Monogamy

[ShermanN]

1Ti 5:9
(9) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

This verse says what it means. There is no unclear reference to polyandry or polygamy. It is a clear and simple reference to a woman that has only been married to one man, in other words, not divorced and remarried, or remarried after the husband died. Amazing how doctrines can cloud biblical understanding.

First let me note that 1 Tim.3.2 "husband of one wife," and 5.9 "having been the wife of one husband" are the same construct with the only difference other than the order of the sexes being 5.9 is in the past tense and 3.2 is in the present continuous. So it is likely that they mean the same thing.

The question is, does "wife of one husband" a statement against polyandry? Considering that polyandry was not practiced in that culture, it's unlikely. Also, one must ask did "wife of one husband" mean that the widow could have been the wife of "only" one husband. This too is unlikely based on the literary context. Paul had just instructed younger widows to remarry; if such a woman's second husband later died when she was older it's unthinkable that she would be denied being added to the support list, assuming if she met all of the other qualifications, because she had been the wife of two men.

So what does "wife of one husband" mean? Again, it's likely that this is a reference to her being faithful. In fact TNIV translates this phrase "has been faithful to her husband." NLT translates it "was faithful to her husband."

Both the NLT and the TNIV actually translate 1 Tim.3.2 as "faithful to his wife."

The point is that neither 3.2 nor 5.9 are not speaking of, either for or against, polygamy.

 

[Nadiine]

First let me note that 1 Tim.3.2 "husband of one wife," and 5.9 "having been the wife of one husband" are the same construct with the only difference other than the order of the sexes being 5.9 is in the past tense and 3.2 is in the present continuous. So it is likely that they mean the same thing.

The question is, does "wife of one husband" a statement against polyandry? Considering that polyandry was not practiced in that culture, it's unlikely. Also, one must ask did "wife of one husband" mean that the widow could have been the wife of "only" one husband. This too is unlikely based on the literary context. Paul had just instructed younger widows to remarry; if such a woman's second husband later died when she was older it's unthinkable that she would be denied being added to the support list, assuming if she met all of the other qualifications, because she had been the wife of two men.

So what does "wife of one husband" mean? Again, it's likely that this is a reference to her being faithful. In fact TNIV translates this phrase "has been faithful to her husband." NLT translates it "was faithful to her husband."

Both the NLT and the TNIV actually translate 1 Tim.3.2 as "faithful to his wife."

The point is that neither 3.2 nor 5.9 are not speaking of, either for or against, polygamy.

Without studying this myself, let me note this IMPORTANT fact - BEING FAITHFUL INCLUDES NOT HAVING SEX WITH AND TAKING ON ANOTHER WOMAN TO SHARE DEEP INTIMACY.

How does she feel her lover's faithfulness includes being sexually intimate with other women he's privately & secretly sharing his heart and body with??

How is one faithful in this way? (either sex towards either spouse).

I'd like to note that spiritual adultery constituted Israel "going after other lovers" other than her husband. God considered Israel a harlot when she went after any other gods other than Himself.

I don't see how a man or woman would feel any different towards their lover. Read Ecclesiastes over - I can't get my head around these 2 passionate lovers pining over one another, then saying, "well, I love you honey, but it's time for me now to go looking for another".
Ecclesiastes is monagamy at it's best.

 

[ShermanN]

I don't have time to go through all of this, but Timothy and Titus would have been familiar with those secnarios. In fact, Herod was married to Herodias, who was married to his brother. John the Baptist's act of pointing it out is what got him killed.

Herodias, Phillip, and Herod are not an example of polyandry. It is actually an example of adultery and the recognition of civil authority overy MDR. In Israel, because of the wording of Dt.24.1, only men could divorce their wives; women could not initiate divorces. Concerning Herodias, Josephus records that she wrote Phillip, her husband and Herod's brother, a bill of divorce, though not recognized legally, and left Phillip and moved in with Herod. Thus, Herodias and Herod were living together in adultery.

As I mentioned, this is also an example of civil authority being over MDR. In Israel, only men could initiate a divorce; women could not. However, in Greco-Roman culture, either men or women could initiate divorces. (Divorce is being discussed on another thread.)

The Word is living and active, and while I agree that it is good to educate ourselves on the culture of the day it was written, we can't discount what is obviously stated just because we don't think it would have been understood at the time it was written. There are some scriptures that were meant for a specific people, or person, at a specific time. However on the whole God's word is meant for us all.God knew when those words were written that they were for many people yet to come. He is perfectly capable of getting the right words down, and giving the people the understanding to comprehend it.

What you're saying is that though the author meant "xxxxx" and the first century audience understood it as "xxxxx", but readers today understand it saying "QQQQQ", that "QQQQQ" is just as authoritative as "xxxxx". And the reason that this is ok is because God knew that a later generation would misunderstand "xxxxx" as "QQQQQ" and intentionally inspired the author to write it that way so that the later generation would misunderstand it but get it right.

Of course, I disagree. If the author meant "xxxxx" then that is what we need to base doctrine on. Furthermore if you take this to it's logical conclusion, the Word acutally looses it's authority as a guide for what is true and right because the "meaning" of the text can change and be different based upon the people reading the text.

 

[ShermanN]

Something else, the husband of one wife would not likely have been the phrase chosen to allude to faithfulness, since we are always referred to as the bride of Christ, not the husband.

I don't understand your point here; maybe it's meant for later generations. I mean you said "xxxxx", but maybe later generations or someone in another culture will understand it as "QQQQQ" and that's what you really meant anyhow, though I couldn't understand it though because I only read in x's.

 

[ShermanN]

Without studying this myself, let me note this IMPORTANT fact - BEING FAITHFUL INCLUDES NOT HAVING SEX WITH AND TAKING ON ANOTHER WOMAN TO SHARE DEEP INTIMACY.

How does she feel her lover's faithfulness includes being sexually intimate with other women he's privately & secretly sharing his heart and body with??

How is one faithful in this way? (either sex towards either spouse).

I'd like to note that spiritual adultery constituted Israel "going after other lovers" other than her husband. God considered Israel a harlot when she went after any other gods other than Himself.

I don't see how a man or woman would feel any different towards their lover. Read Ecclesiastes over - I can't get my head around these 2 passionate lovers pining over one another, then saying, "well, I love you honey, but it's time for me now to go looking for another".
Ecclesiastes is monagamy at it's best.

Nadiine, doctrine is not about "feeling"; it should start with understanding the Word for what it says and not reading into the text what we think it should say.

All I'm pointing out is what 1 Tim. 3.2 and 5.9 likely meant to the original audience. It's exegesis as opposed to eisegesis, understanding as opposed to reading into. I like the word "understand"; it implies "standing-under", a purposeful attitude of submitting one's self to another. When one reads into the Word he/she is standing-over the Word instead of standing-under It.

To be faithful means to abide by and fulfill one's word, one's promises. During biblical times, if a woman wanted a monogamous marriage, she made that part of the marriage covenant. Both the man and the woman went into the relationship with that understanding. It was even written into the marriage contract.

And I think when you said "Ecclesiastes" you meant "Song of Solomon", correct? If so, even then Solomon was writing and he had hundred's of wives. Passion is not limited to monogamy or polygamy.

 

[livingword26]

All I'm pointing out is what 1 Tim. 3.2 and 5.9 likely meant to the original audience. It's exegesis as opposed to eisegesis, understanding as opposed to reading into. I like the word "understand"; it implies "standing-under", a purposeful attitude of submitting one's self to another. When one reads into the Word he/she is standing-over the Word instead of standing-under It.

1Ti 3:2
(2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 5:9
(9) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

Again. The bible means what the bible says. If you have to alter the obvious and clear meaning of the verse, to fit into your beliefs, then you need to examine your beliefs and your motives. These 2 verses are not complicated or hard to understand in any translation. They are clear and to the point.

 

[Nadiine]

1Ti 3:2
(2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 5:9
(9) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

Again. The bible means what the bible says. If you have to alter the obvious and clear meaning of the verse, to fit into your beliefs, then you need to examine your beliefs and your motives. These 2 verses are not complicated or hard to understand in any translation. They are clear and to the point.

This is EXACTLY what I've stated before - people "study" the Bible to a literal DEATH of it's pure meaning.

Word searches can help, but we can analyze them to make them fit practically anything we want. I've seen homosexuals turn EVERY verse that condemns homosexuality to mean "temple prostitution" in every single reference. It cannot be further from the truth when you read it inside it's context and in the FLOW of statements.

This is just another example of this. In our "higher education" of using a Strongs Concordance, we've warped the bible & stripped it's message of nearly all clear meaning as it was intended - the result: confusion.

I'm still waiting for some examples of polygamists in the NT church who were promoting Christianity - any examples to show us this is still allowed from the OT.
AS I demand of homosexuals to show me examples of GAY ELDERS operating in the Christian churches to show me homosexuality is widely accepted in the NT.
(Neither exist).

 

[Chie]

"for every Adam there is only one Eve"

It must be noted that, biblically, polygamy was merely tolerated by God and never commanded by Him. The mere fact that in the beginning God created just Eve for the companionship of Adam points to the monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. This is confirmed by such passages as I Corinthians 7:2 where the apostle Paul states that "every man have his own wife," not wives. In I Timothy 3:2, monogamy was a qualification for church office, and in Matthew 19:5, even our Lord condoned monogamy when He stated "they twain (two) shall be one flesh."

Eph 5:22, 28-31. "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wife as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it . . . So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church . . .

The marriage relationship, in the New Testament, is the type of the relationship between Christ and God's Church.

Marriage between a man and one woman is the physical of the spiritual church.

poligomy is not the physical of the spritual church. the 10 virgins is not literal justification for man to have more than one wife. It is meant for spiritual understanding. The bride will be made up not of just women but man also. The bride is the body of believers.

God is not the author of confusion and his Word doesn't cancel out one another nor the instructs he has given man, but man has the ability to fool even himself when things are not spiritual discerned.

Jesus Christ will marry but ONE Church
"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and HIS WIFE [not wives] hath made herself ready" (Rev. 19:7).

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, doctrine is not about "feeling"; it should start with understanding the Word for what it says and not reading into the text what we think it should say.

All I'm pointing out is what 1 Tim. 3.2 and 5.9 likely meant to the original audience. It's exegesis as opposed to eisegesis, understanding as opposed to reading into. I like the word "understand"; it implies "standing-under", a purposeful attitude of submitting one's self to another. When one reads into the Word he/she is standing-over the Word instead of standing-under It.

To be faithful means to abide by and fulfill one's word, one's promises. During biblical times, if a woman wanted a monogamous marriage, she made that part of the marriage covenant. Both the man and the woman went into the relationship with that understanding. It was even written into the marriage contract.

And I think when you said "Ecclesiastes" you meant "Song of Solomon", correct? If so, even then Solomon was writing and he had hundred's of wives. Passion is not limited to monogamy or polygamy.

In God's realm, faithful ALSO means to stay with the ONE GOD and seek no other gods, doesn't it?
That is the ULTIMATE in faithfulness; staying with the one and forsaking all others??

 

[Nadiine]

"for every Adam there is only one Eve"

It must be noted that, biblically, polygamy was merely tolerated by God and never commanded by Him.

as divorce was tolerated, slavery -

The mere fact that in the beginning God created just Eve for the companionship of Adam points to the monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. This is confirmed by such passages as I Corinthians 7:2 where the apostle Paul states that "every man have his own wife," not wives.

Yes, as I had also mentioned, in EVERY instance when a man & wife are spoken of, "wife" is always singular to one singular man/husband.
Those are the examples we have and they DO prove polygamy is not to be practiced.
*important to note - they also refute homosexuality - it's always man with woman/husband with wife; never male husband with male husband.

We cannot ignore THE EXAMPLES SET FORTH IN SCRIPTURE FOR US to claim some Greek words prove otherwise.

 

[Chie]

as divorce was tolerated, slavery -


Yes, as I had also mentioned, in EVERY instance when a man & wife are spoken of, "wife" is always singular to one singular man/husband.
Those are the examples we have and they DO prove polygamy is not to be practiced.
*important to note - they also refute homosexuality - it's always man with woman/husband with wife; never male husband with male husband.

We cannot ignore THE EXAMPLES SET FORTH IN SCRIPTURE FOR US to claim some Greek words prove otherwise.

Amen,

 

[Nadiine]

*in addition, I still think it's significant that the majority of born again Christians do not practice polygamy and even a large portion of secular society find it immoral and impractical.
This shouldn't be ignored since God has installed each of us with a conscience.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

*in addition, I still think it's significant that the majority of born again Christians do not practice polygamy and even a large portion of secular society find it immoral and impractical.
This shouldn't be ignored since God has installed each of us with a conscience.

One wonders if the majority of people were not brought up being taught that "one man/one woman" is the ONLY acceptible model, if this would, in fact, be the case... if conscience is, as you suggest, "God installed"... it would seem that people should come to pretty similar ethical conclusions irregardless of cultural background or upbringing

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yes, as I had also mentioned, in EVERY instance when a man & wife are spoken of, "wife" is always singular to one singular man/husband.

So all those patriarchs who are mentioned who have relations with more than one "wife" are... what?

 

[Nadiine]

One wonders if the majority of people were not brought up being taught that "one man/one woman" is the ONLY acceptible model, if this would, in fact, be the case... if conscience is, as you suggest, "God installed"... it would seem that people should come to pretty similar ethical conclusions irregardless of cultural background or upbringing

I don't suggest God installed our conscience, THE BIBLE PROCLAIMS IT.

Hebrews 10:16
" THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEMAFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"​

Further, man knew good and evil since Adam ate of the tree - knowing the difference (which is why they hid themselves after they ate it - conscience).
​

Plus, the Bible tells us that man's NATURAL state is to rebel against God & what is righteous... prefer darkness to light and take the WIDE PATH to destruction.

Just becuz people disobey what they know in their conscience (by means of justification & desensitization to evil in a gradual decline of morality) doesn't mean we don't all know right from wrong/good from evil.
Man can SEAR their conscience:
Romans 1:18-32, Rom 2:14-16 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

1 Tim 4: 1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't suggest God installed our conscience, THE BIBLE PROCLAIMS IT.

*sigh* it really gets tiring the way people fall back on Bible verses rather than actually discuss issues in their own words and understandings...

But lets simplify shall we...

If God has provided everyone with the exact same template for knowing right from wrong... why is it that culture and upbringing seem to have so much more to do with one's perception of morality, rather than any discernible example of an overriding "universal" morality, perceptible in ALL humans?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

doesn't mean we don't all know right from wrong/good from evil.

Here's a whole can of worms for you Nadiine... this came to me over Easter, a thought that intrigued me and made me think of you in particular...

ahem... ready for my profundity...?

"There IS NO right and wrong... only best available practice"

Look forward to your thoughts.

 

[Chie]

*sigh* it really gets tiring the way people fall back on Bible verses rather than actually discuss issues in their own words and understandings...

But lets simplify shall we...

If God has provided everyone with the exact same template for knowing right from wrong... why is it that culture and upbringing seem to have so much more to do with one's perception of morality, rather than any discernible example of an overriding "universal" morality, perceptible in ALL humans?

Because perception is stronger than truth.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Right. Well let's take a look at some more points that have already been discussed if you don't mind.

1) There are many examples in scripture of God fearing individuals who were pleasing in God's sight and also happened to have practiced polygamy.

2) The Mosaic law assumes polygamy is acceptable in a few of its statutes. Exo 21:8-11 actually requires a betrothed woman to stay with her husband and his new wife as long as her basic needs are provided for. The same law which instructs us to abstain from adultery and immorality also supports polygamy.

3) 2Sam 12:8 Outlines the word of the Lord to David and it states that it was God's will to give him multiple wives and it would have been God's good pleasure to grant David even more in order to keep him from commiting adultery with another man's wife.

4) We have NT support in Heb 13:4 which states that marriage is honorable in all. We know this includes polygamy since the same letter exalted several polygamists in chapter 11. The same verse goes on to state that God will judge adulterers. So, if polygamy is adultery, then the letter that honors polygamists is honoring people who are not honorable by its own defintions. It would be contradicting itself. Furthermore, the idea that polygamy is honorable is also supported by Psalm 45 and Mat 25 in which Jesus uses a polygamist situation to illustrate the Kingdom of Heaven. The only way Jesus could use such an illustration without it being insulting to the Kindom of Heaven is if it were an honorable marriage arrangement.

5) Even though there are a few verses which seem to assume a monogamist viewpoint, there are none throughout the entirety of scripture which outright forbid polygamy!

We cannot ignore THE EXAMPLES SET FORTH IN SCRIPTURE FOR US to claim some Greek words prove otherwise.

I agree 100%

*in addition, I still think it's significant that the majority of born again Christians do not practice polygamy and even a large portion of secular society find it immoral and impractical.
This shouldn't be ignored since God has installed each of us with a conscience.

Right. This was also discussed earlier in the thread. Did you know that before Christianity ever came about that monogamy was Roman law? Strangely, the Israelites who were under Roman occupation at the time were given a special allowance for polygamy. I think it's interesting anyways.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I don't suggest God installed our conscience, THE BIBLE PROCLAIMS IT.

Hebrews 10:16
" THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEMAFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"​

Further, man knew good and evil since Adam ate of the tree - knowing the difference (which is why they hid themselves after they ate it - conscience).​

Plus, the Bible tells us that man's NATURAL state is to rebel against God & what is righteous... prefer darkness to light and take the WIDE PATH to destruction.

Just becuz people disobey what they know in their conscience (by means of justification & desensitization to evil in a gradual decline of morality) doesn't mean we don't all know right from wrong/good from evil.
Man can SEAR their conscience:
Romans 1:18-32, Rom 2:14-16 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

1 Tim 4: 1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron...

It's very creative Nadiine but honestly it's not right to bend the truth.