Monogamy Isn’t Biblical, It’s Greek/Roman

[evotell]

So far I haven't talked about sex in this post, but lets put it on the menu.

1. Where do our sexual desires come from ? They come from God who made us sexual people, that's part of our make up.
2. What does the single person do regarding his/her sexual appetite? nothing, never be able to enjoy the thrill of living in an orgasmic state.

Sadly Christendom has placed restrictions on sex for single people, what does the widow do who has a strong sexual appetite? As I understand it she cant even masterbate without coming up the churches condemnation, (nothing in the Bible that forbids masturbation either) It appears from the monogamy camp that either her sexual experiences are over or she gets married again. No wonder the millennial's are living the Christian church by the droves, there trying to escape a shaming system that attacks their sexuality.

As a side not its important to understand what the Bible teaches it teaches in the context of culture and time. God's people were told not to eat pork, is that still applicable today? or do we understand that to be an instruction for those people in the generation. You can look at the Bible and make a case for anything you want, that's how the CCC justified the torture of blacks in the southern states, that's how people justified slavery, its the same reason that Hitler justified the mass murder of millions of Jews, so please dont send me Bible verses to justify and validate your position.

Sex is clearly something we all enjoy so what about singles?

 

[evotell]

You have me all wrong. I am open to God, but not to the world.

But don't think you can rewrite the things of God because you have had an experience of letdown over many years. That should be proof to you that the world is not the answer, but apparently coming to that fork in the road you have gone the way of the world. Both the world and God have spoken. You should have heard God and turned your back on the world, but you have have heard the world and turned your back on God. Openness, should not be to the world, but to God. Of this you must repent. This is not my opinion, but the reality of what God has placed before us: "I have placed before you, life and death, therefore choose life."

WOW, you know nothing about me, my life, my work in YWAM and my coaching seminars, so I'll chalk up your comments to your own self righteous delusional state. I feel sorry for you.

 

[bbyrd009]

So far I haven't talked about sex in this post

coughcoughbscough, you brought it up first.

no offense, but i guess you are constitutionally incapable of being honest right now.

i hope you come to master yourself more completely someday--which we put as "dying to self" and "dying daily"--and i'm sure you recognize that you will not be boldly stating obvious prevarications and refusing to confront them when that obtains ok.

 

[bbyrd009]

so I'll chalk up your comments to your own self righteous delusional state. I feel sorry for you.

imagine how we feel then, i mean you are the psychologist right

 

[Helen]

I guess you didn't catch it (or didn't have an ear to hear)...

In the end, after all the infractions, there is only one bride and One groom. That is the only model. Nothing more is justified.

Amen! That was, and always will be, the Pattern. God's Pattern. God's Plan.

 

[ScottA]

WOW, you know nothing about me, my life, my work in YWAM and my coaching seminars, so I'll chalk up your comments to your own self righteous delusional state. I feel sorry for you.

You're right - I never knew you.

That's funny...in a sad sort of way - you calling me self righteous and delusional, while bragging on yourself. Yeah for you!

But, no, I guess you are not as well known as you think...and therefore I have only to go on your expressed lack of knowledge and the overall expression of yielding to the ways of the world while mocking God's ways.

 

[mjrhealth]

You are the one sir who made this about sex, not me.

Actually you did, you are the one that mentioned it first, and if a man is not satisfied with one wife, thirty will never satisfy him , for them it is only about the sex, prowess, look at me am i not a hunk. Those who love there wife, will only ever need one.

 

[pia]

problem is religious people dont ask questions because according to them they already have the truth.

You are not the only one here to point that out by the way....Must be nice for you to just be able to lump us all in together...quite odd, I must say...Should I now judge your 'person' on the few words I have read of your posts ? I think not....

 

[bbyrd009]

Those who love there wife, will only ever need one.

ha and one is about all any man could take anyway i guess huh

 

[forrestcupp]

Wow. I only had time to read the first and last pages. I have a few points to make, but since I didn't read the entire thread, they very well may have been discussed already. Sorry if that's the case.

1) The OP even pointed out that 1 Timothy instructs that church leaders should be the husband of one wife. Even though it only mentions church leaders in that way, obviously there is some wisdom in that marriage structure, or it wouldn't be important for leaders to follow it.

2) Where I live, it's illegal to marry more than one spouse at a time. Since the Bible says I have to follow the law of the land, that means monogamy is a biblical command for me.

3) It was a cultural thing, and still is. Polygamy was mostly promoted in the ancient days when the earth needed to be populated. With 7.6 billion people crawling across the face of the earth like ants, there is not nearly as much of a need for world population as there was. In fact, by New Testament times, polygamy was becoming less promoted and popular than it was earlier in history (even though it obviously still existed), and God's instructions shifted from being focused on populating the earth to marriage being more about a symbol of our relationship with Christ. With scriptures like Ephesians 5:25, the Lord is calling for a shift in mentality from wives being a means to an end to the new idea that husbands are actually supposed to love their wives.

4) I don't think I could handle more than one wife, anyway.

 

[Phoneman777]

Why are so often encouraged to set aside fundamentalism when studying the Bible, as if somehow fundamentalism stands in the way of spiritual/intellectual enlightenment? Would these same folks place their hard earned $$$ as well as vested interests in the hands of any doctor, lawyer, or mechanic who would set aside the fundamentals of medicine, law, or automotive technology, or would they avoid these like the plague?

Yet, these same people would have us place our priceless eternal destiny in the hands of "teachers" who question the fundamentals of Scripture as whether they are relevant to us today. To them, I say as does Scripture, "I am the LORD, I change not".

There is nothing in all of Scripture which commands or condones a man dividing his affections between two wives - and the fact God allowed that polygamy originated NOT IN THE LINEAGE OF OBEDIENT SETH, BUT IN THE LINEAGE OF DISOBEDIENT CAIN, to exist even among the faithful who over time corrupted themselves with this practice, is no evidence of God's approval. The fact remains that there are enough verses in Scripture to more than support the fundamentalist view that marriage was intended to be for all time a union between one man and one woman.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by 40 authors over a period of hundreds of years. The Old and New Testament are contradictory on a number of points, such as whether God requires his followers to follow the Levitical Law. Evangelicals hold that in the New Testament, Jesus “fulfilled” the law, rendering it null and void. This alone, outside of any other contradictions, suggests that it is incredibly overly simplistic to say something is “biblically based.”

When people say that the idea of marriage being between only two people is biblically based, I have to wonder what part of the Bible they are talking about. Yes, in Genesis God creates Adam and Eve, one man and one woman, and speaks of the two becoming one flesh. But in the same book, God chooses as his follower’s men who almost universally take more than one wife—and the Bible says nothing to suggest these men were operating outside of God’s will in doing so. Jacob takes two wives and two concubines, and yet God treats his twelve sons by these four women as all equally legitimate.

In the Old Testament, God lays down laws for his people. He carefully regulates who men can take as a wife—not a niece or a sister, for instance—but never prohibits polygamy. Instead, it accommodates it, requiring men who take a second wife not to deprive the first wife of food or clothing, for example. Indeed, the entire Old Testament is, to my knowledge, bereft of any suggestion that marriage is only to be between one man and one woman. Instead, polygamy is treated as normal and accepted and, for the wealthy and powerful, even expected.

King David, who is repeatedly described as a man after God’s own heart, took nearly a dozen wives. God severely punished David for taking Bathsheba as his wife, given that she was originally married to another man and David had him killed to obtain her. But God never punished David for taking his other wives.

Polygamy isn’t condemned in the New Testament, either. In Timothy and Titus, church leaders are required to be the “husband of but one wife,” but this is the only time polygamy is referenced in any way. I’ve seen it argued that Jesus is condemning polygamy when he speaks of marriage and says “the two shall become one flesh,” but in that passage he is referencing a Genesis passage that says the same thing—and as we’ve already noted, the Old Testament permits polygamy. The New Testament writers condemn gluttony and prostitution and anger—but not polygamy, despite the fact that polygamy existed in Jewish culture.

Don’t get me wrong, creationists like Ham try to find ways to explain all of this away. And in some sense that’s fine—I don’t have a problem with people arguing that Christians should be monogamous, or finding ways to interpret the bible to support monogamy. I do, however, have a problem with Christians arguing that something is transparently obviously and unquestioningly biblical when it is anything but. Go ahead and form your own interpretation—but please, oh please, don’t claim the Bible is “clear” on an issue when it’s obviously more complicated than that.

Christianity is monogamous not because of anything the Bible says but rather because the Romans were monogamous. Christianity was profoundly influenced by its development within the Roman Empire. Even the Christian concept of heaven and hell comes from the Romans, not the Jews. While Jewish law permitted polygamy, the Romans were fiercely monogamous, and during its early years Christianity moved from being a Jewish sect to being an independent religion within the Roman Empire—a religion adopted primarily by Gentiles (and not Jews) and ultimately made the Roman Empire’s official religion.


Yes, you read that right—the Western idea that marriage is between one man and one woman isn’t biblical, it’s Greek/Roman

.

I think it's interesting that in the past man has more than one wife especially the wealthy and powerful, but if a woman were to be caught with another man other than her "ONE" husband she would be punished most of the time by death. most men talk about monogamy like they do but nine times out of ten its men who can have more than one spouse, why is it you don't see women taking on more than one husband will you tell me that. Do men truly believe that they have the right to marry more than one wife but if one of his wives were to do the same thing, I honestly don't think the man would be able to put up with it, if a man could put with it why haven't we seen more women in the past with more than one husband. Man is always reasoning in some way for the man to have more than one wife, but like I said if a man did have more than one wife and one of his wives wanted to have more than one husband I don't think her first husband could handle it.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Christianity is monogamous not because of anything the Bible says but rather because the Romans were monogamous. Christianity was profoundly influenced by its development within the Roman Empire.

Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Reads to me that Christian monogamy came from Jesus rather than the Romans Empire.

Even the Christian concept of heaven and hell comes from the Romans, not the Jews.

No way. Jesus spoke of Heaven and Hell and even Abraham's bosom aka Paradise which was located below the earth across the gulf from Hell. There is that final judgment of the lake of fire.

While Jewish law permitted polygamy, the Romans were fiercely monogamous, and during its early years Christianity moved from being a Jewish sect to being an independent religion within the Roman Empire—a religion adopted primarily by Gentiles (and not Jews) and ultimately made the Roman Empire’s official religion.

Yes, you read that right—the Western idea that marriage is between one man and one woman isn’t biblical, it’s Greek/Roman.

I do not believe your bold statement is solid as you seem to make it out to be.

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Granted, before the law came when Israel became a nation under Moses, God's commandment to multiply was apparent.

God did warn the people for wanting a human king to rule over the nation like the rest of the world does, citing that such a king may follow the example of the world, but the Jewish people insisted, and they got their King Saul.

But to assess how marriage was really supposed to be like.... as one man and one woman.... we look to Jesus.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So I do believe marriage started out as one man and one woman in becoming one flesh, but sinners & even God's people moved away from it but it is brought to light in the N.T. how marriage is supposed to be by Jesus's own words and reaffirmed by Paul's.

1 Corinthians 7:1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Anyway, you may want to reconsider your bold conclusion, but I do understand that God allowed for polygamy, but in the beginning per Jesus words, marriage was meant to be one man and one woman for the two to become one flesh.

 

[aspen]

The Romans were monogamous? I think not....