View Full Version : And the Two shall become One
Matt.19:3-12 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
A careful reading of the above discourse by Jesus on the unity of marriage will disclose a theme that is not only out of character with Jewish thought in the Old Testament, but also contrary to the actions of the God inspired patriarchs. Starting with Abraham who took Hagar as his second wife it becomes a common occurrence throughout the Old Testament for men to have multiple wives, which is totally at odds with the idea of becoming one flesh, as presented in Genesis and reiterated by Jesus. Also the phrase “the twain shall become one” only occurs once in the entire Old Testament. Polygamy is never frowned upon by the biblegod, but rather encouraged as in the case of Jacob with his four wives from whom the twelve tribes of Israel were born…conflicting greatly with the idea of one man, one woman, equals one flesh. Anyone who is familiar with Scripture knows the account of Yahweh giving the wives of King Saul to David (2Sam.12:7-11) and then giving those same wives of David to his son Absalom to rape as punishment for David’s sins (2Sam.16:21-22), clearly showing Yahweh had no problem with multiple wives, adultery, or rape.
Another out of character theme touched upon by Jesus is the answer given to the query of the disciples “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” to which Jesus responded “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Implying that the best way for man is to be a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven, which again is contrary to the proclamation in Genesis 1 “Be fruitful and multiply”. Nowhere throughout the Old Testament is celibacy encouraged, even the priests were expected to marry, albeit within their own tribe. So, where did this idea of celibacy, and monogamy which was also promoted by Paul, enter into the biblical picture?
This passage in Matthew also conflates the idea of God creating male and female (chapter 1) with the reason that a man leaves his father and mother is to cleave to his wife (chapter 2). First off, the idea of God creating male and female in his image comes from Genesis 1:27 and says nothing of man and woman being joined together as one flesh in marriage which doesn’t occur until Genesis 2:24. Why Jesus conflated the two concepts and spoke of them as being one idea when it directly conflicts with the explicit biblical approval of polygamy I don’t know. Obviously it was news to the Pharisees who queried Jesus on the matter.
Another matter that comes to mind is that of divorce, in the same passage Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart. The reality of the matter is that in Deuteronomy it says that God gave Moses all the laws including the one on divorce, so it wasn’t Moses who allowed divorce it was God who gave Moses that law. If that is the case then the claim by Jesus which says not one jot or tittle shall be changed from the law is also false, because Jesus changed the law on divorce from that of being acceptable to that of causing one to commit adultery. Did the biblegod whom Jesus claimed was his father, change his mind from that of permitting and encouraging multiple wives and divorce, to forbidding it lest you be called an adulterer? Just another point in my long list of reasons that show why the god of the bible cannot be who he is claimed to be.
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
06-19-2012, 05:42 PM
Another matter that comes to mind is that of divorce, in the same passage Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart. The reality of the matter is that in Deuteronomy it says that God gave Moses all the laws including the one on divorce, so it wasn’t Moses who allowed divorce it was God who gave Moses that law. If that is the case then the claim by Jesus which says not one jot or tittle shall be changed from the law is also false, because Jesus changed the law on divorce from that of being acceptable to that of causing one to commit adultery. Did the biblegod whom Jesus claimed was his father, change his mind from that of permitting and encouraging multiple wives and divorce, to forbidding it lest you be called an adulterer? Just another point in my long list of reasons that show why the god of the bible cannot be who he is claimed to be.
I think this is a demonstrable Biblical contradiction. The Torah allowed people to divorce, so it cannot be a sin. Christ taught that it is a sin. That's a contradiction.
Hi Rose,
What is it then that Paul promotes concerning the law that bound the woman so long as she lived to her husband? (Romans 7:1-6),(1Cor.7:39)
Richard Amiel McGough
06-19-2012, 06:21 PM
Hi Rose,
What is it then that Paul promotes concerning the law that bound the woman so long as she lived to her husband? (Romans 7:1-6),(1Cor.7:39)
Paul's statement is a mystery. There is no verse in the OT that says a woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. So where did Paul get this idea? I suspect that it was an oral tradition that he conflated with the "law." But what then does this say about the inspiration of Paul? Why would God inspire him to make a false statement?
I think it is very telling that he said it was the woman who is bound to the husband and not vice-versa since it would contradict the law to say that a man was bound to the woman since the law says that he can divorce her. This is another example of sexism in the OT. The law said men could divorce their wives, but gives no such rights to the woman.
Paul's statement is a mystery. There is no verse in the OT that says a woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. So where did Paul get this idea? I suspect that it was an oral tradition that he conflated with the "law." But what then does this say about the inspiration of Paul? Why would God inspire him to make a false statement?
I think it is very telling that he said it was the woman who is bound to the husband and not vice-versa since it would contradict the law to say that a man was bound to the woman since the law says that he can divorce her. This is another example of sexism in the OT. The law said men could divorce their wives, but gives no such rights to the woman.
Afternoon Richard, :yo:
It is a mystery! If it was in the oral traditions would that have been in the 613 oral laws? So I looked it up an found the negatives laws concerning marriage/divorce.
355 - Having relations with a woman without marriage
356 - Re-marrying one's divorced wife after she has remarried
357 - Having relations with a woman subject to Levirate marriage
358 - Divorcing a woman he has raped and been compelled to marry
359 - Divorcing a woman after having falsely brought an evil name upon her
360 - A man incapable of procreation marrying a Jewish Woman
Positive laws:
213 - The law of marriage
214 - The bridegroom devoting himself to his wife for one year
216 - The law of levirate marriage
218 - A violator must marry the maiden whom he has violated
219 - The law of the defamer of his bride
220 - The law of the seducer
221 - The law of the captive woman
222 - The law of divorce
223 - The law of a suspected adulteress
The 213th mitzvah is that we are commanded to acquire [by kiddushin1] a woman before2 marrying her [n'suin]: either by giving her something3 [of sufficient value]; by giving her a document [of marriage]; or by having marital relations [for the purpose of kiddushin]. This is the mitzvah of kiddushin.
So needless to say I don't find anything about this 'law' that Paul spoke of. It is also as you mentioned that Paul seems to be one sided about this law. It was that the woman was to be faithful to her husband until his death, nothing is said about the man toward his wife. . Also Mark has a different opinion from that 'law' of Moses of an letter of divorcement for according to his account of what Jesus said, that neither the husband nor the wife shall put away their mate and marry another, he (she) would be committing adultery.
The only possiblity that I could come up with is that Paul spoke of the husband and wife as God (Christ) and the church as he does in Romans 7 and Galations that the union shall be for life as long as he liveth. Paul as much told the Romans: [I]"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God."(TNIV)
He said in Galations that it was a mystery.
Richard Amiel McGough
06-20-2012, 03:32 PM
Afternoon Richard, :yo:
It is a mystery! If it was in the oral traditions would that have been in the 613 oral laws? So I looked it up an found the negatives laws concerning marriage/divorce.
355 - Having relations with a woman without marriage
356 - Re-marrying one's divorced wife after she has remarried
357 - Having relations with a woman subject to Levirate marriage
358 - Divorcing a woman he has raped and been compelled to marry
359 - Divorcing a woman after having falsely brought an evil name upon her
360 - A man incapable of procreation marrying a Jewish Woman
Positive laws:
213 - The law of marriage
214 - The bridegroom devoting himself to his wife for one year
216 - The law of levirate marriage
218 - A violator must marry the maiden whom he has violated
219 - The law of the defamer of his bride
220 - The law of the seducer
221 - The law of the captive woman
222 - The law of divorce
223 - The law of a suspected adulteress
The 213th mitzvah is that we are commanded to acquire [by kiddushin1] a woman before2 marrying her [n'suin]: either by giving her something3 [of sufficient value]; by giving her a document [of marriage]; or by having marital relations [for the purpose of kiddushin]. This is the mitzvah of kiddushin.
So needless to say I don't find anything about this 'law' that Paul spoke of. It is also as you mentioned that Paul seems to be one sided about this law. It was that the woman was to be faithful to her husband until his death, nothing is said about the man toward his wife. . Also Mark has a different opinion from that 'law' of Moses of an letter of divorcement for according to his account of what Jesus said, that neither the husband nor the wife shall put away their mate and marry another, he (she) would be committing adultery.
Good afternoon Beck, :tea:
Thanks for the info. Knowing where Paul didn't get his info is an important part of our search to understand the basis for his teaching. Have you checked the commentaries? Maybe they'll have a suggestion.
The only possiblity that I could come up with is that Paul spoke of the husband and wife as God (Christ) and the church as he does in Romans 7 and Galations that the union shall be for life as long as he liveth. Paul as much told the Romans: [I]"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God."(TNIV)
He said in Galations that it was a mystery.
It seems pretty clear that Paul was using established tradition (law) as an analogy for the relation between Christ and the church. His analogy wouldn't have made any sense if it was not common knowledge at the time he wrote. So I'm pretty confident we should be able to find a source of that law. I'll keep looking.
Good afternoon Beck, :tea:
It seems pretty clear that Paul was using established tradition (law) as an analogy for the relation between Christ and the church. His analogy wouldn't have made any sense if it was not common knowledge at the time he wrote. So I'm pretty confident we should be able to find a source of that law. I'll keep looking.
Looking back over this Paul openned by addressing those that know the law or at least should have known the law (know ye not). His view point seems to be taken that the law reigned over a man all his days. This law would have been the Moasic law, but we know that they would have known that there were exceptions to this marriage law. For example we find in Exodus 21:7-11 of a woman (maidservant) that has been betrothed to a man and if that man has not fulfilled three arrangements unto her that she can leave free also they would have knew that Moses allowed for divorcements.
Your point is well taken that this particular law most likely would have been an known traditional law. For at times these traditional laws where in question by Jesus of his disciples not washing their hands before eating. "
Traditions of the elders" meant something handed down from one to another by memory; some precept or custom not commanded in the written law, but which scribes and Pharisees held themselves bound to observe.
They supposed that when Moses was on Mount Sinai two sets of laws were delivered to him: one, they said, was recorded, and is that contained in the Old Testament; the other was handed down from father to son, and kept uncorrupted to their day. (Barnes noteson the bible) (http://bible.cc/matthew/15-2.htm)
So even though there are exceptions Paul's point is that the law reigns until death. Therefore he used the marriage with the death of the first man that covenant is ended so she is not an adulteress by entering into a second covenant. This is speaking allegorically about the Mosaic covenant and its being nullified with Christs death and the ratification of the new covenant.
Matt.19:3-12 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
A careful reading of the above discourse by Jesus on the unity of marriage will disclose a theme that is not only out of character with Jewish thought in the Old Testament, but also contrary to the actions of the God inspired patriarchs. Starting with Abraham who took Hagar as his second wife it becomes a common occurrence throughout the Old Testament for men to have multiple wives, which is totally at odds with the idea of becoming one flesh, as presented in Genesis and reiterated by Jesus. Also the phrase “the twain shall become one” only occurs once in the entire Old Testament. Polygamy is never frowned upon by the biblegod, but rather encouraged as in the case of Jacob with his four wives from whom the twelve tribes of Israel were born…conflicting greatly with the idea of one man, one woman, equals one flesh. Anyone who is familiar with Scripture knows the account of Yahweh giving the wives of King Saul to David (2Sam.12:7-11) and then giving those same wives of David to his son Absalom to rape as punishment for David’s sins (2Sam.16:21-22), clearly showing Yahweh had no problem with multiple wives, adultery, or rape.
Another out of character theme touched upon by Jesus is the answer given to the query of the disciples “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” to which Jesus responded “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Implying that the best way for man is to be a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven, which again is contrary to the proclamation in Genesis 1 “Be fruitful and multiply”. Nowhere throughout the Old Testament is celibacy encouraged, even the priests were expected to marry, albeit within their own tribe. So, where did this idea of celibacy, and monogamy which was also promoted by Paul, enter into the biblical picture?
This passage in Matthew also conflates the idea of God creating male and female (chapter 1) with the reason that a man leaves his father and mother is to cleave to his wife (chapter 2). First off, the idea of God creating male and female in his image comes from Genesis 1:27 and says nothing of man and woman being joined together as one flesh in marriage which doesn’t occur until Genesis 2:24. Why Jesus conflated the two concepts and spoke of them as being one idea when it directly conflicts with the explicit biblical approval of polygamy I don’t know. Obviously it was news to the Pharisees who queried Jesus on the matter.
Another matter that comes to mind is that of divorce, in the same passage Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart. The reality of the matter is that in Deuteronomy it says that God gave Moses all the laws including the one on divorce, so it wasn’t Moses who allowed divorce it was God who gave Moses that law. If that is the case then the claim by Jesus which says not one jot or tittle shall be changed from the law is also false, because Jesus changed the law on divorce from that of being acceptable to that of causing one to commit adultery. Did the biblegod whom Jesus claimed was his father, change his mind from that of permitting and encouraging multiple wives and divorce, to forbidding it lest you be called an adulterer? Just another point in my long list of reasons that show why the god of the bible cannot be who he is claimed to be.
Rose
This interesting article answers Rose question about why God allowed Polygamy and the current Monogamy. I don't think Polygamy is wrong if it is done with good intention:
http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html
Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"
Answer: The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: 1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? 2) How does God view polygamy today? 3) Why did it change?
1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. As we speculate about God’s silence, there are a few key factors to consider. First, while there are slightly more male babies than female babies, due to women having longer lifespans, there have always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5 percent of the world population are women. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. The significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation.
So, it seems that God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation. In addition to the protection/provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only producing one child each year.
2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).
In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.
Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife [singular] … He who loves his wife [singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two will become one flesh....Each one of you also must love his wife [singular] as he loves himself, and the wife [singular] must respect her husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy were allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.
3) Why did it change? It is not so much God’s disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God’s restoring marriage to His original plan. Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it is not the ideal. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves—removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.
Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps, but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.
God Bless Marriages.:pray:
This interesting article answers Rose question about why God allowed Polygamy and the current Monogamy. I don't think Polygamy is wrong if it is done with good intention:
http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html
Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"
Answer: The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: 1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? 2) How does God view polygamy today? 3) Why did it change?
1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. As we speculate about God’s silence, there are a few key factors to consider. First, while there are slightly more male babies than female babies, due to women having longer lifespans, there have always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5 percent of the world population are women. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. The significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation.
So, it seems that God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation. In addition to the protection/provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only producing one child each year.
2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).
In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.
Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife [singular] … He who loves his wife [singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two will become one flesh....Each one of you also must love his wife [singular] as he loves himself, and the wife [singular] must respect her husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy were allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.
3) Why did it change? It is not so much God’s disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God’s restoring marriage to His original plan. Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it is not the ideal. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves—removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.
Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps, but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.
God Bless Marriages.:pray:
All those reasons as to why God would allow multiple wives is really beside the point. Jesus said, anyone who puts away their spouse and marries another commits adultery, so he is directly contradicting what God supported and allowed in the Old Testament. Also having multiple wives means a man could never be as one flesh with his wife, so that too directly contradicts the message that Jesus was teaching.
If having multiple wives was really going against God's original intent then why is it never mentioned after Genesis 2? Nowhere in the entire Old Testament is there any mention of God's desiring monogamy, so where did Jesus get this idea if it was never mentioned in the law? Men were allowed under the law given to Moses by Yahweh to have multiple wives and divorce them for any reason, whereas women were forbidden to have multiple husbands or to divorce them under the same law given by Yahweh. So it seems that Yahweh is the one responsible for giving laws that Jesus had to turn around and change...go figure. :confused:
Rose
All those reasons as to why God would allow multiple wives is really beside the point. Jesus said, anyone who puts away their spouse and marries another commits adultery, so he is directly contradicting what God supported and allowed in the Old Testament. Also having multiple wives means a man could never be as one flesh with his wife, so that too directly contradicts the message that Jesus was teaching.
If having multiple wives was really going against God's original intent then why is it never mentioned after Genesis 2? Nowhere in the entire Old Testament is there any mention of God's desiring monogamy, so where did Jesus get this idea if it was never mentioned in the law? Men were allowed under the law given to Moses by Yahweh to have multiple wives and divorce them for any reason, whereas women were forbidden to have multiple husbands or to divorce them under the same law given by Yahweh. So it seems that Yahweh is the one responsible for giving laws that Jesus had to turn around and change...go figure. :confused:
Rose
I think your understanding of Two shall become One is faulty. Please tell me what you understand by Two becomes One. Ask yourself how can Two persons become One? How is that Two becomes One related to leaving his father and mother and cleave to a woman and about creating male and female?
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
I believe it is talking about Marriage and Family. Two becomes One is Man + Woman = 2 i.e. Marriage, Man + Woman (2; coitus) = Child (1) i.e. Family, therefore 2 becomes 1 is (50%Man gene and 50%Woman gene (2) = 100%Child gene = FAMILY (1).
Therefore, this passage is about Marriage and forming a Family regardless of whether is it through Monogamous or Polygamous relationship.
Look at the passage again and it mention the creation of male and female (children of both sexes) and leaving the parents (i.e. parenthood) is analogous to leaving the parents and becoming parents of their own children through procreation..
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
This is my literal interpretation of the above passage in red:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female (for procreation), And said, For this cause (the cause of procreating) shall a man leave father and mother (i.e. leaving them to form the parents of his own family), and shall cleave (i.e. coitus) to his wife (i.e. through Marriage ): and they twain shall be one flesh (i.e. one Family)? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh (i.e. one Family).
Jesus also said about singlehood when asked that it is better not to marry i.e. being "eunuch" and His answer is that IF this person can take the sexual urges and loneliness that accompanies singlehood then let it be regardless of what is the cause or purpose of the singlehood.
If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
May God Bless the Family:pray:
I think your understanding of Two shall become One is faulty. Please tell me what you understand by Two becomes One. Ask yourself how can Two persons become One? How is that Two becomes One related to leaving his father and mother and cleave to a woman and about creating male and female?
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
I believe it is talking about Marriage and Family. Two becomes One is Man + Woman = 2 i.e. Marriage, Man + Woman (2; coitus) = Child (1) i.e. Family, therefore 2 becomes 1 is (50%Man gene and 50%Woman gene (2) = 100%Child gene = FAMILY (1).
Therefore, this passage is about Marriage and forming a Family regardless of whether is it through Monogamous or Polygamous relationship.
Look at the passage again and it mention the creation of male and female (children of both sexes) and leaving the parents (i.e. parenthood) is analogous to leaving the parents and becoming parents of their own children through procreation..
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
This is my literal interpretation of the above passage in red:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female (for procreation), And said, For this cause (the cause of procreating) shall a man leave father and mother (i.e. leaving them to form the parents of his own family), and shall cleave (i.e. coitus) to his wife (i.e. through Marriage ): and they twain shall be one flesh (i.e. one Family)? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh (i.e. one Family).
Jesus also said about singlehood when asked that it is better not to marry i.e. being "eunuch" and His answer is that IF this person can take the sexual urges and loneliness that accompanies singlehood then let it be regardless of what is the cause or purpose of the singlehood.
If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
May God Bless the Family:pray:
I'm sorry Cheow I really don't think Jesus was speaking of men and women procreating, but that was a good try. If you recall Jesus was directly referencing Gen.2:24, after woman had been taken out of man's flesh making them of one flesh, there was no eluding to having children, in fact in the whole time Adam and Eve are in the Garden there is no mention of being fruitful and multiplying. It wasn't until Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden that they had their first children.
Also, according to Jesus multiple wives was NOT okay, otherwise he would not have said if a man marries another woman he is committing adultery, because even though he divorces his wife they are still one flesh, thus having more than one wife (or husband) is committing adultery - directly contradicting what God allowed and gave laws for in the Old Testament.
Another relevant point that directly opposes the idea you introduced is the teaching of Jesus on eunuchs...he said the best way was to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven - meaning to become one with the kingdom of heaven - which has nothing to do with procreating.
All the best,
Rose
Matt.19:3-12 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
A careful reading of the above discourse by Jesus on the unity of marriage will disclose a theme that is not only out of character with Jewish thought in the Old Testament, but also contrary to the actions of the God inspired patriarchs. Starting with Abraham who took Hagar as his second wife it becomes a common occurrence throughout the Old Testament for men to have multiple wives, which is totally at odds with the idea of becoming one flesh, as presented in Genesis and reiterated by Jesus. Also the phrase “the twain shall become one” only occurs once in the entire Old Testament. Polygamy is never frowned upon by the biblegod, but rather encouraged as in the case of Jacob with his four wives from whom the twelve tribes of Israel were born…conflicting greatly with the idea of one man, one woman, equals one flesh. Anyone who is familiar with Scripture knows the account of Yahweh giving the wives of King Saul to David (2Sam.12:7-11) and then giving those same wives of David to his son Absalom to rape as punishment for David’s sins (2Sam.16:21-22), clearly showing Yahweh had no problem with multiple wives, adultery, or rape.
Another out of character theme touched upon by Jesus is the answer given to the query of the disciples “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” to which Jesus responded “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Implying that the best way for man is to be a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven, which again is contrary to the proclamation in Genesis 1 “Be fruitful and multiply”. Nowhere throughout the Old Testament is celibacy encouraged, even the priests were expected to marry, albeit within their own tribe. So, where did this idea of celibacy, and monogamy which was also promoted by Paul, enter into the biblical picture?
This passage in Matthew also conflates the idea of God creating male and female (chapter 1) with the reason that a man leaves his father and mother is to cleave to his wife (chapter 2). First off, the idea of God creating male and female in his image comes from Genesis 1:27 and says nothing of man and woman being joined together as one flesh in marriage which doesn’t occur until Genesis 2:24. Why Jesus conflated the two concepts and spoke of them as being one idea when it directly conflicts with the explicit biblical approval of polygamy I don’t know. Obviously it was news to the Pharisees who queried Jesus on the matter.
Another matter that comes to mind is that of divorce, in the same passage Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart. The reality of the matter is that in Deuteronomy it says that God gave Moses all the laws including the one on divorce, so it wasn’t Moses who allowed divorce it was God who gave Moses that law. If that is the case then the claim by Jesus which says not one jot or tittle shall be changed from the law is also false, because Jesus changed the law on divorce from that of being acceptable to that of causing one to commit adultery. Did the biblegod whom Jesus claimed was his father, change his mind from that of permitting and encouraging multiple wives and divorce, to forbidding it lest you be called an adulterer? Just another point in my long list of reasons that show why the god of the bible cannot be who he is claimed to be.
Rose
I would like to add a few more points to my opening post concerning the allowing of multiple wives by Yahweh which in in direct opposition to what Jesus is teaching on adultery. First off in Genesis 4, Adam's great grand son Lamech took two wives seemingly with God's approval, because even though Gen.2:24 says that Adam and Eve shall be one flesh, multiple wives is never forbidden anywhere in the Old Testament.
Gen. 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
All through the Old Testament we see cases of multiple wives with NO hint of a disapproving god. What we DO SEE is Yahweh accommodating men with laws to dispose of their wives through divorce, or regulations on how to treat their multiple wives.
Exo.21:10-11 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
Deut. 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
Deut.24:1-3 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Also there is the case of God giving Saul's wives to David, and then as punishment to David took those same wives and gave them to Absalom to rape in the sight of all Israel!
2Sam.12:7-11 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 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. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
Not only does God actively participate in the giving of multiple wives to David, which according to Jesus would be considered adultery, but God explicitly takes the wives of David and gives them to Absalom to rape!
How can this egregious contradiction of what Jesus is teaching, and violation of moral law be justified?
Rose
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.