Beyond hysterical.
-
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
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
1 Timothy 4:1-3 NKJV "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, (2) speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, (3) forbidding to marry..."
I wonder if these and other writings are those Augustine of Hippo spoke of when referring to polygamy as a practice which had been "made a sin."
I wonder if these and other writings are those Augustine of Hippo spoke of when referring to polygamy as a practice which had been "made a sin."
I really appreciate this post. I find it deliciously ironic that one of the most esteemed fathers of Roman theology admits that the apostles did not oppose polygamy but that it was a new revelation!
The anti-poly folks always gave the impression that this changed with the NT, or that polygamy had died out among the Jews by the time of Christ and so it was never addressed.
Do we have any other historical data to put this in context? It seems that in the 4th century there was conflict on this issue. How did that struggle play out after Tertullian?
The anti-poly folks always gave the impression that this changed with the NT, or that polygamy had died out among the Jews by the time of Christ and so it was never addressed.
Do we have any other historical data to put this in context? It seems that in the 4th century there was conflict on this issue. How did that struggle play out after Tertullian?
Also just found more evidence that Moses was known to the early church as a polygamist.
From the Fragments of Irenaeus
XXXII.
Josephus says, that when Moses had been brought up in the royal palaces, he was chosen as general against the Ethiopians; and having proved victorious, obtained in marriage the daughter of that king, since indeed, out of her affection for him, she delivered the city up to him;
This would make the Ethiopian woman indubitably an additional wife as Jethro was from Midian and definitely not the King of Ethiopia. Also I couldn’t see him having the same kind of rapport with Jethro we see in scripture if he was the King that had been betrayed by his daughter.
From the Fragments of Irenaeus
XXXII.
Josephus says, that when Moses had been brought up in the royal palaces, he was chosen as general against the Ethiopians; and having proved victorious, obtained in marriage the daughter of that king, since indeed, out of her affection for him, she delivered the city up to him;
This would make the Ethiopian woman indubitably an additional wife as Jethro was from Midian and definitely not the King of Ethiopia. Also I couldn’t see him having the same kind of rapport with Jethro we see in scripture if he was the King that had been betrayed by his daughter.
The issue is related to the similar question of clerical celibacy (link to wikipedia, which has a good survey of quotes and conflicting opinions on the topic). In other words, one reason polygamy often isn't addressed directly, is because the church is more concerned with whether clergy should even be married at all (and if so, whether they were permitted to have intercourse). At the First Council of Nicea, in 325, there was some discussion about whether clerical celibacy should be included. According to one historian:
While [the bishops at Nicaea] were deliberating about this, some thought that a law ought to be passed enacting that bishops and presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, should hold no intercourse with the wife they had espoused before they entered the priesthood; but Paphnutius, the confessor, stood up and testified against this proposition; he said that marriage was honorable and chaste, and that cohabitation with their own wives was chastity, and advised the Synod not to frame such a law, for it would be difficult to bear, and might serve as an occasion of incontinence to them and their wives; and he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives. Such was the advice of Paphnutius, although he was himself unmarried, and in accordance with it, the Synod concurred in his counsel, enacted no law about it, but left the matter to the decision of individual judgment, and not to compulsion.
However, they did pass Canon 3 which reads: "The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion." A "subintroducta" appears to refer to an unmarried woman, living in the same dwelling (apparently, this was a thing that happened). That single Christian women devoted to God could no longer live with the clergy was undoubtedly one factor that eventually led to the establishment of nunneries.
Also possibly relevant to this discussion: Eusebius' work "On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients", which is unfortunately lost, but which I've just posted on in the book reviews section.
Good point Shibboleth, but I think it goes even deeper than that. These early church fathers were arguing that even the first marriage was a necessary evil and that sex in it allowed only for procreation and even then must be without emotion. When that is your theology a second wife is nigh on unspeakable.
That said, there had to have been some ongoing controversy as Tertullian was arguing against sects that practiced polygamy and was mad at the Bishop of Bishop's for not condemning it.
For me, this all highlights how much of this is not about theology or societal organization but sexual dysfunction welded to simplistic self-rightous theology. Just like the person who objects to it today on the grounds 'you just want more sex', as if the creator of the universe had a problem with sex.
And I mean simplistic in the most tired pedantic sense imaginable. Tertullian argued that since it was 'good' not to touch a woman all sex must be 'not good' and therefor evil. (nevermind who that makes the author of evil)
Agreed, @rockfox I'm currently wading through the mire of Irenaeus' treaties Against Heresies and have made it through the second one to date.
I've only found one mention of marriage per se and though the context is a negative one towards poly, it's more that the particular sect is under fire for their open promiscuity and 'communion orgies' as well as plural wives.
I've yet to get a good handle on Irenaeus' opinion of marriage as he has been more focused on the gnostic fantasy fiction but I hope to find more in the last three books before I move on to another early writer.
I've only found one mention of marriage per se and though the context is a negative one towards poly, it's more that the particular sect is under fire for their open promiscuity and 'communion orgies' as well as plural wives.
I've yet to get a good handle on Irenaeus' opinion of marriage as he has been more focused on the gnostic fantasy fiction but I hope to find more in the last three books before I move on to another early writer.
@Verifyveritas76 Are you able to shed any light on exactly who the 'Psychics' that Tertullian was speaking against were? In my research I wasn't able to put that into historical context.
One of the things that keeps coming out is the argument that because they/we were in the 'last days' that we must refrain from reproducing physically in favor of reproducing spiritually. In context, this is evident as an argument at least as early as Tertullian 1800 years ago.
It is presented as an either/or argument instead of an all of the above. IMO you should do both. Multiply and replenish in your physical life while you seek opportunities to invest and have influence in your kingdom life.
I can't help but think that this view may have been a very effective sly subtle means of accomplishing the Adversary's goal. If they're not conceived, there's no need for abortion.
It is presented as an either/or argument instead of an all of the above. IMO you should do both. Multiply and replenish in your physical life while you seek opportunities to invest and have influence in your kingdom life.
I can't help but think that this view may have been a very effective sly subtle means of accomplishing the Adversary's goal. If they're not conceived, there's no need for abortion.
Last edited:
I havent made much headway on it but its on my list to watch out for
Yes it is very easy to underestimate the affect on those early Christians of the sense that Christ would come in their lifetime. It is only the uncountable generations since that has dulled it for us. And I agree, it is a both/and situation.
Another important aspect about the mileau of their day that is easy to forget is the strong aesthetic movement which saw holiness achieved through forsaking earthly pleasures. I also think they were going through a late stage civilization crack up that saw errant sexuality run rampant combined with the destruction of healthy marriage. Growing up Matthew 19:10 never made sense to me as I lived in a region with virtually all intact families. It wasn't until I was older and became more aware of feminism and later the MGTOW movement that I realized the type of societal situations that likely led the disciples to say that.
That said, I see why Tertullian is described as a sophist. Its clear in On Monogamy that he'd latch onto any conceivable argument possible, no matter how ridiculous or contradictory to his other points.
Another important aspect about the mileau of their day that is easy to forget is the strong aesthetic movement which saw holiness achieved through forsaking earthly pleasures. I also think they were going through a late stage civilization crack up that saw errant sexuality run rampant combined with the destruction of healthy marriage. Growing up Matthew 19:10 never made sense to me as I lived in a region with virtually all intact families. It wasn't until I was older and became more aware of feminism and later the MGTOW movement that I realized the type of societal situations that likely led the disciples to say that.
That said, I see why Tertullian is described as a sophist. Its clear in On Monogamy that he'd latch onto any conceivable argument possible, no matter how ridiculous or contradictory to his other points.
Of course, it's not just early Christians either, it became embeded into the very fiber of church culture. I'm listening to the Ecclesistical History of England, by the Venerable Bede -- which is largely set around 7th century, when monasticism is in full swing. In between all the accounts of relics, saints, miracles, and arguments over the proper date of Easter, there are numerous praises of virginity (including an actual hymn to virginity by Bede himself) and accounts of celibates who, after death, are exhumed for some reason, and are found to have miraculously not suffered any decay.
OTOH, marriage isn't necessarily considered evil, per se, at least for non-clergy. For example, there's a letter from a Pope (Boniface or Gregory) to the Christian wife (Aethelburg of Kent) of a pagan king (Edwin of Northumbria), exhorting her to strive to convert him with whom she is made one flesh.
OTOH, marriage isn't necessarily considered evil, per se, at least for non-clergy. For example, there's a letter from a Pope (Boniface or Gregory) to the Christian wife (Aethelburg of Kent) of a pagan king (Edwin of Northumbria), exhorting her to strive to convert him with whom she is made one flesh.
I know this will be a little long, but thought it pertinent in showing some of the character of the man. The more I study about him, the more I have to give (at the least) grudging respect for the man. His earlier writings and conversion are convincing, however in his later years he trends more and more toward asceticism and constricting legalism. Below is a concise commentary provided by earlychristianwritings.com.
C. Teytullian and Montanism.-About the end of 2nd cent. Montanism invaded Africa. Tertullian would seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly. It suited his temperament; it furnished the logical solutions to problems practical and theological which had been disturbing him. But his Montanism was not the Montanism of x72-x77 or of Asia Minor ; it had come to him through the purifying medium of distance and time. He knew or remembered nothing of the extravagances connected with the first deliverances of the "new prophets." Montanism was in truth to Tertullian little more than a name; development and restoration rather than novelty underlie the intention, and are stamped upon the thoughts, of every treatise which follows those hitherto considered. The practices Tertullian favoured and advocated, the doctrines he loved and enforced, had alike their roots in the existing practices and doctrines of the church. It is the manner in which he has insisted upon the one which has so much discredited it ; it is the juridical fence with which he has driven home the other which has angered opponents. He defended his practice and teaching as necessary for his day. New fasts, protests against second marriages, a sterner accentuation of discipline, were conceived as absolutely necessary by the man who, beginning by tightening bonds which the church had wisely left relaxed, ended by the Pharisaic assumption that he and his were Tvevaarucol and his opponents ¢nXWOf. But if he drew his descriptive language from Gnostic codes, he burned in the spirit to depose Gnostic heresy. The merit he assigned to ecstasy, dream, vision, new prophecy, and special endowment by the Paraclete, were expansions of simpler but Scriptural teaching, with something of Pharisaic lordliness, but ever directed against the Sadduceeism, the materialism, the Patripassianism, and the Monarchianism of his day.
The career of Tertullian, his whole being and character, left him no choice when he had to make his decision. He was bound to side with the sterner party, and he did. If at first he retained his position in the church, that position before long became intolerable. The breach took place of which the de Virg. Vel. gives the ostensible cause ; and the passion which animated the apologist in defence of the church was presently employed to revile, discard, and injure her. Few treatises are more painful to read than the de Monogamia, de Jeyunio, and de Pudicitia. It is a relief to turn from them to the adv. Praxean. If the heart of the ascetic has been alienated from the church, he can still defend her faith with all his old loving energy, and, by his last existing writing, command respect from those whose affection he had lost.
Please Note: In the past, I have advocated a more restricted approach to the documents written no later than middle second century for proof docs for beliefs of the New Testament Church. Though I will continue to study these later documents, it has confirmed my perspective that the views of Roman Catholicism that were espoused and adopted in 323 by Constantine actually found their origins around the end of the 2nd century. There is no doubt in my mind that many of the dogmas that have shaped our Christian heritage and culture for the worse can be found conceived within this time period. Perhaps they were conceived to defend against some worse ‘-ism’, but still they have no scriptural backing and have undermined the priesthood of the head of household.
C. Teytullian and Montanism.-About the end of 2nd cent. Montanism invaded Africa. Tertullian would seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly. It suited his temperament; it furnished the logical solutions to problems practical and theological which had been disturbing him. But his Montanism was not the Montanism of x72-x77 or of Asia Minor ; it had come to him through the purifying medium of distance and time. He knew or remembered nothing of the extravagances connected with the first deliverances of the "new prophets." Montanism was in truth to Tertullian little more than a name; development and restoration rather than novelty underlie the intention, and are stamped upon the thoughts, of every treatise which follows those hitherto considered. The practices Tertullian favoured and advocated, the doctrines he loved and enforced, had alike their roots in the existing practices and doctrines of the church. It is the manner in which he has insisted upon the one which has so much discredited it ; it is the juridical fence with which he has driven home the other which has angered opponents. He defended his practice and teaching as necessary for his day. New fasts, protests against second marriages, a sterner accentuation of discipline, were conceived as absolutely necessary by the man who, beginning by tightening bonds which the church had wisely left relaxed, ended by the Pharisaic assumption that he and his were Tvevaarucol and his opponents ¢nXWOf. But if he drew his descriptive language from Gnostic codes, he burned in the spirit to depose Gnostic heresy. The merit he assigned to ecstasy, dream, vision, new prophecy, and special endowment by the Paraclete, were expansions of simpler but Scriptural teaching, with something of Pharisaic lordliness, but ever directed against the Sadduceeism, the materialism, the Patripassianism, and the Monarchianism of his day.
The career of Tertullian, his whole being and character, left him no choice when he had to make his decision. He was bound to side with the sterner party, and he did. If at first he retained his position in the church, that position before long became intolerable. The breach took place of which the de Virg. Vel. gives the ostensible cause ; and the passion which animated the apologist in defence of the church was presently employed to revile, discard, and injure her. Few treatises are more painful to read than the de Monogamia, de Jeyunio, and de Pudicitia. It is a relief to turn from them to the adv. Praxean. If the heart of the ascetic has been alienated from the church, he can still defend her faith with all his old loving energy, and, by his last existing writing, command respect from those whose affection he had lost.
Please Note: In the past, I have advocated a more restricted approach to the documents written no later than middle second century for proof docs for beliefs of the New Testament Church. Though I will continue to study these later documents, it has confirmed my perspective that the views of Roman Catholicism that were espoused and adopted in 323 by Constantine actually found their origins around the end of the 2nd century. There is no doubt in my mind that many of the dogmas that have shaped our Christian heritage and culture for the worse can be found conceived within this time period. Perhaps they were conceived to defend against some worse ‘-ism’, but still they have no scriptural backing and have undermined the priesthood of the head of household.
My thanks to @andrew for this quote listed in the thread on Why patriarchy affirms polygamy. (Andrew, if you have the reference handy, could you insert please when you have a minute)
Here's St. Augustine (many of y'all have already seen 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."
Here's St. Augustine (many of y'all have already seen 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."
And more directly, St. Augustine's Of the Good of Marriage, section 20.
Also check out section 21:
But on account of the sanctity of the Sacrament, as a female, although it be as a catechumen that she has suffered violence, cannot after Baptism be consecrated among the virgins of God: so there was no absurdity in supposing of him who had exceeded the number of one wife, not that he had committed any sin, but that he had lost a certain prescript rule of a sacrament necessary not unto desert of good life, but unto the seal of ecclesiastic ordination
Nice.