by Dr. Tom Shipley
There are at least FOUR aspects to the creation narrative relevant to the patriarchy vs monogamy-only debate which are the occasion of fallacious conclusions:
- Adam’s example of monogamy
- “The TWO shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:8)
- “The two shall be ONE FLESH”
- The institution of patriarchy and its necessary implications
There is a PRE-EXISTING fallacy, even before these aspects of the significance of the creation are debated, namely the failure to properly frame the essential nature of the debate. The debate is NOT “monogamy vs polygyny.” The essence of the debate is Patriarchy vs. monogamy-only. To frame the debate as “monogamy or monogamy-only vs polygyny” is to conceptually bias the debate right from the start in favor of the monogamy-only position because of the insidiously-false implication that the patriarchal position is against monogamy. The position which we can call the Patriarchy-Polygyny position is not at all against monogamy. Our position includes the legitimacy of monogamy, and regards the options of monogamy, polygyny and singleness as all equally valid options for a man. Nor are we claiming there is any kind of generalized mandate to pursue polygyny (although there are some situations in which polygyny does become mandatory).
Adam’s Monogamy:
The monogamy-only doctrine INFERRED (not explicitly stated) from the creation account based on Adam’s monogamy is fallacious “reasoning.” You can NOT rationally reason from a particular example to a universal. There is even a term for this in the study of logic: it’s called the Universal Generalization Fallacy. Example:
Major Premise: My dog is brown.
Minor Premise: My neighbor has a dog.
Conclusion: My neighbor’s dog is brown.
Not all dogs have to be brown. This is precisely the third-grade-level error that is indulged in by monogamy-only advocates. This is why I have so often pointed out that those who advocate for this have a very shallow grasp on Scripture. This type of “reasoning” is not worthy of serious students of Scripture. But this is precisely the pablum that the Lord’s flock is routinely spoon-fed by its shepherds.
“The TWO shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:8)
Another logical fallacy: “Jesus says the TWO shall be one flesh, a man with ONE wife, not 3 or 5 or 10 wives.” Like the Universal Generalization Fallacy noted above, this is another logical fallacy. The is what is referred to in the study of logic as the Category Mistake Fallacy. This is a little more difficult of a logical fallacy to grasp than the Universal Generalization Fallacy.
The category of the Genesis statement is regarding the definition of WHAT a marriage is. The above cited assertion confuses the category of WHAT with the category of QUANTITY or HOW MANY. This is a different category of question than the “What-ness” or “Is-ness” of something. When Genesis tells us “the two shall be one flesh,” it is telling us what a marriage is, not how many of those marriages a man may have. Thus, another central pillar of the monogamy-only position is shown to be fallacious.
“The two shall be ONE FLESH”
Another logical fallacy is involved in the assertion that “A man cannot possibly be ONE FLESH with more than one woman.” I have been responded to with this objection on countless occasions. Our discussion above is logically sufficient to answer this assertion also. Again, Genesis 2:24 is not addressing how many women a man may be one flesh with, but defining what the marital relation is. More pointedly, this assertion is directly contradicted in 1 Corinthians 6:16:
“What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”
So, one flesh is simply sexual union. Obviously, it IS possible for a man to be one flesh with more than one woman. So, a third basic pillar of the monogamy-only position is shown to be false.
The Institution of Patriarchy
The last fallacy is the Fallacy of Omission. Genesis 2:18 tells us that the woman was made for the man and Genesis 2:21-22 tells us that the woman was made from the man. Moreover, 1 Timothy 2:13 tells us that the man was formed first. These three facts are all exegeted by the apostle Paul as establishing male headship, that is patriarchal hierarchy. The monogamy-only proponents are guilty of the Fallacy of Omission, failing to take into account the relevance and significance of this.
ALL hierarchies involve the inherent principle that there can only be only one head but there can be multiple subordinates, and in the case of marriage this means multiple wives. Consider a corporation: there is only one CEO but many subordinate employees. Every department within the company exhibits the same structure with only one department head but multiple subordinates within the department. The same is true in a government: there is only one US President but many subordinate members of the Executive branch. Even in the Congress, “the people’s chamber,” there is only one Speaker of the House but 434 subordinate members, and in the Senate there is only one Majority Leader with 99 subordinate members. I like St. Augustine’s observations on this:
“For by a secret law of nature, things that stand chief love to be singular; but things that are subject are set under, not only one under one, but, if the system of nature or society allow, even several under one, not without becoming beauty. For neither hath one slave so several masters, in the way that several slaves have one master. Thus we read not that any of the holy women served two or more living husbands; but we read that many females served one husband, when the social state of the nation allowed it, and the purpose of the time persuaded it: for neither is it contrary to the nature of marriage. For several females can conceive from one man: but one female cannot from several men (such is the power of things principal) as many souls are rightly made subject to one God.” —from “A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church ,” Ed. by Philip Schaff, Vol. III, pg. 407-408
Patriarchy, and therefore, polygyny is established in principle in the creation and there are no valid monogamy-only arguments to be validly deduced.