ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Was Hagar A Ligitimate Wife

Was Hagar a legitimate wife of Abraham thereby making Ishmael at a legitimate son? Does the Bible speak against polygamy?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Dating & Marriage Quiz
 ---mima on 11/10/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (29)

Post a New Blog



Yes.
Hagar was legitimate wife.
Ishmael was a legitimate son.
The bible does not clearly address polygamy.
---AG on 1/16/08


1 Corinthians 7:29 asks that they (plural) that had wives be as though they(plural) had none, they and the term then would mean men having wives, yet according to your thesis verse 27 explains a man having a wife to wives?

the evidence you bring is from a time where God was in existance, and he was the Law so what he permitted he then through the Law abolished and even though marriage was not one of them marriage was debated in the N/T
---Carla5754 on 1/13/08


to read: ''and you are ignorant'' Your are going by a translation of the word for wife who wrote that translation was it not MODERN DAY MAN. Ha, It could mean woman also but there 's no proof that it actually meant spacifically wives. Paul also instructed them to teach men the same doctrine that could also mean If he has one wife they should have one also. So it's open to anyone's interpretaion since it's not clear to you that the example is to have one wife/husband.
---Carla5754 on 1/11/08


Even if it was do you really think that latter day man would not have kept to that custom. Your the one to promote this practice despite marriages on the fold, you without due care and wisdom site to challenge the rights for men having more than One wife dispite it being illegal. So what if O/T men had this practice WHY are you trying to go against the grain if it wasn't important to you? deal with the legal Law of today not what is now to us illegal and OLD traditions of men.
---Carla5754 on 1/11/08


Carla5754 said, "Men also had concubines and is ingnorant of The: Jewish lifestyle"

Why do you keep trying to bring this back to the Jews? Marriage PRECEDED the nation of Israel, it preceded Abraham...this isn't some kind of "law" issue. Was adultery (multiple husbands) not forbidden before Moses? Was marriage not understood before Moses? Men were created to be polygynous before Mt. Sinai. This is about God's definition of marriage, adultery and divorce.
---righteouswarriors on 1/11/08




What Righteous warrior First and formost it's ILLEGAL to married to more than one woman. Men also had concubines and is ingnorant of The: Jewish lifestyle, lifespan, food, Culture,Circumsision, marriage custom, wealth, health, dress which are Nothing in comparrison to the 21st Century. You want their blessings do you also want their pain?
---Carla5754 on 1/11/08


StrongAxe said, "Paul says that a bishop should be "a man of one wife". This would have been unnecessary if polygamy was not practiced."

Good catch. Those insisting that "mia" in that verse must mean ONE instead of FIRST would, by logical conclusion, be agreeing that polygyny was a common enough practice to need addressing for bishops in the mia place.
---righteouswarriors on 1/10/08


alan of UK said, "to say that the Pauls passages do not mean that the pastors and others should have only one wife is really twisting the meaning. One means one."

I'd agree, if Paul had actually used the word "one". The original Greek word there is "mia" (Strong's #3391):

Titus 1:6a: "If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of one [3391] wife..."

Titus 3:10: "Reject a divisive man after the first [3391] and second warning"
---righteouswarriors on 1/10/08


The very same Paul that wrote Titus 1:6 also wrote Titus 3:10. He used the same Greek word "mia" in both verses. Our English Bibles usually translate one verse as "ONE" and the other as "FIRST". Why? It's the same Greek word in BOTH verses!

Forgetting the bias of the English translators for the moment, can you see that the verse can just as correctly be translated as:

Titus 1:6a: "If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of first [3391] wife..."
---righteouswarriors on 1/10/08


mima said, "Hagar was not a wife, neither legitimate or illegitimate."

Genesis 16:3 says, "And Sarai, Abrams wife, took Hagar her female servant, the Mitsrite, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Kena'an."

I think I'll stick with Scripture on this one.
---righteouswarriors on 1/10/08




Hagar was not a wife, neither legitimate or illegitimate.
---mima on 1/10/08


For righteouswarriors to say that the Pauls passages do not mean that the pastors and others should have only one wife is really twisting the meaning.
One means one.
But I suppose there is the possibility that Paul meant that pastors etc should have only one, but the rest of us can have as many as we like.
I don't think so, but it appears to be a possibility.
---alan_of_UK on 1/10/08


Carla5754:

If God gave Israel permission to sin, can you give other examples of sins where he did so? If not, why would divorce be the sole exception to the rule?

As far as no evidence of more than one wife in the NT:
Paul says that a bishop should be "a man of one wife". This would have been unnecessary if polygamy was not practiced. Also note that this restriction applied only to BISHOPS, not to everyone.

Not once is polygamy equated with disobedience in scripture.
---StrongAxe on 1/9/08


Carla5754:

When we seek to understand scripture, we need to approach it with a neutral attitude of
"What is God actually telling us?"
rather than
"Does God agree with what I think?",
which has a tendency to try to make the bible agree with whatever our own particular biased beliefs or agenda happen to be.
---StrongAxe on 1/9/08


Carla5754 said, "you can provide no evidence of more than one wife in the N/T and will not acknowledge the few scriptures that state..."

I thought I had completely addressed every verse you asked about, but if I've missed any, please let me know.

Regarding evidence of multiple wives in the NT, are you meaning historical evidence that it continued beyond the 1st century? Or are you asking for NT Scripture confirmation that marriage still means what it meant originally in the OT?
---righteouswarriors on 1/9/08


Carla5754 said, " Jesus clearly told them FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO!"

If you'll read Mark 10, you'll see that Jesus is actually addressing divorce, not marriage. You can't extrapolate from what the text doesn't actually say.

"because of their hardended hearts gave them permission to sin."

You can't be serious. Are you actually claiming that God permits sin? Divorce itself is NOT sinful, but UNLAWFUL divorce is. Again, you'll need to refer to the OT.
---righteouswarriors on 1/9/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Carla5754 said, "reviving the one custom most important to you, yet you have one wife!"

What is actually important to me is having a proper Scriptural vs. cultural understanding of marriage. I only have one wife and two children by choice, but I know I could have more. Just because I'm perfectly happy with one wife doesn't change the fact that I'm entitled to more if I wanted (and could afford) a bigger family. All men are polygynous by nature, even those who are content with one wife.
---righteouswarriors on 1/9/08


Jesus clearly told them FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO! meaning The beginning was God and what he intended they did not do, and Moses because of their hardended hearts gave them permission to sin. The POINT BEING GOD WAS/IS THE (Law from the beginning) can you understand that!, before, now and forever and he changes not, we do. He accommedated our decisions because of his will and out of love for his people, got angry as they continually sined and ultimately destroyed the earth.
---Carla5754 on 1/9/08


Carla5754 said, "you can provide no evidence of more than one wife in the N/T and will not acknowledge the few scriptures that state..."

I thought I had completely addressed every verse you asked about, but if I've missed any, please let me know.

Regarding evidence of multiple wives in the NT, are you meaning historical evidence that it continued beyond the 1st century? Or are you asking for NT Scripture confirmation that marriage still means what it meant originally in the OT?
---righteouswarriors on 1/9/08


Carla5754 asked, "why are You not PRACTICING every Law of the O/T ?"

Because the Mosaic law was for the physical nation of Israel under their covenant. I am under the New Covenant of Messiah and not subject to the Mosaic law.

However, you do understand that there is a difference between the Mosaic law and the Old Testament, correct? It sounds like you're wrapping up all Scripture written before the Gospel and calling it "the law". Is that how you see the Old Testament?
---righteouswarriors on 1/9/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


I am saying you error badly since you can provide no evidence of more than one wife in the N/T and will not acknowledge the few scriptures that state that FACT which I and others have provided you with. Why are you not going to a high priest to be cleansed of your sins?
---Carla5754 on 1/8/08


God is the law giver regrdless of when the laws were produced so why are You not PRACTICING every Law of the O/T ? Your sole focus on men having more than one wife and cannot comment because it blows holes your ideology of reviving the one custom most important to you, yet you have one wife! It is not something practiced in The Church of God Today or in the N/T. NOT one scripture to prove it. Your asking me to validate something that was clearly practiced is that proof of it being so TODAY!
---Carla5754 on 1/8/08


AG asked, "Do you agree that a man and a woman married by a UNlicensed christian minister are married whether the state agrees or not?"

Absolutely. Scripture offers NO precepts or guidelines for ceremonies. There is NO command in the Bible that says that some man ("clergy") is to serve as the agent of approving the marriage. No man can marry the couple because God created and ordained the institution. They are to be married before God first and foremost.
---righteouswarriors on 1/8/08


Carla5754 asked, "WHY Paul SAID BISHOPS ARE TO BE A MAN of one WIFE? in so show example of his teaching."

The plain sense teaching of Paul's "one wife" verses (1 Timothy 3:1-5, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6) would indicate that the man should be married (ie. have a family) and should not be divorced from his wife. Notice how all three verses suggest that having a family (wives and children) gives one experience in how to rule or manage or govern?
---righteouswarriors on 1/8/08


Send a Free Christmas Ecard


Let's look at these three "one wife" verses of Paul's:

1 Timothy 3:2a: "An overseer, then, should be blameless, the husband of one [3391] wife..."

1 Tim 3:12: "Let attendants be the husbands of one [3391] wife, ruling children and their own houses well."

Titus 1:6a: "If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of one [3391] wife..."
---righteouswarriors on 1/8/08


In each of the previous "one wife" verses, the Greek word "mia" (Strong's #3391) is used. Look how it's translated elsewhere:

Matt. 28:1a: "Now after the Sabbath, toward dawn on the first [3391] day of the week..."

John 20:19a: "When therefore it was evening on that day, the first [3391] day of the week..."

Titus 3:10: "Reject a divisive man after the first [3391] and second warning"
---righteouswarriors on 1/8/08


"David murdered because of his lust for Uriahs wife"

True, and this was clearly called adultery and sinful, because he took another man's wife. However, David had many other wives which were lawful for him to have.

"Jacob was tricked into marrying leah and Rachel"

Leah certainly, but he wasn't tricked into marrying Rachel, Bilhah or Zilpah. I'm not seeing your point. Whether he intended to marry Leah doesn't change the fact she was his wife.
---righteouswarriors on 1/8/08


"It is not customary that men have MORE than ONE wife Legally TODAY."

Customary being the operative word. So which do we value more, the traditions of men or the Word of God? It is "customary" for our young daughters to dress like streetwalkers-in-training, yet the Word of God says they should dress modestly. What should our standard really be? I would add that there is no need for a man to "legally" marry more than one wife (as in state-recognized).
---righteouswarriors on 1/8/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


"You stated you don't agree with more yourself so (WHY lead others astray?"

Because it is TRUTH. It doesn't matter whether I happen to like something in Scripture or not. My opinion is irrelevant. God does not require my approval, only my obedience. What is the alternative? Continue to allow misguided Believers to redefine marriage, adultery and divorce according to feminist teachings? We are called to bring the truth to bear against non-truth, regardless of popular opinion.
---righteouswarriors on 1/8/08


Carla5754,
We can't validate more than one STATE SANCTIONED spouse today. That is illegal.
However, the bible does not require us to get the state's approval for marriage.
Do you agree that a man and a woman married by a UNlicensed christian minister are married whether the state agrees or not?
---AG on 1/7/08


You fail to recognise that David murdered because of his lust for Uriahs wife, Jacob was tricked into marrying leah and Rachel because it was custom not ordained by God, Soloman had concubines and it's clear why! , Lots daughters went with their father not so today Is that making any sense to you? It is not customary that men have MORE than ONE wife Legally TODAY. You stated you don't agree with more yourself so (WHY lead others astray?
---Carla5754 on 1/7/08


Tell me why did God then provide Moses with the Law? Him being without sin never knew a woman, Paul followed Christ, Paul would have Both Men/women unmarried but recognised we have other gifts from God. A higher calling is to be Celibate what are you talking about? If that is now so again ADDRESS: WHY Paul SAID BISHOPS ARE TO BE A MAN of one WIFE? in so show example of his teaching.
---Carla5754 on 1/7/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


You provide scriptures to show that men had more than one wife, with the use only of the O/T you fail to accept it has no meat in the N/T. You use times where there was no laws according to you, forgetting God is the Law and the Law was always there, or Cain would not have been punished for the death of his brother, There is a progression of time and Laws that are put in place because of sin How would God write EVERTHING down and leave man wisdom? What is one man doing with more than one woman?
---Carla5754 on 1/7/08


Carla5754 asked, "God said...you should obey (the law of Land) so how do you validate more than one wife in Todays scociety?"

Because Scripture is supposed to be our final authority. Government does NOT get to define marriage. After all, if a man and a man marry with a state marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a state marriage license, who is really married? It's scary that Believers are so willing to accept the culture's definition without even checking God's Word.
---righteouswarriors on 1/7/08


Carla5754 said, "If men took many wives they did so primarily because ONCE AGAIN it was through heritage/disobedience/covetousness"

You are making a western cultural judgment, but your view isn't backed by Scripture. Marriage is marriage in God's Word and there is no difference in how many wives a man has. How many children does it take for a man to be a father? One. How many wives does it take for a man to be a husband? One. Does it then mean that a man should be limited to one child?
---righteouswarriors on 1/7/08


Carla5754 said, "The earth need to be populated and under certian circumstances was permitted."

Who gets to decide when marriage is to be redefined then? Where in Scripture did God say that "enough was enough" and that He was just kidding by allowing a man multiple wives? Where does it say that He begrudgingly permitted the sinful act because of the greater good of population? You are drawing conclusions that are not even remotely supported by Scripture.
---righteouswarriors on 1/7/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Carla5754, "YOU propergate more than one wife inciting others into thinking that it's acceptable in Today."

If you mean that I'm bringing up the issue and forcing people to take a hard long look at Scripture without preconceived western ideas, you bet I am. But I'm not promoting polygyny over monogyny. Marriage is marriage in God's eyes and I'm simply pointing out that the choice belongs to the man. Celibacy, monogyny and polygyny are all acceptable in Scripture.
---righteouswarriors on 1/7/08


Carla5754 said, "One/man One/woman is quite sufficient enough"

Consider Luther's letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brck, where he stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." Years later, he gave his blessing for Landgrave Philip of Hesse to take a second wife. Do you seriously think Luther was reading Scripture wrong? Or did he realize his Greco-Roman views of marriage were not backed by Scripture?
---righteouswarriors on 1/7/08


Carla5754 said, "even single men are finding it hard to find a Virgin...Get real your fighting an unrealistic battle"

You are confusing FACT with APPLICATION. I have no idea how any 21st century believer could hope to find even ONE Godly wife in this godless culture, let alone two or more. I leave that entirely to God. But I will continue to hold to a Scriptural definition of marriage (which includes monogyny/polygyny), regardless what the world says. Let God be true and every man a liar.
---righteouswarriors on 1/7/08


Then what exactly is your point if there was no law for marriage what Law was Paul talking about was it not a Law of Marriage,we have a Law now, that God said (wisdom) you should obey (the law of Land) so how do you validate more than one wife in Todays scociety?
---Carla5754 on 1/5/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Your question on this matter is answered by Gods authority through his word. What did God say about Ishmael?
Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called (his sons name), which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
How was Jesus God's son? It was by his incorruptible seed, the word of God. By Abraham's seed Hagar conceived and that alone made him Ishmael his son. God was not married
to Mary, Joseph was. Is Jesus his legitimate son? You know he is and Ishmael is Abraham's Son.
---exzucuh on 1/4/08


In the beginning God made Male/Female for this reason shall a man leave mother and father and cleave to wife NOT WIVES! If men took many wives they did so primarily because ONCE AGAIN it was through heritage/disobedience/covetousness as with David/Soloman/Abraham and the others that are mentioned but what a price they all paid.
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


The earth need to be populated and under certian circumstances was permitted.It WAS also Law to sacrifice animals we don't do that and yet YOU propergate more than one wife inciting others into thinking that it's acceptable in Today.. It's called Bigamy in Britan and carries a prison scentence. You won't find no Law allowing you to marry your Donkey as you do in the States, progression of man Waxing WORSE and WORSE. That more fits the bill!
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


We are through Christ a nation progressing towards a better life and as the bible says and accepts that the fashion of this world passes away, and we are changing from glory to Glory, from unholy works to Holy works and I know that in this day and age One/man One/woman is quite sufficient enough, why put yourself under subjection if not for 1 of which are many is sexual desires.
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


You are talking as if women are so plenty out there everyone of them fit the bill of being caste, far from it, even single men are finding it hard to find a Virgin, nevermind a married Christian man fighting for more than one wife. Get real your fighting an unrealistic battle unless you agree with that nutter that is sleeping with young girls/married women calling himself Christ(see how perverted it gets)!
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


Carla5754 said, "Abraham was under the Mosaic Law of which you cite to be binding for marriage"

Wrong! The Mosaic law didn't exist for another 430 years or so. Abraham was not under the law and yet he mysteriously knew God's definition of marriage and adultery. So did his son Esau and his grandson Jacob. If marriage was binding only under the law, then nobody was married before Israel, and we are "free" from marriage in the New Covenant. Is this really what you are proposing?
---righteouswarriors on 1/4/08


Carla5754,

You are mistaking the entire testimony of Scripture as being Mosaic Law. I was demonstrating that God Himself instituted and even gave commands regarding having multiple wives. How are you confusing marriage/polygyny as an Israel-only "Mosaic law" issue?

Lamach was BEFORE the Mosaic law (2 wives). Abraham was BEFORE the law (3 wives). Esau was BEFORE the law (5 wives). Jacob was BEFORE the law (4 wives). You can't dismiss marriage as a "law vs. grace" issue.
---righteouswarriors on 1/4/08


Romans 4:16

Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Romans 5::20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 6:15
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


The law was fulfilled not revived what transgressions were made through sin Christ fulfilled through grace, Abraham was under the Mosaic Law of which you cite to be binding for marriage without grace/Faith being the main factor. GRACE is Grace Law is Mosaic LAW of which the things you state were under. Although you are saying it you are not understanding it.
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


1#
Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


2#
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets,

Romans 3:27
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets,

Romans 2:22
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Romans 3:28
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets,

Romans 3:38But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets,
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Romans 4:13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


Romans 4:14
For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.
---Carla5754 on 1/4/08


I think anyone who has been following this blog now has more than enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other regarding the lawfulness of a man having more than one wife. Patriarchy was established by God, BEFORE THE FALL, and it was maintained right through Paul's writings in the NT. Neither marriage nor adultery were mysteriously "redefined", except by the traditions of men. If we come to Scripture assuming men and women are the same, we will get a distorted view of what we read.
---righteouswarriors on 1/3/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Carla5754,

I've read the book of Galatians and I'm in complete agreement. We are not under the law in the New Covenant. What does any of that have to do with understanding God's Word regarding marriage, divorce and adultery? Because we are not "under the law", are we now free to commit adultery if we want to? Are we free to divorce if we like? Can we just ignore God's Word by claiming to be free from the Mosaic Law? It sounds like you are claiming we are to be free from Scripture.
---righteouswarriors on 1/3/08


1#
Gal 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
---Carla5754 on 1/2/08


2#
Gal 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
3:2
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
---Carla5754 on 1/2/08


3#
Gal 3:5
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gal 3,5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gal 3:10

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
---Carla5754 on 1/2/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


4#
Gal 3:11

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith

Gal 3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them

Gal 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
---Carla5754 on 1/2/08


5#
Gal 3:17
And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Gal 3:18
For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise.
---Carla5754 on 1/2/08


6#
Gal 3:19
Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Gal 3:21
Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
---Carla5754 on 1/2/08


Carla5754 said, "We are govend by the Law of the Country and by the word of God and more than one wife is a rule of law for the christian Faith."

I do understand your position, but it is nevertheless unscriptural. The sad fact is that the Christian community at large does not teach what the Bible teaches on matters of marriage, divorce or adultery. If we read Scripture without preconceived ideas and just take God at His Word, we see that our views do not line up with what Scripture says.
---righteouswarriors on 1/2/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Carla5754, "To have your proper husband would ultimately mean your OWN husband"

The word he used in 1 Cor 7:2 referring to one's "proper" husband was "idios", which refers to a not-necessarily exclusive husband, as opposed to the word he used referring to one's "own" wife, which was "heautou", which refers to exclusive ownership. This vital distinction demonstrates that Paul understood the correct definition of marriage.
---righteouswarriors on 1/2/08


If a man was only allowed to have one wife in the New Covenant, after being allowed multiple wives in the Old Covenant, several things would have needed to be done:

1) Paul would have used the word "heautou" instead of "idios", to indicate that the wife's "ownership" of her husband was EXCLUSIVE instead of SHARED.

2) Jesus, Paul or SOMEONE would have mentioned somewhere that Biblical marriage had been altered, as well as the Biblical definition of adultery.
---righteouswarriors on 1/2/08


Carla5754 said, "To have your proper husband would ultimately mean your OWN husband, Having your OWN wife because of whoredom would ultimately have One wife"

No, that's just the point. You are coming at Scripture with the assumption that a man was only supposed to have one wife, so you read the verses to support your "one wife" view. In reality, men could have as many wives as they wanted and this was not changed in the New Covenant.
---righteouswarriors on 1/2/08


The idea of having more than one wife was supported by the fashion and lifestyle of that period again where Adam was told to be fruitful and multiply. More than One wife is not noted or supported by the Apostles and Christ certainly is not advocating that a man have more than one wife since Joseph was only reported to only have one. We are govend by the Law of the Country and by the word of God and more than one wife is a rule of law for the christian Faith.
---Carla5754 on 12/31/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Carla5754,
In this passage there are 3 main interpretations.
(1) The issue was whether or not fathers should give unwed/virgin daughters in marriage to eligible men.
(2) Some think it refers to men and women who were married but who chose to live together without sexual relations.
(3) Most modern interpretors believe the passage is about young, engaged women who were under the influence of various groups within the Cor. church not to go thru with their marriages.
---AG on 12/31/07


Carla5754 said, "It is there for observation and learning but christ came and set us free from that Law."

Did He come to set us free from the Mosaic law, or to set us free from the Old Testament altogether? After all, both Jesus and Paul continued to refer back to God's Word as the final standard. Paul praised the Bereans for "searching the Scriptures daily" to make sure what He was teaching them was true. What Scriptures were they searching, if not what we call the OT?
---righteouswarriors on 12/31/07


Carla5754 said, "the Law was weak because as you are doing using it for your own accursed gospel."

I'm afraid I'm not understanding you. There is only ONE gospel, which is the good news of Jesus Christ. I'm not promoting marriage as some kind of "gospel", if that's what you're thinking. I'm simply correcting the error of modern marriage teaching that is running rampant in our society. God's Word defined marriage and adultery in the OT and neither of these were changed in the NT.
---righteouswarriors on 12/31/07


Carla5754 said, "we are no longer under law but under the unmerited favor of God GRACE."

I'm not disagreeing with this fact. But you seem to be confusing the issue of following the obsolete Mosaic law with accepting God's definition of marriage, adultery, fornication and divorce which are clearly spelled out in Scripture. That which was "marriage" in the OT is still "marriage" in the NT. "Adultery" in the OT is still "adultery" in the NT.
---righteouswarriors on 12/31/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Carla5754 said, "7:29...But if her husband be dead she is at LIBERTY to be married to whom she will...Not to her husbands brother"

Correct. Even under the old Mosaic law, her husband's brother was only obligated to marry her if she didn't have a son to carry on her dead husband's name.

The point of v.39 is the that wife is still bound to her husband while he lives. Their roles did not change in the NT, according to Paul. The difference between the husband and the wife remains.
---righteouswarriors on 12/31/07


1 Cor 7:25: "And concerning maidens (3933): I have no command from the Master, but I give judgment as one whom the Master in His compassion has made trustworthy."

The Greek word for "maidens" there is "parthenos" (Strong's #3933) and refers to a female who has reached the onset of puberty and has never had sexual intercourse with a man. The modern concept of a "male virgin" is ridiculous and not Biblical. All virgins are female.
---righteouswarriors on 12/31/07


Righteous warrior said: ......and let every wife have her proper husband. To have your proper husband would ultimately mean your OWN husband, Having your OWN wife because of whoredom would ultimately have One wife no where does it describe more than one per person!
---Carla5754 on 12/31/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.