Gematria

[Anonymous]

They are never called wives. They aren't even called adulterers.

Yes they are ! In order to be called an adulteress, a woman must be married.

Ezekiel 23:43-45 KJV"Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now commit whoredoms with her, and she with them?

44Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women.

45And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands."

I have to wonder what drives people to so desperately read such a tendencious meaning into scripture.

Hmmm...I have often asked myself the same question in respect to your exegesis.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Anonymous]

A figure of speach where God has two wives doesn't prove God approves of polygamy.

It proves that polygyny isn't sinful, since God would never portray Himself as doing something sinful.

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Would you conclude from this that God approves of human sacrifice?

This was a test. God had no intention of letting Abraham go through with it.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[WomanSeekingGod]

A figure of speach where God has two wives doesn't prove God approves of polygamy.

So, are you saying, then, that God gave an example of Himself committing a sin?

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Would you conclude from this that God approves of human sacrifice?

No, because Abraham knew that it was a test to see if he was willing to be fully obedient to God. It paid off too, for God provided a suitable sacrifice in place of Issac.

WomanSeekingGod

 

[Tlaloc]

Fairlight,

Ok then.

Victor,

The 1st principle you fail to understand is that marriage is for the children & not so much for either the man or the woman.

No, you've failed to realize this is one of the many differences between polygamy and polyandry. Polygamy is fruitful, while polyandry presents no advantage to childbearing. You're comparison between polygamy and polyandry fails here.

If a man is divided in his affections between two families, his bond w/ all his children is proportionately diminished.

Are you arguing the same for a man with more than one child? If not withdraw this statement. Obviously a man with one wife and 20 children will have less time with each child 1:1 than a man with 4 wives and 12 children. This argument only works against large families, not against polygamy. So as I say, condemn anyone that has more than one kid or withdraw this as a false statement.

In reality larger, well structured families mean more overall support for each individual, not less.


Now, I said, if you where paying attention

In our case its the question of weather or not it is desirable to be a second wife, and we here would affirm that it is.

That is, no one here thinks its a bad thing to be a second wife, or something we would oppose ourselves if that was our situation. So polygamy has no adverse effect on the Golden Rule. You would not want to be second to join a polygamous relationship so for you to enter polygamy would break the golden rule, but that is not true for those of us who would have no problem with such a lot in life.

There are a multitude of fundamental differences between men & women.

I take this as an admission that you misused Galatians 3:28 in applying it to this situation? It is good to see I have an opponent that can admit when he is wrong. Thank you.

Every women should also enjoy the confidence of her one spouse w/o fear of some other spouse enterring the picture.

Our wives, or at least my wife, has no such fear. Desire, anticipation, eagerness for sure, but no fear.

It seems you're argument hinges on the presupposition that women do not want polygamy. Without that you don't really have anything of substance.

Every example of a nation associated w/ some product of a bygamist or incestuous union becomes an enemy of Israel.

It is noteworthy that Joseph uniquely resists sexual sin. He is made even the ruler of Jacob. Jacob was tricked into bigamy, still sin has its consequences.

Admiring Israel itself was a product of bigamy (well, quadragamy, polygamy anyway) proves your first assertion necessarily false. Unless you propose that Israel is the enemy of Israel, which I suppose is fair. Anyway, you're pretty good at being self-defeating here. Weather or not you place a hypothetical evil at the feet of polygamy here, Israel itself still had four mothers.

As for the Gematria, I'm going to quote John for Christ here, as he dealt with it pretty well and I doubt you're going to backtrack to deal with it. Just for my own kicks I'm going to italicize some of the things which are going to be a constant problem for you.

But the anti-poly guy's "typology" and "Gematria" message fails on a number of levels. Gematria is witchcraft, plain and simple. The Jews took it from the Babylonian mystery religions, and it is so open to personal interpretation that it's of no useful value.

As far as his comment about King Solomon and 666 talents of gold, he fails to make the connection that it had the slightest thing to do with Solomon's downfall. The 666 talents of gold came yearly, and that happened for many years before Solomon fell. It's completely unrelated.

The numerological concept that 666 is an evil number derives in reverse from the use of 666 for the number of the name of the beast in the Revelation. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that a number that identifies an individual becomes bad because the individual is bad. By that logic, anyone who was evil and had a name that added up to 777 would make 7's evil from that point on. 666 is just a number that helps identify one person in Scripture. It's use elsewhere has no relevance to the much later use of that number.

This Gematria numerologist also makes the mistake of viewing 6's as indicating sin, and 7's as indicating goodness as of God. More precisely, if they did have a meaning, it would be that 6's represented the physical world and 7's the spiritual. For instance, God made the creation in 6 days, and said it was GOOD. Therefore, we have a 6 that is connected to something definitely good. Not only was the 6-day creation good, but it was also manifestly physical. The 7th day was the day that God rested, which could possibly be said to represent the spiritual. However, all this requires a lot of credulity to invent meanings here which aren't naturally evident through reason. We could imagine thousands of interpretations of numbers which would fit.

Lamechs two wives where mentioned incidentally, you'd have to put some contemporary glasses on to think he was the first polygamist ever, and be even more caught up in the culture to think this mention was in any way condemning polygamy. It's in there because each wife bore him a child of note, and they where both present for his speech.

[sarcasm]
Of course, since he was the 6th generation from Adam and the 7 away from direct creation from God this means that it, like creation, is natural and good and that it is Gods purpose that all should be polygamists when God rests (meaning after the second coming) thus God's purpose for his churches now is to fulfill Isiah 4:1

Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
Isa 4:2 In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

and since Jacob had 4 wives when he made the first, physical Israel, we can plainly see this chapter number 4 shows us the end of the physical world because it has exactly 6 verses. Also, since Jacob brought into the world the first Jerusalem through the nation of Israel through his four wives so Christ in Revelation talks too the seven churches and talks of seven spirits of God. Though those seven church spirits he will bring in the new\physical Jerusalem when those who are righteous take 7 wives each.

If you disagree with this you have no sense for numerology or typology and are too ignorant to consider the opinions of.
[/sarcasm]

:twisted: :roll: :lol:

So lets leave the number games out of it shall we?



P.S.

Why are you guys messing around in Ezekiel when you have

31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The Ezekiel quote does pretty much look like he is their husband and thats how sound commentaries take it too, but he chose to attack that one because it does not specifically say it. Jerimiah says 'I was a husband to them' referring to Israel and Judah as separate entities.

The only reason he would choose to address one and not the other and be so melodramatic about it is to try to ignore the other evidences. Polydoc said Jerimiah first, and repeatedly referenced it. He also ignored Fairlights implicit question
"They prove far more than that! God would NEVER describe Himself as doing something sinful...even in an analogy!"

Victor, do you think God would describe himself as doing something sinful in an analogy?


This reminds me of my other reason for wanting to do this one at a time, as it sits he is selectively ignoring things he cant deal with. Going point by point and pinning him down to his statements is going to be the only way to stop him from sidestepping the things he cant deal with... I'm regretting doing this post now, because its just more things he can pick or choose one thing out of where he feels he is strong to sidestep the gaping flaws with his system... I think I will wait until things simmer down to post again, and if Fairlight and Polydoc can, I suggest you work one topic or verse at a time until you've pinned down a yes or no on important questions like:

Victor, do you think God would describe himself as doing something sinful in an analogy?


Numerology and typology are games of taking what you like and ignoring the contradictions and problems it creates, by providing more arguments we provide more opportunities for him to sidestep important arguments and try to target peripheral ones. To teach a numerologist\typologist we will have to understand how he thinks, and a big part of his thinking says its ok to sidestep problems if an overall pattern can be created.


P.P.S.

I keep getting posted in front of. I have to say to womanseekinggod, EXACTLY RIGHT

Oh, and

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Would you conclude from this that God approves of human sacrifice?

J E S U S

Have you heard of him? He was human, and sacrificed. Or did God not approve of that?

Thankfully Jesus fulfilled the need for sacrifice via death for everyone, we are still called to be living sacrifices...

 

[WomanSeekingGod]

"God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Would you conclude from this that God approves of human sacrifice?"

J E S U S

Have you heard of him? He was human, and sacrificed. Or did God not approve of that?

Thankfully Jesus fulfilled the need for sacrifice via death for everyone, we are still called to be living sacrifices...

Well said Tlaloc!

31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

For some reason I often forget about this passage. Thank you for reminding us! It's a very good example!

WomanSeekingGod

 

[Anonymous]

This reminds me of my other reason for wanting to do this one at a time, as it sits he is selectively ignoring things he cant deal with. Going point by point and pinning him down to his statements is going to be the only way to stop him from sidestepping the things he cant deal with.

Just to let you know.....I've gone one on one with Victor for a very long time and even with that, he would selectively pick and choose what he would answer. It's not going to matter if this goes one on one...his M.O., so far, is to be highly "selective" in what he responds to.

Blessings,
Fairlight

P.S. Excellent post, Tlaloc

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Victor, I'm just getting back into this discussion, because my wife mentioned that you were actually on the group, rather than Fairlight posting your messages from the other group.

I'd love to address everything you have posted, but I must start with this comment you have made.

Did you read this text? It says "daughters," not wives. As for the rest of your interpretation, I'll get back to you later. Is this really the best you can do? What desperation drives men to so torture the word of God & force her to confess their own self invented "truth."

Ezekiel 23 is but one of THREE passages which portray God's metaphorical polygamy. It's fairly easy to prove that "Aholah" and "Aholibah" were God's "wives" in this passage.

You note that Ezekiel 23:2 says "daughters", but you fail to note that it's not referring to them as daughters of God, but of "one woman". That woman was the original Israel, before it was divided into the Northern Kingdom (Israel/Samaria) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah).

Starting with Ezekiel 23:4, we see statements that indicate that both these women are married unto God (emphasis mine):

"And their names are Aholah the elder, And Aholibah her sister, AND THEY ARE MINE, AND BEAR (H3205) SONS AND DAUGHTERS. As to their names--Samaria is Aholah, And Jerusalem is Aholibah." (Ezekiel 23:4)

Now you say that this could mean that they are his daughters, however this phraseology only exists in Scripture when speaking of a man's wife or wives. The fact that He says "They are mine" (which is actually more like "they exist as mine" or "they belong to me") indicates that they are wives, not daughters. This isn't an absolute statement that they are wives here, but it is developed throughout the passage.

Now we have a choice here. God is either speaking of His daughters or His wives. The understanding that the Jews have had, and most Christian commentators is that these are God's wives. Towards the end of Ezekiel 23 we can see that this is true.

"AND I HAVE SET MY JEALOUSY AGAINST THEE, And they have dealt with thee in fury, Thy nose and thine ears they turn aside, And thy posterity by sword falleth, They, thy sons and thy daughters do take away, And thy posterity is devoured by fire." (Ezekiel 23:25)

"Thus said the Lord Jehovah: THE CUP OF THY SISTER THOU DOST DRINK, The deep and the wide one, (Thou art for laughter and for scorn,) Abundant to contain. With drunkenness and sorrow thou art filled, A cup of astonishment and desolation, The cup of thy sister Samaria. And thou hast drunk it, and hast drained it , AND ITS EARTHENWARE THOU DOST GNAW, AND THINE OWN BREASTS THOU PLUCKEST OFF, For I have spoken, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah, Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: Because thou hast forgotten Me, And thou dost cast Me behind thy back, Even thou also bear thy wickedness and thy whoredoms.'

"FOR THEY HAVE COMMITTED ADULTERY, And blood is in their hands, WITH THIER IDOLS THEY COMMITTED ADULTERY, AND ALSO THEIR SONS WHOM THEY BORE TO ME, They caused to pass over to them for food. And Jehovah saith unto me, `Son of man, Dost thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? Declare then to them their abominations. Again, this they have done to Me, They defiled My sanctuary in that day, And My sabbaths they have polluted." (Ezekiel 23:32-38)

"And I say of the worn-out one in adulteries, Now they commit her whoredoms--she also! And they come in unto her, As the coming in unto a whorish woman, So they have come in unto Aholah, And unto Aholibah--the wicked women. As to righteous men, they judge them with the judgment of adulteresses, And the judgment of women shedding blood, For they are adulteresses, And blood is in their hands." (Ezekiel 23:43-45)

First, God has set His jealousy against them. In Numbers 5:12-31, we find the "Law of Jealousy", which is where a man that is jealous because he believes that his wife has cheated on him, causes her to go before the priest and drink from an "earthen vessel". If she has been faithful, she will be blessed, but if she has been an adulteress, "her thigh will fall and her belly will rot". You'll note that this part of the passage in Ezekiel 23 is also a description of this ceremony, from the jealousy of God to the drinking from the same cup "for they have committed adultery" to the earthenware vessel they drink out of. Because this is the "Law of Jealousy", God is standing in the place of husband. That law only applied to husbands and wives, not to fathers and daughters. Therefore, in this metaphor God must be the husband of both Aholah and Aholibah.

Second, adultery is only committed against a husband. Since they have done these things to God, this also proves that He is their husband in this passage.

But this is not the only passage of Scripture that indicates that God has two wives. Jeremiah 3 is the key passage, because in that passage God gives one of the two wives a "certificate of divorce", something that can only be given by a husband.

Wow!

I awoke in the middle of last night, I heard loud weeping. I searched my house to find where the sound was coming from. I realized it was coming from bookshelf. It was my Bible. It was crying from being abused so horribly.

Victor, sarcasm is unbecoming if you want to honestly dialogue with people and prove your point. Scripture calls that mocking, and we shouldn't be mockers as believers. We could say the same thing about you abusing the Bible as well. That's a losing game because rhetoric proves nothing. Only Scripture and reason prove our points.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Victor...if you read further down in Ezekiel 23 you will see the two women referred to as being "adulteresses" and having committed adultery. Clearly by the reading of the text they were indeed "wives"

Blessings,
Fairlight

If I have a daughter, & if she fools around on the side w/ someone other then her husband, then she is an adulterer. I do not marry my daughter just b/c she is cheating on her husband.[/quote]

Victor, the point isn't that the two women (daughters of one woman, i.e. sisters) were only adulterers, but Whom they committed adultery with--God. Even if you discount this passage, despite its obvious description of adultery AGAINST God (which is only possible AGAINST a husband), you have two other passages to deal with which are more absolute in stating that God had two wives. But the imagery in Ezekiel 23 is more than adequate to show that these were God's wives, not daughters. Other than a few people that are straining to denounce polygamy, few people have ever seen this as anything other than a metaphor of God and His adulterous wives.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

The women, allegorically representing Jerusalem & Samaria, are referred to as the "daughters of one mother." They are never called wives. They aren't even called adulterers. You have no reason to suspect these women are supposed to be married in this passage. The women are of one mother & Adonai says "They are mine." This implies He is their father. The bride of Adonai is Israel. He has only one bride always. This is about both the Northern & Southern kingdoms betraying God by trusting in pagan worldly powers over God.

They aren't called "wives" because that word doesn't exist in Scripture. If you knew even basic Hebrew and Greek on that topic, you would know this. Where we exchange the word "wife" for another in Scripture, the original word is always "woman". In other words, she is this or that man's woman. We can only distinguish between women and wives by context.

Though Ezekiel 23 doesn't start out translated this way, based upon the entire passage it would be legitimate to translate Ezekiel 23:2 thusly, "Two WIVES were daughters of one mother...", because they most certainly were wives, because they committed adultery. Adultery can only be committed by a wife and a man that is not her husband.

(Note, in Scripture there is no definition of adultery where a husband commits adultery with a single woman. Adultery is committed by wives and other men, but not by husbands and single women. Check out every passage in Scripture, and you'll see that adultery is a very one-sided gender-unequal law, as are a number of other Biblical laws. This is due to the differences between men and women. Men are never virgins either. A virgin is a woman with an intact hymen. Men cannot be virgins, under the Biblical definition.)

I am really astonished by the outrageous eisegesis of scriptures which I find on this site. I have to wonder what drives people to so desperately read such a tendencious meaning into scripture.

Again, Victor, your words here are just rhetoric. I see you ignoring the obvious words of Scriptures in preference for a numerological view of Scripture. To me that is eisegesis, while what I do is extracted directly from the words of Scripture, reason, and the leading of the Holy Spirit--which is exegesis. We can argue all day long about who is exegeting and who is eisegeting, but wouldn't it be better to just stick with the Scriptures and logical discussion? Are we out to beat each other or to glorify God's truth?


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

The two women referred to in Ezekiel 23 represents Jerusalem and Samaria. Traditionally throughout Scripture those two have always been referred to as belonging to, married to, and cheating on God. To call them daughters is to go against Scripture.

Who else would Jerusalem and Samaria be married to?

WomanSeekingGod

They are part of Israel, It is Israel which is the bride of God. These to places are daughters of Israel metaphorically.

You are placing these things out of order. First there was Israel. Not really called God's wife anywhere as the single nation of Israel.

Then we have the divided kingdom of Israel, or Samariah/Israel and Judah. These were described as God's wives in at least two or three passages of Scripture.

Then finally we have the Bride of Christ, which is NOT Israel (at least of the flesh) but Christianity. Israel of the flesh was cut off (also called Jerusalem below), which Israel of the Spirit was glorified (described clearly as what we call Christianity). God ended the Old Covenant with Israel (Zechariah 11:10) because of their wickedness, but spared a remnant of Israel to be part of the "one man" (Ephesians 2:15) under the New Covenant.

So God the Father was married unto two wives metaphorically, but His Son was married unto one corporate wife metaphorically. God therefore indicates that He supports both polygamy and monogamy as marriage.

Even if this tendencious reading were allowable, it proves nothing. A figure of speach where God has two wives doesn't prove God approves of polygamy. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Would you conclude from this that God approves of human sacrifice?

To the contrary, it most certainly does indicate that God approves of polygamy.

God cannot be described as committing an unrighteous act in Scripture. He is absolutely holy! He is holy throughout eternity, from the beginning to the end.

Now if Scripture portrayed God in any sinful situation, that would be tantamount to stating that God was not completely holy. For instance, we never see ANY metaphor of God committing any sin whatsoever. It would be inimical to the premise of Scripture. God never murders, never steals, and never does anything contrary to the rules He has set down.

And God is also eternally righteous. What He has done before is still righteous today. Can you imagine our confusion if God made an about-face for the New Covenant and compared Himself to a thief?!? No, never! Theft will always be wrong.

For the same reason, when we see that God is portrayed as a polygamist in Scripture, we therefore know instinctively that polygamy not only was not sinful--or even less than ideal--in those times, but cannot be so today!

Anything less is denying God's holiness and His glory. The Israelites wouldn't even pronounce His name, in fear that they might accidentally use it falsely. Just suggesting that we could portray God as a sinner, a polygamist, would have shocked them beyond belief! I guarantee that they would have immediately rejected your suggestion that polygamy was wrong long before they would accept God as sinning or doing something less than ideal in a metaphor. They viewed Him--as should we--as absolutely holy.

For that reason, any metaphor in which God appears doing anything, that thing which He does cannot be sinful. That includes polygamy, which God has declared righteous by comparing Himself to a polygamist.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

They are part of Israel, It is Israel which is the bride of God. These to places are daughters of Israel metaphorically.

Israel is not the bride of God. The only bride mentioned is Christianity (also called the New Jerusalem), which is the Bride of Christ. There is also a separation between the wives of God the Father and the wife of Christ, since Jesus is portrayed as God's Son and God His Father Who gives the wedding for His Son and His Son's bride.

Even if this tendencious reading were allowable, it proves nothing. A figure of speach where God has two wives doesn't prove God approves of polygamy. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Would you conclude from this that God approves of human sacrifice?

Already commented upon this, but I also wanted to note that you aren't providing an accurate analogy either.

God is portrayed always as absolutely holy.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that human sacrifice to GOD is wrong, especially if He orders it to be done. The only human sacrifice that was directly forbidden was to false gods, idols. However, for other reasons we believe that it would be wrong to sacrifice our children to God. Yet, if God commanded us to do so, where's the sin? In other words, we shouldn't do human sacrifice even to God unless we have a direct revelation from Him that we should try to do so. You'll notice that God only allowed Abraham to go through the motions up until the point that he started to sacrifice his son. At that point he was stopped, so technically he didn't make a human sacrifice, which makes your whole point moot.

Nevertheless, that is not an analogy of God Himself. You are trying to compare a human reality to a metaphor of God. To be a valid comparison, you'd have to find another analogy of God doing something sinful.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Polydoc,

It is late & I can't develope an elaborate argument for you. As to your contempt for the Pagan, it is unbiblical. Every Pagan practice is not evil simply b/c it is Pagan. It certainly true that the Greco-Roman world was basically a monogamous culture, though they were permissive of divorce. This hardly makes monogamy wrong. St. Paul quotes Pagan Greek philosphers in praise of God. He take Pagan Greek hymns to Zeus as actually being honoring to God. So even Pagan Greek religion had some truth in it. Laws regarding monogamy are no unjustly coercive then laws against incest. This is noteworthy b/c Denmark just legalized adult incest.

I'd have to agree with you that not everything that pagans do is wrong. They eat, sleep, work, and so forth just like we do. It's where it comes down to the two greatest commandments that believers differ from pagans. We honor the One True God, and love Him and every individual of mankind as He loves us.

I also agree with you that just because the Romans practiced monogamy doesn't make monogamy wrong. On the other hand, they practiced "monogamy only", where polygamy was forbidden, which is wrong. It's wrong because God has called marriage holy, and polygamy is marriage just like monogamy. God doesn't distinguish between the two in Scripture, and neither should we. They are both called marriage, and are both blessed by God.

Now Paul DOES quote pagan Greek philosophers, but he hardly extols their virtues. Instead, Paul only used their quotes to further his ends. For instance, where you see that he took a pagan hymn to Zeus as being honoring to God, I see how he took a pagan hymn and applied it to God RATHER than to Zeus. The difference is how Paul used it. Paul wasn't giving honor to Zeus in any way, therefore he wasn't giving way to the pagans, but was co-opting their own words for our True God. There was no truth in those words when applied to Zeus, because Zeus was imaginary. There was only truth when applied to God. So that doesn't exactly equate to the "Pagan Greek religion [having] some truth in it".

Paul also used the words of pagans against them, as when he called Cretans "slow-bellies", which he took from their own words.

I can't imagine what you think the Ephesians quote is supposed to prove. If anything it discredits your position. "He who loves his WIFE loves himself" Only those who love a WIFE love themselves, thus if you love WIVES, you don't love yourself. Christ loves His "CHURCH" (singular), He gave Himself for "HER," He "sanctifies" & "cleanses" "HER." What do you think your proving here. Christ has a bride, a church.

I'm not certain what the Ephesians 5:28 quote is about either, but it certainly does not discredit the position of polygamy just because wife is in the singular in the latter half of the verse. You misread Paul's intention in writing it the way it is written.

You see, Scripture recognizes EVERY marriage in the singular. A man is not married to both wives, he is married to one wife and married to the other wife. Each marriage is singular. Otherwise it would imply that that the women were married to one another as well, which this particular phrasing of Scripture denies.

There are a limited number of ways of writing this in both English and Greek. Paul was very cautious to write things accurately, so that every point is fully considered.

Thus, when Paul said "But, because of the fornications, let each have his own [Gk., eaotou] wife, and let each have her own [Gk., idiov] husband," in 1 Corinthians 7:2, the two "owns" are different. The reason is that the "own" for husbands allows for "ownership" of more than one wife, while the "own" of the wife allows for "ownership" of only one husband--a direct proof that God accounted for polygamy in the New Testament as well as the Old.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

The 1st principle you fail to understand is that marriage is for the children & not so much for either the man or the woman. Chidren have a natural right to a strong bond between their parents, it is an injustice to deny this to them. If a man is divided in his affections between two families, his bond w/ all his children is proportionately diminished. God can suppliment our failings w/ his grace, as we all know. That doesn't license us to multiply the occasions which require that grace.

Victor, the FIRST purpose or principle of marriage is that it is for the husband and wife. That purpose of marriage is mentioned first and foremost in Scripture, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) That's WHY we get married, not for making or taking care of children--though that is certainly one of the purposes of marriage--but for the love between a man and a woman.

Children DON'T have any natural right to a "strong bond between their parents". They only have a God-given right to have parents, which, of course, is obvious. (No parents, no kids.) God asks us to love one another, but that is not a "right". Parents OUGHT to have a strong bond with each other, according to Scripture, but they don't have to, any more than they have to obey God. There is no "natural right" to expect righteousness. God gave us the natural "rights" to lie, steal, kill, and destroy, otherwise we wouldn't be able to do so. Then He asked us to not do those things.

But back to your assertion that a man divides his attention between the two families. On what basis do you make that statement? By that argument, one would expect that a couple would divide their love by having even one child, and that two children would halve the love for each child. Of course, we know in practice that is not even slightly true. I love my wife 100%, my children each 100%, and God 100%. That's several hundred percent, except that I can love each of them with the SAME love.

Of course TIME will be divided. But nobody has a right to the undivided attention of their parents. If what you say happened to be true, then families ought not have more than just two or three kids, lest the affections for each be "proportionally diminished". Where do you draw the line? Five kids? Twenty kids? One child?

You see, that's just a poor argument through and through.

If a man has two wives, he can still love both wives equally 100%, and every child in both marriages 100%. Nobody gets a proportionally diminished affection, though they may get less time with dad--which is a natural thing, as I pointed out above. But what about when dad is with EVERYONE in the family at the same time? Aren't they ALL getting the full measure of dad time? Of course one-on-one time is important too, but we NATURALLY can expect to have less and less one-on-one time the more children we have. That doesn't change with two wives. It's the natural way of things as God made it.

Not only are men different from women, every man is different from every other man. & every woman from every other woman. This natural difference doesn't nullify the Golden Rule, as your argument would require. There are a multitude of fundamental differences between men & women.

This doesn't change that fact that every man should have the confidence of the affections of his spouse, w/o fear of some other spouse enterring the picture. Every women should also enjoy the confidence of her one spouse w/o fear of some other spouse enterring the picture. Male or female, each is entitled to equity towards the other.

You say "the fear of some other spouse entering the picture". Why would we have to have that kind of fear? Where do you find these concepts in Scripture? How do you reconcile those things with the polygamy that God blessed throughout the Old Testament?

We have:

Moses with two wives, who WROTE the Pentateuch, and through which every other Biblical book derives.

We have Abraham with two wives, both of whom God blessed. (Any issues there were solely because of the wicked way the two wives treated one another, NOT because of polygamy per se.)

We have Gideon with numerous wives.

There's David with multiple wives WHICH GOD GAVE UNTO HIM.

We have a prophet of God assigning two wives to one of the righteous kings of Israel (or was it Judah?).

And throughout all these and many other cases of polygamy, we don't have a single word of Scripture suggesting that polygamy is wrong or sinful in any way. We don't have a single word of Scripture suggesting that God's "ideal" is one wife per husband.

What we do see is God portraying Himself RIGHTEOUSLY as a polygamist, indicating that it is righteous for us as well. (For if God is righteous in a metaphor of a human marriage, then that human marriage type must be righteous by derivation.)

The testimony of Scripture is overwhelmingly in favor of polygamy as ONE of the possible types of righteous marriage. I'm not saying that it suggests that it is BETTER than monogamy, nor would it be correct to say that monogamy is better than polygamy. Both are just marriage, period. One or two or three or four wives...doesn't matter. A man can still be righteous in God's eyes with more than one wife, and he can be righteous with one or even zero wives.

On the other hand, wives can only be righteous with one husband or zero husbands, because God's design for marriage is not equitable for the two genders. It's right there in Scripture. God allowed men to have one wife or more, without a word of correction or notice to us that it was wrong, even though it was a common practice throughout Biblical times (though less so during the time of Christ, because of the Romans). God NEVER allowed more than one husband per wife, and in fact, any mention of a woman with more than one husband even one at a time is presented as at least subtly wrong in Scripture. Remember Jesus letting the Samaritan woman know that she had several husbands and the one she was currently with wasn't really her husband? That was not a positive commentary on women having more than a single husband.

The point is that we should take Scripture for what it says. If God means for something to be considered sin, then He TELLS US that it is sin. He never said a negative word one about polygamy, but blessed it the same as monogamy. So we have no reason to see it as wrong, unless we follow false modern traditions, or--please forgive me for pointing this out--if we place numerology or typology above the actual words of Scripture.


John for Christ

 

[steve]

Jer 3:7 And I said after she had done all these [things], Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw [it].


Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

correct me if i am wrong, but i have never seen where a bill of divorcement is given to a daughter.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

I was going to wait until Tuesday to continue the education of our anti-Biblical Marriage friend, but when I sneaked a peek at the Gematria thread, saw it has really grown overnight. And I couldn't let Victor's dissing of what my Bible says go unchallenged even for one day. But this will be brief because I love my wife and want to spend the day with her.

Victor, maybe you should take that "crying Bible" of yours off the shelf, dust it off, and open it to Ezekial chapter 23. Then read the whole chapter, not just the few verses I quoted and which you apparently did not think to look at in its entire context. You will find that your Bible is crying because of your eisogesis and ignorance of what It says, not because of our exegesis.

You said:

The women, allegorically representing Jerusalem & Samaria, are referred to as the "daughters of one mother." They are never called wives. They aren't even called adulterers. You have no reason to suspect these women are supposed to be married in this passage. The women are of one mother & Adonai says "They are mine." This implies He is their father. The bride of Adonai is Israel. He has only one bride always. This is about both the Northern & Southern kingdoms betraying God by trusting in pagan worldly powers over God.

But my Bible says:

Ezekiel 23:37 NKJV For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. They have committed adultery with their idols, and even sacrificed their sons whom they bore to Me, passing them through the fire, to devour them.

They bore sons to YHWH, not some imaginary husband who is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. That makes them His wives. My Bible very plainly says that they committed adultery, which makes them adulteresses. In fact, almost the entire chapter is describing their adultery in very graphic terms, and prophesying the punishment that their husband, YHWH, has pronounced against them for that adultery.

Remember, read the entire chapter, not just the few verses I quoted in my posts.

Thank you, John_for_Christ, for your posts. I won't have time to study them until Tuesday, but what I skimmed over looks excellent!

As I said in my last post Sunday night, stay tuned. I'm not even starting to get warmed up yet.

 

[Tali]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your kind words as well as your desire to both defer to "the first responder" as well defend the truth. With your permission, I'll make another pass, and hopefully NO ONE will mistake it for a "dissertational drive-by."

Victor,
One of the things that I appreciate about you is your heart for women and children, and I can assure you that the guys with whom you are engaged here on the board have that same heart. They want to see women and children happy, empowered and protected, as do I.

Something I have found over the years is that when there is both controversy as well as passion re: a theological topic, huge volumes of print emerge, and often primary questions get overlooked and go unanswered.

I understand that typology is crucially important to the heart of God (Moses paying a huge price for breaking a type of Christ by smiting the rock twice, rather than speaking to it the second time,) and also that typological veracity can become subject to a great deal of speculation due to the fact that it is based on allegory.

However, I asked you a question to which I don't believe I saw a response, and please forgive me if I missed it in the aforementioned doctrinal dustups.

We all agree that God is holy, and cannot be tempted with iniquity in any age, any circumstance, ever. If that is the case, why did He say in I Sam 12:8 that He "gave wives into David's bosom?" Most certainly He could have given David the kingdom, the house, and said "hands off" re: the wives, but He didn't.

Furthermore, He makes it clear through Nathan that David could have had more if he only asked! Why didn't God say, "Look, pal, you are the main type of Christ here, and so we're going to get something straight right here, right now. One-man-one-woman is My highest and best, and if you are going to be consistent with the type, you're just going to have to go with that?" He didn't.

It was said of David that he was a man after YHWH's own heart, and that his heart was perfect toward YHWH his God. This could not possibly be the case if polygyny is inherently iniquitous, and we're all in trouble if God is enabling and blessing iniquitous behavior.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

I had started writing this response to Victor's anti-Biblical view of marriage when it was suggested that we take turns answering him, and so deferred to others. However, it looks like everyone else is still posting like crazy, so I will abandon the idea of us taking turns and jump back in.

Also, I thought that I would be able to spend the day with my lovely wife, but this morning, we both had to run errands of mercy – her in one direction, and me in another – and my errand took far less time than hers will, so I can go ahead and post this, then spend the afternoon with her when she returns from her errand.

VictorLepanto said:

If a man is divided in his affections between two families, his bond w/ all his children is proportionately diminished.

Why does it have to be two or more families if a man has two or more wives? If a man has children by only one woman, they are his children. If he has children by each of a dozen women, they are his children. Each woman is not the head of her own family (like it is in our supposedly monogamous culture), but rather, the husband/father is head of one family with one or more women and zero or more children.

Where does one draw the line about how many children are too many? I have five brothers and two sisters, making a total of eight of us. Somehow, my father found enough time to love each of his eight kids. We never felt deprived because one sibling got more attention or something. We knew that Dad and Mom loved all of us. It would have been no different if Dad had married several women and had 20 or 30 more kids. He would have loved all of us, and we all would have been one family.

I know people for whom one wife is one too many. And, of course, one child is also one too many for guys like that. I almost hate to read the Gallup paper, because most front-page above-the-fold stories are about family violence – in monogamous, not poly, households.

If forced monogamy is so much better than Biblical Marriage (which includes both monogamy and polygyny and is simply called "marriage" in the Bible), please explain the 41-50% divorce rate for first marriages and the fact that there are approximately 10 million households in the US that are headed by single mothers, compared to the very low rate of divorce and correspondingly far fewer single-mother households in polygynous cultures. (The ~10 million single-mom household figure is official US Census Bureau data.) Something is not working. Maybe because, about 1,000 years ago, the Roman Catholic Church adopted pagan Greco-Roman marriage traditions and secular Roman marriage law, "baptized" them, and called them "Christian?" And since the RCC had almost absolute political control of the Western world, their pagan doctrine became enshrined in secular law? How, why, and when that happened is documented in my Doctoral Dissertation. When man departs from God's Plan, disaster results. We are seeing that disaster unfold before our very eyes as our society crumbles.

And yes, I am making the claim that polygyny was part of God's Plan for marriage from the beginning.

As to your contempt for the Pagan, it is unbiblical. Every Pagan practice is not evil simply b/c it is Pagan.

I partially answered that one in my previous posts, but without specifically addressing it. I refer you once again to Romans 14:23b:

Romans 14:23b NKJV ...whatever is not from faith is sin.

Nothing in a pagan culture is from faith. By definition, paganism is not Biblical Christianity. The two are mutually exclusive.

The Apostle Paul said (emphasis mine):

1 Corinthians 10:19-21 NKJV (19) What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? (20) Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. (21) You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons.

And Jesus said:

Luke 16:13 NKJV "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

So my contempt for everything pagan is very Biblical.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

steve said:

correct me if i am wrong, but i have never seen where a bill of divorcement is given to a daughter.

Not in the Bible. A bill of divorcement can only be given to a woman by her husband. (For example, see Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

But I seem to remember a couple of decades or so ago reading in the paper that some teenage kid in Florida divorced her parents. And the stupid judge went along with it! :shock:

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

John_for_Christ said:

I'm not certain what the Ephesians 5:28 quote is about

John, in one of my posts I was refuting Victor's assumption that polygyny is somehow demeaning to, or otherwise bad for, women. I quoted Ephesians 5:25-28 to show that true Biblical Marriage (which includes both monogamy and polygyny, as has been pointed out numerous times) is in no way demeaning to women, but actually places them on the same proverbial pedestal on which Christ places His Church.

That's not the terminology I used in that post, but it does capture the essence of what I said.

I have adopted Ephesians 5:25 as my favorite verse concerning marriage. If a husband can truly obey that command, his woman (or women, if he has more than one) will find it easy to obey Ephesians 5:22.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

If a man is divided in his affections between two families, his bond w/ all his children is proportionately diminished.

Does this idea come from a knowledge of the power of God and the scriptures?

This was calculated how?

But let us pretend that is true? Secondly let us pretend that even any diminishing is bad and must be 100% avoided.

Do not have more than one child when you get married, do like the Chinese are forced to do. A one child policy in the United States might help stop all the broken families where parents have to decide between their one child and the other child.

Children who do not have to share with brothers and sisters got all they want so they do not become selfish in later life, having felt satisfied by the lack of sharing in their childhood.

Children who do not have brothers and sisters are less prone to arguments and all manners of mischief because they never had to deal with the stress of having to learn to love and get along with another sibling, because when they have to get along with friends the stressful years of getting along with siblings have been avoided, making them optimal distressed I mean unstressed and ready to deal with new people.

In the same way women who do not have co-wives learn to be less selfish and to get along with other women better.

If a man marries a woman and they have even one child he will have to divide his time between their child and their wife, therefor it is better if no one has any children, so that children do not have to deal with divided time as soon as they are born.

It is impossible to teach children to clean the floor and therefor they automatically take more time when the floor is dirty, therefor having even one child will take time away from dealing with the wife.

In the same way having more than one wife will only subtract to quality time and not possibly contribute to it.

It is better if no one is born so everyone will get time, newly born people cannot give time to help people already born. The purpose after all is not loving the people but having the quality time to spend on people that do not exist.

Therefor the best way to help babies have clean bathwater is to throw out babies so babies never have to bathe in dirty bathwater. Because the purpose of the baby is bathwater and the purpose of bathwater is not a clean baby.