What do you think of concubinage?

[chingchang]

concubines were more for issues of offpsring when the main wife was barren. The OT did allow polygamy because God wanted the Israelites to propagate and number the lands. Solomon, who was considered a man to have wisdom above all others later did regret his concubines and large number of wives.

Since it was different at this time I cannot condemn concubinage as adultery nor condemn polygamy as our father Abraham had multiple wives. Just as Moses permitted divorce, polygamy and concubinage was permitted. But as Jesus says, it was more due to the hardness of their hearts than what it was actually at the beginning. However since tribal offspring and increasing its populations is not an issue anymore polygamy is not needed anymore. Also during the Israelite wars for the lands of canaan, many husbands were killed, thus leaving the wives without their husbands and any means of subsistence and protection. And due to this they married the captive women in order to provide for them and continue. That's why God says to keep the captive women and children for themselves, since there was no one else to take care of them.

You bring some historical perspective and some good points into view here. I will add something however. If polygamy and concubinage was not a sin during OT times then it can't be now because God does not change. What offends God in the OT has to offend him now and what did not offend him in the OT can not offend him now. If God changes...then sin is relative to his mood. So...while polygamy and concubinage may not be practical in today's modern society...it isn't wrong to practice if all parties are agreeable.

Just my two cents,
CC

 

[CreedIsChrist]

You bring some historical perspective and some good points into view here. I will add something however. If polygamy and concubinage was not a sin during OT times then it can't be now because God does not change. What offends God in the OT has to offend him now and what did not offend him in the OT can not offend him now. If God changes...then sin is relative to his mood. So...while polygamy and concubinage may not be practical in today's modern society...it isn't wrong to practice if all parties are agreeable.

Just my two cents,
CC

Well in exodus I believe the OT tolerates polygamy and the reason why it was tolerated was due to fertility issues and the propagation of the tribes. However it was similar to the same way divorce was allowed in the OT and yet Jesus said re-marriage was akin to adultery. Lastly the OT law, as far as the ceremonials, were abolished. Does that mean God's word has changed, no. Remember Jesus parable about the old wine-skins and the new.

I think St. Augustine has a good view. St. Augustine also had a problem understanding OT polygamy and its relation to NT monogamy.

St. Augustine refrained from judging the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygamy. On the contrary, he showed that polygamy of the Fathers, tolerated by the Creator because of fertility, was a diversion from His original plan for the human marriage. Augustine wrote:That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself

Augustine taught that the reason why patriarchs had many wives was not because of fornication but because they wanted more children. He proved it by showing that their marriages, in which husband was a head, were arranged according to the rules of good management: those who are in command (quae principantur) in the society are always singular, while subordinates (subiecta) are multiple. He gave two examples of such relationship: dominus-servus - master-servant (in older translation, slave) and God-soul. The Bible many times says that worshipping multiple gods, i.e. idolatry is a fornication. Augustine relates to that: On this account there is no True God of souls, save One: but one soul by means of many false gods may commit fornication, but not be made fruitful

Since the fullness of time arrived, fertility has no longer been regarded as a reason justifying polygamy: it was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce (utrum et nunc fas sit, non temere dixerim). For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful

 

[laconicstudent]

Ah.

Spoiler: Circassienne au Harem

by Félix-Auguste Clément

 

[chingchang]

Well in exodus I believe the OT tolerates polygamy and the reason why it was tolerated was due to fertility issues and the propagation of the tribes. However it was similar to the same way divorce was allowed in the OT and yet Jesus said re-marriage was akin to adultery. Lastly the OT law, as far as the ceremonials, were abolished. Does that mean God's word has changed, no. Remember Jesus parable about the old wine-skins and the new.

I think St. Augustine has a good view. St. Augustine also had a problem understanding OT polygamy and its relation to NT monogamy.

St. Augustine refrained from judging the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygamy. On the contrary, he showed that polygamy of the Fathers, tolerated by the Creator because of fertility, was a diversion from His original plan for the human marriage. Augustine wrote:That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself

Augustine taught that the reason why patriarchs had many wives was not because of fornication but because they wanted more children. He proved it by showing that their marriages, in which husband was a head, were arranged according to the rules of good management: those who are in command (quae principantur) in the society are always singular, while subordinates (subiecta) are multiple. He gave two examples of such relationship: dominus-servus - master-servant (in older translation, slave) and God-soul. The Bible many times says that worshipping multiple gods, i.e. idolatry is a fornication. Augustine relates to that: On this account there is no True God of souls, save One: but one soul by means of many false gods may commit fornication, but not be made fruitful

Since the fullness of time arrived, fertility has no longer been regarded as a reason justifying polygamy: it was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce (utrum et nunc fas sit, non temere dixerim). For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful

How many wives/concubines did David and Solomon have? The Prophet Nathan told David that God would have given him even more if what he had was not enough. In other words...all of David's wives/concubines were blessings from God...and those blessings were taken from him when he committed adultery and given to Solomon. What I'm talking about here is sin. Is it sinful to possess more than one wife or have concubines? Clearly not if they were blessings from God in the OT. So...if it was not sinful then it is not sinful now. God does not change. I'm not saying it is a good idea...I'm just saying it doesn't offend God. Period.

CC

 

[daydreamergurl15]

How many wives/concubines did David and Solomon have? The Prophet Nathan told David that God would have given him even more if what he had was not enough. In other words...all of David's wives/concubines were blessings from God...and those blessings were taken from him when he committed adultery and given to Solomon. What I'm talking about here is sin. Is it sinful to possess more than one wife or have concubines? Clearly not if they were blessings from God in the OT. So...if it was not sinful then it is not sinful now. God does not change. I'm not saying it is a good idea...I'm just saying it doesn't offend God. Period.

CC

We are under the new covenant, whatever God allowed to those who were under the old law, does not apply. Jesus and Paul (through the Holy Spirit) have made it clear that marriage is one man and one wife. (Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 2).

As for God not changing about sin, that's not correct. It was okay for a man to marry his sister and have babies but when Moses was given the law it forbid such actions. As for concubines, God did allow it....but now that we are under the new, He does not. As for those blessings, God did provide that, He also provided a huge financial gain for Solomon but because of how Solomon turned out, God said He'll never do that again, we also have proverbs (from Solomon himself) telling us not to go after riches. It's simply, during those times under the old covenant God allowed certain things but now since Christ because of His sacrifice, He does not.

 

[Avniel]

I just want to say that I have seen some very good arguments on both sides. Even though I say that we are under a new spiritual contract of sorts and that having extra martial relationships is a sin. I would also point how sad I actually am that some people had no historical idea of what the OP was actually talking about. It saddens me that we as a body are so ignorant of our historical history.

 

[chaoschristian]

I think concubinage is another word for adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:2

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
​

You know, if you read that sentence very narrowly, it doesn't actually explicitly state an exclusivity between the man and the woman.

Not Paul's best work really. Then again, I don't think he ever intended to have these letters bandied about like we do.

 

[chingchang]

We are under the new covenant, whatever God allowed to those who were under the old law, does not apply.

True...we are under a new covenant. But what God allowed is not "old law". His laws were prohibitive...meaning they generally told us what NOT to do. So...what he allowed then certainly does apply now. If it wasn't sinful then...it can't be now.

Jesus and Paul (through the Holy Spirit) have made it clear that marriage is one man and one wife. (Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 2).

Marriage is a union of a man and woman...but a man can be married to more than one woman. The women are not married to each other...but are married to the one man. If it was a sin for a man to be married to more than one woman under the new covenant we would find scripture in the NT that says something like this: "a man will not be married to more than one woman". However...the closest we get to that is Paul's instruction for Deacons to have only one wife. His instruction was explicitly for Deacons.

As for God not changing about sin, that's not correct. It was okay for a man to marry his sister and have babies but when Moses was given the law it forbid such actions.

Do you know why that law was given? Note also that the law was VERY specific on what we should not do. Where is the law explicitly prohibiting polygamy? Also...your logic earlier was that this was "old law" and no longer applies. If that is true then by extension according to your logic it is now o.k. for me to marry my sister and have babies with her.

As for concubines, God did allow it....but now that we are under the new, He does not.

Oh really? How do you know this? Can you please point me to scripture forbidding it?

As for those blessings, God did provide that, He also provided a huge financial gain for Solomon but because of how Solomon turned out, God said He'll never do that again,

God's problem with Solomon had NOTHING to do with the number of wives but with whom he brought in and how those wives (one in particular) were influencing him.

we also have proverbs (from Solomon himself) telling us not to go after riches.

True...and more importantly Yeshua himself denounces materialism.

It's simply, during those times under the old covenant God allowed certain things but now since Christ because our sacrifice, He does not.

Categorically untrue and unBiblical.

CC

 

[chaoschristian]

I just want to say that I have seen some very good arguments on both sides. Even though I say that we are under a new spiritual contract of sorts and that having extra martial relationships is a sin. I would also point how sad I actually am that some people had no historical idea of what the OP was actually talking about. It saddens me that we as a body are so ignorant of our historical history.

The Sphinx is tricksy like that.

 

[Sphinx777]

.​

​

.​

 

[DamianWarS]

the design of marriage is between one man and one woman and we see that at the beginning with Adam and Eve. That design is reemphasized by Jesus when he defines marriage saying we should look to the beginning that God created "male and female" and that the "two become one flesh". This is the nature and design of marriage and it is something we should strive for.

However people are born into sin and are corrupted by it through their culture and through their sinful nature. No matter if it was during the OT, NT, 1000 years ago, 50 years ago or now. Because of sin not everything said in the Bible can be taken as something that is approved and accepted by God simply because it is practiced.

A lot of the Bible is written as a narrative which means there can be many acts recorded that do not reflect what is or is not sin simply by the mention of the acts. When it comes to polygamy it is certainly practiced in the OT and one could also say it is a accepted by God by how scripture seems to point to the idea that many wives are a part of God's blessing. However we cannot confuse what God permits with what God accepts. In truth there is no area of the OT where God directly speaks on behalf of polygamy and we can only get that idea of theology through indirect methods like assuming that more than one wife is a part of God given blessings.

Because of how the OT treats the subject from the records of the actions, cultural approval, and some arguable indirect areas we cannot develop a dogmatic theology saying God approves polygamy on them alone. The problem is that these are the only evidence. The NT is pretty silent on the subject and the references of "husband of one wife" is controversial to what Paul actually meant. Paul was probably talking about divorce and remarriage not polygamy as Paul also defines a widow as "Wife of one husband", surely Paul did not suggest that women were the head of polygamous relationships not to mention polygamy was illegal at that time. However despite its silence the NT does appear to assume monogamy when speaking about marital relationships.

With the absence of information we can look back to creation and how God defines marriage in the Garden of Eden. God created Adam and when Adam was looking for someone to complete him he created one woman to do the job. Jesus goes back to the original design of God when defining marriage in Matthew 19 when asked about divorce. That passage in Matthew is not so far out of context as this subject is. Jesus's reply is "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." Jesus continues emphasizing that God created "male and female" and that they become one flesh. Even though Jesus was speaking against divorce his words can still be used as a blanket statement for marriage that we should look to the design of God to define it.

God permitted polygamy because of the limitations of man and its culture but it is not this way from the beginning and we should look to the design of God before we look to the design of man. God is perfect in his design man is not so why should we question that which is already perfect contrary to what man has historical practiced?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You know, if you read that sentence very narrowly, it doesn't actually explicitly state an exclusivity between the man and the woman.

Not Paul's best work really. Then again, I don't think he ever intended to have these letters bandied about like we do.

Here is the verse in its context.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.​

Realize the singularity of these words, "each man have his own wife and each wife have her own husband."

If scripture tells us that the husband have authority over the wife's body and the wife have authority over her husband's body then we know that only ONE person should have authority over the body (yes, I'm excluding God in that because God have authority over all but for the husband-wife relationship, I'm just trying to show how singular when it comes to the physical). IF someone is in a polygamous relationship, it would be impossible for only 1 person to have authority over the body because it is "shared" amongst people. I.E. If the man have more than 1 wife, then more than 1 person have that authority. That goes against those scriptures.

 

[dayhiker]

From my study I don't see the OT is against concubinage or poly marriages.

Moses wrote gen and he had 3 wives. Seems to me if Moses was writting gen1-3 to each one man for one woman then Moses wouldn't have had more than one wife. Further, in Num.12 when Moses took his second wife is where God says that Moses was faithful in all his house.

The NT scriptures that are quoted do speak of one woman and one man. But I don't see those condemning the use of concubinage that was around in Paul's day. The context of 1 Cor.7 is and I believe to be Paul main concern is the sexuality that was connected with temple worship (porneia). Paul is saying to the men to have a wife so they don't go to the temple prostitutes.

As in all things one has to do the loving thing.

dayhiker

 

[chingchang]

Here is the verse in its context.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.​

Realize the singularity of these words, "each man have his own wife and each wife have her own husband."

If scripture tells us that the husband have authority over the wife's body and the wife have authority over her husband's body then we know that only ONE person should have authority over the body (yes, I'm excluding God in that because God have authority over all but for the husband-wife relationship, I'm just trying to show how singular when it comes to the physical). IF someone is in a polygamous relationship, it would be impossible for only 1 person to have authority over the body because it is "shared" amongst people. I.E. If the man have more than 1 wife, then more than 1 person have that authority. That goes against those scriptures.

No...it seemingly goes against the instruction of Paul. However...one must first uncover what was going on in Corinth to fully understand this instruction. Paul also said it is good for a man to NOT have sexual relations with a woman. Why would he say that? Paul also said that Deacons should have only one wife. He didn't say a man is allowed to have only one wife...he said 'Deacons'. So...your analysis falls short. I'd also add that Paul thought that Christ was returning in his lifetime. He was wrong. Since your analysis of Paul's instruction can not be reconciled with OT practices that were considered a "blessing" of God...then there must be another explanation.

My question for you would be...was polygamy "o.k." up until the day Paul wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth? Was it "o.k." when Yeshua walked as a man? Why do we find no prohibition of polygamy until (seemingly) Paul writes a letter?

CC

 

[chingchang]

God permitted polygamy because of the limitations of man and its culture...

How do you know this?

CC

 

[DamianWarS]

How do you know this?

CC

I know this by how Jesus Christ defended marriage:

Matthew 19:1-12

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "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. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "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 marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Certainly divorce is not the only circumstance that can be applied here. Jesus's answer is not about divorce it is about marriage and that is the heart of this passage and he looks to the beginning to define it. We too should look to beginning to also define marriage and should not use man's wisdom and history to defend our perspective. God (or moses in the context) permitted divorce because of the corruption of man's heart; because of their limitation to see what God sees. In the same way God allows polygamy because of the same limitations of man. Re-read Matthew 19 and replace the idea of divorce with polygamy and see if Jesus's answer still fits. Obviously the part where Moses issues a law is specific to divorce but as a whole Jesus's answer is about marriage not divorce. He addresses the specific but the answer is fundamentally about the design of marriage and the limitation of man interpreting that. Re-read the text again and put in some other random issue pertaining to marriage like homosexuality, abuse, etc.. Jesus's definition of marriage is how we should approach answers about the institution of marriage.

Man is not perfect nor is his design. There are areas in the bible that can easily be interpreted as God's acceptance of polygamy but there is no area where God outright says it is what he desires and abides with his design of marriage. When we look at the heart of how God has designed marriage polygamy is absent. Polygamy is first mention through an offspring of Cain in Gen.4:19 which says "Lamech married two women". Was polygamy common at this time? If it was why does the text specifically single out Lamech saying he married two women and fails to mention that with any other? It would seem it was not that common of a practice early on in Genesis contrary to what it developed into

Man created polygamy not God. The bible may be unclear or misleading about God's reaction of polygamy but his initial design is what we should strive for not what marriage has turned into. This applies in any context not just with polygamy.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

No...it seemingly goes against the instruction of Paul. However...one must first uncover what was going on in Corinth to fully understand this instruction. Paul also said it is good for a man to NOT have sexual relations with a woman. Why would he say that?

It was not Paul who wrote "it is good for a man to NOT have sexual relations with a woman," it was a concern that the Corinth church wrote to Paul...

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote:"It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

Paul answered by writing:

But because of the temptation of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.​

-1 Corinthians 7:1-2

Paul did not advocate that man should not have sexual relation with a woman, he said because of temptation that each man should have his own wife and vice versa. If you keep reading, you'll realize that those letter passages are speaking about sex with the marriage, hence, he is telling us about one aspect for marriage.

Paul also said that Deacons should have only one wife. He didn't say a man is allowed to have only one wife...he said 'Deacons'.

Those are the qualifications of Elders and Deacons. When someone is getting placed into the role of a Bishop/Elder or Deacon those are the qualifications that one have to meet. Someone is not a Deacon and then have to follow those qualifications, they first have to have those qualification to be a Deacon. Therefore all the single men or those in polygamous relationships (I don't know if there were anyone in polygamous relationships at the time this was written but if they were it is included), anyone in a homosexual relationship, and controversy, someone who has been married more than once (I know some people thing that, some don't) would be disqualified from being a Deacon. Therefore the idea that "deacons alone are the only ones that should have one wife and therefore I am free to have multiples" don't exactly hold water, especially with what is written to Corinthians.

So...your analysis falls short. I'd also add that Paul thought that Christ was returning in his lifetime. He was wrong.

If you claim my analysis falls short, that is certainly of your opinion and you are allow to have it. Now, as for Paul thinking that Christ would return in His lifetime, I'm not quite sure I believe that, especially when he wrote this to the Thessalonian church

Now concerning the times and the seasons brother, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night." 1 Thes 5:2

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the song of destruction. Who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God."
2 Thes 2:1-4​

Now this might not be fully proof that Paul didn't believe Christ was coming in His lifetime but Paul most certainly knew that Christ's coming could be anytime even after he was gone. If Paul's prophecy in 2 Thes 2:1-4 has yet to be fulfilled in his lifetime, then I'm sure Paul understand that Christ wasn't coming.

Since your analysis of Paul's instruction can not be reconciled with OT practices that were considered a "blessing" of God...then there must be another explanation.

So, what is the other explanation? That Christ, under the new law, is okay with a polygamous relationship? So, the verses in 1 Corinthians 7, didn't do it for you. How about Matthew 19:3-9 when Christ repeats what was God's intentions for marriage in Genesis 2:24....or maybe Ephesians 5 when Paul gives the breakdown of a Christian marriage that includes one man and one woman how about 1 Peter 3 when Peter echoed those same breakdowns.

My question for you would be...was polygamy "o.k." up until the day Paul wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth?

Make no mistaken about it, just because Paul get the credit of penning those scriptures it does not mean the Holy Spirit was not the one in charged. Those were words from God, and He said husbands have one wife and wife have one husband.

Was it "o.k." when Yeshua walked as a man?

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Why do we find no prohibition of polygamy until (seemingly) Paul writes a letter?
CC

Even in the OT, polygamy never seemed like a positive thing and in fact, most of the time it was more harm then it was good (excluding the idea that it was for the production of babies). But you find the prohibition of polygamy starting in Matthew 19 in the New Testament.

 

[chingchang]

I know this by how Jesus Christ defended marriage:

Matthew 19:1-12
Certainly divorce is not the only circumstance that can be applied here. Jesus's answer is not about divorce it is about marriage and that is the heart of this passage and he looks to the beginning to define it. We too should look to beginning to also define marriage and should not use man's wisdom and history to defend our perspective. God (or moses in the context) permitted divorce because of the corruption of man's heart; because of their limitation to see what God sees. In the same way God allows polygamy because of the same limitations of man. Re-read Matthew 19 and replace the idea of divorce with polygamy and see if Jesus's answer still fits. Obviously the part where Moses issues a law is specific to divorce but as a whole Jesus's answer is about marriage not divorce. He addresses the specific but the answer is fundamentally about the design of marriage and the limitation of man interpreting that. Re-read the text again and put in some other random issue pertaining to marriage like homosexuality, abuse, etc.. Jesus's definition of marriage is how we should approach answers about the institution of marriage.

Man is not perfect nor is his design. There are areas in the bible that can easily be interpreted as God's acceptance of polygamy but there is no area where God outright says it is what he desires and abides with his design of marriage. When we look at the heart of how God has designed marriage polygamy is absent. Polygamy is first mention through an offspring of Cain in Gen.4:19 which says "Lamech married two women". Was polygamy common at this time? If it was why does the text specifically single out Lamech saying he married two women and fails to mention that with any other? It would seem it was not that common of a practice early on in Genesis contrary to what it developed into

Man created polygamy not God. The bible may be unclear or misleading about God's reaction of polygamy but his initial design is what we should strive for not what marriage has turned into. This applies in any context not just with polygamy.

Then...by extension of your logic (which is faulty I might add)...it is a sin to wear clothes and eat meat. God created us as naked vegetarians. Your rebuttal is a stretch to say the least. Given that polygamy was not uncommon during Yeshua's time...he would have been direct in condemning it if God had a problem with it. What you have done is read your conclusion into scripture.

CC

 

[chingchang]

It was not Paul who wrote "it is good for a man to NOT have sexual relations with a woman," it was a concern that the Corinth church wrote to Paul...


Paul answered by writing:

But because of the temptation of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.​

-1 Corinthians 7:1-2

In both the NIV and KJV there are no quotes around it. So...it seems to me like Paul said it. He is replying directly to the concerns and his answer beings after the ":". His answer also fits with his celibacy.

Paul did not advocate that man should not have sexual relation with a woman, he said because of temptation that each man should have his own wife and vice versa. If you keep reading, you'll realize that those letter passages are speaking about sex with the marriage, hence, he is telling us about one aspect for marriage.

No...he said it was good to NOT have sexual relations...but if you HAVE to...marriage is where it should take place.

Those are the qualifications of Elders and Deacons. When someone is getting placed into the role of a Bishop/Elder or Deacon those are the qualifications that one have to meet. Someone is not a Deacon and then have to follow those qualifications, they first have to have those qualification to be a Deacon. Therefore all the single men or those in polygamous relationships (I don't know if there were anyone in polygamous relationships at the time this was written but if they were it is included), anyone in a homosexual relationship, and controversy, someone who has been married more than once (I know some people thing that, some don't) would be disqualified from being a Deacon. Therefore the idea that "deacons alone are the only ones that should have one wife and therefore I am free to have multiples" don't exactly hold water, especially with what is written to Corinthians.

Then why did he bother to specify that requirement for Deacons if Paul expected that everyone have only 1 wife?

If you claim my analysis falls short, that is certainly of your opinion and you are allow to have it. Now, as for Paul thinking that Christ would return in His lifetime, I'm not quite sure I believe that, especially when he wrote this to the Thessalonian church

Now concerning the times and the seasons brother, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night." 1 Thes 5:2

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the song of destruction. Who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God."
2 Thes 2:1-4​

Now this might not be fully proof that Paul didn't believe Christ was coming in His lifetime but Paul most certainly knew that Christ's coming could be anytime even after he was gone. If Paul's prophecy in 2 Thes 2:1-4 has yet to be fulfilled in his lifetime, then I'm sure Paul understand that Christ wasn't coming.

You're just being disagreeable. A large majority of Biblical Scholars believe that Paul thought Christ would return during his lifetime. Not only Paul thought that, but Peter, James, John and the author of Hebrews as well.

So, what is the other explanation? That Christ, under the new law, is okay with a polygamous relationship? So, the verses in 1 Corinthians 7, didn't do it for you. How about Matthew 19:3-9 when Christ repeats what was God's intentions for marriage in Genesis 2:24....or maybe Ephesians 5 when Paul gives the breakdown of a Christian marriage that includes one man and one woman how about 1 Peter 3 when Peter echoed those same breakdowns.

If you really want to know...you'll search. Do you even know what was going on in Corinth? Was there anything special or different about Corinth?

Make no mistaken about it, just because Paul get the credit of penning those scriptures it does not mean the Holy Spirit was not the one in charged. Those were words from God, and He said husbands have one wife and wife have one husband.

I wouldn't make such a mistake because I know the process by which the Bible(s) that I have were created. While I'll admit, it may have been the Holy Spirit that penned the original letters...those letters no longer exist so we have no way to verify that what we have in our Bible is actually what Paul wrote. The documents and fragments of documents that were used to put our NT together were copies of copies of copies and there are no 2 alike of the 1000s that we have. Those are undeniable facts that can easily be verified. So...let's stick to the issue. The issue is that you are saying that polygamy is a sin and that was first revealed (unlike any other sin) in the letter to the Church in Corinth.

What does this have to do with the discussion?

My round-about point is that if polygamy was a sin when Yeshua was teaching...then he would have pointed it out to the offenders...especially given that NOBODY viewed it as a sin at that time.

Even in the OT, polygamy never seemed like a positive thing and in fact, most of the time it was more harm then it was good (excluding the idea that it was for the production of babies). But you find the prohibition of polygamy starting in Matthew 19 in the New Testament.

There is no such prohibition in Matthew 19......what a giant stretch. I'm not here to debate about whether polygamy is a good idea or a bad idea...I'm telling you that it isn't a sin though. God gave his people the law so they would not be ignorant of sin. Why is there NO prohibition of polygamy in the OT law? The ONLY honest...logical answer is that it isn't a sin. It just amazes me the mental-gymnastics some "Christians" like yourself will go through to justify your preconceived conclusions on the character of God. Yahweh is not concerned with how many husbands/wives we have...he is concerned with our love for Him and how we treat each other. That's it.

CC

 

[daydreamergurl15]

In both the NIV and KJV there are no quotes around it. So...it seems to me like Paul said it. He is replying directly to the concerns and his answer beings after the ":". His answer also fits with his celibacy.

The ESV does, even when he said "of which you wrote" tells us that it was a question that they had. But if that's what the NIV and KJV says then I'll back off on that.

But please enlighten me, why exactly are you using a verse that you claims that Paul is telling us that it is good to NOT have sex with a woman, when we are discussion whether concubinage is a good or bad thing? One of the main reasons for concubines for those in the Old Testament was to produce babies, which requires sex, so why use a verse that says, "it is good for man not to touch a woman"? I'm not quite sure how that helps the debate on concubinage.

No...he said it was good to NOT have sexual relations...but if you HAVE to...marriage is where it should take place.

Right and he goes on to define that marriage that includes one man to have one wife and vise versa.

Then why did he bother to specify that requirement for Deacons if Paul expected that everyone have only 1 wife?

One of the requirements for the Bishops/Deacons is to have kids that are in submission to them. Not everyone at that time had kids, therefore it can be known the qualifications would exclude them. The qualifications was to find the Bishop or Deacon that was qualified to be leaders in the church. That doesn't mean it wasn't expected for every man to have only 1 wife, it was just part of the requirement.

You're just being disagreeable. A large majority of Biblical Scholars believe that Paul thought Christ would return during his lifetime. Not only Paul thought that, but Peter, James, John and the author of Hebrews as well.

I was unaware that part of my faith was to include what the majority of Biblical Scholars believed about Paul's thoughts on the coming of the Lord. I don't know of a scripture that tells us Paul's belief on the subject, therefore I'm not going to think outside of it. However, I do know this verse during which Jesus was talking about His return:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matthew 24:36​

Now, if God the Father is the only who knows the day and hour that Christ will return, then saying that Paul thought that Christ was coming in His lifetime, really doesn't mean much. If Christ thought that, then we know that it was a guest on his part. And there is nothing wrong with him guessing when Christ would come. But I don't know a verse that Paul said that Christ was coming in his lifetime. If there is one, I would really like to know of it (and I'm being honest not sarcastic about it.)

If you really want to know...you'll search. Do you even know what was going on in Corinth? Was there anything special or different about Corinth?

It is your argument so I figured you know the scriptures of which you have an mind that is helping you feel the way you do. What's wrong with me asking you where it is.

As for what was going on in the Church at Corinth, we have 2 letters telling us what they were doing and Paul's correction on those issues.

I wouldn't make such a mistake because I know the process by which the Bible(s) that I have were created. While I'll admit, it may have been the Holy Spirit that penned the original letters...those letters no longer exist so we have no way to verify that what we have in our Bible is actually what Paul wrote.

Many versions of the bible translations use different translations, and yet, almost always they are cohesive in it's wording. You can be sure that it is God's word of which he allowed Paul to pen.

But if we are going to say that Paul might not have wrote one part, realize that you should cast doubt on all the other stuff that Paul wrote, like when he tell us this

"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."-​

Romans 5:6-8

As you see, we can't pick and choose what is scripture. It is what it is.

The documents and fragments of documents that were used to put our NT together were copies of copies of copies and there are no 2 alike of the 1000s that we have. Those are undeniable facts that can easily be verified.

So tell me, what book would I go to verify those facts?
If you mean that 2 were not identical, you might be correct, one might have misspelled a word or two, but when you take 1000 fragments, you can pull out what was misspelled or miswritten. IF 900 fragments says "God so loved the world.." and 100 of them say "God so loued the world", you would go with the oldest manuscripts that had the most cohesiveness. The fact that we have so many fragments, shows us that we can trust the scripture says what it does.

How many other pieces of document you know have 1000 fragments and yet not considered to be actual works of history?

So...let's stick to the issue. The issue is that you are saying that polygamy is a sin and that was first revealed (unlike any other sin) in the letter to the Church in Corinth.

I said that marriage was supposed to be one man and one woman as written in Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5. I used 1 Corinthians 7:2 to show the singularity when it comes to the marriage.

My round-about point is that if polygamy was a sin when Yeshua was teaching...then he would have pointed it out to the offenders...especially given that NOBODY viewed it as a sin at that time.

There are many things that Jesus didn't point out as wrong but we know based on scripture it is. The scripture isn't silent on this subject, even if you think Jesus is. When He made that statement in Matthew 19:5, see how He is describing to us what marriage was supposed to be, that includes anything that we try and come up with.

There is no such prohibition in Matthew 19......what a giant stretch.

How am I stretching when Christ said.
"He answered, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh?"
Please explain to me where and what I am stretching.

I'm not here to debate about whether polygamy is a good idea or a bad idea...I'm telling you that it isn't a sin though. God gave his people the law so they would not be ignorant of sin. Why is there NO prohibition of polygamy in the OT law? The ONLY honest...logical answer is that it isn't a sin.

It wasn't sin under the old law, I've said that. Under the new law, it most certainly is. Just like when it was okay for man to marry and have sex with a relative, God allowed it but when the law was given He stopped it. Just like it was "eye for an eye" under the old law was okay and now were told under the law of Christ "do not resist and evil one". The law was changed and Christ in Matthew 19:5 tells us exactly how marriage was intended when He quoted what God said in Genesis 2:24.

It just amazes me the mental-gymnastics some "Christians" like yourself will go through to justify your preconceived conclusions on the character of God.

Please don't even go there. Don't sit there and pretend like you know anything about me or how I view the character of God. I have not said anything about God's character, I've stuck to using the bible trying to understand what God wants from us. I have not personally attacked you and I would appreciate it you would do the same.

Yahweh is not concerned with how many husbands/wives we have...he is concerned with our love for Him and how we treat each other. That's it.

CC

I'm sure God is concerned with every aspect of my life including how I love Him and how I treat others. He wrote the book telling us how we should live and what glorifies Him and it is that, I will follow.