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.
The NT not stating that all believers were to do the same does not mean that this was the practice. If we look at at what is said, Paul always speaks in the singular when he refers to a husband and wife. We do not see a man with many wives.
In the Gospel According to St. Matthew Chapter 19, Jesus talks about how it was from the beginning. Jesus only talks about one man and one woman for there being a marriage. polygamy is not allowed in the New Testament. Jesus explains what marriage is, and He does not talk about polygamy or homosexual unions
Remember, the first man in the Bible to take more then one wife was the wicked descendant of Cain named Lamech, and Lamech was also a murderer. THIS is the origin of polygamy.
I don't think that you intended to put "was NOT practiced among the Jews".But Paul was addressing the Gentiles. Polygamy was not practiced among the Jews at the time but was generally not practiced among the Gentiles. So or course Paul would speak in the singular version when addressing husband and wife.
Oh yeah, I guess that you are Sola Scriptura. The Christian Church never practiced this so there wasn't a need for a scripture verse forbidding multiple wives but we can see evidence in scripture.Please show me one place in the New Testament that specifically forbids Polygamy.
I wouldn't think that.And remember, I am not promoting Polygamy.
I don't think that you intended to put "was NOT practiced among the Jews"
The 2nd just isn't true. It was illegal in the Roman Empire but was practiced in many or even most Gentile areas, especially in Africa and the Middle East.
Oh yeah, I guess that you are Sola Scriptura. The Christian Church never practiced this so there wasn't a need for a scripture verse forbidding multiple wives but we can see evidence in scripture.
Paul, being Jewish, knew that it was allowable in ancient scripture
Paul, being Jewish, knew that it was allowable in ancient scripture but never mentions men having more than one wife. He uses the same singular wording whether speaking of how a man was treat his "wife" as to how a wife was to treat her "husband". Jewish law allowed a man to marry several women but did not allow a woman to have any more than one husband.
Jesus says:
Matthew 19:
3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful [for a man] to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made [them] from the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE,
5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE; and the two shall become ONE FLESH? [/B]
6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.
Here Jesus shows that just because something was allowable in the OT does not make it God's intention or shall we say beneficial. Jesus also uses the singular wording when talking about man and woman.
What does Paul say about divorce in other places?
1 Cor. 7:
10 But unto the married I give charge, [yea]]b\ not I, but the Lord[/b], That the wife depart not from her husband
11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.
Again, Paul showing that the Old Testament ways do not apply to Christians. Jesus tells us, further in Matthew 19, that if a divorced woman remarries but she commits adultery and the man who marries her does as well.
Matthew 19:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
Taking many of the NT scriptures into account we can see the importance that Jesus puts on a marriage and why it is considered a sacrament in the ancient Church.
Paul tells us about marriage and the duty of each to the other. We can see that this does not include multiple wives;
1 Cor. 7:
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own WIFE, and let each woman have her own HUSBAND.
3 Let the husband render unto the WIFE her due: and likewise also the wife unto the HUSBAND. 4 The WIFE hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the HUSBAND hath not power over HIS OWN BODY, BUT THE WIFE.
But Paul was addressing the Gentiles. Polygamy was not practiced among the Jews at the time but was generally not practiced among the Gentiles. So or course Paul would speak in the singular version when addressing husband and wife.
Please show me one place in the New Testament that specifically forbids Polygamy. And remember, I am not promoting Polygamy.
who said that it has to specifically forbid polygamy?
it has already been shown that in the NT, marriage is spoken of as being one man and one woman,
Jesus even condemns remarriage of the divorce that it is seen as "adultery" if polygamy was permissible, then the multiple marriage would not have been a problem?
not everything in the Bible has to be explicit, that is why we have a Church, to help us better understand the teachings of the Bible and how they are relevant
Not directly because it wasn't an issue he was facing. HoweverArchivist said:So something taht was permitted can be forbidden, even though it is never stated that it is forbidden. No, it has not. No, because Jesus was addressing divorce. He never addressed Polygamy.
Marriage always was that. Polygamy was tolerated, but was never the intention.And various church bodies have come up with different interpretations of those teachings. In any event, let me get something straight. Are you saying taht the definition of marriage chaged from being between one man and one or more women to being between one man and one woman?
Not directly because it wasn't an issue he was facing.
However "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;" necessarily assumes monogamy.
If polygamy is okay then taking a new wife isn't adultery.
Marriage always was that. Polygamy was tolerated, but was never the intention.
One generally doesn't say what is issued precisely because it's assumed.Archivist said:Correct. I have said that several times. He was addressing divorce not polygamy. Does it? Where does it say that?
Marriage after divorce can only be adultery if the following are both true:But a husband who takes a second wife isn't divorcing anyone. Therefore he isn't commiting adultry.
No, I'm saying what I said.Perhaps, but it was practiced. Are you saying that the definition of marriage changed?
One generally doesn't say what is issued precisely because it's assumed.
Marriage after divorce can only be adultery if the following are both true:
A. Divorce doesn't exist and so the first marriage doesn't end
AND
B. One can only marry one person at a time.
If A is true but not B then divorcing someone and marring another is polygamy not adultery.
No, I'm saying what I said.
"Definitions" is an anachronistic way of thinking about the question.
Either they weren't as much as you suppose, or Jesus expects them to infer thats wrong as wellArchivist said:But the Jews were still practicing polygamy at the time,
No, I'm saying the whole idea of definition is anachronistic.in other words, you don't want to admit that the meaning of the word marriage changed?
Either they weren't as much as you suppose, or Jesus expects them to infer thats wrong as well
No, I'm saying the whole idea of definition is anachronistic.
It doesn't matter - the logic of the way he addresses divorce and remarriage is to make it like polygamy and therefore adultery. His reasoning only works if being married to two women is adultery.Archivist said:But there was nothing to infer. Jesus was addressing divorce, not polygamy.
Who's concept?Actually definitions are a basic part of debate. In any event, I notice that you offered what was essentially a definition of adultery. I guess you think taht definitions are anachronistic only when you don't want to offer one. So lets not call it a definition, since you seem to have issues with that word. Would you say that the concept of marriage changed from being between one man and one or more women to between one man and one woman? Or do you find concepts to be anachronistic.
It doesn't matter - the logic of the way he addresses divorce and remarriage is to make it like polygamy and therefore adultery. His reasoning only works if being married to two women is adultery.
No, His reasoning only works if a man divorces one woman and marries another.
Who's concept?
General concept. Just give me your answer. Expalin it if you need to.
The logic doesn't work unless marrying another (polygamy) is adultery.Archivist said:No, His reasoning only works if a man divorces one woman and marries another.
But the Jews were still practicing polygamy at the time, so why would it be "assumed" taht it was wrong.
Again, at the time Jews were still practicing polygamy. Therefore it cannot be said that people could, at that time, only marry one person at a time.
In other words, you don't want to admit that the meaning of the word marriage changed?
marraige, is by its very nature, between a man and a woman
for a time, the ancient israelites fell into the customs of the other tribal peoples in that area, you can see many other instances of this in the Bible
as stated before, the first man to have more then one wife was a murderer and a decendant of Cain
Cain's descendents are also where we the first people to live in tents, raise cattle, handle harps and organs and the first people who worked with iron and brass. Does that mean whoever does those is also sinning?
tulc(is just wondering)
lol I was not saying that such a practice was bad BECAUSE it was founded by a child of Cain, as you pointed out, they were the inovators of their time.Cain's descendents are also where we the first people to live in tents, raise cattle, handle harps and organs and the first people who worked with iron and brass. Does that mean whoever does those is also sinning?
tulc(is just wondering)
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?