"Husband of one wife"

  • 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!

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
sure, the bible also said there let him be the husband of ONE "WIFE". now if you want to apply this to only men, well Paul was a Bishop/pastor/elder and he was not married.
see you your mistake?

PICJAG.
Paul never called himself an elder or bishop. He did imply that he pastored, but he did not call himself 'a pastor.' The Bible tells elders to pastor and certain apostles either said they pastor or were told to. But the Bible does not equate pastor with elder or pastor with apostle or apostle with elder.

Paul was an apostle who traveled from place to place and he appointed elders/overseers in the local churches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God told Abraham to take Hagar. He told David that it was because of God that he had his wives. God made laws to regulate Polygamy, both wives and concubines. There was never a prohibition, by law, against Polygamy in the OT. To have many wives and children was seen as having the favor of God...not a sin.

Really? Can you show me in Scripture where God okayed any of this? For one thing, wasn't it Sarah that told Abraham to take Hagar, not God? It was really unbelief that made them jump the gun.

I don't recall God telling David it was because of Him that he had more than one wife?

Show me God's laws on concubines. And on multiple wives. I don't recall God's name being attached to any of this.
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Really? Can you show me in Scripture where God okayed any of this? For one thing, wasn't it Sarah that told Abraham to take Hagar, not God? It was really unbelief that made them jump the gun.

I don't recall God telling David it was because of Him that he had more than one wife?

Show me God's laws on concubines. And on multiple wives. I don't recall God's name being attached to any of this.

II Samuel 12:8
And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
II Samuel 12:8
And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Interesting. So why do we only have only one spouse? Concubines bother me the most. What is fornication? Why was their only a commandment against adultery?
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Really? Can you show me in Scripture where God okayed any of this? For one thing, wasn't it Sarah that told Abraham to take Hagar, not God? It was really unbelief that made them jump the gun.

I don't recall God telling David it was because of Him that he had more than one wife?

Show me God's laws on concubines. And on multiple wives. I don't recall God's name being attached to any of this.
That is the problem....people want to get into the Israelite religion without knowing the Mosaic Law. It would be good for you to review the Mosaic Law...613 laws...not pleasant. 2nd Samuel 12:7-8 on God speaking of his wives through Nathan

I mis-spoke about Abraham and God...that was a about sending Hagar out in the desert. But God was speaking to Abraham and he never made an objection...Just like all the other people he spoke to, that had multiple wives and concubines, He never protested.

The thing is that Polygamy was never questioned by the Mosaic Law, and it did address how to regulate it. The selling of women....not reducing their rations if you took another wife.
 
Last edited:

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Interesting. So why do we only have only one spouse? Concubines bother me the most. What is fornication? Why was their only a commandment against adultery?

I infer monogamy from Matthew 19. If getting a divorce and remarrying is divorce because two shall be one flesh, why would it be not adultery if we remove the divorce part?

Concubines in Israel were actually wives, wives obtained by lifting a slave from the status of slave to wife...or concubine. That was one way to get a wife as opposed to paying a bride price for virgins or marrying a widow, for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I infer monogamy from Matthew 19. If getting a divorce and remarrying is divorce because two shall be one flesh, why would it be not adultery if we remove the divorce part?

Concubines in Israel were actually wives, wives obtained by lifting a slave from the status of slave to wife...or concubine. That was one way to get a wife as opposed to paying a bride price for virgins or marrying a widow, for example.

Weren't slaves of other countries and religions? Why would that be allowed?
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
II Samuel 12:8
And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
Here is one of a few. Knowing the religion and the culture is important.

Exodus 21:7-11
If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Female slaves were mostly concubines...it is all through the culture and religion. Notice conjugal rights above. There is more and a lot of things that prove that women as a whole were thought of as property in the OT. The Law of jealousy...The Law if you think your bride is not a virgin. The Laws pertaining to wars....you are not going to like them.
 
Last edited:

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Show me God's laws on concubines. And on multiple wives. I don't recall God's name being attached to any of this.

Exodus 20
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
...
Exodus 21
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Exodus 20
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
...
Exodus 21
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

It is amazing to me that it hasn't even been 100 years of the past 6000 where women have come out from under servitude. I wonder if there is anything in Scripture about women in end times, and what signs they would have negatively, or positively that we now take for granted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is amazing to me that it hasn't even been 100 years of the past 6000 where women have come out from under servitude. I wonder if there is anything in Scripture about women in end times, and what signs they would have negatively, or positively that we now take for granted.
That is actually a complicated study, why Christianity did not catch on sooner? You have probably heard of the women suffrage movement...the ERA etc. But part of the history goes unnoticed. The actual change started and existed in the west. The "western times" you know the covered wagons and the homestead were the seeds. A man and his wife had to work together and sometimes fight together to survive. The necessity for the team brought on a new respect for women, that moved east. Unfortunately, Christianity was not a supporter of this, society had to drag Christianity along kicking and screaming....women should know their place...thing.
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We shouldn't assume that God's morals and goals are in line with modern liberal American goals. I heard a sermon where a pastor talked about repenting for not giving women the right to vote.

Biblically, is there any reason to think that God requires that anyone have the right to vote? Is it wrong for a society to be set up so that men represent the interests of their families in politics, or if a ruling class does so? Or a king? Democracy comes from ancient pagan Greece after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We shouldn't assume that God's morals and goals are in line with modern liberal American goals. I heard a sermon where a pastor talked about repenting for not giving women the right to vote.

Biblically, is there any reason to think that God requires that anyone have the right to vote? Is it wrong for a society to be set up so that men represent the interests of their families in politics, or if a ruling class does so? Or a king? Democracy comes from ancient pagan Greece after all.
Democracy comes from ancient pagan Greece after all.
I was going to mention that, you are right. The concept of freedom and and democracy did not come from Christianity. There was never a time in history that Christians promoted freedom, until the colonies. The Catholics were usually in bed with whatever ruling party was in power. The Puritans came to this country to practice their religion freely, but definitely did not believe in religious freedom. It was Roger Williams in Rhode Island that first established religious freedoms in Providence, Rhode Island in 1636. So then if you do not think that freedom is good, you might try practicing your religion in some communist countries.

The Bible put women and slaves in their place....Charismatic Lady has already keyed on that...Why did God allow this for so long? But then Paul said in.....Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The question is, is the subjugation of women and enslavement of humans moral? Is it intelligent? Is it right? Is that where God is at? Should we go back to enslaving people? Make the women wash people's feet? Tell women to be silent in church? The songs of worship from women, silenced? Is that the right thing to do? Is that what God would really want? Even Paul towards the end of his ministry recognized the importance of women in the service of the church.

Anytime a woman was threatened in the Gospels, Christ was there. A God could come to earth anyway He wished, He chose to come through a woman. Women funded His ministry, there in no indication that any male funded His ministry. He was the Messiah, which means "the anointed" only women anointed Him.... You think that does not mean anything....right?

When He needed to send someone to go to the Samaritans to give them the Good News...Gospel, He sent the woman from the well, because He knew they would not listen to the Apostles....The women were with Christ at the cross, the men hiding. Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ....the Apostles were in hiding. Did the women refuse to believe He had risen? She was chosen to deliver the message, Christ had risen......first she had to find the hiding Apostles. They did not believe. They did not believe!!! Rather than believe, when He came to them, they thought He was a ghost! Their first thoughts, not risen, a ghost! Do you see a pattern here? If you do not, then those reading might be able to understand why it took so long!!!!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CharismaticLady
B

brakelite

Guest
The twelve tribes of Israel came from four wives. I think God throughout the history of mankind has tolerated screeds of stuff that was not up to God's holy standards. Yet He didn't interfere, but rather used imperfect circumstances to accomplish His will anyway. Jesus was a direct descendant of prostitutes...murderers...adulterers. I think God refuses to interfere so long as He can use the situation to His glory, all the while reducing risk as best He can, such as giving guide lines regarding slavery.
Today though our beliefs regarding slavery...The equality of the sexes...religious liberty...marital monogamy...have matured and I have no doubt that such maturity comes from God's hand in the development of His church.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Come to think of it I am a man with one wife and many girlfriends. Does that make me a bad person?
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Bible put women and slaves in their place....Charismatic Lady has already keyed on that...Why did God allow this for so long? But then Paul said in.....Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
What was the context of this teaching? It is about being heirs according to the promise, not political power. In the Jewish system, in order to come into the covenant, a boy would be circumcised as a baby to continue his role in the covenant, or a proselyte could be circumcised. What about women? Women could be proselytes if their fathers, husbands or owners were circumcised. Male slaves could be preselytes if their owners were circumcised. All of these categories make sense in context.

Does that mean that Paul saw no difference at all between men and women? Is this passage support for transgenderism or gay marriage? Clearly Paul saw some distinctions because he gave husbands one set of instructions and wives another. Wives are to submit to their husbands and reverence their husbands and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. He also told slaves to submit to their masters and for the circumcised not to seek to be uncircumcised.

Taking this as a political passage does not really fit with the argument Paul makes in context or his other writings.
The question is, is the subjugation of women and enslavement of humans moral? Is it intelligent? Is it right? Is that where God is at? Should we go back to enslaving people?

I am glad we live in a society that does not have slavery (not legally at least). I do see American Christians speaking of owning slaves as a sin, which would condemn certain figures in the Bible. Philemon was a slave owner and Paul said he loved the brethren. He wrote an epistle to talk him into freeing a certain slave, but did not condemn him for owning Onesimus. It was apparently Philemon's right not to free him, but Paul pointed out Philemon's debt, in a sense, to himself. Genesis indicates God blessed Isaac with slaves. A Gentile becoming a slave to a Hebrew was actually a way to enter into covenant with God in Old Testament times, so there was actually a benefit to it. Becoming a proselyte otherwise is not spelled out in the Old Testament, but was something that developed later. Of course, the patriarchs probably did not own slaves who were slaves because of the color of their skin, who were chained for weeks in on nasty stinking ship next to dead bodies and sick people.

'Subjugation of women' is a loaded term. As far as politics go, female suffrage was decades after universal male suffrage depending on the political system we are discussing. For a long time, men had to have property to vote, and it wasn't long after they lifted the restrictions to let the common man vote that women got the vote. The idea of everyone having a vote is sort of an individualistic idea. Most of human society was probably collectivist, especially outside of cities which seem to promote collectivism. Having the head of the home vote is easier for counting votes than having everyone vote. Reading immorality into that is ethnocentric, IMO.

Also, the New Testament tells wives to submit to their husbands, to be subject to their husbands. Is a society recognizing that 'subjugation.' Subjugation sounds so negative. But if society is aligning with Biblical truths, that's a positive thing isn't it? Can you be sure that God doesn't look at our society and see things as out of whack with male and female? Things that went along with 'women's lib' as they used to call it are high divorce rates. Certain feminist ideologies are similar to Marxism and probably partly derived from it. Instead of the oppressed proletariat, 'the patriarchy' is supposedly the historical oppressor of women, who always oppresses them and whatever happens, that can never change, woman are oppressed. They are equal to men in every way, but on the other hand, always oppressed by them. Probably most of men' were peasants for much of European history anyway, and did not have political power, so it is a curious reinterpretation of history. Europe has had the possibility for women to sit on thrones for about 500 years.

The male-female thing in the US and a lot of western countries has gone way out of balance. When factors like the unpleasantness of the work, danger, and hours worked are accounted for, the wage gap is miniscule, maybe a few percentage points and in some fields women earn more. Women file the majority of no-fault divorces and the courts incentivize this by giving them custody of children in the majority of cases and guaranteeing them a stream of income at the man's expense. Left-wing women tend to vote as a block in favor of issues that benefit women, but men tend not to do the same thing.

So I don't see history as all pointing towards a feminist goal, with God backing it up. If Jesus tarries, I do not necessarily expect governments to follow the feminist line of reasoning, since feminism influence on government is subject to men going along with it, basically subject to the benevolence, or misguided benevolence in some cases, of men. That's a rather shaky foundation.
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Paul never called himself an elder or bishop. He did imply that he pastored, but he did not call himself 'a pastor.' The Bible tells elders to pastor and certain apostles either said they pastor or were told to. But the Bible does not equate pastor with elder or pastor with apostle or apostle with elder.

Paul was an apostle who traveled from place to place and he appointed elders/overseers in the local churches.
satans dialectic, but i'm finding it hard to disagree with your facts :)
ntmy, mark here
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Paul never called himself an elder or bishop. He did imply that he pastored, but he did not call himself 'a pastor.' The Bible tells elders to pastor and certain apostles either said they pastor or were told to. But the Bible does not equate pastor with elder or pastor with apostle or apostle with elder.

Paul was an apostle who traveled from place to place and he appointed elders/overseers in the local churches.
First of all thanks for the reply. #1, do you know what a Pastor is? first lets get the definition of what a pastor is. Jeremiah 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding." ok, got that. NOW THIS, lets see if Paul is also a PASTOR, scripture. 1 Corinthians 13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
1 Corinthians 13:2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." BINGO, here the apostle just told you a few things about himself. #1. he has the gift of prophecy, he's a prophet. #2. he's a Pastor, he has all UNDERSTANDING, and all KNOWLEDGE, hence the Pastor, (Jeremiah 3:15). so he's a Pastor. A Bishop is also a teacher, which Paul was, 1 Corinthians 4:17 "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church." for a Bishop TEACH, 1 Timothy 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" now what about elders?, scripture, Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Just what a Pastor do, ( Jeremiah 3:15) so a Pastor/Overseer/Elder are interchangable. Now knowing that my origional Question, "WHEN WAS PAUL MARRIED?". if not, then 1 Timothy 3:2 don't apply to MEN ONLY, especially those who are not married.
PICJAG.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What was the context of this teaching? It is about being heirs according to the promise, not political power. In the Jewish system, in order to come into the covenant, a boy would be circumcised as a baby to continue his role in the covenant, or a proselyte could be circumcised. What about women? Women could be proselytes if their fathers, husbands or owners were circumcised. Male slaves could be preselytes if their owners were circumcised. All of these categories make sense in context.
Does that mean that Paul saw no difference at all between men and women? Is this passage support for transgenderism or gay marriage? Clearly Paul saw some distinctions because he gave husbands one set of instructions and wives another. Wives are to submit to their husbands and reverence their husbands and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. He also told slaves to submit to their masters and for the circumcised not to seek to be uncircumcised.
Taking this as a political passage does not really fit with the argument Paul makes in context or his other writings.

I am glad we live in a society that does not have slavery (not legally at least). I do see American Christians speaking of owning slaves as a sin, which would condemn certain figures in the Bible. Philemon was a slave owner and Paul said he loved the brethren. He wrote an epistle to talk him into freeing a certain slave, but did not condemn him for owning Onesimus. It was apparently Philemon's right not to free him, but Paul pointed out Philemon's debt, in a sense, to himself. Genesis indicates God blessed Isaac with slaves. A Gentile becoming a slave to a Hebrew was actually a way to enter into covenant with God in Old Testament times, so there was actually a benefit to it. Becoming a proselyte otherwise is not spelled out in the Old Testament, but was something that developed later. Of course, the patriarchs probably did not own slaves who were slaves because of the color of their skin, who were chained for weeks in on nasty stinking ship next to dead bodies and sick people.
'Subjugation of women' is a loaded term. As far as politics go, female suffrage was decades after universal male suffrage depending on the political system we are discussing. For a long time, men had to have property to vote, and it wasn't long after they lifted the restrictions to let the common man vote that women got the vote. The idea of everyone having a vote is sort of an individualistic idea. Most of human society was probably collectivist, especially outside of cities which seem to promote collectivism. Having the head of the home vote is easier for counting votes than having everyone vote. Reading immorality into that is ethnocentric, IMO.
Also, the New Testament tells wives to submit to their husbands, to be subject to their husbands. Is a society recognizing that 'subjugation.' Subjugation sounds so negative. But if society is aligning with Biblical truths, that's a positive thing isn't it? Can you be sure that God doesn't look at our society and see things as out of whack with male and female? Things that went along with 'women's lib' as they used to call it are high divorce rates. Certain feminist ideologies are similar to Marxism and probably partly derived from it. Instead of the oppressed proletariate, 'the patriarchy' is supposedly the historical oppresser of women, who always oppresses them and whatever happens, that can never change, woman are oppressed. They are equal to men in every way, but on the other hand, always oppressed by them. Most of 'the patriarchy' were peasants for much of human history anyway, and did not have politicla power, so it is a curious reinterpretation of history. Europe has had the possibility for women to sit on thrones for about 500 years.
The male-female thing in the US and a lot of western countries has gone way out of balance. When factors like the unpleasantness of the work, danger, and hours worked are accounted for, the wage gap is miniscule, maybe a few percentage points and in some fields women earn more. Women file the majority of no-fault divorces and the courts incentivize this by giving them custody of children in the majority of cases and guaranteeing them a stream of income at the man's expense. Left-wing women tend to vote as a block in favor of issues that benefit women, but men tend not to do the same thing.
So I don't see history as all pointing towards a feminist goal, with God backing it up. If Jesus tarries, I do not necessarily expect governments to follow the feminist line of reasoning, since feminism influence on government is subject to men going along with it, basically subject to the benevolence, or misguided benevolence in some cases, of men. That's a rather shaky foundation.
Make the women wash people's feet? Tell women to be silent in church? The songs of worship from women, silenced? Is that the right thing to do? Is that what God would really want? Even Paul towards the end of his ministry recognized the importance of women in the service of the church.
Anytime a woman was threatened in the Gospels, Christ was there. A God could come to earth anyway He wished, He chose to come through a woman. Women funded His ministry, there in no indication that any male funded His ministry. He was the Messiah, which means "the anointed" only women anointed Him.... You think that does not mean anything....right?
When He needed to send someone to go to the Samaritans to give them the Good News...Gospel, He sent the woman from the well, because He knew they would not listen to the Apostles....The women were with Christ at the cross, the men hiding. Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ....the Apostles were in hiding. Did the women refuse to believe He had risen? She was chosen to deliver the message, Christ had risen......first she had to find the hiding Apostles. They did not believe. They did not believe!!! Rather than believe, when He came to them, they thought He was a ghost! Their first thoughts, not risen, a ghost! Do you see a pattern here? If you do not, then those reading might be able to understand why it took so long!!!!
And there you have it, there it is, and there we go. Summed up at least in spirit why Christians did not get it. It is not that the morality of God runs so closely to the morality men....it is just that "men" are slow to learn what is right. For that which is equitable, seems to be justice, and equity, goes beyond the written law.