Hello all!
I actually ran across a discussion of multiple wives (that I didn't start!) on a Christian dating site.
Here it is.
Then it was continued in a new thread here.
You'll probably need to get a free account to read the forums I think.
It isn't allowed to post links on their forum, or else I might have mentioned BiblicalFamilies.org. However, I've messaged the link to some people.
What is interesting is that I don't go into the forum hardly at all, and a little after the thread was started it got pushed to the next page by new topics. Was it coincidence that I looked in just as the thread started, or do conversations about this happen more often? The OP seemed to refer to the issue coming up before.
Anyway, you might find the discussion interesting. If you don't have time to roll around in it, here is the main post I did, which gives some idea of how it went:
"I used to think it must be restricted for bishops and deacons until I realized the assumptions behind it, and considered the issue more in the light of Scripture rather than hoping to "throw a bone" to the Romans. "You must have one" does not mean "only one" unless it is already understood that having more than one would be bad. Thus it is circular reasoning: "We know Paul believes multiple wives are bad because he said "you must have one wive", and we know this means "only one" because he believes multiple wives are bad."
As to why the word "one" was used you'd have to ask the translators, as I mentioned on the other thread: "The passages saying a deacon or bishop must be husbands of one wife were translated in a nation where there probably was not even one person who did not follow the Roman tradition of condemning multiple wives. Suffice it to say that the word translated "one" is also translated in other cases as "a" by the same translators, and they chose to translate it as "one" in this case no doubt because it bolstered their unscriptural tradition." (Though, of course, it bolsters their tradition by assumption and circular reasoning.)
To this it can be added that when in the same epistle Paul says that a "widow indeed" must have been "the wife of one husband", where we can justly take this to mean "only one", Paul in fact uses a different phrase, using a different word, more akin to "single". But of course the translators wouldn't preserve this difference of phrasing in the translation: they would want the phrases to sound the same.
But in the end, I never believed multiple wives were a sin even when I thought bishops and deacons couldn't marry multiple wives (after all, Jeremiah wasn't allowed to marry anyone). Such a restriction certainly is no foundation or plausible origin for the vicious attitude some people have against multiple wives. That obviously springs from another source, which is clear enough after a little thought and research.
As for a change in law, this would only have to do with the issue if there was a ceremonial law about it for Jews specifically, which would have nothing to do with us gentile believers. It is strange that “we are not under the law” would be brought up, as I have usually seen people using it to excuse progressive ideas that creep into the Church, like women pastors, indecent clothes, or even homosexuality. Biblically “we are not under the law” was part of a long and complex explanation (often hard to understand, as the apostle Peter said) of why gentiles can be saved (which was always true, not just after Christ). But apparently “we are not under the law” is often used today as a catch-all justification whenever culture gets put above Scripture, since instead of always using it to excuse things, in the case of multiple wives “we are not under the law” is actually used to justify making something “against the rules” when it disagrees with non-biblical culture.
As I already talked about “two shall be one”, I will just say that the same answer applies to Christ and his Bride. One could also say that having more than one son breaks the image God placed in the family of his only begotten Son. When it comes to figures, one may recall that God likens himself to a man married to two wives, Israel and Judah, in Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3.
@Servantfiss when I came to this conclusion I was in contact with no one (outside the Bible) who agreed, family and friends included. Until someone succeeds in discrediting God’s Word in my eyes, I will have no reason to follow a more Rome friendly worldview. I have been attacked before - not much to speak of I would say: some women were jailed for refusing to testify against their husbands (so much for “women’s rights”; as if women have never initiated being multiple wives). But these are some of the comments when I brought up the subject on a different site:
“I think when he dies he dies with his face smiling...hahaha”
“haha,
smiling maybe,
but there will be no resurrection of it!”
And there were some comments which I won’t share here, not being sure whether moderators would consider them too indecent or not."
I actually ran across a discussion of multiple wives (that I didn't start!) on a Christian dating site.
Here it is.
Then it was continued in a new thread here.
You'll probably need to get a free account to read the forums I think.
It isn't allowed to post links on their forum, or else I might have mentioned BiblicalFamilies.org. However, I've messaged the link to some people.
What is interesting is that I don't go into the forum hardly at all, and a little after the thread was started it got pushed to the next page by new topics. Was it coincidence that I looked in just as the thread started, or do conversations about this happen more often? The OP seemed to refer to the issue coming up before.
Anyway, you might find the discussion interesting. If you don't have time to roll around in it, here is the main post I did, which gives some idea of how it went:
"I used to think it must be restricted for bishops and deacons until I realized the assumptions behind it, and considered the issue more in the light of Scripture rather than hoping to "throw a bone" to the Romans. "You must have one" does not mean "only one" unless it is already understood that having more than one would be bad. Thus it is circular reasoning: "We know Paul believes multiple wives are bad because he said "you must have one wive", and we know this means "only one" because he believes multiple wives are bad."
As to why the word "one" was used you'd have to ask the translators, as I mentioned on the other thread: "The passages saying a deacon or bishop must be husbands of one wife were translated in a nation where there probably was not even one person who did not follow the Roman tradition of condemning multiple wives. Suffice it to say that the word translated "one" is also translated in other cases as "a" by the same translators, and they chose to translate it as "one" in this case no doubt because it bolstered their unscriptural tradition." (Though, of course, it bolsters their tradition by assumption and circular reasoning.)
To this it can be added that when in the same epistle Paul says that a "widow indeed" must have been "the wife of one husband", where we can justly take this to mean "only one", Paul in fact uses a different phrase, using a different word, more akin to "single". But of course the translators wouldn't preserve this difference of phrasing in the translation: they would want the phrases to sound the same.
But in the end, I never believed multiple wives were a sin even when I thought bishops and deacons couldn't marry multiple wives (after all, Jeremiah wasn't allowed to marry anyone). Such a restriction certainly is no foundation or plausible origin for the vicious attitude some people have against multiple wives. That obviously springs from another source, which is clear enough after a little thought and research.
As for a change in law, this would only have to do with the issue if there was a ceremonial law about it for Jews specifically, which would have nothing to do with us gentile believers. It is strange that “we are not under the law” would be brought up, as I have usually seen people using it to excuse progressive ideas that creep into the Church, like women pastors, indecent clothes, or even homosexuality. Biblically “we are not under the law” was part of a long and complex explanation (often hard to understand, as the apostle Peter said) of why gentiles can be saved (which was always true, not just after Christ). But apparently “we are not under the law” is often used today as a catch-all justification whenever culture gets put above Scripture, since instead of always using it to excuse things, in the case of multiple wives “we are not under the law” is actually used to justify making something “against the rules” when it disagrees with non-biblical culture.
As I already talked about “two shall be one”, I will just say that the same answer applies to Christ and his Bride. One could also say that having more than one son breaks the image God placed in the family of his only begotten Son. When it comes to figures, one may recall that God likens himself to a man married to two wives, Israel and Judah, in Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3.
@Servantfiss when I came to this conclusion I was in contact with no one (outside the Bible) who agreed, family and friends included. Until someone succeeds in discrediting God’s Word in my eyes, I will have no reason to follow a more Rome friendly worldview. I have been attacked before - not much to speak of I would say: some women were jailed for refusing to testify against their husbands (so much for “women’s rights”; as if women have never initiated being multiple wives). But these are some of the comments when I brought up the subject on a different site:
“I think when he dies he dies with his face smiling...hahaha”
“haha,
smiling maybe,
but there will be no resurrection of it!”
And there were some comments which I won’t share here, not being sure whether moderators would consider them too indecent or not."
