[PaulB]

Oohhhhhhhhh Greenbear what are you trying to do to me!!!!!!!!

I am not sure whether we will ever see eye to eye on this issue and I’m afraid that if we ever do come to an agreement that I will be inviting you to one of my many weddings to come!

You agree with me that Jesus’ words on the topic are the final authority and then you go on to say “yet” and then go back to your original argument! Those don’t sound like final words of authority to me!

Then you go on to say that God has two wives (Now this I think is a gross error!) God has one wife, which is spiritual Israel Romans 11 makes that very clear. We are simply grafted into the same olive tree as they belong to which is also emphasised in Ephesians 2:12;

“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”

This does not even hint at the possibility of God having “two wives” the text in itself is pretty clear especially when it is seen in the light of the entire context of Romans chapter 11. So as you can see I do not buy that idea in any way or fashion.

When you raise the issue concerning the qualifications of a bishop having only one wife it seems to me that Paul is ruling out those who have been divorced and then remarried, as such could possibly qualify any adulterer to stand in an ordained position. But a man who has more than one wife isn’t something that I see him addressing here because I don’t see it even as a pagan Roman problem, let alone a gentile church problem. (e.g. Mt.27:19 “When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.)
Pilate had one wife, Acts.24:24 Felix had one wife, Acts.18:2 Pontus had one wife, John.19:25 Cleophas had one wife and so did Annanias! So I don’t see the qualification of a bishop relating to a man with a number of wives, but rather he is ruling out those who have had previous wives.

If (like you & your husband seem to be suggesting) that there are no biblical laws against having more than one wife then what would you call me if I got married again tomorrow? If there are no biblical laws against having more than one wife then what do you think that Exodus.20:14 is? Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Concerning your question “Where in scripture does God say that Abraham, Jacob, David sinned by taking more than one wife? I have already put numerous examples to you in my previous posts. But it is like I said in one of them – where does it show that such actions were given by the command of God?

God intervened in the lives of very imperfect people and He certainly didn’t wait until the vessels that He chose for certain operations in His plan of redemption were without blemish.

Acts.17:30-31 “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

Your questions are like someone saying, “where does it say in the Bible that there shouldn’t be an eleventh commandment” does God forbid? – then prove it!
The context of marriage is seen very clearly in the teachings of Christ and echoed by Paul and to suggest that Christ is only addressing the subject of “unlawfully putting away a wife” is to miss the entire point that He is making (i.e. the oneness of flesh until death between two people as authorised by God). If it were any other way then He would have made that clear!

Like I said before, why would there be the need to put a wife away if it is all right to have a number of them? It would be absolutely pointless, as all that the Pharisees needed to do was to shift their attention to a new one! The context is clear – they wanted to put away their wives (singular) so that they could justify an occasion for re-marriage and it is this that Jesus is addressing.

To say as you said: “We are speaking about a law prohibiting the practice. We are not speaking about what is God's perfect will in the matter.” Is to defeat the entire issue – what God says is in very essence His perfect will on the matter!

Hb.1: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

So what Jesus says on the matter is exactly what God says and that is that anything other than the two made one flesh is out of those boundaries.

To follow the ultimate conclusion to your line of reasoning is to suggest that Islam has upheld the right biblical traditions on this matter and that somehow the church has gone astray!

I think that it is much safer to stand on what is clear on this subject than to build on what isn’t clear and that is exactly what I have been presenting to you.

Think about it also - why has Christendom and Judaism (on a global scale) continued to uphold the one man one woman concept of biblical marriage?
Your position on this is not just in opposition to me alone but a great chunk of history.

I honestly don't think that there is much more that I can put your way on this, as your mind does seem to already be made up on the issue.
But please consider my points!

God bless

PaulB

[greenbear]

PaulB,

I have a Dr's appt now so don't have time to read your post until later. My post below is in response to Amanda, just want you to know I haven't even read your response yet.

Jennifer

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Amanda S.

Hi Jessica,

We got off topic with the topic of homosexuality, but I was just curious what you thought of this speculation I had mentioned earlier.



Both are speculations.

My quote was based on pure deductive reasoning.

However, I have had just a precursory look at the topic just now.

My additional understanding of polygyny (one man having multiple wives) being practiced by early converts to the apostolic gentile churches, especially in Greek culture (Ephesus and Crete) is based on the fact that "polygamy/polygyny/polyandry" are Greek words and although under Roman (a monogamous culture) rule it was not an uncommon practice among those of means.

Here is more interesting information from Wikipedia:


According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. Apparently more societies have allowed for polygamous marriages than have not.

Israel

"The State of Israel has made polygamy illegal,[25][26] but in practice the law is not enforced, primarily so as not to interfere with Bedouin culture, where polygamy is common. Provisions were instituted to allow for existing polygamous families immigrating from countries where the practice was legal. Furthermore, former chief rabbi Ovadia Yosef[27] and Israeli columnist Greer Fay Cashman[28] have come out in favor of legalizing polygamy and the practice of pilegesh (concubine) by the Israeli government."

The Hebrew scriptures document approximately forty polygamists. Notable examples include Abraham, who bore for himself a child through his wife's maidservant;[15] Jacob, who had fallen in love with Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her sister, Leah;[16] David, who inherited his wives from Saul;[17] and perhaps most famously, Solomon, who was led astray by his wives.

In practice, multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility.[19] One source of polygamy was the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother's widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10

The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife (specifically, her right to food, clothing and conjugal relations). Deuteronomy 21:15–17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more;[20] and Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.[21] The king's behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8. Exodus 21:10 also speaks of Jewish concubines. Israeli lexicographer Vadim Cherny argues that the Torah carefully distinguishes concubines and "sub-standard" wives with prefix "to", lit. "took to wives."[22]

The monogamy of the Roman Empire was the cause of two explanatory notes in the writings of Josephus describing how the polygamous marriages of Herod were permitted under Jewish custom.

The State of Israel has made polygamy illegal,[25][26] but in practice the law is not enforced, primarily so as not to interfere with Bedouin culture, where polygamy is common. Provisions were instituted to allow for existing polygamous families immigrating from countries where the practice was legal. Furthermore, former chief rabbi Ovadia Yosef[27] and Israeli columnist Greer Fay Cashman[28] have come out in favor of legalizing polygamy and the practice of pilegesh (concubine) by the Israeli government.

Church history

Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."

In Sub-Saharan Africa, there has often been a tension between the Christian churches' insistence on monogamy and traditional polygamy. In some instances in recent times there have been moves for accommodation; in others churches have resisted such moves strongly. African Independent Churches have sometimes referred to those parts of the Old Testament which describe polygamy in defending the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Christianity

[CKG]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Brother PaulB,

The first words out of my mouth tonight when my poor husband came home from a hard day of work were, very loosely quoted:



After an unguarded moment of staring at me as if I were a crazy person he asked:

"What country does he live in? What are the laws in that country regarding polygamy?"

After a another few moments of my worried conjecture about how much he has actually thought about this topic in the past, and determining then and there to never agree to move with him to a Muslim country (or Utah, for that matter), I realized that the point he was making is that there is no biblical "law" against having more than one wife. There are, however, laws of human government that we are to obey. If there is a biblical law against multiple wives, we don't know about it. Is it God's perfect will? No.

You cited Jesus:

Mark 10:2-12 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

My husband pointed out the context is about a man putting away his wife. The context is not about whether you should have more than one wife. There is no question that Jesus says that from the beginning God intended one man and one woman. But whether or not a man is allowed to have multiple wives is not the topic He was addressing in that passage.

If you disagree with this, then I have a few questions for you:

Where in scripture does God say that Abraham, Jacob, David sinned by taking more than one wife?

Where does it say in the scriptures that Leah and Rachel weren't both the wives of Jacob?

Where does it say in the scriptures that either Leah's or Rachel's children were illegitimate in God's eyes? Or those of their handmaids (Jacob's other two "wives")?

If there was no biblical law against taking multiple wives back then, when did that change? We are speaking about a law prohibiting the practice. We are not speaking about what is God's perfect will in the matter.

If there is no law given about taking multiple wives in scripture then wouldn't the muslim man be disobeying Jesus by putting away any of his wives according to His own words "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"?

Your sister In Christ,
and the sole wife of one husband, thanks be to God!

Jennifer

I'm not good at answering multiple quotes so bear with me.

Greenbear - "My husband pointed out the context is about a man putting away his wife."

True, but in answering their question about putting away, Jesus points out God's original intentions for marriage.

Matthew 19 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife (not wives): and they twain (two) shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain (two), but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Why did Moses allow putting away? Because of the hardness of their hearts. They were not interested in honoring God's original intentions for marriage.

Greenbear - Where in scripture does God say that Abraham, Jacob, David sinned by taking more than one wife?

Where in scripture does it say God commended or encouraged anyone to take more than one wife? Obviously God allowed it, but when you study the lives of Jacob, David, and Solomon you will see their biggest problems were family issues. They are certainly not commendable examples to follow for raising Godly families.

When you read the commandments God gave to Israel there is nothing said that would encourage or commend multiple wives. For instance in Exodus 20:17 God said

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (singular), nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

The assumption was that they, Israel - God's chosen people, would honor His original intentions for marriage.

It's interesting that when you get to Jesus' earthly ministry and the rest of the new testament books there is only one mention that even remotely comes close to suggesting multiple spouses and that was when Jesus encountered the woman of Samaria (John 4) and even then it doesn't say she had had 5 husbands at the same time. God allowed folks like Jacob, David, and Solomon to have multiple wives, but he also allowed them to suffer the consequences of those unions. I haven't checked this out, but I'm thinking once the Babylonian capitivity was over and the Jews returned to the land polygamy was never a problem again.

[CKG]

Originally Posted by CKG

Matthew 19 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

.

Actually with this statement, our Lord Jesus has refuted divorce, polygamy, and homosexuality. Paul reinforces this in Ephesians 5:31.

[Amanda S.]

Greenbear: Here is more interesting information from Wikipedia:

Well, as long as we're posting interesting information -

But first the historical setting:


1. Polygamy was NOT practiced in Greek and Roman societies of the time:


"Even though we may find numerous traces of polygamy and polyandry in the Gk. myths, monogamy predominated in the Gk. world in the historical period. Morality within marriage was strict. The Homeric hero had one wife, who was faithful and inviolable, a good manager of the home and mother. Gk. marriage was monogamous. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]


"Polygamy was not practiced in the Roman world outside Palestine, though illegal bigamy and certainly adultery were. [EBC: in.loc. 1 Tim 3]


2. Polygamy was practiced somewhat in 1st century Palestinian Judaism (by the government/aristocratic leaders):

"In the Second Temple period, Jewish society was, at least theoretically, polygamous, like other oriental societies of the time but in contrast to the neighboring Greek and Roman societies...."[HI:JWGRP:85]

"There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]

3. Among the Jews, it was not accepted by the prestigious school of Hillel (above), nor by the strict Dead Sea Sect (Qumran), and was not widely practiced, esp. among the rabbi's:

"But even if polygamy was permitted by tannaitic halakhah, other halakhic systems counseled otherwise. During the Second Temple period, monogamy was preferred even on the conceptual plane by, above all, the Dead Sea Sect whose halakhah explicitly prohibited polygamy. In the reworked version of the statutes of the king in the Temple Scroll, it is stated: "he shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life" (LVII 17-8). In the Damascus Covenant, criticism is leveled against the 'builders of the wall' (Pharisees?) in the following terms: 'they shall be caught in fornication twice; once by taking a second wife while the first is still alive...' [HI:JWGRP:85]

"it was known in Jewish society as represented in rabbinic literature, polygamy was not widespread in practice, especially not among the sages themselves." [HI:JWGRP:86]

So, polygamy was present only in a particular subset of Palestinian Judaism (not in Roman society, Greek society, Diaspora Jewish communities, the Hillel-school, or Dead Sea Sect), and generally confined to the aristocracy.

[greenbear]

CKG.

CKG's

Obviously God allowed it

Exactly! I can't say I disagree with anything you wrote. I'm glad we agree, brother.

P.S. What would you counsel this muslim gentleman to do about his seven wives?

Jennifer

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Amanda S.

Well, as long as we're posting interesting information -

Amanda,

Maybe. I don't know for sure. Is your source wiki?

Jennifer

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by PaulB

Oohhhhhhhhh Greenbear what are you trying to do to me!!!!!!!!

I am not sure whether we will ever see eye to eye on this issue and I’m afraid that if we ever do come to an agreement that I will be inviting you to one of my many weddings to come!

You agree with me that Jesus’ words on the topic are the final authority and then you go on to say “yet” and then go back to your original argument! Those don’t sound like final words of authority to me!

Then you go on to say that God has two wives (Now this I think is a gross error!) God has one wife, which is spiritual Israel Romans 11 makes that very clear. We are simply grafted into the same olive tree as they belong to which is also emphasised in Ephesians 2:12;

“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”

This does not even hint at the possibility of God having “two wives” the text in itself is pretty clear especially when it is seen in the light of the entire context of Romans chapter 11. So as you can see I do not buy that idea in any way or fashion.

When you raise the issue concerning the qualifications of a bishop having only one wife it seems to me that Paul is ruling out those who have been divorced and then remarried, as such could possibly qualify any adulterer to stand in an ordained position. But a man who has more than one wife isn’t something that I see him addressing here because I don’t see it even as a pagan Roman problem, let alone a gentile church problem. (e.g. Mt.27:19 “When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.)
Pilate had one wife, Acts.24:24 Felix had one wife, Acts.18:2 Pontus had one wife, John.19:25 Cleophas had one wife and so did Annanias! So I don’t see the qualification of a bishop relating to a man with a number of wives, but rather he is ruling out those who have had previous wives.

If (like you & your husband seem to be suggesting) that there are no biblical laws against having more than one wife then what would you call me if I got married again tomorrow? If there are no biblical laws against having more than one wife then what do you think that Exodus.20:14 is? Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Concerning your question “Where in scripture does God say that Abraham, Jacob, David sinned by taking more than one wife? I have already put numerous examples to you in my previous posts. But it is like I said in one of them – where does it show that such actions were given by the command of God?

God intervened in the lives of very imperfect people and He certainly didn’t wait until the vessels that He chose for certain operations in His plan of redemption were without blemish.

Acts.17:30-31 “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

Your questions are like someone saying, “where does it say in the Bible that there shouldn’t be an eleventh commandment” does God forbid? – then prove it!
The context of marriage is seen very clearly in the teachings of Christ and echoed by Paul and to suggest that Christ is only addressing the subject of “unlawfully putting away a wife” is to miss the entire point that He is making (i.e. the oneness of flesh until death between two people as authorised by God). If it were any other way then He would have made that clear!

Like I said before, why would there be the need to put a wife away if it is all right to have a number of them? It would be absolutely pointless, as all that the Pharisees needed to do was to shift their attention to a new one! The context is clear – they wanted to put away their wives (singular) so that they could justify an occasion for re-marriage and it is this that Jesus is addressing.

To say as you said: “We are speaking about a law prohibiting the practice. We are not speaking about what is God's perfect will in the matter.” Is to defeat the entire issue – what God says is in very essence His perfect will on the matter!

Hb.1: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

So what Jesus says on the matter is exactly what God says and that is that anything other than the two made one flesh is out of those boundaries.

To follow the ultimate conclusion to your line of reasoning is to suggest that Islam has upheld the right biblical traditions on this matter and that somehow the church has gone astray!

I think that it is much safer to stand on what is clear on this subject than to build on what isn’t clear and that is exactly what I have been presenting to you.

Think about it also - why has Christendom and Judaism (on a global scale) continued to uphold the one man one woman concept of biblical marriage?
Your position on this is not just in opposition to me alone but a great chunk of history.

I honestly don't think that there is much more that I can put your way on this, as your mind does seem to already be made up on the issue.
But please consider my points!

God bless

PaulB

Paul,

Apparently our views are so different that it would take too long to merely reach an understanding, if that would even be possible. I don't have that kind of time, as I know you don't. Let's just agree to leave it at that.

Jennifer

[johnlf]

1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: 3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. 4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,

36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations; 37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.

43 Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now commit whoredoms with her, and she with them? 44 Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women. 45 And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands.

Ezekiel 23
King James Bible

God describes both Samaria and Jerusalem as adulteresses against him. There is nothing in the Bible saying it is a sin to have more than one wife. But it is clearly a sin for a woman to have more than one husband. These are types. I you do not understand the typology, you can never understand why this is so.

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Romans 7
King James Bible

This is not said of the man, but of the woman, again the same typology:

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 11
King James Bible

This is not something I would seek to be contentious about. Nevertheless, to seek to impose modern human traditions of western society upon biblical typologies is a grave error. It is a sin for a woman to have more than one husband but it is not a sin for a man to have more than one wife.

The sole reason it is a sin today is that it is breaking the civil law of the nation that defines bigamy, and we are to obey the laws of the land we live in. Anything more than this is in my opinion simply adding to God's Word by reading into it modern traditions.