• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Clement of Alexandria acknowledges Poly

Just reading through some more church fathers and found this from Ignatius of Antioch circa early/mid 2nd century. I’m not really sure what all this means, I just found it interesting that he lists two who are beloved. I have no clue whether they are women or not. Anybody?

CHAPTER VIII.--LET OTHER CHURCHES ALSO SEND TO ANTIOCH.

Inasmuch as I have not been able to write to all the Churches, because I must suddenly sail from Troas to Neapolis, as the will [of the emperor] enjoins, [I beg that] thou, as being acquainted with the purpose of God, wilt write to the adjacent Churches, that they also may act in like manner, such as are able to do so sending messengers, and the others transmitting letters through those persons who are sent by thee, that thou mayest be glorified by a work which shall be remembered for ever, as indeed thou art worthy to be. I salute all by name, and in particutar the wife of Epitropus, with all her house and children. I salute Attalus, my beloved. I salute him who shall be deemed worthy to go [from you] into Syria. Grace shall be with him for ever, and with Polycarp that sends him. I pray for your happiness for ever in our God, Jesus Christ, by whom continue ye in the unity and under the protection of God, I salute Alce, my dearly beloved. Fare ye well in the Lord.
 
Ive been going chronologically through the early church fathers again to see if I can find any mention of poly in any sense, negative or positive or omitted etc.

I’m really not finding much before the late 2nd century (170’s ish) but the two references that I’ve found list or associate some form of polygamy with the Greek pantheon of gods. The interesting takeaway to me is that in the context of the writing, the authors are denouncing these men who are being worshipped as a god, for reasons of adultery, wife snatching, patricide, physical disabilities, fornication and the list goes on and on but it never includes polygamy as a part of these sins. The two writers that I’ve seen this in so far are Justin Martyr and Melito, Bishop of Sardis.
 
Found something interesting by Athenagoras of Athens Chapter XXXIII. Circa 175-180 AD

For we bestow our attention; not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions,--that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. "For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;" not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.

So . . . I have several observations that have come to mind regarding this
  1. I don’t believe that he is specifically addressing polygamy in the first section so much as addressing the idea of divorce and remarriage due to his following quote referencing putting away. Judging from previous statements in this chapter and the rest of the passage, I do not believe that he would have been a pro plural marriage guy in any way shape or form.
  2. So far, this is the first one I’ve come across, that I believe would have denounced multiple wives because of his later phrase about a man only being allowed one wife for life without qualifications as a bishop or deacon.
  3. Due to other posts within this thread, I do not believe that this characterization is indicative of the majority Christian belief of his day, but rather leans more toward Tertullian’s Monastic views of celibacy as the highest calling, and marriage and procreation is to be grudgingly tolerated.
  4. This passage seems to be ignorant of, or oblivious to Paul’s clear teaching on remarriage after death.
  5. Just prior to this statement, he insists that sex is for procreation only and intimates that as the farmer only sows a field once per year, that a husband should allow his seed to grow without “reseeding”.
  6. It makes me wonder if men like him and Tertullian are the offspring of those that Paul addressed who forbade to marry.
 
Another interesting nugget from the Fragments of Irenaeus of Lyons Circa 175-185. (He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Beloved/Revelator)

XXXII.

Josephus says, that when Moses had been brought up in the royal palaces, he was chosen as general against the Ethiopians; and having proved victorious, obtained in marriage the daughter of that king, since indeed, out of her affection for him, she delivered the city up to him; Why was it, that when these two (Aaron and Miriam) had both acted with despite towards him (Moses), the latter alone was adjudged punishment? First, because the woman was the more culpable, since both nature and the law place the woman in a subordinate condition to the man. Or perhaps it was that Aaron was to a certain degree excusable, in consideration of his being the eider [brother], and adorned with the dignity of high priest. Then again, inasmuch as the leper was accounted by the law unclean, while at the same time the origin and foundation of the priesthood lay in Aaron, [the Lord] did not award a similar punishment to him, lest this stigma should attach itself to the entire [sacerdotal] race; but by means of his sister's [example] He awoke his fears, and taught him the same lesson. For Miriam's punishment affected him to such an extent, that no sooner did she experience it, than he entreated Moses], who had been injured, that he would be his intercession do away with the affliction. And he did not neglect to do so, but at once poured forth his supplication. Upon this the Lord, who loves mankind, made him understand how He had not chastened her as a judge, but as a father; for He said, "If her father had spit in her face, should she not be ashamed? Let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her come in again."
 
I believe your conclusions on Athenagoras are sound.

Of #4, some of the early church fathers argued against a man remarrying after the death of his wife despite knowing what Paul taught. I think its a once is enough attitude born of their view that sex is but a necessary evil for reproduction. The Greco-Roman world seems to careen between licentiousness and puritanicalism on the subject of sex; so its not much surprise which way they went when as Christians they wanted to take a stand for holiness.

Of #1, that was the Greek way; I would expect nothing less from a Greek. Even Jesus had to teach against this idea of serial monogamy; so strong was the influence of the Greeks over Hebrew thought.
 
rockfox said:
Of #1, that was the Greek way; I would expect nothing less from a Greek. Even Jesus had to teach against this idea of serial monogamy; so strong was the influence of the Greeks over Hebrew thought.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this is kind of what I was trying to articulate in another thread, going to borrow it.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Ive been going chronologically through the early church fathers again to see if I can find any mention of poly in any sense, negative or positive or omitted etc.

I’m really not finding much before the late 2nd century (170’s ish) but the two references that I’ve found list or associate some form of polygamy with the Greek pantheon of gods. The interesting takeaway to me is that in the context of the writing, the authors are denouncing these men who are being worshipped as a god, for reasons of adultery, wife snatching, patricide, physical disabilities, fornication and the list goes on and on but it never includes polygamy as a part of these sins. The two writers that I’ve seen this in so far are Justin Martyr and Melito, Bishop of Sardis.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a truly worthwhile research project. Looking forward to seeing what you find.
 
Against Heresies 1 Ch. 28 v.2
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.

As damning as this may seem at first glance for plural marriage, the content that follows is what Irenaeus is referencing in the paragraph above. (Note the chapters) As I understand it, these men were not exercising Biblical Marriage but were seducing silly women, married or not, by any means necessary, and forming cultish harems and free love in their assemblies. Many of them also taught reincarnation and that you couldn’t be freed from this life until you had experienced everything, good or bad, that could be experienced.

As I have noted earlier, Irenaeus is another of these early church fathers who mention polygamy in numerous other occasions without including it in the “sins” that he is describing.

IMO Irenaeus is definitely worth reading. I had even more in this post originally but my tablet died and I lost most of it. Below is the highlights.

Marcus
  • Chapter XIII.-The Deceitful Arts and Nefarious Practices of Marcus.
I. But there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above. Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist. For, joining the buffooneries of Anaxilaus to the craftiness of the magi, as they are called, he is regarded by his senseless and cracked-brain followers as working miracles by these means.

2. Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that Charis, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis, who is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, ) and pouting from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: "May that Chaffs who is before all things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil." Repeating certain other like words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many, and drawn them away after him.

3. It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy, and also enables as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his Charis themselves to prophesy. He devotes himself especially to women, and those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw after him, by addressing them in such seductive words as these: "I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Charis, since the Father of all doth continually behold thy angel before His face. Now the place of thy angel is among us: it behoves us to become one. Receive first from me and by me [the gift of] Chaffs. Adorn thyself as a bride who is expecting her bridegroom, that thou mayest be what I am, and I what thou art. Establish the germ of light in thy nuptial chamber. Receive from me a spouse, and become receptive of him, while thou art received by him. Behold Charis has descended upon thee; open thy mouth and prophesy." On the woman replying," I have never at any time prophesied, nor do I know how to prophesy; "then engaging, for the second time, in certain invocations, so as to astound his deluded victim, he says to her," Open thy mouth, speak whatsoever occurs to thee, and thou shalt prophesy." She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently [from emotion], reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens. to occur to her, such as might be expected from one heated by an empty spirit. (Referring to this, one superior to me has observed, that the soul is both audacious and impudent when heated with empty air.) Henceforth she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for having imparted to her of his own Chaffs. She then makes the effort to reward him, not only by the gift of her possessions (in which way he has collected a very large fortune), but also by yielding up to him her person, desiring in every way to be united to him, that she may become altogether one with him.

Basilides

They declare also, that marriage and generation are from Satan.

He attaches no importance to [the question regarding] meats offered in sacrifice to idols, thinks them of no consequence, and makes use of them without any hesitation; he holds also the use of other things, and the practice of every kind of lust, a matter of perfect indifference. These men, moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art.

Carpocrates

They practise also magical arts and incantations; philters, also, and love-potions; and have recourse to familiar spirits, dream-sending demons, and other abominations . . . . seeing the things they practise, may speak evil of us all, who have in fact no fellowship with them, either in doctrine or in morals, or in our daily conduct. But they lead a licentious life, and, to conceal their impious doctrines, they abuse the name [of Christ], as a means of hiding their wickedness;

Above you have those who pervert marriage by being promiscuous and perverted, below are some that taught some form of celibacy/abstinence.

To give an example: Springing from Saturninus and Marcion, those who are called Encratites (self-controlled) preached against marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God, and indirectly blaming Him who made the male and female for the propagation of the human race.

A certain man named Tatian . . . . like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was nothing else than corruption and fornication.
 
After eating a cheeseburger with chili cheese fries for supper, I spent all night on earlychristianwritings.com trying to figure out which "book" your above citation came from. Anyhow, the description by Iraneus sounds like something that would happen at the Coachella music festival or Burning Man. Creepy stuff...
 
Was going a little bit brain dead working my way through Irenaeus’ stuff so I decided to take a quick break and go through some other early church father writings and came across this from Clement of Rome, 3rd pastor of the church at Rome.

1Clem 6:3
Jealousy hath estranged wives from their husbands and changed the
saying of our father Adam, This now is bone of my bones and flesh
of my flesh.

I might be wrong, but this seems to be an indirect inference to a plural relationship. I cant imagine in their culture that a wife would be exhibiting jealousy between her and her husband. That doesnt make much sense. Jealousy between wives over a husband? That’s been going since ancient biblical history. IF this is the correct understanding, this is estimated to be written as early as 80 AD and no later than 140 AD. I believe this is the earliest I’ve found yet and the crazy thing is that its geographical context is the Christian church in Rome, most likely in First Century AD
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
1Clem 6:3
Jealousy hath estranged wives from their husbands and changed the
saying of our father Adam, This now is bone of my bones and flesh
of my flesh.

I might be wrong, but this seems to be an indirect inference to a plural relationship.
Click to expand...

Other translations lean more heavily on the translation 'envy' than 'jealousy' in this letter. This is part of a much greater discourse on the affect of envy/jealousy. I think Clement is more likely talking about Husband's exhibiting envy towards their wives when they convert to Christ and persecuting them for it.
 
rockfox said:
Other translations lean more heavily on the translation 'envy' than 'jealousy' in this letter. This is part of a much greater discourse on the affect of envy/jealousy. I think Clement is more likely talking about Husband's exhibiting envy towards their wives when they convert to Christ and persecuting them for it.
Click to expand...

I’d kinda thought about that, but the verse above that one had two women mentioned by name that were apparently punished in some way for something? I’m not sure exactly what and havent been able to find any commentary on it.
there’s too much room for conjecture and I’m trying not to engage in that re the women, but the other examples given tend to be along the lines of Jealousy tearing down cities, kingdoms homes etc.
 
From the Odes of Solomon. Some have debated whether or not these were actually written by Solomon or by some pseudographical writer in the 1st century posing as Solomon. Either way, this passage is germane to the topic of this thread, especially if its a pseudographical author due to time context post crucifixion.

Ode 21
  1. I lifted up my arms on high on account of the compassion of the Lord.
  2. Because He cast off my bonds from me, and my Helper lifted me up according to His compassion and His salvation.
  3. And I put off darkness, and put on light.
  4. And even I myself acquired members. In them there was no sickness or affliction or suffering.
  5. And abundantly helpful to me was the thought of the Lord, and His everlasting fellowship.
  6. And I was lifted up in the light, and I passed before Him.
  7. And I was constantly near Him, while praising and confessing Him.
  8. He caused my heart to overflow, and it was found in my mouth; and it sprang forth unto my lips.
  9. Then upon my face increased the exultation of the Lord and His praise.
    Hallelujah.
I thought that this might have been something specifically targeted towards Christ, but the verse above the bold verse talks about putting off darkness and putting on light which doesnt equate to what we know of Christ. He took on sin for us, but was always light.

Also, the Ode before this one begins thus
Ode 20
  1. I am a priest of the Lord, and Him I serve as a priest;
And Ode 21 merely continues the thought. Perhaps I’ll include a link to the Bishop thread.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I’d kinda thought about that, but the verse above that one had two women mentioned by name that were apparently punished in some way for something? I’m not sure exactly what and havent been able to find any commentary on it.
there’s too much room for conjecture and I’m trying not to engage in that re the women, but the other examples given tend to be along the lines of Jealousy tearing down cities, kingdoms homes etc.
Click to expand...

Well the context is a long list of examples of people who were persecuted for their faith or standing with God excepting a couple ambiguous cases. That precludes something based simply on familial arrangement.

Because of envy, women were persecuted, Danaids and Dirkai having suffered fearful and unholy torments. Having finished the race by their secure faith, the weak of body took up the illustrious prize.
Click to expand...

You're right, doesn't say why the persecution; only that they got through it by faith.

Envy and strife has ruined great cities and uprooted great nations.
Click to expand...

But that passage, 6.4, undermines my case. His point seems to be about the destructiveness of envy in general; and only seems to lean heavily persecution for faith. Probably because that is something big in their minds. So my original conjecture isn't necessarily so.

Envy has estranged married women from men and changed the saying by our father
Adam, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh."
Click to expand...

I'm curious what the saying changed to, but that it changed reveals this isn't an issue with the wife but the husband; as it is the male role that says that. Whatever the cause of the envy, it resulted in the husband no longer claiming her as one flesh with himself. Which means it isn't jelousy between wives over husband.

Jealousy over her faith could be one cause. Extreme asceticism on his part could be another. In the idea of polygamy, we've seen cases today of a husband choosing one of the wives and abandoning the others; though I'm not sure how envy would play a part there. Well I guess the shiny new bride syndrome / trading up would do it; envy causes him to aquire her and then choose her over the others when she insists on being the only one. Or more likely in the case of Greeks, him being envious of other men's pretty young wives and dumping the wife of his young for a newer model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top