• 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.

Hello! -- an introduction and a Bible Question while I'm at it

frederick said:
Awesome introduction, thank you. Glad you found us and hope we can be an encouragement in light of your wife's rejection of the truth. Some of us here have fought those battles, and also with church assemblies and family.

You and I may have a different understanding of 1 Timothy 5:9; if that's the passage you are basing your question on regarding married only once, but yes; any believing widow should be free to marry any appropriate man, and I might direct her to e.g. the example of Ruth.
Click to expand...
Thank you, sir! And yes, I have been blessed to find encouragement herein.

Oh, I by no means meant to say that widows who were married more than once could not remarry, I was coming from the perspective that a widow could qualify as a church widow under the age of sixty if she had been married more than once.
 
steve said:
Btw: 4.5 years ago I added a 65 year old woman to my family, so this is not at all theoretical.
I am older than dirt, though. I wouldn’t expect anyone who is 20 years my junior to do the same.
Click to expand...
That is an absolutely wonderful thing to hear, brother! I am glad to hear on top of that that she has been a blessing to your house! Oh, and thank you for the welcome. I as well did not mean to disclude older widows from remarrying, but could you elaborate on Isaiah 4:1? I've been looking into that, and could not tell if the women approaching the man are doing so out of desperation from the lack of men caused by the slaughter of the sword mentioned in chapter 3, and as well why they are offering to provide for themselves in light of that.
 
Bartato said:
Welcome Luke! The LORD knows those who fear Him, those who tremble at His word. I pray that He will richly bless you for holding fast to His written word in the face of opposition and great loss.

Your account reminded me of Luke 18:29-30 where our Master Jesus Christ told His disciples that fidelity to Him will be rewarded.

"And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Luke 6:22-23
"Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets."

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

These passages all apply to following Jesus Christ in general (not polygyny). Still, I think they also apply to the one who suffers opposition and loss for standing firm on Biblical truth out of love and faithfulness to Jesus Christ.

I will pray that the Lord will convince your wife, parents, family, and friends of Biblical truth, and that they will be reconciled to you.

I also pray that the Lord will guide, instruct, bless, and protect you.

Wow! I just noticed that the passages I referenced all came from the book of Luke, and your name is Luke. ☺️
Click to expand...
Thank you, brother! And thank you as well for the Scripture, it was very encouraging, and really exactly what I needed to hear at this time.
 
IshofNesei said:
Welcome! And welcome to @James Pease as well!

First, I would argue that the exclusion of widows "married more than once" is a misrendering. Paul rather commanding that she had been a faithful wife, regardless of the number of husbands. I think that this is both grammatically sound as well as contextually supported--for example, what would we say of the Christian woman who was once a "younger" widow who now finds herself widowed-again but now 'beyond the age of marriage' (a state not at all unheard of). Well, she was to 'be enrolled.' As a related aside, this was the genesis of what-today we call deaconesses--older widows who were taken care of (headship under overseers and deacons, food, clothing, shelter) by the church and thus devoted themselves to service "mercy works" such as making clothing, caring for the sick and young orphans, etc. Of course, as with so many things, this would eventually come to be corrupted by asceticism and eventually be joined to the concept of monasticism.

Anyway, to your question, your idea is not hogwash. In fact, quite the opposite. What Paul had in mind with older widows was a kind of welfare. They were provided for and so turned their hands to a rather unique and beautiful service to their congregations and communities (remember that orphanages, hospitals, soup kitchens, etc. did not exist at this time).

Now, as far as nuts and bolts here, polygyny is neither commanded nor forbidden (it's an "adiaphora"); while marriage can be argued to be a commanded estate (1 Cor 7:2), but I'm not entirely convinced of either side of that argument at this time. Nevertheless, because we're in the realm of adiaphora here, I think you're hitting the nail rather squarely in its head.

IF we are to care for the widow and the orphan (which would include covenantal widows and orphans), and there IS a commanded mechanism to do so for the 60+ year old widows, then it falls upon the people to directly provide this care. Hence, while I would argue that polygyny and/or adoption BEST meets this care, I don't think we can charge folks with being sinful by exercising other means (that is, to not marry/adopt them but still otherwise provide).

To be more specific, in my opinion, the best advice to them is 'get married.'

Ah, but that's the real rub, isn't it? Convincing them (and our men) is proving...an interesting endeavor--at least for me. 😂
Click to expand...
Lol, it most certainly is a taboo topic, the convincing of which is indeed very difficult. And I agree that the getting married is the best option, though I did not mean to exclude those married more than once nor the older, but rather wanted to narrow the scope to establish a principle that could then be applied in a broader view, beginning with the clear prerogative that younger widows are by biblical preference to remarry.
 
PeteR said:
Shalom and welcome, Luke.

You may be interested in a paper I wrote a couple years ago:

www.academia.edu

Paul’s Perspective on Polygyny

Paul’s Perspective on Polygyny
www.academia.edu
Click to expand...
Thank you, brother! I greatly appreciated the insights your paper lended. I would, however, caution against using the possible use of "first" for the requirements of the elders, as this would disclude men whose first wife was deceased, and leave the door open for men who were married to their first wife but whom had divorced a second or third wife, this discrediting the notion that it refers to a man having never divorced. I did as well really appreciate the insight that the covering of the widows in the body is the responsibility of the body, and that it ultimately falls onto the elders to do so should the men fail in that regard.
 
An additional thought about widows.
To us the word means that her husband has died, nothing more than that. The Greek word that was translated as widows was a feminine form of deficiency. A female that was lacking something. This has been assumed to be lacking covering, which would describe a widow.
But it would also describe a woman who has been divorced by her husband.
I got to wondering a while back, how many women were persuaded that Yeshua was the Messiah and were divorced by their husbands for their beliefs? Were there that many men being martyred out that there was this big of a widow problem, or had these women been abandoned by husbands who wouldn’t accept the Truth and couldn’t handle living with a wife who had?
 
Luke S said:
but could you elaborate on Isaiah 4:1? I've been looking into that, and could not tell if the women approaching the man are doing so out of desperation from the lack of men caused by the slaughter of the sword mentioned in chapter 3, and as well why they are offering to provide for themselves in light of that.
Click to expand...
When you contrast the first three chapters with chapter 4, you see a huge change in attitude
Pre 4:1, as I see it, these women felt no need for a husband.
Isaiah 3:12 (KJV) [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

Whatever the revival is that hits at the end of chapter 3, it appears that the women realize that they are out of Yah’s Devine order in not being under the covering of a man.
They aren’t desperate for sex, it doesn’t fit the storyline. They aren’t desperate for material support, they are already self sufficient and state that they will remain so.
They simply become convinced that they are out of order spiritually, and the only way that they can correct it is to be covered by a husband.
Why 7 to 1? If you run the numbers, you have to slaughter over 90% of the men in order to accomplish that ratio. It makes much more sense to me that 90% of the males left over after all of the wars simply didn’t qualify as adequate leaders of households. The men that were leading families with multiple wives, and doing it well, became the obvious choice. Better many women sharing the best men than having an inadequate leader/covering.
 
steve said:
An additional thought about widows.
To us the word means that her husband has died, nothing more than that. The Greek word that was translated as widows was a feminine form of deficiency. A female that was lacking something. This has been assumed to be lacking covering, which would describe a widow.
But it would also describe a woman who has been divorced by her husband.
I got to wondering a while back, how many women were persuaded that Yeshua was the Messiah and were divorced by their husbands for their beliefs? Were there that many men being martyred out that there was this big of a widow problem, or had these women been abandoned by husbands who wouldn’t accept the Truth and couldn’t handle living with a wife who had?
Click to expand...
Good question @steve in light of Acts 6:1ff. There may well have been a lot of widows, young and older.
 
steve said:
When you contrast the first three chapters with chapter 4, you see a huge change in attitude
Pre 4:1, as I see it, these women felt no need for a husband.
Isaiah 3:12 (KJV) [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

Whatever the revival is that hits at the end of chapter 3, it appears that the women realize that they are out of Yah’s Devine order in not being under the covering of a man.
They aren’t desperate for sex, it doesn’t fit the storyline. They aren’t desperate for material support, they are already self sufficient and state that they will remain so.
They simply become convinced that they are out of order spiritually, and the only way that they can correct it is to be covered by a husband.
Why 7 to 1? If you run the numbers, you have to slaughter over 90% of the men in order to accomplish that ratio. It makes much more sense to me that 90% of the males left over after all of the wars simply didn’t qualify as adequate leaders of households. The men that were leading families with multiple wives, and doing it well, became the obvious choice. Better many women sharing the best men than having an inadequate leader/covering.
Click to expand...
Could it be that they are seeking the physical protection of man instead or, in addition to the spiritual headship?
 
Bartato said:
Could it be that they are seeking the physical protection of man instead or, in addition to the spiritual headship?
Click to expand...
Because one man can provide protection for 7 women?

I think that you are trying to ignore the obvious.
 
steve said:
An additional thought about widows.
To us the word means that her husband has died, nothing more than that. The Greek word that was translated as widows was a feminine form of deficiency. A female that was lacking something. This has been assumed to be lacking covering, which would describe a widow.
But it would also describe a woman who has been divorced by her husband.
I got to wondering a while back, how many women were persuaded that Yeshua was the Messiah and were divorced by their husbands for their beliefs? Were there that many men being martyred out that there was this big of a widow problem, or had these women been abandoned by husbands who wouldn’t accept the Truth and couldn’t handle living with a wife who had?
Click to expand...

I stole the term "covenant widows" from another thread on here, and I think it's a helpful descriptor for such women. So, yeah, "widow" in the NT was a bigger category than our English word.

As to your second point, first, to be fair to the early church, for those in Roman-occupied lands polygyny was simply not an option. (Unless you were eager to have legionnaires knocking at your gates--even in those times/places where the Church wasn't being actively persecuted; unlike today, the absolute best case scenario was a torturous death for Papa, and gross mistreatment before being marched to the slave block for everyone else.)

Not only, as also today, are there more women in churches than men, you've also got less men in the population with historically much-higher mortality rates for males. Could there have been excess martyrdoms for males compared to females? Perhaps. Could there have been many women abandoned because of their faith? Quite probably.

However, the data is quite slim, and more a question of extrapolation than interpretation. That said, I think that's it's quite reasonable to assume that there was a not-insignificant gap in those first three-ish centuries.
 
steve said:
An additional thought about widows.
To us the word means that her husband has died, nothing more than that. The Greek word that was translated as widows was a feminine form of deficiency. A female that was lacking something. This has been assumed to be lacking covering, which would describe a widow.
But it would also describe a woman who has been divorced by her husband.
I got to wondering a while back, how many women were persuaded that Yeshua was the Messiah and were divorced by their husbands for their beliefs? Were there that many men being martyred out that there was this big of a widow problem, or had these women been abandoned by husbands who wouldn’t accept the Truth and couldn’t handle living with a wife who had?
Click to expand...
This is an awesome conjecture, Zen Trucker!
 
MeganC said:
You're ahead of me. Most of the time I'm oblivious to the obvious!
Click to expand...
Bull! I'm sure everyone is oblivious at least some of the time, but you are only rarely oblivious, my friend!
 
steve said:
Because one man can provide protection for 7 women?

I think that you are trying to ignore the obvious.
Click to expand...
One of the things that gets missed about this passage is that it could be fulfilled by one family. Technically if one man is grabbed on to by seven women then it’s fulfilled. We’re not necessarily looking for every man to have 7 women. I’m sorry if I’m disappointing anyone but for that happen I’d have to kill a lot of you men and I like most of you so that would be a hard afternoon for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top