• 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.

Article on polygamy in the NT period

FollowingHim

FollowingHim

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
I'm no expert in this area, but have you read "The History and Philosophy of Marriage, or Polygamy and Monogamy Compared"? It's available in the books and links section of this site. It goes through in great detail how monogamy originated in Roman culture rather than Christianity, can't recall if it directly addresses this question off the top of my head (it's been a couple of months since I read it) but it's the most likely book I know of to address it.

Someone else will be able to answer the question more directly.
 
History:

Why would Augusting, writing circa 390 AD, say that he and his fellow theologians had, in their time, made polygamy a sin if it were not, at that time, still being practiced?

Why would Origen, the first known to have proposed Monogamy As God's Intention for Christians, have been declared a heretic by the other theologians if it were already the de facto thinking?

Those who argue for Paul's admonitions to Titus and Timothy as specifying monogamy for Deacons and Elders are crucified on their own logic. The very fact of limiting it for a specific group (if that was even Paul's intent, which is dubious), acknowledges both it's acceptability and practice amongst the group at large.

Elsewhere in Timothy, Paul admonishes him to tell the young widows to marry. Why was "young widows" such a problem that it needed to be addressed? Because they were living in a time of persecution, which was directed primarily towards the men. (Think about it... It's James and Peter who were imprisoned and killed ,,, not Mary or Dorcas, etc.) This tended to leave widows. So ... who were they to marry? Did God make men out of dust then, any more than He does now? Or was Paul specifically TELLING them to enter marriages that would of necessity often be polygamous? As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you eliminate the possibilities, what is left, however improbable ..."

How about James, telling the men of the church, with no distinction as to whether they were already married or not, that pure religion was to solve the problem for those whose problem was husbandlessness or fatherlessness? What other possible meaning could realistically attach to "visit them in their distress"? If he meant that they needed someone to give 'em a bag of groceries from time to time, he dealt with that later in chapter 2. "Deal with the issue on a practical level," he teaches. "If they're hungry, feed 'em. If cold, give 'em clothing." If without a husband or father ...? Who dares accuse Old Camel Knees of inconsistency?
 
Wife of one husband:

Has anyone checked to see if the "one" here is something other than "mia"?

And what makes him think that it was a reference to polyandry, which was not practiced in that region or amongst either Jews or Christians to our knowledge, rather than meaning that she wasn't a woman who had gone from husband to husband to husband?
 
Interesting. More ammo for the admonition re: Elders and Deacons being poorly translatd as "only" one.

But still doesn't necessarily support the idea that he was referring to polyandry, a nearly unknown practice.
 
I hadn't noticed that term "wife of one man" in that before, it's fascinating, and actually bolsters our case.

Put it in context. Paul is discussing which widows the church was to support directly, and which were to be married. He makes it clear that every widow below the age of 65 is to be either supported by her children or remarry. Even with NO persecution, just on our present-day demographics, that would require a considerable number of men to take more than one wife to achieve.

Now we see that the church was not to directly support any Godly woman over 65 years old, but only those who had been the wife of only one man - ie who had not been either divorced or widowed previously and remarried. A woman who had had two husbands and was then widowed was then expected to be supported by children or remarry, even over 65 years of age. This adds even MORE women needing to be married, requiring even MORE polygyny to carry it out!

I could be reading too much into that in saying it encourages polygyny. It is fair to say it does not at all promote monogamy, but may discourage polyandry (clearly forbidden elsewhere anyway), and may promote polygyny.
 
Ok, this is why I love my wife (well, one reason!), she's great at joining together dots. She just realised that there is no dowry required if you marry a widow (correct? I can't see why there would be one). So in the Jewish culture you'd save up, buy a wife & build a house. Then you want another wife but you can't afford one now? Marry a widow, she's free!

What a wonderful system. It makes widows as desirable as virgins, levelling the playing field so all women have a decent chance of getting married. The virgin's young but expensive, the widow might be older & come with kids but she's free. Either option sounds pretty good really. And if you're looking for a second wife you might actually be more likely to look at the widows first (depending on your finances).

God knows how to provide for His daughters.
 
Just that as a state, Utah is the last place you prolly wanna go. Since they have to polygamy rep, they work extra hard against it. Other states couldn't give a rip, long as you don't get two marriage licenses.
 
If God has it in store for you, it would not matter if you were living in the middle of the Sahara desert or went to the North Pole for a suntan - God would make her turn up at the most unexpected place.

Similarly if God says "Not here, not now" it would not matter if you lived in "Polygamy-ville", you would not find "The One" (lol...or 2 or 3).

As for the way you look? are you young enough? cute enough? Do you really think the Godly woman God has in store for you cares about any of that stuff? She will be attracted to your headship, to your beliefs, to your family and who they are as people. Maybe the "cute" criteria reduces the number of women who would consider you - that's a good thing. You just thinned out a whole bunch of shallow, vapid people you didn't need to be wasting your time on to begin with :D
 
First let me say thanks for the points you made. It is helpful stuff and I will have to chew on a lot of what you wrote


CecilW said:
History:


Those who argue for Paul's admonitions to Titus and Timothy as specifying monogamy for Deacons and Elders are crucified on their own logic. The very fact of limiting it for a specific group (if that was even Paul's intent, which is dubious), acknowledges both it's acceptability and practice amongst the group at large.
Click to expand...

In response to this one point of yours I wanted to propose that there is no mystery about exactly what Paul meant even if there was no polygamy being practiced.

The Titus and Timothy requirements are better translated "one woman man" instead of "the husband of one wife". These requirements/prohibitions come in the midst of a list of known sin issues (known to anyone who knew Torah).

People (especially those who think Torah is being replaced by new post-christ rules) assume Paul is adding new laws for God's people. I will assume we can agree that Paul never intended to add new laws to Torah. So that leaves us with "one woman man" must mean Paul was forbidding the church from having leaders who were "several woman men" in a category that would already be known as wrong in Torah. That means ongoing serial fornicators, serial monogamists as well as adulterers were barred from this type of leadership.

As a second witness to the meaning I understand that the Greeks of the time would have had all three of those types of sinners in good supply. They would not have had polygamists in good supply, so for Paul to be addressing polygamy in those passages seems highly unlikely (based on the original intended meaning of the writer to the original recipients).

As a second proof for the meaning Paul never elsewhere mentions polygamy as something he is concerned about among the gentiles. He does however speak a lot about men who commit fornication as an ongoing practice, adultery and incest (ungodly "several women men").

There is no way in my right mind I can consider Paul to have intended to put polygamy in a list of condemnable lifestyles. He would have been throwing Abraham and David under the bus in written form to circulate to the churches. He would have rather barfed on himself.

I hope none of this is coming off ruff, I'm just passionate about it. I'm also a little pissed at the translators.

Also as I have studied gentile marriage culture in the first century Mediterranean. I have read several times that they didn't practice polygamy. I am not able to read source texts to come to that conclusion so I am taking people's word for it, but it seems accurate.
 
Paulsen said:
He does however speak a lot about men who commit fornication as an ongoing practice, adultery and incest (ungodly "several women men").
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure what you are trying to say on this post. When Paul wrote to the Greek converts, he was well aware of the laws of Greece. Polygamy had been outlawed for approximately 400 years at this time. (This time meaning Paul’s lifetime) Things that had become common place, due to a monogamous civilization, was the off shoot of prostitution and fonication. Divorce became common place and moving on to the next wife was a way of life. (Sound familiar?)

Also, why would Paul feel the need to discuss scripture writings that were dealt with in the Torah? If a thing was sanctioned, regulated and openly practiced, why discuss it in your time period?

In my opinion, Paul had bigger fish to fry.
 
Phillip said:
I’m not really sure what you are trying to say on this post. When Paul wrote to the Greek converts, he was well aware of the laws of Greece. Polygamy had been outlawed for approximately 400 years at this time. (This time meaning Paul’s lifetime) Things that had become common place, due to a monogamous civilization, was the off shoot of prostitution and fonication. Divorce became common place and moving on to the next wife was a way of life. (Sound familiar?)

Also, why would Paul feel the need to discuss scripture writings that were dealt with in the Torah? If a thing was sanctioned, regulated and openly practiced, why discuss it in your time period?

In my opinion, Paul had bigger fish to fry.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not communicating clearly. We are on the same page, I think. I am saying that Paul would not add new laws to the Torah or to Jesus teachings as he taught new believers. I am sure new believers were introduced to the Torah.

The rest of what I said I think is pretty clear and you seem to be saying the same thing.
 
Paulsen said:
Maybe I'm not communicating clearly. We are on the same page, I think. I am saying that Paul would not add new laws to the Torah or to Jesus teachings as he taught new believers. I am sure new believers were introduced to the Torah.

The rest of what I said I think is pretty clear and you seem to be saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
Ok, sometimes texts don’t allow us to say exactly what was intended. I explained on another thread how my daughters would misunderstand my texts while I was in Baghdad and I had to put out fires from writing the wrong word in a text. :) thanks
 
I don't think Paul was saying, 'one woman man.' Doing so would disqualify David, Jacob and Abraham as elders.

Rather, mia should be translated 'first' meaning and elder is not divorced and is true to the wife of his youth even if he had a second or more.
 
Ancient Paths said:
I don't think Paul was saying, 'one woman man.' Doing so would disqualify David, Jacob and Abraham as elders.

Rather, mia should be translated 'first' meaning and elder is not divorced and is true to the wife of his youth even if he had a second or more.
Click to expand...

My thought is it’s a minimum. Not a maximum...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top