How can anyone conclude that God's original intention was one husband with one wife from Gen.2:24 and it's context?
Here is Gen.2:24 and notice it does not say
the two shall be one flesh, it says they,
At exactly the same time this was written
Moses also penned these words;
Deu 21:15 If a man has two wives...
This is the context of Gen.2:24. The Pentateuch was written at the same time and delivered as one book. We can not isolate one verse and conclude from our cultural position that Gen.2:24 demands monogamy as God's original intention when god inspired Moses to write Laws for polygamy.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. Gen.1:28
Christians have been mislead with the "polygyny was not God's original intention"
position. The assumption being that because God made one Eve for Adam it
speaks to His intent underlying Gen.2:24.
We read in Genesis 2
the following words of the Lord;
Taking a huge leap of presumption, they then claim that one man and one woman was “God’s original intention” and we should therefore be monogamous.
God inspired Moses to write these words He also included, at the same
time in the same book, the laws for Polygamy found in Ex.21:10,
Deut.21:15 and 25:5-10 as follows;
Deu 21:15 If a man has two wives...
Deu 25:5 If brothers live together, and one of them dies and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as a wife for himself, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
By thus comparing Scripture with Scripture we cannot conclude that monogamy is embedded by implication in Gen.2:24. It is impossible since God has written contrary to this perceived "original intention" in the same book at the same time by the same author who was not monogamous.
Coupled with this is the fact that Gen.2:24 is not once used by God against polygamists. Gen.2:24 speaks to the indissoluble union between a man and a woman in marriage. The emphasis is not one husband and one wife, the emphasis, as shown by the Lord's answer to the Pharisees in Matt.19 is the ONE FLESH.
The original intention of Gen.2:18-24 is one flesh, a new kin, family.
Adam and Eve are but one example of "they shall be one flesh". In the same book, Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Judah are other examples of "they shall be one flesh". The husband with each wife was one flesh.
If the first cow we see is brown and promptly declare it was God's original intention to make brown cows ONLY, are we being reasonable let alone logical? To compound the matter, let us then conclude that black cows are deviates and outside creation order. How sad such reasoning is when the brown cow we noticed was in the same paddock; the same field as black cows, we just practiced selective vision and drew erroneous conclusions.
We say again, Gen.2:24 emphasizes the ONE FLESH of marriage, not monogamy. The one flesh union of Gen.2:24 is equally established in polygyny, God demonstrated this with other examples of marriage in the same book. When we look from the wider range of examples we can draw this sound and logical conclusion.
This, the real original intention was never changed. It remained the "one flesh" union of marriage as fulfilled in both monogamy or polygyny.
Let us follow this follow this argument of "God's original intention" from one specific element of the context and apply it to other settings in the same context at the same time.
Adam and Eve were placed in a garden which must have been God’s original intention. Let us therefore find the Garden and live in it; ridiculous right? Is it God's original intention that every believer will live in the restored Paradise on the earth? No.
Let us return to Genesis 2, the passage abused so much by the monogamy
only assumers and look at another verse there;
If we are to remain monogamy only because it was God's original intention, then using this same terrible reasoning, let us attend our churches stripped naked since it is obvious God’s original intention was that people should so be. We are remaining monogamous because it was God’s original intention, then why not totally naked as well?
At this juncture, we can hear the monogamy only camp jumping and flailing their arms about objecting that God changed things; after “the fall” He clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skins. How astute! And we would also observe that after “the fall”, God commanded and blessed many polygynous marriages. After “the fall”, God defined what was offensive to Him and polygyny certainly is not offensive to God. God had two wives Himself.
Yes it is true, the Lord does not change as to character and virtue, (Mal.3:6, Hebs.1:12, 13:8), but He does change His dealing with people as the Old and New Covenant clearly show. However, Gen.2:24 one flesh never needed a change since it always provided for monogamy or polygyny.
When Cain murdered his brother Abel the Lord walked in and dealt with the sin. When Lamech took more than one wife the Lord made no declaration against him. Not only so, the Lord made laws for polygyny, featured polygyny in the redemption story by commanding polygyny as we have shown on this website. We are not to assume that since there was only one man and one woman in the garden that this is how it must be now when God clearly changed things in regards to marriage.
Adam and Eve were naked but later clothed.
God placed Adam and eve in the Garden but later He evicted them and scattered people over the face of the earth.
Let us follow the same "God's original intention" logic and consider the Tree of Life. Are we to reason that since God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden with access to the Tree of Life that ultimately life for the believer will be made possible by this tree? Or would we rather consider that after the fall, many Lambs were slain pointing to Christ the true Lamb of God in and through whom we of faith have eternal life.
God made Eve for Adam in a very unique place and circumstance but later struck a man dead for not practicing levirate polygyny (Gen.38:8-10). Onan displeased the Lord because he did not impregnate his dead brother’s wife. This took place before the Lord made those levirate laws (Deut.25:5-10). If monogamy was God's original intention, He certainly moved very severely against Onan in contradiction to His own original intention. But Gen.2:24 never demanded monogamy only, we have made the error.
The Lord commanded, blessed and used many polygynous families declaring clearly that polygyny was as valid to Him as monogamy. In Hebrews 11 our God was not ashamed to be their GOD.
I guess if monogamy was “God’s original intention” there is no place for anyone to be single. Those who commit their lives to the Lord as single people are out of step with this stupid “God’s original intention” reasoning.
I appeal to all Christians to stop the rot. Refuse to accept the stupid arguments being presented no matter who it is that presents them.
No matter how uncomfortable we might feel, we are to stand on God’s Word, not the preacher’s words, not the traditions of men, not the opinion of the majority. I think we can all agree that the Bible is full of examples where the majority did not get it right. If numbers are important to us then we are more than likely way outside the Word of Truth.
Monogamy was not God’s original intention; marriage was God’s purpose for men and women; the union made and kept.Since God is a polygynist Himself in His relationship to the two kingdoms, and calls seven wives and one husband holy, who dares contradict the Lord and call polygyny wickedness and continue to swing on the "God's original intention" argument which is outside of Scripture and logic.
Return to Objections Directory