|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Concubines - 7/7/2009 2:29:08 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
I personally gravitate toward the restriction on elders being that of not having been divorced and remarried, not polygamy necessarily, because, as I have pointed out, divorce does not remove your obligation to your first wife, and that's why divorce and remarriage is adultery. You're still married to the wife you divorced (except for reason of adultery) whether you think so or not. Remarriage in that case is committing adultery against the divorced spouse. Paul does not want a church leadership defiled in this way.
(1 Cor 7:10-19) "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."
Here is a relevant passage. What is Paul telling us here with regard to the abandoned spouse? If they are not bound, the question is not bound to what?
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 7/7/2009 3:46:06 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/7/2009 9:32:56 PM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 17279
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
We have One Stop thread to discuss divorce and remarriage after divorce. Please take your divorce discussion to the appropriate One Stop. Thank you.
Divorce:
Click Here
Remarriage After Divorce:
Click Here
Sincerely
Kath
Volunteer Assistant Admin
Please do not comment on this action in the community or send me a PM about it. If you have questions, comments or concerns please email Fritz at community@salemwebnetwork.com allowing time for a reply. Thank you.
< Message edited by Kath -- 7/8/2009 9:34:39 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 1:32:28 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
I personally gravitate toward the restriction on elders being that of not having been divorced and remarried, not polygamy necessarily, because, as I have pointed out, divorce does not remove your obligation to your first wife, and that's why divorce and remarriage is adultery. You're still married to the wife you divorced (except for reason of adultery) whether you think so or not. Remarriage in that case is committing adultery against the divorced spouse. Paul does not want a church leadership defiled in this way.
(1 Cor 7:10-19) "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."
Here is a relevant passage. What is Paul telling us here with regard to the abandoned spouse? If they are not bound, the question is not bound to what?
Seeing that you quoted the part of my post about my thinking that Paul was interested in establishing a pure 'priesthood' in the early church (and in the interest of being faithful to the subject of polygamy--pun intended) I would say it's clear that 'the husband of but one wife', whatever that actually means, is an honorable thing that along with being "...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money" insulates an elder from being open to blame. IOW, pure, and able to minister free of blame and accusation.
Polygamy opens up the door for disruptive accusations that destroy ministries just like the other things in Paul's list do. So, whatever the cause or definition of polygamy, it definately doesn't fit in well with the leadership of the church and it's need to stay undefiled and pure and of good reputation in the eyes of the church, and especially outsiders. Even legitimate and lawful situations can ruin a ministry through the appearance of evil. And in the case of 'the husband of but one wife', whether that is refering to polygamy or the 'D' word, it is the appearance of adultery that must be avoided, IMO.
< Message edited by Nick_Drake -- 7/8/2009 1:45:07 AM >
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 1:41:18 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BkT
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prairiehiker
Was having a concubine against any old testament law? Did God ever rebuke or condemn men back then for having concubines?
A quick answer to the OP is a BIG "NO".
The OP was amended with this additional question:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prairiehiker
How does the law of adultery apply to concubines or having multiple wives?
Unfortunately, that does not have such a quick answer.
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 6:11:50 AM
|
|
|
7over6
Posts: 236
Joined: 3/24/2009
From: new braunfels Tx
Status: offline
|
I see that polygomy was a necessary evil, though it wasn't evil in itself it just provided a sticky situation for the husband such as the women manipulating him away from God because there origins are pagan such as with Solomon. It's not difficult to see the hardships of having multiple wives hah.
But because of so many wars there were few men and many women, children needed to be born for labor and growth and a single woman was in danger of much and was unable to support herself or do much. So I see where polygomy had its place. But it does seem like something God allowed the Israelites to get away with because it was a nessecary thing. But like I said it had its major down sides which God foresaw.
And to navyblueret those 2 scriptures are totally out of context and have nothing to do with concubines... the 1st was an act of war - where the bad guy tried to hide in a good womans tint and she killed him... the second was that there was jealousy between Sarai and Hagar becasue of infertility and fertility.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 6:26:55 AM
|
|
|
BkT
Posts: 95
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
how do you get around Deut 17:17? this verse is for kings like solomon. yes he was warned against foreign wives but there was still a general warning on polygamy.
I get around it on 2 Samuel 12:8 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.
In my simple reading, it sounds like if a king asked for more wives, the Lord would have given them to him!
_____________________________
Bullman, the only cow that got born again
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 9:45:05 AM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BkT
In my simple reading, it sounds like if a king asked for more wives, the Lord would have given them to him!
the principle i find in that scripture is that Saul's wealth and property passed on to David - basically David received all that was Saul's. i have read it was custom for a succeeding ruler to receive all of the previous ruler's property and women. to say this is a verse showing God intended people to practice polygamy goes against the original marriage of Adam and Eve and His instructions in Deuteronomy. you can't just pick and choose single scriptures bkt, you've got to look at things as a whole.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 11:50:40 AM
|
|
|
BkT
Posts: 95
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
the principle i find in that scripture is that Saul's wealth and property passed on to David - basically David received all that was Saul's. i have read it was custom for a succeeding ruler to receive all of the previous ruler's property and women. to say this is a verse showing God intended people to practice polygamy goes against the original marriage of Adam and Eve and His instructions in Deuteronomy. you can't just pick and choose single scriptures bkt, you've got to look at things as a whole.
I have not said God intended people to practice polygamy but allowed people to practice it.
I believe that allowance has not yet left, it may not have been His ideal idea on creation, just like divorce, but allowed it to happen in this world.
_____________________________
Bullman, the only cow that got born again
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 12:08:34 PM
|
|
|
BkT
Posts: 95
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
The OP was amended with this additional question:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prairiehiker
How does the law of adultery apply to concubines or having multiple wives?
Unfortunately, that does not have such a quick answer.
Nick
Thanks for the update, I think I have overlooked at it.
My answer to that is: That law does not apply since one will not be married to the person is committing adultery with.
I may not be sure what was concubine in the those days but have the following options:
1. The lady is a slave with "benefits"
2. The lady is of lower class than the master and the master does not want to upgrade her status in the society but enjoys marital benefits from the lady.
3. The lady is a slave that the "madam" of the house normally hires to do some of her marital duties.
In all my little reading, the lady had no husband and she performed many of the marital duties to the master. In my opinion if she was found to have slept with someone else she would have been considered to have committed adultery.
My conclusion is that she was committed to the master but did not get an upgrade to become a full wife.
So, they were married with the concubine but it was matter of class that was a problem; therefore there was no adultery committed.
_____________________________
Bullman, the only cow that got born again
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 12:44:26 PM
|
|
|
BkT
Posts: 95
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: BkT
In my simple reading, it sounds like if a king asked for more wives, the Lord would have given them to him!
the principle i find in that scripture is that Saul's wealth and property passed on to David - basically David received all that was Saul's. i have read it was custom for a succeeding ruler to receive all of the previous ruler's property and women. to say this is a verse showing God intended people to practice polygamy goes against the original marriage of Adam and Eve and His instructions in Deuteronomy. you can't just pick and choose single scriptures bkt, you've got to look at things as a whole.
I am accused of pick & choose scripture, so I will do justice to the matter by going through the same scripture you questioned me on: Det 17:17
(ASV) Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
(BBE) And he is not to have a great number of wives, for fear that his heart may be turned away; or great wealth of silver and gold.
(ESV) And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
(GNB) The king is not to have many wives, because this would make him turn away from the LORD; and he is not to make himself rich with silver and gold.
(KJV) Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
All I am reading from this verse is that a king must not have many wives since they will turn his heart away. It is not clear "turn" from what/whom but lets assume God.
Do you realise that it does not say:
1. It is sin or bad before the eyes of God
2. what can happen if all of the wives were God fearing (like Esther) and encourage him to the ways of the Lord?
By the way, verse 20 reads as follows: This will keep him from thinking that he is better than other Israelites and from disobeying the LORD's commands in any way. Then he will reign for many years, and his descendants will rule Israel for many generations
So it is just for his own good in being a Christian.
_____________________________
Bullman, the only cow that got born again
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 12:56:02 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BkT
Do you realise that it does not say:
1. It is sin or bad before the eyes of God
2. what can happen if all of the wives were God fearing (like Esther) and encourage him to the ways of the Lord?
By the way, verse 20 reads as follows: This will keep him from thinking that he is better than other Israelites and from disobeying the LORD's commands in any way. Then he will reign for many years, and his descendants will rule Israel for many generations
So it is just for his own good in being a Christian.
he shall not have multiple wives ... the 10 commandments started with thou shalt not too ...
i agree the law was for their own benefit and greatly ... and do think the divorce comparison is fair ... at least as it pertains to Israelites ...
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/8/2009 3:45:46 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
Seeing that you quoted the part of my post about my thinking that Paul was interested in establishing a pure 'priesthood' in the early church (and in the interest of being faithful to the subject of polygamy--pun intended) I would say it's clear that 'the husband of but one wife', whatever that actually means, is an honorable thing that along with being "...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money" insulates an elder from being open to blame. IOW, pure, and able to minister free of blame and accusation.
Even though it may appear that I acknowledge your belief that Paul was seeking to replace the Levitical priesthood, that is not my view. I see the head of household as the priest of his household as the way it has been from the beginning. In my view, Adonai established the Levitical priesthood in the place of the firstborn as a means to facilitate the Temple and the sacrifices. In doing this he established an example of the optimum with regard to an intermediary.
quote:
Polygamy opens up the door for disruptive accusations that destroy ministries just like the other things in Paul's list do. So, whatever the cause or definition of polygamy, it definately doesn't fit in well with the leadership of the church and it's need to stay undefiled and pure and of good reputation in the eyes of the church, and especially outsiders. Even legitimate and lawful situations can ruin a ministry through the appearance of evil. And in the case of 'the husband of but one wife', whether that is refering to polygamy or the 'D' word, it is the appearance of adultery that must be avoided, IMO.
As I stated above, the levitical requirements are the optimum not the minimum. Also, if one is going to require the optimum, why not require the requirements of the Cohen HaGadol? Therefore, unless one is going to require all believer's to only marry virgins and require us to hire unbelievers to bury our dead, this view is a bit excessive.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/9/2009 2:52:05 AM
|
|
|
BkT
Posts: 95
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
he shall not have multiple wives ... the 10 commandments started with thou shalt not too ...
i agree the law was for their own benefit and greatly ... and do think the divorce comparison is fair ... at least as it pertains to Israelites ...
I request to bow out of the topic of polygamy for now as I think it has been discussed in detail to an extent that anyone who can change his/her view would have had a reason to doubt by this time.
Bullman
_____________________________
Bullman, the only cow that got born again
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/9/2009 11:29:19 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...if one is going to require the optimum, why not require the requirements of the Cohen HaGadol?
"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you." 1 Cor. 14:9-12
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Therefore, unless one is going to require all believer's to only marry virgins and require us to hire unbelievers to bury our dead, this view is a bit excessive.
I suppose if that's really what the summation of my argument was that I was trying to get across to people then that would be true. [edited TOS 9] So with that I, too, feel this tree has been picked of all it's useful fruit...
Bye.
< Message edited by ta_mosquito -- 7/9/2009 2:41:57 PM >
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/9/2009 6:42:11 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...if one is going to require the optimum, why not require the requirements of the Cohen HaGadol?
"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you." 1 Cor. 14:9-12
Wow, that is the first time someone has accused me of speaking in tongues. Most consider tongues to be a language one speaks without having had any learning in that language. Sorry, that would be High Priest.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Therefore, unless one is going to require all believer's to only marry virgins and require us to hire unbelievers to bury our dead, this view is a bit excessive.
I suppose if that's really what the summation of my argument was that I was trying to get across to people then that would be true. [edited TOS 9] So with that I, too, feel this tree has been picked of all it's useful fruit...
Bye.
Sorry, we could not continue this discussion since you appear to be asking us to live according to the requirements of the high priest. This is an interesting concept.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/10/2009 8:47:31 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3808
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
he shall not have multiple wives ... the 10 commandments started with thou shalt not too ... I am not sure which version you quote there. Most word it differently:
JPS Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
NASB Deu 17:17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.
ASV: Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
WEB: Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart not turn away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
Multiplying wives to oneself is a different idea than having multiple wives. The former allows for several but not too many; the latter allows for only one.
Please note the wording is the same for acquiring wealth. A king should have a good amount of $$ but this says there is a point at which it gets to be too much.
John Gill's commentary on this verse:
Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away,....
From attending to the duty of his office, the care and government of his people, and from serious religion; and particularly from the worship of the true God, as the heart of Solomon was turned away from it by his numerous idolatrous wives, 1Ki_11:3, it is a common notion of the Jews that a king might have eighteen wives, and no more : neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold; he might increase his wealth, but not greatly, lest his heart should be lifted up with pride by it, and lest his subjects should be oppressed and burdened with taxes for that purpose; or he, being possessed of so much, should make use of it to enslave them, and especially should be so elated with it as to deny God, and despise his providence, and disobey his laws; see Pro_30:9. The Jews generally say, that he ought not to multiply more than what will pay the stipends or wages of his servants, and only for the treasury of the house of the Lord, and for the necessity of the congregation (or commonwealth), and for their wars; but not for himself, and his own treasury
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/10/2009 1:53:46 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
thank you for the background ... i really don't know what to make of it ... matters of interpreting scripture and converting to rabbinic Jewish tradition and law is beyond me ... i'm not sure i have much else to add to this topic that is productive or hasn't been said so i may join the others who have bailed out ... i think there's a one stop polygamy thread somewhere if i think of anything else lol ...
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
