1 Corinthians 7:2

[LDSMusic483]

Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Johnny claims that by virtue of this verse, Paul is condemning polygamy. Your thoughts?

[jadams_4242]

Johnny claims that by virtue of this verse, Paul is condemning polygamy. Your thoughts?

Does the word fornication mean polygamy, or simply sex? {immoral sex because of none married status}.

[LDSMusic483]

Does the word fornication mean polygamy, or simply sex? {immoral sex because of none married status}.

No it means "illicit sexual intercourse." Johnny's contention is that because it uses wife in the singular form, this is condemning polygamy as fornication. Even though it would really be classified as adultery if it was wrong.

[nathansoz]

No it means "illicit sexual intercourse." Johnny's contention is that because it uses wife in the singular form, this is condemning polygamy as fornication. Even though it would really be classified as adultery if it was wrong.

I don't think this verse supports Johnny's arguments. To my knowlege, Polygamy was not a very prominint practice in the Christian church. Paul's letters were written to specific churches, to address specific things. We can apply them to our live, but we must know what the context of usage was first. My understanding is that Paul was specifically adressing sex ouside of marrage in this verse. We shouldn't try to stretch it to fit our views with the technicalities.

[Richard]

Paul is condemning Polygamy but not those who are in it, He to knows of his own past sin and his turning to Christ in it. He is simply telling them not to do it anymore that it is wrong. If you are going to be a Christian you must stop taking more than one wife. In other words if you have 3 wives because you were misled in your belief, take no more. For those who are not yet married take one, and only one. Here is what the Catholc Church says:

The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

Rich

www.utahmission.com

[LDSMusic483]

I don't think this verse supports Johnny's arguments. To my knowlege, Polygamy was not a very prominint practice in the Christian church. Paul's letters were written to specific churches, to address specific things. We can apply them to our live, but we must know what the context of usage was first. My understanding is that Paul was specifically adressing sex ouside of marrage in this verse. We shouldn't try to stretch it to fit our views with the technicalities.

Most others would view the verse the same as you. But not our good friend Johnny.

[LDSMusic483]

Paul is condemning Polygamy but not those who are in it, He to knows of his own past sin and his turning to Christ in it. He is simply telling them not to do it anymore that it is wrong. If you are going to be a Christian you must stop taking more than one wife. In other words if you have 3 wives because you were misled in your belief, take no more. For those who are not yet married take one, and only one. Here is what the Catholc Church says:

The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

Rich

www.utahmission.com

You are just like Johnny. This voice is talking about sexual immorality between individuals who are not married. If a man has 3 wives then he has his own wife in three separate marriages. This is in no way directed towards polygamy, as we have no proof that the saints in Corinth were practicing that. Rather, they seem to be asking about staying single but Paul warns about not being able to control their passions if they are single.

[annewandering]

Johnny claims that by virtue of this verse, Paul is condemning polygamy. Your thoughts?

it seems a pretty far stretch to think it had anything to do with polygamy. in polygamy a man has a wife and a wife has a husband. how is that different than what the verse says?

it seems there is a tendancy in people to search scriptures, or anything really, to find something that if you stretch it far enough might mean what you are looking for. despite my belief in the scriptures i tend to distrust those people who have a scripture for every occasion to prove their point, what ever that was.

if we believe this is speaking of polygamy then is he saying abraham and all the others who did practice polygamy were adulterers?

compare this scripture with others concerning polygamy and i suspect you are going to find they are not nearly so vague .

[Richard]

You are just like Johnny. This voice is talking about sexual immorality between individuals who are not married. If a man has 3 wives then he has his own wife in three separate marriages. This is in no way directed towards polygamy, as we have no proof that the saints in Corinth were practicing that. Rather, they seem to be asking about staying single but Paul warns about not being able to control their passions if they are single.

Yes you are right as to the context , but this scripture is also pointing out that a man takes only one wife, and a women one husband. It I stand corrected as to the context.

It also supports the argument for remaining celibate if one can do so for the Glory of God. Jesus Himself explains this.

For thos who marry and most do it is a Holy Sacrament. But Celibacy is a higher calling for those who can do it for all the right reasons.

1Corinthians 7:8-9, 27, 32-35, 38; Matthew 19:3-12; Revelation 14:3-5)

[Flyonthewall]

I made this point in the other thread, and I'll make it here too. If Paul made the statement "in order to avoid being late for work, let a man have his own horse", how many horses is Paul saying a man should have? In his statement, 'horse" is singular, so in Johnny's line of reasoning, that means God is saying that it is a sin to have more than one horse.

I say, this only implies that a man should ride his own horse instead of someone else's. And in like manner, "to avoid fornicaiton, let the man have (sex with) his own wife(not someone else's).

[LDSMusic483]

Yes you are right as to the context , but this scripture is also pointing out that a man takes only one wife, and a women one husband. It I stand corrected as to the context.

It also supports the argument for remaining celibate if one can do so for the Glory of God. Jesus Himself explains this.

For thos who marry and most do it is a Holy Sacrament. But Celibacy is a higher calling for those who can do it for all the right reasons.

1Corinthians 7:8-9, 27, 32-35, 38; Matthew 19:3-12; Revelation 14:3-5)

It nowhere says one. It says his own wife. If a man has three wives, they are all his own wife, and not someone elses. As I said on the other thread, this could be used against polyandry, but not polygamy

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

It nowhere says one. It says his own wife. If a man has three wives, they are all his own wife, and not someone elses. As I said on the other thread, this could be used against polyandry, but not polygamy

If a man has three wives .... he was wives .... he does not have wife.

1Cor.7 [2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife , and let every woman have her own husband.

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

You are just like Johnny.

Catholics have the writings of the early Christians to help them better understand the Bible. In 180AD the ordained Bishop Irenaeus wrote the following about "wives". Irenaeus was a second-century bishop who had a personal link with the generation of the apostles through his mentor Polycarp.

• Irenaeus "Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and are indifferent about eating meats sacrificed to idols, maintaining that God does not greatly regard such matters. But why continue? For it is an impracticable attempt to mention all those who, in one way or another, have fallen away from the truth." Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 28)
  

[Richard]

Yes I would be like Johny , in full agreement out of common sense

Polygamy is a bit off topic here. I am amazed at the backing it is getting here. Do you still believe in it? You have to know by common sense that it is wrong. Marriage is a Sacrament between a man and women. You can look into your heart and soul and be ok with it? Is it just because it is illegal in America that your church still does not practice it?

Maybe for another thread. This may be old, but rather new to me.

1 Corinthians 7:2 says, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Polygamy is sinful for male or female. Women married to the same husband do not each have their own husbands. (Romans 7:1-3). (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

[Flyonthewall]

Yes I would be like Johny , in full agreement out of common sense

Polygamy is a bit off topic here. I am amazed at the backing it is getting here. Do you still believe in it? You have to know by common sense that it is wrong. Marriage is a Sacrament between a man and women. You can look into your heart and soul and be ok with it? Is it just because it is illegal in America that your church still does not practice it?

Maybe for another thread. This may be old, but rather new to me.

1 Corinthians 7:2 says, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Polygamy is sinful for male or female. Women married to the same husband do not each have their own husbands. (Romans 7:1-3). (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

Since you believe polygamy to be off topic here, then you must also believe that 1 Cor. 7:2 is not addressing it.

Polygamy is not off topic here... it is the entire reason this thread was started.

Polygamy is a type of marriage relationship that in various times, and with various people, God allows, even commands. Polygamy is only allowed, or is not sinful, when the Lord establishes it. When the Lord revokes it, as it is now, we believe it is morally wrong and sinful. If plural marriage became legal again in the US, the Lord still has revoked it so it would still be sinful to enter into.

The contention here is that some people take 1 Corinthians 7:2, and it's singular form of the word "wife" to mean that plural marriage is sinful under the New Testament. Common sense tells me that is stretching this scriptural passage too far, and that meaning is generated by the individual reading it, and not by the author of the letter. This scriptural passage says nothing about plural marriage but about fornication.

The scriptural passage of Romans 7:1-3, only says that it is adultery if a woman is married to more than one man. It makes no mention of a man married to one woman. Under the same logic used to equate 1Cor. 7:2 to polygamy, I can use this scripture to mean that polygamy is not adultery or fornication because it is not expressly singled out as such...only in the case of a woman having more than one husband.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

Polygamy is only allowed, or is not sinful, when the Lord establishes it.

In the Old Testament polygamy or wives was not fornication since they were not under the New Covenant. The New Covenant began with Jesus and is an everlasting covenant (Heb 8:6-8; Heb 13:20).

Under the New Covenant we can avoid fornication by man and wife (1Cor 7:2), fornication is illicit sexual intercourse.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

In the Old Testament polygamy or wives was not fornication since they were not under the New Covenant. The New Covenant began with Jesus and is an everlasting covenant (Heb 8:6-8; Heb 13:20).

Under the New Covenant we can avoid fornication by man and wife (1Cor 7:2), fornication is illicit sexual intercourse.

What about Romans 7:1-3? It only states that it is adultery when a woman has more than one husband, but is silent on a man having more than one wife. Using your logic, I can claim that a man having more than one wife is allowed under the New Testament because it is not identified as being adultery. This scripture actually address polygamous situation, whereas 1 Cor. does not.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

What about Romans 7:1-3? It only states that it is adultery when a woman has more than one husband, but is silent on a man having more than one wife. Using your logic, I can claim that a man having more than one wife is allowed under the New Testament because it is not identified as being adultery. This scripture actually address polygamous situation, whereas 1 Cor. does not.

Adultery and polygamy are different ... my logic is that we can avoid fornication by man and wife (1Cor 7:2).

[Glenn101]

Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Johnny claims that by virtue of this verse, Paul is condemning polygamy. Your thoughts?

That quote is from Paul's epistle to the Corinthians, a Greek city now part of the Roman empire. The Greeks did not practice polygamy nor did the Romans. It was against the law in the Roman Empire, if I remember my history (lessons) correctly. The Romans were fairly tolerant of the religious beliefs and practices of their conquered peoples and usually did not interfere with them unless such were deemed a threat to the Roman rulers.

It was not until the fourth century (A.D.) that polygamy was banned by St. Augustine, not because of any perceived religious doctrine but because it was counter to the Roman laws and customs.

Glenn

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

Adultery and polygamy are different ... my logic is that we can avoid fornication by man and wife (1Cor 7:2).

Of course, why didn't I see that coming?

Yes, we can avoid fornication by having our own spouse, and I can avoid being late to work by having my own car. The subjects are different, but the language is the same. Me having my own car, does not preclude me from having more than one car. The english language allows for this meaning. The same as: to avoid fornication, let a man have his own wife. A man having his own wife, does not preclude him from having more than one wife.

You have attributed a meaning to this verse that is not supported by anything but your own interpretation of it.

[johnny]

glennthigpen

It was not until the fourth century (A.D.) that polygamy was banned by St. Augustine, not because of any perceived religious doctrine but because it was counter to the Roman laws and customs.

You might to read more of the early Christian writings,

The post-NT church were anti-polygamy:

1. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:

"Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob." [ANF, vol. 1, p. 266]

2. Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:

"Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..." [ANF, vol. 1, p.353]

3. Tertullian (c.207) was also explicit:

"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife)

4. Methodius (cf.290) was clear on the issue, arguing that it had stopped at the time of the Prophets:

"The contracting of marriage with several wives had been done away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, 'Do not go after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites'...And in another place, 'Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.' This plainly forbids a plurality of wives." [ANF, vol. 6, p.312]

5. Origen (248) speaks of the New Covenant

But in the New Covenant also there are some legal injunctions [given in concession to human weakness], for example, because of our hardness of heart, it has been written on account of our weakness, "But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband" [1 Cor. 7:2] (Commentary on Matthew 14:23 [A.D. 248]).

[Richard]

glennthigpen

You might to read more of the early Christian writings,

The post-NT church were anti-polygamy:

1. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:

"Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob." [ANF, vol. 1, p. 266]

2. Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:

"Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..." [ANF, vol. 1, p.353]

3. Tertullian (c.207) was also explicit:

"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife)

4. Methodius (cf.290) was clear on the issue, arguing that it had stopped at the time of the Prophets:

"The contracting of marriage with several wives had been done away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, 'Do not go after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites'...And in another place, 'Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.' This plainly forbids a plurality of wives." [ANF, vol. 6, p.312]

5. Origen (248) speaks of the New Covenant

But in the New Covenant also there are some legal injunctions [given in concession to human weakness], for example, because of our hardness of heart, it has been written on account of our weakness, "But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband" [1 Cor. 7:2] (Commentary on Matthew 14:23 [A.D. 248]).

I have to go with what the spirit is clearly saying to me. First the knowledgement I have from my Church that Christians have always known that Marriage is between one man and one woman. Always been a Sacrament of the Church. 2nd, the Spirit in me confirms this with absolutely no doubt. I canâ??t ad this to your heart, only Christ can do this. The above is very clear on this. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy: is this not pre-Apostacy according to the LDS faith? When it comes to polygamy what exactly did the Catholic Church loose? It still teaches the same 2000 years later. It was the LDS Church that made polygamy hundreds of years later a tradition of men.

God Bless

[Cold Steel]

What most LDS miss is that Jacob 2 condemns polygamy except under certain divine guidance, and only for the purpose of raising up seed. Most LDS assume that polygamy is the way things normally are and this is a mistake. It's the exception, not the rule. Many polygamous cults would do well to reread Jacob 2, and we should realize that it is the norm.

[LDSMusic483]

I have to go with what the spirit is clearly saying to me. First the knowledgement I have from my Church that Christians have always known that Marriage is between one man and one woman. Always been a Sacrament of the Church. 2nd, the Spirit in me confirms this with absolutely no doubt. I canâ??t ad this to your heart, only Christ can do this. The above is very clear on this. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy: is this not pre-Apostacy according to the LDS faith? When it comes to polygamy what exactly did the Catholic Church loose? It still teaches the same 2000 years later. It was the LDS Church that made polygamy hundreds of years later a tradition of men.

God Bless

Let me make something perfectly clear about the purpose of this thread. I am not saying that polygamywas accepted or practiced at the time of these writings. My whole purpose for this thread is that the scripture in question is not referencing polygamy. This is independent of what the practice was at the time. I'm talking about strictly the entent of the verse. Also, the writings that have been given from the early church members were easily close to atleast 100 years AFTER Paul was writing to the Corinthians. A lot can happen in the span of 100 years. And yes, by the time Justin Martyr was writing, the apostasy would have been underway, as there were no more apostles left.

[Cold Steel]

Well, since polygamy was not practiced in that day (Roman times), then we can say with a great deal of certainty that this scripture does not reference polygamy in any way, shape or form. We must take it at face value.

Even so, we have to remember what context polygamy enters into the discussion. If only on this verse, we can end it here. There is nothing in the New Testament writings that addresses polygamy at all one way or the other. Jacob 2 simply reminds us that the normal state of affairs within the Kingdom is that wives are to be taken only by divine command when it is necessary to raising up seed. In Utah, we can look back and see how the Lord opened up a steady stream of strong, valiant and righteous souls through that institution; however, we can't forget that it is only a temporary measure. Perhaps, as the Lord begins sweeping the nation and thinning out the ranks, the practice may need to be resumed to replenish the Earth.

But you won't find any of this addressed in the New Testament. And even if plural marriage had been addressed in ancient writ, it wouldn't have meant anything today. As long as new revelation can supplant earlier revelation and new guidance can replace old, it really doesn't matter.