NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so one of the points about which the many different varieties of mainstream Christianity agree -- unless one counts the various brnaches of Mormonism as a part of "mainstream" Christianity, which I don't -- is that marriage should be monogamous... but where does that limitation actually come from?

Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and although polygamy might not have been very common amongst the Jews in Jesus's [presumed] lifespan it does seem to have been legal under their laws ((For example, didn't Herod the Great have two or more wives simultaneously?), so is the shift to monogamy required by some passage of Jesus's own teachings, or was it decided upon a little while later (on theological grounds) by the apostles or St Paul or some other "Father of the Church"... or was it just a matter of Roman secular law, with which the early Christians complied for practical reasons, so that it became accepted as the rule without any theological basis?

(This question is actually relevant to my main NS nation, whose people mostly follow their own "local" version of Christianity...)

You should go to the moderation forum and ask them to delete one of these threads.

As to the OP, I can't say that I have an intelligent answer for you.

My guess is that it was Roman practice that was adopted by the church. Like many other things, really..

Polygamous Christians?why not?:fluffle:

I suspect it came along during the Roman days as well. Even in the Bible itself we read that Abraham had a number of wives, and according to the writings of Josephus, Moses had at least two. (Although the first was a political marriage and he's only known to have been with that wife once.)

There are subtle hints in the New Testament alluding to this, although nothing truly definitive. I refer to a verse in which it lists the qualifications of a Bishop in teh ancient church. Among them was that he have "only one wife." Which suggests that there were those who did, in fact, have more. Presumably the restriction to only one wife if one was to become a Bishop was because otherwise it would be impossible to divide his time betewen the calling and his family if it were too large.

Personally, I have no reason to look down on polygamy although I don't think I personally could keep up with more than one wife.

Just imagine more than one mother-in-law.

Monogamy was practiced for centuries after Jesus however the Catholic church has typically been against it but particularly after the 30 years war it was accepted

also see: concubine

Seeing as God is a Trinity and all, does Mary count as polygamous?

Seeing as God is a Trinity and all, does Mary count as polygamous?

Wouldn't that be polyandry?

Okay, so one of the points about which the many different varieties of mainstream Christianity agree -- unless one counts the various brnaches of Mormonism as a part of "mainstream" Christianity, which I don't -- is that marriage should be monogamous... but where does that limitation actually come from?

Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and although polygamy might not have been very common amongst the Jews in Jesus's [presumed] lifespan it does seem to have been legal under their laws ((For example, didn't Herod the Great have two or more wives simultaneously?), so is the shift to monogamy required by some passage of Jesus's own teachings, or was it decided upon a little while later (on theological grounds) by the apostles or St Paul or some other "Father of the Church"... or was it just a matter of Roman secular law, with which the early Christians complied for practical reasons, so that it became accepted as the rule without any theological basis?

By the time of Jesus, Judea and Palestine had been Hellenized for over three hundred years. We don’t know when the polygamy customs ended but it was well before Christians. But the Christians AND the Romans both practiced one wife systems of marriage. And Paul put it into scripture so it stays there now throughout the different ethnic groups that the Bible is spread to.

1 Timothy 3:2
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Titus 1:6
if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.


The only way to really get away from One wife system is to do away with the New Testament writings and say you have a newer better version, like the Mormons did a hundred years ago (but they don't do that now and haven't for a long time).

By the time of Jesus, Judea and Palestine had been Hellenized for over three hundred years. We don’t know when the polygamy customs ended but it was well before Christians. But the Christians AND the Romans both practiced one wife systems of marriage. And Paul put it into scripture so it stays there now throughout the different ethnic groups that the Bible is spread to.

1 Timothy 3:2
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Titus 1:6
if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.


The only way to really get away from One wife system is to do away with the New Testament writings ..Maybe I want to do away only with Titus :D

Timothy? well I dont want to be an "overseer" ... whatever that is.

By the time of Jesus, Judea and Palestine had been Hellenized for over three hundred years. We don’t know when the polygamy customs ended but it was well before Christians. But the Christians AND the Romans both practiced one wife systems of marriage. And Paul put it into scripture so it stays there now throughout the different ethnic groups that the Bible is spread to.

1 Timothy 3:2
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Titus 1:6
if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.


The only way to really get away from One wife system is to do away with the New Testament writings and say you have a newer better version, like the Mormons did a hundred years ago (but they don't do that now and haven't for a long time).

The Old Testament mandates polygamy in several cases, and we all know the new Testament does not invalidate the old laws. So which laws are right?

OK, here's how Christianity and Polygamy stack up, via a Venn Diagram for easy comparison.

http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/9450/xtianityandpolygamyqm0.jpg

Hope that helps.

The Old Testament mandates polygamy in several cases, and we all know the new Testament does not invalidate the old laws. So which laws are right?

Which laws 'mandates' polygamy? That's a pretty strong word, are your sure it doens't just accept or allow polygamy? If it didn't 'mandate' it's not changing a law to make a new law. The NT adds to the OT law but saying only one wife.

Which laws 'mandates' polygamy? That's a pretty strong word, are your sure it doens't just accept or allow polygamy? If it didn't 'mandate' it's not changing a law to make a new law. The NT adds to the OT law but saying only one wife.

The phrasing of the New Testament when it references the number of wives appears to suggest that having multiple wives wasn't unusual. Otherwise, why mention it?

If I had my KJV with me I'd use it to get the context of the verses you quoted (NIV?) so if I remember I'll do that when I get home this evening.

The phrasing of the New Testament when it references the number of wives appears to suggest that having multiple wives wasn't unusual. Otherwise, why mention it?

If I had my KJV with me I'd use it to get the context of the verses you quoted (NIV?) so if I remember I'll do that when I get home this evening.

Both those quotes were from places that it is talking about who should be allowed to be a 'deacon' or elder, or overseer of the church group, what kind of traits they should have...

1 Timothy 3
1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

I’ve been using the ESV version lately, I find it to be less 'pretty' and less PC than the NIV but I also find it to be more literal and puts a new ‘spin’ on old things for me…

Wouldn't that be polyandry?

Yes, but polygamy is a general term. The more technical term for "one guy, multiple wives" is polygyny.

Maybe I want to do away only with Titus :D

Timothy? well I dont want to be an "overseer" ... whatever that is.

"Overseer" could be a literal rendering of "episkopos" (epi = over, skopos = seer), which word is the root of the English word "bishop."

Both those quotes were from places that it is talking about who should be allowed to be a 'deacon' or elder, or overseer of the church group, what kind of traits they should have...
<snip>
I’ve been using the ESV version lately, I find it to be less 'pretty' and less PC than the NIV but I also find it to be more literal and puts a new ‘spin’ on old things for me…

"Overseer" could be a literal rendering of "episkopos" (epi = over, skopos = seer), which word is the root of the English word "bishop."

Yeah in the KJV the word "bishop" is used.

I still think the phrasing suggests that multiple wives wasn't unusual, but that to become a bishop one should have only one wife. Like I said, this, to me, suggests the qualifications include a man who doesn't already have too much on his plate to be able to handle the office of Bishop. After all, if polygamy was sinful/anathema to Christianity, then it would be strange to have to list it in the qualifications, when it would be otherwise perfectly obvious.

I suspect a lot of the anti-polygamy doctrines got promulgated in the early church days. The Hierarchical church (what became Roman Catholocism) was in battle with the Gnostic sects. The actual differences were pretty arcane, and I won't bore you with them, but notably several of the Gnostic sects practiced Polygamy (others were castrati sects - you had to self-castrate in order to join!)

The Catholic church probably laid down rules against polygamy to differentiate themselves. Likely, this was partly to show themselves to be "more Roman" - and thus more acceptable to the general public, wheras many of the Gnostic sects were from Asia Minor.

The Catholic church probably laid down rules against polygamy to differentiate themselves. Likely, this was partly to show themselves to be "more Roman" - and thus more acceptable to the general public, wheras many of the Gnostic sects were from Asia Minor.

I agree. One of the reasons the Romans persecuted Christians in the early days (according to Josephus) was polygamy.

My thanks to those of you who have provided answers to my question so far.