Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am asking where Jesus said marriage was between one man and one woman?As I said in the edit. Jesus clearly knew the scriptures, in fact he was the embodiment of them, He would have known the one you mentioned, yet He said marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman. In other word Jesus would have never contradicted a true interpretation of scripture.
Ah, ok I see what you mean.I agree that levirate marriage was not a sin. (I brought it to the fore earlier in this thread.) But the purpose for it no longer exists; namely, to keep the deceased brother's name tied to a particular piece of property.
Ah, sorry I get it now.I am asking where Jesus said marriage was between one man and one woman?
That passage is about divorce?????? Not polygamy. God said he hates divorce.Ah, sorry I get it now.
Matt 19:4-6
A man (singular) shall be joined to his wife (not wives) and the two shall become one flesh
It's also about marriage... The two are kinda connected you knowThat passage is about divorce?????? Not polygamy. God said he hates divorce.
and interesting thing about 1 Timothy 3:2-12 with this cryptic language of "husband of one wife" is that in ch5 it uses the exact same language to describe widows saying "wife of one husband".I personally don't think it was ever OK, and perhaps it was just overlooked. In the new testament they give mention of moral standards for Bishops: 1 Timothy 3:2-12
"2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"
and interesting thing about 1 Timothy 3:2-12 with this cryptic language of "husband of one wife" is that in ch5 it uses the exact same language to describe widows saying "wife of one husband".
So, how we interpret the former the latter should inherit the same but no one really comments on the latter. Most people don't want to commit to the idea that Paul was addressing polyandry in ch5 but they quickly commit to the idea that he is speaking of polygamy in ch3.
I agree with you, I don't think polygamy (or polyandry) was ever a part of God's design and even implicit in the creation account we see 1 man and 1 woman. God tells them to be fruitful and multiply yet slows the pace down with 1 woman (5 women would have been faster) so I don't see randomness in this design but only very precise moves. However, this interpretation in Timothy doesn't fit when paired with the same language in ch5 which most commonly is said to be talking about divorce. whatever one is the other should be the same. Because of this, I'm not quite sure what this phrase means but I lean away from polygamy (which I think was unspoken) and more toward divorced men.
They dont marry. In Russia following WW2 there was a large surplus of women ( there is a word to describe these women in russian) they never married. In polygamist societies it is the nobles who get to marry many women, the peasants in many cases die as virgins toiling the ground.Say there is a nation where there are 9 women to every man because of war. would it be better to permit polygamy or allow an environment that scandalizes 8 out of 9 women. Women who want to marry but can't. What happens to them?
The Church has never interpreted "husband of one wife" to mean polygamy. Its always meant a re-married person after widowhood or after a divorce. That's why clergy cannot re-marry if they become widowed and you are disqualified from the episcopate if you were married twice.So, how we interpret the former the latter should inherit the same but no one really comments on the latter. Most people don't want to commit to the idea that Paul was addressing polyandry in ch5 but they quickly commit to the idea that he is speaking of polygamy in ch3.
Lol yes, they become one flesh.It's also about marriage... The two are kinda connected you know
As far as I see it what God joins together needs to remain one flesh.In order to answer their question on divorce, Jesus first defines marriage. It's
The more wealth, the more a man can afford, so of course the "nobles" could marry more and thereby more offspring. This IMO is a far cry better than what goes on in America today. So much divorce and multiple families of both males and females. Then there are those which are having kids with multiple partners and not supporting any of the children. These do not see relationships the way the ancients did. How would our world be different today if both men and women took relations very seriously as an avenue to having offspring and working to care for them?They dont marry. In Russia following WW2 there was a large surplus of women ( there is a word to describe these women in russian) they never married. In polygamist societies it is the nobles who get to marry many women, the peasants in many cases die as virgins toiling the ground.
Not so sure about this. I remember reading where the Catholic Church allowed it for at least one man because they seen no prohibition from it. I will attempt to look it up though to confirm that.The Church has never interpreted "husband of one wife" to mean polygamy. Its always meant a re-married person after widowhood or after a divorce. That's why clergy cannot re-marry if they become widowed and you are disqualified from the episcopate if you were married twice.
It appears that the first wife seen children from concubines as theirs somehow.It says in Genesis 2:24 that the 2 shall become one. I do not think polygamy was intended although God was long suffering for fallen man. The Lord being against divorce, I believe, clearly indicates He does not approve of polygamy since He reaffirms what is said in Genesis in the Gospel ( Mark 10:2-9).
So - multiple wives were quite common in the Old Testament - why was that OK?
And when and where did this change?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?