Understand that I am not writing this to encourage polygamy among Christians, for as we all know, the penalty for having more than one wife is in this and other countries is "More than one mother-in-law." :giggle:
What I am speaking about is the situation in other countries, where polygamy is the custom, of requiring converted "Christians" to dismiss other wives and children, as the WTS does.
Having just returned from Southern Africa, where polygamy has been the custom since the time of Ham, I realized that these people have customs that are far more patriarchal and righteous (although many of the people aren't necessarily so) than what we find in more modern societies. For, the "bride price" is still required (no matter how many you have), and tribal marriage customs mirror those of Israel during the time of Jesus. So, who is to tell them that they are wrong and we are right?
In the NT, there is only one mention of a need not to be polygamous, where Paul said that elders should be the husband of one wife... no mention of the need to divorce multiple wives and children to become a Christian.
Of course, God set the example by providing one wife for Adam. And Israel's kings were told not to multiply wives, for fear that they would lead them from serving Jehovah. However, the Old Law didn't forbid polygamy.
We read that Abraham had three wives and probably several concubines, and Jacob (Israel) had at least two wives and two concubines. Yet, these were Jehovah's friends. Why, even Job mentions the sons of his concubines. So, where do we get the "Christian law" today? Sounds to me a lot like one society interfering in the laws and customs of another, and what we've come to expect from the super self-righteous.
We'd have to go back to when Israel abandoned polygomy, as it didn't seem to be in effect by the first century - by lack of mention. The Samaritan woman had had several husbands, but I always assumed it was one at a time - oh, wait - polygomy doesn't work both ways, does it? ;) :whistle:
However.... I've often joked that I need a wife, and a sister-wife could be a real handy person to have around to share the work load.:thumbup: You know the saying - "A man may work from sun to sun;
But a woman's work is never done!" And I do mean NEVER.
["Get out there and weed the garden, sister-wife... and I'll make you some nice tea..." :coffeeread: lol!] Hey, i'm just about worn out, so sometimes it sounds like a terrific idea!
Maybe it's a perspective difference between the sexes - but my man just doesn't see things on a 'need-to-be-done' basis - his priorities are much different! (holding down his recliner so it doesn't float off is at the top of his list, hehe!) Yup, a sister-wife could be a real blessing from time to time, lol.:drinking: [j/k - I'm way too jealous for that to work, hehe.]
:huh: Seriously, though, I always thought polygomy, if it actually was sanctioned by God, was specifically to multiply and enlarge the nation of Israel. But was that always the case?
"In the beginning": Gen. 2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
One rib to form one "helpmate" - one man joined to one woman - and they are "one flesh". Are all the extra wives and concubines of the ancient men of God included into that "one flesh"? :dontknow: Then there's the "three-fold cord", which I always took to mean the two marriage mates plus God. :scratchhead:
Now here's a thought - maybe men just did whatever they darned-well pleased and called it "sanctioned by God". Wouldn't be the last time in history that would happen!
:2cents: :peave: <<<<<< :rofl: I meant :peace:Peace!
Ahhh-HA! :D
....if ever there was a controversy! :huh:
"And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?†In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.†They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?†He said to them: “Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning. I say to YOU that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.†-- Matthew 19:3-9
Let's see now...God took ONE of Adam's ribs to make him a helper. And Adam had, how many ribs? 24? Could God have created a few more wives for Adam? After all, they had a bigger garden than Willa's to tend.
Reason tells me that if God took more rib materiel than he did then recliners would have been invented in Eden. :rofl:
love,
Rez :coffee:
Polygamy was practiced by Jews in the first century. It was even practiced by the early Christians who were Jews. The bible has two places in the new testament where a man should have only one wife. Both times it is in connection with the qualifications of those who take the lead. No advice is given for those who already had more than one wife. Only those who were either single or had one wife were approved to have any leadership position. The reason for this is a very pragmatic one. Those with more than one simply would not be able to devote enough time to such a responsibility.
1Ti 3:1 That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work.
1Ti 3:2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach,....
Tit 1:6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly.
Tit 1:7 For an overseer must be free from accusation as God's steward, not self-willed, not prone to wrath, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, not greedy of dishonest gain,.....
The fact that this stipulation is twice mentioned means that there were those who had more than one wife at the time. Paul was single and advised that this was a good calling to have also as was Jesus. So the stipulation for having one wife didn't mean than single men were excluded from leadership roles. It can only imply that many men at the time had more than one wife otherwise it would have been pointless to lay this down as a requirement for leadership.
God worked with the Jews according to where they were at the time. So the laws allowing for polygamy was a pragmatic concession based on several factors. Procreation being but one of these and protection of women being another. As women could not support themselves financially except via prostitution or begging, the Jewish laws we now find shocking were the best that the circumstances and culture allowed for at the time. Progressive revelation of who God was and is and what is the ideal was a process. Jesus indicated that two is the ideal but didn't force this on people. It would have been morally wrong for Jewish men to abandon their excess wives just because they became Christian, so the advice to only have one wife was not to those who already had more. To abandon wifes for this reason would have forced such women to become prostitutes or beggars. Something Jesus would have condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Christianity works with culture not against it. The book of acts is all about the kingdom of God expanding outwards to include ever more groups of previously unthinkable people. It wasn't though a case of cultural colonialism. All the arguments over Jewish cultural concerns such as circumcision and other issues shows that to force culture onto others was not good. One of things that Jesus taught was that a woman was completely equal to a man. He often shocked the culture of the time with his actions with regard to this. However Paul as with Jesus didn't force a cultural change people were not yet ready for. It took time. So the ultimate ideal is being single (not Jewish at all) and the ideal for marriage would be two only, as equality is best serves thus. However these ideals were not supposed to force one culture onto another. The holy spirit was to gradually change peoples hearts first, and then the culture might change with time. Progressive revelation is a key truth with regard to the bible. Some believe that what God said in the old testament is the ultimate truth for all time. Thats not the case. What is the case is that God works with humanity as with children. He works with them according to where they are both culturally, developmentally, and in other ways. He tries to gradually train them bit by bit until they more closely resemble the ideal and himself.
Yet, there is not a scripture which proscribes polygamy in the Bible.
And, playing devil's advocate...
Polygamy is traditionally defined in terms of a man having multiple wives.
What about the other way around???
Where's the proscription of women having multiple husbands, particularly where the woman had the means???
"two lepta"
LTA,
John
There doesn't seem to be a proscription either way. The only one seems to be what Jesus said and Genesis. Two who are equal.
Where's the proscription of women having multiple husbands, particularly where the woman had the means???
"two lepta"
LTA,
John
What a dreadful thought.
Two or more men to drag their muddy bikes over my clean carpet, eat everything in the fridge and wreak havoc in the bathroom - and I'd never get a look-in with the remote control....:dontknow:
Seriously, I couldn't ever imagine having the depth of relationship with anyone other than my husband.
I think also, for a man to properly love and serve his wife as Jesus loves his church, I don't think he would have the strength or time to be a good husband to more than one wife.
I don't think there was ever a major problem with polygymy per se, it just isn't the ideal. Jesus and his Bride, that's the ideal.
In a world where women occupied a very different cultural role then maybe it was workable. A man can perhaps cope with multiple servants or a harem, but a proper, equal wife, a friend, a partner - you really only need one of them.
There doesn't seem to be a proscription either way. The only one seems to be what Jesus said and Genesis. Two who are equal.
Hi Seraphim,
There is no "seem" or "seems"; there is none.
Well without having the time to read the whole bible in depth in order to check, I agree with you as far as it goes.
A thought re: "Yet, there is not a scripture which proscribes polygamy in the Bible."
If the one that performs "brother-in-law marriage with her", is married; would this not have been sanctioned polygamy?
Deuteronomy 25:5...
 “In case brothers dwell together and one of them has died without his having a son, the wife of the dead one should not become a strange man’s outside. Her brother-in-law should go to her, and he must take her as his wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her.  And it must occur that the firstborn whom she will bear should succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be wiped out of Israel.
 “Now if the man finds no delight in taking his brother’s widow, his brother’s widow must then go up to the gate to the older men and say, ‘My husband’s brother has refused to preserve his brother’s name in Israel. He has not consented to perform brother-in-law marriage with me.’  And the older men of his city must call him and speak to him, and he must stand and say, ‘I have found no delight in taking her.’  At that his brother’s widow must approach him before the eyes of the older men and draw his sandal off his foot and spit in his face and answer and say, ‘That is the way it should be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s household.’ "
.02.
gogh
I wonder if the word `prescribed` has a different connotation to the word `sanctioned`. Levi-rite marriage seems just another pragmatic concession to the culture and needs of the time rather than complete idealism.
I don't think there was ever a major problem with polygymy per se, it just isn't the ideal. Jesus and his Bride, that's the ideal.
In a world where women occupied a very different cultural role then maybe it was workable. A man can perhaps cope with multiple servants or a harem, but a proper, equal wife, a friend, a partner - you really only need one of them.
Hi Malkah,
I agree, polygamy is not the ideal.
And, I did say I was "playing devil's advocate". :D
Not meaning to insult the intelligence of anyone, but are we all on the same page when I wrote:
"Yet, there is not a scripture which
proscribes polygamy in the Bible." ???? :confused:
From
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
proscribe
Main Entry: pro·scribe
Pronunciation: \prÅ-ˈskrÄ«b\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pro·scribed; pro·scrib·ing
Etymology: Latin proscribere to publish, proscribe, from pro- before + scribere to write — more at scribe
Date: 1560
1 : to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
2 : to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful : prohibit
— pro·scrib·er noun
A, not trying to tick anyone off, "two lepta"
LTA,
John
We still use these standards in qualifications for an elder today, however " one wife " simply meaning never divorced. If a man cannot keep the family together how will he shepherd the local assembly.This is why Paul say: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?"
I think we see God's plan for the family unit in Genesis He created One Man and One woman. If man needed 2 helpers God would have given 2.
If God really want multiplication why not 10 woman? Why not 10 men 100 woman?
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.†(not some helpers )
22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. ( one rib one woman ) ( Brought "her" )
24 Therefore
a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined to
his wife, and they shall become
one flesh.
Here we have God's standard before the fall and sin entering the picture.
Sin re-writes it like this.
24 Therefore men shall leave fathers and mothers and be joined to wives, and they shall become one harem scarem.
Then if one wife can't have children we get another who can and we end up with middle east peace talks. Sound like God's plan?
BB:happyheart::heartbeat::happyheart:
Polygamy was practiced by Jews in the first century. It was even practiced by the early Christians who were Jews. The bible has two places in the new testament where a man should have only one wife. Both times it is in connection with the qualifications of those who take the lead. No advice is given for those who already had more than one wife. Only those who were either single or had one wife were approved to have any leadership position. The reason for this is a very pragmatic one. Those with more than one simply would not be able to devote enough time to such a responsibility.
1Ti 3:1 That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work.
1Ti 3:2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach,....
Tit 1:6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly.
Tit 1:7 For an overseer must be free from accusation as God's steward, not self-willed, not prone to wrath, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, not greedy of dishonest gain,.....
The fact that this stipulation is twice mentioned means that there were those who had more than one wife at the time. Paul was single and advised that this was a good calling to have also as was Jesus. So the stipulation for having one wife didn't mean than single men were excluded from leadership roles. It can only imply that many men at the time had more than one wife otherwise it would have been pointless to lay this down as a requirement for leadership.
God worked with the Jews according to where they were at the time. So the laws allowing for polygamy was a pragmatic concession based on several factors. Procreation being but one of these and protection of women being another. As women could not support themselves financially except via prostitution or begging, the Jewish laws we now find shocking were the best that the circumstances and culture allowed for at the time. Progressive revelation of who God was and is and what is the ideal was a process. Jesus indicated that two is the ideal but didn't force this on people. It would have been morally wrong for Jewish men to abandon their excess wives just because they became Christian, so the advice to only have one wife was not to those who already had more. To abandon wifes for this reason would have forced such women to become prostitutes or beggars. Something Jesus would have condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Christianity works with culture not against it. The book of acts is all about the kingdom of God expanding outwards to include ever more groups of previously unthinkable people. It wasn't though a case of cultural colonialism. All the arguments over Jewish cultural concerns such as circumcision and other issues shows that to force culture onto others was not good. One of things that Jesus taught was that a woman was completely equal to a man. He often shocked the culture of the time with his actions with regard to this. However Paul as with Jesus didn't force a cultural change people were not yet ready for. It took time. So the ultimate ideal is being single (not Jewish at all) and the ideal for marriage would be two only, as equality is best serves thus. However these ideals were not supposed to force one culture onto another. The holy spirit was to gradually change peoples hearts first, and then the culture might change with time. Progressive revelation is a key truth with regard to the bible. Some believe that what God said in the old testament is the ultimate truth for all time. Thats not the case. What is the case is that God works with humanity as with children. He works with them according to where they are both culturally, developmentally, and in other ways. He tries to gradually train them bit by bit until they more closely resemble the ideal and himself.
Date: 1560
1 : to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
Yikes! I knew what it meant but not its origin.
Bit like those words 'Mortgage'...... and 'Bayonette' light fitting, (unless in the States they all screw in).
I would rather be prescribed the vile tasting 12 antibiotics a day for this dangerous bug I have than be proscribed.
Interesting that it is always a win-win situation for the state.
........with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
" Hey the coffers are low....can we proscribe someone?"
So BB because the middle east peace talks are discussed by caring men with real family values, which are based on one man surrounded by a gaggle of wives, er harem, plus mothers-in-law, then are you saying it is unlikely there will ever be peace in the middle east? Sounds plausible.
Napoloeon used geese as the best and noisiest guards for his army.
If you want a quiet life, avoid gaggles of geese, gaggles of women (and giggles of girls).
The best thing nowadays from a gaggle of geese is foie gras.