OT Polygymy and NT Chastity

[jackmt]

Good discussion on Sarah and Hagar.

Its my understanding that usually in this ancient culture when a man took a second woman/wife because his first wife wasn't baring children and the second woman did that the second woman moved up in ranking to be the 1st wife. (not in time but in place) So Hagar's despising of Sarah is her saying she is a better woman because she can have babies. Therefore, Hagar is expecting that she will move up to be the 1st wife. Sarah is then asking her husband is she now going to be your 1st wife. Abraham says no, she is still in your hand to do with as you please.
I think Hagar made a major mistake here. She had moved up from a slave to a concubine of Abraham at Sarah's invitation. When Hagar got pregnant she is trying to move up to the position of the 1st wife. Since Hagar is Egyptian its thought she had been purchased about 10 yrs earlier when Abraham and Sarah had been down in Egypt. In the 10 years Hagar should have learned that Abraham and Sarah had two things going for them that many other couples didn't have. One they were following God and two they were related by blood. Hagar over stepped her raised position and got a demotion. That's how I read the message of the story. Jesus said the first shall be last and the last shall be first. And take the lower seat and let the host come and move you to a higher seat.

You talk of the culture as justification for polygamy. Notice that God never instructed Abraham to take Hagar; he decided to fulfill God's promise on his own. Likewise with David and others. Notice the absence of the calling on God, the blessing of God, the instruction of God, and the name of God in those passages where these men take additional wives. When David gets himself into trouble in other places, notice the absence of God there as well.
Polygamy was never the desire of God; it was the practice of neighboring pagan nations, which the men of God, in their human failings, followed with disastrous results.

 

[dayhiker]

Well, Jack I was just offering an explanation of what I understand to be the dynamic that was going on in Abraham's family. Its clear from scripture that Sarah's followed by Abraham's actions were sin, as they weren't an act of faith. Paul tells us what ever isn't of faith is sin.

If we go by instruction in the Bible as the only allowed actions then we are all are in trouble for I've flown in a plane, I've gone to the high places(climbed mountians), I've played sports and many other things that God never instructed us to do.

If trouble is the judgement about if a thing is right or not then none of us should get married as Paul said all who marry will suffer in the flesh. Then there is the verse about all who live God's lives in Christ Jesus.

Just for curiousity, where are the verses that instruct you to evaluate actions the way you do? You didn't give me any to go by!

You talk of the culture as justification for polygamy. Notice that God never instructed Abraham to take Hagar; he decided to fulfill God's promise on his own. Likewise with David and others. Notice the absence of the calling on God, the blessing of God, the instruction of God, and the name of God in those passages where these men take additional wives. When David gets himself into trouble in other places, notice the absence of God there as well.
Polygamy was never the desire of God; it was the practice of neighboring pagan nations, which the men of God, in their human failings, followed with disastrous results.

 

[Lionroot]

.

Genesis 16: 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.
4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

Maybe Abram didn't take her to be his wife...

FOUL: Please notice that it is is the narrative voice of the author that casts Hagar as the wife.

So was the author wrong? In your opinion who errd, Moses or the Holy Spirit?

Why would you try to cast this friend of God as a whoremonger? By what authority do you make judgments that the scriptures do not make?

 

[1Prophetess]

How about we just agree that Hagar could have been Abram's wife so we don't have little bits and pieces of items to argue?

This point is not relevant and is only an argument that you think you own for proof that I am wrong. However, the "narrative voice" used does not mean it is truth! No where else does the Bible say that she was accepted as "wife," and the Bible even says later that she was Abram's slave, but she was never, at any time, recognized as his wife. She was given to be a wife, but was she? Is every woman a man has sex with his wife? I would still contend that something given is not necessarily taken. And the fact is, God gives salvation to the entire world. But not all the world accepts it. Sarai could "give" Abram Hagar as wife, but if he didn't accept her, then he didn't consider her his wife just like if a person doesn't consider salvation as their own, they are not saved. If he didn't consider her his wife, she wasn't. And then we have the Bible which tells us in 2 Corinthians 13:1 “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” This is not the only scripture that says "two or three witnesses." I just don't see another witness for this that you say is truth. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that Abram took her to be his wife. I think he just used her, and that will always be my view of this.

However, it matters little if Hagar was his wife or not because, when we look at the result, we see a lot of misery for Abraham's son, Isaac, that Abram listened to his wife's suggestion and took Hagar. (It might even suggest that, when a man chooses to not wait for the Lord to provide him an heir, he is making a huge mistake--both in not waiting and taking a second wife.) We would have to at least consider that the end result indicates that it wasn't God's perfect will. We might also suggest that, by going outside of God's will for him, Sarai caused her and Abram's descendants (from God's perfect will) all kinds of permanent trouble as we see in the middle East today and have seen for thousands of years.

And then, we see from Abram the extreme marital trouble it caused Abram to take a second wife. Genesis 16: 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me.” This trouble was so great that he actually gave his unborn son to his wife, Sarai, to do as she wished with the mother and baby! So it could be suggested that the marital contention in adding a second woman to his life was unbearable for him.

I also find it interesting to note that Sarai means "contentious" and Sarah means "princess." When she gave Hagar, even her name meant trouble.

We might also agree that, when the Bible says, "Wait for the Lord," (Ps 27. 14) He really means wait and not take matters into your own hands. Abram did not wait. And he got generations of trouble.

Should we also admit that when a man doesn't wait, he is sinning? After all, the Word says "wait." And we would have to conclude that taking a second wife to have a male heir is not waiting, so we'd have to admit that he is sinning right there by not waiting. We see from Abram's production, a great deal of misery came into the world. And in fact, Isaac doesn't even possess Jerusalem now--his other sons' families possess it. And they are being quite selfish with it I might add. More trouble.

And we might also agree that it wasn't God's perfect will because God's perfect will isn't going to cause us trouble. (That's actually comical. How in any one's any view would God's perfect will cause us trouble?)

And we would want to agree that Abram was still not completed and able to receive a son (which happened after he was renamed and after circumcision). So Abram didn't wait for God's perfect will indicating that he prematurely acted outside of God's will to bring blessing on himself (which actually ended up in cursing for many in the world for centuries).

We also would want to agree that Abram was not the beginning. Adam was. And the second Adam said it wasn't that way from the beginning which ultimately is the greatest point--Jesus is the greatest of all.



Then, once we agree to the above, we can also agree that, when Jesus said, "It was not that way from the beginning..." (Matthew 19) that Jesus meant that it was God's intention for each man to have one wife.

We might then suggest that, sin entered into the world, and man's desire to have something over God's giving it resulted in men taking more than one wife which was not intended from the beginning which we can see when we see that, in the beginning, God gave Adam one wife (and never gave him another).

Then we might add that Cain, the one who killed his brother and committed the first murder and who was sent away, produced:

Genesis 4:

17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech. 19 Lamech married two women

a great, great, great grandson who was the first to marry two women. This was such a strange thing that it was noted in the Bible.

We might also note that none of the other lines coming down from Seth (or the other children) did this for many generations until they saw the sin of Lamech, and they decided it was permitted (not perfect). They also made another edict that, if a man's wife (who was at fault--a wrong conclusion) did not produce him a son, then that man had the "right" (a wrong conclusion) to take another woman (which was his intent anyway because of the sin of lust) so that he could have a son even if God didn't intend for him to have a son. Psalm 127:3 say: "Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him." So when God didn't bless a man with sons (God's perfect will), then man took it upon himself to "bless" himself (a wrong conclusion (that he should bless himself) and a wrong choice) with a second wife who could "bless" him with a son.

Of course, now we understand from science that it is a man's seed (I will use "seed" to continue holding a G rating) that makes the baby either male or female. So all along, it is the man that determined the sex of the baby. So logically, it should have been the woman's perogative to find another man instead of the other way around. But since it is inherent in some men's natures to find more than one woman and not nearly so predominant in a woman's nature, men found other women and blamed it on women that they had to have other women--another wrong conclusion and another wrong choice.

So it was God's intention to bless a man with one wife in the beginning, but it was man's intention to "bless" himself with more than one wife once he saw he could get away with it. And if he could blame the woman once again for his being forced to do what he wanted to do i.e. "bless" himself outside of God's perfect will, then he had all the more reason to justify it and do it.

Of course, it was this way from the beginning (that man blamed women for his sin) when Adam said, in Genesis 3: 12 The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it” which blamed Eve for the man's sin. (Please note that he could have just said, "Yes, Lord, I ate of the forbidden fruit." But he didn't. So did she shove it down his throat? No, he took it from her hand, and he ate it by his own will.) However, from the beginning, Eve brought evil upon all womankind by being unfaithful to her God and having her leader be unfaithful to her. But it wasn't intended that way from the beginning; however, she chose a way which was not God's perfect will which opened the door to man often accusing the woman and not taking responsibility for his part in what happens.

So then, some men thought that, if one didn't work, and the second wasn't making him fulfilled, he needed to "bless" himself with numerous and more and more and more wives. So his greed was the cause of having many wives.

I don't see a single place in the Bible where God says that He will bless a man with more than one wife. God does say, in Proverbs 18:22 "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD." This singular use does not mean two or three or more but rather it is one. (Isn't it interesting that Solomon, who might have had more wives and concubines that any man on earth and the wisest man that ever lived was the one who said this?) So does God really mean that when a man finds more than one wife, he finds more than one good and more than one favor? No, it means man is trying to bless himself, and that is never good, and that is never favor. Who ever creates his own favor from God?

And then there's the problem of unanswered favor and acceptance from the Lord. Malachi 2: 13 Another thing you do: You flood the LORD’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the LORD is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

Each of us should note that this states that the Lord is the witness between "you and the wife of your youth" and that this does not say "wives" of your youth. So what Is God saying that a man should have one wife? Novel thought, eh? (Or is your response only--So what?) And since the "wife" (singular) is the wife of your marriage covenant, would anyone agree that the covenant is with many more (or even any more) than the first? Not according to this scripture. Do you think that Sarai understood this and that she cursed Abram tremendously when she said it was his fault? Wow. What a concept!

And, we might add, even when science proves that man is at fault (for producing a female child because it is his seed that determines the sex of a child) and doesn't deserve to take another wife (and should wait for God's blessing), some males just goes on about the way it was in the past, and those males forget the purpose of "taking a second wife" (which was for producing a male heir). This was the purpose for men to take a second wife in the past.

Totally in denial of God's perfect will and totally forgetting that man started blessing himself with a woman who would produce him an heir (which both were not God's will), man starts taking another wife (and another and another and another) just because of his own lust. He doesn't remember that the rule that was set up after man started blessing himself was that he could take a second wife only when the first didn't produce a male (which was the purpose of a man taking a second wife in the first place). No, he doesn't remember that. Since man is singularly visioned, he can only see that others did it and didn't get punished for it, so it must be God's perfect will.


To think that God intends a man to have more than one wife is folly.




Mere folly.

 

[1Prophetess]

You talk of the culture as justification for polygamy. Notice that God never instructed Abraham to take Hagar; he decided to fulfill God's promise on his own. Likewise with David and others. Notice the absence of the calling on God, the blessing of God, the instruction of God, and the name of God in those passages where these men take additional wives. When David gets himself into trouble in other places, notice the absence of God there as well.
Polygamy was never the desire of God; it was the practice of neighboring pagan nations, which the men of God, in their human failings, followed with disastrous results.

Some excellent points here.

 

[dayhiker]

So prophetess,
Your post is why I believe its not a sin to have more than one wife.
You have no verse that says its a sin.
You have a lot of human logic using verse that have limited reference to what God does say about having more than one wife.
Lastly, the your comments do deal with idolatry that God says was Solomon's problem. Your analyze says that God made a mistake in giving all the wives to David and would have given him more if David had asked. And it contradicts the Law of Moses that was perfect, righteous and holy. In other words your comments contradict many other verses of of the Bible.

So when I read comments like yours that's when I figure there is no real Biblical defense of the position. I've seen it on many topics over the years.

I think your making too big a deal about wife. The Hebrew is one word for woman/wife. Its our translators that choose which English word in how they feel the context should read.

Concubine ... some scholars she wasn't a wife, some say a concubine is a second class wife.

Ya, we all agree Abraham wasn't living in faith when he and Sarah included Hagar in their relationship. I stated in a previous post why I feel they had problems.

I think the view that Hagar and her son, Ishmael, are why the Jews and Arabs are fighting to this day is way, way to simplistic. First it seems to be saying that there was no people living in the Arabian Peninsula before that time. Then most of the OT times the local Arab people were minor players just like Israel was. The BIG players were Eygpt to the south and Medes, Persian, Hittites and Babylon to the north. Plus the problem today is a result of Islam which is a result of Mohammad's demonic visions. I really think Ishmael had little to do with all that.

I guess that is enough for now.

 

[1Prophetess]

...
If we go by instruction in the Bible as the only allowed actions then we are all are in trouble for I've flown in a plane, I've gone to the high places(climbed mountians), I've played sports and many other things that God never instructed us to do.

Just for fun entirely:

Job 9: 25b they fly away without a glimpse of joy.

Ps 90: 10 and we fly away.

Ps 55:6 I said, “Oh, that I had the wings of a dove! I would fly away and be at rest.

Lev 26: 30 I will destroy your high places...

Genesis 22 Abraham went up on Mt. Moriah.

Genesis 19:17 Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19:16-18&version=NIV


2 Samuel 18: 22 Ahimaaz son of Zadok again said to Joab, “Come what may, please let me run behind the Cushite.”
...So Joab said, “Run!” Then Ahimaaz ran by way of the plain[f] and outran the Cushite.



Ecclesiastes 1:9 there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[1Prophetess]

...
So when I read comments like yours that's when I figure there is no real Biblical defense of the position. I've seen it on many topics over the years....

Several years ago, I heard someone talking about salvation say, "If you're right and I'm wrong and there is no God, I've lived a good life. But if I'm right, and there is a God, you have a serious problem--a problem for eternity, and that's a long time."

I understand your view. I would say that God is a God of encouragement, but He is not a God of coersion. He won't force you to believe anything, and that is why folks go to hell--it is a choice.

When a person reads the Bible, it is not book after book after book of commands. In fact, there are only a few books that have commands. It is a book of suggestions. It shows that, if you follow the suggestions the way they were intended, you will have good things happen. If not, you build your own mouse trap (aka suffering).

If I am wrong, I have lived a limited life. If you are wrong, you have neglected to please the Father of Lights (and instead sought your own blessings and created your own misery). Which is worse?

 

[dayhiker]

Well, I've enjoyed my life in Jesus very much. Jesus is my salvation and righteousness. I live by faith in the Son of God and put no trust in my flesh. I've had so many good things in my life that I spend most of my time with the Father thanking Him for all the blessings he has poured out on my life.

If I'm wrong and then I'll be in the same place Abraham, Moses, Nathan, David, the 12 apostles, Paul and many other great men of God. So I don't see your choose as one that God asked any one to make so why should I make that choice?

 

[Lionroot]

*[[Deu 21:15-17]] WEB* If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers who was hated; then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn: but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

The second wife is not an adulterous woman.

Her son is not a bastard.

 

[Lionroot]

Prophetess

Please take a moment and explain from scripture how you think a Biblical marriage begins.

 

[1Prophetess]

Lionroot: I am worn out with your arguments.

I would respond to you Genesis 38: 6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”... 9 But Onan ... slept with his brother’s wife, [and] he spilled his sperm on the ground... so the LORD put him to death also. 11 Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s household until my son Shelah grows up.” ...For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife... 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.”
“And what will you give me to sleep with you?” she asked... “Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand,” she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow’s clothes again. 20 Meanwhile Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite in order to get his pledge back from the woman, but he did not find her. 21 He asked the men who lived there, “Where is the shrine prostitute who was beside the road at Enaim?”..."There hasn't been any shrine prostitute here" they said...24 About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”
Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”

25 As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. “I am pregnant by the man who owns these,” she said. And she added, “See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are.” 26 Judah recognized them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not sleep with her again.

She was Er's wife, and he died. Was she Onan's wife? He died too.

Was she Shelah's wife? He was promised to her.

But she chose Judah.

The nearest of kin, and promised, was the third son. But since she didn't get Shelah, was she then Judah's wife? He wasn't even the nearest of kin so that seems wrong.

How could she be Judah's wife if "he did not sleep with her again" as the Bible tells us? Was she a prostitute? “Where is the shrine prostitute..." [compared to] “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution..."

She was accused of prostitution, but she probably was not since she did not die. She demanded that the right of motherhood be afforded her according to law (though she chose the father instead of the son (who was the rightful person to be the father of her child)).

She was not Judah's wife. She was given her rights by trickery rather than by justice. Now this would seem totally wrong, and yet, she is in the line of Christ.

Shall we argue that she actually was Judah's wife?




No, I do not want to argue for the sake of arguing. I do not want to argue your points.

I truly feel that you refuse to follow my arguments either by choice or by blindness. Your points are not valid because you argue a single thing that you find in the scriptures and are sure that that single thing is the way we should live in God's perfect will. In fact, I am not sure you even believe in a "perfect" will of God. I only see you argue for life in His permissive will.

Yet, you do not kill your son (as Abraham intended to do--a single example in the Bible). You do ride in the belly of a whale (as Jonah did). You do not shut the heavens for two years (as Elijah did).

You do not argue that taking a concubine is wrong because all Saul's male heirs but the one by his son Jonathan were put to death (2 Samuel 21:7-9). You seem to think that a wife is the same as any other woman that a man sleeps with, and you are not right according to many instances in the Bible unless we agree that the Bible means something other than what it says. I can never agree to that.

You admit nothing that I say is correct. But you pick apart the pieces of what I have said to see if you can take the sliver out of my eye while you do not remove the beam from yours!

Although I have loved searching scriptures to discuss the Lord's way and the Lord's thinking, you have hated the Word as I have seen it and shared it with you. Therefore, God will have to provide you an answer from a different source than from my hand, or He will leave you in your folly. No, I cannot agree that you are right, so of course, I cannot say what you think today is correct. It is not correct.

I do not wish to argue every jot and tittle in the Word. Although you have tried my patience here, it has run dry, and I do not choose to continue with your folly.

The Word of God is alive and powerful. Seek the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and lean not unto your own understanding. I do daily, and He reveals truths to me.

God bless you as you search for truth.

 

[mercy1061]

Only in the most creative minds given over to utter imagination as opposed to what's actually written.

Can you show me how I'm changing anything when referenceing such things as Adam having run around naked in the garden...or are you going to deny this fact?

Better yet, what exactly ARE you denying in order to call it lies?

Can a man know his own nakedness if his eyes are closed? In fact Yahweh says to Adam, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (Gen 3:11)

Apparently Adam did not know he was naked, and "they felt no shame" (Gen 2:25). Have you also eaten from the tree that Yahweh commanded Adam not to eat from?

Adam and Eve were naked, Adam had only "one wife", "love your neighbor as yourself". Who was Adam's neighbor in the garden? Do you also live with "one wife" as Adam did, when he walked in Yah's beautiful garden that Yah planted himself in eden?

Do you wish to enjoy Yahweh's favor in paradise? A man that finds "one wife" finds a good thing, and receives favor from Yahweh.

Matt 5

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Notice how Yeshua the lawkeeper points them to the law of Moses, when he says this. It was already understood from the law; creation account, that a "lone prince" walking around in Yahweh's beautiful garden was only allowed "one wife" or "one gift" or "one neighbor" from Yahweh. Since Adam 's neighbor was taken from his very own "flesh and bone", loving his "one wife" Eve, would have also meant loving himself.

Adam lost only "one bone" while he was sleep. The gift from Yahweh can not be sold, nor bought with a dowry. The gift from Yahweh is freely given, and freely received. If your "bone" causes you to sin, that "bone" should be divorced form the body.

 

[mercy1061]

Just like one must be born before he can commit suicide...

One would have to logically be born before he can die.....
Likewise, there must be marriage before divorce.....
Why are my words so difficult for you to understand? You "attempt" to use the scriptures to justify wicked behavior; this only shows your "contempt" toward the holy or sacred scriptures.

No. They are not one and the same, just as marriage is not the same thing as divorce in the discussion about polygyny. The parallel simply doesn't exist when referencing Jesus' words about divorce.

In order for a man to take a second wife; his second wife must be divorced from her first husband by death. In ancient customs, marriages were arranged, therefore a promise had to be broken, in order for a man to have more than one wife. David only gained mutiple wives in warfare. David only married widows for the exception of Michal his first wife, but then David was promised to marry Merab; Saul's firstborn daughter. Then Saul in his fierce anger gave David's wife, Michal to someone else, when he considered David to be dead because he wanted the phillistines to kill David.

Huh? (scratching head) We must be on two different planets. What does divorce have to do with creation?

Good question! Divorce means seperation; Adam was seperated from his bone, while he was sleep.

Besides, what Moses allowed had nothing to do with God. Moses did that on his own. The Lord never took credit for what Moses allowed, He only explained the reasoning behind why Moses allowed divorce for any cause. Moses is the one who violated the original intent for marriage.

Now I hope you understand the "topic of discussion" between the pharisees (legal experts) and Yeshua the lawkeeper recorded in Matt 19 is about divorce not marriage. However, logically "one" would have to be married before "one" could be divorced; Adam was "one" flesh and "alone"; Adam was married then he fell into a deep sleep.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

Verse 3, the pharisees question Yeshua the lawkeeper about divorce. How does Yeshua answer the pharisees question?

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Verse 4-6 Yeshua points them to the "creation account" given to Israel from Moses. How do the pharisees respond to Yeshua's answer?

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Verse 7 So we can see the topic of discussion between Yeshua and the pharisees has not changed, they are still discussing divorce with respect to the law. Moses was required to give Israel a legal document or "certificate of divorce" because of her unbelief. Maybe if you do not believe the creation account story from Moses about Adam having only "one wife"; perhaps she will read her "certificate of divorce" given to her from her husband.

You seem to have a gift for drawing unrelated parellels out of thin air, because NOWHERE did the Lord refer to Adam's "one wife" as the defining model for all men. You're relying on utter silence as backing for your point.

The Lord FORMED one woman from Adam's side, which points to monogenism. Anything beyond that is pure fabrication because it relies on no known rules for acceptable, legitimate interpretation...outside of pure imagination, that is.

Israel ate manna out of thin air.....

What Law made it a violation for David to have Michal? Reference please.

You can deny God's actions in giving David Saul's wives till the day you die, but that only proves that you refuse to accept the obvious. The language is clearly on the side of God doing exactly what many here think is sin.

David was already promised to marry Saul's firsborn daughter Merab.

1 Sam 18:17

Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD.” For Saul said to himself, “I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!”

 

[Lionroot]

1 prophetess

Thanks so much for participating. Thanks for reaching out. I appreciate your love for God's word and your desire to correct what you see as a wrong. I understand, because I have been there. I likely grew up in the same culture as you have. I struggled with all the same issues. Understand, you haven't presented something I haven't heard. Once I realized though that the monogamy only position vilified men otherwise commended by God, made many commandments pointless, implicates God, and worst of all severs all claims of Jesus to the throne of David disqualifying him as Messiah, I just had to look deeper.

If all that happens with this thread is that people break the spine of their Bible studying it, that would satisfy me a great deal. I think you have certainly gone above and beyond that. Thank you...and God bless.

If you should stay in the thread, I did have a question about your last post. How do you know that any of those men actually took her as a wife since it is not spelled out that way?

 

[mercy1061]

Thanks so much for participating. Thanks for reaching out. I appreciate your love for God's word and your desire to correct what you see as a wrong. I understand, because I have been there. I likely grew up in the same culture as you have. I struggled with all the same issues. Understand, you haven't presented something I haven't heard. Once I realized though that the monogamy only position vilified men otherwise commended by God, made many commandments pointless, implicates God, and worst of all severs all claims of Jesus to the throne of David disqualifying him as Messiah, I just had to look deeper.

David was a promised a son to sit on his throne forever. The promise given to David was a "continuation" of the promise made to Abram. Yeshua is called the "Son of David", therefore it does not matter how many wives David has taken. David desired to build a "dwelling place" for Yahweh.

If all that happens with this thread is that people break the spine of their Bible studying it, that would satisfy me a great deal. I think you have certainly gone above and beyond that. Thank you...and God bless.

If you should stay in the thread, I did have a question about your last post. How do you know that any of those men actually took her as a wife since it is not spelled out that way?

Abram was promised a "seed"; Yahweh says that he is Abram's reward.

After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward. ”(Gen 15:1)

 

[Lionroot]

Hey Mercy,

It its good to see you back. It is clear that you haven't followed the thread, so you really haven't responded to what's been said, but only a reference to a discussion that has been on going.

I asked you before, perhaps you did not see it. Please share with me, what do you think happens when we die? What must someone do to to be saved?

Lastly: Where can I read more in depth about this "lone prince" theology you have presented?

 

[mercy1061]

Hey Mercy,

Hello Lionroot

It its good to see you back.

Have you ever really seen me before? You say "It is good to see you back" so I must ask you what do I look like? Adam received a gift from Yahweh, after he fell into a deep sleep.

It is clear that you haven't followed the thread, so you really haven't responded to what's been said, but only a reference to a discussion that has been on going.

I have been following the thread enough to know that you are irritating 1prophetess with your vain words. You enjoy creating arguments with no intended benefit for the hearers. Do you hear a voice when you read my posts, you should listen to that voice.

I asked you before, perhaps you did not see it. Please share with me, what do you think happens when we die?

You ask a difficult question. You ask me me what happens when "we" die, perhaps a better question would be what will happen when you die? The wages from sin is death; but the gift from Yahweh is eternal life. Will you receive a gift from Yahweh, like Adam did, after he fell into a deep sleep? Remember the gift that Adam received was taken from within his body.

What must someone do to to be saved?

A man is given only "one wife" from Yahweh.....

Luke 18:18-22

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Lastly: Where can I read more in depth about this "lone prince" theology you have presented?

Adam was a "lone prince"; Adam was alone.....
Lamech had two wives, Lamech also killed a man like his father Cain did; this way he justified to himself having two wives.

23 Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
24 If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times.”(Gen 4:23-24)

Lamech followed the way of Cain, when he married two wives.

 

[Lionroot]

*[[Pro 1:22]] WEB* "How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? How long will mockers delight themselves in mockery, and fools hate knowledge?

 

[Lionroot]

*[[Eze 23:1-4]] WEB* The word of Yahweh came again to me, saying, Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: and they played the prostitute in Egypt; they played the prostitute in their youth; there were their breasts pressed, and there was handled the bosom of their virginity. Their names were Oholah the elder, and Oholibah her sister: and they became mine, and they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem Oholibah.