OT Polygymy and NT Chastity

Lionroot said:

I asked you about the command, to love your neighbor. The parable is irrelevant to the question. In your own life do you only have one neighbor? Or do you love all your neighbors?

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Click to expand...

Now I know you love having foolish arguements. How can you judge the parable that explained the holy commandment to the jewish lawyer irrevelant to the lawyer's question about the holy commandment? If you have a question or comment about the holy commandment refer to the story told to the jewish lawyer. Yeshua says "Go and do likewise".....

The one or "lone samaritan" neighbor showed mercy to the "lone jew" who needed help. Let me remind you, that the jews and samaritans were enemies. If this jewish lawyer loved this one samartian who showed him kindness or mercy, the jewish lawyers or pharisees and chief priests would not have planned to crucify Yeshua. Yeshua has a purpose for telling this story to a jewish lawyer about his "only one" neighbor. The jewish lawyers or pharisees considered Yeshua to be a samaritan; at the cross, the romans called Yeshua "King of the jews".

Avoiding the question does not take it off the table.

*[[Mat 22:39]] WEB* A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor(singular) as yourself.'

Are you commanded to love only one neighbor?

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Romanseight2005 said:

I don't blame God for anything. The scriptures speak for themselves, as to what God allows for bigger purposes.

Click to expand...

But you DID blame God. You stated that the Lord cast Joseph into slavery, and then turn around and say that the Lord "allows."

There's a vast difference between being the active instigator of something and allowing it for a greater purpose.

I don't know about you, but to me, words mean something, and when you use words that have one meaning, and then do a back-flip onto another platform with no recognition of the transition you've made, then I have to wonder about what you're really up to.

Do you see the problem here?

If you had really understood my post, this wouldn't even be an issue for you. The curse did cause many thing to be allowed. An example of an allowance, that was not God's best way, was when God gave Moses the authority to set down the laws, and Moses allowed divorce because of their hardened hearts. Jesus clearly states that even though that had been allowed them, it wasn't God's design.

Click to expand...

But we're not talking about divorce. Comparing two opposing extremes hardly renders your point valid in that example. We're talking about marriage. Not only did the Lord actively give plural wives, He also involved Himself in the imagery of plural wives.

Now, can you show me where the Lord stated that He merely allowed plural wives without pointing at what one man had in contrast to another? God gave Adam one wife, and He gave David more than one. So what? God also made Solomon one of the wealthiest men who ever lived on the face of this planet, but not you or me. By what authority do you point at one man, and demand that God wanted that to be the ideal for all other men after the fall?

John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

The Lord shows us through His word, His actions and His own associations that He clearly had no problem with any of those men having plural wives. But, then, some people come along today and fancy themselves authorities in declaring what's written nowhere.

How can any of that be taken seriously?

You're arguing from silence.

Have you nothing better than that?

Huh? What does loving your neighbor have to do with having one wife?

Click to expand...

That was the point Lionroot made. The scriptures command loving thy neighbor (singular), which, by your system of interpretation, means that we are to love only ONE of our neighbors.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? And yet, that's the very rule for interpretation upon which you're trying to stand as proof positive for your position.

Sticking to that gun only does harm to your case because of the inconsistent application.

BTW

1Prophetess said:

Incidentally, I don't remember who said this, but Saul did not have plural wives. It was not that way from the beginning.

Saul had one wife and a concubine.

Click to expand...

A concubine is still the wife of the man to whom she is married. The only difference between what was called a "wife" and a "concubine" is that the offspring of the concubines were not entitled to the inheritance.

Come on, folks. Get a clue.

BTW

1Prophetess said:

I've often wondered if the church age made a difference for the woman and put her back in a position that did not make her man's vassal. I do think it did. And that is good. But I don't think that woman has been able to assert that position because of the devil. And then there's man's desires that get in our way too.

Click to expand...

Feministic theology is also not at all a new phenomenon.

Vassals?

Come on!

The way islam treats their women has no bearing on this discussion.

BTW

mercy1061 said:

These ancient customs are supported by ancient scriptures. Adam was a "lone prince" or he was a prince that was alone. Therefore he is only allowed to have one wife; Eve.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that "prince" also ran around naked, and he had no doors with locks, and his food was mostly provided for him...apart from some tending that brought no sweat to his brow.

What that statement proves is that not every particular in the garden, from which one may subjectively rip from its context, is necessarily ideal in a non-ideal world.

BTW

Romanseight2005 said:

Abraham was also monogamous, until at his wife's request, he laid with her servent.

Click to expand...

This conclusively proves that you know little to nothing about Abraham and his marital situation.

Case closed.

BTW

Lionroot said:

Avoiding the question does not take it off the table.

*[[Mat 22:39]] WEB* A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor(singular) as yourself.'

Are you commanded to love only one neighbor?

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Click to expand...

If the pharisees, chief priests would have loved that "one neighbor" Israel would have become a great nation; keeping the promise made to Abraham. Can't you see that it was that "one neighbor" in the story whom saved the jew that needed help? Why are you so "dull" in your understanding? Why do I need to keep repeating myself?

The jew in the story was robbed and almost half dead in the story; and his enemy that samaritan was also his "one neighbor" who saved him. There was "one wife" in the story from the beginning; her name was Eve; Adam was the "lone prince".

But you DID blame God. You stated that the Lord cast Joseph into slavery, and then turn around and say that the Lord "allows."

Click to expand...

Joseph older brothers cast him into slavery. Joseph was rewarded by his father Jacob with a double portion. Jacob had a brother from the same mother Esau; Jacob had more that one wife. Jacob was told by his father Isaac to go to Laban's house to hide from Esau; it was there that Jacob married more than one wife.

There's a vast difference between being the active instigator of something and allowing it for a greater purpose. I don't know about you, but to me, words mean something, and when you use words that have one meaning, and then do a back-flip onto another platform with no recognition of the transition you've made, then I have to wonder about what you're really up to.

Click to expand...

Jacob's father-in-law Laban was heavily involved in whom Jacob would marry. Jacob was not the "lone prince"; therefore his father could chose his first wife (legally the firstborn daughter), he could also have more than "one wife" if he met certain conditions.

Do you see the problem here?

But we're not talking about divorce. Comparing two opposing extremes hardly renders your point valid in that example. We're talking about marriage. Not only did the Lord actively give plural wives, He also involved Himself in the imagery of plural wives.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about marriage or divorce. One needs to be married; before he is divorced, so naturally divorce would include marriage. Divorce means seperation, therefore divorce explains the creation account. For this cause Moses gave Israel a certificate of divorce; not a certificate of marriage. When Yahweh caused Adam to fall asleep; Yahweh chose for Adam "one wife". You must not add to the gift from Yahweh; if any man adds to the book of prophecy Yahweh will add to that man the plagues written in this holy book. A man that finds "one wife" finds a good thing, and receives favor from Yahweh.

Now, can you show me where the Lord stated that He merely allowed plural wives without pointing at what one man had in contrast to another? God gave Adam one wife, and He gave David more than one.

Click to expand...

No, David's wife, given to him from King Saul (Michal his younger daughter); this practice was forbidden. David only gained wives or widows after war! David would kill the husbands in the foreign country, and marry their widows. David only married widows, for the exception of Michal, which was a violation of the law. A man or son-in-law must marry the firstborn daughter; especially when David was already promised to marry King Saul's daughter after defeating Goliath. King Saul hated David, and gave his firstborn daughter to someone else when it was time to give her to David. Michal was given from King saul to David to be a snare to him; Michal bore no sons to David. King Saul was under a curse.

So what? God also made Solomon one of the wealthiest men who ever lived on the face of this planet, but not you or me. By what authority do you point at one man, and demand that God wanted that to be the ideal for all other men after the fall?

John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

The Lord shows us through His word, His actions and His own associations that He clearly had no problem with any of those men having plural wives. But, then, some people come along today and fancy themselves authorities in declaring what's written nowhere.

Click to expand...

It is written, if you understand what you are reading. Adam not only married "one wife", but he also married the firstborn daughter.

How can any of that be taken seriously? You're arguing from silence.
Have you nothing better than that? That was the point Lionroot made. The scriptures command loving thy neighbor (singular), which, by your system of interpretation, means that we are to love only ONE of our neighbors.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? And yet, that's the very rule for interpretation upon which you're trying to stand as proof positive for your position.

Sticking to that gun only does harm to your case because of the inconsistent application.

BTW

Click to expand...

It is not rediculous if that "one neighbor" is Yeshua the lawkeeper; that "one neighbor" saved that jewish man's life.

Mercy...

Is it simply that you don't think that the command to love your neighbor does not have a personal application?

I am not dull, and neither are you, but you are inconsistent.

*[[Pro 20:23]] WEB* Yahweh detests differing weights, and dishonest scales are not pleasing..

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

BeforeThereWas said:

Yes, and that "prince" also ran around naked, and he had no doors with locks, and his food was mostly provided for him...apart from some tending that brought no sweat to his brow.

What that statement proves is that not every particular in the garden, from which one may subjectively rip from its context, is necessarily ideal in a non-ideal world.

BTW

Click to expand...

You mentioned all this to somehow seek to change the truth into a lie? Will you continue to defend Lionroot? However, the truth from Yahweh still remains: Adam was given only "one wife" from Yahweh; a "lone prince" or "one man" that finds "one wife" finds a good thing and receives favor from Yahweh (Prov 18:22).

Lionroot said:

Mercy...

Is it simply that you don't think that the command to love your neighbor does not have a personal application?

I am not dull, and neither are you, but you are inconsistent.

*[[Pro 20:23]] WEB* Yahweh detests differing weights, and dishonest scales are not pleasing..

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question, who is the "one neighbor" in the story? What is his name? Samaritan means lawkeeper. If you refuse to answer my question, then I will refuse to answer any more silly questions from you (Mark 11:33).

If you refuse to acknowledge the "one neighbor" in the story, are you being dishonest? After you acknowledge the "one neighbor" in the story, then you will truthfully conclude that a man is given only "one wife" from Yahweh.

Of course you have already judged that this parable is irrelevant; so it is you that needs to judge righteously so that you will not have "differing weights", and "dishonest scales" which is as you pointed out not pleasing to Yahweh.....

BeforeThereWas said:

But you DID blame God. You stated that the Lord cast Joseph into slavery, and then turn around and say that the Lord "allows."

There's a vast difference between being the active instigator of something and allowing it for a greater purpose.

I don't know about you, but to me, words mean something, and when you use words that have one meaning, and then do a back-flip onto another platform with no recognition of the transition you've made, then I have to wonder about what you're really up to.

Do you see the problem here?



But we're not talking about divorce. Comparing two opposing extremes hardly renders your point valid in that example. We're talking about marriage. Not only did the Lord actively give plural wives, He also involved Himself in the imagery of plural wives.

Now, can you show me where the Lord stated that He merely allowed plural wives without pointing at what one man had in contrast to another? God gave Adam one wife, and He gave David more than one. So what? God also made Solomon one of the wealthiest men who ever lived on the face of this planet, but not you or me. By what authority do you point at one man, and demand that God wanted that to be the ideal for all other men after the fall?

John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

The Lord shows us through His word, His actions and His own associations that He clearly had no problem with any of those men having plural wives. But, then, some people come along today and fancy themselves authorities in declaring what's written nowhere.

How can any of that be taken seriously?

You're arguing from silence.

Have you nothing better than that?



That was the point Lionroot made. The scriptures command loving thy neighbor (singular), which, by your system of interpretation, means that we are to love only ONE of our neighbors.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? And yet, that's the very rule for interpretation upon which you're trying to stand as proof positive for your position.

Sticking to that gun only does harm to your case because of the inconsistent application.

BTW

Click to expand...

Only "one neighbor" could save that jew who was half dead (smile).

Mercy...

The question is so simple, it boarders on rhetorical. Any Sunday School student will tell you Jesus wants us to love all our neighbors.

Ask yourself why confessing that simple truth was so hard for you.

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Lionroot said:

Mercy...

The question is so simple, it boarders on rhetorical. Any Sunday School student will tell you Jesus wants us to love all our neighbors.

Ask yourself why confessing that simple truth was so hard for you.

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Click to expand...

That is the problem with you interpreting scriptures, you are always "adding" to the scriptures. You may not add a "jot", "title" or even an "s" to what is written. It is written "Love thy neighbor" NOT "Love thy neighbors". A man that find "one wife" find a good thing, receives favor from Yahweh.

mercy1061 said:

That is the problem with you interpreting scriptures, you are always "adding" to the scriptures. You may not add a "jot", "title" or even an "s" to what is written. It is written "Love thy neighbor" NOT "Love thy neighbors". A man that find "one wife" find a good thing, receives favor from Yahweh.

Click to expand...

*[[Pro 18:22]] WEB* Whoever finds a wife finds a good thing,<CL> and obtains favor of Yahweh.

Now, who's adding to scripture...check that log...

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Ya, no one in that verse ... Abraham would have said the same thing when he took his 2nd wife .. the one after Sarah (I should remember her name) and then added more concubines. I'm sure he would have said he had found favor with the Lord.

BeforeThereWas said:

A concubine is still the wife of the man to whom she is married. The only difference between what was called a "wife" and a "concubine" is that the offspring of the concubines were not entitled to the inheritance.

Come on, folks. Get a clue.

BTW

Click to expand...

"Get a clue"? Are you serious?

Let's take a look at Abraham to get the real answer here.

He had a wife, Sarai. She encouraged him to take a concubine Hagar.

Genesis 17: 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” 19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac...

So God recognized Isaac as the true heir, and blessed Ishmael only because Abraham asked. That would tell me that God was not going to even recognize the concubine's son. She was not much and her son was not even going to be recognized without the father's request.



Genesis 21: 9 But Sarah ... said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman [you notice she didn't say "wife"] and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman [not wife]. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring[b] will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” [I would say this was a favor from God who was Abraham's friend.]

Basically, this makes Hagar nothing at all (a slave), and God didn't bless Ishmael because of her. She was a "slave woman" and nothing.



Genesis 25 1 Abraham had taken another wife, whose name was Keturah.

His later "wife" ended up being called a "concubine" when it came to her children's inheritance. She also was not a wife according to God. And those people caused the rightful son's heirs trouble too.

Genesis 25: 5 Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac [the rightful heir]. 6 But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.

I would imagine he did this to avoid conflicts. However, you will notice that the conflicts between Israel today are with the concubines' children that is Hagar and Keturah--referred to in the Bible as "concubines."

Does this in any way give you a clue that having multiple wives will result in suffering for your sons who are from your wife? And if so, then we might conclude that a "concubine" is not properly had--not God's will.

There were no other wives. There was one wife and "concubines" that created great trouble, and still are, for the rightful heir.

I would also ask you if Jesus' ancestry came from a concubine--either his stepfather's or mother's? No! He descended from Abraham's wife.

I believe we must conclude that a wife and her child or children are the ones who have rights, and the concubines' children have only what is given them as a result of the father's generosity. God didn't recognize them as heirs.

But we still need to recognize that the Lord Jesus said, "It was not that way from the beginning..." From the beginning, it was one man and one woman. It was from greed that the Lord agreed to give any man another wife.

If the successive women were important, they would have been in the line of Jesus. They were not. In fact, the line of Jesus came from the oldest son on both sides. So not only is the inheritance specific to a wife, it is specific to the oldest son.









(Interesting fact: Jesus' line came down from Bathsheba on both sides: I Chron 3: 3b Shammua, Shobab, Nathan (Joseph's ancestor) and Solomon (Mary's ancestor). These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel).

Mmmm where did Rahab the harlot fit into all this? God is a rewarded of those who honor him. This boils down to your heart toward God not the circumstances around your life. To say King David was punished for his actions before his adultery and plotting Uriah to be murdered is hogwash. Same for solomen he fell because of the idolatry from the women he allowed in his life.

mercy1061 said:

That is the problem with you interpreting scriptures, you are always "adding" to the scriptures. You may not add a "jot", "title" or even an "s" to what is written. It is written "Love thy neighbor" NOT "Love thy neighbors".

Click to expand...

No "s" is required to make this applicable to every neighbor. It is a common practice in English. Example: a leash law requires your dog (singular) be on a leash. I hope you understand that all your dogs must be on a leash.

I am also certain you understand that you should love your neighbor.

Can you tell me about how you came to be saved?

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."