or worse - as those who similarly deny Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23 must) in order to hold on to a cherished, but anti-Biblical, "tradition of man" is disrespectful.

And I have already written at length in many places about what I submit is the MOST important "spiritual" issue concerning patriarchy (and thus acceptance of His provision for polygyny):
His character is consistently described in Scripture as a "one-to-many" relationship with His people - whether it is One King, and multiple servants, One Father with multiple sons (children), One Master with multiple servants, or One Husband with multiple wives/brides.

Finally, it should be noted that those who do try to read "Monogamy Only" into a story like the Ten Virgins do bear the burden of proof, since He not only chose to tell the story with ten "virgins" (when "wedding guests" would have made the same point, if that was all He intended) but He never attempted to proscribe polygyny at all. Would He have had a better opportunity?

 

[CecilW]

Thanks, Mark. Han't thought of the terminology, "Wedding Guests" vs. "Virgins".

But I'd still like to know, if the knowledge is available, about the process of a wedding of the time. At what point was a door closed? Who in and who out? All invited guests, however peripherally associated to the groom, closing in the whole celebration? Or a door to the bridal chamber(s), with accepted bride(s) inside completing the marriage process which had begun with betrothal, turning them from "virgins" into "women", while everyone else continued feasting outside.

The latter seems more plausible.

 

[cnystrom]

It seems very odd for the guests to be referred to as virgins. Why would that matter unless they were in fact the brides? Why are they in reference to the groom and not the bride? For that matter why is "the bride" never mentioned? A plain reading of the story indicated there is a groom and 10 brides. The only possible reason to have any other interpretation is due to an anti-polygamy bias.

Even before I started learning about Christian polygamy I thought this was an odd symbolic polygamy story. I think one may be able to argue that the story is not meant to be a marital pattern and it is purely symbolic for the point that Jesus was making, but I do not think anyone can argue that it is not a picture of polygamy.

I do not think one can prove favor for polygamy from this one story, but I think one can use as part of an overall look at the Bible to show how polygamy is not condemned, but instead portrayed as acceptable. In my opinion the value of this verse is that it is in the New Testament and it is Jesus himself teaching it.

 

[cubanito]

Maybe they were with the catering company and lost the bid? Lol

 

[Quartus]

why is "the bride" never mentioned? A plain reading of the story indicated there is a groom and 10 brides. The only possible reason to have any other interpretation is due to an anti-polygamy bias.

There seems to be an unmistakable dual application - the Bride (singular) is actually comprised of many individuals, but agree it's not something monogamy majority want to concern themselves with.
Similarly the "one wife" of Eph 5:31-32 is emphasised, as if "we" (the bride) are many members in v30 had never been included as part of the description. But that's the reason given for v28 "his wife" the argument (For... For... For...) actually switches backwards and forwards between monogamous and polygamous expressions.

 

[Shibboleth]

Regarding point 2 (as a theif...), I remember thinking through that point while considering the pro-poly argument from the OT passages where God depicts himself as polygamous with Israel and Judah. The argument being that God wouldn't depict himself as sinful. The theif passage came to my mind as a possible counterexample, but I rejected it, because in context, he isn't stealing like a thief; it is the suddeness and unexpectedness of His coming that is compared to that of a thief.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Regarding point 2 (as a theif...), I remember thinking through that point while considering the pro-poly argument from the OT passages where God depicts himself as polygamous with Israel and Judah. The argument being that God wouldn't depict himself as sinful. The theif passage came to my mind as a possible counterexample, but I rejected it, because in context, he isn't stealing like a thief; it is the suddeness and unexpectedness of His coming that is compared to that of a thief.

I love this approach brother!

 

[andrew]

There seems to be an unmistakable dual application - the Bride (singular) is actually comprised of many individuals, but agree it's not something monogamy majority want to concern themselves with.

I may be misunderstanding your point, but the bible never refers to a single "universal church", only to assemblies, and with that in mind, each assembly is in its own right a 'bride' of Christ (unless you have monogamous blinders on...). So yes, an assembly is composed of many individuals, and I guess you could say a woman is composed of many organs or many cells or members or something (let's go with 'members' so we can enjoy the double entendre...), but I don't think we need a 'dual application' here, and in any event I'm not sure what you mean by that. Christ has a husband-of-the-bride, head-of-the-body relationship with each assembly, in all of their plural glory....

 

[Shibboleth]

the bible never refers to a single "universal church", only to assemblies

Sorry, but even if I agree with the general thrust of your statement, I can't let such an absolute statement like that go without trying to question it. At the risk of sounding Catholic, what about when Christ renamed Simon to "Rock" (Peter), and told him he would build His Assembly (singular, feminine noun, with a definite article) on this rock? Was he only refering to his immediate group of followers in Israel, or all the other assemblies of believers that would follow him, right down to the present?

 

[Nikud]

Acts 14:23
GRK: αὐτοῖς κατ κκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους προσευξάμενοι
NAS: for them in every church, having prayed
KJV: in every church, and had prayed
INT: for them in every church elders having prayed

Acts 15:22
GRK: ὅλῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας
NAS: with the whole church,to choose
KJV: with the whole church,to send chosen
INT: all the church having chosen men

Acts 20:17
GRK: πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας
NAS: to him the elders of the church.
KJV: and called the elders of the church.
INT: elders of the church

Assembly is used multiple times meaning the unified church but also seperate churches.

Acts 14:21-23

21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,

22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of G-d.

23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the L-rd, on whom they believed.

 

[andrew]

Fair enough. "Never say never", right?

I would agree with your agreement that the general thrust of the statement still works. As for Christ's intention, we could go a couple of different ways with that (as you pointed out).

I tend to de-program 'churchy' words, so for me ekklesia is a group of citizens called together for a purpose, and that means that the physical assembling matters. The fact that it got turned into something else over a few centuries of churchianity is irrelevant (at least to me).

So either Christ was referring to the people he actually called together physically (his immediate earthly disciples) or he was referring to some ultimate spiritual reality such as all tongues, tribes, and nations gathered around the throne (to be fulfilled later but not a reality today, as we experience time), or maybe a bit of both, but I don't see ekkelesia applying to some mystical universal 'assembly' that doesn't actually assemble anywhere.

The Roman church used that idea to try to establish hegemony over all assemblies everywhere, but I don't see that as biblical. (And I'm not just taking a random swipe at the Catholic church, I'm just reporting on my pov. Put another way, for me the idea isn't unbiblical because it's Catholic, but the Catholic leadership is wrong to assert such hegemony because the idea that there is presently one mystical universal assembly is unbiblical.)

Look at Rev 1:11 – Christ doesn't refer to the assembly in Asia, he refers to the seven assemblies in Asia, and then calls them out individually by name. So whatever Christ meant talking to Peter, he later recognizes that different groups meeting in different places on the ground are different assemblies, not one big mystical 'assembly'.

At the risk of really upsetting some fundamentalists and literalists, I'd be open to the possibility that Christ was speaking to Peter metaphorically or even hyperbolically, but let's keep that between us....

Anyway, I can see Christ referring to the "assemblies" of Asia, which is consistent with the rest of the usage of that word throughout the bible (NT and LXX), and I'm sticking with the general thrust of what I said, whatever Christ might have meant in that statement to Peter. I believe Christ is the husband of multiple assemblies/wives.

Great catch, though! Should never have said 'never'....

 

[andrew]

Assembly is used multiple times meaning the unified church but also seperate churches.

You and I managed to post at the same time. What did you mean by this? Other than Shibboleth's example, whatcha got?

 

[Nikud]

John 17:20-22

20 I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—…

This was Jesus praying for us to be one church ,telling us we should be, because he knew we would divide ourselves.

In Acts it shows that there is the idea of a unified vision but the actualization of independent churches. Elders that are just elders of their church. There's a few other examples you mentioned Revalations.

 

[andrew]

This was Jesus praying for us to be one church....

Sorry, I'm not following you. Clearly we are to be 'one' in some spiritual sense. But I don't see the word 'assembly' in that verse, so I don't see Jesus praying for us to be 'one church'.

In Acts it shows that there is the idea of a unified vision but the actualization of independent churches.

This is more like it. Unified vision, multiple assemblies. In the context of this thread, that means multiple wives.

 

[Nikud]

I was thinking about how to reword to become more clear and precise in what I was trying to express. I was using the verse in John to try to convey the unified vision, and failed. To show the diffrence between being unified in Christ and His message but seperate assemblies. To back up then next statement you pointed out. Which to me supports the multiple assemblies/wives.

 

[Quartus]

or he was referring to some ultimate spiritual reality such as all tongues, tribes, and nations gathered around the throne (to be fulfilled later but not a reality today, as we experience time), or maybe a bit of both, but I don't see ekkelesia applying to some mystical universal 'assembly' that doesn't actually assemble anywhere.

I agree with your comments on the ecclesia and churchianity, and I don’t disagree with the part I just quoted above, but I feel that zooming out to a wider time than our own might illustrate the point I was alluding to.

The bride of Christ is selected from the seed of the woman. The Spirit has selected singular terms to represent all individual believers that have been/are/will be called out of all ages and associations. This runs all the way from the fall to the marriage of the Lamb (Gen 3:15 to Rev 22:17).

However if we go back a little before the fall to Gen 2:21 we read of the formation or the bride. A deep sleep fell on the first Adam, and Eve was taken and “built” from his side, after which Adam was restored, none the worse for his experience, and continued in Eden, the paradise of God. However he had a special relationship with Eve (bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh) which was deeper than the natural animal kingdom where male and female were created separately.
Similarly, the sleep of death fell upon the second Adam at the crucifixion, after which he was operated on by the Roman soldier who pierced his side to ensure he was dead (John 19:34), and water and blood came from his side which we associate with by baptism and mortifying the deeds of the flesh (Col 3:5). Those that are accepted will become part of the bride of Christ and be with him, restored to life in the paradise of God. And so I think Paul emphasises this singular woman starting point in Gen 2, picking it up in Eph 5 as representing the bride of Christ.

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

But Paul insists that from the singular woman develops her polygamous seed, included here as "the ecclesia".

 

[Shibboleth]

One more thought from me... When it comes to comparing Christ and the church to a poly relationship, I tend to like the metaphor to be applied at the level of each individual Christian being a wife (rather than entire assemblies). This is mostly based on the language of 1 Cor. 6, where, just as a man and a woman are one flesh, "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit."

On the other hand, the metaphor can also be applied universally, to the entire assembly, as seen in Revelation 19, where the marriage supper of the Lamb is described, and "his Bride (singular) has made herself ready."

So, we seem to have the Bride metaphor applied individually, locally, and universally. Given that all of these are supported, and that it is ultimately a metaphor, though a very good one, I'm not going to worry about nitpicking why any particular granularity is a better version of the metaphor than any other.

 

[Mojo]

One more thought from me... When it comes to comparing Christ and the church to a poly relationship, I tend to like the metaphor to be applied at the level of each individual Christian being a wife (rather than entire assemblies). This is mostly based on the language of 1 Cor. 6, where, just as a man and a woman are one flesh, "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit."

On the other hand, the metaphor can also be applied universally, to the entire assembly, as seen in Revelation 19, where the marriage supper of the Lamb is described, and "his Bride (singular) has made herself ready."

So, we seem to have the Bride metaphor applied individually, locally, and universally. Given that all of these are supported, and that it is ultimately a metaphor, though a very good one, I'm not going to worry about nitpicking why any particular granularity is a better version of the metaphor than any other.

As in election and Christology, when more than one aspect can be seen in scripture, maybe both ( or all) are true simultaneously.