|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Biblical basis of traditional marriage
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
On another list, this topic came up, and this is my response:
The biblegateway Topical Index for polygamy is large.
The Old Testament nowhere clearly prohibits polygamy, although many of the examples are bad news:
- Abraham had a concubine, Hagar: Genesis 21:9-14
- Jacob married both Rachel and Leah - Genesis 29
- David has several wives - 2 Samuel 3:1-5 lists six sons to six mothers and other
references, including Batsheba and Michal, daughter of Saul - 2 Sam 3:6 mentions one of Saul's concubines
- Solomon famously had 300 wives and 700 concubines
- Exodus 21:10 says:
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
Monogamy is required in the New Testament - for priests and deacons:
- 1 Timothy 3:2
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, - 1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his
household well. - Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife,
It's worth noting that the Jews _formally_ adopted monogamy by Rabbinic decree of Rabbenu Gershom in the 11th century CE - although practically long before.
Can anyone point me to solid Biblical authority for "traditional" universal monogamy?
[ 30. December 2006, 13:43: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Henry, while I don't think that there is any one passages that says "You must have one wife and one wife only," I do think that a number of passage imply this, in addition to the ones that you note.
In the Old Testament, Malachi comes out forcefully against divorce:
quote:
Malachi 2:14 The LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the LORD of hosts.
Malachi does not specify monogamy, but the idea of being "made one" implies it. And what he is saying about divorce is quite different than what Moses said.
Jesus repeats Malachi's thoughts on divorce:
quote:
Matthew 5.31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
This radically changes Moses' teaching about divorce. Does it imply that it is wrong to add a wife without divorce? Jesus takes up the topic again in Matthew 19:
quote:
Matthew 19.3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
There are two things here:
- First, Jesus repeats and emphasizes what Malachi says about the two being one. If two people become "one flesh" how can a third be added in?
- Secondly, in verse 9 He condemns the idea of "marrying another." If it is wrong to do this after improperly divorcing a wife then wouldn't it also be wrong to do it without divorcing?
I would also add that in the New Testament there are no examples of men with more than one wife, unlike the OT. The repeated injunctions always assume one wife. Similarly, the divine imagery in places like Revelation speak of God being married to His church in a marriage-like reltionship:
quote:
Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.
Revelation 21.9 “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”
None of these examples are exactly definitive. Still, there hasn't been as much controversy on this point as you might expect. I think that people intuitively grasp that polygamy doesn't work that well when you really think about it - despite the obvious appeal for many men. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
ISTM that Jesus at least tacitly acknowledged the legitimacy of levirate marriages in his response to the Sadducees (e.g., Mark 12:18-27). I will readily grant that polygamy is no longer appropriate, but it is far from clear that it was dismissed by Christ.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that Jesus at least tacitly acknowledged the legitimacy of levirate marriages in his response to the Sadducees (e.g., Mark 12:18-27). I will readily grant that polygamy is no longer appropriate, but it is far from clear that it was dismissed by Christ.
I'm not sure that levirate marriages were considered polygamy. The idea was for a man to impregnate his brother's widow so that his family line could be carried on. It was the duty of a surviving brother--not something that he simply wanted to do.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm not sure that levirate marriages were considered polygamy. The idea was for a man to impregnate his brother's widow so that his family line could be carried on. It was the duty of a surviving brother--not something that he simply wanted to do.
I can't believe that you are suggesting that any marriage based on a sense of duty isn't a marriage. Is this really your point?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Actually, I think the question is whether or not the levirate marriage is your marriage, or a continuation by proxy of your brother's marriage.
[ 20. June 2006, 02:17: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
It didn't seem to suggest that to the old testament patriarchs...
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
It didn't seem to suggest that to the old testament patriarchs...
To be fair, the OT Patriarchs didn't have Genesis 2.
I know, you probably mean that the created order didn't seem to suggest "one man and one woman" to them, which is a good point.
I think marriage is a good case of our reading the way we do things back into the Bible. There's probably nothing like modern marriage in the Bible, if for no other reason than that gender was constructed differently in biblical cultures (which differed from each other as well). Social roles, status, and economics always factor into marriages in any culture.
A biblical basis for traditional marriage - or for any modification(s) to the tradition - can't be found by simply quoting verses. I think what we recognize in most of our churches as marriage can be drawn in principle from Scripture, but so could other arrangements. The discussion needs more than just Bible-quoting - it needs theological, philosophical, political, sociological, anthropological, and probably other types of -ological thinking as well.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think marriage is a good case of our reading the way we do things back into the Bible. There's probably nothing like modern marriage in the Bible, if for no other reason than that gender was constructed differently in biblical cultures (which differed from each other as well). Social roles, status, and economics always factor into marriages in any culture.
Very true. I think, however, that the Bible is reasonably definite in praising sexual exclusivity and criticizing alternatives.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Actually, I think the question is whether or not the levirate marriage is your marriage, or a continuation by proxy of your brother's marriage.
That's how I see it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
It didn't seem to suggest that to the old testament patriarchs...
Though I would suggest that it did suggest itself to the recorders of the Patriarchal narratives. As HenryTroup pointed out in the OP - polygamy never seems to produce a happy home.
The first explicit example we have of polygamy is Lamech in the line of Cain!
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
The basis for monogamy lies in the Ten Commandments , which advocate fidelity only to One Person and honouring of one's father and mother, whilst explicitly prohibiting adultery and forbidding the coveting of a neighbour's wife.
It seems very clear to me.
But as Jesus the realist said:
quote:
“Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
The basis for monogamy lies in the Ten Commandments , which advocate fidelity only to One Person and honouring of one's father and mother, whilst explicitly prohibiting adultery and forbidding the coveting of a neighbour's wife.
It seems very clear to me.
Clear if you don't read them perhaps.
They prohibit sex with another person's husband or wife, and forbid men to covet other men's wives. How you get "fidelity only to One Person" from that baffles me, once again.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
SteveTom
quote:
They prohibit sex with another person's husband or wife, and forbid men to covet other men's wives.
Does your reading infer that women are not forbidden from coveting other women's husbands ?
quote:
How you get "fidelity only to One Person" from that baffles me, once again.
I refer to fidelity to the One God, Who makes relationship with individuals in the community of His people, which is likened to marriage.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:
They prohibit sex with another person's husband or wife, and forbid men to covet other men's wives.
Does your reading infer that women are not forbidden from coveting other women's husbands ?
It specifies wives, it doesn't specify husbands.
quote:
I refer to fidelity to the One God, Who makes relationship with individuals in the community of His people, which is likened to marriage.
So how exactly does worshipping one God make it "very clear" that a man should only have one wife?
[ 21. June 2006, 11:22: Message edited by: SteveTom ]
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
SteveTom
quote:
It specifies wives, it doesn't specify husbands.
This is a joke, isn't it ? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:
So how exactly does worshipping one God make it "very clear" that a man should only have one wife?
Are you seriously suggesting that the covenant/marriage relationship refers to a one-sided fidelity, and that on the part of women only ?
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
[QB] ...whilst explicitly prohibiting adultery and forbidding the coveting of a neighbour's wife.
...
However, adultery (for a man) is sex with a woman who is not [one of] your wives. (For me, the set is of cardinality one.)
And "coveting a neighbor's wife" says nothing about marrying both his daughters, and six others besides.
I hate to be post-modern here, but you're reading it through the eyes of someone raised in a monogamous culture, so you see the two as requiring monogamy.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:
It specifies wives, it doesn't specify husbands.
This is a joke, isn't it ?
Good guess, but no, this is called logic.
Have another look at the commandment against coveting.
You see the word "wife"? That's where it specifies wives.
You see the word "husband"? No? That's not specifying husbands.
Thus the most basic level of comprehension tells you that the commandment specifies wives, and doesn't specify husbands.
quote:
quote:
So how exactly does worshipping one God make it "very clear" that a man should only have one wife?
Are you seriously suggesting that the covenant/marriage relationship refers to a one-sided fidelity, and that on the part of women only ?
What the hell are you talking about? How is that supposed to be an answer to my question?
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
I can't help you, friend.
And get off my case.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
quote:
I hate to be post-modern here, but you're reading it through the eyes of someone raised in a monogamous culture, so you see the two as requiring monogamy.
Proabably.
But it has already been said - polygamy does not make for a happy home. Always assuming that is the objective, of course.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
...
In the Old Testament, Malachi comes out forcefully against divorce:
quote:
Malachi 2:14 The LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. ...
Malachi does not specify monogamy, but the idea of being "made one" implies it. And what he is saying about divorce is quite different than what Moses said. ...
Being a cynic, when I see, "the wife of your youth," the first thing I think of is "How many other wives ya got?" Sort of like when I used to jokingly call my spouse "my first husband." There can be "rank" among women in a polygamous situation. The wife of your youth may be the mother of your first-born son, giving her a higher status in the household than the other wives, and entitling her to some additional consideration from you, her husband, to whom she has given an heir. (Obviously I mean the generic you!)
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Does your reading infer that women are not forbidden from coveting other women's husbands ?
If it was thought that women's sexual desires were non-existent, or far weaker than men's desires, there might not have been a lot of female coveting going on, so it might not have been felt necessary to specify it explicitly. And depending on the organization of the society and the restrictions on women's activities, married women may not have often come into contact with the husbands of other women (except members of the extended family, and who covets a brother-in-law?).
And I too don't see anything in Exodus 20:14 or 17 that couldn't apply to polygamous marriages.
I'll now crawl back under the porch with the lil' dawgs. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think marriage is a good case of our reading the way we do things back into the Bible. There's probably nothing like modern marriage in the Bible, if for no other reason than that gender was constructed differently in biblical cultures (which differed from each other as well). Social roles, status, and economics always factor into marriages in any culture.
Very true. I think, however, that the Bible is reasonably definite in praising sexual exclusivity and criticizing alternatives.
Not so in the OT IMHO. There is no criticism (e.g.) of Jacob for having more than one wife, nor of Elkanah. There is perh. implied criticism of Jacob's favouritism.
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
[QB] ...whilst explicitly prohibiting adultery and forbidding the coveting of a neighbour's wife.
...
However, adultery (for a man) is sex with a woman who is not [one of] your wives. (For me, the set is of cardinality one.)
In the OT adultery is sex with a woman who is someone else's wife. Sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed woman by a married man is not adultery.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
But it has already been said - polygamy does not make for a happy home. Always assuming that is the objective, of course.
Given the excessive divorce rate in our culture, it appears that monogamy doesn't make for a happy home, either.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
BroJames
quote:
Sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed woman by a married man is not adultery
Can you proof text this ?
tclune
quote:
Given the excessive divorce rate in our culture, it appears that monogamy doesn't make for a happy home, either.
Or perhaps people are naturally polygamous, but, wishing to apply some kind of 'spirituality' to relationships, they are engaging in serial monogamy, as an approximation of that mystical 'ideal'.... Who knows ?
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
BroJames
quote:
There is no criticism (e.g.) of Jacob for having more than one wife, nor of Elkanah. There is perh. implied criticism of Jacob's favouritism.
Apologies for double-posting. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
This is an important point about God's apparent inaction.
I found my personal resolution of this parodoxical God in the song of Moses Deut 32 vs 26-27:
quote:
I said I would scatter them
and blot out their memory from mankind,
but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy, lest the adversary misunderstand and say,
'Our hand has triumphed;
the LORD has not done all this.'
Dunno about anyone else, but it works for me.....
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
But it has already been said - polygamy does not make for a happy home. Always assuming that is the objective, of course.
Really?
Then why was it so popular and "successful" in so many ancient (and not so ancient) cultures?
If polygamy always led to unhappiness, it would have quickly died out. Polygamy (like arranged marriages) is something our Western culture finds alien and distasteful, but that shouldn't prevent us from acknowledging that it has as much chance of leading to "happiness" as monogamy.
The PLAIN reading of the OT is that polygamy is perfectly acceptable. OT characters practised it with little or no criticism from the OT writers. What criticism that DOES exist is mainly to do with HOW polygamy was practised, rather than its actual existence.
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
That doesn't make such views wrong or invalid. It is just a helpful reminder that we don't get ALL our theology and morality from the Bible and that sometimes the Bible accepts things which we shouldn't actually accept.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
BroJames
quote:
Sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed woman by a married man is not adultery
Can you proof text this ?
The Catholic Encyclopedia (quite a good source for these kinds of things, BTW), says:
quote:
In the Mosaic Law, as in the old Roman Law, adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery, but fornication. The penal statute on the subject, in Lev., xx, 10, makes this clear: "If any man commit adultery with the wife of another and defile his neighbor's wife let them be put to death both the adulterer and the adulteress." (See also Deuteronomy 22:22) This was quite in keeping with the prevailing practice of polygamy among the Israelites
The text around the two references cited in the quote provide some supporting text. The facts as stated in the article are pretty widely recognized, and it is awkward to read much of the OT any other way. But I am not enough of a scholar to be able to cite a specific line that says, "sex with an unmarried and unpromised woman is not adultery." Nonetheless, since the penalty is called out as a fine for that, and stoning for adultery, it is very hard to maintain a coherent interpretation that treats adultery as applying to unattached women. I would also note that men don't seem to be subject to any penalty that I can find for having sex with a prostitute (assuming of course that she is a bad jewish woman, and not one of them dread ferriners), which I can only see as further indication that these proscriptions were more a matter of property rights of other men than some abstract concern about being upright sexually.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Being a cynic, when I see, "the wife of your youth," the first thing I think of is "How many other wives ya got?"
Not cynical at all. In a society where polygyny was common people would likely read Malachi as saying that when a man marries a second wife he must not divorce the first wife.
The vital thing is not where he puts his willy but that everyone is slotted in to an acceptable role in society as a member of a family. A divorced woman doesn't fit into the system, she sticks out.
Marrying a second wife is not neccessarily seen as infidelity to the first wife. And it could be seen as socially desirable because it mops up spare women who would otherwise be at a loose end.
Its a completely different attitude to sexual morality and family life from ours and sometimes it doesn't translate well. To make things more confusing the sexual morality and kinship structure of patriarchal times was very different from that of the period in which the OT was written down (or of Malachi) and they were different from NT times or the Church Fathers.
And even those can be hard to interpret. For example there is no consensus at all about 1 Corinthians 7.36-38 - is Paul talking about a man marrying his fiancee, or a father giving his daughter in marriage? No-one has been able to be definitive about that for 1500 years, but presumably it must have been completely obvious to the Corinthians.
Or the command that a bishop or deacon be the husband of one wife (literally "a one-woman man") in 1 Timothy 3 and itn Titus 1.
Timothy and Titus must have known what was meant. It must have been obvious to them. But its not any more. In various times and places this has been taken to mean that:
- A minister must not be married to more than one woman (does that mean Paul allowed polygyny to other Christians?)
- A minister cannot be divorced
- If a minister is divorced he cannot remarry
- If a minister is widowed he cannot remarry (sounds weird to most Protestants but this is the Orthodox rule)
- A minister must be married to exactly one wife. No celibates (or gays) allowed.
- A minister must be married to at least one wife
- Only men can be ministers
- Women can be ministers only if unmarried
- A minister must not be adulterous or promiscuous (one would assume most churches would agree with that)
- A minister must not even fancy or think about women other than his wife (again a general moral rule - but how can you tell?)
- A minister is in a marriage-like covenant with his congregation and must not move to another. (No less a person than Athanasios thought this)
- A minister is in a marriage-like covenant with his congregation and so may not be married to a wife at all
Not all mutually exclusive of course. The answer must have been obvious once upon a time, but it isn't now.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
Yes - at least so far as monogamy is concerned. Both OT and NT seem simply to reflect the expectations of their respective cultures, i.e. that polygamy is normative; and then that monogamy is normative. This is especially obvious when you compare the silence of the Bible on this to all it has to say about, e.g. divorce, and adultery. The ethics of polygamy is one where the Bible isn't a lot of use.
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
I can't help you, friend.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything that suggested I wished or expected you to.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
SteveTom
quote:
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything that suggested I wished or expected you to.
Well, I'm glad that's settled then.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Oscar the Grouch
quote:
Then why was it so popular and "successful" in so many ancient (and not so ancient) cultures?
If polygamy always led to unhappiness, it would have quickly died out.
Hang on a mo'....
Are you suggesting that slavery or cannibalism have not died out, because they are popular modes of human behaviour ?
As I read the bible, God's purpose in revealing Himself to Israel was to wean His people away from 'natural' inclinations - which evidently included child sacrifice, idol worship and polygamy.
Unfortunately, as communities of believers have demostrated time and time again, we are not very adept at abandoning practises abhorrent to God; but highly skilled at justifying the necessity for such behaviour, within individual conscience.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The PLAIN reading of the OT is that polygamy is perfectly acceptable. OT characters practised it with little or no criticism from the OT writers. What criticism that DOES exist is mainly to do with HOW polygamy was practised, rather than its actual existence.
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
Only if the NT isn't part of the Bible.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Oscar the Grouch
quote:
Then why was it so popular and "successful" in so many ancient (and not so ancient) cultures?
If polygamy always led to unhappiness, it would have quickly died out.
Hang on a mo'....
Are you suggesting that slavery or cannibalism have not died out, because they are popular modes of human behaviour ?
As I read the bible, God's purpose in revealing Himself to Israel was to wean His people away from 'natural' inclinations - which evidently included child sacrifice, idol worship and polygamy.
First of all, you were the one arguing that polygamy was self-evidently wrong because polygamy does not make for a happy home. All I am doing is pointing out that this is not true and that the Bible does not actually condemn polygamy. So your bits about child sacrifice, idols etc are rather irrelevent to the point in hand.
Slavery is an interesting case to look at, though. The Bible never condemns slavery and indeed seems to condone it. Once again - like polygamy - we have reached the conclusion that slavery is wrong - but we shouldn't think for a moment that this is in response to a clear biblical instruction.
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Unfortunately, as communities of believers have demostrated time and time again, we are not very adept at abandoning practises abhorrent to God; but highly skilled at justifying the necessity for such behaviour, within individual conscience.
But the problem is that you have assumed that it is self-evident that polygamy (and slavery) are "abhorrent to God". Yet the bible doesn't say so and in fact the merest glance at history will tell you that these practices do not have to be "abhorrent".
Although I would reject all forms of slavery, it is important to acknowledge that some forms of ancient slavery were relatively benign and gave slaves a degree of security and prosperity that would have been impossible to gain otherwise. In fact, I would say that some of our present day employment practices result in people being WORSE off than if they had been slaves in some ancient cultures.
The point here is that we reach decisions about the morality of slavery and polygamy using SOME biblical foundations but mainly through using our own (God-given and inspired) reason and moral sense.
(Which is bad news for conservative evangelicals and good news for liberals - but that is another argument!)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The PLAIN reading of the OT is that polygamy is perfectly acceptable. OT characters practised it with little or no criticism from the OT writers. What criticism that DOES exist is mainly to do with HOW polygamy was practised, rather than its actual existence.
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
Only if the NT isn't part of the Bible.
Even in the NT, views about marriage are (on the whole) assumed rather than spelled out.
1 Timothy 3:2 & 12 and Titus 1:6 seem to indicate that monogamy was only required for church leaders. Nowhere do I see it made clear beyond all doubt that monogamy is God's only way for believers.
(I happen to think it is - but that you don't reach that conclusion solely from the Bible)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
OscartheGrouch
quote:
But the problem is that you have assumed that it is self-evident that polygamy (and slavery) are "abhorrent to God". Yet the bible doesn't say so and in fact the merest glance at history will tell you that these practices do not have to be "abhorrent".
On balance, this is correct, being based on the premise that any code of conduct may be applied in a manner which is either beneficial or detrimental to others, depending on individual circumstances. Lawyers grow rich as a direct result. I agree that wage slavery is probably as malign as outright ownership of people - however this takes no account of the value of human freedom, which becomes priceless upon deprival.
My own approach is derived from placing unqualified trust in a God, Who was prepared to overlook David's polygamy AND adultery, and to find in his favour because of an unequivocal fidelity to God.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Which - to bring us back to the OP - means that there is actually precious little "biblical basis" for traditional views on marriage.
Only if the NT isn't part of the Bible.
Exhaustive working through of the relevant issues...
Bearing in mind that we're talking about monogamy and polygamy here, are you really saying you find instructions against the latter in the NT? I don't see any.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
les@BALM
The Ship's Visionary
# 11237
|
Posted
My own take is that the modern day practice of marriage is based more on cultural custom and tradition rather than Biblical pronouncements.
--------------------
il sole d'Italia mi è rimasto nel cure
Italia campioni del mondo ****
Tiggs the cat.
Posts: 1863 | From: Canada, eh! | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
As I read the bible, God's purpose in revealing Himself to Israel was to wean His people away from 'natural' inclinations - which evidently included child sacrifice, idol worship and polygamy.
This is sensible enough, prima facie, but it doesn't stand up to examining the actual content of the Bible. Why if God's purpose was to wean his people off polygamy (as off child sacrifice and idol worship) did he not tell them it was wrong (as he did so emphatically with child sacrifice and idol worship)?
quote:
Unfortunately, as communities of believers have demostrated time and time again, we are not very adept at abandoning practises abhorrent to God; but highly skilled at justifying the necessity for such behaviour, within individual conscience.
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
quote:
My own approach is derived from placing unqualified trust in a God, Who was prepared to overlook David's polygamy AND adultery, and to find in his favour because of an unequivocal fidelity to God.
That's a bit twisted, isn't it? Sin doesn't matter if you're religious enough?
And unequivocal fidelity to God being compatible with a lifestyle that is abhorrent to God? That's just nuts.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:
My own approach is derived from placing unqualified trust in a God, Who was prepared to overlook David's polygamy AND adultery, and to find in his favour because of an unequivocal fidelity to God.
That's a bit twisted, isn't it? Sin doesn't matter if you're religious enough?
And unequivocal fidelity to God being compatible with a lifestyle that is abhorrent to God? That's just nuts.
First, let me say how much I enjoy your posts. They are generally thoughtful, educational, and entertaining -- quite a hat trick!
But this particular comment seems a bit too dismissive. David is a hard nut to crack. He was massively flawed and yet, according to scripture and tradition, unusually favored by God. It's pretty hard to understand why. Noelper's idea that it was because of David's unwavering fidelity to God doesn't quite ring true to me -- I'm not quite sure what it means to be faithful to God while stealing another man's wife, for example. But I don't really have an alternative understanding that makes sense out of what God saw in David that He didn't see in, say, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. So, is it Noelper that is nuts here, or is it God?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
tomclune
quote:
I'm not quite sure what it means to be faithful to God while stealing another man's wife, for example.
The adultery was blotted out through David's repentance (Ps 51). Was God wrong to have done so ?
quote:
So, is it Noelper that is nuts here, or is it God?
In the light of the above, both, actually. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
... Noelper's idea that it was because of David's unwavering fidelity to God doesn't quite ring true to me -- I'm not quite sure what it means to be faithful to God while stealing another man's wife, for example.
David, when the prophet rubs his nose in it, confesses his sin and takes his punishment, which is certainly in his favor. But, it's the adultery and murder that he confesses to, the polygamy is not an issue.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
SteveTom
quote:
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
Sorry, don't geddit.
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here.
quote:
Sin doesn't matter if you're religious enough?
You confuse fidelity with religiosity. Big difference.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here.
You have remeinded us that the old Law forbade adultery and coveting someone else's wife. And that children were commanded to honour their father and mother.
That says nothing at all about polygyny, which is clearly at least tolerated by the Law, as is divorce.
It also says nothing at all about sex between consenting unmarried adults - which is against the tradition of both Judaism and Christianity but not explicitly condemned anywhere in the Bible as far as i can see.
That doesn't mean that the priests or the scribes or the rabbis or the apostles would have approved of it. I'm pretty sure that all or almost all of them would have strongly disapproved. But they never bothered to put it in the Bible. Maybe they assumed it was too obvious to be worth saying. But its not in the Bible.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
Sorry, don't geddit.
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here....
There's very little to interpret. From the OP:
quote:
Exodus 21:10 says:
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
It doesn't say "don't marry another woman".
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
tomclune
quote:
I'm not quite sure what it means to be faithful to God while stealing another man's wife, for example.
The adultery was blotted out through David's repentance (Ps 51). Was God wrong to have done so ?
My point was not that God should not forgive, but that David was not being faithful to God's dictates. If I were to cheat on my wife, she might forgive me. But that would not mean that I had been unwaveringly faithful.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
In addition to the other passages listed Genesis 2 suggests that the created order was for one man and one woman.
Backing up for a second, I think this is a pretty good argument.
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
les@balm
quote:
My own take is that the modern day practice of marriage is based more on cultural custom and tradition rather than Biblical pronouncements.
ken's 12 variations of interpretation suggests that there is a significant element of de rigeur thinking concerning the marriage relationship.
ken
quote:
It also says nothing at all about sex between consenting unmarried adults... quote:
I fully agree. This omission invalidates the quasi-church view of such sex, too often linked with the happily ever-after image of monogamy, which (we are all aware) is a chocolate-box representation of a rite-of-passage which might only achieve sacramental status, after many tears.
Henry Troup
quote:
But, it's the adultery and murder that he confesses to, the polygamy is not an issue.
King Solomon's polygamy, servicing 1000 wives and concubines ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) , is unequivocally blamed as the eventual cause of Israel's inexorable decline.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
Sorry, don't geddit.
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here....
There's very little to interpret. From the OP:
quote:
Exodus 21:10 says:
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
It doesn't say "don't marry another woman".
What on earth do you mean ???
In context, EX 21:10 refers to the son of a slave trader, who decides to cast off his slave-wife and marry someone else; in which event the slave must be granted her freedom.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
King Solomon's polygamy, servicing 1000 wives and concubines , is unequivocally blamed as the eventual cause of Israel's inexorable decline.
It's had to believe that we're reading the same passage. The problem was that King Solomon had married foreign wives, who turned him away from God. The sheer number of them may have added to the distraction, but the OT is always more alarmed at marrying goyem than at polygamy. Marrying many non-jews is just proof that you are persistent in your apostacy.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
SteveTom
quote:
But it's the Law of Moses, not just individual conscience, which justified polygamy to the people of Israel.
Sorry, don't geddit.
I have shown my own interpretation, which I hold equally as valid as any other presented here.
"Valid"? In what sense?
If you mean justified by the evidence, it's obvious to everyone apart from you that it isn't.
The evidence is:
1. The Law of Moses explicitly accepts polygamy:
quote:
Deuteronomy 21:15-16
If a man has two wives..., he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn.
2. And it nowhere condemns polygamy.
3. It condemns polytheism.
The interpretation of this that you offered is that the Law of Moses gives "very clear" teaching that only monogamy is acceptable to God.
It is simply impossible for anyone to see this interpretation as justified by the evidence.
quote:
King Solomon's polygamy, servicing 1000 wives and concubines, is unequivocally blamed as the eventual cause of Israel's inexorable decline.
Which, of course, is beside the point. Condemning a king for having a thousand wives is not the same thing as saying that no man may have more than one wife. Deuteronomy says the king "must not acquire many horses for himself", but that's hardly a universal ban on horseriding, is it?
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
