• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Clement of Alexandria acknowledges Poly

V

Verifyveritas76

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Clement of Alexandria

On Marriage
Miscellaneous III

4. Continence is an ignoring of the body in accordance with the confession of faith in God. For continence is not merely a matter of sexual abstinence, but applies also to the other things for which the soul has an evil desire because it is not satisfied with the necessities of life. There is also a continence of the tongue, of money, of use, and of desire. I t does not only teach us to exercise self-control; it is rather that self-control is granted to us, since it is a divine power and grace. Accordingly I must declare what is the opinion of our people about this subject. Our view is that we welcome as blessed the state of abstinence from marriage in those to whom this has been granted by God. We admire monogamy and the high standing of single marriage, holding that we ought to share suffering with another and "bear one another's burdens," lest anyone who thinks he stands securely should himself fall. It is of second marriage that the apostle says, If you burn, marry.

Interestingly enough, Clement has just listed all three forms of acceptable states. Unmarried, mono and Poly.
 
I believe that in Tertullian’s De Monogamia, “monogamy” primarily refers to abstinence from another marriage after one’s husband or wife had died, and not what we call monogamy. Based on that, it seems more likely to me that that is what Clement is referring to here.

I’d love to be shown that that is not the case here though!
 
Just trying to establish which verses provide the context for Clement’s (poly) remark:

1Co 7:6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.
1Co 7:7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

1Co 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1Co 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband
1Co 7:11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

1Co 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1Co 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

Personally I would prefer to start from vv 11 and 8 :-

Paul addresses 3 classes: the unmarried, the married, and the rest, so we have to decide who might it be that is neither married nor unmarried, and judging by vv13-15 Paul seems to have gone on to deal with believers who are married not to another believer but to an unbeliever.

So to me the proof is the absence of widowers in v8. Why? Because brethren could get married again whatever their marital status, where here Paul is here telling us that a “separated” sister “should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband”. But if her husband dies, then she moves from the married class (vv10-11) to the unmarried class where Paul removes the prohibition of v11 to the freedom of v8-9.

So what I have seen expressed of Clement's and Tertullian's (only what is in this thread), they only get half marks, choosing like all good monogamists, equality of type, whereas nothing seems clearer than that the types (i.e. God and Christ v. Israel and the bride) are anything but equal.

For personal reasons, I would like to be assured that it was otherwise, but at the time of writing, if it was otherwise, I don’t know why Paul mentions widows but not widowers in v 8.
 
ZecAustin said:
So is the context there such that the skeptic couldn't say he was referring to remarriage?
Click to expand...

Chapter XII

. . . . . We agree with him that the law is the old man and the gospel the new, and say the same ourselves, but not in the sense in which he takes it since he would do away with the law as originating from another God. But it is the same man and Lord who makes the old new, by no longer allowing several marriages (for at that time God required it when men had to increase and multiply), and by teaching single marriage for the sake of begetting children and looking after domestic affairs, for which purpose woman was given as a "helpmeet." And if from sympathy the apostle allows a man a second marriage because he cannot control himself and burns with passion, he also does not commit any sin according to the Old Testament (for it was not forbidden by the Law), but he does not fulfil the heightened perfection of the gospel ethic.

I’m still working my way through the document, but it would appear that to Clement, at this point in History, the first marriage was the legal marriage, and additional marriages were allowed by Paul on the grounds of libido.
His perspective seems to be that the ideal is monogamy, yet he cannot forbid what the apostle has allowed.

This is an interesting doc and also notes that Paul traveled with a consort, though they may perhaps have remained celibate, so that they could blamelessly access the women’s quarters to spread the Gospel.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html
 
But to put to shame and to discourage those inclined to contract a second marriage the apostle appropriately uses strong language and says at once: "Every other sin is external to the body, but he who commits fornication sins against his own body."

Skeptics might try to portray Clement’s perspective of the passage above to mean that an additional wife is fornication. However, the thrust of this part of the doc is against divorce/abandonment of the first wife followed by a second marriage as is proven in the sentence immediately following.

89. But if anyone dares to call marriage fornication, he again falls into blasphemy against the law and the Lord. . . . . Here he regards as defilement an association which is bound up with a strange body and not with that which in marriage is bestowed for the purpose of procreation.
 
jkstrick said:
I believe that in Tertullian’s De Monogamia, “monogamy” primarily refers to abstinence from another marriage after one’s husband or wife had died, and not what we call monogamy. Based on that, it seems more likely to me that that is what Clement is referring to here.

I’d love to be shown that that is not the case here though!
Click to expand...

Hopefully, the above post has done that.

I went through some of Tertullians docs this morning, including his treatise on Monogamy. I could be wrong but Tertullian strikes me as being rabidly anti poly. With a lot of docs that I read, logic and philosophy and truth play a prominent role in the arguments or apologies. Conversely, in much of what I’ve read of Tertullian, he strikes me as being a very opinionated blowhard who doesnt mind using logical fallacies if it advances his own brand of truth. So many of his positions against polygamy are founded upon the same fallacies and arguments presented today.

Perhaps there are some of his views that I would find to be more logical and factual with further study, but these I find to be very narrow and unsupported and based upon a very narrow and prejudiced view of the scriptures he quotes.
 
The interesting part to me was that Clement and Tertullian were contemporaries at the end of the second century. Tertullian in Carthage and Clement in Alexandria. While Tertullian argues from predjudice, Clement is at least honest enough to present the truth though couched in a manner that makes his predjudice known.

Neither of them seem to address the issue of widows remarrying except perhaps in passing, both of them have a huge issue with serial monogamy (though they reason that this was practiced for sex only), and both of them are writing to address issues with Gnostics and Valentinian/Marcion type perversions of marriage.

Of the two, I would recommend Clement as being worth the time to read as he addresses quite a few things and gives historical background of their era.
 
From Tertullian’s On Modesty

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops--issues an edict: "I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication."

Tertullian begins by venting against the ‘Bishop of Bishops’ who has basically made a ruling that poly is not a sin. Tertullian categorizes plural marriage as both adultery and fornication.

But now this glory is being extinguished, and that by means of those who ought with all the more constancy to refuse concession of any pardon to defilements of this kind, that they make the fear of succumbing to adultery and fornication their reason for marrying as often as they please--since "better it is to marry than to burn." No doubt it is for continence sake that incontinence is necessary--the "burning" will be extinguished by "fires!" Why, then, do they withal grant indulgence, under the name of repentance, to crimes for which they furnish remedies by their law of multinuptialism?

But by us precaution is thus also taken against the greatest, or, (if you will), highest (crimes, viz.,) in that it is not permitted, after believing, to know even a second marriage, differentiated though it be, to be sure, from the work of adultery and fornication by the nuptial and dotal tablets:

I find it very interesting that it seemed commonplace to associate Paul’s phrase about marrying rather than burning with plural wives in that era. I’ve seen it associated now with both Tertullian and Clement as well as the “Bishop of Bishops” apparently.
I also find it interesting that the churches at this point have had to create a law of multinuptialism to protect against the poison of mono only that spews from the lips of some.
I also find it interesting that these ‘adulteries and fornications’ actually were formalized by nuptial and dotal tablets much as the Jewish Ketubah.

So my ten thousand foot view of this issue in approx 200 AD is that polygyny was and had been in fact commonplace and accepted among Christians prior to this point. Whoever the Bishop of Bishops had basically codified polygyny as being acceptable and Tertullian represents the very vocal minority opposition to this acceptance. The reasons for this I believe to be found in the cultural clash between the Hebrew culture (that Josephus states had been polygynous from old time) and the Greco/Roman culture (which only allowed for one legal wife for inheritance purposes, but as many concubines as you could afford).
Tertullian is a very well educated, highly articulate believer, who, unable to argue from authority or scripture, must resort to vitriol and mischaracterization of the “offense” to attempt influence. He reminds me of several pastors that I know.

BTW. This time frame would have been about 120 years +/- before the RCC.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Hopefully, the above post has done that.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no. I looked at the context of that quote and it seems very clear to me that he considers multiple concurrent marriages to be forbidden by the Lord, and that "second marriage" refers to a marriage subsequent to the death of one's husband or wife:

But it is the same man and Lord who makes the old new, by no longer allowing several marriages (for at that time God required it when men had to increase and multiply), and by teaching single marriage for the sake of begetting children and looking after domestic affairs, for which purpose woman was given as a "helpmeet." And if from sympathy the apostle allows a man a second marriage because he cannot control himself and burns with passion, he also does not commit any sin according to the Old Testament (for it was not forbidden by the Law), but he does not fulfil the heightened perfection of the gospel ethic. But he gains heavenly glory for himself if he remains as he is, and keeps undefiled the marriage yoke broken by death, and willingly accepts God's purpose for him, by which he has become free from distraction for the service of the Lord.
Click to expand...

The first sentence here clarifies that Clement considers "several marriages" to be now forbidden. The last sentence of what I've quoted clarifies that the "second marriage" that the apostle supposedly "allows" "from sympathy" is contrary to the supposed ideal of "[keeping] undefiled the marriage yoke broken by death". As much as I would like to see Clement acknowledging the allowance of polygamy, what I see here contradicts that.

I went through some of Tertullians docs this morning, including his treatise on Monogamy. I could be wrong but Tertullian strikes me as being rabidly anti poly. With a lot of docs that I read, logic and philosophy and truth play a prominent role in the arguments or apologies. Conversely, in much of what I’ve read of Tertullian, he strikes me as being a very opinionated blowhard who doesnt mind using logical fallacies if it advances his own brand of truth. So many of his positions against polygamy are founded upon the same fallacies and arguments presented today.

Perhaps there are some of his views that I would find to be more logical and factual with further study, but these I find to be very narrow and unsupported and based upon a very narrow and prejudiced view of the scriptures he quotes.
Click to expand...

I haven't read that much of Tertullian, but I have read most of On Monogamy, and I won't argue against you on this point.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
. Neither of them seem to address the issue of widows remarrying except perhaps in passing,
Click to expand...

Slight edit. After going through Tertullian’s On Monogamy again, I did find where he is against remarriage of any sort, apparently even of widowers and widows.

Therefore if those whom God has conjoined man shall not separate by divorce, it is equally congruous that those whom God has separated by death man is not to conjoin by marriage; the joining of the separation will be just as contrary to God's will as would have been the separation of the conjunction.

For it makes no difference whether a man have had two wives singly, or whether individuals (taken) at the same time have made two. The number of (the individuals) conjoined and separate is the same.

However, I did notice something interesting in his rant. He basically admits that this doctrine of monogamy that he (and perhaps others) is espousing is a “novel” or new revelation that has been revealed by the Paraclete. In fact, in Chapter XIV, he calls monogamy the “New Prophecy”. He tries to make the claim that the Holy Spirit is restituting, not instituting but IMO falls short in his logic and scriptures.

Again, the timing as he admits is about 160 years after the apostle (Paul).
As I see it, this equals a change in Christian doctrine from pro poly to anti anything but one wife ever at around 200 AD.
 
On Monogamy Ch XI
Such (conduct) the Psychics will have it the apostle approved, or else totally failed to think about, when he wrote: "The woman is bound for such length of time as her husband liveth; but if he shall have died, she is free; whom she will let her marry, only in the Lord." For it is out of this passage that they draw their defence of the licence of second marriage; nay, even of (marriages) to any amount, if of second (marriage): for that which has ceased to be once.for all, is open to any and every number.

After going through Tertullian’s On Monogamy, as counterintuitive as it may sound, I’m gonna recommend it on the grounds that it proves that prior to this point in history, that the culture of christian plural families was a commonplace occurrence, especially through the group he terms Psychics who he reports are presided over by men who don’t fit his definition of monogamy (digamist and polygamist). In his treatise On Modesty, he discloses that he used to be in fellowship with these Psychics. Tertullian eventually becomes a follower of Montanism which espouses a very ascetic position. This view is very evident in his treatise On Monogamy in which he tries to paint “continence” (celibacy) as the highest ideal though he’ll settle for monogamy as something that must be evil because it isn’t the highest good.

He also slips up and states that multiple marriages will no longer have support from an apostles authority. Does this mean that prior to the beginning of the 3rd century that they had apostolic support.

He also tries to shame Christians into this New Prophecy ideal by comparing them with pagans who espouse this view of marriage.

I think it would be time well spent for anyone to exercise their discernment to analyze this treatise and pick apart the logical fallacies and inconsistencies.

@jkstrick, still working as time permits on a reply. You may be correct in your analysis of that particular passage, however, I am finding that the use of the term second marriage is not exclusive to digamy but is also used of polygyny in these men’s writings.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Slight edit. After going through Tertullian’s On Monogamy again, I did find where he is against remarriage of any sort, apparently even of widowers and widows.

Therefore if those whom God has conjoined man shall not separate by divorce, it is equally congruous that those whom God has separated by death man is not to conjoin by marriage; the joining of the separation will be just as contrary to God's will as would have been the separation of the conjunction.

For it makes no difference whether a man have had two wives singly, or whether individuals (taken) at the same time have made two. The number of (the individuals) conjoined and separate is the same.

However, I did notice something interesting in his rant. He basically admits that this doctrine of monogamy that he (and perhaps others) is espousing is a “novel” or new revelation that has been revealed by the Paraclete. In fact, in Chapter XIV, he calls monogamy the “New Prophecy”. He tries to make the claim that the Holy Spirit is restituting, not instituting but IMO falls short in his logic and scriptures.

Again, the timing as he admits is about 160 years after the apostle (Paul).
As I see it, this equals a change in Christian doctrine from pro poly to anti anything but one wife ever at around 200 AD.
Click to expand...

This seems like a very important discovery VV! I've been asked several times when it changed and why. It seems like you may have found the moment and the man, who himself says it's an extra-biblical teaching. This deserves further investigation.
 
Does he seem to attribute a purpose or benefit to the individual believer for only one marriage, ever?

Is there an indication which pagans he is referring to? Does he address the Jews practicing polygamy?
 
Does he address the Jews practicing polygamy?
Click to expand...

Not really. David and Solomon are snubbed and made to be less than righteous men for it.

Is there an indication which pagans he is referring to?
Click to expand...

Yes. In his concluding remarks he mentions several by name/association

Does he seem to attribute a purpose or benefit
Click to expand...

Yes but its a negative benefit. If you only have one marriage ever, you will not be an adulterer or fornicator (his words, not mine) and you will be the next best thing to the state that Christ lived in as celibate.
There’s a lot of logical leaps and fallacies within his arguments but it basically boils down to continence (celibacy) is the highest form of life, adultery/fornication the lowest with polygamy and digamy coming in fourth and third respectively (though they might as well be adultery/fornication). Monogamy (2nd highest and still evil) is considered an acceptable practice but if you’re married you should strive for continence within your marriage so that you can be more like Christ and Paul.
 
I always remember Clement being described as an anti-gnostic, but this seems somewhat gnostic to me.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
The last bit of this thread has been focused on Tertullian more than Clement. To my knowledge Tertullian wasn't gnostic but Montanist
Click to expand...
Oops. You're right.

Either way, doesn't it all sound a bit gnostic? Maybe it's been too long since I studied that stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top