(SwampFox;9003)
That would be correct. We have the type of two set before us by God, but there is nothing there against polygamy as an outright sin.
Swamp, the first marriage had to be one of two different types. Either it was to be Polygynous, in which case do we see that as Ideal and all marriages are less than Ideal if they are not Polygynous, or it had to be Monogamous, and all marriages are thus construed to be less than Ideal for that reason. Or, neither form is either better or worse than the other, neither would then be held up as a "type" to us by it being original in form but the first marriage would have had to be one or the other.So if we bring to the table the presupposition that God would make the first relationship instructive in all ways, then Monogamy is certainly upheld as better. If we bring to the table to the presupposition that God doesn't care one way or the other, then the form of the first marriage, with regard to endorsing one form or the other is utterly meaningless.I see a hedge in what you say, your use for instance of the terms "outright sin" suggests that polygyny is at least an "edgie, questionable" practice. Your care to point out that the first marriage was set up as a "type of two" suggests that you see this as a gentle nudge by God for us to "get the hint", and the hint appears to be "monogamy, know what I mean, nudge-nudge, wink-wink".I get nervous when people I don't expect to agree with me, seem to agree, because usually, they don't really agree with me. If you can bring to the table a basis for a presupposition to monogamy, then I'll say the first marriage is a type held up to us by God in the area of the monogamy it represents. Otherwise as I said before, the fact that the first marriage couldn't be BOTH at the same time, means that IF God has no preference for either form, there would be no meaning beyond God's intention for the first couple, in the fact of their monogamy.Hugh McBryde