Biblical Assumptions

Did God ever give instructions on having more then one wife at a time? Did He ever give permission? Is there anything in the N.T. that leads us to beleive ti is ok for christians to have more then one wife at a time?

 

I think you're right, Nicholas. A bishop should be the husband of one wife at a time, for certain. Whether a divorce would disqualify a man from pastoring would depend on the circumstances, as we are told that a Bishop must be blameless. But when Jesus told the woman at the well to get her husband, she said she had no husband. Jesus didn't say 'liar, you have 5 husbands.'

And women should be silent in the church.

 

Ask the Mormons.

 

There is no reason that this would have to be construed as permission for polygamy. If a man had already had three wives and then became a Christian, what do you do? Tell him to pick one and divorce the other two? No, but you don't set the man up as an example to the flock either.

 

Except when they are prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), that is, addressing the congregation in the name of Christ.

Edited to point out that I actually don't think that women have to be silent in the meetings of the church. I was just tweaking James a bit to show that there is biblical support for women speaking and teaching in the congregation, so his interpretation can't be correct.

 

I don't see anything in the context of 1Cor 11:5 that would indicate Paul is talking about women prophesying in the church.

 

James,

I think another problem is the word "polygamy". Is there anywhere in the Bible that condemns "polygyny"? How about "polyandry"? (These are questions, not statements of opinion, BTW.)

 

That entire portion of 1 Corinthians is talking about church life.

 

I don't see any specific condemnations of either. But I think the relatively low incidence of polyandry would indicate that it is condemned by the law of conscience, as it certainly is by mine

 

I do see that a little further down Paul begins to address happenings in the gathering of the church, such as the lords supper. But if Paul were advocating women prophesying in church, he would be directly contradicting himself, not only the command for woman to keep silent, but also when he said to suffer not a woman to teach, which is what prophesying is.

PROPH'ESY, v.i. To utter predictions; to make declaration of events to come. Jer.11.
1. In Scripture, to preach; to instruct in religious doctrines; to interpret or explain Scripture or religious subjects; to exhort. 1 Cor.13. Ezek.37.

 

Let me clarify, I don't see any specific condemnations outside of the commands of Paul that a bishops and deacons be the husband of one wife. I think this command would generally apply to any man, and excepting that the man was already married to more than one wife when he became a believer, the church should not condone it.

 

That's right... Since I don't think Paul contradicted himself, we must look at both passages and see which interpretation is correct.

The word translated "woman/women" in the KJV New Testament (and other translations) can also be translated "wife/wives."

I believe, as well as some very conservative scholars, that the word should properly be translated "wife/wives" in those passages because it apparently refers to the congregation providing critique of the prophet's (preacher/teacher) message. If a wife began critiquing her husband's teaching (for instance, saying, "I wish he were more consistent at home!"), it could easily cause divisions in the church and magnify troubles in their marriage. Therefore, Paul told the wives to talk to their husbands about their teaching in the privacy of their home.

Compared to the prevailing culture, women were given extraordinary freedom in the church and apparently some were using their freedom destructively.

So I don't think Paul is contradicting himself at all. Women did speak and teach in the church, but there were common-sense prohibitions for spouses serving and worshipping together in the church meetings.

 

Well, sure we can just re-write the bible too.

 

Nobody's rewriting anything except for the translators of the KJV and every other translation.

I'm referencing the original Greek and the way the Greek was used in the culture.

 

Well, I'm not a greek scholar, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Select last night, and it seems that if the KJV and every other translation say woman, there must be a good reason. But if you want to let the unwed women prophesy in your church, you go right ahead brother.

 

The "good reason" is that the most common meaning of the word is "woman/women," but the meaning is defined by its context. And since the translation of the word as "wife/wives" might unseat quite a bit of established practice dating back from the early days of the Roman Catholic Church (which, IMO, does not have any unique ties to Peter or any other apostle), it is safer to translate it more generically as "woman/women" and let people make up their own mind.

Remember that the word, "baptize", is itself a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo because translating it literally as "immerse/immersion" would have upset a lot of doctrine and practice in the churches of the Middle Ages. Translators generally like to play it safe when they translate and leave the interpretation to the informed reader.

 

But at the time the KJV was translated, the mode of baptism employed by the Anglican church was immersion. I doubt they were trying to be sneaky. As you said, the definition of the word baptize means to immerse or to dip.

 

Do you have a solid reference for that?

It has been my understanding that at the time of the translation of the King James, the Anglican Church in England had been transitioning from immersion to pouring. So there were at least two methods of "baptism" practiced during that time, making the literal translation of the word a theological bombshell.

I don't think I would call them sneaky... A better way might be to say that they were being diplomatic by not taking a stand on an issue where they might displease the king. It was a little too easy to lose your head.

Yep, it's very hard to dispute that one. Even the Mormons got that right. :laugh:

 

I also hold that I Corinthians 11 involves Paul's instructions to the congregation at Corinth about how to behave in church, or when they assemble together.

That being the case, Paul instructs women not to pray with their heads uncovered when the congregation is assembled. By implication, women prayed during church, and to do so they had to speak.