A discussion on the morality of polygamy

[LibertyChic]

The effects of the fall were completely reversed by the work of Christ. This includes redemption of the male/female relationship. Thus Paul says that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, or you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal.3:28). As surely as inequality has been erased between Jew/Greek, and bond/free, so has it been erased between male/female. But we cannot have it both ways. Either such distinctions have been erased or they have not. Scholars who accept the above premise with respect to bond/free and Jew/Greek, refuse to accept the same with regard to male/female. Such inconsistency cannot be acceptable. Arguments against such "across the board" equality between man and woman are based on a couple of Paul's statements that seem to inveigh against it.

A very thorough post. Thank you for taking the time to present your views in such a thoughtful manner.

 

[Prakk]

Galations 3:28 is being misapplied. This is with respect to judgement, in Christ, before God, in eternity. The erasure of gender roles on this earth with this passage is clearly wrong, the writer makes so many other statements that clearly rule out this interpretation of the verse. Context, context, context. To interpret this way you must say Paul contradicts himself.

 

[an7222]

You are wrong, you teach sin, you teach heresy. Recant and repent, you place yourself under judgement of the worst sort. You are a deceiver.

Hugh McBryde

He based his ideas on biblical arguments. Just because you disagre with him, you cannot call him all these bad things and show hatred. Please, instead of doing it, alow us to know your arguments. By the way, I agree with him 100%.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

Prakk,
I will address your objections in a topical order.

Summing up, man is to woman as God is to man or mankind. The woman is FOR the man, not the other way around. Men are in authority over women. This is made clear by the fact that they aren't even to speak in the churches. Man was even created first. All of these reasons exist even if sin had not entered into the world, but it did, and even that counts in the total as reasons why the woman is subject to and for the man.

First, the idea that, "Men are in authority over women," is nothing more than an opinion. Though shared by many Bible commentators, this opinion cannot be proved to be fact. In fact, because Bible scholars START with this assumption when thinking about male/female relationships, they wind up always placing women in subordinate, inferior position to man. This faulty concept is based on God's statement to Eve that "in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you," (Gen. 3:16). This verse does not say that God ordained the situation to be thus. It merely states the consequences of the fall. Because of the fall, the equality between man and woman that existed in Eden, will be destroyed. Since man is physically more powerful than woman, natural progression of the human race will see man rising more and more above woman such that eventually males will completely dominate females and treat them almost as a subspecies. This situation became "customary" in all societies, just as God predicted. The important thing to remember is that, again, this is not something God decreed,it is a development that God foresaw and simply informed Adam and Eve about. The amazing thing about this cultural development is that in spite of the way men treat women, women still "desire" the man, just as God prophesied!

I disagree completely on the basis of these statements by Paul: 1st Corinthians 11:8.."neither was man created for woman, but the woman for man

Prior to that he had said in 1st Corinthians 11:3, "..the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Chrsit is God."

1st Corinthians 14:34,:Women should remain silent in the Churches."

& 1st Timothy 2:13,"For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

I think you need to be mindful of cultural circumstances. If not, is it sinful for women to have short hair?..."It is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off"(1 Cor 11:6) And, can women even go into a Church with their head uncovered?, "Every woman who prays or prophisies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." (1 Cor. 11:5) Also, can a man have long hair without it being something that God does not approve of? "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?" (1 Cor.11:14) Does our belief in Christ now tell us how we are to wear our hair?

Surely you can tell by these statements that Paul is dealing with cultural issues. Also I brought to your attention previously, he opens up this section with, " holding on to the traditions," not law but traditions.

Much like understanding polygyny in ancient Hebrew culture, one must also properly understand the teachings of 1 Corintians through the culture in which it was brought fourth. Christianity was being introduced into a city that was laden with pagan idol worship. They were steeped in their ancient gods and goddesses and their ritualistic practices for both. In fact just across the bay from Corinth was a major attraction of the ancient world, the Oracle of Delphi. On the southern slope of* Mt. Parnassus, female priestesses presided over a stone temple and delivered answers for those seeking guidance from the "god" Apollo on everything from romance to whether to wage war. A prophetess would receive a question written on a lead tablet and would descend to the basement of the temple where she breathed fumes of a sweet-smelling gas that produced feelings of euphoria. The gas drifted up from a fault line under the temple. Modern researchers have verified the presence of this gas and it can still be detected today. The priestess would utter "prophecies" while she was in a trance-like state, and these would pour out in a garbled state. Male priests "interpreted" these sounds. Interpretations were usually vague and ambiguous-- increasing their chances of being perceived as accurate. Can you begin to see the influence that Paul was trying to abrogate? Can you begin to see how the mis-use of spritual gifts, as noted in 1 Cor. 12, was probably effected by the "Oracle of Delphi" mentality?

More on Delphi can be found here:

http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/7_p1.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/delphicoracle/

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/siteindex?entry=Delphi


The Oracle of Delphi existed for twelve centuries and was very famous in the ancient world. The congregation in Corinth was well aware of it and many probably witnessed the "oracle" in person. The unconverted mates of church members might still have been involved in similar pagan worship, as Delphi was only about forty miles north of Corinth across what is known today as the Gulf of Corinth. The culture in Corinth was male dominated and the "preistess" role only added to the complications of orderly Christian worship. So you can see that the women's role in attaining "interpretations" from the god Apollo obviously played into Pauls letter about proper conduct of both men and women in 1Cor. 11 and then later in 1 Cor. 14 when he talks about the proper use of spiritual gifts. Notice he doesn't exclude women from the spirtual gift department, but gives the Corintians the proper usage of such.Paul writes, "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;" 1 Cor 14:31. Notice he doesn't say that all MEN may prophesy, but that ALL can prophesy if it is done "one by one".* In verse 32 he adds that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to prophets"; meaning that true prophets are not out of control or in some gas-induced trance, as were the priestesses of Delphi. Prophets of God have control over their spirits and their speaking. Verse 33 clearly illustrates that this entire issue was about confusion and disruption in the church, not Paul seeking to take away the rights of Christian women to participate.

When you consider that Paul was trying to introduce the pagan oriented gentiles with the true Creator, he had to do it in such a way that would be acceptable to the Corinthians. This didn't mean to introduce ideas of female equality in a male dominated society or to call for the freeing of all slaves from their masters. As believers came to understand that love for God and love for our neighbor is now the "law" we are to follow, those things eventually took care of themselves. To claim female equality and slave equality at the onset would have meant a sure defeat of his ideology into that pagan oriented culture.

That is why I wrote earlier:
"Unredeemed society could not understand male/ female equality, and would accuse the church of all sorts of unlawful and unnatural behavior if women were seen to interact equally with men. Therefore it was crucial in those early days of the church that, as near as possible, all outward appearances of social propriety be observed by saints. Other wise the church could never convince pagans that they had truth. Thus Paul argues not from law, but from tradition and custom, encouraging women and men to relate publicly in such a way that false charges would be minimized. Unless the church understood that men and women were not equal, there would have been no situation in which Paul would have to offer such advice. But the Corinthians, having been previously taught by Paul about their liberty and equality in Christ (as per Gal.3:28), were acting on this knowledge, and Paul had to come back to the issue and remind them that liberty must be exercised in love - even love for unbelievers and enemies (cf. Rom. 13 and 14). Certainly Paul cannot be made to tell the Galatians that men and women are equal in Christ, then tell the Corinthians they are unequal!

What we read in 1 Corinthians must reconcile itself to the other passages that teach us of the equality of a man and a woman in the Church or outside of the Church.

Paul says elder women are to be "teachers of the right" in the original Greek phrase "kalodidaskalos" Strong's 2567, a teacher of the right. He suggests they start with instructing the younger women, but he does not limit them to teaching only females! (Titus 2:3)

Paul's second recorded letter to Timothy, 2 Tim 2:2, states, "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable 'anthroopois' (men and women, Strong's 444-- defined by Thayer's Greek Definitions as 'a human being, whether male or female') who will also be qualified to teach others." If a person, male or female, is reliable, sound, qualified-- then Paul says he/she should teach others God's truth.

There are many instances of Paul praising women who teach the truth such as Priscilla, see Acts 18:2,18,26; 1 Cor. 16:19; and Romans 16:3; Phoebe, a "diakonon" servant/minister in Romans 16:1, Junia in Romans 16:7, "outstanding among the apostles" Nympha, and "her house church"-- the only leader mentioned by name in Laodicea, Col. 4:15. Also Euodia and Syntyche who "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel" verbally wrestling with unbelievers, Phil. 4:1-3. He hails many other women as co-workers in Christ Jesus. If Paul had issued a blanket edict against all women teaching everywhere Paul would have reprimanded these women instead of praising them.

Jesus praised the woman of Samaria that publicly preached the words of Jesus to the men and women of her village. He did not tell her to stop teaching the men because she was a woman! Jesus praised her and told the disciples that they were harvesting where she had sowed. As a result, "Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, ...." John 4:39. Her public witness --her teaching-- resulted in conversions, and Jesus praised her and held her up as an example for the disciples!

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man,there is neither male nor female, or you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal.3:28).

Scripture shows us that Jesus Christ came to redeem women as well as men. Through faith in Christ we all become children of God, one in Christ, and heirs to the blessings of salvation without reference to racial, social, or gender distinctives (John 1:12-13; Rom 8:14-17; 2Cor 5:17; Gal 3:26-28).

The Bible teaches that at Pentecost the Holy Spirit came on men and women alike. Without distinction, the Holy Spirit indwells women and men, and sovereignly distributes gifts without preference as to gender (Acts 2:1-21; 1Cor 12:7, 11, 14:31).

Also that both women and men are called to develop their spiritual gifts and to use them as stewards of the grace of God (1Peter 4:10-11). Both men and women are divinely gifted and empowered to minister to the whole Body of Christ, under His authority (Acts 1:14, 18:26, 21:9; Rom 16:1-7, 12-13, 15; Phil 4:2-3; Col 4:15; see also Mark 15:40-41, 16:1-7; Luke 8:1-3; John 20:17-18; compare also Old Testament examples: Judges 4:4-14, 5:7; 2Chron 34:22-28; Prov 31:30-31; Micah 6:4).

In the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1Cor 11:5; 1Peter 2:9-10; Rev 1:6, 5:10). Therefore, the few isolated texts that appear to restrict the full redemptive freedom of women must not be interpreted simplistically and in contradiction to the rest of Scripture, but their interpretation must take into account their relation to the broader teaching of Scripture and their total context (1Cor 11:2-16, 14:33-36; 1Tim 2:9-15).

The Bible defines the function of leadership as the empowerment of others for service rather than as the exercise of power over them (Matt 20:25-28, 23:8; Mark 10:42-45; John 13:13-17; Gal 5:13; 1Peter 5:2-3).

Husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life and that they are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility (1Cor 7:3-5; Eph 5:21; 1Peter 3:1-7; Gen 21:12). The husband's function as "head" (kephale) is to be understood as self-giving love and service within this relationship of mutual submission (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:19; 1Peter 3:7).

Both mothers and fathers are to exercise leadership in the nurture, training, discipline and teaching of their children (Exod 20:12; Lev 19:3; Deut 6:6-9, 21:18-21, 27:16; Prov 1:8, 6:20; Eph 6:1-4; Col 3:20; 2Tim 1:5; see also Luke 2:51).

I could go on and on...there are simply too many texts that show no partiality on God's behalf. The passages that seem to contradict this must be reconciled with the above. Again, context played a crucial role in the development of the early church. Some of the issues that Paul faced are not the same issues we face today.

As believers we must have the ability to look at the overall picture of what Jesus and the NT writers were trying to teach us and the culture in which the teachings were placed and the discernment to distinguish between the two.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

I apologize for the wait on these post. I don't have Bible software, so it takes me some time to research and post my thoughts.

Christ does not go contrary to the law nor does he create new provisions, but only clarifies, Mathew 5:17All is NOT fulfilled, heaven and earth have NOT passed away. I could go into a far more exhaustive proof based on the number of times that God says the law usually attributed to Moses is in fact his law, the fact that Moses is said to have received the law in the form of writing by God's finger in stone or to have taken it in the form of dictation, and that Jesus is a prophet (among the many other things that he is) in the same mold as Moses. A thing that both he and Moses say to bookend the concept and to make it a certainty. Also accepting the concept of the trinity, Jesus is the one that's dictating and writing in stone the very things that are, as the the priest says to Josiah, "the law of God as given to Moses."

This is far more dangerous IMO than the error you are making relative to the subordination of women. You are saying that we are still under the Law. And by that you are offering a works based Theology. If we are to live by the law then why did Christ come and die? If there is a possibility than I can attain a favorable status by living within the Law, then why Christ? I hope I am mistaken in this. Christ makes it clear that the law does not bring rightoeusness.

If we are still bound by the law then what do I make of the following verses:

Christ "is the end of law for righteousness for those who believe..." (Rom.10:4)

"you are not under law but under grace." (Rom. 6:14)

"by abolishing in His flesh the law with it's regulations and commandments." (Eph. 2:15)

The law "was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified through faith." (Gal. 3:19, 24)

"No man comes to the Father but through me." (John 14:6)

"The letter kills but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6)

In 2 Cor. 3:7 Paul refers to "letters engraved on stone" as "the ministry of death."

In 2 Cor. 3:9 Paul calls it "the ministry of condemnation."

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matt. 22:37) "Love your neighbor as yourself. All of the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt. 22:39,40) "There is no greater commandment than these." (Mark 12:29-33)

"Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore Love is the fulfillment of the law."(Rom. 13:10)

These are only a handful of passages that show the law of commandments is no longer in effect and that we are placed under Christ's "Law of Love." That is not to say that we are now "Lawless." The law has changed it's form and relates now not by the letter but by the spirit and principle. The commandments were built in the underlying structure of love for God and love for fellow man. They were expressed within the decalogue in ten different examples. With Jesus clarification of which one was most important, he turned that instance upside down and showed us that if we keep these two commandments, we would keep them all. (Matt. 22:39, 40, Mark 12: 29-33) You see, Jesus understood that the law was not a means of salvation. This is not what He is teaching. But God's law reflects God's heart. And God's law has never been repealed. Now, the idea that the law is a means of salvation has been done away with. The ceremonial laws pertaining to Israel have been fulfilled and replaced by the sacrifice of Christ. But the moral law of God remains as much in effect today as it was before Christ came only now it is reflected in His "Love for God, Love for man" ethic. There are not a specifc example of written rules that we are know to live our life by. If we follow the "love for God, love for neighbor" teaching we have followed the "law" as Christ instructed.

Paul fought this kind of foolishness into the Colossian church, (Col. 2:8-23). Church leaders and laity cannot resist the urge to set for themselves and others "rules of holiness" that are not from God, (vs. 8,16,18,20-22). Almost as if we think God did not do a thorough job of warning us about everything sinful, we are compelled to devise regulations for every conceivable action and situation, impost those regulations on everyone around us, then measure "holiness" of "faithfulness" on the basis of those human regulations. Paul was actually telling the Colossians to refuse to allow other people to lead them into spiritual bondage "through philosophy...deception...and the tradition of men...rather than according to Christ." (vs. 8)

The fact is that Paul's use of "law" and "the law" throughout the epistles make sit clear that Paul is saying that Christ destroyed "law" as a principle by which God deals with His people. The Greek language of both epistles tells us that Christ "is the end of law for righteousness for those who believe..." (Rom.10:14) Paul's use of Mosaic Law serves only to illustrate to those saints that since law as a governing principle has been destroyed by Christ, most assuredly has the Mosaic law been thus destroyed. His arguments is clear: We no longer relate to Christ on the basis of a "law of commandments contained in ordinances," (Eph. 2:15). We are now self-governed solely by the Law of Love.

I sincerely hope I misunderstood your post. I can only pray that God will grant you insight and deliver to you the freedom and life that Christ gives us that the law never could.

You are wrong, you teach sin, you teach heresy. Recant and repent, you place yourself under judgement of the worst sort. You are a deceiver.

Hugh McBryde[/QUOTE]

This is unnecessary. If you feel I'm in error, then move me (out of your love for neighbor example you are supposed to show) to a place of proper understanding. I have supplied a Scriptual basis for all that I have posted. The things I have mentioned were not taken out of context and twisted. By this name calling, you bring your own understanding of how we are to act towards one another into question.

Eph. 3:20

 

[Eph. 3:20]

I think through this discussion there is a opportunity to address something that we all will inevitably run up against which is where Prakk and myself are right now. And that is Scriptures that appear to contradict each other. How do we resolve the issue when there are two opposing viewpoints that seem to have equal validity?

This is an extremely important principle of Bible study: If different sets of verses seem to contradict each other, decide in favor of the majority of the evidence. Then study to see how the conflict can be resolved by looking at context, culture, original language and so on.

This is the very situation here. What are we to believe about women pursuing ministry and leadership in the Church when we have the two passages...

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Tim. 2:12)

"Women should remain silent in the Churches." (1st Cor. 14:34)

that seem to conflict with these passages...

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man,there is neither male nor female, or you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal.3:28) Speaking of gender equality.

"And every woman who prays or prophesies..." (1 Cor. 11:5) specifically granting women liberty to prophecy in Church.

Women involved in ministry from OT and NT, Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Elizabeth, Cloe, Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, Junias (female apostle), Tryphena and Tryphosa.

*********


One should base his/her decision always on the majority of the evidence. To this list could be added (from my earlier post):

Both men and women are divinely gifted and empowered to minister to the whole Body of Christ, under His authority (Acts 1:14, 18:26, 21:9; Rom 16:1-7, 12-13, 15; Phil 4:2-3; Col 4:15; see also Mark 15:40-41, 16:1-7; Luke 8:1-3; John 20:17-18; compare also Old Testament examples: Judges 4:4-14, 5:7; 2Chron 34:22-28; Prov 31:30-31; Micah 6:4).

In the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1Cor 11:5; 1Peter 2:9-10; Rev 1:6, 5:10).

Good study will eventually solve what only appears to be a conflict with the two verses.


My own opinion...

Paul simply could not have told the women that they could pray and prophecy if they first covered their heads (1 Cor. 11:11), then just three chapters later tell them they had to be silent in the church, if he meant that they could not speak at all, or contribute to the service. Deciding in favor of the majority of evidence allows women the freedom to minister and to be leader's in Christ's Church. All his instructions are culturally motivated, and are meant to lead the Corinthians saints to avoid behavior that would unnecessarily unsettle the pagan society in which they lived. Thus what appears to be contradictions are seen to be perfectly understandable in view of the prevailing notions of the people around them.

It is folly to base a conclusion on two verses when many more than that lead in the opposite direction. There has been extreme human suffering caused by the church's error on issues such as race and slavery, witchcraft, salvation by grace, the Crusades and so on. The issue of women in ministry directly effects the right of women to participate fully in God's kingdom; to enter fully into the great blessings bought for them by Jesus' blood. How can we even hesitate to open to them this opportunity when the mass of evidence supports it? After all, for women this is too is a vital part of their inheritance of Freedom in Christ.

Eph. 3:20

 

[seebs]

Prakk, was that a very charitable response? Read 1 Corinthians 13; that, too, is Scripture.

It seems clear to me that Eph is being honest, and I think his arguments are persuasive. Yours strike me as placing the beliefs and practices of ancient people above the clear guidance God has given us... But of course, I recognize that you, too, are doing your best to seek God's will and guidance on these issues.

I think a reasonable case can be made from the New Testament of the role differences between men and women being erased. I don't think you can call it willful or intentional deceit based on the data on the table.

 

[LibertyChic]

* LibertyChic fears she may have unintentionally derailed stray bullet's thread



Sorry stray bullet.....back to the OP. I've seen some excellent points for both polygyny and polyandry. I'm actually surprised by this revelation as I figured there would be much stronger arguments against multiple spouse (biblically speaking, especially NT). Go figure.

 

[Eph. 3:20]

* LibertyChic fears she may have unintentionally derailed stray bullet's thread Sorry stray bullet.....back to the OP. I've seen some excellent points for both polygyny and polyandry. I'm actually surprised by this revelation as I figured there would be much stronger arguments against multiple spouse (biblically speaking, especially NT). Go figure.

Hey Liberty...

Yes, that's what makes this area of study fascinating (for me). I was told for so long that poligamy was wrong. That God only tolerated the "sin" of the OT patriarchs. That it was a moral scourge that is currently practiced by "those people." One would think that you'd be able to turn to a number of Scripture passages to see where God condems this very act, but there's not one. It's amazing what some diligent personal study will turn up instead of relying on others for proper information.

So it is with our misunderstanding of the nature of "adultery." It all fits together with this subject. A proper understanding of multiple partner marriages cannot be understood without a proper understanding of what is meant by "adultery." Needless to say, our modern day version of what actually constitutes adultery is not Biblically accurate. To most, adultery is sex outside of marriage. But how can that be when we read over and over again of great men of faith that had sex with their concubines slaves, handmaidends etc..? Men like Jacob, who had sex with both Rachel and Leah's handmaidens, and who's very name was changed to Israel and became the figure in which the twelve tribes of Israel were brought fourth (note four of those children were from the handmaidens!) Gen. 35:25,26.

Sex may or may not be part of adultery. As stated earlier, so much of Israel's legal system was determined by the protection of one's property. Here is the Biblical view of adultery:

Note:
Adultery is defined as, "To apostatize; a woman that breaks wedlock (Strong's #5003,4,5)

"Symbolically adultery is used to express unfaithfullness to covenant vows to God, who is represented as the Husband of His people." (Smith's Bible Dictionary, pgs. 21,22)

"...adultery, an adulteress." Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as an adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections from God." (A critical concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, pg. 28)

" A young man meets an "immoral woman" who is "rebellious" and "would not stay at home," (Prov. 7:7-11) This refers to an adulterss, a married woman who forsakes her husband for other men.

"Israel tore off her bands and lay down as a prostitute," (Jer. 2:20) This is a woman who tore off the bands of her marriage vows to give herself to another husband.

These statements demonstrate the core issue of adultery. Adultery is committed by a woman who rebels against her husband in going after sex with another man, or in other ways giving her resources to them and depending upon them, relating to them as if they were her real husband. It is adultery because the husband has not granted her freedom to have such association (according to OT concepts) and she must not breach his property rights by giving to others what he reserves for himself alone.

If a engaged virgin lies with another man, both must die, (Duet: 22:23-24). She dies for not "crying out," and he dies for humbling his neighbor's wife. Because she was engaged she was considered as good as married and therefore she was his sole sexual property of her betrothed husband. Thus sex with anyone other than her husband was adultery. The fact that she did not "cry out" implies that her sexual act was consensual;i.e. she was not raped. But if a man raped a engaged virgin, only he dies, (Duet. 22: 25-27).

If a man seizes a unengaged virgin and copulates with her he pays the bride price to her father and marries her and can never divorce her, (Duet. 11:28-29). This is the penaly for forcing himself on her a ruining her as a prospect for carrying on the pure lineage of another man as his wife. If she had voluntarily copulated with him ther would have been no penalty except the man, if discovered, would either have to marry her or pay her father a dowry. Note, that this text and similar text recognize the act between unmarried people, but do not define it as "fornication." Which leads us to believe our modern day interpretation of fornication is also innaccurate.

A man commits adultery by taking from the married woman what her husband has claimed as his sole priviledge. It is this "property rights" issue that distinguishes adultery. Strictly speaking adultery is not a sex issue. Adultery is taking what belongs to someone else, (or the intention in Matt. 5:27)

Adultery was not limited to sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery was a matter of being faithful to the marriage covenant. A man's wife could not leave him and live with him as long as she didn't have sex with the second man. Property rights came into play. Since she belonged to her husband, to leave and to go to another man was to participate in marital theft; taking the husband's property (herself, her presence, her abilities, her house keeping, cooking etc...) and giving it to another man. Because she was an accomplice to this theft, she was as guilty as the second husband and they both were to be executed. Adultery was, and is, breaking marriage, destroying the marriage bond. When a man abuses his wife physically, mentally, emotionally or financially, has he "broken covenant" with her and is an "adulterer." Has their covenant not been adulterated?

This is the view that Jesus supports.

Matt. 5:32-
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, exept for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery..."
Why is she considered an adultress? She is the innocent party, yet she is refered to as an adultress, why? It is not possible that the mere act of divorcing her has made her guilty of having sex with another man. It's because she is being forced to break the marriage covenant! Sex has nothing to do with it.

Comitt adultery- Greek word- moixeuthenai (aorist tense, passive voice). The form of this word puts the woman, not in the posistion of doing something, but of something being done to her. What is said here is that the woman in this case has been forcibly made a participant, not in a sex act, but in "marriage breaking." Beck's translation says, "makes her a partner in adultery." Tyndale's translation says, "causeth her to break matrimony." This makes the matter plain. Adultery is "the act of breaking marriage." The Matt. 5:32 case forces the woman against her will, to become a party in the marriage breaking. And any man that marries her is also forced to participate in "marriage breaking." Neither of them are guilty of illicit sex. The situation of unjustifiable divorce has broken marriage illegitimately, and this is what God considers "adultery." (Divine Sex, Philo Thelos)

God never voiced displeasure with multiple wives or concubines. God did however, demand that when a man married a woman that he remain married to her. He is commanded to rejoice in the wife of his youth (Prov. 5:18). It does not exclude other wives. It does mean that he is not to get rid of her in order to marry other wives. Which is the subject of the next passage.

Matt. 19:9-
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

If the man leaves his wife and marries another, but does not have sex with her, has he committed adultery? Of course, he has broken the marriage covenant. Sex may or not be part of the equation.

This passage is akin to Malachi 2:14, "...because you have broken faith with her, though she is you partner, the wife of your marriage covenant." This applied to a monogomous man or a polygamist man..the principle is the same. You can't ditch one wife to marry another.

OT israel men used any and every reason to divorce to divorce their wife and pick up a new one. It was this careless disregard that Jesus put a end to. It was never God's intention. The marriage covenant was a lifetime comittment "from the beginning".

All of this occured under a law that mandated the death penalty for those involved in adultery. These very men are held up as heroes of faith in the NT (Heb.11) Their sexual proclivilties were never called into question, except when they strayed out of the boundaries that God set for them (adultery, women that would lead them into idol worship etc...)

Notice-
The 7th commandment prohibiting adultery, is in proximity to that of theft, (Ex. 20:14.14). One is forbidden to covet his neighbor's house or wife or servant or ass or other property, (Ex. 20:17). Adultery refers to a man taking, or desiring to take, a married woman from her husband. We moderns understand that adultery to be sexual activity outside the marriage by either spouse. But OT teaching proves a woman who was another man's property must not violate his property rights, yet that same man could have sex with a single woman, a prostitute, another wife, a concubine, a slave, a divorced woman or widow, without committing adultery. This fact proves beyond doubt that the sex act alone does not breach maritial status and is not adultery.

Scripture teaches adultery is theft of another man's property, or rebellion against covenant committment. Property is an extension of the owner. To violate my property is to violate my person. It is to steal something from me. In marriage, violation of property rights by taking, or seeking to take a married woman from her husband, is adultery. Adultery is present in the intention, even when it is not enacted (lust). This is when God is speaking metaphorically or in human actuality. The consistency between the OT and the NT is crystal clear.

One Biblical principle emerges from a study of Biblical sexual ethics:
Sex acts were condemened because they in some way hurt other people. Take away this factor and you nearly eliminate all regulations against sexual activity (not all, but virtually all). That is, if a sex act does in not in some way harm another person, it is not a concern to God. It is a matter of personal choice. That principle sounds familier doesn't it...."Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore Love is the fulfillment of the law."(Rom. 13:10)

Blessings,
Eph. 3:20

 

[rnmomof7]

Do you have a scripture that says that God approves of polygamy or wife swapping?

 

[rnmomof7]

Lets say a man decides to have sex with a woman not his wife.
That would not be a sin in your economy .

BUT If a year later his wife finds out that she is now sterile because of a disease he brought home to her, suddenly it is a retrospective sin

 

[LibertyChic]

Lets say a man decides to have sex with a woman not his wife.
That would not be a sin in your economy .

BUT If a year later his wife finds out that she is now sterile because of a disease he brought home to her, suddenly it is a retrospective sin

He is not referring to a man going out and just sleeping around. He is referring to having more than one wife. I would think, in today's society, it would have to be a mutually agreed upon arrangement for all parties involved. This, again, points back to Eph's "love" scriptures....

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Lets say a man decides to have sex with a woman not his wife.
That would not be a sin in your economy .

If the man took a wedding vow before God to be faithful to his wife, it would be a sin.

If he took a vow before God to wear shoes in the house and went barefoot, it would be a sin, too.

re: your previous question of wife swapping, the only Biblical character I can think of who engaged in anything like that was Abraham who passed Sarah off as his sister not once but twice in the hopes of bribing both a Pharoah and a local king into looking kindly on Abraham's nomadic travels. In both cases, once the men who married Sarah were aware of the true situation, they immediately sent her back to Abraham.

So, no, wife swapping definitely not approved of. Polygamy is tolerated by God when it's a genuine marriage and the wives/concubines have legal rights, but even than is God simply allowing for mankind's less-than-perfect nature. From the very beginning it was God's intent that humans bond in lifelong monogamous relationships with members of the opposite sex.

 

[LibertyChic]

Polygamy is tolerated by God when it's a genuine marriage and the wives/concubines have legal rights, but even than is God simply allowing for mankind's less-than-perfect nature. From the very beginning it was God's intent that humans bond in lifelong monogamous relationships with members of the opposite sex.

Please reference.

 

[rnmomof7]

He is not referring to a man going out and just sleeping around. He is referring to having more than one wife. I would think, in today's society, it would have to be a mutually agreed upon arrangement for all parties involved. This, again, points back to Eph's "love" scriptures....

Actually some of his posts have moved beyond that .

I do not think that was the "purpose" of the love scriptures.
We are told to hate evil. Calling evil good does not make it permissible.

Paul carefully teaches that marriage is like the relationship God has with the church.
Christ does not have a plurality of "wives" he has one..the Church.

 

[rnmomof7]

If the man took a wedding vow before God to be faithful to his wife, it would be a sin.

If he took a vow before God to wear shoes in the house and went barefoot, it would be a sin, too.

re: your previous question of wife swapping, the only Biblical character I can think of who engaged in anything like that was Abraham who passed Sarah off as his sister not once but twice in the hopes of bribing both a Pharoah and a local king into looking kindly on Abraham's nomadic travels. In both cases, once the men who married Sarah were aware of the true situation, they immediately sent her back to Abraham.

Actually we can not call that "wife swapping" as he did not swap anything...he literally gave his wife to them .

An what was Gods response to that ?
He protected Sarah from sin , and Abraham was rebuked.

So, no, wife swapping definitely not approved of. Polygamy is tolerated by God when it's a genuine marriage and the wives/concubines have legal rights, but even than is God simply allowing for mankind's less-than-perfect nature. From the very beginning it was God's intent that humans bond in lifelong monogamous relationships with members of the opposite sex.

If God does not approve of polygamy how can it ever be "genuine"?


Psa 81:12
So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: [and] they walked in their own counsels.


Act 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Please reference.

From Genesis 2 (NIV):
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

[Emphasis mine: Buzz]
God only saw the need to create one of each sex.
He ordained that a man would be united with his wife singular and they should be one single unit.

I think it is so-rare-it-borders-to-unheard-of that a marriage triad can successfully exist as three equal partners; someone will be the top and someone will be the bottom. I think the moment you go beyond a triad the concept of marriage as God defined it is nullified; you may have a marriage where there is one man and one wife and some partners for one or both of them on the side, but the real marriage still belongs to a single pairing.

I think it is a sin even with a spouse's knowledge and consent to engage in intimate sexual and/or emotional relations outside of the marriage (this include phone sex and cyber romances); I think some couples can survive this sort of thing but it's neither what God intended nor what He wants.

 

[seebs]

Buzz, the hasty generalization is a fallacy.

Arguing from Genesis, we find that a man should only sleep with a woman made from his rib, and that only if he's first found that animals don't offer him enough companionship.

What we find from the Bible as a whole is that the one-flesh relationship is sometimes extended.

Underneath it all: We have clear evidence that such relationships are not inherently sinful. The problems we see with them are PRAGMATIC ones. That means that they will not work all the time, and maybe not even often, but that doesn't mean that the ones which work are unacceptable!

 

[rnmomof7]

Buzz, the hasty generalization is a fallacy.

Arguing from Genesis, we find that a man should only sleep with a woman made from his rib, and that only if he's first found that animals don't offer him enough companionship.

What we find from the Bible as a whole is that the one-flesh relationship is sometimes extended.

Underneath it all: We have clear evidence that such relationships are not inherently sinful. The problems we see with them are PRAGMATIC ones. That means that they will not work all the time, and maybe not even often, but that doesn't mean that the ones which work are unacceptable!

Just show us where God blessed them and encouraged them seebs.

 

[truthnluv]

they wind up always placing women in subordinate, inferior position to man. This faulty concept is based on God's statement to Eve that "in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you," (Gen. 3:16). This verse does not say that God ordained the situation to be thus. It merely states the consequences of the fall.

And who, pray tell, ordained the consequences of the fall? Someone other than God???

Because of the fall, the equality between man and woman that existed in Eden, will be destroyed.

There was not equality in terms of authority before the fall. The woman was created for the man. The woman was taken out of the man's body, which was under his authority, and she being a part of his body was also under his authority. The woman was then brought to the man and named by him just as he named all of the other things in the Garden that were under his authority. Btw, when someone is under your authority you have the right to rename them. Hence, the King of Persia renamed Daniel, God renamed Jacob, God renamed Abram, Parents name their children, Adam named all the animals, Adam named Eve, etc.

The important thing to remember is that, again, this is not something God decreed,it is a development that God foresaw and simply informed Adam and Eve about.

This is a ridiculous and laughable notion to anyone who has even the most basic understanding of God's Soveriegnty.

The amazing thing about this cultural development is that in spite of the way men treat women, women still "desire" the man, just as God prophesied!

The woman already desired the man before the fall. God is not giving out prophecies in the passage you alluded to; He is giving out punishments, which is very clear in the text. The woman was already under the man's authority just as he was in authority over his own body(and she was taken out of his body). He was the head of the woman just as Christ is the head of man. This has always been the case since man and woman were first created(1Cor.11:3,8-9). The verse in Gen.3:16 is a punitive statement which adds severity to the woman's already lower position. Based on the fact that she had the truth and was decieved anyway, her right to have a desire of her own is given over to her husband. And he was given the right to rule over her totally. Before there was a unity and harmony with the woman being totally in sync with the man's will. After the fall there is an added punitive aspect to the woman's already subordinate role.

I think you need to be mindful of cultural circumstances. If not, is it sinful for women to have short hair?..."It is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off"(1 Cor 11:6)

Yes, it is shameful. That is clear in the text.

What bothers me about this text is that Christians dismiss it simply because they don't like it. As for my opinion about the text, All I can say is that it is very obscure. In regard to the "covering", there are words in the greek for veil, but Paul did not use them. There are words for hair, but Paul did not use them. We don't really know what he's talking about. Combine that with the fact that this issue is only mentioned once in the entire Bible, to one local assembly, in one city. So, based on it's lack of clarity I would say that while not understood by us, it was understood by the original audience. Therefore, it would be applicable to them only and culture-locked.

The point of the passage is the subordination of women to men. Whatever the covering was it was just a "symbol" of the woman's subordination. That is what the text is all about. For example, If I were teaching women in the 1940's, when wearing pants was a symbol of insubordination and the liberation of women from men's authority, I would tell the Christian women not to wear pants based on most of the same arguments that Paul used in 1Cor.11. But would I tell women not to wear pants today? No, because a woman wearing pants is no longer a symbol of insubordination and liberation from male authority. Here's another example; If I were teaching Arab women who converted to Christianity I would tell them to continue wearing their head coverings. Why? Because head coverings are a "symbol" of the womans subordination to men in the Arab culture. Symbols change from time to time and culture to culture, but man's higher position in God's hierarchy remains the same. That is the point. And that is how I believe we should look at 1Cor.11.

Much like understanding polygyny in ancient Hebrew culture, one must also properly understand the teachings of 1 Corintians through the culture in which it was brought fourth. Christianity was being introduced into a city that was laden with pagan idol worship. They were steeped in their ancient gods and goddesses and their ritualistic practices for both. In fact just across the bay from Corinth was a major attraction of the ancient world, the Oracle of Delphi. On the southern slope of* Mt. Parnassus, female priestesses presided over a stone temple and delivered answers for those seeking guidance from the "god" Apollo on everything from romance to whether to wage war. A prophetess would receive a question written on a lead tablet and would descend to the basement of the temple where she breathed fumes of a sweet-smelling gas that produced feelings of euphoria. The gas drifted up from a fault line under the temple. Modern researchers have verified the presence of this gas and it can still be detected today. The priestess would utter "prophecies" while she was in a trance-like state, and these would pour out in a garbled state. Male priests "interpreted" these sounds. Interpretations were usually vague and ambiguous-- increasing their chances of being perceived as accurate. Can you begin to see the influence that Paul was trying to abrogate? Can you begin to see how the mis-use of spritual gifts, as noted in 1 Cor. 12, was probably effected by the "Oracle of Delphi" mentality?

Please spare us the extra-biblical babble. Were you there? Were the people who told you this inspired by the Holy Spirit? Do you have any scripture to substantiate any of your history? Of course, you don't so it is a waste of time. Paul gives the reasons for telling women to be quiet and the ones you assert are not them! The reasons are:

1.The man was formed first(1Tim.2:13)
2.The woman was decieved and, therefore, in the transgression(1Tim.2:14)
3.She is commanded to be under obedience as also saith the Law(1Cor.14:34 cf.Gen.3:16)

What we read in 1 Corinthians must reconcile itself to the other passages that teach us of the equality of a man and a woman in the Church or outside of the Church.

The equality that exist has nothing to do with the removal of hierarchal authority or the erasure of gender roles. And the verse you quoted from Gal.3:28 addressing no male and no female was quoted severely out of context. The context is our sonship and heirship through our belief in Jesus Christ(Gal.3:26), not the erasure of gender roles. That is how you can reconcile it with the other verses that are dealing with gender roles; by not even quoting it at all.

Paul says elder women are to be "teachers of the right" in the original Greek phrase "kalodidaskalos" Strong's 2567, a teacher of the right. He suggests they start with instructing the younger women, but he does not limit them to teaching only females! (Titus 2:3)

HE DOES NOT TELL THE OLDER WOMEN TO "START" WITH TEACHING THE YOUNG WOMEN! You added that word "start" yourself! That word is most certainly not in the text nor is it implied!! They are told to teach the younger women period. Women are also told in other passages to teach their children.

The same author of the epistle to Titus(Paul) tells women ever so clearly not to teach men in a church setting in his other epistles.

I'm going to just stop here for now because I have to go. But let me say that the rest of your post is filled with out of context verses, false assumptions, illogical jumps of reasoning, and twisted scriptures all bent to support erroneous claims. Perhaps, I'll addres the rest of your post later...

truthnluv