What do you think of concubinage?

[chingchang]

The ESV does, even when he said "of which you wrote" tells us that it was a question that they had. But if that's what the NIV and KJV says then I'll back off on that.

O.k.

But please enlighten me, why exactly are you using a verse that you claims that Paul is telling us that it is good to NOT have sex with a woman, when we are discussion whether concubinage is a good or bad thing? One of the main reasons for concubines for those in the Old Testament was to produce babies, which requires sex, so why use a verse that says, "it is good for man not to touch a woman"? I'm not quite sure how that helps the debate on concubinage.

Let me try this a different way. When Paul says "I say this as a concession, not as a command" in 1 Cor 7:6...what is "this"?

Right and he goes on to define that marriage that includes one man to have one wife and vise versa.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. In each instance of a marriage covenant it is one man and one woman. But...a man can be married to more that one woman...as evidenced by a majority of the OT Patriarchs...without sinning. God gave us the law so that we would not be ignorant of sin...and there is no law against polygamy...or concubinage. If it is a sin now...as you claim...then it is unique among all sins in that it is the only "new" sin in the new covenant. Furthermore...if you think it is a sin in the new covenant then you need to familiarize yourself with what the new covenant actually is.

One of the requirements for the Bishops/Deacons is to have kids that are in submission to them. Not everyone at that time had kids, therefore it can be known the qualifications would exclude them. The qualifications was to find the Bishop or Deacon that was qualified to be leaders in the church. That doesn't mean it wasn't expected for every man to have only 1 wife, it was just part of the requirement.

1 Timothy 3:12 says clearly that Deacons can have only(NASB) one wife. But...do you cover your head when you pray and remain silent in Church? No...probably not. How about women Pastors? Are they sinning? There are some who claim to be called by God to be Pastors and their effectiveness can be measured. So...again...we have to gain insight to Paul's instruction and apply the ethic to our social structure today. The fact that Paul specified Deacons should have one wife (no more) implies that polygamy was not uncommon back then.

I was unaware that part of my faith was to include what the majority of Biblical Scholars believed about Paul's thoughts on the coming of the Lord.

There is a difference between faith and doctrine. We have faith that Yeshua rose from the dead. We have to gain knowledge and insight and apply it in our theological process to arrive at Godly doctrine. That is what we are talking about...not faith.

I don't know of a scripture that tells us Paul's belief on the subject, therefore I'm not going to think outside of it. However, I do know this verse during which Jesus was talking about His return:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matthew 24:36​

Now, if God the Father is the only who knows the day and hour that Christ will return, then saying that Paul thought that Christ was coming in His lifetime, really doesn't mean much. If Christ thought that, then we know that it was a guest on his part. And there is nothing wrong with him guessing when Christ would come. But I don't know a verse that Paul said that Christ was coming in his lifetime. If there is one, I would really like to know of it (and I'm being honest not sarcastic about it.)

Ahh...but we know the season and it is clear from the scriptures of James, Peter, Paul and John that they all felt the season was upon them. Look here:

The apostles Paul, Peter, James, and John all wrote that the day of His return is near. (See, for example, Romans 13:12; 1 Peter 4:7; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:18.)

—John MacArthur, Because the Time Is Near (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 22​

It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime…they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so.

—C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1973), 98​

...here ya go:

The Apostles Predicted a First-Century Return of Christ | Prophecy+History

As for what was going on in the Church at Corinth, we have 2 letters telling us what they were doing and Paul's correction on those issues.

Prostitution in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Temple prostitution (associated with Pagan Gods...Aphrodite to be specific) and pederasty were common in Corinth.

Many versions of the bible translations use different translations, and yet, almost always they are cohesive in it's wording. You can be sure that it is God's word of which he allowed Paul to pen.

O.k. then...what exactly is the "Word of God"?

HOW THE NIV DELETES ENTIRE VERSES!

NIV? KJV? ESV? NWT? YLT? Maybe if we combine all of them in one bowl...mix for 30 minutes...then we'll arrive at the "Word of God". I think you'd be interested in the field of Biblical Textual Criticism.

But if we are going to say that Paul might not have wrote one part, realize that you should cast doubt on all the other stuff that Paul wrote, like when he tell us this

"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."-​

Romans 5:6-8

As you see, we can't pick and choose what is scripture. It is what it is.

There actually is a method for assigning the likelihood of scripture being "authentic" vs. changed/added/errored. Since scribes absolutely did change the text (which is even admitted in your own Bible...see Jeremiah 8:8)...we must be thoughtful about what we read.

So tell me, what book would I go to verify those facts?
If you mean that 2 were not identical, you might be correct, one might have misspelled a word or two, but when you take 1000 fragments, you can pull out what was misspelled or miswritten. IF 900 fragments says "God so loved the world.." and 100 of them say "God so loued the world", you would go with the oldest manuscripts that had the most cohesiveness. The fact that we have so many fragments, shows us that we can trust the scripture says what it does.

This will get you started:
Textual criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is like a 101 into Biblical Textual Criticism:
Professor Bart D. Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus

There are many things that Jesus didn't point out as wrong but we know based on scripture it is. The scripture isn't silent on this subject, even if you think Jesus is. When He made that statement in Matthew 19:5, see how He is describing to us what marriage was supposed to be, that includes anything that we try and come up with.

I still think you're stretching it a bit...but lets say you're right. Then by the extension of your logic we're sinning by wearing clothes and eating meat. Next...

How am I stretching when Christ said.
"He answered, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh?"
Please explain to me where and what I am stretching.

Yeshua described what happens when a man and a women come together (sexually)...they become one flesh (baby). It applies whether a man is married to one woman or two.

It wasn't sin under the old law, I've said that. Under the new law, it most certainly is.

Scary stuff...I'm glad you don't hold a position of authority and teach this stuff. Tell me then...what specific acts/beaviors are a sin under the new law that were not under the old law?

Please don't even go there. Don't sit there and pretend like you know anything about me or how I view the character of God. I have not said anything about God's character, I've stuck to using the bible trying to understand what God wants from us. I have not personally attacked you and I would appreciate it you would do the same.

By claiming that polygamy is a sin now but was not long ago you are judging the character of God as "changing". I believe that God does not change.

Malachai 3:6 "I the LORD do not change."

I'm sure God is concerned with every aspect of my life including how I love Him and how I treat others. He wrote the book telling us how we should live and what glorifies Him and it is that, I will follow.

Good. And since everything Paul wrote was penned by the Holy Spirit according to you...and version X of the Bible is 100% trustworthy...then why don't you remain silent in church and cover your head when you pray?

In summary, there is not one single prohibition in the entire Bible (pick your version) of polygamy. Compare that to...say...murder...or theft...or adultery...or worshiping idols...etc. Those are obvious sins that have many instances of prohibitions in the Bible. Instead...James tells us how we should behave/live...

James 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.

Yeshua tells us that the greatest commands are to love God and love your neighbor. He also says that his sheep hear his voice and that if we love him we will obey his commands.

Polygamy is NOT incompatible with the New Covenant. If I have two wives and love them both and they both love me and we love God...where is the sin? There is no sin there. The problem with polygamy comes when evil men disrespect and exploit their wives and lord their headship over them...which is obviously incompatible with the "royal law".

CC

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Chingchang, I am going to worship in a few minutes so I'll respond more fully, but there are two things I chucked at:
1.) The idea that we are supposed to have head covering
2.) the idea that you don't believe I remain quiet during worship.

1 Corinthians 11:15 let us know that a woman's head covering is her hair. I implore you to read it in its context but this is what it says:

But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.​

As for me being silent in church, unless you are actually right there next to me, you don't know what I do in church. And let me tell you, during worship I am quiet except when singing because we are commanded to sing to each other.

As for God changing, answer this:
True or false, God allowed men to marry their female relatives and had babies with them and it was not a sin but when God gave Moses the law, it was forbidden for them to do so?

The answer is yes!
Does that mean that the Lord has changed His character? No!

Same when God told the Israelites to follow the old law and then when Christ died we now follow the new law, does that mean the character of God have changed? No! For we are told that it was always in God's plan. Therefore, to say that one thing was not sinful before and now under the new law it is now, is not to say that God's character has change, for it was already in God's plans.

 

[DamianWarS]

Then...by extension of your logic (which is faulty I might add)...it is a sin to wear clothes and eat meat. God created us as naked vegetarians. Your rebuttal is a stretch to say the least. Given that polygamy was not uncommon during Yeshua's time...he would have been direct in condemning it if God had a problem with it. What you have done is read your conclusion into scripture.

CC

no, by extension of my logic I follow the definition of marriage that Jesus claimed and I thought my post was pretty clear on that. Jesus did not comment on wearing clothes and eating meat in the context of how it was when God created us however he did define marriage and looked to the beginning to define it. So likewise in the context of marriage I also look to the beginning to define it. Not solely because I find a lone reference in genesis but because it is reaffirmed through Jesus and also Paul (Eph. 5:31). Not to mention the context of Gen 2:24 is clearly meant to extend after the fall by the use of "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother ..." obviously since neither Adam nor Eve had a father and Mother this idea is not just limited to that specific moment but intended to define marriage as a whole.

by extension of your logic anything that happened before the fall is insignificant and verses like "they will become one flesh" have no bearing on the definition of marriage despite how it is reaffirmed later in scripture.

 

[chingchang]

As for God changing, answer this:
True or false, God allowed men to marry their female relatives and had babies with them and it was not a sin but when God gave Moses the law, it was forbidden for them to do so?

The point of the law is so that they would know sin. What you are claiming is that polygamy is a unique sin because it wasn't revealed as such until the NT...unlike ANY other sin.

The answer is yes!
Does that mean that the Lord has changed His character? No!

His character is partially revealed to us through the law. What offended him prior to giving the law offended him afterward and still does. His character has not changed and polygamy still does not offend him.

Same when God told the Israelites to follow the old law and then when Christ died we now follow the new law, does that mean the character of God have changed? No! For we are told that it was always in God's plan. Therefore, to say that one thing was not sinful before and now under the new law it is now, is not to say that God's character has change, for it was already in God's plans.

That is where you are wrong. It is like having children who don't know better...so you give them rules to live by. They may not understand why...or care to know why...but they are still expected to live by those rules. Then...when they mature and begin to appreciate and understand the ethic behind those rules they no longer require rules. They make mature judgment based on the ethic. In the case of living under grace or under the law...the ethic is love and that is the difference between being under the old or new covenant. The new covenant is a more mature spiritual relationship with God...one step closer to living with Him eternally. So...a man can love two (or more) women...and they can love him and they can live as one big happy family with Yahweh at the center. There is no sin in that.

Now...if polygamy offended God he CLEARLY would have told his children this in OT law...where he gave them ALL KINDS of rules. Alas...he did not. In fact...Moses...a polygamist...authored the "one flesh" verse in Genesis that you claim supports a monogamous marriage and Moses knew that a man could be "one flesh" with more than one woman. God met "face to face" with Moses...and loved him. God and sin can not coexist...yet Moses saw him face to face "as one speaks to a friend". This all while Moses was a polygamist...as were most of the OT Patriarchs that God loved and blessed. In Matthew 19 Yeshua was clearly condemning divorce...not polygamy which is marriage. Are you saying that Yeshua would have advised the polygamists to divorce?

CC

 

[chingchang]

no, by extension of my logic I follow the definition of marriage that Jesus claimed and I thought my post was pretty clear on that. Jesus did not comment on wearing clothes and eating meat in the context of how it was when God created us however he did define marriage and looked to the beginning to define it. So likewise in the context of marriage I also look to the beginning to define it. Not solely because I find a lone reference in genesis but because it is reaffirmed through Jesus and also Paul (Eph. 5:31).

Yeshua repeated what Moses...a polygamist...wrote in Genesis. Clearly Moses knew...from experience...that a man can become "one flesh" with more than one woman. BTW...Yeshua DID NOT "define" marriage. It was defined long before he arrived on the scene.

Not to mention the context of Gen 2:24 is clearly meant to extend after the fall by the use of "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother ..." obviously since neither Adam nor Eve had a father and Mother this idea is not just limited to that specific moment but intended to define marriage as a whole.

What I'm saying is that the "one flesh" thing is simply an eternal truth. If you put a man and woman together they create a "one flesh" (child). They also fit together in the act of sex making "one flesh". Do you think a man would leave his parents and cleave to a woman if it weren't for sex?

by extension of your logic anything that happened before the fall is insignificant and verses like "they will become one flesh" have no bearing on the definition of marriage despite how it is reaffirmed later in scripture.

I define marriage in a spiritual way...as a contractual covenant that is supposed to be a symbol of Yahweh's covenant with us. He is one...but has made that covenant with many. In the same way...one man could make that covenant with more than one woman if he is able. Yahweh is certainly able.

CC

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So can a woman keep male concubines? Or is this solely the domain of Macho Man Incorporated?

Seeing as I view women as people, not property, I'm going to have to give my big thumbs down on the whole idea.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

Yeshua repeated what Moses...a polygamist...wrote in Genesis. Clearly Moses knew...from experience...that a man can become "one flesh" with more than one woman. BTW...Yeshua DID NOT "define" marriage. It was defined long before he arrived on the scene.

you're right in saying the Jesus did not define marriage and perhaps my wording was misleading but he did make a claim to what marriage is. The definition was already there he just addressed it to show his audience the definition.

Moses may have wrote Genesis but that does not make him God. It is clear reading through areas of Moses's life that he was not perfect and he gave in to sinful ways as we all do. Moses was denied the opportunity to go into the promise land because he disobeyed God so Moses was just a man and his words do not trump Jesus's or the design of God.

Moses may have had more than one wife but he also may have not the text really is not clear. And if he did have two wives we do not know context or the when he took multiple wives. Moses had wife one Zipporah which we know is for sure from Ex 2:21. The alleged wife two is mentioned in Nu 12:1 which says "Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cush-ite wife, for he had married a Cush-ite." But the text is not clear when moses married this woman or even if she is another wife. The text is obviously using the term "Cush-ite" as a derogatory comment from Miriam and Aaron so it could easily be similar to calling Zipporah a name. I'm not saying that Zipporah was a Cush-ite but she was Midian which was in the land of Cush and Miriam and Aaron didn't seem to like her so name calling does seem appropriate here. The point is neither is really that clear it is irresponsible to say Moses was a polygamist from Nu 12:1 because there is no area that once says Moses had multiple wives.

What I'm saying is that the "one flesh" thing is simply an eternal truth. If you put a man and woman together they create a "one flesh" (child). They also fit together in the act of sex making "one flesh". Do you think a man would leave his parents and cleave to a woman if it weren't for sex?

I define marriage in a spiritual way...as a contractual covenant that is supposed to be a symbol of Yahweh's covenant with us. He is one...but has made that covenant with many. In the same way...one man could make that covenant with more than one woman if he is able. Yahweh is certainly able.

so if I understand you "one flesh" is intended to for the physical but yet you define marriage in a spiritual way so which is it? Well lets read the verse in context:

Gen 2:20-24
The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

it would seem the reason for the "one flesh" describes the complimentary nature of a husband and wife. Sex is not mentioned here, nor is offspring but the emphasis is instead on the woman complimenting and completing the man. It even goes as far to suggesting "one flesh" is the rejoining of bone and flesh that was once separated to create the woman. Certainly there are physical elements here but this idea goes well beyond the physical.

The design of God is still very clear with one man and one woman and Jesus emphases this design when he tells the pharisees what marriage is about. Moses does not teach polygamy nor is there any teaching on polygamy in the bible as a whole the concept instead is based on the acceptance of it which is poor interpretation of biblical theology. I agree that NT passages can also be unclear on the subject as well (husband of one wife is probably referring to divorce and remarriage not polygamy and if you don't believe me read 1 Tim 5:9) Polygamy is not a design of God it is a design of Man. Jesus seems it fitting to point to the design of God for marriage so I do too and polygamy is absent.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The point of the law is so that they would know sin. What you are claiming is that polygamy is a unique sin because it wasn't revealed as such until the NT...unlike ANY other sin.

What? There are newer sins under the NT. Read Matthew and see when Christ said "you have heard that it was said.....but I tell you..." What He told us to do now, was not asked for back then, and they are sin when we choose not to follow.

His character is partially revealed to us through the law. What offended him prior to giving the law offended him afterward and still does. His character has not changed and polygamy still does not offend him.

Where in the New Testament are we given the freedom to have multiple husbands/wives? Does the scriptures not teach us that a husband should have a wife and vice versa. Again, read the singularity in that. In Ephesians when Paul is setting up the roles in marriage, we are told that "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her..." Ephesians 5:25. If marriage is to emulate Christ and His Bride (the church), we see the singularity in those phrases (yes husbands/wives is plural but unless you want to claim that a wife can have more than one husband, you know that it's speaking of one), for there is only one Church which is the Bride of Christ.

That is where you are wrong. It is like having children who don't know better...so you give them rules to live by. They may not understand why...or care to know why...but they are still expected to live by those rules. Then...when they mature and begin to appreciate and understand the ethic behind those rules they no longer require rules. They make mature judgment based on the ethic. In the case of living under grace or under the law...the ethic is love and that is the difference between being under the old or new covenant.

Two of the greatest commands in the old testament:
1.) Love God with all your heart, soul and mind
2.) Love your neighbors as yourself
Love have always been part in both laws that God have given us.
They also in the Old Testament made mature judgment based on ethics. Ask why Noah was not destroyed in the flood or how through Abraham all nations would be blessed.

And in Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.​

As for claiming that Jews were children who didn't know "why they were following the rules" if that was the case, then it's was the parents fault for not teaching them the reason why, because God clearly told them in the wilderness why they should follow these laws. And we are told in the New Testament that God is not pleased with those who follow the law but their 'hearts are far from Him". Both covenants were to be followed because of our love for God. As for those following the rules and don't know why, we have seen that the Israelites pretty much didn't, that's why scripture says that "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6).

The new covenant is a more mature spiritual relationship with God...one step closer to living with Him eternally.

I agree that under the new covenant we have a more "personal" relationship with God. I'm not so sure about "mature" for Abraham was called a friend of God, Moses was considered God's friend who spoke to Him face to face, etc. But under the new covenant because of Christ's blood, we can boldly go before the throne and have a more personal relationship with God.

Now...if polygamy offended God he CLEARLY would have told his children this in OT law...where he gave them ALL KINDS of rules. Alas...he did not. In fact...Moses...a polygamist...authored the "one flesh" verse in Genesis that you claim supports a monogamous marriage and Moses knew that a man could be "one flesh" with more than one woman. God met "face to face" with Moses...and loved him.

Moses also murdered, did he not received the 10 commandments by God that said "Thou shalt not killed." Did he not pen the story of Cain and Able? Was Cain not punished for that very same act. No matter what, we know this Moses was a human who sinned before God. I'm not going to say that he was sinning because of polygamy because I have said already that under the old law, God tolerated it.

And while Moses was the one who authored the "one flesh" it was said by God.

God and sin can not coexist...yet Moses saw him face to face "as one speaks to a friend". This all while Moses was a polygamist...as were most of the OT Patriarchs that God loved and blessed.

Moses or any of the other patriarchs were not sinless. God spoke to Moses face to face, are you claiming that Moses never sin? Moses however was righteous before God.

In Matthew 19 Yeshua was clearly condemning divorce...not polygamy which is marriage. Are you saying that Yeshua would have advised the polygamists to divorce?

CC

Let me say this again, to make it perfectly clear. When Christ echoed the words that God the Father uttered in Genesis 2:24 He tells us that from the beginning this is what God wanted.

Marriage was/is to consist of a man and a woman, which the TWO shall become one flesh. Under the new covenant, that is what we are told. Under the new law, we are told that sex should be done in a marriage relationship. Under the new law, we are given roles for the husband and wife, singular. We are under the new law.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Let me try this a different way. When Paul says "I say this as a concession, not as a command" in 1 Cor 7:6...what is "this"?

1 Corinthians 7:5-7
Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now, as a concession, not as a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For ti is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord); the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.​

The "this" he speaks is asking the single to remain as such. For he tells us that he would like them to remain single but that each person is given a gift to God and that if they cannot exercise self-control then it's better to be married.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. In each instance of a marriage covenant it is one man and one woman. But...a man can be married to more that one woman...as evidenced by a majority of the OT Patriarchs...without sinning.

Under the old law God tolerated that. Nowhere in the new testament we even see that as something that is acceptable. Nowhere are we given a role for marriage that includes husband and their wives. We are given the role of Husband and wife.

God gave us the law so that we would not be ignorant of sin...and there is no law against polygamy...or concubinage. If it is a sin now...as you claim...then it is unique among all sins in that it is the only "new" sin in the new covenant. Furthermore...if you think it is a sin in the new covenant then you need to familiarize yourself with what the new covenant actually is.

In 1 Corinthians 11, we are told that some of the people in the church was "guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." Truth or false, was that a sin under the old law? Is it a sin now? Wouldn't that be considered a "new" sin? The new covenant has a lot more "new" sins--and their new to the point that it now includes the "intent" of the heart, just read Matthew and you'll see what I mean.

But...do you cover your head when you pray and remain silent in Church? No...probably not.

1.) I have hair on my head....therefore I have a head covering. 1 Corinthians 11:15. As for remaining silent during worship--yes I do, except when singing because I'm commanded to sing.

How about women Pastors? Are they sinning? There are some who claim to be called by God to be Pastors and their effectiveness can be measured.

I do not agree with women Pastors and yes based on scripture they would be sinning. And if you want to continue with that subject, I suggest you bring back posts that speaks on such a topic.

So...again...we have to gain insight to Paul's instruction and apply the ethic to our social structure today.

A Christians social structure should be shaped by the scriptures not by the world's standard.

The fact that Paul specified Deacons should have one wife (no more) implies that polygamy was not uncommon back then.

The Greek church, full of Gentiles of which Paul was giving them teachings so that they can seek to glorify God. A lot of things that were okay back then because they were both secular and pagan influences, doesn't mean that's what brought glory to God.

There is a difference between faith and doctrine. We have faith that Yeshua rose from the dead. We have to gain knowledge and insight and apply it in our theological process to arrive at Godly doctrine. That is what we are talking about...not faith.

Our faith is shaped by doctrine.

Ahh...but we know the season and it is clear from the scriptures of James, Peter, Paul and John that they all felt the season was upon them. Look here:

The apostles Paul, Peter, James, and John all wrote that the day of His return is near. (See, for example, Romans 13:12; 1 Peter 4:7; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:18.)

—John MacArthur, Because the Time Is Near (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 22​

It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime…they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so.

—C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1973), 98​

It doesn't matter what they expected and they are right, we are in the last days. We are not given a timeline for how long the "Last days" will be. The Gospel clearly said that no one knows the day or time, doesn't make them any less of a Christian.
I believe that Christ is coming in my lifetime, doesn't mean He is, that's just my wishful thinking. I'm not given an insight by the Holy Spirit and neither were those men when it comes to when exactly the day and hour that Christ will be coming, they had ever right to guess when they thought Christ was coming. But it didn't matter for scripture already told us that no one knows the day or time Christ was coming.

O.k. then...what exactly is the "Word of God"?

Christ is considered the Word and so is scripture. To write the list is too numerous so I put "word of God" in biblegateway to come up with all the verses that has that phrase. I encourage you to actually read those verses in its context and you'll see that scripture is referred to as "word of God."
BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: \"word of God\"

HOW THE NIV DELETES ENTIRE VERSES!

NIV? KJV? ESV? NWT? YLT? Maybe if we combine all of them in one bowl...mix for 30 minutes...then we'll arrive at the "Word of God". I think you'd be interested in the field of Biblical Textual Criticism.

We both use scripture in our arguments to be for or against concubinage, I'm certainly not going to sit there and try and discredit something that I consider the authority. I've been there and done that already. I've read all those criticisms and still arrived at the truth that is God's word.

There actually is a method for assigning the likelihood of scripture being "authentic" vs. changed/added/errored. Since scribes absolutely did change the text (which is even admitted in your own Bible...see Jeremiah 8:8)...we must be thoughtful about what we read.

Jeremiah said this "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." He was speaking to the "sons of Judah" who have "done evil in my sight" and God is telling them all the reasons why He will destroy them. Nowhere does Jeremiah says that the scripture has been altered, he said the scribes of which the Jews were listening to have changed the law of the Lord into something false. Also be aware that God is given the sons of Judah the reasons why He will be destroying them.

I still think you're stretching it a bit...but lets say you're right. Then by the extension of your logic we're sinning by wearing clothes and eating meat. Next...

WHAT?
Jesus was sinless, He did not walk around naked and He ate fish before He ascended. I don't even know a scripture that tells people to be naked and don't eat meat as an everyday rule.

Yeshua described what happens when a man and a women come together (sexually)...they become one flesh (baby). It applies whether a man is married to one woman or two.

Under the new law, how does it apply to a man that has two wives?

Scary stuff...I'm glad you don't hold a position of authority and teach this stuff. Tell me then...what specific acts/beaviors are a sin under the new law that were not under the old law?

I've gave many examples and yet you don't even acknowledge them.
How about one I've already said...profaning the Lord's Supper. Read all of Matthew, you'll find many more.

By claiming that polygamy is a sin now but was not long ago you are judging the character of God as "changing". I believe that God does not change.

Malachai 3:6 "I the LORD do not change."

I also believe that God does not change.
God changed the law and God changed His mind, neither of which changed the character of God.

Good. And since everything Paul wrote was penned by the Holy Spirit according to you...and version X of the Bible is 100% trustworthy...then why don't you remain silent in church and cover your head when you pray?

Do you know me? What gives you the right to tell me what I do or don't do? And I've said it before, I do have hair and I do remain silent in church, except when singing.

In summary, there is not one single prohibition in the entire Bible (pick your version) of polygamy. Compare that to...say...murder...or theft...or adultery...or worshiping idols...etc. Those are obvious sins that have many instances of prohibitions in the Bible. Instead...James tells us how we should behave/live...

James 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.

Yeshua tells us that the greatest commands are to love God and love your neighbor. He also says that his sheep hear his voice and that if we love him we will obey his commands.[/quote]
OK.

Polygamy is NOT incompatible with the New Covenant. If I have two wives and love them both and they both love me and we love God...where is the sin? There is no sin there. The problem with polygamy comes when evil men disrespect and exploit their wives and lord their headship over them...which is obviously incompatible with the "royal law".

CC

Right because we have backing in the new testament that gives us the okay for man to have multiple wives. Alrighty.

 

[chingchang]

1 Corinthians 7:5-7
Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now, as a concession, not as a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For ti is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord); the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.​

The "this" he speaks is asking the single to remain as such. For he tells us that he would like them to remain single but that each person is given a gift to God and that if they cannot exercise self-control then it's better to be married.

Why did you stop there...it would seem "this" would go all the way back to 7:2. Why would it not extend to 7:2?

Under the old law God tolerated that. Nowhere in the new testament we even see that as something that is acceptable. Nowhere are we given a role for marriage that includes husband and their wives. We are given the role of Husband and wife.

Each instance of marriage is a husband and his wife. But a husband can have more than one instance of marriage...hence polygamy. BTW...God did not "tolerate" polygamy...he condoned and blessed it:

2 Samuel 12:7-8 (NIV)
Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

So here we see Yahweh speaking through the prophet Nathan directly to David...admitting that all of David's women were a blessing from Him and he would have given David more if he wanted more...but we know David wanted a woman (Bathsheba) that already belonged to someone else. So...Yahweh blessed the OT Patriarchs with women!!!! Hello!

In 1 Corinthians 11, we are told that some of the people in the church was "guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." Truth or false, was that a sin under the old law?

That wasn't even a possible sin under OT law. Polygamy could easily have been pointed out by Yahweh in the OT law as sinful if it was...but it isn't and that is why we don't find a single prohibition in the entire book against it.

Is it a sin now?

Yes (profaning the body/blood of our Lord)...but nobody participated in that sacrament in the OT...it is a NT-thing. If it was practiced in the OT...then corrected in the NT you would be correct. You're saying polygamy is a unique sin in that it was practiced in the OT and even blessed by God...but now that has changed.

The new covenant has a lot more "new" sins--and their new to the point that it now includes the "intent" of the heart, just read Matthew and you'll see what I mean.

No...those are spiritual teachings...not a list of sins. Those teachings are meant to move us beyond simply following rules.

1.) I have hair on my head....therefore I have a head covering. 1 Corinthians 11:15. As for remaining silent during worship--yes I do, except when singing because I'm commanded to sing.

You are not allowed to speak in Church...not just the worship service. Your Sunday School class on the Church grounds is included...
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (New International Version)

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I do not agree with women Pastors and yes based on scripture they would be sinning. And if you want to continue with that subject, I suggest you bring back posts that speaks on such a topic.

That has been covered here on CF. I'd say that women Pastors do God's work...some of them VERY effectively and they DO teach men. They are not sinning but are bringing glory to the Most High! My point is that Paul wrote during a specific time on very specific issues. If you know anything about ancient Greece you'd know that the man ruled and women were devalued...and generally left at home. For women to speak up in the Church and try to teach a man would have caused significant discord to the point of the Church failing. Much of what Paul wrote was to keep the peace in the Church and we must uncover the ETHIC behind what he instructed/commanded and apply it to our culture today to arrive at God's will. Women have a much different role in society now. This approach to Paul's instruction has to be applied in all cases. Yeshua did not come to establish a new religion. Paul did that...yet it was supposed to be Peter. Just something to think about.

A Christians social structure should be shaped by the scriptures not by the world's standard.

You believe that...I believe that those belonging to the Most High should shape their social structure on love...of neighbor and of God...with an emphasis on peace and spiritual growth.

The Greek church, full of Gentiles of which Paul was giving them teachings so that they can seek to glorify God. A lot of things that were okay back then because they were both secular and pagan influences, doesn't mean that's what brought glory to God.

Not sure what you're saying here. I don't think it brings glory to God when I eat a hamburger...so what?

Our faith is shaped by doctrine.

Right...which is why the world is so screwed up. All across the world in religious systems we have doctrine. All kinds of doctrine. Some benign...some not so. The problem is the theological process from which the doctrine came is fundamentally flawed. So...if your doctrine is messed-up...so will your faith be.

Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version)

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'


These folks had flawed doctrine...and therefore flawed faith.

It doesn't matter what they expected and they are right, we are in the last days.

It does matter because it shows that their judgment was flawed...they were not Prophets and the Most High did not speak through them directly like he did the OT Prophets.

But it didn't matter for scripture already told us that no one knows the day or time Christ was coming.

It says that we are to know the season and we were given specific instruction for identifying it. Apparently those guys couldn't even identify the season correctly.

Christ is considered the Word and so is scripture.

No...you wrongly consider scripture (all of the english Bible versions combined into one mega Bible I presume) the 'Word of God'. The Bible does not claim to be God's word. The Apostle John who was closest to Yeshua considered him the "Word"...so you got that part right.

Jeremiah said this "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." He was speaking to the "sons of Judah" who have "done evil in my sight" and God is telling them all the reasons why He will destroy them. Nowhere does Jeremiah says that the scripture has been altered, he said the scribes of which the Jews were listening to have changed the law of the Lord into something false. Also be aware that God is given the sons of Judah the reasons why He will be destroying them.

The NIV says "...the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely". That shows that scribes were in the habit of changing scripture...regardless of the reason. In addition...this has been proven by modern Biblical Scholars through the process of Biblical Textual Criticism. It is simply a fact.

WHAT?
Jesus was sinless, He did not walk around naked and He ate fish before He ascended. I don't even know a scripture that tells people to be naked and don't eat meat as an everyday rule.

My point is that the "one flesh" argument comes from a pre-fallen state when man was naked and did not eat meat. So...if you're going to use the "one flesh" against polygamy (which makes no sense)...then for sake of consistency you must believe that it is a sin to eat meat and wear clothes.

Under the new law, how does it apply to a man that has two wives?

The new law is love...which is the basis for polygamy.

I've gave many examples and yet you don't even acknowledge them.
How about one I've already said...profaning the Lord's Supper. Read all of Matthew, you'll find many more.

There are no new sins. Just a new understanding of sin. God did not want his children to be ignorant of this and gave them the law in the OT. So if you want to play by rules...that is where you'll find them.

Right because we have backing in the new testament that gives us the okay for man to have multiple wives. Alrighty.

Polygamy is o.k because it isn't a sin and is compatible with the new covenant. God generally didn't tell his children what they could do...he told them what NOT to do...and polygamy doesn't appear in that list.

CC

 

[chingchang]

So can a woman keep male concubines? Or is this solely the domain of Macho Man Incorporated?

You tell me. I personally don't have a problem with ANY arrangement as long as all parties are consenting and love is the rule. But that is just me...

Seeing as I view women as people, not property, I'm going to have to give my big thumbs down on the whole idea.

Me too. But...the marriage covenant is about property. I am the property of my wife and she is my property in that we have rights to each other as specified in the marriage covenant. That is Biblical. There are reasons for that...both worldly and spiritually. All I know is that there won't be a need for marriage in Heaven!!!!

CC

 

[chingchang]

you're right in saying the Jesus did not define marriage and perhaps my wording was misleading but he did make a claim to what marriage is. The definition was already there he just addressed it to show his audience the definition.

Agreed.

Moses may have wrote Genesis but that does not make him God. It is clear reading through areas of Moses's life that he was not perfect and he gave in to sinful ways as we all do. Moses was denied the opportunity to go into the promise land because he disobeyed God so Moses was just a man and his words do not trump Jesus's or the design of God.

Agreed.

Moses may have had more than one wife but he also may have not the text really is not clear. And if he did have two wives we do not know context or the when he took multiple wives. Moses had wife one Zipporah which we know is for sure from Ex 2:21. The alleged wife two is mentioned in Nu 12:1 which says "Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cush-ite wife, for he had married a Cush-ite." But the text is not clear when moses married this woman or even if she is another wife. The text is obviously using the term "Cush-ite" as a derogatory comment from Miriam and Aaron so it could easily be similar to calling Zipporah a name. I'm not saying that Zipporah was a Cush-ite but she was Midian which was in the land of Cush and Miriam and Aaron didn't seem to like her so name calling does seem appropriate here. The point is neither is really that clear it is irresponsible to say Moses was a polygamist from Nu 12:1 because there is no area that once says Moses had multiple wives.

Well, there are two things. Firstly we know that Moses was married to Zipporah, and that he is married to this Cu[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e. If you check the first verses of Exodus 16, 18 and 19 you will see that Zipporah returned to Moses sometime in the second or third month after the exodus from Egypt. If you check Numbers 10 vv 11 and 29 you will find that one year later her Father is still Moses Father-in-law (i.e. Zipporah is still with us) and if you follow the action into Numbers 12 you will see that hardly any time passes before Aaron and Miriam get all hot and bothered about the Cu[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e wife. There is very little time available for Zipporah conveniently to die in order to maintain Moses as a monogamist. This means essentially, that it appears that Moses was still married to Zipporah when he was married to the Cu[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e, i.e. Moses didn't just remarry when she died - Moses was a polygamist.

so if I understand you "one flesh" is intended to for the physical but yet you define marriage in a spiritual way so which is it? Well lets read the verse in context:

Gen 2:20-24
The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

it would seem the reason for the "one flesh" describes the complimentary nature of a husband and wife. Sex is not mentioned here, nor is offspring but the emphasis is instead on the woman complimenting and completing the man. It even goes as far to suggesting "one flesh" is the rejoining of bone and flesh that was once separated to create the woman. Certainly there are physical elements here but this idea goes well beyond the physical.

Perhaps it does...but he says "for this reason". Every man knows what "this reason" is. If it weren't for "this reason" the sexes (in a large majority of cases) would have very little to do with each other.

The design of God is still very clear with one man and one woman and Jesus emphases this design when he tells the pharisees what marriage is about.

I agree. Each instance of marriage is one man and one woman. But the OT shows that a man can have more than one instance of marriage and not be sinning. If it was a sin...God would not have blessed David with all of his women (wives/concubines/slaves). Yahweh is VERY SPECIFIC about the things he did not want Israel doing...and would not have left them ignorant on polygamy if it were a sin.

Moses does not teach polygamy nor is there any teaching on polygamy in the bible as a whole the concept instead is based on the acceptance of it which is poor interpretation of biblical theology.

WRONG-O! Moses does not teach playing Wii or driving cars either...are we sinning when we do those activities?

I agree that NT passages can also be unclear on the subject as well (husband of one wife is probably referring to divorce and remarriage not polygamy and if you don't believe me read 1 Tim 5:9) Polygamy is not a design of God it is a design of Man.

We actually agree here...almost. You're very close to my point...which is that wearing clothes and eating meat is not God's original design either. Do we sin when we wear clothes and eat meat?

Jesus seems it fitting to point to the design of God for marriage so I do too and polygamy is absent.

Again...the design for marriage is a man and a woman...we agree. Each marriage covenant (or "contract") involves a man and a woman.

CC

 

[chingchang]

Hilarious filter here on CF..."C u sh i t e" (get rid of the spaces) came out as "wash my mouth"!!!

CC

 

[DamianWarS]

Agreed.
Well, there are two things. Firstly we know that Moses was married to Zipporah, and that he is married to this Cu[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e. If you check the first verses of Exodus 16, 18 and 19 you will see that Zipporah returned to Moses sometime in the second or third month after the exodus from Egypt. If you check Numbers 10 vv 11 and 29 you will find that one year later her Father is still Moses Father-in-law (i.e. Zipporah is still with us) and if you follow the action into Numbers 12 you will see that hardly any time passes before Aaron and Miriam get all hot and bothered about the Cu[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e wife. There is very little time available for Zipporah conveniently to die in order to maintain Moses as a monogamist. This means essentially, that it appears that Moses was still married to Zipporah when he was married to the Cu[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e, i.e. Moses didn't just remarry when she died - Moses was a polygamist.

you failed to comment on the idea that Zipporah is the cush-ite women. Nu 12:1 is using the idea of a cush-ite woman as a derogatory comment from Arrom and Miriam. It is possible that they were simply referring to Zipporah as a cush-ite because of where she came from (midian in the land of cush) and had some sort of issue with her so name calling seems quite appropriate in the context. You also failed to comment on the idea that Moses perhaps may have married a second wife in a different context, perhaps the 40 years he spent in egypt, or perhaps the 40 years he spent in midian which is in the land of cush. In total 80 years before he lead the Israelites out of Egypt all of which he was running from God's plan for him. This is of course all on the assumption that the lone verse of Nu 12:1 is even speaking about another wife which is never brought up again. I also thought you said there were 3 wives... where is the third?

I agree. Each instance of marriage is one man and one woman. But the OT shows that a man can have more than one instance of marriage and not be sinning. If it was a sin...God would not have blessed David with all of his women (wives/concubines/slaves). Yahweh is VERY SPECIFIC about the things he did not want Israel doing...and would not have left them ignorant on polygamy if it were a sin.

the old testament shows a lot of things but we do not rely on the instances of them alone to teach us what we should/should not be doing. God is very specific about the things he did not want Israel doing and he is also very specific about the things he wanted Israel doing yet polygamy and many other things are left out. That alone does not make these actions right or wrong they are just not articulated in OT law. I don't know why God permitted polygamy in the OT the way he did. However there is no teaching on the specific subject in the OT or NT and the mere practice of it does not condone it.

WRONG-O! Moses does not teach playing Wii or driving cars either...are we sinning when we do those activities?

You seem to think that because it happened and there was no teaching on the subject then it must be right. I however am suggesting that since there is no teaching on the subject we cannot judge the direct subject based on man's actions alone. However God does teach us about marriage and polygamy is absent from that. I will lean upon the understanding of God before I take that of Man especially when it is reveled and emphasized by Jesus through scripture.

We actually agree here...almost. You're very close to my point...which is that wearing clothes and eating meat is not God's original design either. Do we sin when we wear clothes and eat meat?

You are repeating yourself and taking my words out of context. I have already comment on this but I will repeat myself if you need me to. There are two reasons why being naked and not eating meat as pre-fall concepts are not the same as the first marriage which also happened in a pre-fall context.

Reason One: the text shows us that it should be taken otherwise with the words "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". This is not something Adam said when he saw Eve this is something added from the author sort of like a footnote on the subject of marriage. The author, lets assume Moses, is showing us the first Marriage as taken place with Adam and Eve through the bone of bone and flesh of flesh. Moses then says this is why we leave our parents and this is why we unite with our wife to become one flesh which are post-fall concepts of marriage. The act of the first marriage happen in a per-fall concept but it is explained as a definition of marriage by the author well after the fall.

Reason Two: Jesus uses this text to teach what marriage is which shows us that this is just not something that happened before the fall but it is a concept and truth that we should apply in our lives today. Jesus does not revel anything about that we were naked during creation or about our diet so these subjects cannot be compared.

So I will sum this up for you. The design of God for marriage is between one man, and one woman. This is how God has designed marriage and it is evident in the first marriage. But it is not the design alone that develops this concept it is the comments of the author of Genesis that says "For this reason..." and it is the comments of Jesus that points back to this as the definition of marriage. The teaching of marriage in the Bible also is consistence with this theme and Paul also points back to Genesis when speaking about Marriage. Polygamy is something that as a subject is uncommented on in a direct sense contrary to the assumption of monogamy in NT and accounts of polygamy in the OT. This lack of comment does not valid it. God does however show us what marriage is and this concept is validated by the author of Genesis, Jesus and Paul and polygamy is absent.

You say if it was so important than why doesn't God speak out against it but you fail to look at the clear messages of marriage that are pointed out. What about instead asking the question if it was so important than why doesn't God speak for it?

 

[DamianWarS]

Hilarious filter here on CF..."C u sh i t e" (get rid of the spaces) came out as "wash my mouth"!!!

CC

copy and paste this: cush¡te
it uses a different character for "i" which is actually an upside-down explanation point (!).

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Why did you stop there...it would seem "this" would go all the way back to 7:2. Why would it not extend to 7:2?

Because Paul continues his thoughts and said it twice that he wish those who are single to remain so, then he tells us that it is better to marry then to burn with passion. It was the idea of being single that Paul gave as an advice.

Matthew 19:10-11
The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."​

Paul couldn't give the advice as a command, that's why it's an advice. Jesus already said that there are only some people who can be as single as Paul is but for the majority of us, it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Each instance of marriage is a husband and his wife. But a husband can have more than one instance of marriage...hence polygamy. BTW...God did not "tolerate" polygamy...he condoned and blessed it:

2 Samuel 12:7-8 (NIV)
Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

One of Saul's wife was Michal's mother. Why is that important? Because David married Michal. What's the significants of that:

Lev 18:17
You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity.​

For whatever reason God gave David Saul's wives, I'm not so sure that it was for sexual reasons seeing as David would then be breaking one of God's law.

So here we see Yahweh speaking through the prophet Nathan directly to David...admitting that all of David's women were a blessing from Him and he would have given David more if he wanted more...but we know David wanted a woman (Bathsheba) that already belonged to someone else. So...Yahweh blessed the OT Patriarchs with women!!!! Hello!

To say that God blessed the OT Patriarchs with women is not fair when the only case you see is God giving David's Saul's wives and even then, I doubt it was for sexual reasons, because of the idea that David was married to a relative of Saul's wives.

That wasn't even a possible sin under OT law. Polygamy could easily have been pointed out by Yahweh in the OT law as sinful if it was...but it isn't and that is why we don't find a single prohibition in the entire book against it.

So therefore it is a "new" sin of which you claim there weren't any in the NT.

Yes (profaning the body/blood of our Lord)...but nobody participated in that sacrament in the OT...it is a NT-thing. If it was practiced in the OT...then corrected in the NT you would be correct. You're saying polygamy is a unique sin in that it was practiced in the OT and even blessed by God...but now that has changed.

I'm not saying anything is unique. I'm saying that we are not under the old law, we are under the new and we do not have any verses under the new law that is telling us that polygamy is okay.

No...those are spiritual teachings...not a list of sins. Those teachings are meant to move us beyond simply following rules.
You are not allowed to speak in Church...not just the worship service. Your Sunday School class on the Church grounds is included...
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (New International Version)

First off, it is in WORSHIP setting that we given how to conduct it. Bible study is something that man put together as being important. If we never had bible study and only worship, we would still be following the laws of Christ. Even when scripture tells us that they met each other daily....it is still Sunday that is considered worship and i tis then when we must follow the outlines of worship that is in scripture.

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Yeah and?

That has been covered here on CF. I'd say that women Pastors do God's work...some of them VERY effectively and they DO teach men. They are not sinning but are bringing glory to the Most High!

If you claim so. I'll stick with scripture. I still don't understand how you are telling me that women should be silent in church and that scripture says they should not have authority over a man and then say it's okay for women to be Pastors. But again, it doesn't really matter what is claimed here only what God have said.

My point is that Paul wrote during a specific time on very specific issues. If you know anything about ancient Greece you'd know that the man ruled and women were devalued...and generally left at home. For women to speak up in the Church and try to teach a man would have caused significant discord to the point of the Church failing. Much of what Paul wrote was to keep the peace in the Church and we must uncover the ETHIC behind what he instructed/commanded and apply it to our culture today to arrive at God's will. Women have a much different role in society now.

If that was the case then Paul would have wrote it as such claiming that it was specifically for that congregation. But we are given it to us as a whole. Cultures change, God's expectation of us and what we must do, does not.

This approach to Paul's instruction has to be applied in all cases. Yeshua did not come to establish a new religion. Paul did that...yet it was supposed to be Peter. Just something to think about.

It was Christ who chose Paul. He did not establish a new religion, he did as the Holy Spirit commands.

Not sure what you're saying here. I don't think it brings glory to God when I eat a hamburger...so what?

He did not tell me not to eat meat, therefore I"m going to continue eating meat. If He told me that eating meat was wrong, then I wouldn't eat it. Same when Paul spoke to the Corinthians about eating idol's meat. It's not wrong if they do, but for the sake of other weak Christians if they had a problem with it, then don't. Because of that sacrifice, we bring honor to God not being a stumbling block for the weak.

Right...which is why the world is so screwed up. All across the world in religious systems we have doctrine. All kinds of doctrine. Some benign...some not so. The problem is the theological process from which the doctrine came is fundamentally flawed. So...if your doctrine is messed-up...so will your faith be.

Not worried about other religious doctrine, just worried about me following God's.

Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version)

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'


These folks had flawed doctrine...and therefore flawed faith.

So do the will of the Father who is in heaven.

It does matter because it shows that their judgment was flawed...they were not Prophets and the Most High did not speak through them directly like he did the OT Prophets.

Whatever...I'm done with this topic.
I will not sit there and say their judgment is flawed simply because the Apostles "guess" when Christ was coming when scripture, which the apostles penned already said "no one knows the day or the hour."

It says that we are to know the season and we were given specific instruction for identifying it. Apparently those guys couldn't even identify the season correctly.

2 Peter 3:1-9
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.​

That most certainly doesn't mean that their judgment was flawed. Even so, God didn't tell them the day or the hour, they could say whatever time they felt like it. That doesn't put their apostleship into jeopardy.

No...you wrongly consider scripture (all of the english Bible versions combined into one mega Bible I presume) the 'Word of God'. The Bible does not claim to be God's word. The Apostle John who was closest to Yeshua considered him the "Word"...so you got that part right.

The bible does indeed claim the scriptures to be God's word.
Did you even read those verses on the website I gave you? I encourage you too.

The NIV says "...the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely". That shows that scribes were in the habit of changing scripture...regardless of the reason. In addition...this has been proven by modern Biblical Scholars through the process of Biblical Textual Criticism. It is simply a fact.

It did not say that scribes of which God chose to write the scripture. It said the scribes that the Jews were following were lying about God's laws.

My point is that the "one flesh" argument comes from a pre-fallen state when man was naked and did not eat meat. So...if you're going to use the "one flesh" against polygamy (which makes no sense)...then for sake of consistency you must believe that it is a sin to eat meat and wear clothes.

What? So, when Christ answered the question to the Pharisees and quoted Genesis 2:24, He was telling them that they must be naked and not eat meat because that verse in Genesis 2:24 was said in a pre-fallen state?
I'm done with this topic.

The new law is love...which is the basis for polygamy.

What??? Where in scripture do we see that polygamy had to do with love? In almost all circumstances it speaks of a wife that one truly loved and another female they tolerated and then had babies with.
Moving on.

There are no new sins. Just a new understanding of sin. God did not want his children to be ignorant of this and gave them the law in the OT. So if you want to play by rules...that is where you'll find them.

What is the new understanding of sin that those under the old law did not know? For sin is a disobedience to God's law and Adam and Eve most certainly found that out.

And there are certain new sins under the new law.

Polygamy is o.k because it isn't a sin and is compatible with the new covenant. God generally didn't tell his children what they could do...he told them what NOT to do...and polygamy doesn't appear in that list.

CC

Under what new covenant are we told that polygamy is okay?
Under what example are we given to say that polygamy is okay in the NT?
God have put away the old law and under Christ we are under the new, if God felt the need to tell us how husbands should treat their "wives" then He would have told us. In this case, He does not. And He makes marriage a singular again, like He intended it to when He created Adam and Eve. Therefore, I'm going to stick with that.

 

[chingchang]

It was Christ who chose Paul. He did not establish a new religion, he did as the Holy Spirit commands.

He most certainly did establish a new religion. That is as much a fact as the Golden Gate Bridge is in the state of California.

He did not tell me not to eat meat, therefore I"m going to continue eating meat. If He told me that eating meat was wrong, then I wouldn't eat it.

Hey! You're stealing my point. If God has not specifically told us that a behavior is sinful...and that behavior is compatible with the "Royal Law" of love (see James)...then it isn't a sin! Hello.

Not worried about other religious doctrine, just worried about me following God's.

Yeshua commanded us NOT to worry (Matthew 6:25). Is it a sin if we worry?

I will not sit there and say their judgment is flawed simply because the Apostles "guess" when Christ was coming when scripture, which the apostles penned already said "no one knows the day or the hour."

Like I said...they didn't claim to know the day OR the hour...but we are given instruction on how to identify the season...and they got that wrong.

That most certainly doesn't mean that their judgment was flawed. Even so, God didn't tell them the day or the hour, they could say whatever time they felt like it. That doesn't put their apostleship into jeopardy.

I agree...that doesn't put their apostleship in jeopardy...but it means we must carefully consider everything in the Bible...especially given the scribes penchant for altering the text.

The bible does indeed claim the scriptures to be God's word.

By the "Bible" I assume you're referring to II Timothy? Who authored II Timothy? Does it matter? When was it authored and what was going on in Christendom when it was authored?

It did not say that scribes of which God chose to write the scripture. It said the scribes that the Jews were following were lying about God's laws.

It said "the lying pen of the scribes". In other words...what they wrote. They altered the text to mean something that was not 1:1 with God. That practice occurred through NT times as well and has been proven by Biblical Scholars. They can used methods to reconstruct a text which is closest to the original letter as possible...but there is still no way of knowing for sure since NONE of the original letters have been recovered...just copies of copies of copies during a time when literacy was extremely low...there were no copy machines and some of the scribes had an agenda. Just sayin'....

What??? Where in scripture do we see that polygamy had to do with love? In almost all circumstances it speaks of a wife that one truly loved and another female they tolerated and then had babies with.
Moving on.

Romantic love? Are you saying that romantic love is incompatible with polygamy? You'd have to tell that to the folks in successful polygamous relationships who are happy. But...to be sure...I wasn't talking about romantic love. I was talking about 1 Corinthians 13 love.

Under what new covenant are we told that polygamy is okay?

Under what new covenant are we told that watching TV is okay? God generally tells us what NOT to do...and there is no prohibition of polygamy anywhere in the text.

Under what example are we given to say that polygamy is okay in the NT?

Under what example do we see that bathing twice in one day is okay in the NT?

CC

 

[GQ Chris]

"What do you think of concubinage?"




Do you mean Tiger Woodsianism?

 

[dayhiker]

DamainWarS,
I don't get how you say that Midian is in Cush?
Unger - Midian is south and east of Palistine. This is where Moses traveled to when he left Eygpt.
Cush is south of Eygpt. If you read Jpsephus' account of Moses you will read that Moses, while a "son" of the King of Eygpt, took a trip south up the Nile River to fight with the Cush ites.

That to me is probably a 1000 miles apart!

dayhiker

 

[Merlin]

.
†. Ex 20:14 . .Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Webster's defines adultery as: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife and/or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.

that is not the hebrew/biblical meaning though.

†. Rom 4:15 . .where no commandments exist; there is no transgression.