Scripturally, the issue is not whether polygyny was God's plan A, B, or C. Biblical marriage includes a man having more than one wife.
It most certainly was the case with divorce, leading to the logical conclusion, that God's original and holiest plan for marriage was mirrored in the Garden. Please provide where in the Scripture a polygamous marriage produces fruits of the Spirit, until you can do so, you cannot make the statement that a Biblical marriage includes a man having many wives.
Doing a strong study on "hardness of hearts" and other cognate phrases, i would
suggest that what Christ is saying is that ALL the Law is written because of the
hardness of man's heart. The point being, God introduced the Law because of sin
and the hardness of man's heart (Gal 3:19). The Bible says that the Law is holy,
just, good and perfect. In fact, we are encouraged to love, delight and meditate
on the Law. So, in essence, the Law represents the heart of God for man because
of the fall of man. His original plan included nudity, working in the garden,
etc... but this does not mean we are to walk around nude and only work in
gardens.
So does it then stand to reason that not mixing dairy and meat or different fibers of one's clothing were mandated due to hardness of heart? I cannot agree with your "all" assessment. The Law was also a witness to the Israelites. A constant reminder before their eyes of the Covenant. The Law is our "litmus test" so to speak on holiness and righteousness. One with a soft heart needs the Law, just as much as one with a hard heart.
God's original plan in fact included nudity, and I will stand to reason that "spiritual nudity" (being unashamed before the Lord standing in the righteousness of Christ) is what He has brought us back to via the death of His Son. As far as working in the garden, the issue was not "working only in the garden" but that God gave man stewardship over all of creation. While in the garden, man and beast lived in harmony and man ruled the animals. After the fall, this power was taken away. After redemption in Christ, this power has been restored (Matthew 8:27 + John 14:12). So it stands to reason, that God has come full circle in establishing His original design through Jesus Christ.
Summary: The fall created the hardness of heart, which in essence is a product
of the sinful nature. God regulated what He deemed represented His perfect will
for sinful man. To imply that God regulated polygyny merely to appear man's
rebellion is really an attack on God's holiness. God could have forbidden it
just as easy as he forbid homosexuality, bestuality, etc... God placed in the
Law exactly what He desired to regulated all aspects of man's relationships with
Himself and others because of man's sinful nature represented by man's perpetual
hardness of heart!
I would venture to say that there could not have been a fall without there being a hardness of heart to begin with. Only hardness of heart, could lead one to doubt God's goodness, thereby breaking His command and partaking from the forbidden tree. (But this is another theological discussion).
God seems to infact "put up with" polygamy in the OT in the same manner He "put up with" divorce, oppression of women, and slavery. Aside from divorce which was dealt with during Christ's ministry, after His death (for the most part) we have seen the abolishment of slavery and abolishment of inequality between the sexes (with a limited number still clinging to these sinful thought patterns with all their might).
The purpose of Mosaic Law was to "make straight the path of the Lord" so that He could usher in His original "Plan A" of redemption of sin through His Son, Christ the Lord (Revelation 13:8). So, to state that God regulated polygamy to keep man's lust in check, is not an attack on His Holiness, but an affirmation of His Goodness. In His love and mercy for His stiff-necked and rebellious creation, He slowly chipped away at the callousness of their hearts with Mosaic Law so that He could one day introduce the full revelation of His Law, personified through Christ the Lord.
Further, I have not once condemned the practice of polygamy found within OT Scripture. I have simply stated that we have moved away from polygamy because it is not God's original plan for marriage. Allowed temporarily? Yes. However, we are not OT Israelites living under the Law of Moses. We are NT Christians living in Christ. The Lord gave very clear instructions on what a Biblical marriage truly looks like, and no where do those instructions include a plurality of spouses.
The truth of the matter is this, the full revelation concerning the Biblical
doctrine of marriage was not contained in the creation story. There is no
compelling need for God to have had Adam created with more than one wife any
more than him being created with clothes. This is a logical fallacy. If this
argument were true, it would be able to be consistent with that too. For
example, one could say, "God could have easily given man clothes when he created
him. It wasn't until the fall of man came that clothes was introduced." Does
this mean that having clothes is wrong - absurd!
The full revelation of marriage was most certainly expressed within the creation account. Christ's own words ("It was not so from the Beginning" Matthew 19:8) give clear indication of this. There is most certainly a compelling need for God to have given Adam multiple wives! The Lord needed the only two humans in existence to populate the earth. I can not think of a better time or reason then this for the need of a polygamous marriage! Adam and Eve did not need clothes because there was no shame. My point is not a logical fallacy, you are simply twisting it to appear as such. Why would God need to have created man with clothes? There was no shame before the fall. The introduction of clothes was only because Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness. Your own misrepresentation of my argument is what is truly absurd. So, it does in fact go to show that God's Holy plan for marriage was monogamy, and man's sinful plan for marriage is polygamy.
This is mere unscriptural speculation, and an attack on the character of God.
Scripture shows that He regulated polygyny in his just, holy, pure, and perfect
Law. We know that God is love. Therefore, an attack on His Law is an attack on
His character. Moreover, the fact is, God used Himself, by analogy, in two
separate cases as an example of a polygynous practioner (Ezekiel 23; Jeremiah
3). In my opinion, this sounds more like humanism.
It is not "mere unscriptural speculation" and in no way an attack on the character of my Holy, Precious God. What you have done is taken my words out of context and then taken it upon yourself to insult me in the process. I stated that eddy's attitude of "owning women like they are possessions" is not a Godly attitude. My Holy and Precious God, does not and would never have such a demeaning attitude toward His beloved daughters. That I can guarantee you is Scripturally sound.
Simply because God used an analogy about polygamy to describe His judgements and relationship with the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel does not speak on His affirmation of polygamy; anymore then, His analogies of describing femiminity to Himself makes Him a female.
Interesting! I would say that a loving man would always lead His bride toward
the purposes of God, which may mean being a missionary to a tribe that brings
great hardship to his family; or it may mean adopting many mentally ill children
that brings great hardship to his family; or similar things. Does this mean that
the husband doesn't love his wife and is still not willing to die for his
family. Moreover, the husband is the head, that is, the controller of his
household. Controlling his household IS part of loving his family!!
The point of missionary work or adopting children does not add to this discussion. A Christian couple work together when serving the Lord. His wife would be just as responsible to follow through with a missionary calling as her husband is. She answers to the Lord for her life, not to her husband.
The husband is the head, but any Christian knows that our own "control" in this world is merely smoke and mirrors. It's an illusion we allow ourselves to buy into, when the truth of the matter is control belongs to the Lord alone.
A Godly man will not beat his unruly, out of control child into paralysis to show him "who's in control." A Godly man will fall on his hands and knees and plant his face on the floor in prayer before the Lord to seek help dealing with his unruly, out of control child. A Godly man will put his own "ego, pride, flesh" to death whether He is right or wrong when it comes to dealing with his wife, following in the example of the true Master of his household. Christ was in the right, but He died for His beloved, regardless. Truth be told, husbands have it much harder then wives do in terms of marriage. It's much easier to submit, while grinding your teeth and feigning a holy heart attitude, then it is to love one unto death. That cannot be faked, and is probably the reason many men have such unholy thinking about what it means to love their wives.
If this were understood like you are trying to present it, it would mean that a Bible believing woman would not have very much pain, if any, in child bearing. It pains me that there are teachings that are more centered in secular humanism than the purity of God's Holy Word. It really does greive my heart! Man was born to glorify God by serving Him, extending His kingdom, using His Word as our final authority for all we say and do. It matters not if we personally agree with it!
Respectfully
Adelphos
A Bible believing woman in the first world does indeed have very nominal pain during her delivery. What a testament to the love of God! What a witness to the redemption of the curse of sin we have in Christ! Only after His death and resurrection is it possible for a woman to feel virtually no pain from child birth. No OT woman can say this same thing.
Further, man was not born to glorify or serve God. These are fruits that come from knowing the Holy of Holies. One who knows the goodness of God finds it irresistible to keep from glorifying or serving Him. The Lord had angeles who glorified and served Him before the creation of man. The Lord does not need our glory or servitude. He is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being. Man was made to be in relationship with God. This is mankind's truest and holiest purpose.
Then i find a bunch of lustful men wanting to have their selfish sin justified. 
There's always one, but three???
