amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Of course it was in the early church .
But in time was ended .
No leader could have more than one wife. Notice that was also said .
Does the "husband of one wife" requirement mean that polygamy was common in the early church?
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
But in time was ended .
No leader could have more than one wife. Notice that was also said .
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
Umm, no. The hardness of heart had only to do with divorce, not a plurality of wives.
BTW
I was asked by my pastor friend in Nepal what he should do with a new Christian attending his church because this new Christian had two wives. His first wife had arranged a cousin to become the man's second wife so that he could get children by the second wife because she, the first wife was unable to give him any children.
What advice would you provide for the pastor?
Remember that the customs in Nepal allowed a man to have more than one wife. Which wife should be rejected by this new Christian?
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Jay , was the man married before coming to CHRIST .
This is a tough one my friend . Due to if an unbeliever had two wives
BEFORE becoming a beleiver , I dont know that he has to put one away .
BUT IF HE DO she can never marry . I know in the early church jews had more than one wife
perhaps some gentiles did too .
SO as far as putting one away , I DO NOT THINK they would have done that .
But if that man claimed to be christain and his first wife christain and THEN they did what they did
BIG MISTAKE friend . BIG mistake .
THEY should all pray TO GOD about this my friend .
I would also have to be there amongst them . I beleive GOD would give the answer my friend .
But for any christain , ITS ONE WIFE fellows and no arrangements for a second .
Is any of them an unbeleiver . THERE is more info needed my friend .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
in the law the jews could have more than one wife . THOUGH this was not the original plan .
A man could NOT put away his wife either , not for just any cause .
cause he who puts away his wife , save for fornication and or death , and she remarries
SHE is in adultery as well as the man has caused this .
SO this would be a tough one jay .
LIke i said it would be much simplier if i were there and we all prayed for GOD to reveal to us what to do .
I dont know all the details my friend .
Polygamy was common in the early church. The Apostles did not condemn it.
The man should not be an Elder in the church, that's all.
Divorce is WORSE than polygamy.
Does the "husband of one wife" requirement mean that polygamy was common in the early church?
Why does the Apostle Paul require that church Elders be the "husband of one wife" if polygamy wasn't common in the church? Titus 1:5-6 ESV This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is...
www.christianityboard.com
[
He has committed adultery. He should put away the 2nd "wife." If he has children with her, he should provide for those children.
You are right, more information is needed by you to even offer up any advice.
My advice back when the question was asked was to love all three plus the children born to the second wife as a family unit because the discarding of the first wife would bring hardship upon her within their culture.
What the outcome of my advice was, I have no idea, but I know that God's grace would have been shown.
Your post is very harsh. It may reflect the "law," but it is not appropriate within many third world country's cultures.
God's grace loves us all because of our relationship with Him. It is our response to His love for us that is the guiding light for us to follow.
That's terrible advice. God HATES divorce.
Check the context on the scripture below.
1 Corinthians 7:16-17 NIV
How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them,
just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
[
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
Context, context, context. Jesus was talking about divorce, not polygyny. Please don't falsely represent the word of Christ. Remain intellectually honest, shall we?
BTW
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
You really have no idea what you're talking about, going around giving that kind of cruddy advice! Someone who misrepresents scripture as badly as you has no business advising anyone.
BTW
Lambano
Well-Known Member
- Jul 13, 2021
- 10,001
- 12,776
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
Well, you can't say that's not biblical. See Jacob-Rachel-Bilhah, Jacob-Leah-Zilpah, Abraham-Sarah-Hagar....
For those of you who say we need to get back to biblical family values....
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
Good points. You did, however, leave out the fact that Abraham had more wives than just Sarah and Hagar. Concubines were just as much those men's wives as any other wife, the only difference being that the distinctive status of concubines were such that the offspring were not entitled to the inheritance. When anyone other than David slept with any of his concubines, that was the same thing as sleeping with any of his other wives. Otherwise concubines would have been passed around like house prostitutes as favors or for hire.
Concubines were otherwise not at all looked down upon any differently by their husband than a wife because they too were made a spouse by way of God's definition for marriage in Genesis 2, which had nothing to do with any limitation to the number of wives nor the silly traditions today manifested in the false teachings behind that piece of paper from the state or the local City Hall. Attaching a moral crisis in the absence of that piece of paper is just another socially engineered theology like so many others within churchianity.
The many men today who are divorced and remarried for anti-biblical reasons, they are attributed just as much acceptance and respect as those who have been married 75 years while the three families I know personally with plural wives, they are looked down upon and shunned by most within churchianity on the basis of the heavy-handed evils of the feminization of the pulpits and the blinders so many wear when studying scripture.
It also seems to me that, apart from the socially engineered sentiments against polygyny, most men today are jealous because of their desire for variety in bed rather than the one they are with right now; always fearing to dare speak of their approval to their Jezabelian wives whose minds and hearts are too consumed by the feministic darkness of heart for those men to dare verbalize their approval and admiration of polygyny.
BTW
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
It's additionally interesting how ignorant most people are about the words they use. Polygamy is a term that encompasses what truly is sin given that the term polygamy serves as an umbrella term under which is polyandry (plural husbands, which is indeed within the realm of the biblical definition for adultery).
The ignorant masses out there who point at polygyny, defined as a man with plural wives, as being the sin if adultery, they are expressing their sheer ignorance and disregard for integrity by way of a true understanding of the terms and for biblical definitions. Being products of culture and Western society, most willfully wallowing about in the gutters of ignorance, blissfully disregarding the necessity for remaining consistent with the Book they claim to believe.
If a man having plural wives were ever the sin of adultery, we may expect to observe the Patriarchs of our faith burning in the pits of Hell. Stupid indifference keeps most from ever going to the scriptures to read them for what they actually say, thus holding to the corruptions of their theological foundations by way of social biases in their belief system about the scriptures.
BTW
The ignorant masses out there who point at polygyny, defined as a man with plural wives, as being the sin if adultery, they are expressing their sheer ignorance and disregard for integrity by way of a true understanding of the terms and for biblical definitions. Being products of culture and Western society, most willfully wallowing about in the gutters of ignorance, blissfully disregarding the necessity for remaining consistent with the Book they claim to believe.
If a man having plural wives were ever the sin of adultery, we may expect to observe the Patriarchs of our faith burning in the pits of Hell. Stupid indifference keeps most from ever going to the scriptures to read them for what they actually say, thus holding to the corruptions of their theological foundations by way of social biases in their belief system about the scriptures.
BTW
soberxp
Well-Known Member
I read in the Koran that if you can't treat your wives with equal love, then you can't have many wives, I think this passage is about a person's honesty.
However, I found it very reasonable.
Think about Abraham,Even if he wanted to give equal love, his wife would not agree to the question of inheritance.
However, I found it very reasonable.
Think about Abraham,Even if he wanted to give equal love, his wife would not agree to the question of inheritance.
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
Meaning...what? Who are you not keeping up with in this thread? If you're talking about those who habitually add to the word of God what isn't there, such as taking Jesus' statements about divorce and transforming them into an address against polygyny, then please be that specific. So, clarity of meaning please, coupled with specifics.
BTW
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
Where does scripture say the original plan was one wife? I found where divorce was attributed that restriction, but never the number of wives for ALL men.
Adam having one wife has far greater implications than the fabricated idea that his having one wife also means the original intent for all mankind in regard to the number of wives to which a man is allegedly limited. This practice of fabricating a doctrine binding upon all from utter silence is troubling at best and something none here would allow a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness to get away with in these forums. However, this practice of doctrine-making seems to be a favorite pastime for many, especially when it meshes with the feministic bent of most out there of what people call their "church," as pathetic as that all is when compared to the Book they claim to love and believe.
BTW
Similar threads
