[Amanda S.]

Greenbear: Here is more interesting information from Wikipedia:

Well, as long as we're posting interesting information -

But first the historical setting:


1. Polygamy was NOT practiced in Greek and Roman societies of the time:


"Even though we may find numerous traces of polygamy and polyandry in the Gk. myths, monogamy predominated in the Gk. world in the historical period. Morality within marriage was strict. The Homeric hero had one wife, who was faithful and inviolable, a good manager of the home and mother. Gk. marriage was monogamous. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]


"Polygamy was not practiced in the Roman world outside Palestine, though illegal bigamy and certainly adultery were. [EBC: in.loc. 1 Tim 3]


2. Polygamy was practiced somewhat in 1st century Palestinian Judaism (by the government/aristocratic leaders):

"In the Second Temple period, Jewish society was, at least theoretically, polygamous, like other oriental societies of the time but in contrast to the neighboring Greek and Roman societies...."[HI:JWGRP:85]

"There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]

3. Among the Jews, it was not accepted by the prestigious school of Hillel (above), nor by the strict Dead Sea Sect (Qumran), and was not widely practiced, esp. among the rabbi's:

"But even if polygamy was permitted by tannaitic halakhah, other halakhic systems counseled otherwise. During the Second Temple period, monogamy was preferred even on the conceptual plane by, above all, the Dead Sea Sect whose halakhah explicitly prohibited polygamy. In the reworked version of the statutes of the king in the Temple Scroll, it is stated: "he shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life" (LVII 17-8). In the Damascus Covenant, criticism is leveled against the 'builders of the wall' (Pharisees?) in the following terms: 'they shall be caught in fornication twice; once by taking a second wife while the first is still alive...' [HI:JWGRP:85]

"it was known in Jewish society as represented in rabbinic literature, polygamy was not widespread in practice, especially not among the sages themselves." [HI:JWGRP:86]

So, polygamy was present only in a particular subset of Palestinian Judaism (not in Roman society, Greek society, Diaspora Jewish communities, the Hillel-school, or Dead Sea Sect), and generally confined to the aristocracy.

[greenbear]

CKG.

CKG's

Obviously God allowed it

Exactly! I can't say I disagree with anything you wrote. I'm glad we agree, brother.

P.S. What would you counsel this muslim gentleman to do about his seven wives?

Jennifer

[CKG]

Originally Posted by greenbear

CKG.

CKG's


Exactly! I can't say I disagree with anything you wrote. I'm glad we agree, brother.

P.S. What would you counsel this muslim gentleman to do about his seven wives?

Jennifer

I hope I never have to deal with such a situation. Of course if this Muslim gentleman lived in the United States I would point out to him the laws of our country. If he lived in a country that allowed polygamy then that would be a different story. I could tell him to remain in the situation that he is in, but I would also have to remind him that God's original purpose in marriage was one man and one woman. Of course if he were saved would he still be a Muslim?

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Amanda S.

Well, as long as we're posting interesting information -

Amanda,

Maybe. I don't know for sure. Is your source wiki?

Jennifer

[johnlf]

1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: 3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. 4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,

36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations; 37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.

43 Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now commit whoredoms with her, and she with them? 44 Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women. 45 And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands.

Ezekiel 23
King James Bible

God describes both Samaria and Jerusalem as adulteresses against him. There is nothing in the Bible saying it is a sin to have more than one wife. But it is clearly a sin for a woman to have more than one husband. These are types. I you do not understand the typology, you can never understand why this is so.

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Romans 7
King James Bible

This is not said of the man, but of the woman, again the same typology:

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 11
King James Bible

This is not something I would seek to be contentious about. Nevertheless, to seek to impose modern human traditions of western society upon biblical typologies is a grave error. It is a sin for a woman to have more than one husband but it is not a sin for a man to have more than one wife.

The sole reason it is a sin today is that it is breaking the civil law of the nation that defines bigamy, and we are to obey the laws of the land we live in. Anything more than this is in my opinion simply adding to God's Word by reading into it modern traditions.

[Amanda S.]

Jennifer asked Amanda,

Maybe. I don't know for sure. Is your source wiki?

Nooooo...Is Wiki the only thing that can be quoted here? I missed that rule.

Is Wiki THE source to go to?

?

[Amanda S.]

CKG said:

I don't think any of us are going to get too up tight over the polygamy issue because, let's face it, most of us aren't going to actually ever have to deal with it.

Well, I myself am completely appalled at the turn this thread had taken and am very seriously considering unsubscribing.

It is very serious and worth getting uptight over.

[CKG]

Originally Posted by Amanda S.

Well, I myself am completely appalled at the turn this thread had taken and am very seriously considering unsubscribing.

It is very serious and worth getting uptight over.

I apologize if I have said anything to offend you and I may have to retract an earlier statement I made. With the way things are going with homosexual unions in our country we may have to face the issue of polygamy one day.

[Amanda S.]

Bro. Craig,

I apologize if I have said anything to offend you and I may have to retract an earlier statement I made. With the way things are going with homosexual unions in our country we may have to face the issue of polygamy one day.

Thank you brother. I am just dumb founded that anyone could suggest that ploygamy was "allowed"?

I have never heard the word "allowed" so much before in my life until I came here LoL

Maybe I am confused. I'll fully admit that.

But when there is an "Ah HAH!" moment and one discovers God "allowed" something to go on and so therefore we say it must not be so bad, then I have a problem with that. Especially when the Bible is PERFECTLY clear on what GOD considers a marriage!?!? Or is it being said that while having 1 wife is God's "perfect" will His "acceptable" will is polygamy as long as it is legal!?

We have a free will. God allows us to do as we wish. He does not make us do anything. But this is something we all know.

I see no verses where God blesses or condones polygamy. Even the verses in Deuteronomy 25 I am failing to see multiple wives? I've read it a dozen times and I certainly must be deft. LoL

Again, I am not offended but highly disturbed by some comments made with supposed Bible and history to back it up.

I would love to see Bro. Brandon chime in on this thread.

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by Amanda S.

Well, I myself am completely appalled at the turn this thread had taken and am very seriously considering unsubscribing.

It is very serious and worth getting uptight over.

Hi Amanda - please don't leave the forum I think that the questions and the points that you raise are very valuable and I also love interacting with you!

The reason that I added the Muslim issue was because I see Islam multipying at an alarming rate throughout the west, and there is a reason for that. I believe that some of them will get saved and that these are issues that churches will shortly be having to deal with if theye already aren't!

Please stay with us sis as your are a very valuable member!

By the way Craig "with tears" was just a way of expressing that he was a genuine convert and not a simple church addition!


God bless

PaulB