When did polygyny become a sin?

[Hugh McBryde]

Not until you answer the question. Essentially el gayo, I don't see how you can do anything but concede defeat on this point. The point is narrow, so give defeat some thought.

It is that nothing INHERENT in the passage Genesis 2:24, mandates or establishes monogamy.

The passage does not mention monogamy, it describes marriage. We know only that it refers to a marriage (the only marriage at that time) that was also monogamous.

We also know that the same marriage was a birth betrothal marriage.

You say that the monogamy of that marriage is important. It may be. That is now however, self evident from the passage or it would be just as self evident that we follow patterns of betrothal, from the earliest possible age.

It may be later that someone establishes a pattern of monogamy by referring back to this verse and the concept of one flesh, but the MERE REPETITION of the content of Genesis 2:24 cannot be said to establish monogamy any more than it would the practice of birth betrothal. That understanding must come directly from the repetition of the verse, and the commentary.

When Jesus repeats the verse, he emphasizes only that it is the PERMANENCE of Adam and Eve's union that he is interested in for the purposes of the discussion, he never discusses the monogamy of their marriage beyond the fact that he is discussing them, and we know they were monogamous.

But he is discussing them and we know they were betrothed also. We don't care about that.

The point is, that Genesis 2:24 does not prevent a man or a woman from marrying again over and over and over and over again. From the passage we would say that if they did, they would be husband or wife to that new spouse and be "one flesh" with them. It is later that we learn a WIFE cannot undertake more than one spouse, but we never learn the same thing about a husband.

You are conditioned to think it is one man one woman = marriage as if it were a zygote. Sperm comes together with egg. Something new is formed. Zygote cannot unify again with another sperm. It's closed.

You would do well to realize it may be more like a drop of water. One drop plus one drop is one bigger drop of water, that can be added to again and again and again until it's an ocean.

It also may be like a ceiling fan, with one rotor (husband) and one blade (wife), or two, or three or four or maybe even five. It's still a fan. It's like an engine maybe. One crankshaft, one piston, or maybe two, or perhaps as many as twelve. They're all engines. They're all one engine.

You look at one flesh and say "Zygote." I look at one flesh and say "engine." Why are you right, and I am wrong? There is no support for either notion in Genesis UNLESS you are going to adopt all aspects of the first marriage. This is why I mention birth betrothal.