Concubines

[dayhiker]

Why would I want to become a follower of Mohammad? He's not a follower of Jesus?

I don't know that I'd want to live a poly amours life ... but there are a lot of people living it today in the US. They have conferences and meeting all over the US. I don't like the OT, Islam or Mormon model of polygamy. But I do like the model that has developed in secular America that is built on the freedom we have both in America and in western marriages. Seems to be they are following the freedom we have in Christ better than we are.

Ya, it was only polygamous marriages that have ever had problems. That's why Paul said he would save us marriage problems by advising us to start single as he was.

Ya, Moses wrote that we are to cleave to our wife. Moses had 3 wives he clung to. I doubt Moses saw any conflict in what he wrote.

 

[ghendricks63]

Ya, Moses wrote that we are to cleave to our wife. Moses had 3 wives he clung to. I doubt Moses saw any conflict in what he wrote.

These inconvenient truths are so willingly ignored by those who try to enforce their puritanical beliefs on everyone.

 

[DamianWarS]

God created Adam and Eve naked. But no Christians promote nudism, even though that was by design and from the beginning.

the context is marriage not what we should wear. Jesus does not point back to the beginning when he comments on what we should wear but when he comments on marriage he does. Genesis itself identifies this value of marriage as something that goes beyond the fall saying:

Genesis 2:24
"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh"

This verse is like a side note explaining why the value is so important in the time it was written. Jesus also confirms this as well. So we have God who affirms the value through his design, Moses (author of Genesis) affirms the value outside of the fall, and Jesus who affirms the value outside of the OT. The text itself makes this clear however no such claim is made about being naked so stay in context.

But regardless, in the context of marriage, husband and wife still come together naked

 

[ghendricks63]

God created Adam and Eve naked. But no Christians promote nudism, even though that was by design and from the beginning.

Really? You might want to check your sources on this statement for there are several Christian groups that fully support naturism as perfectly natural and pleasing to God.

 

[DamianWarS]

Ya, Moses wrote that we are to cleave to our wife. Moses had 3 wives he clung to. I doubt Moses saw any conflict in what he wrote.

These inconvenient truths are so willingly ignored by those who try to enforce their puritanical beliefs on everyone.

in Mat 19 Jesus trumps the words in beginning as God's design and exposes the words of the Law as Man's design, both written by Moses. So if Moses had 3 wives or even 50 wives it matters not because Jesus tells us to look to the beginning to define marriage not to look to Moses which is the very argument the Pharisees attacked Jesus with.

 

[ghendricks63]

in Mat 19 Jesus trumps the words in beginning as God's design and exposes the words of the Law as Man's design, both written by Moses. So if Moses had 3 wives or even 50 wives it matters not because Jesus tells us to look to the beginning to define marriage not to look to Moses which is the very argument the Pharisees attacked Jesus with.

To believe that Jesus words MUST mean only 1 man and 1 woman is to read such into the text. Oh and BTW - When Jesus stated "have you not read", he was quoting Moses.

 

[DamianWarS]

To believe that Jesus words MUST mean only 1 man and 1 woman is to read such into the text. Oh and BTW - When Jesus stated "have you not read", he was quoting Moses.

Jesus says: “Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The pharisees reply: “Why then, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

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

so as the dialog goes Jesus starts with the words of Moses in the beginning, the pharisees rebuttal with the words of Moses in the law, Jesus then shows them that Moses' words in the law was because of the limitation of man and they do not trump how it was in the beginning (also the words of Moses but the design of God)

Jesus' statement defines marriage and show us how we should look to the beginning to define it and shows us the way Moses did things is not the example we should look to. Now if there was Adam and Eve and Eve's sister Sally than this would be a completely different argument but that's not how God created marriage. We are to "unite", "cleave", "join" or the whatever translation you want to use with your wife. But what happens when our many wives disagree then which are you to "cleave" to? Those words just don't work when we are "joining" to more than one woman and there is going to be a moment where you will have to pick a side and that's not how marriage articulated in the beginning is about.

 

[ghendricks63]

Jesus says: “Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The pharisees reply: “Why then, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

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

so as the dialog goes Jesus starts with the words of Moses in the beginning, the pharisees rebuttal with the words of Moses in the law, Jesus then shows them that Moses' words in the law was because of the limitation of man and they do not trump how it was in the beginning (also the words of Moses but the design of God)

Jesus' statement defines marriage and show us how we should look to the beginning to define it and shows us the way Moses did things is not the example we should look to. Now if there was Adam and Eve and Eve's sister Sally than this would be a completely different argument but that's not how God created marriage. We are to "unite", "cleave", "join" or the whatever translation you want to use with your wife. But what happens when our many wives disagree then which are you to "cleave" to? Those words just don't work when we are "joining" to more than one woman and there is going to be a moment where you will have to pick a side and that's not how marriage articulated in the beginning is about.

I understand your argument well. In fact I used to embrace it as the only possibility of the truth. But the reference to the beginning proceeds under the assumption that there was ONLY one man and one woman around at the time...not that this is God's permanent restriction. And as for cleaving unto your spouse and leaving your home...why is this not possible for a 2nd wife?

I always find it interesting that if God truly believed this was what was honorable and right and the only example of marriage that is pleasing to Him, that He so often endorsed as faithful so many who had very different marriages. (Hebrews 11 is full of men who had wives and concubines) In fact, he chose to bring the nation of Israel into existence through a polygamus marriage and two additional women who were lovers but not wives. Seems odd that if He felt so strongly about this "pattern" of marriage that He would make this choice...or at least not have ANYTHING negative to say about it. For David (a man after His own heart) God Himself stated through the prophet the He gave additional women to him and stated that He would have given Him even more if he had asked. You can make as many arguments as you want that God "allowed" these great men of the faith to have multiple wives and concubines...but when we see God Himself actually providing for it we must accept the He does not consider it sinful, or even morally questionable.

This is how I know that Jesus was not implying 1 to 1 as the only possible arrangement pleasing to God, but rather was speaking of the type of relationship that can and should exist in a marriage, whether with one or several. Jesus was addressing divorce...not polygamy. I am not saying I promote polygamy or concubinage etc., but I am saying that God is obviously not against it.

 

[dayhiker]

I know these verses in the Gospels are used regularly to teach monogamy. But I have a hard time to see how verses that teach one isn't to separate means one should unite. It just seems to opposite to me.

That's not even getting into the historical context of these verses and the debate that was going on in 1st century Judaism.
Also Paul in discussing the law said it was righteous and holy. So I'd have a problem just blowing of Moses words as human words.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I'd love to have a concubine or two.

 

[chingchang]

I'd love to have a concubine or two.

Who wouldn't? I'm sure there are ladies out there that wouldn't mind having a male concubine or two around...just sayin'...

CC

 

[ghendricks63]

Who wouldn't? I'm sure there are ladies out there that wouldn't mind having a male concubine or two around...just sayin'...

CC

Under the new covenant there is no lnoger male or female...meaning equal status for both. Whatever one would determine is acceptable for men would obviously be acceptable for women as well.

 

[DamianWarS]

I understand your argument well. In fact I used to embrace it as the only possibility of the truth. But the reference to the beginning proceeds under the assumption that there was ONLY one man and one woman around at the time...not that this is God's permanent restriction. And as for cleaving unto your spouse and leaving your home...why is this not possible for a 2nd wife?

I always find it interesting that if God truly believed this was what was honorable and right and the only example of marriage that is pleasing to Him, that He so often endorsed as faithful so many who had very different marriages. (Hebrews 11 is full of men who had wives and concubines) In fact, he chose to bring the nation of Israel into existence through a polygamus marriage and two additional women who were lovers but not wives. Seems odd that if He felt so strongly about this "pattern" of marriage that He would make this choice...or at least not have ANYTHING negative to say about it. For David (a man after His own heart) God Himself stated through the prophet the He gave additional women to him and stated that He would have given Him even more if he had asked. You can make as many arguments as you want that God "allowed" these great men of the faith to have multiple wives and concubines...but when we see God Himself actually providing for it we must accept the He does not consider it sinful, or even morally questionable.

This is how I know that Jesus was not implying 1 to 1 as the only possible arrangement pleasing to God, but rather was speaking of the type of relationship that can and should exist in a marriage, whether with one or several. Jesus was addressing divorce...not polygamy. I am not saying I promote polygamy or concubinage etc., but I am saying that God is obviously not against it.

there are many places in scripture where God takes something out of a bad situation or even sinful and redeems them into his plan and will. Just look at the line of Jesus and see how many flawed people are in there. Without the many sinful mistakes of others like Judah sleeping with his daughter-in-law or David sleeping with Bathsheba and killing Uriah Jesus would not have been born. Yet God chooses to use these flaws for his work. This is not an example of how God accepts what we do but an example of his grace. We are all flawed and just because God gives us great blessing doesn't mean that God approves of every part of our lives.

The truth of the matter is no where in scripture gives clear evidence that God supports polygamy or does not. I choose the words of Jesus and look to the beginning to define what marriage should look like and you can choose random sparsely located verses to make your informed decision. However I think it is irresponsible to base such a value on very limited information. It is clear that Jesus tells us that what Moses said was because of the limitation of man. It doesn't matter if he was talking polygamy or not the point is that he brings into question everything man does and says and brings into question all the law. Jesus shows us that we are limit and incomplete and because of that we have band-aid type laws that only reflect our limitations but do not reflect the true desire of God he also shows us that no man is above God. Jesus goes back to the basics to support where he stands and with such a limited pool of verses that we pull to support polygamy we need to ask is this of God or is this "of man". Perhaps the NT comes from a context where polygamy is illegal so all verses reflect that context and assume monogamy but the same argument can be thrown around with the OT. It is not about what was cultural acceptable or not acceptable and what provisions where made during that time. It is about what is the desire of God. I feel the only verse that best supports this is how God created marriage in the beginning. God isn't an idiot and his actions represent very direct and clear purpose and if he desires polygamy than he would have creates Adam with a bunch of women but that isn't the case so I use those non-verbal cues from God as his desire for marriage which is 1 man and 1 woman.

 

[ghendricks63]

there are many places in scripture where God takes something out of a bad situation or even sinful and redeems them into his plan and will. Just look at the line of Jesus and see how many flawed people are in there. Without the many sinful mistakes of others like Judah sleeping with his daughter-in-law or David sleeping with Bathsheba and killing Uriah Jesus would not have been born. Yet God chooses to use these flaws for his work. This is not an example of how God accepts what we do but an example of his grace. We are all flawed and just because God gives us great blessing doesn't mean that God approves of every part of our lives.

The truth of the matter is no where in scripture gives clear evidence that God supports polygamy or does not. I choose the words of Jesus and look to the beginning to define what marriage should look like and you can choose random sparsely located verses to make your informed decision. However I think it is irresponsible to base such a value on very limited information. It is clear that Jesus tells us that what Moses said was because of the limitation of man. It doesn't matter if he was talking polygamy or not the point is that he brings into question everything man does and says and brings into question all the law. Jesus shows us that we are limit and incomplete and because of that we have band-aid type laws that only reflect our limitations but do not reflect the true desire of God he also shows us that no man is above God. Jesus goes back to the basics to support where he stands and with such a limited pool of verses that we pull to support polygamy we need to ask is this of God or is this "of man". Perhaps the NT comes from a context where polygamy is illegal so all verses reflect that context and assume monogamy but the same argument can be thrown around with the OT. It is not about what was cultural acceptable or not acceptable and what provisions where made during that time. It is about what is the desire of God. I feel the only verse that best supports this is how God created marriage in the beginning. God isn't an idiot and his actions represent very direct and clear purpose and if he desires polygamy than he would have creates Adam with a bunch of women but that isn't the case so I use those non-verbal cues from God as his desire for marriage which is 1 man and 1 woman.

Your statement that no place in scripture God gives clear evidence of either promoting or not promoting polygamy is interesting to me.

For one...I have shown such clear evidence by direct action of God in one instance, and by accepting the choices of so many faithful men throught the ages without the slightest hint of displeasure in so many others, that this statement simply is not correct. Clearly God has actually "promoted" it just as He has promoted the more traditional form of marriage. Remember, God Himself gave David additional lovers and stated He was willing to give more. God was dspleased with David's adultery with Bathsheeba, but not because it created a "non-traditional" marriage as He Himself had already provided that. He was displeased because of the destruction of another marriage and taking of a life for selfish coveteous reasons. What this tells us is that God is far more concerned with how we treat each other than He is with our individual choices on such matters. Anyone who states that Jesus words limited marriage to one man and one woman is reading that conclusion into them as I have already shown.

Simple declarative statements such as yours, though made with the sincerest of convictions, do not overturn what is plain biblical testimony.

 

[dayhiker]

Its interesting how many times people say God God uses us flawed people. Which we all know He does. But I don't see any scripture that says that says these men having concubines was a flaw or sin. Clearly David committing adultery with Bathsheba was adultery and a sin. This is breaking one of the 10 commandments and David had a prophet show up and confront him about that sin. But instead of Nathan add something like oh and God isn't even very pleased with the concubines you have. Nathan says God gave you a lot of wives and will would have given you more if you had asked. That's just the opposite of what people say today!

 

[SullivanZ]

Its interesting how many times people say God God uses us flawed people. Which we all know He does. But I don't see any scripture that says that says these men having concubines was a flaw or sin. Clearly David committing adultery with Bathsheba was adultery and a sin. This is breaking one of the 10 commandments and David had a prophet show up and confront him about that sin. But instead of Nathan add something like oh and God isn't even very pleased with the concubines you have. Nathan says God gave you a lot of wives and will would have given you more if you had asked. That's just the opposite of what people say today!

I know.

I personally don't agree with having more than one wife, but the Bible doesn't seem to indicate this was in any way a problem. Gotta love how people add to scripture, huh?

 

[Armistead14]

Polygamy, concubines or mistresses were comimon in the church 1000 years after Christ death. Polygamy was common during the time Christ walked on the earth and he didn't address it, nor did the apostles. We have one verse where Paul exhorts Deacons to "be the husbands of one wife." If you study that culturally and in context he was probably referring to polygamy and that it's best for pastors so to speak to only have one wife as many would hinder his work. It had nothing to do with pastors divorcing and remarrying.

I have no doubt polygamy was a cultural product written into the bible by the jews. It you want to take the bible literally, then you must credit God with endorsing and promoting polygamy.

God frowned and punished sin. The argument that God just allowed it would rewrite most other bible doctrine. David had many wives and concubines and probably mistrisses caught in battle, but the bible said he only sinned in the matter of Uriah the Hitite and that was adultery. This affair is part of the linage of the future Christ.

The fact is polygamy worked and works for many cultures today. On several mission trips to Africa the tribes were polygamous. It insured their survival. In cultures where survival depends on the man to provide and protect the weaker sex, polygamy insures that women and children are provided for. Biblically, that's why men took captured women in battle. Yes they could have sex with them or marry them, but they had to see to their provision.

Our mission groups did not seek to change their culture, they needed it for survival. Their views on marriage, sex and the naked body are much different from ours because they were not indoctrinated that it was evil, yet they had guidelines in the use of sex.

In my view polygamy, etc..is a cultural issue written into the bible as it was totally normal. It wouldn't work in our culture, much evil would come out of it, but it certainly works for others.


Polygamy and concubinage remained in the church for 1000 years after Christ, finally put away by a Pope to protect church property, all marriages in fact put away and all kids from these marriages deemed illegitimate.

How a Pope can do away with what God binded is beyond me, but had to protect all that church wealth...

 

[garydoc]

Polygamy was not necessarily approved in the OT or NT. It was regulated in the OT, as polygamy was part of that Middle Eastern culture. Also, Adam was not created with multiple wives-only Eve. God thought one woman was sufficient for one man. Jesus affirmed this by referring to the oneness of the Adam-Eve relationship.

In the OT, Lamech was the first polygamist. After this it became more common in the culture. The patriarchs had multiple wives, and polygamy was regulated. The Biblical record is quite honest in relating the problems and conflicts within a polygamist society.

All this being said, new Christians who are polygamists within their culture should be tolerated and taught a better way. Let them keep their wives and not take any more. Also, teach that the generation after them should not be polygamists. That is a far better way than breaking up existing families with multiple marriages. I do not teach or recommend that current monogamous Christians adopt polygamy.

 

[sniperelite7]

-deleted post-

 

[Armistead14]

I know these verses in the Gospels are used regularly to teach monogamy. But I have a hard time to see how verses that teach one isn't to separate means one should unite. It just seems to opposite to me.

That's not even getting into the historical context of these verses and the debate that was going on in 1st century Judaism.
Also Paul in discussing the law said it was righteous and holy. So I'd have a problem just blowing of Moses words as human words.

I see lil in the NT promoting one wife, polygamy was still a norm during NT times, only Paul commanded Deacons be the husband of one wife. We redefine that as a divorced Pastor can't remarry, etc...but it was due to polygamy, Paul clearly explains a man can't properly serve his flock with many wives.

We must also note that why God blessed polygamy and concubinage, the culture was women were property, women outnumbered men, it saw to their provision. Really not any different than a man and woman living together to survive economically today. However, many laws and codes were also in force regarding polygamy, concubines and out of marriage sex, but all were allowed in the OT.