Multiple wives in the OT vs. monogmy now???

[ralliann]

As I said in the edit. Jesus clearly knew the scriptures, in fact he was the embodiment of them, He would have known the one you mentioned, yet He said marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman. In other word Jesus would have never contradicted a true interpretation of scripture.

I am asking where Jesus said marriage was between one man and one woman?

 

[ralliann]

I agree that levirate marriage was not a sin. (I brought it to the fore earlier in this thread.) But the purpose for it no longer exists; namely, to keep the deceased brother's name tied to a particular piece of property.

Ah, ok I see what you mean.

 

[topher694]

I am asking where Jesus said marriage was between one man and one woman?

Ah, sorry I get it now.

Matt 19:4-6

A man (singular) shall be joined to his wife (not wives) and the two shall become one flesh

 

[ralliann]

Ah, sorry I get it now.

Matt 19:4-6

A man (singular) shall be joined to his wife (not wives) and the two shall become one flesh

That passage is about divorce?????? Not polygamy. God said he hates divorce.

 

[topher694]

That passage is about divorce?????? Not polygamy. God said he hates divorce.

It's also about marriage... The two are kinda connected you know

In order to answer their question on divorce, Jesus first defines marriage. It's actually a very wise thing to do with questions like these.

 

[Jonaitis]

I'm not EO, but I have the urge to reply to the OP.

Polygamy was an ancient marital practice that encouraged rapid human flourishing in a begone time when it was important to enlarge one's posterity and carry on one's name, inheritance and tradition. Since that doesn't really matter to us as much as it did to them, and our motives and intentions behind it are different, it doesn't really make sense for us to reintroduce it. God originally created us to be otherwise, but allowed it in a time when it was appropriate.

 

[Lukaris]

It says in Genesis 2:24 that the 2 shall become one. I do not think polygamy was intended although God was long suffering for fallen man. The Lord being against divorce, I believe, clearly indicates He does not approve of polygamy since He reaffirms what is said in Genesis in the Gospel ( Mark 10:2-9).

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's because we do affirm progressive revelation up to Pentecost. so God, knowing how darnened man had become, allowed for him to grow back into what is proper

 

[Eloy Craft]

Say there is a nation where there are 9 women to every man because of war. would it be better to permit polygamy or allow an environment that scandalizes 8 out of 9 women. Women who want to marry but can't. What happens to them?

 

[ArmyMatt]

whatever happens to them, it ain't polygamy.

 

[Markie Boy]

No offense - but I primarily came to TAW for an Orthodox perspective on this issue. After having left protestantism - partly because questions like this or ones relating to divorce, marriage, contraception - all could have as many answers as one could find people to ask.

There is something about Apostolic Succession that weeds out the vast majority of variation.

 

[John100]

I don't think it is even now a problem.

 

[DamianWarS]

I personally don't think it was ever OK, and perhaps it was just overlooked. In the new testament they give mention of moral standards for Bishops: 1 Timothy 3:2-12

"2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

and interesting thing about 1 Timothy 3:2-12 with this cryptic language of "husband of one wife" is that in ch5 it uses the exact same language to describe widows saying "wife of one husband".

So, how we interpret the former the latter should inherit the same but no one really comments on the latter. Most people don't want to commit to the idea that Paul was addressing polyandry in ch5 but they quickly commit to the idea that he is speaking of polygamy in ch3.

I agree with you, I don't think polygamy (or polyandry) was ever a part of God's design and even implicit in the creation account we see 1 man and 1 woman. God tells them to be fruitful and multiply yet slows the pace down with 1 woman (5 women would have been faster) so I don't see randomness in this design but only very precise moves. However, this interpretation in Timothy doesn't fit when paired with the same language in ch5 which most commonly is said to be talking about divorce. whatever one is the other should be the same. Because of this, I'm not quite sure what this phrase means but I lean away from polygamy (which I think was unspoken) and more toward divorced men.

 

[devin553344]

and interesting thing about 1 Timothy 3:2-12 with this cryptic language of "husband of one wife" is that in ch5 it uses the exact same language to describe widows saying "wife of one husband".

So, how we interpret the former the latter should inherit the same but no one really comments on the latter. Most people don't want to commit to the idea that Paul was addressing polyandry in ch5 but they quickly commit to the idea that he is speaking of polygamy in ch3.

I agree with you, I don't think polygamy (or polyandry) was ever a part of God's design and even implicit in the creation account we see 1 man and 1 woman. God tells them to be fruitful and multiply yet slows the pace down with 1 woman (5 women would have been faster) so I don't see randomness in this design but only very precise moves. However, this interpretation in Timothy doesn't fit when paired with the same language in ch5 which most commonly is said to be talking about divorce. whatever one is the other should be the same. Because of this, I'm not quite sure what this phrase means but I lean away from polygamy (which I think was unspoken) and more toward divorced men.

I examined Matthew 19:8-9 and can't see it as any other way then designed as monogamy:

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

But as @Sabertooth pointed out there were commanded exceptions.

 

[buzuxi02]

Say there is a nation where there are 9 women to every man because of war. would it be better to permit polygamy or allow an environment that scandalizes 8 out of 9 women. Women who want to marry but can't. What happens to them?

They dont marry. In Russia following WW2 there was a large surplus of women ( there is a word to describe these women in russian) they never married. In polygamist societies it is the nobles who get to marry many women, the peasants in many cases die as virgins toiling the ground.

So, how we interpret the former the latter should inherit the same but no one really comments on the latter. Most people don't want to commit to the idea that Paul was addressing polyandry in ch5 but they quickly commit to the idea that he is speaking of polygamy in ch3.

The Church has never interpreted "husband of one wife" to mean polygamy. Its always meant a re-married person after widowhood or after a divorce. That's why clergy cannot re-marry if they become widowed and you are disqualified from the episcopate if you were married twice.

 

[ralliann]

It's also about marriage... The two are kinda connected you know

Lol yes, they become one flesh.

In order to answer their question on divorce, Jesus first defines marriage. It's

As far as I see it what God joins together needs to remain one flesh.

 

[ralliann]

They dont marry. In Russia following WW2 there was a large surplus of women ( there is a word to describe these women in russian) they never married. In polygamist societies it is the nobles who get to marry many women, the peasants in many cases die as virgins toiling the ground.

The more wealth, the more a man can afford, so of course the "nobles" could marry more and thereby more offspring. This IMO is a far cry better than what goes on in America today. So much divorce and multiple families of both males and females. Then there are those which are having kids with multiple partners and not supporting any of the children. These do not see relationships the way the ancients did. How would our world be different today if both men and women took relations very seriously as an avenue to having offspring and working to care for them?

The Church has never interpreted "husband of one wife" to mean polygamy. Its always meant a re-married person after widowhood or after a divorce. That's why clergy cannot re-marry if they become widowed and you are disqualified from the episcopate if you were married twice.

Not so sure about this. I remember reading where the Catholic Church allowed it for at least one man because they seen no prohibition from it. I will attempt to look it up though to confirm that.

 

[ralliann]

It says in Genesis 2:24 that the 2 shall become one. I do not think polygamy was intended although God was long suffering for fallen man. The Lord being against divorce, I believe, clearly indicates He does not approve of polygamy since He reaffirms what is said in Genesis in the Gospel ( Mark 10:2-9).

It appears that the first wife seen children from concubines as theirs somehow.

Gen 16:1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

Similarly the wives and children of slaves in certain circumstances were considered to be the slave owners.

This is to say I think we have very different views than the ancients.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It changed when Jews later observed how miserable King David, Solomon, Jacob, abc the rest of the old school polygamy guys were stuck with incessant drama, excessive nagging, honey-do’s, etc. King Solomon’s Canaanite wife asked him, “Do these Moabite jeans make my butt look big?” That was the final straw. Monogamy was considered far easier!

So - multiple wives were quite common in the Old Testament - why was that OK?

And when and where did this change?

 

[Lukaris]

We have different views because of the Gospel in which God was bringing humanity back to His standard as much as we will cooperate. Now marriage is being redefined along sinful lines so our “views” are usually wrong.