Original Prohibition

[The Duke Of Marshall]

I was wondering if anyone had the original roman prohibition of plural marriage, the punishments for being guilty of it, and the date the law was created. I have found it in the "Institutes Of Justinian", but that post-dates the scriptures. More or less I'm trying to find out why, exactly, that the Hebrews of the Messiah's time didn't practice plural marriage. (My hunch is that it was because of the roman occupation).

 

[Scarecrow]

Actually “Biblical Marriage” was practiced at the time Jesus walked the Earth, and we have significant scripture verses to indicate that it was widely practiced. What needs to be asked is that since Biblical Marriage was obviously practiced not only while Jesus walked the earth, but in the areas where he walked, why didn’t Jesus address it as sinful? The simple answer of course is that Jesus was fully aware of the law and knew that it was not sinful for a man to have more than one wife.

“The Lex Antonia De Civivate of 212 AD required monogamy for all citizens of the Roman Empire except Jews. According to Kofon, in 258 AD Valerian and Gallienus made a law forbidding second marriages when the first partners were still alive, and in 285 AD Diocletian and Maximian abolished polygamy in the whole of the Roman Empire without exception. As the Jews, who at that point still practiced polygamy, largely ignored this, in 393 AD Theodosius issued another law in an attempt to make them change their ways, apparently without success, as Jewish groups were still practicing polygamy within the Empire into the 11th Century.” (“POLYGAMY, BIGAMY AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW” by Samuel Chapman)

First, let’s examine two statements made by the Apostle Paul:

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one (heis) husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

1 Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one (heis) husband,

In both cases Paul used the word “heis” which indicates a numeral equivalent of “one” (1). As in counting; 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on.

Now let us examine a few other passages also written by the Apostle Paul:

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

1 Timothy 3:12 Let deacons each be the husband of one (mia) wife, managing their children and their own households well.

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

All three of these statements use the word “mia” preceding the word wife. Mia is used in the scriptures to mean “one” OR “first”.

It is interesting to observe that Paul did not use the word “heis” to absolutely indicate a quantitative value of “one” (1) when speaking about the wives of the Elders, Deacons, and Bishops. This was not an oversight on Paul’s part but clearly intentional. As there are no other prohibitions in the scriptures of a man taking more than one wife, it is extremely unlikely that Paul would choose this point in time to introduce a new law, much less leave us without an explanation or any further comment. Without a doubt the only reliable biblical interpretation of the verses regarding the Elders, Deacons, and Bishops of the church is that they should be the husband of their first wife which does not indicate any limitation on them with regards to having additional wives.

What is an often used, and considered an accurate method of interpreting scriptures when in doubt, is to compare other related scriptures. There are numerous verses I could quote at this time but here are just two for the purpose of contemplation:

Mark 10:11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,

1 Corinthians 7:11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

As Elders, Deacons, or Bishops they were to set the example for others to follow. They were not to be divorced from their first wife. We are commanded not to divorce our wives, and are in adultery if we do.

The final point to consider is this: No matter which way you interpret the three “one wife” verses we have clear evidence that Biblical Marriage was being practiced. If it were not being practiced there would be no need whatsoever of the command to be the husband of only one wife. On the other hand if it is interpreted as “first wife” then we can clearly assume that there may have been instances where an Elder, Bishop, or Deacon was the husband of more than one wife.

 

[Corey]

Ok, can't give you to much because of my book, but it was common in our Lord's time. The people who make the statment of it not being practiced in the 1st century haven't done their homework.
Your brother In Christ
Dr. Corey

Flavius Josephus 1st century Jewish statesman and historian.

Ant 17.2
[12] Now Herod brought up his sons' children with great care; for Alexander had two sons by Glaphyra; and Aristobulus had three sons by Bernice, Salome's daughter, and two daughters; and as his friends were once with him, he presented the children before them; and deploring the hard fortune of his own sons, he prayed that no such ill fortune would befall these who were their children, but that they might improve in virtue, and obtain what they justly deserved, and might make him amends for his care of their education. He also caused them to be betrothed against they should come to the proper age of marriage; the elder of Alexander's sons to Pheroras's daughter, and Antipater's daughter to Aristobulus's eldest son. He also allotted one of Aristobulus's daughters to Antipater's son, and Aristobulus's other daughter to Herod, a son of his own, who was born to him by the high priest's daughter; for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time. Now the king made these espousals for the children, out of commiseration of them now they were fatherless, as endeavoring to render Antipater kind to them by these intermarriages. But Antipater did not fail to bear the same temper of mind to his brothers' children which he had borne to his brothers themselves; and his father's concern about them provoked his indignation against them upon this supposal, that they would become greater than ever his brothers had been; while Archclaus, a king, would support his daughter's sons, and Pheroras, a tetrarch, would accept of one of the daughters as a wife to his son. What provoked him also was this, that all the multitude would so commiserate these fatherless children, and so hate him [for making them fatherless], that all would come out, since they were no strangers to his vile disposition towards his brethren. He contrived, therefore, to overturn his father's settlements, as thinking it a terrible thing that they should be so related to him, and be so powerful withal. So Herod yielded to him, and changed his resolution at his entreaty; and the determination now was, that Antipater himself should marry Aristobulus's daughter, and Antipater's son should marry Pheroras's daughter. So the espousals for the marriages were changed after this manner, even without the king's real approbation.


Ant 17.19
[19] Now Herod 1 the king had at this time nine wives; one of them Antipater's mother, and another the high priest's daughter, by whom he had a son of his own name. He had also one who was his brother's daughter, and another his sister's daughter; which two had no children. One of his wives also was of the Samaritan nation, whose sons were Antipas and Archelaus, and whose daughter was Olympias; which daughter was afterward married to Joseph, the king's brother's son; but Archelaus and Antipas were brought up with a certain private man at Rome. Herod had also to wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem, and by her he had his sons Herod and Philip; which last was also brought up at Rome. Pallas also was one of his wives, which bare him his son Phasaelus. And besides these, he had for his wives Phedra and E1pis, by whom he had his daughters Roxana and Salome. As for his elder daughters by the same mother with Alexander and Aristobulus, and whom Pheroras neglected to marry, he gave the one in marriage to Antipater, the king's sister's son, and the other to Phasaelus, his brother's son. And this was the posterity of Herod.



Ant 12.186
186] This good fortune he enjoyed for twenty-two years, and was become the father of seven sons by one wife; he had also another son, whose name was Hyrcanus, by his brother Solymius's daughter, whom he married on the following occasion. He once came to Alexandria with his brother, who had along with him a daughter already marriageable, in order to give her in wedlock to some of the Jews of chief dignity there. He then supped with the king, and falling in love with an actress that was of great beauty, and came into the room where they feasted, he told his brother of it, and entreated him, because a Jew is forbidden by their law to come near to a foreigner, to conceal his offense; and to be kind and subservient to him, and to give him an opportunity of fulfilling his desires. Upon which his brother willingly entertained the proposal of serving him, and adorned his own daughter, and brought her to him by night, and put her into his bed. And Joseph, being disordered with drink, knew not who she was, and so lay with his brother's daughter; and this did he many times, and loved her exceedingly; and said to his brother, that he loved this actress so well, that he should run the hazard of his life [if he must part with her], and yet probably the king would not give him leave [to take her with him]. But his brother bid him be in no concern about that matter, and told him he might enjoy her whom he loved without any danger, and might have her for his wife; and opened the truth of the matter to him, and assured him that he chose rather to have his own daughter abused, than to overlook him, and se him come to [public] disgrace. So Joseph commended him for this his brotherly love, and married his daughter; and by her begat a son, whose name was Hyrcanus, as we said before. And when this his youngest son showed, at thirteen years old, a mind that was both courageous and wise, and was greatly envied by his brethren, as being of a genius much above them, and such a one as they might well envy, Joseph had once a mind to know which of his sons had the best disposition to virtue; and when he sent them severally to those that had then the best reputation for instructing youth, the rest of his children, by reason of their sloth and unwillingness to take pains, returned to him foolish and unlearned. After them he sent out the youngest, Hyrcanus, and gave him three hundred yoke of oxen, and bid him go two days' journey into the wilderness, and sow the land there, and yet kept back privately the yokes of the oxen that coupled them together. When Hyrcanus came to the place, and found he had no yokes with him, he contenmed the drivers of the oxen, who advised him to send some to his father, to bring them some yokes; but he thinking that he ought not to lose his time while they should be sent to bring him the yokes, he invented a kind of stratagem, and what suited an age older than his own; for he slew ten yoke of the oxen, and distributed their flesh among the laborers, and cut their hides into several pieces, and made him yokes, and yoked the oxen together with them; by which means he sowed as much land as his father had appointed him to sow, and returned to him. And when he was come back, his father was mightily pleased with his sagacity, and commended the sharpness of his understanding, and his boldness in what he did. And he still loved him the more, as if he were his only genuine son, while his brethren were much troubled at it.

Ant 13.379
[379] Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes. This was indeed by way of revenge for the injuries they had done him; which punishment yet was of an inhuman nature, though we suppose that he had been never so much distressed, as indeed he had been, by his wars with them, for he had by their means come to the last degree of hazard, both of his life and of his kingdom, while they were not satisfied by themselves only to fight against him, but introduced foreigners also for the same purpose; nay, at length they reduced him to that degree of necessity, that he was forced to deliver back to the king of Arabia the land of Moab and Gilead, which he had subdued, and the places that were in them, that they might not join with them in the war against him, as they had done ten thousand other things that tended to affront and reproach him. However, this barbarity seems to have been without any necessity, on which account he bare the name of a Thracian among the Jews 1 whereupon the soldiers that had fought against him, being about eight thousand in number, ran away by night, and continued fugitives all the time that Alexander lived; who being now freed from any further disturbance from them, reigned the rest of his time in the utmost tranquillity.


Wars 1.561
[561] Now he was afraid of going subtlely about this matter with his father, who was hard to be pleased, and was presently moved upon the least suspicion: so he ventured to go to him directly, and to beg of him before his face not to deprive him of that dignity which he had been pleased to bestow upon him; and that he might not have the bare name of a king, while the power was in other persons; for that he should never be able to keep the government, if Alexander's son was to have both his grandfather Archelaus and Pheroras for his curators; and he besought him earnestly, since there were so many of the royal family alive, that he would change those [intended] marriages. Now the king had nine wives, 1 and children by seven of them; Antipater was himself born of Doris, and Herod Philip of Mariamne, the high priest's daughter; Antipas also and Archelaus were by Malthace, the Samaritan, as was his daughter Olympias, which his brother Joseph's 2 son had married. By Cleopatra of Jerusalem he had Herod and Philip; and by Pallas, Phasaelus; he had also two daughters, Roxana and Salome, the one by Phedra, and the other by Elpis; he had also two wives that had no children, the one his first cousin, and the other his niece; and besides these he had two daughters, the sisters of Alexander and Aristobulus, by Mariamne. Since, therefore, the royal family was so numerous, Antipater prayed him to change these intended marriages.

Wars 1.96
[96] However, the rest of the [Jewish] multitude did not lay aside their quarrels with him, when the [foreign] auxiliaries were gone; but they had a perpetual war with Alexander, until he had slain the greatest part of them, and driven the rest into the city Berneselis; and when he had demolished that city, he carried the captives to Jerusalem. Nay, his rage was grown so extravagant, that his barbarity proceeded to the degree of impiety; for when he had ordered eight hundred to be hung upon crosses in the midst of the city, he had the throats of their wives and children cut before their eyes; and these executions he saw as he was drinking and lying down with his concubines. Upon which so deep a surprise seized on the people, that eight thousand of his opposers fled away the very next night, out of all Judea, whose flight was only terminated by Alexander's death; so at last, though not till late, and with great difficulty, he, by such actions, procured quiet to his kingdom, and left off fighting any more.

 

[Corey]

The Council of Neocaesarea a.d. 315 (circa) refers to a 'purification period' for polygamists. By that time, sinners had to 'sit out' of Church activities until they had demonstrated reformation. If a sin showed up on this list of canons, it was considered a 'bad sin'--and polygamy shows up here.

Archbishop Basil of Caesarea, (330 – January 1, 379) in his monogamy only writings makes clear, is not something he invented. On the contrary, Basil says that these teachings are "accepted as our usual practice, not from the canons but in conformity with our predecessors." In other words, not from the apostolic writings but from the tradition. He also said those living in polygamy should be excommunicated for 5 years.

Basil of Caesarea.
"IV. In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance. [ANF: (Canonica Prima.)To Amphilochius, concerning the Canons. Letter CLXXXVIII written c.347.]
monogamy wasn't church doctrine until this council. We do find authors that were monogamy only in the 1st two centuries but we also find those who promoted polygny. It was debated until the latter part of thr 3rd century when it became standard practice eventually becomeing standard doctrine under the Roman Catholic Empire in the 4th century.

 

[Tlaloc]

I recall reading about a law passed in the late republic (around 150 B.C.) prohibiting polygamy to limit citizen\non-citizen ratio, but it was only for Roman citizens and still allowed as much concubinage as they liked. If I come across the details again I'll post it, but it's out of my paper books and they don't have an easy search function

That said, its pretty much certain there where polygamous Jews when Jesus was preaching. It should be considered that Jewish polygamy in Jesus day would be less common on account of the teachings of Hillel and Akiba, the former allowed divorce if a wife 'prepared his victuals wrong' or displeased him in some way and the latter permitted divorce is a man fancied another woman better and didn't want to take care of his first wife. If you can get the milk without the cow...