please prove from primary sources alone -- Polygamy was common in the early church.
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!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
We do not know how common it was. But the scriptures did not speak against it and it was a custom of the Jews to the point that it was considered a blessing of God to have multiple wives and a lot of children. And God took credit for David's wives And Paul put a restriction of one wife for anyone that wanted to be in "church" administration. And history shows that the Jews practiced polygamy for another thousand years after the biblical era. And Christians were still taking concubines in the 13th century. But there is a story why
Did the Early Church Fathers condemn polygamy?
Today I was debating with a Christian who believes in polygamy and claimed that the Early Church Fathers allowed for the act of polygamy, is that true and is there any evidence that the Early Church
1 Timothy 3:2:
the claaim that it was common in early church must be documented by primary sources.
And sitting each under his vine, i.e., each man possessing his own married wife. For you are aware that the prophetic word says, ‘And his wife shall be like a fruitful vine.’…Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 pg.254
If, then, the teaching of the prophets and of Himself moves you, it is better for you to follow God than your imprudent and blind masters, who even till this time permit each man to have four or five wives; and if any one see a beautiful woman and desire to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob [called] Israel, and of the other patriarchs, and maintain that it is not wrong to do such things; for they are miserably ignorant in this matter. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 pg.266
But it is the same man and Lord who makes the old new, by no longer allowing several marriages (for at that time God required it when men had to increase and multiply), and by teaching single marriage for the sake of begetting children and looking after domestic affairs, for which purpose woman was given as a “helpmeet.” Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Miscellanies, book III ch.12
For he also lays down that the bishop who is to rule the Church must be a man who governs his own household well. A household pleasing to the Lord consists of a marriage with one wife.. “To the pure,” he says, “all things are pure: but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but their mind and conscience are polluted.” Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Miscellanies, book III ch.18
And thus, from the time of Abraham, the custom of marrying with sisters has ceased; and from the times of the prophets the contracting of marriage with several wives has been done away with; for we read, “Go not after your lusts, but refrain yourself front your appetites;”… Lest, however, we should seem prolix in collecting the testimonies of the prophets, let us again point out how chastity succeeded to marriage with one wife, taking away by degrees the lusts of the flesh, until it removed entirely the inclination for sexual intercourse engendered by habit. Methodius (A.D. 311) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.6 pg.312
For he also lays down that the bishop who is to rule the Church must be a man who governs his own household well. A household pleasing to the Lord consists of a marriage with one wife.. “To the pure,” he says, “all things are pure: but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but their mind and conscience are polluted.” Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Miscellanies, book III ch.18
And thus, from the time of Abraham, the custom of marrying with sisters has ceased; and from the times of the prophets the contracting of marriage with several wives has been done away with; for we read, “Go not after your lusts, but refrain yourself front your appetites;”… Lest, however, we should seem prolix in collecting the testimonies of the prophets, let us again point out how chastity succeeded to marriage with one wife, taking away by degrees the lusts of the flesh, until it removed entirely the inclination for sexual intercourse engendered by habit. Methodius (A.D. 311) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.6 pg.312
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Did the Early Church Fathers condemn polygamy?
Today I was debating with a Christian who believes in polygamy and claimed that the Early Church Fathers allowed for the act of polygamy, is that true and is there any evidence that the Early Churchchristianity.stackexchange.com
1 Timothy 3:2:
the claaim that it was common in early church must be documented by primary sources.
And sitting each under his vine, i.e., each man possessing his own married wife. For you are aware that the prophetic word says, ‘And his wife shall be like a fruitful vine.’…Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 pg.254
If, then, the teaching of the prophets and of Himself moves you, it is better for you to follow God than your imprudent and blind masters, who even till this time permit each man to have four or five wives; and if any one see a beautiful woman and desire to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob [called] Israel, and of the other patriarchs, and maintain that it is not wrong to do such things; for they are miserably ignorant in this matter. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 pg.266
I did not say that no one disliked polygamy. Shoot a lot the early church writers did not like sex or women.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
This is contrary to the facts and customs of the Old Testament.
Did the Early Church Fathers condemn polygamy?
Today I was debating with a Christian who believes in polygamy and claimed that the Early Church Fathers allowed for the act of polygamy, is that true and is there any evidence that the Early Church
historical setting:
1. Polygamy was NOT practiced in Greek and Roman societies of the time:
"Even though we may find numerous traces of polygamy and polyandry in the Gk. myths, monogamy predominated in the Gk. world in the historical period. Morality within marriage was strict. The Homeric hero had one wife, who was faithful and inviolable, a good manager of the home and mother. Gk. marriage was monogamous. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]
"Polygamy was not practiced in the Roman world outside Palestine, though illegal bigamy and certainly adultery were. [EBC: in.loc. 1 Tim 3]
2. Polygamy was practiced somewhat in 1st century Palestinian Judaism (by the government/aristocratic leaders):
"In the Second Temple period, Jewish society was, at least theoretically, polygamous, like other oriental societies of the time but in contrast to the neighboring Greek and Roman societies...."[HI:JWGRP:85]
"There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]
3. Among the Jews, it was not accepted by the prestigious school of Hillel (above), nor by the strict Dead Sea Sect (Qumran), and was not widely practiced, esp. among the rabbi's:
"But even if polygamy was permitted by tannaitic halakhah, other halakhic systems counseled otherwise. During the Second Temple period, monogamy was preferred even on the conceptual plane by, above all, the Dead Sea Sect whose halakhah explicitly prohibited polygamy. In the reworked version of the statutes of the king in the Temple Scroll, it is stated: "he shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life" (LVII 17-8). In the Damascus Covenant, criticism is leveled against the 'builders of the wall' (Pharisees?) in the following terms: 'they shall be caught in fornication twice; once by taking a second wife while the first is still alive...' [HI:JWGRP:85]
"it was known in Jewish society as represented in rabbinic literature, polygamy was not widespread in practice, especially not among the sages themselves." [HI:JWGRP:86]
So, polygamy was present only in a particular subset of Palestinian Judaism (not in Roman society, Greek society, Diaspora Jewish communities, the Hillel-school, or Dead Sea Sect), and generally confined to the aristocracy.
In the end, my Father had around 17 wives, it was a nightmare. He was murdered going after number 18.
please prove Jews practiced polygamy for another thousand years after the biblical era using primary sources. I do not htink that claim holds water.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Here is some reading on the history of polygamy and concubinage in Christianity. Pros and cons.
But do not get the impression that I support polygamy or concubinage. I am just providing biblical and historical facts.
Polygamy in Christianity - Wikipedia
Regarding that quote from the Koran.........I wonder what the intent of it was. Was it intended to discourage polygamy, when the men realized they wouldn't be able to love many wives equally....or was it a way of simply instructing them they were supposed to love all their wives equally? Either way, we must not turn to the Koran for wisdom, even though there might seem to be snippets of wisdom and truth in it mixed with things that are against the truth. The Lord taught me that mixture is unequivocally not of God, period. Mixture is the "unclean thing" the bible says we are not to touch but come out of. Mixing holy with unclean makes the holy unclean. The parts that seem good and Godly serve as the bait to draw the soul to the unholy parts. Keeping in mind that the serpent in the Garden spoke some truth to Eve. to tempt her into disobedience. And the devil quoted select parts of the word of God in order to tempt Jesus in the desert. Going by this, God would not give any people a book full of mixture...it cannot be "of" Him.
Regarding Isaac and Ishmael....it was a matter of God's sovereign choice at the time, to raise up a people for Himself and "separate" them from the world. He sovereignly chose to reveal Himself and His word to Israel, not to Ishmael. Ishmael represented the sad results that come from a lack of trust in God and man taking matters into his own hands, which Abraham did, instead of trusting and waiting for the Lord to fulfill His promise. Taking matters into our own hands results in making a mess of things. It results in mixture. Which Ishmael symbolically represented.....half of Abraham and half of a slave woman, not born of heavenly Zion. (But that by no means disqualifies descendants of Ishmael from the receiving the gospel, whosoever of them will.)
Rom 3:1-2
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.
]
Not to Ishmael. Not to any of the Gentiles. "Salvation is of the Jews."
soberxp
Well-Known Member
I cannot prove now that the Koran is a guide from the angels.
God uses anyone for only one purpose.
That's for sure now.
Brother, Islam claims that God doesn't have a Son.....it sounds to me like that is what this quote is implying.
I'm sorry I'm not understanding what you mean here.
But I'd like to just say, that mixture is the confusion that God is not the author of.
soberxp
Well-Known Member
It is not the original words of the Quran; the original words do not say this. It does not state that God has no son. What it says is that God is not begotten by humans, nor does God beget humans.
Do you think that God's only begotten son conflicts with that last statement, but Jesus was born of Mary, not God.
God creates human beings.
God can use things of this world to speak to His child, but that doesn't mean that thing He used is "of" Him. He spoke to me once through a secular song on the radio, but that doesn't mean I should consider that the song was "of" Him, or that the singer or writer of the song are "of" Him. It doesn't mean I should actively start looking for truth in secular songs or that I should promote the secular music industry as being of God to believers. He has even spoken to me through unbelievers two or three times over my life, but that doesn't mean I am to consider the unbeliever to be "of" God, or that I should look to unbelievers for God's truth. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say here.
soberxp
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
