Polygamy in the Bible

[Aquila]

In my opinion we have two errors here.

First, we see the error that if polygamy was sanctioned and never condemned as sin in the Old Testament it’s a viable option for today.

Second, we see the error that if Paul required monogamy for ministers polygamy must be sin.

I believe that the Gospel was preached in the “fullness of time”. Polygamy wasn’t a sin…never was. Polygamy was sanctioned, allowed, and occasionally required to protect women and family wealth. It served a very important social function. However, it wasn’t “ideal”. Jealousies and strife among wives and children plagued polygamous families to a higher degree than in monogamous families. In the fullness of time, society was no longer such a society wherein polygamy was necessary. So Paul essentially institutes a departure from polygamy in the Church. Paul sets the standard that bishops and deacons should have only one wife. This standard expresses the ideal. However, Paul never condemned the men of the Old Testament nor did he condemn converts who may have already been in polygamous unions and then order divorce. In fact…unless a woman was unfaithful divorce wasn’t permitted. No distinction was made for polygamy so that standard would apply to even polygamous marriages. This was a covenantal shift in ideals. Those in polygamous marriages weren’t condemned (because it wasn’t sin) but they were locked into the marriage they had. The next generation was to be raised in a church where the example in leadership expressed that monogamy was ideal. In this way Paul allowed polygamy, which had outlived it’s time, to die a quiet death that monogamy might be the standard throughout the church.

It was a wise and compassionate approach.

Originally Posted by Aquila

In my opinion we have two errors here.

First, we see the error that if polygamy was sanctioned and never condemned as sin in the Old Testament it’s a viable option for today.

Second, we see the error that if Paul required monogamy for ministers polygamy must be sin.

I believe that the Gospel was preached in the “fullness of time”. Polygamy wasn’t a sin…never was. Polygamy was sanctioned, allowed, and occasionally required to protect women and family wealth. It served a very important social function. However, it wasn’t “ideal”. Jealousies and strife among wives and children plagued polygamous families to a higher degree than monogamous families. In the fullness of time, society was no longer such a society wherein polygamy was necessary. So Paul essentially institutes a departure from polygamy in the Church. Paul sets the standard that bishops and deacons should have only one wife. This standard expresses the ideal. However, Paul never condemned the men of the Old Testament nor did he condemn converts who may have already been in polygamous unions and order divorce. In fact…unless a woman was unfaithful divorce wasn’t permitted. No distinction was made for polygamy so that standard would apply to even polygamous marriages. This was a covenantal shift in ideals. Those in polygamous marriages weren’t condemned (because it wasn’t sin) but they were locked into the marriage they had. The next generation was to be raised in a church where the example in leadership expressed that monogamy was ideal. In this way Paul allowed polygamy, which had outlived it’s time, to die a quiet death that monogamy might be the standard throughout the church.

It was a wise and compassionate approach.

Aquila, after much WORD study concerning Pauls instruction of ONE WIFE to the church leaders.. I am inclined to understand it as an adjective and deriving from FIRST... we have mention of the "wife of your youth" and as thus I see Paul protecting the church here against DIVORCE and REMAIRRAGE, not polygamy...

if that is indeed the case then we have NOT ONE scripture in the NT even referencing an IDEAL MONOGOMOUS marriage in the church...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Aquila, after much WORD study concerning Pauls instruction of ONE WIFE to the church leaders.. I am inclined to understand it as an adjective and deriving from FIRST

What school of theology did you attend? Captian Kangeroo's school of insanity? You are "inclined to understand???"

You are inclined to understand??

You did a Word study and after the word study you were inclined to understand? Please Dr. explain to me the Greek of that word study.

I await your thesis.

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

... we have mention of the "wife of your youth" and as thus I see Paul protecting the church here against DIVORCE and REMAIRRAGE, not polygamy...

Whoa, that is a problem, you can marry fifty women like Uncle Rulon Jeffs, but you can never divorce them. First Century culture would have a major problem with what you are saying. Dr. Dim, do you know what was the majority in First Century Roman World? Were they nobles, or common people and slaves?

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

if that is indeed the case then we have NOT ONE scripture in the NT even referencing an IDEAL MONOGOMOUS marriage in the church...

Yes Jesus and His ONE BRIDE and ADAM and his ONE BRIDE EVE.

I would'nt advise you even teach Romper Room, let alone a house of God.