Does the "husband of one wife" requirement mean that polygamy was common in the early church?

[St. SteVen]

The Learner said:
not keeping up

Meaning...what?

As I understand it, The Learner occasionally chimes in to indicate that he is not keeping up with all the reading on whatever topic he posts on.

As you noted, the meaning for this is unclear.

[

 

[BeforeThereWas]

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.

It is interesting how something the Koran, being far down the scale of integrity, can still reflect some things that are consistent with the Bible...especially when it is copied right from the Bible.

BTW

 

[St. SteVen]

Where does scripture say the original plan was one wife?

It does beg a question, I suppose.
If a man and wife become one flesh, how does that apply when there is more than one wife?
Especially if having sexual intercourse creates that bond. Are not souls united in the sex act?

[

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I'm also bewildered at the eisegetical practices out there for attributing to Jesus the advent of some ethereal requirement for monogamy forced upon all men. Jesus clearly stated His purpose for coming, and never did He address any changes to His definition of marriage in Genesis 2, which also placed no limitation for the number of wives to which all men were/are limited.

BTW

 

[St. SteVen]

It is interesting how something the Koran, being far down the scale of integrity, can still reflect some things that are consistent with the Bible...especially when it is copied right from the Bible.

Like Mohammad's nine year old bride?
Or wives taken as war plunder?

[

 

[soberxp]

I'm also bewildered at the eisegetical practices out there for attributing to Jesus the advent of some ethereal requirement for monogamy forced upon all men. Jesus clearly stated His purpose for coming, and never did He address any changes to His definition of marriage in Genesis 2, which also placed no limitation for the number of wives to which all men were/are limited.

BTW

I don't think God specifically said you couldn't have more wives, but maybe the only difference is whether you're closer to God or closer to the flesh.

Perhaps based on different understanding, make different choices, not necessarily away from God, close to the flesh, or simply want to let God's children more, But in that case...

 

[BeforeThereWas]

It does beg a question, I suppose.
If a man and wife become one flesh, how does that apply when there is more than one wife?
Especially if having sexual intercourse creates that bond. Are not souls united in the sex act?

[

Very good question, and thank you for that. It's a thoughtful inquiry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

I caution those out there of the feministic bent to be careful about trying to twist this passage into anything other than what it says. Note that the context doesn't stipulate that the man joining with the harlot had to be single in order to be one flesh with yet another woman; this case being a harlot. It's comparative to any joining a man partakes with any number of women. Remember, nothing in that context limits his becoming one flesh with that harlot as his having to have been single. His sexual relations with them all is a matter of his having become one flesh with them all, which is why fornication creates such a cacophony of confusing arrays of having become one flesh with women also joining with other men in succession.

Polyandry is precisely the biblical definition of adultery, coupled with a man joining with another man's wife and becoming a partaker of her adulteries, never stated as his having become the instigator of it. I know the feminists will scream loud about that and bring up all manner of misapplications of scripture to "prove their point," but that is what it is. The Bible is only loved by most when it states what most want to hear.

Additionally, if it were impossible for a man to be one flesh with more than one woman, then one would have to claim Abraham was not one flesh with all his wives and concubines, thus his being guilty of fornication, which would lead to our seeing him burning in the pits of Hell...and I'm pretty sure nobody here is willing to align with that sentiment...or...

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I don't think God specifically said you couldn't have more wives, but maybe the only difference is whether you're closer to God or closer to the flesh.

Perhaps based on different understanding, make different choices, not necessarily away from God, close to the flesh, or simply want to let God's children more, But in that case...

If you believe that, then would you mind sharing the relevant scripture(s) in support of that if you believe that's God's intent for all men? If having more than one is a matter of being fleshly, then surely the scriptures state that, right? Please share it.

BTW

 

[soberxp]

If you believe that, then would you mind sharing the relevant scripture(s) in support of that if you believe that's God's intent for all men? If having more than one is a matter of being fleshly, then surely the scriptures state that, right? Please share it.

BTW

Several important figures in the Bible are polygamous,
But the biblical genealogy is monogamous.
So I think the difference is to be close to God or to the flesh.

God does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart

 

[St. SteVen]

I don't think God specifically said you couldn't have more wives, but maybe the only difference is whether you're closer to God or closer to the flesh.

Perhaps based on different understanding, make different choices, not necessarily away from God, close to the flesh, or simply want to let God's children more, But in that case...

It probably depends on the situation.
Imagine being a middle-eastern man with a household of 20 or more.
How many wives would you need?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Polyandry is precisely the biblical definition of adultery, coupled with a man joining with another man's wife and becoming a partaker of her adulteries, never stated as his having become the instigator of it.

Have you seen this topic?

Did Jesus say that adultery is grounds for divorce? - Nope.

The position of the church and society at large is mistaken as to what Jesus was quoted as saying in the gospels. IMHO Let's discuss. Questions: 1) What did Jesus actually say? 2) Why did he say it? 3) If we got this wrong, where do we go from here? The position of the church and society...

www.christianityboard.com

Additionally, if it were impossible for a man to be one flesh with more than one woman, then one would have to claim Abraham was not one flesh with all his wives and concubines, thus his being guilty of fornication, which would lead to our seeing him burning in the pits of Hell...and I'm pretty sure nobody here is willing to align with that sentiment...or...

Even Ishmael had a prophetic inheritance.

Genesis 16:3 NIV
So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years,
Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and
gave her to her husband to be his wife.

Genesis 16:10 NIV
The angel added,
“I will increase your descendants so much
that they will be too numerous to count.”

[

 

[soberxp]

It probably depends on the situation.
Imagine being a middle-eastern man with a household of 20 or more.
How many wives would you need?

[

Gid knows how many I need.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Several important figures in the Bible are polygamous,
But the biblical genealogy is monogamous.
So I think the difference is to be close to God or to the flesh.

God does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart

The genealogies include men who had plural wives, however I do appreciate you stating that your input on this is on the basis of what "I think," rather than trying to prove from scripture what isn't there, such as your also thinking that a plurality of wives is a matter of the flesh, which is not always the case given that God gave to king David two additional wives in addition to the plurality of wives David already had. God isn't One to play into what is of the flesh.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Many men today couldn't handle trying to love more than one wife as he should because so many today were not raised by a man who had that ability either. What keeps many men today from even considering that family model is their fear of all the satanic feminists out there waiting to pounce on any man who dares to show his masculinity, with them then resorting to meaningless cliche's such as "toxic masculinity" and other trashy tactics to try and gain the upper hand by way of false accusations in support of their card-carrying, man-hating, man-bashing, Jezabelian spirit, women who are such as the one many men are married to now or in the past.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Have you seen this topic?

Did Jesus say that adultery is grounds for divorce? - Nope.

The position of the church and society at large is mistaken as to what Jesus was quoted as saying in the gospels. IMHO Let's discuss. Questions: 1) What did Jesus actually say? 2) Why did he say it? 3) If we got this wrong, where do we go from here? The position of the church and society...

www.christianityboard.com

Even Ishmael had a prophetic inheritance.

Genesis 16:3 NIV
So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years,
Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and
gave her to her husband to be his wife.

Genesis 16:10 NIV
The angel added,
“I will increase your descendants so much
that they will be too numerous to count.”

[

For the sake of clarification, I stated that the offspring of the concubines did not receive the inheritance from their father. They could receive gifts and other portions not attributed as a part of the inheritance given mostly to the eldest or truly appointed son of promise, as was the case with Isaac. Ishmael did not receive Abraham's inheritance. What he received outside of the family of Abraham is of no consequence to what I stated. The offspring of Ishmael became instruments in the Hands of the Lord against Israel, whom He knew was going to be a stiff-necked people who would need an iron rod in the Lord's Hands (figuratively speaking) to whip and beat them for their disobedience.

So, it all boils down to the purposes the Lord had in what was given to Ishmael and others who were not entitled to the actual inheritance from their earthly father. Bottom line: The concubines were still wives in every sense of the word in that relationship, having become one flesh with their common husband. I realize this strokes the cat's fur backwards of those out there who have sold themselves out to feministic evils. That too is of no consequence to anything. This supports the lack of doctrinal authority women possess over men within the body of Christ.

Good discussion.

BTW

 

[The Learner]

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

yes thats it

 

[The Learner]

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

Matthew 19:5
And God said, ‘That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. And the two people will become one.’

 

[The Learner]

when examples of many wives in scripture, things goes really bad like following false gods.

 

[Grailhunter]

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

[

And Martin Luther said he could not condemn polygamy because the scriptures do not.
Still unless there is a good reason and the first wife agrees then one wife is better.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't think God specifically said you couldn't have more wives, but maybe the only difference is whether you're closer to God or closer to the flesh.

Perhaps based on different understanding, make different choices, not necessarily away from God, close to the flesh, or simply want to let God's children more, But in that case...

There is the theological side and the history side of the concept of polygamy.

The scriptures never condemn polygamy and the Mosaic Law regulated it and Yahweh took credit for King David’s wives.

In the Hebrew culture it was considered a blessing of God to have many wives and children.
As I said Martin Luther said he could not condemn polygamy because the scriptures did not.
As it is now it is not a sin to have more than one wife but for Christians it is best to just have one.