- Oct 19, 2004
- 13,570
- 6,892
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm gonna take that as a "No, I wouldn't like that." Yet you expect another person to put up with it.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm gonna take that as a "No, I wouldn't like that." Yet you expect another person to put up with it.How I feel should conform to what the Bible says, and how it defines key terms. Any other feelings I may have about it are irrelevant.
So, doesn't what the Bible says trump anything you personally feel about something?
Jr
in Deut 25:5 God was not condoning polygamy. He was providing for a widow.
In 2 Sam 12 God was again, providing for the widows.
In all of God's Word, God is CLEAR on a man having ONE wife, and they become "one" and cleave to one another.
Ever heard of J Vernon McGee?
I'm gonna take that as a "No, I wouldn't like that." Yet you expect another person to put up with it.
So, it's your thought that the Lord chose a means for the dead brother having an heir by way of sin, or at the very least, a marital form the Lord does not "condone," given that almost every Patriarch of our faith practiced that marital form? Did not the Patriarchs know and understand God's will and definition for marriage? Did the Lord need modern day thought, which is heavily influenced by foaming-at-the-mouth feminist dogmas, to finally reveal what He never, at any time, said to the Patriarchs, the prophets or the apostles?
This age of "enlightenment" is something to behold, with modern man going around thinking he knows best what is in the mind of God, especially those things that are not expressly declared in scripture....and we today can twist and warp scripture to say whatever we want with the license for such having been handed over to all of mankind by that same Lord - or not.
Sorry, but your injection of the concept for what is or is not "condoned" by God, with no textual evidence, is questionable at best.
What? Please show us all how the Hebrew from which that verse was translated can be relegated down to the level of merely "caring for widows."
Ever considered that J Vernon McGee was a fallible man, just like any other preacher, of which I am sure he would have agreed?
Jr
Aren't we all? He was an exemplary Bible teacher who loved God's Word and spoke of this very thing.Ever considered that J Vernon McGee was a fallible man,
You actually do, if you want to respect the context.I don't have to claim anything of the kind
So it is an Old Testament allowance that Jesus corrected. You asked for verses that showed this, and I provided. You are welcome.Again, you are in error. If you read the text for what it says, Jesus clearly laid the blame at the feet of Moses for that allowance. Nowhere did that text indicate that the responsibility for that allowance ever originated from the Lord, even on the basis of the hardness of heart.
You went beyond that and projected ill motives on me.Ad hominem? Really? From me? Come now, I have only attacked your tactics and applications.
No, I'm connecting the dots between all the Scriptures in spite of what is convenient for me to believe, teach, and practice.With the OT being the foundation for all the Bible, and with there being no specified injunction against plural wives in the NT, you're practicing what looks like Eisegetical interpretation.
But according to Matthew 19:9 it is:No. It is not. Given your scenario above, the man will have become guilty for CAUSING his first wife's adulteries, as is stated in Matt. 5:32:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Aren't we all? He was an exemplary Bible teacher who loved God's Word and spoke of this very thing.
Would you like me to try to find an excerpt from his teaching on it?
You actually do, if you want to respect the context
So it is an Old Testament allowance that Jesus corrected. You asked for verses that showed this, and I provided. You are welcome.
You went beyond that and projected ill motives on me.
But according to Matthew 19:9 it is:
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
So, since I'm not going to contradict what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, I have to agree that divorcing a woman and marrying a never-married woman is the sin of adultery against the first woman.
Because it is adultery rather than just abandonment, this means that a man must be sexually faithful to his wife, and acquiring a second wife violates that principle.
brinny said: ↑
Aren't we all? He was an exemplary Bible teacher who loved God's Word and spoke of this very thing.
Would you like me to try to find an excerpt from his teaching on it?
I didn't agree with "everything" he taught, but i did agree with "most" of it. His love for God's Word came through in his teachings, and he was so down to earth that he helped me immensely in understanding what i would've otherwise not even ventured into.I appreciate your zeal for adhering to his teachings. I've admired him for many years. However, that doesn't mean I agree with everything he thought about things such as this when I can read the scriptures for myself and see what they say. And in addition to all that, he spoke many times about others who would disagree with him, and he was fine with that. He's a great man.
Jr
I didn't agree with "everything" he taught, but i did agree with "most" of it. His love for God's Word came through in his teachings, and he was so down to earth that he helped me immensely in understanding what i would've otherwise not even ventured into.
i agree. I love J Vernon McGee, but it doesn't mean that i agree with EVERYTHING he teaches. The Bible is first and foremost my "anchor". I love Mr. McGee, but i align everything he teaches with what the Bible says too.But, in the end, you alone are responsible for what you choose to believe since none of us will be allowed to stand before the Most High and point the finger of accusation against another for what we chose to believe in this life. Many may think that they can point at their "pastor" for what they chose to accept as their beliefs, but it will not matter.
Always remember 1 John 2:27. That's not just a promise in that verse, it's the stone cold reality that no power on this earth can alter. Holy Spirit is our ultimate teacher.
Jr
i agree. I love J Vernon McGee, but it doesn't mean that i agree with EVERYTHING he teaches. The Bible is first and foremost my "anchor". I love Mr. McGee, but i align everything he teaches with what the Bible says too.
Exactly.And, he was a man with enough integrity that he had no problem with people checking his teachings against what's written. Good stuff.
Jr
That only holds water if you throw out the definition of adultery, which I'm not going to do.No, it does not. When a husband remains faithful to the first when taking in a second, there is no moral crisis.
Irrelevant. Adultery with the consent of the spouse being cheated on is still adultery.I know three different families of men with plural wives, and not one of the wives feel cast aside nor adulterated.
That only holds water if you throw out the definition of adultery, which I'm not going to do.
Irrelevant. Adultery with the consent of the spouse being cheated on is still adultery.
First, God created One man and One woman and ordained their union.
Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Emphasis mine)
The Hebrew words here for male (zakar) and female (nĕqebah) are not in the plural form, nor is "them" in the Hebrew, but the "them" there is talking about the man and woman.
So, if we apply your system of interpretation to other areas of scripture, we find ourselves with a problem:
[Pro 22:6 KJV] 6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Given your logic, a father is limited to training up only ONE of his plural children in the way he or she should go....that is, if we are to inject meaning into the Genesis 1:27 or any other verse where singular is pitted against the lack of plural. What system if interpretation is that? It smacks of a level of Eisegetical subjectivism that causes me discomfort to say the least.
God went on to tell them to be fruitful and multiply after blessing them (Gen 1:28).
Don't forget that God also left Adam's offspring blood brothers and sisters to have sex with one another in order to have children, which was an ongoing practice until Moses penned the Law against such.
Jesus quotes and interprets both of these verses when asked about divorce:
Matthew 19: 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Notice here Jesus says the two shall become one flesh, not the many shall become one flesh. Not the three, not the four, not the five, but the two shall become one flesh.
Again, this really isn't saying much of anything. God gave to Adam one wife, and to David He gave two additional wives in addition to the other two or three he already had. (shrug) So what? Adam having only one wife well establishes that we all originated from the same two parents. Just imagine hoe much worse racism would have been had Adam been given more than one wife. Sheesh. It's bad enough already.
Now, yes, the direct subject is divorce, but within that subject is the context of marriage and Jesus states marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman, not many women and one man or many men and one woman or whatever else.
No. Jesus at no time, in that context, stated anything in relation to the number of wives to which a man is limited. Divorce is the exact opposite of marriage, so twisting that context into the subjective form of your choosing is highly suspect for an agenda moreso than reading scripture for what it says.
Yes, the Bible records that in ancient times even people of God practiced polygamy just like they practiced other taboo things that people around them practiced and God worked with them despite that. God did not wholesale say, "Polygamy is okay."
He also never said that being pushed out to the moon on a huge thurst of flame was ok either, but we have done that several times now (except in the minds of conspiracy theorists).
Look, trying to argue a negative is almost always problematic. The Lord commanded the taking of an additional wife in some cases, the Patriarchs possessed plural wives. Don't you suppose that had God not been happy with such, that surely the Lord would have said SOMETHING to to at least ONE of them? I mean, come on. Let's get real.
And the idea that a man cannot be one flesh with more than one wife, that too is debunked even in the NT by Paul himself.
[1Co 6:16 KJV] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Paul never said the man who joins with a harlot had to be single in order to be seen as "one flesh" with her.
Jesus further points out within the context of one man/one woman monogamy...
Repeating the same fallacy over and over doesn't make your case any more true. Jesus said nothing about how many wives a man is limited to. So, either the writers of the NT were completely incapable to saying what they meant, or you are guilty of eisegetical injection.
All this shows that according to God, marriage was created to be between one man and one woman. It is humanity that came along and decided otherwise. The patriarchs weren't perfect nor were 1st century Christians perfect nor Christians today. God may be lenient with imperfections, but leniency for a time to accomplish something is not the same as God ordaining polygamous marriage.
This idea that God winked at the alleged sins of the Patriarchs is your personal take on things, perhaps, but I don't buy it. The text gives us no reason to believe such. If it is the sin of adultery now, then it was adultery then, and the word of God makes it abundantly clear that adulterers will not enter into Heaven. So, we may then expect to see the Patriarchs burning in the pits of Hell, which also is not the case.
I will agree with you that plural wives is not for most men, since most men can barely handle having just one wife. However, the weakness of holding up the mention of plural versus singular is so very weak a foundation to force words into the mouth of the Savior that He never uttered, but who was fully capable of addressing had His meaning ever had the intent to address polygyny, it would certainly have been there. I don't believe for a minute that the Lord chose silence on that topic, waiting for some people to come along much later and decipher His meaning to also include polygyny. What may seem so obvious to you, and perhaps many others after having it taught to them, when it is not supported by the clear language of scripture, that is cause for doubt about the agenda behind it.
Each time this occurred in the Bible it was through the will of the human practicing it. Jacob was tricked and thus decided he would marry Rachel. David first married Michal after being pushed by Saul to do so (1 Samuel 18:20-27) even while separated from her, he considered her to be his wife. Yet, David married Ahinoam, who may have been Michal's mother despite Leviticus 20:14. David went on to acquire more wives with the most infamous being Bathsheba in which he committed adultery with her and then murder to try to cover his sin.
At least two of David's wives were given to him by God, which was clearly declared by Nathan the prophet. So much for the idea that plural wives was purely man's idea without God's backing.
Now here's the question, especially with David. Do we say all the things, the bad things he did are "okay" because they're recorded in the Bible and God doesn't always come right out with the rebuke immediately? David was eventually rebuked by Nathan and the product of his many wives led to division in his kingdom. Same with Solomon, etc.
If you read scripture for what it says, David's house was filled with the sword, with blood on his hands, because of his being so warsome. David took and impregnated another man's wife, and then tried to cover it up. Adultery and murder. Pure and simple. His troubles were not the result of plural wives, but his lust for another man's wife and the blood of many others on hie hands whom the Lord never commanded him to shed.
Jr
I simply accept the true definition of adultery, as Jesus defined it. I leave the judgment of Abraham and David to God. Under the New Covenant, no married man or woman is to get involved romantically or sexually with a person other than their spouse, which logically eliminates the possibility of sinlessly acquiring a second spouse. To deny this is to deny the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-32 and Matthew 19:4-9 which I will not do.I agree that it all violates your personal definition of adultery. You've made it clear that you have a subjective system for defining key words. (shrug) It is what it is.
BroRoyVa79 said:First, God created One man and One woman and ordained their union.
Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Emphasis mine)
The Hebrew words here for male (zakar) and female (nĕqebah) are not in the plural form, nor is "them" in the Hebrew, but the "them" there is talking about the man and woman.
So, if we apply your system of interpretation to other areas of scripture, we find ourselves with a problem:
[Pro 22:6 KJV] 6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Given your logic, a father is limited to training up only ONE of his plural children in the way he or she should go....that is, if we are to inject meaning into the Genesis 1:27 or any other verse where singular is pitted against the lack of plural. What system if interpretation is that? It smacks of a level of Eisegetical subjectivism that causes me discomfort to say the least.
BroRoyVa79 said:God went on to tell them to be fruitful and multiply after blessing them (Gen 1:28).
Don't forget that God also left Adam's offspring blood brothers and sisters to have sex with one another in order to have children, which was an ongoing practice until Moses penned the Law against such.
BroRoyVa79 said:Jesus quotes and interprets both of these verses when asked about divorce:
Matthew 19: 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Notice here Jesus says the two shall become one flesh, not the many shall become one flesh. Not the three, not the four, not the five, but the two shall become one flesh.
Again, this really isn't saying much of anything. God gave to Adam one wife, and to David He gave two additional wives in addition to the other two or three he already had. (shrug) So what? Adam having only one wife well establishes that we all originated from the same two parents. Just imagine hoe much worse racism would have been had Adam been given more than one wife. Sheesh. It's bad enough already.
BroRoyVa79 said:Now, yes, the direct subject is divorce, but within that subject is the context of marriage and Jesus states marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman, not many women and one man or many men and one woman or whatever else.
No. Jesus at no time, in that context, stated anything in relation to the number of wives to which a man is limited. Divorce is the exact opposite of marriage, so twisting that context into the subjective form of your choosing is highly suspect for an agenda moreso than reading scripture for what it says.
BroRoyVa79 said:Yes, the Bible records that in ancient times even people of God practiced polygamy just like they practiced other taboo things that people around them practiced and God worked with them despite that. God did not wholesale say, "Polygamy is okay."
He also never said that being pushed out to the moon on a huge thurst of flame was ok either, but we have done that several times now (except in the minds of conspiracy theorists).
Look, trying to argue a negative is almost always problematic. The Lord commanded the taking of an additional wife in some cases, the Patriarchs possessed plural wives. Don't you suppose that had God not been happy with such, that surely the Lord would have said SOMETHING to to at least ONE of them? I mean, come on. Let's get real.
And the idea that a man cannot be one flesh with more than one wife, that too is debunked even in the NT by Paul himself.
[1Co 6:16 KJV] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Paul never said the man who joins with a harlot had to be single in order to be seen as "one flesh" with her.
Repeating the same fallacy over and over doesn't make your case any more true. Jesus said nothing about how many wives a man is limited to. So, either the writers of the NT were completely incapable to saying what they meant, or you are guilty of eisegetical injection.
BroRoyVa79 said:All this shows that according to God, marriage was created to be between one man and one woman. It is humanity that came along and decided otherwise. The patriarchs weren't perfect nor were 1st century Christians perfect nor Christians today. God may be lenient with imperfections, but leniency for a time to accomplish something is not the same as God ordaining polygamous marriage.
This idea that God winked at the alleged sins of the Patriarchs is your personal take on things, perhaps, but I don't buy it. The text gives us no reason to believe such. If it is the sin of adultery now, then it was adultery then, and the word of God makes it abundantly clear that adulterers will not enter into Heaven. So, we may then expect to see the Patriarchs burning in the pits of Hell, which also is not the case.
I will agree with you that plural wives is not for most men, since most men can barely handle having just one wife. However, the weakness of holding up the mention of plural versus singular is so very weak a foundation to force words into the mouth of the Savior that He never uttered, but who was fully capable of addressing had His meaning ever had the intent to address polygyny, it would certainly have been there. I don't believe for a minute that the Lord chose silence on that topic, waiting for some people to come along much later and decipher His meaning to also include polygyny. What may seem so obvious to you, and perhaps many others after having it taught to them, when it is not supported by the clear language of scripture, that is cause for doubt about the agenda behind it.
BroRoyVa79 said:Each time this occurred in the Bible it was through the will of the human practicing it. Jacob was tricked and thus decided he would marry Rachel. David first married Michal after being pushed by Saul to do so (1 Samuel 18:20-27) even while separated from her, he considered her to be his wife. Yet, David married Ahinoam, who may have been Michal's mother despite Leviticus 20:14. David went on to acquire more wives with the most infamous being Bathsheba in which he committed adultery with her and then murder to try to cover his sin.
At least two of David's wives were given to him by God, which was clearly declared by Nathan the prophet. So much for the idea that plural wives was purely man's idea without God's backing.
BroRoyVa79 said:Now here's the question, especially with David. Do we say all the things, the bad things he did are "okay" because they're recorded in the Bible and God doesn't always come right out with the rebuke immediately? David was eventually rebuked by Nathan and the product of his many wives led to division in his kingdom. Same with Solomon, etc.
If you read scripture for what it says, David's house was filled with the sword, with blood on his hands, because of his being so warsome. David took and impregnated another man's wife, and then tried to cover it up. Adultery and murder. Pure and simple. His troubles were not the result of plural wives, but his lust for another man's wife and the blood of many others on hie hands whom the Lord never commanded him to shed.
I simply accept the true definition of adultery, as Jesus defined it. I leave the judgment of Abraham and David to God. Under the New Covenant, no married man or woman is to get involved romantically or sexually with a person other than their spouse, which logically eliminates the possibility of sinlessly acquiring a second spouse. To deny this is to deny the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-32 and Matthew 19:4-9 which I will not do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?