-
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.
Overcoming Objections To Plural Marriage: Topic 5
- Thread starter Doc
- Start date
To start, if Augustine, writing in 390 AD, claimed that PM was formerly ok but he and his fellow church men had made it a sin in their time, i.e. the late 4th century, and he did, then we can logically deduce that it was an ongoing and current issue which they had addressed in this fashion. Otherwise, why bother addressing the issue? I attended a school in the 70s which had a rule on the books: $15 fine for throwing a rooster in the cement mixer while it is operating. I assure you they would not have bothered making this rule if someone hadn't DONE it.
Next: The wording of 1Cor7:2, rightly understood in the Greek, clearly differentiates between men and women in a way that recognizes and supports PM.
Third: If Paul's list of qualifications for church leaders, writen to Titus and Timothy, are correctly understood as limiting those leaders to one wife, then the rule is proved by the exception -- everyone else might easily have more than one, and enough did that it was an issue which needed addressing.
Fourth, an interesting one by speculative implication: Paul wrote that younger widows were to not be put on the rolls of church widows, but be encouraged to marry. Why was this an issue? Because they had a bunch of young widows, i.e. women who had been married but had lost their husbands. Why were so many losing their husbands? Fatal Persecution targeting especially the men. Who were they then being encouraged to marry? After all, the number of men in the church was being seriously reduced by this persecution. Guess it musta been one of the remaining men -- who were probably already married. Which means that, reading this letter in its historical context, we likely have Paul actively encouraging PM as the best solution to this crisis.
It is reasonable to assume that just as converts from gentile nations kept many of their other customs, they probably kept their preference for monogamy. Fair enough. But it is equally unreasonable to assume that everyone made a switch from the Biblical custom to the pagan, just because it wasn't being discussed. There is little need to discuss a settled issue with which no-one disagrees.
Next: The wording of 1Cor7:2, rightly understood in the Greek, clearly differentiates between men and women in a way that recognizes and supports PM.
Third: If Paul's list of qualifications for church leaders, writen to Titus and Timothy, are correctly understood as limiting those leaders to one wife, then the rule is proved by the exception -- everyone else might easily have more than one, and enough did that it was an issue which needed addressing.
Fourth, an interesting one by speculative implication: Paul wrote that younger widows were to not be put on the rolls of church widows, but be encouraged to marry. Why was this an issue? Because they had a bunch of young widows, i.e. women who had been married but had lost their husbands. Why were so many losing their husbands? Fatal Persecution targeting especially the men. Who were they then being encouraged to marry? After all, the number of men in the church was being seriously reduced by this persecution. Guess it musta been one of the remaining men -- who were probably already married. Which means that, reading this letter in its historical context, we likely have Paul actively encouraging PM as the best solution to this crisis.
It is reasonable to assume that just as converts from gentile nations kept many of their other customs, they probably kept their preference for monogamy. Fair enough. But it is equally unreasonable to assume that everyone made a switch from the Biblical custom to the pagan, just because it wasn't being discussed. There is little need to discuss a settled issue with which no-one disagrees.
This Wikipedia article shows that polygamy was still practiced in Jewish culture in the second century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babatha
Blessings,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babatha
Blessings,
Much as I agree on this one, you will need to find a better source than Wikipedia. I have been going to school now for over 2 years and every single instructor I have had says that Wikipedia is not a valid reference. The reasons are that any one can post and anyone can edit the postings. And there are no citations required. If this one has a citation, you should cite that as the original source rather than using Wikipedia as a source. Even though you are right, the use of Wikipedia as an authority will not win you any points.
Tlaloc
Member
Tretullian was mid second century and in De Monogamia he specifically addressed a group of churches that allowed polygamy to the laity and another group that allowed it in the clergy. While this is a stark and extreme anti-polygamy document it proves the practice existed in churches at his time.
Augustine has been cited, (nice work Cecil) and Martain Madan cites a church council resoulution in the 7th century IIRC (I need to go back and further memorize which council that was, it was a western\catholic one anyway) which is the first to prevent members of clergy from having a mistress or concubine, providing evidence that though polygamy was banned before that having a mistress or concubine was allowed. In that ruling it adds that members of the clergy with a mistress or concubine shall be asked to step down, and that essentially proves that there where members of the clergy with mistresses who where allowed to continue their office up until that point.
I really have to go back through and memorize more details of that book, and order the third volume which records every church council decision about marriage up to his time.
Augustine has been cited, (nice work Cecil) and Martain Madan cites a church council resoulution in the 7th century IIRC (I need to go back and further memorize which council that was, it was a western\catholic one anyway) which is the first to prevent members of clergy from having a mistress or concubine, providing evidence that though polygamy was banned before that having a mistress or concubine was allowed. In that ruling it adds that members of the clergy with a mistress or concubine shall be asked to step down, and that essentially proves that there where members of the clergy with mistresses who where allowed to continue their office up until that point.
I really have to go back through and memorize more details of that book, and order the third volume which records every church council decision about marriage up to his time.
Exactly! Paul turned the teachings of the Law into New Testament principal. In the Law a man was not bound exclusively to one wife for life but the wife was bound exclusively to one husband for life. So that is why he doesn't apply this to the husband only the wife. It now is New Testament 1 Cor 7:39. This same principle is illustrated in v. 10-11. The wife is bound to her husband with a no remarriage stipulation but the man can marry again he can't put the departed wife away nor reject her if she returns in reconciliation. If he has married another he is to still recieve the departed wife back. Thus makeing it a polygynous scenerio.
Is polygyny allowed in the New Testament? Absolutely! All one has to do is turn to 1 Cor 7:39 to see that Paul based his teaching on the Mosaic Law.
1Co 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Paul appeals to the Law for marriage and other teachings as well, read 1Cor 9:8, 20-21 which by the way notice in 21 he clarifies his statement of being without law to the gentiles with a phrase that is ignored, “ being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ”.
1Cor 14:21, 34, Paul new the law was given by God and he had no problem with teaching his audience the principals contained in it that applied to them.
Now, back to the subject, he appeals to the law to make a summation of what he taught in verse 39. I want you to notice that he binds the wife exclusively to her husband as long as he lives but not the husband. In the Law that Paul is referencing a man was allowed to take another wife if his first wife was living. The husband was not bound to one wife for Life, but the wife was, and if she married another she was charged with adultery. Thus, Paul himself is accepting the Law as valid for marital teaching.
Paul is not referring to any specific law; he is summing up the thrust of the Law, and when he says bound by the Law he is speaking of the whole law concerning the issue of marriage. Here is where it gets interesting certainly he addresses the husbands in light of the Law as he did wives. Let us look at what Paul says to believers concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage.
1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Wives do not separate from your husband but if you do, remain unmarried, or return to your husband. Husbands do not divorce your wife.
This scripture places a stipulation of no remarriage in this case on the wife, but not on the husband. Keep in mind Paul is teaching marriage from the Law. And in the Law a man could marry more than one wife he was not bound to exclusivity as the wife was. That is why Paul didn’t place the same stipulation on the husband. The husband here can marry again if he so chooses, but if his wife wants to return, he can’t reject her if she has remained sexually faithful to him. If he marries another woman his first wife is still bound to the covenant. This is allowance for polygyny in the New Testament and in a certain situation mandated. Paul is clearly instructing out of the Law. In fact when he strays from the Law he says “I command not the Lord”. It seems Paul had more confidence in the Law than we are led to believe.
1. Paul applies the Law to New Covenant believers concerning marriage, thus making it New Covenant teaching.
2. This shows that New Covenant teaching is perfectly consistent with Old Covenant teaching on marriage.
3. This also shows the thought that we are ingrained with, that the New Covenant teaching on marriage corrects the Olds errors, are false and are contrived by man.
4. This shows that God’s will is consistent through history and should make one question those who put God’s Covenants add odds with one another. Progressive revelation always advanced a theme and produces harmony, not corrected it and produced contradiction.
5. The problem we have is that we approach scripture with preconceived ideas thus inserting our ideas rather than extracting their ideas.
6. If one looks at the whole of scripture you can clearly see that the roles of husband and wife are different so the rules are different. We cannot apply all to both there are certain rules that apply to the husband, certain rules that apply to the wife and certain rules that apply to both. We must be faithful to the Word of God, for our growth and theirs as well. The fact is our marriages are in shambles amongst the church because we as teachers haven’t adequately explained the roles, rules and responsibilities’ to God’s flock. As long as we remain in the dark about this, it will continue to be the blind leading the blind.
7. I could go on and on like this but I will stop here and say one last thing. Even though you can clearly see Paul was teaching from the Law on marriage, (he states that) and presents it as a New Covenant binding principal, We are not left to this only, there are many contextual factors also to establish that stipulations and omission of stipulations are not by accident, or lack of foresight but on purpose to remain consistent with the Law. I am open to discussion or debate concerning exegesis concerns one might have, but let me assure you that I am saving the clinchers for a book.
1Co 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Paul appeals to the Law for marriage and other teachings as well, read 1Cor 9:8, 20-21 which by the way notice in 21 he clarifies his statement of being without law to the gentiles with a phrase that is ignored, “ being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ”.
1Cor 14:21, 34, Paul new the law was given by God and he had no problem with teaching his audience the principals contained in it that applied to them.
Now, back to the subject, he appeals to the law to make a summation of what he taught in verse 39. I want you to notice that he binds the wife exclusively to her husband as long as he lives but not the husband. In the Law that Paul is referencing a man was allowed to take another wife if his first wife was living. The husband was not bound to one wife for Life, but the wife was, and if she married another she was charged with adultery. Thus, Paul himself is accepting the Law as valid for marital teaching.
Paul is not referring to any specific law; he is summing up the thrust of the Law, and when he says bound by the Law he is speaking of the whole law concerning the issue of marriage. Here is where it gets interesting certainly he addresses the husbands in light of the Law as he did wives. Let us look at what Paul says to believers concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage.
1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Wives do not separate from your husband but if you do, remain unmarried, or return to your husband. Husbands do not divorce your wife.
This scripture places a stipulation of no remarriage in this case on the wife, but not on the husband. Keep in mind Paul is teaching marriage from the Law. And in the Law a man could marry more than one wife he was not bound to exclusivity as the wife was. That is why Paul didn’t place the same stipulation on the husband. The husband here can marry again if he so chooses, but if his wife wants to return, he can’t reject her if she has remained sexually faithful to him. If he marries another woman his first wife is still bound to the covenant. This is allowance for polygyny in the New Testament and in a certain situation mandated. Paul is clearly instructing out of the Law. In fact when he strays from the Law he says “I command not the Lord”. It seems Paul had more confidence in the Law than we are led to believe.
1. Paul applies the Law to New Covenant believers concerning marriage, thus making it New Covenant teaching.
2. This shows that New Covenant teaching is perfectly consistent with Old Covenant teaching on marriage.
3. This also shows the thought that we are ingrained with, that the New Covenant teaching on marriage corrects the Olds errors, are false and are contrived by man.
4. This shows that God’s will is consistent through history and should make one question those who put God’s Covenants add odds with one another. Progressive revelation always advanced a theme and produces harmony, not corrected it and produced contradiction.
5. The problem we have is that we approach scripture with preconceived ideas thus inserting our ideas rather than extracting their ideas.
6. If one looks at the whole of scripture you can clearly see that the roles of husband and wife are different so the rules are different. We cannot apply all to both there are certain rules that apply to the husband, certain rules that apply to the wife and certain rules that apply to both. We must be faithful to the Word of God, for our growth and theirs as well. The fact is our marriages are in shambles amongst the church because we as teachers haven’t adequately explained the roles, rules and responsibilities’ to God’s flock. As long as we remain in the dark about this, it will continue to be the blind leading the blind.
7. I could go on and on like this but I will stop here and say one last thing. Even though you can clearly see Paul was teaching from the Law on marriage, (he states that) and presents it as a New Covenant binding principal, We are not left to this only, there are many contextual factors also to establish that stipulations and omission of stipulations are not by accident, or lack of foresight but on purpose to remain consistent with the Law. I am open to discussion or debate concerning exegesis concerns one might have, but let me assure you that I am saving the clinchers for a book.
sweetlissa said:
Wikipedia and any other self published source on the Internet can not be a primary source, but that does not mean it is not useful. For example, it might be useful to know about Babatha rather than not know about her. The thing that you have to realize is that it is a starting point not an ending point. You still need to check the primary sources. A good wikipedia article will list the primary sources for you to check.
Who is like God?
New Member
cnystrom said:
Which if I am not mistaken this one does.
Also it is really hard to change wiki articles to something false especially now with the new posting rules. The reason academia reject it so is that it is to convenient (zero research work goes into getting info from wiki) and often is very bias, thus you should reference the cited material to make sure it is not skewed.
When I was at school we did a research paper on the reliability of wiki ... it was pretty good, and from what I can tell a lot better now. (although just as liberal)
But alas this is off topic. I found this discussion very insightful.
Romans 7:2 (New American Standard Bible)
2For (A)the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
In Matthew 22:23-32 the sadducees try to trick Jesus with a women married to seven brothers having been widowed by each one. Jesus could have taken the opportunity to strike down Moses' comand of the leverate law, that the brother-in law is required to marry a barren widowed sister-in law. His silence on that part of the story confirms Moses.
